A LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 016 085 220 3 V P 685 .062 Copy 1 SPEECH X OF V JAMES DIXON, OF CONNECTICUT. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, February 9, 1858. The Senate, February 9, 185S, had under con- sideration the motion of Mr. Douglas, to take up the following resolutions offered by him, viz : " Resolved, Tliat the President be requested to fur- nish all the iuforniation within his possession or con- trol on tlie followiuf^lioiuts: "1. The returns and votes for and against a con- rention at an election held in the Territory of Kansas in October, 185G. " The census and registration of votes in the Ter- ritory of Kansas, under the provisions of the act of said Legislature, passed in February, 1S57, providing for the election of delegates and assembling a con- vention to frame a constitution. "3. The returns of an election held in said Terri- tory, on the 21st of December, 1857, under the sched- ule of the Lecompton Constitution, upon the question of 'constitution with slavery' or 'constitution with- out slavery.' " 4. The returns of an election held in the Territory of Kansas, on the 4th day of January, 185'^, under the authority of a law passed by the Legislature of said Territory, submitting the constitution formed by the Lecompton convention to a vote of the people for ratification or rejection. " 5. The returns of the election held in said Terri- tory on the 4th of January, \^i'><, under the schedule of the Lecompton constitution, for Governor and other State oflicers, and for members of the Legisla- ture, specifying the names of each officer to whom a certificate of election has been accorded, and tl>e number of votes cast and counted for each candidate, and distinguisiiing between the votes returned with- in the time and in the mode [>rovided in said sched- ule and those returned subsequenti}- and in other modes, and stating whether at either of said elect- ions any returns or votes were rejected in conse- quence of not having been returned iu time, or to the right officer, or in proper form, or for any other cause, stating specifically for what cause. " r>. All correspondence between any of the Execu- tive Departments and Secretiry or Governor Denver relating to Kansas affairs, and which .has not been communicated to the Senate. "Resolved, That in the event all the information desired for the foregoing resolution is not now in the possession of the President, or of any of the Execu- tive Departments, he be respectfully requested to give the proper orders and take the necessarv steps to procure the same for the use of the Senate. The question being taken by yeas and nays, re- sulted— yeas 23, nays 30; as follows ; I YEAS — Messrs. Bell, Rroderick, Cameron, Chand- ler, Collamer, Dixon, DooUttle, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Ilandin, Uarlan, King, Seward, Simmons, Stuart, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade and Wilson — M'i. NAYS— Messrs. Allen, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler. Bright, Brown, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Evans, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Hammond, llouston, Hun- I ter, Iverson, Johnson, of Tennessee, Jones, Ken- ■ nedy, Mallory, JIason, Pearce, Polk, Pugh, Sebastian, Slidell, Toombs, and Yulee — 00. So the motion to take up the resolutions was not agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. While these pro- ceedings have been going on, the hour has arrived for the consideration of an older special order, which was assigned at an earlier period, and which is now before the Senate. It is the motion of the Senator from Illinois to refer so much of the Pres- iden't annual message as relates to Kansas affairs to the Committee on Territories. Mr. DIXON. Do I understand the Chair to say that the special order is with regard to the refer- ence of the President's annual messagj? The VICE PRESIDENT. Yes sir. The Army bill was the special order for half past twelve o'- clock. When the hour of one o'clock arrived that special order falls, to give way to any other, which was assigned at another period, and takes prece- dence according to the order of time at which it was assigned, in conformity with the rules and the decision of the Senate the other day. Jlr. DAVIS. I move to postpone that ppcial order and all prior orders, so that we may proceed with the consideration of the Army bill. Mr. DIXON. The remarks I propose to submit can, as I understand, be as well made on the bill which the Senator from Mistissippi desires to bring to tiie attention of the Senate. I am perfectly willing to give way. Mr. BIGLKR. Will the Senator from Connec- ticut permit the vote to be taken on the motion ? Mr. DIX(lN. I give way. Mr. BIGLER. I simply suggest that we take a vote and proceed with the consideration of the Army bill, and then the Senator ha.s the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT. The quenUon ia on ^ the motion of the ScnrAtr from Mississippi to post- pone tlie special ordr.r indicated by tbe Chair, and all other special O'.ders before the Senate with a view to continue Vhe consideration of the Army biU. The motion was agreed to. INCHEASE OF THE AUMV. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, re- sumed the consideration of the (S. No. 79) to in- crease the I'lilitary establislinient of the United States, the pending question being on the motion of Mr. Toombs to strike out the first section of tlie bill. Mr. DIXON. It was my desire, Mr. President, yesterday to address tlie Senate on the general Bubject of the affairs of Kansas, then perhaps more properly before the body than now ; but such was my reluctance last evening, at the late hour when I might have obtained the tioor, to cliiini the attention of the Senate, that I relinquished my de- sign. I now propose to ask the indulgence of the Senate while I submit some remarks, briefly as may be, I trust, upon the question before the Senate at that time ; and I think, sir, that every- thing that might have been said yesterday, or at any previous stage of the debate, may as well be eai.'i from intending to extend slavery, they had no idea at that time that our territory would ever extend beyond the Mississippi river. They could not have had that supposition with the view they entertain- ed in regard to the small importance of the navi- gation of the Mississippi. We are told by Mr. Madison, that in the discussion of that question be- tween the Spanish Minister, (Mr. Guardoqui,) and our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Spanish Min- ister said that Spain occupied both sides of the Mississippi, as far as the mouth of the Ohio, inclu- ding Kentucky, and, " With an air of ostensible jocoseness, he hinted that the people of Kentucky would make good Span- ish subjects, and that the}' would become such for the sake of the piirilege annexed to that character." — 2 Madison Papers, p. 592. Instead of excitement on the subject, two south- ern States — Maryland and South Carolina — were 60 indifferent with regard to it that Mr. Madison eould not tell which way their votes would be re- corded. In the result the Constitution was adopt- ed, and the powers of the Congress of the Confed- eration, of course, departed, and no action was taken on the question. There was then no north- ern aggression. The proposition to prohibit slave- ry in the territory northwest of the Ohio river did not come from the North. It is now known to have originated with Mr. Jefferson himself. Northern people took very little interest in the question, compai atively. Southern statesmen, seeing that it would be better for that region of country that their institutions, about which they knew so much, should not be there extended, originated the pro- hibition in the Congress of the Confederation, and it was earned by their votes and by their influence. After the ordinance of 1787 was established, oar possessions were extended to the southwest- ern region of this country; the purchase of the Louisiana territory was made, with regard to a portion of which the controversy now going on is concerned. What do you see in the legislation of Congress, in reference to that Territory ? If you will refer to the very first act passed on that