357 
 
'A 
 
 .6^^ A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 ! X-'* 
 
 HON. CHARLES BILLmCHUMT, 
 
 OF WISCONSIN, 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 9, 1856. 
 
 The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the 
 Wate of the Union — 
 
 Mr. BILLINGHURST said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: Availingmyself of the present 
 occasion to submit a fev/ observations to the 
 House and to the country, I shall mainly take 
 for my text the last annual message of the Presi- 
 dent of the United States, or passages in said 
 message which I think are justly entitled to un- 
 sparing animadversion. That executive pronun- 
 ciamento was, as is well remembered, thrust 
 upon us, the Representatives of the people, most 
 ungraciously, and it wiSl also be remembered that 
 it found none here so poor as to do it reverence. 
 It has never been received— never read in the 
 House — a just rebuke of a tyrannical Executive 
 who forgets the " decent respect" which is ever 
 due to the popular branch of Government, The 
 people make and unmake Presidents, and some- 
 times Presidents unmake themselves. There is 
 no way so sure to accomplish this last act as for 
 the President to treat the people or their chosen 
 Representatives with contumely. 
 
 Inasmuch as the President seems to have no 
 friend in the House to bring to light this most 
 remarkable document, I propose to dig it up from 
 the mass of matter under which it lies buried on 
 the Speaker's table, that I may review some of 
 its salient points, fairly and with even-handed 
 justice, that the friends and defenders of the Pres- 
 ident (if indeed he has any remaining since the 
 assembling and terrible, if not most ungrateful, 
 action of the Cincinnati Convention) may^ have 
 an opportunity to defend the great rejected candi- 
 date. 
 
 The President, in his message, asks, with 
 much put-on unction, '^ What is the voice of 
 history?" He should have paid some heed to 
 the old maxim, " Sufficient unto the day is the 
 evil thereof," before he turned historian. Sins 
 enough in the practical administration of the Gov- 
 ernment were daily committed, at his hands, 
 without adding to them the falsification of the 
 history of our country. The honest historian 
 
 chronicles the virtues as well as the vices of the 
 times and of the country; but President Pierce, 
 like a feed attorney, appears as the advocate of 
 one section of his country against the other, and 
 that other the section in which he has ever had 
 his home, and where he was born and reared. 
 
 " What is the voice of history?" he asks, and 
 then talks of Florida as an acquisition demanded 
 by the whole Union !— of Louisiana, and declares 
 it a mere delusion to say that she was an acquisi- 
 tion in the special interest of the South !— of Tex^ 
 as, whilst out of the Union, and of the efforts 
 made to prevent her annexation, as a " system- 
 atized attempt to intervene in the domestic affairs 
 of one section of the Union in defiance of their 
 rights as States, and of the stipulations of the 
 Constitution." But he boasts that the Consti- 
 tution triumphed over sectional prejudice and the 
 political errors of the day, and that Texas came 
 into the Union with the chosen institutions of 
 her people. 
 
 In the passage of the compromise measures 
 of 1850, he again eulogizes 'the Constitution as 
 signally triumphing, and is especially gratified 
 that among those measures the fugitive slave 
 law has invaded the rights of the States— that is, 
 that that law of CongVess, whether unconstitu- 
 tional or otherwise, which was framed and passed 
 to please the South, with the knowledge that it 
 would be distasteful to the North, does invade 
 and attempt to nullify the guarantied State rights 
 of his own section of the Union. For the passage 
 of this act he assumes to rejoice and be most 
 glad. 
 
 The Territories of Utah, New Mexico, Wash- 
 ington, Nebraska, and Kansas are prominent 
 points of historical review. Incidentally the 
 President alludes to an antiquated piece of legis- 
 lation called the " ordinance of 1787," for the 
 governmentof the territory northwest of the Ohio, 
 as having had a place upon the statute-books for 
 two or three years, and then been superseded by the 
 Constitution, when it ceased to remain as a law! 
 He is certainly entitled to credit for magnanimity 
 in admitting that a recollection of that ordinance 
 
/ 
 
 
 existed down to the year of our Lord 1820; but 
 
 there, at that point, the Executive historian loses 
 
 all sight or recollection of it. He, however, finds 
 
 another piece of mere formal legislation upon the 
 
 tatute-books at that period, growing out of an 
 
 "•vanescent controversy" called the Missouri 
 
 ■promise," of " most douHtful con^titutiou- 
 
 " and he styles it " the dormant letter of 
 
 ' .■" Capital idea that ! 
 
 ilk thee, Jew, for teaching me that word !" 
 
 i was dormant. It did sleep, guarded, 
 lied over, protected, undisti>rbed, but rcrerefZ 
 Jie great and good men of the nation forthirty- 
 tiiree years, until 1854, when it was about to 
 awake and take on vitality. Then it was that the 
 President and his reckless coadjutors gave it the 
 death-blow. "Dormant !" did he say ? Yes, it 
 slept, but had another class of as vigilant watch- 
 ers who made it the sleeji that knew no waking. 
 