eub- Jiect — the act for the organization of Orleans Ter- ritory — you will see that instead of abdicating power on the question of slavery, Congress exert- ed full and supreme power on that subject. Any Senator who states that the commencement of leg- islation for the restriction of Slavery in the Terri- tories was in 1820, certainly either has not exam- ined this subject, or has not retained in his memory the result of that examination. I do not now pro- pose to dwell on that branch of th(' sulject. It has repeatedly been dwelt upon at sufhoient length in the Senate. It has been held up before the country. The Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Col- lamer,] in a speech of great ability, has laid be- fore the Senate all the facts in regard to that legis- lation. I barely desire to refer to it. You will find that in that act Congress exerted the power of abolishing a certain species of slavery which then existed in this countiy. Congress provided that slaves carried into that Territory for a certain purpose should be, immediately on being conveyed there, entitled to their freedom. Congress exerted the power of prohibiting the slave trade many years in that Territory before they had power to prohibit the foreign slave trade with the States of this Union. Not to dwell on that legislation which took place in the Territory of Orleans, what was done when the State ofLouisiana was admitted into the Union? We have been told repeatedly that Congress had no power to affix conditions to the admission of a State into the Union, except to provide that such State should be republican in the character of its government. If, however, you will refer to the act admitting Louisiana into the Union, you will find that not only was her government required to be republican in its character, but also a condition was annexed that the proceedings of all her courts and all her legislative proceedings, sliculJ be in the language in which the laws and proceedings of this Government were published, to wit : in the English language. That was one of the conditions insisted upon before the State of Louisiana could be admitted into the Union. Another condition waa that the navigation of the Mississippi should be free from any tolls which the State of Louisiana might claim at any time the right of imposing ; and furthermore that the public lands in that State should be ceded to the United States, and the right of the State to tax them relinquished. Such, at that time, waa the policy of the Gov- ernment. Was there to be found a statesman in this whole country, in Congress or out of Congress, who then claimed that tVe power did not exist to legislate on the subject of .slavery, as well as- all other subjects, in the territories of this country? I do not wish to exhaust the patience of the Senate by referring more minutely and particularly to au- thorities on the present occasion, but I beg leave to ask the attention of this body to what was said by Mr. Madison himself, at the first session of the Congress of the United States, under the Consti- tution formed by his aid and his counsel. A peti- tion was addressed to that Congress by Benjamin Franklin, asking that the traffic in human, being* might end. Some degree of excitement was occa- sioned by that petition ; but what did Mr. M«dis»a say? The power of Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery was then, for the first time, de- bated in either branch. It was admitted on all bands that there was no power to legislate with regard to slavery in the then existing States ; but bow was it as to tlie Territories? ilr. Madison said : " He admitted that Conpress is restricted by the Constitution from taking moasurcs to abohsh the slave trade; yi't llare arc a varit'ty of ways by wliitli it could eounlcniince the abolition, and regulations mifjht be made in rdution to the intnxhiclion of tliem into the new States to be formed out of the western territory. He thou;j;ht the object well worthy of con- sideration." — O'aliif & <">Vtinees of northern aggression, upon which gentlemen would dwell in discussing this matter. I need not remind the Senate ol the manner in which that (luesiion was brought bi'forc the country; but I desire at this time to call attention to the peculiar mode in which that compromise was carried through both this aud the other House of Congress Was it done by northern men? Was it considered as a gain by northern men ? I have been at some little pains to look into the manner in which that bill was brought before Congress and passed, and I tind no record of any advocacy of the measure, except by southern men. The principal advocate of it seem- ed to be Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina. Mr. Claj, of course, was an advocate of it, but he oc- cupied the Chair a large portion of the time, and what he said is not reported in the current re- ports. Mr. Lowndes was one of the warmest and strongest advocates of that compromise, and when the vote was finally taken, and the measure passed Congress, it appears that all the members present from the States of Maryland, Virginia, North Caro- lina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennes- see, Louisiana, Missis.sippi, and Alabama, voted in flivor of the compromise. It was passed by their influence aud their exertions. Their arguments sus- tained it. The North opposed it. It is true the North claimed more; it is true that most of the non-slaveliolding States of the I'nion claimed that slavery should not be permitted in any territory of the United States, nor in Missouri, but the restric- tion of slavery in the territory north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, was advocated and sustain- ed by southern men, and carried by southern votes. The act for the admission of .Missouri, with the restriction of slavery north of thirty-six degrees thirty seconds, was signed by President Monroe, after consultation with his Cabinet. The subject of the constitutional power of Congress wa3 then fully discussed. Mr. Calhoun was then Secretary of War, and the proof is conclusive that he con- curred with John (,)uiney Adams and the other members of President Monroe's Cabinet, in the opinion that the power o*" Congress to restrict slavery in the Territories was comjdote. Among Mr. Monroe's manuscripts has been found a paper indorsed: "Interrogatories, Misjouri, March 4, 18'io. To the heads of Departments and Attorney General." Questions, " Has Congress a right, under the powers vested in it by the Constitution, to make a regulation prohibiting slavery in a Territory? " Is the eighth section, which pas.«cd both Ilonses on the 3d, for the admission of Jlissouri into the Union, consistent with the Constitution?" The following original draft of a letter was found in Mr. Monroe's handwriting, not addressed to any one, but supposed to be intended for General Jackson: "Df.ar Sin: The question which lately agitated Congress aud the public has been settled, as you have seen, by the passage of an act for the admission of Missouri as a State unrestricted, and Arkansas like- wise, when it reaches maturity, and theestabli.'^hment of the thirty-six degrees thirty seconds north latitude as a line north of which slavery is prohibited and per- mitted to the south. I took the opinion in writing of the Administration as to tlie constitutionality' of re- straining Territories, (and the vote of every member was unanimous,) aud which was explicit in favor of it, and as it was, that the eighth section of the act was applicable to Territories only, and not to States, when they should be admitted into the Union. On this latter point I had at first, some doubt ; but the opin- ion of others, whofe oi)inions were entitled to weight with me, supported by the sense in wliich it was viewed by all who voted on the sulyect in Congress, as will ajipearbv the Journals, satisUcd me respecting it." The line included in parenthesis is erased in the original — not because the fact of unanimity d!d not exist, for it is not conceivable that Mr. Monrte should have deliberately recorded the fact if so important a member as Mr. Caliioun had express- ed a dissenting opinion, but probably because Mr. .Monroe did not think it proper, on reflection, to state how individuals voted. He therefore variea the form of expression, and Pays the opinion of the administration was explicit in favor of the consti- tutionality of tlie restriction. But if any doubt can exist as to the opinions of the entire Cabinet, including Mr. Calhoun, it is set at rest by a contemporaneous record, which cannot be impeached, and which imports absolute verity. I ask the attention of the Senate to the following extracts from the unpublished diary of Mr. John Quincy Adams, who was then Secretary of State. "March 3, 1820.— When I came this day to my of- fice, I found there a note requesting me to call at oue o'clock at the President's House. It was theu one, and I immediately went over. lie expected that the two bills, fur the admission of Maine and to enable Missouri to make a constitution, would have been brought to hull for his signature ; and he had sum- moned all the members of the Administration, to ask their opinions, in writing, to be deposited in the De- partment of State, upon two questions: 1. Whether Congress had a constitutional right to prohibit slavery in a Territory: and. 2. Whether the eighth section of the Missouri bill (which interdicts sla- very forever in the territory north of thirty-six desrees thirty minutes latitude) was applicable only to the territorial state, or would extend to it af- ter it should become a State. As to the first question, it was unanimously agreed thit Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in the Territories. [Mr. A. thought it extended to the State, which it was bound by — others that it only related to the Terri- tory.] "March 5. — The President sent me yesterday the two questions, in writing, upon which he desired to have answers in writing, to be deposited in the De- partment of State. He wrote me that it would be in time if he should have the answers to-morrow. The first question is, in general terms, as it was stated at the meefing on Friday. The second was modified to an inquiry whether the eighth section of the Missouri bill is consistent with the Constitution. To this I can, without hesitation, answer by a simple affirmative ; and so, after some little reflection, I con- clude to answer both. " March <>. — I took to the President my answers to his two constitutional questions, and he desired me to have them deposited in the Department, to- gether with those of the other members of the Ad- ministration. They only differed as they assigned their reasons for thinking the eighth section of the Missouri bill consistent with the Constitution, be- cause they considered it as only applying to the ter- ritorial term, and I barely gave my opinion, without assigning for it any explanatory reason. The Presi- dent signed the Missouri bill this morning. "A true copv from the originy), by rae, "CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS." With this legislation the country rested in peace for many years. Its constitutionality was yaubsequently affirmed in at least one important in- stance, namely : in the establishment of the Ter- ritorial government of Oregon. In the act for that purpose, slavery or involuntarily servitude except for crime, was prohibited. It had ih« support of Southern men, and the act was approved by President Polk, to whom the idea that the restric- tion was unconstitutional did not present itself as wortliy of regard. In the year 1854, the country was at rest — the compromise measures of 1850 had been adopted, and had been for the most part acquiesced in. There were many, to be sure, in some parts of the country, who were opposed to those meas- ures; but the opposition had nearly subsided: there waa a general acquiescence. If the subject had been allowed to slumber there, I think the ac- quiescence would have continued, and would have increased. But, in an evil hour, in the year 1854, the law which had existed for more than thirty ye.irs — the constitutionality of which had been ad- mitted on all sides ; which had scarcely been de- nied, or, if it had been denied, had been denied in a manner which showed that there was no very great sincerity in those who were denying it — the restrictive portion of the act was c'eclarcd inoper- ative and void ; and, in addition to that, a feature was presented in the bill which it was supposed would render it quite aeceptable to the people of the free States. What was that feature ? Having stricken out, and declared inoperative and void, the clause prohibiting slavery north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, the bill pi'ovided that the question of slavery in the Territory included in it should be left to the free action of the people of the Territory. They were to be left " perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institu- tions in their own way." That waa the only feat- ure of this bill which, so far as its supporters in the Northern States were concerned, was consid- ered in any degree acceptable. To a portion of the people of this country that feature was accept- able. It was that feature of the bill which sus- tained the party now in power in the last presi- dential election. Mr. Buchanan is ri*Tat, in his message, when he says the subject was presented to the people of the Northern States of the Union in this light : that the people of the Territory of Kansas should be permitted to vote on the ques- tion of slavery freely ; that it was to be submitted to them ; that their will was to be not only con- sidered, but respected and regarded as final. That bill having become a law, what was the action of the people of this country respecting it, considering them sectionally, viewing them as oc- cupying diifereiit portions of th-j Union? What did the northern States ? I will consider their con- duct in the light of the charges brought against them. They are accused of having colonized Kan- sas Territory. We are told that people from the northei-n States of the Union, being desirous, if possible, to retain that Territory as free territory, believing, as they did, that it belonged to Freedom by every title, not only by the legislation which had long been acquiesced in, but by the law of na- ture, that it was a proper climate for free territory, emigrated to that region in large numbers ; we are told that emigrant aid societies were established ; we are told that free settlers were encoui'aged and aided by incorpoiated companies to go into that Territory, and there take up their residence. If it wet e so, I am not able to say that I see in that anything objectionable; certainly there was noth- ing illegal. What if it were true that northern States did incorporate companies vith a view of settling one of the Territories of the Union; is not that a perfectly proper and perfectly legal course ? Is not settling a Territory a laudable object? Wc are told in the message of the President of the United States, in regard to Central America, that the proper way of obtaining that territory which does not belong to us, is by etnigration ; that we ought not by force of arms to attempt to seize Central America ; but that we ought to do it by peaceful emigration. If it is i ight to emigrate into a territory which does not belong to u?, is it not perfectly proper, is it not a laudable object, to encourape emigration into a Territory bt-loiiging to this Union V That is all that any Senator can ?iiy has been done, even admitting every charge witii regard to the Kniicrant Aid Society. It was a laudable object; it was a desirable object; and if there was the further object of carrying liberty into that Territory, it certainly does not render it less laudable or less desirable. But what are the facts? In point of fact, the settlement of that Territory by means of the Emi- grant Aid Society, which has been considered a very great act of aggres.