 I will not now go further with his Excellency 
 into other points of history t^ which he alludes, 
 although it might be both profitable and interest- 
 ing to do so, but will say, just here, that if his 
 history had been accurate, as well as complete, it 
 would have saved me much labor. It is a duty 
 we all owe to our country, as it seems to me, 
 when we find its history falsified by authors, or 
 men in high places, to expose and correct it, and 
 thus, as cotemporaries, occupying resjjonsible 
 positions in the councils of the nation, supply any 
 material omissions which we may discover. 
 
 As the humblest of tlie body I am a member 
 of, 1 will cheerfully undertake to execute my part 
 of this duty. And first, 1 shall speak of the ordi- 
 nance of 1787, which, the President says, was 
 superseded by the Constitution, and ceased to 
 remain as a law, &c. 
 
 This ordinance was adopted by the Congress 
 of the Confederacy. It related to territory which 
 had been ceded to the Confederacy. The territory 
 was outside of the States. The ordinance was an 
 act outside of the Articles of Confederation; and 
 that portion of it relating to the slavery question 
 was, in terms, an express and solemn compact, 
 as follows: * 
 
 " It is hereby ordiiined and declared by the authority 
 aforesaid, that the lollowinij article.s shall be coiisiileri'd as 
 articles of a compact between the original States and the 
 people and States in said Territory, and forever remain 
 unalterable, unless by common consent. 
 
 " Art. 6. — There shall neilher be slaverj' nor involun- 
 tary servitude iTi the said Territory, otherwise than in pun 
 ishnient of crime, whereof the party shall haye been duly 
 convicted : Proiiiled, always, That any person escaping into 
 the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in 
 any oue of the original Stales, such fugitive may be lawfully 
 reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming ins or licr 
 labor or service, as aioresaid." 
 
 Now I beg to ask what article or section of the 
 Constitution repealed this ordinance, or how did 
 the Constitution, which was framed for the gov- 
 ernment of the States (:uul not for Territories) 
 supersede this organic law of the T(;rritory .' Was 
 it that clause which reads ns follows? 
 
 " Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all 
 needful rules ahd regulations respeclinp the Territory, and 
 Other property belonging to the United Stales. 
 
 It could not be, for this relates to the Territory 
 
 SiS property. It is indeed difficult to understand 
 how the Constitution superseded this ordinance. 
 So far as the Constitution contravenes any of the 
 provisions of the ordinance, the Constitution is 
 unquestionably paramount. As States have been j 
 from time to time, formed from this Territory, 
 their constitutions, so far a!3 they have trenched 
 upon the ordinance, have superseded that instru- 
 ment; but in every one of the States formed 
 therein, this same ordinance, in some of its fea- 
 tures, is now self-operative, and so recognized by 
 judicial decisions. I ask, who of the north- 
 western States does not recognize the validity 
 of the following clause in it? 
 
 "The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and 
 St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, 
 shall be common-highways, and forever free, as well to the 
 inhabitants of said Territory as to the citizens of tiie United 
 Stales, and those of any other States that may be admitted 
 into the Confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty, 
 tlierefor." 
 
 Repeatedly has this ordinance been held to be 
 in force by the courts. No new or other legisla- 
 tion has been had to give it vitality. As States 
 have been formed, from time to time, out of this 
 territory, or within its boundaries, the ordinance 
 has been in force over what of said territory 
 still remained, and more than once has it been 
 extended to other territories. It was extended 
 over Louisiana, with the exception of the sixth 
 article already referred to. 
 
 In relation to this sixth article, and the Mis- 
 souri compromise, the President discourses thus: 
 
 " This provision ceased to remain as a law, for its opera- 
 tion as such was absolutely superseded by the Constitution. 
 But the recollection of the fact excited the zeal of social 
 propagandism in some sections of the Confederalion ; and, 
 vvlien a second State, that of Missouri, came to be formeU 
 in the Territory of Louisiana, a proposition vveis made to 
 extend to the latter Territory the restriction originally 
 applied to the country situated between the rivers Ohio 
 and Mississippi. 
 