-iion on the part of the North, has been much overstated. I believe the fact to be that only a very small portion of the free settlers of Kansas Territory went (roni the New England States at all; it is not true that they all went from the New England States, it is not true that they went there under the auspices of tlie Emi- grant Aid Society. For one, I can say that in my entire acquaintance, I have scarcely known more than a single emigrant who has gone into that Ter- ritory from the State of Connecticut. The Sena- tor from Iowa [Mr. IIaui.an] informed us the other day, that (I think) four-tifihs, at any rate a very large proportion of the settlers of the Territory have gone from the northwestern States, and they have not gone under the auspices of the Emigrant Aid Societjf They iiad a perfect right to do so. The States of this I'nion had a right to pass acts of incorporation (or any legal purpose, (ind if citi- zens had gone under those acts of incorporation, there would liave been no pos.^ible objection which could have been made to it by any Senator with any show of reason ; but in point of fact it was not 80. The settlers went, as we should have suppo- sed they would go, from the adjoining States, from adjacent terriiory; or a large proportion of them, almo.-^t the whole of them, did to. That having been the course of the free States, what, I beg leave to ask, was the course of ihe States that are called the slaveholding States, or the slave States — I prefer to call them the slave- holding States. Did they attempt to settle that Territory? Did they make any attempt to settle it by peaceful emigi-ationV If tlie State of South Carolirra, or the State of Virginia, had seen lit to incorporate companies, with the view of settling Kansas, with the view of encouraging their own people to go there and settle that Territory with an honest intention of residing there, there would have been no complaint raised by the portion of the Union from wlrich I come. Their right was perfect : they could have done it. 1 never heard that they did; but what did they attempt to do? I do not say that any of the States of this Union as such, interfered iir any impioper nrauner in the fettling of that Territory ; but I do say that the proof is perfectly rrndeniable — I irndertake to allege that it is proved by the report of the investigating committee of tlie other House of Congr-ess — that the people ot the adjacent State of Missouri inst'jad of attempting to settle Kansas, instead of going ther-e as actual rcsiderrts with the intention of re- jnairring, werrt there by force arrd took possession of the ballot-box at the point of the bayorret. It was not fraud in the irrci;plion ; they did not begin iby fraud ; tlrey adopted no such peaceful nrearis AS fraud impliea. They went there by actual force and violence, and drove the free settlers of that Territory from the polls, and took possession of the government. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Green] the other day, denied these charges ; and he charged the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] with having stated what he could not prove. I say it is proved. It is so far proved that any Senator baa a right to allege it on this floor ; he has a right to say it is substantiated by evidence. It is shown that, of the voters who took part in the first elec- tion, on the Siith of ilarch, 185.'), in tire Territory of Kansas, abovrt five thousand, in round numbers, were persons who had no residence in the Terri- tory, who had no inlerrtion, so far as appears, of becoming residents, who were there merely for the occasion of voting; and when their business of vot- ing was firrishcd, they returned to their homes in an adjoining Slate. They established a government; they gave it the form of law ; they elected a Legis- lature. That Legislature was irot elected by the people of the Territory, but by the people of an adjoining State — men who exercised the right of sulfrage in their own State — men who had exhaust- ed their right of suftVage in their own State ; men who, having voted in their State, had no right to vote anywhere else. They irrvaded this Territory, and without stopping at fraud, by actual violence took possession of the polls, and drove away those who had a right to vote at that election. That is the origirr of the "legality" of the acts that have since taken place in Karrsas. We ar-e told by the ricsiderrt of the United States that the form of law has been given to this action; and we are told that the Legislature has been r-ecogrrized by both branches of Congress; we are told that he hirnseU' has recognized it. That is the very tiling of which we complain. The very cause of corrrplainton the part of the people of the Xorthern States (>f this Union, and, I trust, a por- tion of the Southern States, is, that this gross and oirtrageous and too successful attenij)t to subvert the liberties of the people of that Territory, to de- prive them of their rights, has been upheld and recognized by this Government. Can it be claimed here ; will it be claimed that fraud, and violence can be ratified, can be confirmed, can have any sanction given them by any subsequent indirect approbation, such as it is claimed has been given them by the other House of Congress ? It seems to me that no Senator can claim that any such technical support can be given to these proceed- ings. We come, in the progress of event:', to the pres- idential election. SV'hiie these troubles were ex- citing the attention and interest of the people of the country, the last presidential election took place ; and what was the issue then made before the people ? I carinot say what was the issue made in the Southern States ; but I can say with Safety that the issue made in the Northern States of the Union by the friends of Mr. Buchanan was wheth'.'r the people of the Territory of Kansas should be allowed to settle the question of slavery for themselves. It any other ([uestion had been presented by them to the people of that portion of t re country, I am safe in saying that the re- sult woirld have been very differerrt. The Pres- iderrt tells you that everywhere this question was made by his supporters — not the question of the extension of slavery into Kansas ; not, shall Kansas be a slave State ; but shall the people of Kansas at the polls in a legal manner, in a proper manner, be permitted to say whether they will have slavery or not ? That, he says, was the question submitted in the presidential election, and the re- sult is known to us all. The people of this coun- try decided it. I am willing to admit that the de- cision was then made, so far as you can draw an inference in regard to their decision from the re- sult of the presidential election. They decided that, in their judgment, it was right and just that the people of the Territory of Kansas should be allowed to decide on their own institutions in their own way. When the President of the United States took his place as Chief Magistrate of this Union, a very large portion of the people of the Northern States and of my own constituents had great confidence in his patriotism. They had a strong iiope that there would then be a fair opportunity furnished for the people of the Territory of Kansas to decide on their own institutions. They knew very well that if that decision was made in accordance with the actual views of the people of the Territory, it would be in favor of the views entertained by us on the great subject of slavery. They had entire confidence as to what the decision would be, and they had great confidence in the patriotism and the honesty of the President of the United States. He had assured them that the people of the Ter- ritory should be permitted to decide the question in their own way. He has stated, in his annual mesisage, that if the question had not been pre- sented to the people in the manner I have sug- gested, the result would not have been what it was ; or, at any rate, he has said that it was so left, and that such was the understanding everywhere. Well, sir, has that been done ? Has the confidence reposed in the President of the United States by the people of this country been repaid? Let us see. Sir, in the cour?e of the last summer, when it was first publicly announced that the President of the United States had deemed it his duty to use the Army to enforce the pretended laws of the Territory of Kansas, or more correctly speaking, to compel the free State settlers of that Territory, they being a large majority of the actual popula- tion, to submit to the government of a small mi- nority, a number of my constituents united in a memorial to the President, which was expressed in the following language : "iZw Excellency JAMES BUCHANAN, President of the United States: " The undersigned, citizens of the United States, and electors of the State of Connecticut, respectfully , offer to your Excellency this their memorial : " TheYundaniental principles of the Constitution of the United States and of our political institutions is, that the people shall make their own laws and elect their own rulers. " We see with grief, if not with astonishment, that Governor Walker, of Kansas, openly represents and proclaims that the President of the United States is employing througii him an army, one purpose of whichis 10 force the people of Kansas to obey laws not their own, nor of the United Suites, but laws which it is notorious, and established upon evidence, they never made, and rulers they never elected. "We represent, therefore, that by the foregoing your Excellency is openly held and proclaimed, to the great derogation of our national character, as vio- lating in its most essential particular the solemn oath which the President has taken to support the Consti- tution of this Union. " We call the attention further to the fact that your Kxcellency is, in like manner, held up to this nation, to all mankind, and to all posterity, in the attitude of ' levying war against [a portion of] the United States,' by employing arms m Kansas to uphold a bod}- of men, and a code of enactments purporting to be ' gislative, but which never had the election, nor sanc^, tion, nor consent of the people of the Territory. '\^ " We earnestly represent to vour Excellency that ' /N^ we also have taken the oath to obey the Constitution ; \ and your Excellenc}' may be assured that we shall not refrain from the prayer that Almighty God will make your administration an example of justice and be- neficence, and with His terrible majesty protect our people and our Constitution." This memorial was signed by forty-three gen- tlemen, citizens of the State of Connecticut. They made no publication of the paper ; but in good faith they sent it to the President for his own pri vate perusal, with the hope that it would exert on his mind such influence as it might deserve .to have. No man can say that the memorial is not couched in respectful language. The President ■ himself took no objection to it in this respect ; for • he made an exception to his general rule in rela- tion to papers addressed to himself, and gave it a particular reply. This reply was made through the channel of the newspaper press, and thus was first announced to the public the existence of the memorial itself. It was not by the memorialists obtruded upon the public attention. The Presi- dent, himself, apparently desirous of an opportu- nity to publish his intentions regarding Kansas, seized this as a fitting occasion of making them known. I make no complaint of this, nor do I complain of the tone of the reply. It was like the memorial itseW, respectful in manner and style, and thecharacter of the memorialists perhaps just- ified the unusual course taken in giving it pub- licity. The memorial, and the reply of the President, . were deemed by him of so much importance, that he enclosed both to Governor Walker, then in Kansas, and thus they became a part of the pub- lic correspondence on the subject of the affairs of the Territory, and being included in the docu- ments accompanying the special message, commu- nicating that correspondence, arc printed there- V. ith, and are thus legitimately before the Senate. Now, sir, I invite the attention of the Senate to this correspondence between my constituents and the President, in several points of view. I have brought the history of the affairs of Kansas down to tfie period when this correspondence took place. I have shown the character of the act repealing the Missouri restriction, and I have referred to the series of outrages consequent thereon. I have referred to the presidential election of 1856, and to the hopes kindled in many honest and confiding hearts that James Jfuchanan would take high pa- triotic ground on the subject of that unfortunate Territory. Then, at this precise time to which I have alluded, came the correspondence of which I am speaking. The main object of the memorial was to protest against the use of the Army of the United States in enforcing the execution of the pretended lawa 8 of Kansas. To that I will first direct my atten- tion. They first lay down the acknowledged prin- ciple that the people should make their own laws and elect their own rulers. Then they say that Governor Walker openly represents and claims that the President of the United States is employ- ing through him an army, one purpose of which is to force the people of Kansas to obey laws not their own, nor of the United Stales ; but laws which it is notorious and eslablislicd upon evi- dence they never made and rulers they never elected, they then allege that by the foregoing the President is held up and proclaimed as viola- ting his oath of office. They do not charge him with such violation of his oath ; but they say that to use the Army of the United States to force the people of Kansas to obey laws which they never made and rulers they never elected, would be such a violation ; and they say further that the Presi- dent is represented and proclaimed by his agent. Governor Walker, as employing through him an army for that purpose. Tills memorial always seemed to me timely and proper ; but whatever may have been thought of it by others at the time of its publication, it has Eince, by the progress of events, been fully vindi- cated, and the wisdom and justice of its appeal have been fully established. The President of the United States had no legal right to use the Army in the manner and for the purpose indicated in the memorial, and acknowledged by him in his re- ply. This I new propose to attempt to prove. The memorialists declare that the laws of Kan- sas, which the President was enforcing by the bayonets of the regular Army, were not laws; that they had never the election, nor sanction, nor consent of the people of the Territory ; and that they were not laws of the United States. What is the President's reply to this? I take now his own allegation with regard to it. Does he say that the laws in question were really enacted by competent legislative authority? Does he say that the rulers, claiming authority which he was sustaining by Federal bayonets, were actually chosen by the people of Kansas? He says no Fuch thing. He barely alleges that the Territory had been organized, and that its government was in operation. " A Governor," he sa_\ s, " Secreta- ry of the Territory, chief justice, two associate justices, a marshal, and a district attorney, had been appointed by his predecessor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and were all engaged in performing their respective duties." Who denies this? Who disputes the authority of these officers ? Their powers were not in question. The President well knew, when he dwelt on this long array of officers of the Territory, appointed by his predecessor, that the'r powers were undis- puted, that they were unresisted in the execution of their duties, and that they were not now the subject of complaint. Why, then, dwell on this fist of officers, except to divert attention from the true (juestion ; which was, are the laws of Kansas the enactments of the representatives of the peo- ple, and are their elected rulers the officers cho- sen by them ? But he goes on : " A code of laws had been enacted by the Territo- rial Legislature. It is quite true a controversy had previou.sly arisen rcspecimg the vuiiditv of the elec- tiun of nanibers of the Territorial Legislature, and of the laws passed by them ; but at the time I enter- ed upon my olficial duty, Congress had recognized this IjCgishiture by different enactments. The Dele- gate elected to the Uonse of Representatives, under u territorial law, had just completed his term of ser- vice on the day previous to my inauguration. In fact, I found the government of Kansas as well es- tablished as that of any other Territory. Under these circumstances, what was my duty? Was it not to sustain this government, tojirotect it from the violence of lawless men, who were determined to rule or ruin V to jirevent it from being overturned by force; in