 "Most questionable as was this proposition in all its 
 constitutional relations, nevertheless it received the sanc- 
 tion of Congress, with some sliglit modifications of line, to 
 save the existing rights of the intended new States. It was 
 reluctantly acquiesced in by southern States as a sacrifice 
 to the cause of peace and of the Union, not only of the 
 rights stipulated by the treaty of Louisiana, but of the prin- 
 ciple of equality among the States guarantied by the Con- 
 stitution. It was received by the northern States with 
 angry and rcscnrfol condemnation and complaint, because 
 it (lid nol coneeib* all which they had exactingly demanded. 
 Having passed llirongh the forms of legislation, it took its 
 place in the statute-book, standing open to repeal, like any 
 other act of doubtful constitutionality, subject to be pro- 
 nounced null and void by the courts of law, and possess- 
 ing no possible efficacy to control the rights of the States 
 which might thereat'ter be organized out of any part of tlie 
 orighial Territory of Louisiana. 
 
 •' In all this, if any a:;gression there were, any innova- 
 tion upon pii'i\\isiiiig riL'lits, to which portion of the Union 
 are they justly chargeable.^ 
 
 " This controversy passed away with the occasion, noth- 
 ing surviving it save the dormant letter of the statute. Rut 
 long atterwards, when, by the proiwsed accession of the 
 llepiiblic of Texas, the United States were to take their 
 next step in territorial greatness, a similar contingency 
 occurred, and became the occasion for systematized at- 
 tempts to intervime in the doiiiestic .(ilHirs of one section 
 <>l' the Union, in detiance of tlicir riglits as St.ites, and of the 
 atipulations of the Constitution. These nitimpts assumed 
 a practical direction, in the shape of persevniin; cmleavora 
 by some of the representatives of both House- oi'Congress 
 to deprive the southern States of the supposid btnetit of 
 the provisions of the ael authorizing the organization of the 
 Stale of iMissouri. 
 
*' But the good sense of the people, and, the vital force of 
 'the Constitution, triumphed over sectional prejudice and 
 the political errors of the day, and the State oi" Texas re- 
 turned to the Union as she was, with social institutions 
 which her people had chosen for tlieinselves, and with ex- 
 press agreement, by the reannexing act, that she should be 
 susceptible of subdivision into a plurality of State*." 
 
 Thus discourses Mr. President Pierce on tlie 
 aubject of the ordinance of 1787, and the action 
 of Congress and the people thereon at different 
 pesiods since its enactment. He should know, 
 if he does not, v^hat every intelligent, American 
 citizen knows, that the first Congress assembled 
 under the Constitution reenacted this very ordi- 
 nance by the following act, being the eighth act 
 of that session: 
 
 "»2n act to provide for the go vernment of the territory north- 
 west of the Ohio river. 
 
 '' Whereas, in order that the ordinance of the United 
 Slates in Congress assembled, for the government of the 
 territory northwest of the river Ohio, may continue to have 
 fisll effect, it is requisite that certain provisions should be 
 snade, so as to adapt the same to the present Constitution 
 of the United States : 
 
 " Be it enactcJ by the Senate and House of Representatives 
 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
 Thatin all cases in which bythe said^ordinauce any inform- 
 ation is to be given, or communication made, by the Gov- 
 ernor of the said Territory to the United States in Congress 
 assembled, or to any of their officers, it shall be the duty 
 of the said Governor to give such information, and to make 
 such communication to the Presidentof the United States; 
 and the President shall nominate, and, by and with the 
 advice and conscntof the Senate, shall appoint, all officers 
 which, by 'the said ordinance, were to have been appointed' 
 by the United States in Congress assembled ; and all officers 
 soappninted shall be commissioned by him ; and in all cases 
 where the United States in Congress assembled might, by 
 the said ordinance, revi)ke any commission, or remove from 
 any office, the President is hereby declared to have the 
 same powers of revocation and removal. 
 
 "Sec. 2. Jlnd be it further enacted , That in case of the 
 death, removal, or resignation, or necessary absence of the 
 Governor of the said Territory, the Secretary thereof shall 
 Jje, and he is hereby, authorized and required to execute 
 all the powers and perform all Ihe duties of the Governor 
 during the vacancy occasioned by the removal, resignation, 
 »jr necessary absence of the said Governor." 
 
 All cause of cavil was removed by this act. 
 But President Pierce says to Congress and the 
 country, " it ceased to remain as a law." I will 
 not insult the good sense of the House by at- 
 tempting to refute this executive declaration, as 
 everybody knows that the validity of*he ordi- 
 nance of 1787 is not to be thus repudiated. Mr. 
 President Pierce may discharge his puny arrows 
 at it from now until the 4th of March next, and 
 the old ordinance will still stand unhurt, and 
 unbattered even. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I propose to call to the 
 minds of those who hear me, or who may take 
 the trouble to read my speech when published, 
 some recollection of sundry points in our' legisla- 
 tive history omitted by the historian-President. 
 
 The legislation for "Oregon finds no place in his 
 history, 
 
 Tha"t for Minnesota has no place in his his- 
 tory, 
 
 That for the two free States to be formed out 
 of the Territory of Texas finds no place in his 
 history, 
 
 That for California, as a free State, finds none; 
 
 The legislation relative to the proviso con- 
 nected with the settlement of the boundary line 
 
 between Texas and New Mexico, finds no place 
 in his history, 
 
 The local Mexican law prohibiting slavery in 
 Utah and New Mexico, finds no place there; 
 
 Nor does the legislation to suppress the slave 
 trade in the District of Columbia, one of the 
 compromises of 1850, find any place in his his- 
 tory. 
 
 Oh, no; this most impartial historian-President 
 could not condescend to give a truthful and an 
 impartial history of the legislation of the coun- 
 try relative to the vexed question of slavery. It 
 was too much for his nerves to bear, just as he 
 was framing his imessage with a view to make a 
 strong and most desperate bid for the whole 
 southern vote in the Cincinnati convention. So 
 he framed his history to tickle the ears of south- 
 ern politicians. And how have his labors been 
 rewarded? 
 
 The President, however, deserves to be credited 
 with the ingenious discovery of a point entirely 
 new in our legislative history. Or, if he did not 
 discover or invent it, he had the honor of learn- 
 ing it and first spreading it before the public, in a 
 most grandiloquent strain. It succeeds the clause 
 in the message in which he consecrates the com- 
 promise measures of 1850, and thus reads: 
 
 " Vain declamation regarding the provisions of law for 
 the extradition of fugitives from service, with occasional 
 episodes of frantic effort to obstruct their execution by riot 
 and murder, continued for a brief time to agitate certain 
 localities." 
 
 There — that is rhetorical, if not historical. I 
 now come to the point: 
 
 " But the true principle, of leaving each State and Ter- 
 ritory to regulate its own laws of labor according to its 
 own sense of right and expediency, had acquired fast hold 
 of the public judgment to such a degree that, by common 
 consent, it was observed in the organization of the Terri- 
 tory of Washington." 
 
 The Territory of Washington was organized 
 March 2, 1853 — two days before President Pierce 
 was inaugurated. Only three years before this, 
 the Union was thought to be in danger. The 
 throes of the body politic were keenly felt from 
 the center to the extreme portion^ of the Union. 
 But, luckily, the Union was saved by a string of 
 compromises — one of which stopped the slave 
 tradeinthe DistrictofColumbia; anotherof which 
 admitted California into the Union as a free State; 
 two others organized Utah and New Mexico, 
 where slavery was already prohibited by the local 
 or Mexican law, giving them permission to come 
 into the Union, in proper time, as States, with 
 or without slavery. What else occurred in the 
 meantime? Ah, I have it. Two presidential 
 conventions assembled, each resolving solemnly 
 to abide by those compromises, every one of 
 them. Was there any other new matter acted 
 upon? No. What novel principle had taken 
 such fast hold of the public judgment as to be in- 
 troduced, by common consent, into the govern- 
 ment of Washington Territory, tnaking the nation 
 jubilant? Was it the prohibition of slavery 
 therein ?'No, that is not the President's meaning, 
 by a long shot. He finds no joy, nor consolation, 
 nor hope of reward in thatdirection. His thoughts 
 were running another way. The ingenuity of his 
 
mind lies in finding out the fact that this glorious 
 principle of his had, by common consent, found 
 Its way into Washington Territory. And when 
 did he find this out ? It was news to Congress — 
 news to the people. How did he keep so prom- 
 inent a fact concealed for so long a time.' What 
 evidence has he of this common consent ' I will 
 tell you, Mr. Chairman, confidentially, what I 
 think of it. I think that the authors of the bill 
 for Washington Territory shot beyond the stone 
 Ezel, as spoken of in the Bible, or overshot the 
 mark. They were altogether too keen, or, to use 
 a Yankee expression, too smai-t for themselves, 
 and thus failed to accomplish what they intended. 
 That they intended to leave off from Washington 
 a wholesome restriction, long the settled policy 
 of the Government as to Territories, I have not 
 a doubt; and that the present President was let 
 into the secret and safely kept it until he wrote 
 his message, I have just as little doubt. 
 