the language of the Constitution, 'to take care that the laws be faithfully executed?' It was for this purpose, and this alone, that I ordered a military force to Kansas to act as jjossc comitattts in aiding the civil magistrate to carry the laws into ex- ecution." The President asserts that it is his duty to en- force the enactment of the so-called Legislature of the Territory. I have already considered the question whether those acts were entitled to be considered true legislative acts or not. My own opinion is that they were not. I think it has been shown conclusively that there was no form of le- gislation connected with them which gave them any authority or should entitle them to any re- spect. While I do not admit that they were acts of legislation, I undertake to say that even if they had been acts of a Legislature properly and legal- ly chosen, the President of the United States, un- der the Constitution and under the law, had no legal right to send the Army of the United States into the Territory of Kansas for the purpose wh'ch he has himself acknowledged and avowed. For what purpose had he a right to send the army into that Territory ? The Constitution of the United States gives to Congress certain powers with re- gard to the military force of the country. First, it gives to Congress certain specified powers with regard to the militia in these words: viz., "The Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel inva- sion." This is the extent of the power of Congress on this subject. Founded on that clause of the Constitution is the act passed in the year iT'Jo. In passing that act. Congress followed, almost verbatim^ the language of this clause of the Con- stitution. It has sometimes been questioned why larger powers were not given by that act of Con- gress; and one gentleman, I think the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Pugii,] spoke the other day of a casus 07niss}is in this act, meaning that the case of a Territory in which the services of the militia might be needed to uphold the law, was omitted by accident, aud not by design. But, sir, the reason why no power was given to the President in the act I am about to quote, to call for the militia, when Territorial laws were obstructed, was that Congress had, by the Constitution, no power to delegate to him that authority. Con- gress had only power to provide for the calling forth the militia to execute the Inicsof the Unioriy suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. When Congress had passed a law authorizing the militia to be called out for that purpose, their power was exhausted. The framers of that l)iil passed it with the Constitution before them. They gave the President all the power which the Constitution invested in them. They arithorized him to call out the militia for certain purposes, and Congress had 9 no power to authorize him to call out the militia for any other purposes. To show that the act of 1795 goes no further than I have stated, let me read three sections to the Senate: "Section 1. Beit enacted ly the Senate and ITmcse cf Bepres-ntatlves of the United States of America in Go-ngi-ess msemUfd^ That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of inva- sion from r.ny foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State, or States, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that pur- pose^ to such ollicer or officers of the militia, as he shall think proper. And in case of an insurrection in any State, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be con- vened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any ether State, or States, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection. "Sec. 2. And. he it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the exccotion thereof obstructed, in any State, by combi- nations t o powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed ; and the use of tlie militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of "thirty days after tlie commencement of the then next session of Con- gress. " Sec. 3. Provided always, and heitftirther enacted, That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment at the President, to use the military force hereby di- rected to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to dis- perse, and return peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time." Compare this act and the clause of the Constitu- tion which I have cited, and you will find that there is no omitted case. By it the President was era- powered to usi the militia for every purpose, for •which Congress had power under the Constitution to provide for its being called out. I think there are very few, if any, Senators here, who would claim that under that act, if there had been no further legislation, the President of the United States would have been authorized to call out the militia of any State of the Union unless for tlie purposes specified in that act. He would have power, having thus been authorized by Congress, to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Unim, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion — how? The mode in which he was to do that was P])ecified in the act. In the first place, after hav- ing been called on by the Governor or Legislature of a State, he was to issue his proclamation as President of the United States, stating the reasons why he had resorted to this measure. Then, after having ordered the militia into any State, the law expressly provides that he should retain them there for no longer than the space of thirty days after the next meeting of Congress. So jealous were tlie framers of that act of the powers of the Exec- utive, that even in the instance therein specified, the President was only permitted to use the militia for the space of thirty days, and after all the pre- requisites mentioned in the act had been complied with. Then, in the year 1807, another act was passed, under which the President of the United States claims the power to employ the troops of the Uni- ted States, as he is at this time employing them, in Kansas Territory, and as he tells us he will retain them, until we admit Kansas as a State. What is that act? My constituents saw fit to expostulate with the President of the United States for using the Army for the purpose, as they supposed, of crushing the liberties of the people of Kansas. Now, what authority had the President to use tlie Army there at all? The act of 1807 simply pco- vides: "That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States or of any in- dividual State or Territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval forces of the United States as shall be judged necessary ; having first ob- served all the prerequisites of the law in that pes- pect." Mark the language. In cases where it was law- ful to call out the militia under the first act, it was declared lawful for the President, for the same purposes, to employ the land or naval forces. When was it lawful to call out the militia by tho act of 1795 ? In these three cases, viz : 1. In case of invasion or imminent danger of in- vasion. 2. In case of insurrection in any State. 3. In case of opposition to or obstruction of the laws of the United States in any State. Heie, then, is no authority to employ the mili- tia, even when the laws of the Union are resisted, except in a State. Now, sir, if we refer to the second act— that of 1807 — we find the regular Army could only be used, when the previous law authorized the President to call out the militia. It did not give such authority for the purpose of executing territorial laws. There is not a word said in the Constitution, or the law which was drafted in compliance with it^ in regard to a Territory ; but in the second act the word " Territory" is used, and it may possibly be claimed by some that, by implication, the Presi- dent has power to use the regular Army in a Ter- ritory. I do not admit that such a power as this can be granted to the President by implication ; I say an express act of Congress must be shown to authorize the President to use troops in that man- ner ; but if any Senator is of opinion that implica- tion is sufficient on which to found this authority, I take it the imphcation must follow the general grant itself If the President gets the power by the use of the word " Territory," he must comply with all the prerequisites of the former act, and if by analogy his po^^er in any State is to be carried into a Territory, because of the mere use of the word Territory, by way of recital, in the act of 1807, then he is to act in a Territory precisely as he would in a State. If he has power to order troops into a Territory, he has power to order them as he would in a State, and in no other wise. If he has any power at all, under this law, as to a Territory, he has it precisely as he has it in regard to a State; M ^ li l Ml itftorfM^" 10 and he is bound to comply with all the requisites, prereqiiisitfs, and po?tref|uisites, in rcj^ard to his employment of the troops re^iuired in any State of this Union. His power is manifestly no greater in a Territory, where he takes it by implication than iu a StJite, where he takes it by express grant That, I think, mnst be admitted by every Sena- tor who claims that tliere is this power by impli- cation. If there is a grant, it is a grant confined to the powers tlie President had in a State. Now what could he do in a State ? In certiiin cases he might use the militia in a particular manner ; but he could retain them there only for the period of thirty days afrer the next meeting of Congress. There was the limit of his power ; and he may use the regular Army in the same manner, iiaving com- plied wiili all the prerequij-ites. I do not claim Uiat the Presidont of the United States has not a right to station or quarter troops in Kansas. That is not the qne^tion. The question is whether he has the right to order the troops of the United States into the Teiritory of Kansas for the pur- pose which he has himself avowed. What is that purpose? The act of Congress authorizes him to ii.«e the Army in crtain cases for the purpose of executing the laws of the Union; for the purpose of suppressing insurrection ; for the purpose of re- pelling invasion. But what has he done ? lie tells us — he tolls the gentlemen of Connecticut who wrote to him on the subject — that he has or- dered troops into Kansas, not for the purpose of repelling invasion, not for the purpose of suppress- ing insurrection, not for the purpose of executing tlie laws of the Union, but for the purpose of pro- tecting the polls " as a posse comilatus" as a meas- ure of " precaution," he says. Did the Congress of the United States intend to give to the Presi- dent precautionary powers in regard to the pres- ervation of the peace al the polls by the use of the regular Army ? lias he a right to'judge for him- self as to when there is a probability that the laws may be violated ? And if he sees reason to sup- pose that at any time the laws may be violated, or au election precinct disturbed, has" he a right, as a precautionary measure, without complying with any of the prerequisites mentioned in the statute, without waiting for a rccjuisition from the (iov- ernor, or for a call from anybody, to send the Army into any State or Territory to guard the polls ? The Senator from Georgia told )is the other day, in rather striking language, that liberty preserved by regular troops is not worth preserving. I am rather inclined to think thitthe freedom 'of elec- tions in the States of this Union, preserved by regular troops sent by the President of the United States as a measure of precaution, is scarcely worth preserving. What has he done? We have be- fore us, (it was laid on our tables this morning, and I then saw it for the first time,) a document containing some particulars with regard to the manner in which tliat posse comitahis was em- ployed by General Harnev, who, eminent as I know him to be in his ndlitary capacity, is not precisely the man I should desire to pres'ide over the polls, with "batteries of artillery," and any number of "companies of foot artillery," to aid him in the decision of difticult questions. It seems that ou the ."id of October, 1857, the foUowing Older was sent to Captain Uendricksou : HEADQrARTEns Troops serving in Kansas, FoitT Leavenwortu, OcUtbtr 3, lb67. Captain: By special Drdors No. 85, from these headquarters, of this date, you are instructed to pro- ceed, in crafio(ms, A. Ass. AJJutani OeneroL Captain Tuomas ILendrickson, (jth Infantry, Fort Liaxemcorih, K. T. Mr. BEXJAMIX. Where is that to be found ? Mr. DIXON. On page 128 of the second vol- ume of the message and accompanying documents for 1857-8. I deny that the President of the United States had any right to send a body of the regular force of this country to Kickapoo, or any other place, as a precautionary measure for tlie purpose of protecting the polls. I will not now allude to what took place at Kickapoo. There were three hundred voters in that small town, and they gave one thousand votes under the auspices of the regular troops of the United States. The polls were pretty thorougidy protected on that occasion. But, not to allude to that, admitting that everything there was fair and honest, nobody claims that there was any outbreak; nobody claims that there was any danger of an outbreak. It was a place where the free-State men had no strength; it was a place where the vote was almost wholly on tlie other side. But, to drop that point, and not to dwell upon it at all, I say the President of the United States had no power under the Consti- tution, or under the law, as a precautionary meas- ure, to send troops to that point for the purpose of guarding the polls. Gene-al Ilarney, in a letter to Mr. Floyd, Secretary of War, says: "Ueadqitarters Troops serving in Kansas, "Fort Leavenworth. Octohir 11, lb57. " Sir : I have the honor to report, for the informa- tion of the Department, that the general eltction in this Territory, which took ])liice on the ."ith r.nd 6th instant, has passed oil' very ijuietly, no disturbance or tumult having occurred at any of the polls which have been heard from to mar the peace ot the Terri- tory. " The troops have returned from the different elec- tion ]>recincts, with the exception ot Sherman's bat- tery of artillery and one company of foot artillery, and these companies have been retained iu the vicin- ity of Lawrence, at the request of his excellency the Governor of the Territory. What a picture does that present ! An election carried on under the auspices, under the guard and protection of the troops of the United States, sent out by the President of the United States as a mere measure of " precaution !" There was no disturbance, peace was preserved, " order reigned in Warsaw;" and why should it not? You had the whole force of the Army of the United States, and the President tells the New Uaven gentlemen, 11 who protested against his course, that the whole power of the Government should be used for the purpose for which he has used it in that Territory. What was the opinion of the late President of the United States with regard to the power of the Ex- ecutive on this subject? I will not say that I quote it as an authority which ought to govern on all subjects ; but I do say it is an authority which ought to have binding force on the present Presi- dent of the United States, and on Senators on the other side of the House, and especially with the Senator from Mississippi, (Mr. Davis) who was a member of the Cabinet at the time. This subject was discussed by General Pierce, in his message presented at the commencement of the third ses- sion of the Thirty-Third Congress ; and he said then: " The President of the United States has not pow- er to interpose in elections, to see to their freedom, to canvass their votes, or to pass upon their legality, iu the Territories any more than in the States. If he had such power, the Government might be republi- can in form, but it would be a monarchy in fact ; and if he had undertaken to exercise it in the case of Kansas, he would have been justly subject to the charge of usurpation, and of violation of the dearest rights of the people of the United States." I adopt that language. I think it is correct. I think the President had no power to use the Army for that purpose; and I believe that his act in ex- ercising that power was, in the language of Presi- dent Pierce, a usurpation. Believing that no power existed on the part of the President of the United States to send troops into Kansas, to be employed in the manner avow- ed by him, a portion of my constituents, as I have already stated, addressed the memorial, of which I have spoken, to that officer. Mr. Presi- dent, who are the men who have thus memorial- ized the Chief Magistrate ? They have been stig- matized as if guilty of some outrageous enormity. The Government organ, in this city, if I am not mistaken, has joined in the denunciations of a par- tisan press. It has used language with regard to thcHi which it might well have left to its more un- scrupulous companions, and which I do not wish to quote in this presence. Even the Governor of Virginia, in a letter to his political friends in Tam- many Ilall, has joined in the cry. I know not how many epithets of derision, from various quarters, have been applied to the gentlemen who have signed the memorial of which I speak. Among other things they have been denounced as political clergymen. Well, sir, suppose it were true that they were all clergyman. I under- take to say that the clergy of this country stand where they ought to stand; first and foremost in intelligence, in education, in morality, in sincere piety. A purer clergy cannot be found in Chris tendom. They wear their sacerdotal robes un- spotted. They mingle in no mere political strife. Tney lead the people by their counsels and by their example in the paths of that religion whose doc- trines they preach, whose precepts they practice, and whose Iprofession they adorn. This, sir, whatever may be said of a few individuals who have proved unworthy, you and I know, and every Senator here knows to be true from our own ob- servation of their lives. Are not such men emi- nently entitled to the privilege of memorializing the President of the United States on a subject which they believe touches the immortal destiny of man, and takes hold on eternity? I was shock- ed when I saw these men insulted and vilified by the organs of the Government, and I rejoiced when it ajipeared that the President himself authorized and justified no such indignity, but gave their me- morial a respectful reply. But, sir, allow me to say that, in point of fact, only a small proportion of the whole number of these forty-three memorialists are clergymen. The rest are eminent civilians and men of science. As a body, they are not inferior in position, in talents, in influence, in learning, to any equal number of men who may be found in any State in this Union. Such are the signers of this memorial. The dis- tinguished man whose name has been placed at the head of the list, and first addressed in the Pre- sident's reply, sought no such honor; but I admit he is entitled to the distinction. Connecticut con- sents to accept him as her representative man, and the President was only right in taking his name from its too humble place on the list, and placing it before those who would gladly yield him prece- dence. And now, sir, who is Benjamin Silhman, that he should be assailed by name in the Govern- ment organs, as if he were not entitled to address a respectful message of expostulation, or, if there were need, of reproof, to the President of the Uni- ted States ? One of the great lights of modern science — known, celebrated, distinguished among the few who have adorned the arts, and shed new light on the studies most cultivated by civilized man; the peer, the friend of Iliimboklt, of Davy, (while he yet lived,) of Arago, of Agassiz, of Chev- reul, of Cotta, of De La Beche, of Jean Baptist Du- mas, of Faraday, of Le Verrier, of Brogniart, of every great contemporary name made illustrious by devotion to science — known all over the world, where many of our distinguished countrymen are still unknown ; the instructor of three generations of young men, in that far-famed university beneath whose classic shades he is passing his last days ; the guide, the philosopher, the friend, whose teach- ings and whose counsels have been er joyed by mose of our public meu than those of any man now liv- ing; the honored professor, at whose feet your own Calhoun sat for many years, when he, a young man, went to New England, as the young men of Rome went to Greece to learn philosophy. There, sir, under the inslructionsof Silliman, and Dwight, and Kingsley, his great intellect was cultivated, adorn- ed, and strengthened. There he learned to wield that invincible logic which enabled him success- fully to encounter the giants of other days — the Websters, the Clays, the Bentons — in this Senate, with constant victory; or, if not with victory, with- out ever hifving been compelled to acknowledge defeat. I know not, sir, how many members of this body were trained by the same men or their suc- cessors. But this with deference I say, that whatever honors may be in store for any mem- ber of this body; whatever just claims to un- dying fame the tdents, the acquirements, the elo- quence, the public services, of the most distin- guished here may give him ; there is not one among these honored Senators who may not deem him- self satisfied, all the hopes of his youth more than fulfilled, all the labors of his manhood more than rewarded, if he may finally reach the measure of fame enjoyed in his ripened years by Benjamin 14 government — not nt the north or the south only, | countrv will threaten to dissolve the Union If we but throughout tin? N'alion. Every froomaii, what | propose to abide by it?" ever his Huutinuiit', whatever hi.s iiiterest.s in re- Sir, would any man at that t'mc have dared to lation to tlie (juotion t>f wlavery, and wherever h\s \ say anything of that port ? Would it not have been residence, may forget and escape from the narrow prejudiees of Ijirth and education, and take such part 03 a generous nature should prompt in this great cdntest in defense of the rights of humanity. When we view it in this light, a d say that we cannot consent to the admission of Kansas into this Union, under the constitution adopted at Le- couipton, because the people of that Territory have not been permitted to express their opinion on that con-titution, because it is wholly in viola considered insulting to tlie 8outh ? to Mr. Lown- des, to Mr. Clay, to all those distinguished men who forced this compromise on us, if they had been told that if it were insisted on by the North, their descendants would make that a cause of dis- solving the Union? I have no very great fear of the Union ijeing dissolved at any time. I see no reason why our friends on the other side of the House shoidd attempt to dissolve it. You have it all, as it is. I see not how you could very well tion of their wisla-s, b'ec'ause iheir lights and ! ^^^c a more complete southern confederacy than privileges have not only l^een neglectjd, but havt been forcibly ami fraudulently trampled in the dust, wo are told by the President of the United j States that we must make no such objection, be- 1 cause dark clouds hover over the Union. What | does that nieiin? I would not allude to it here, j you now have. 1 do not object to your enjoyment of the emoluments and privileges of power and place. Connecticut has never objected to any- thing of that sort. Connecticut has never been very anxious to assert her rights and interests on this floor. She has been willin£r, as a patriotic if the President of the United States had not done "'^"''^'^'" ""[ ^'"'^ "^"o"' "^ ^° her duty to perform so. I do not wi.h to suu.d here, occupving my r^-" P"";'; >>"t f'e has never claimed any very position as one of the Senators on this floor, as a K--^' '^'■^''^ of the honors or spoils of onicc. She defender of the Union. I wish to take it for ^°°*' " P'"'^">' '^''^'V' P"^' '" " ^o^T"'^"'''^,'^'^"'- granted that the Union of these States is to con- '^''^ ^yas active m the Revolution ^i ou could not Unue; but the President intimates that it depends ! have had your independence without her, and she npon the result of the vote on this question of I m^^c your Government. Mr. Calhoun stattnl in a admitting Kan-ius. Yet I see no blame attached ! "Pf"'^^ ""J" ''"«, A"?: ^^'*V° Connecticut, to Oliver bv him to those who propose to destroy the fabric J;'"s^;:o'th, and to Roger bhcrman were tiie thanks of this Government, unless Kansas shall be admit- ^"'''/o'"