 What are the facts in the case ? Look at them. 
 Oregon Territory was organized August 14, 1848, 
 including what is now Washington Territory, 
 and a part of the Oregon act reads as follows: 
 
 " Sec. 14. Tliat the inhabitants of said Territory shall be 
 entitled to enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges, and 
 advantages granted and secured to the people of the Ter- 
 ritory in the United States northwest of the river Ohio, by 
 the articles of compact contained in the ordinance for the 
 government of said Territory, on tlie 13th day of July, 1787, 
 and shall be subject to all the conditions and restrictions 
 and prohibitions in said articles of compact imposed upon 
 the people of said Territory." 
 
 Here the slavery prohibition, in the ^orm and 
 express terms of a compact, unalterable, except 
 by consent of all the parties, is extended over 
 all Oregon, the north half of which is now Wash- 
 ington Territory. It is not the ordinary " Wil- 
 niot proviso," a simple act of legislation, but an 
 expressly declared compact, unalterable and irre- 
 pealable, except by the consent of all parlies 
 interested. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I leave gentlemen to judge how 
 far a compact can be impaired by an ordinary act 
 of legislation. The shrewdness of the authors 
 of the Washington territorial bill, specially 
 known to the President and highly appreciated 
 in secret for a long time, is to be found in the 
 peculiar phraseology of the twelfth section of 
 said bill. Here it is. Listen and ponder: 
 
 ".4nrf he it further enactetl. That the laws how in force 
 in the Territory of Oregon by virtue of the legislation of 
 Oingress, which have been enacted and passed suhsccfiicnl 
 totke\.itdayofScptfmher,im3, * * * * be, and 
 they are liereby, continued in foree in the Territory of 
 Washington until they shall be repealed or amended by 
 future legislation." 
 
 By continuing in force the laws of Congress 
 relating to Oregon, passed subsequent to the 1st 
 day of September, 1848, the design of the framers 
 of the Washington territorial bill was, manifestly 
 and clearly, to shut out the organic law of Oregon 
 passed August 14, 1848. Does anybody believe 
 that ten members of Congress understood the ob- 
 ject and purpose of this curious hiatus of sixteen 
 days? And it is by such legisl.itioi) that a-" great 
 principle" has been introduced into Washington 
 Territory; to the general joy of the American 
 people, as Mr. President Pierce, the self-appointed 
 
 historian of th^ legislation of this country, would 
 have it. 
 
 I The organic law of Oregon, already referred to, 
 j has never been repealed, as it regards Washington 
 j Territory; and, although Congress did declare 
 i that its laws passed subsequent to the 1st day of 
 I September, 1848, should be in force in Washing- 
 I ton Territory, it'does not necessarily follow that 
 ' other laws previously in force there are repealed. 
 Far, very far from it. They stand, and will exer- 
 ! cise their binding force, in spite of the ingenious 
 contrivance of the authors of the Washington 
 territorial act, over wliich the President seems to 
 think the whole country is rejoicing. 
 
 I hardly can conjecture to what extent this Ad- 
 ministration will carry its new doctrine of re- 
 pealing laws by " superseding" them. It may 
 be that the solemn compact extended over Wash- 
 ingtoir Territory has been superseded. That the 
 people may have their attention called particu- 
 larly to this novel doctrine, I will recapitulate 
 the instances of its application under the present 
 Administration. 
 
 The Missouri compromise of 1820 was " super- 
 seded" by the compromise measures of 1850, 
 but not known until 1854. 
 
 The ordinance of 1787 extended over Oregon in 
 1848, was " superseded" in 1853 by the Wash- 
 ington territorial bill, but not known until 1856. 
 The ordinance of 1787 was " superseded" by 
 tlie Constitution of 1789, but not known until 
 1856. 
 
 It is at least a convement Executive doctrine, as 
 it keeps the people in the dark. 
 
 The next passage in the message which I shall 
 notice is an extract from the Kansas and Ne- 
 braska act, and the part which, ever since its en- 
 actment, has been uttering, to this Administra- 
 tion and its adherents, 
 
 " Signs of woe, that all is lost." 
 
 Until the repeal of the Missouri compromise, 
 my own political associations had unwaveringly 
 been with the Democratic parly; and as this pes- 
 tiforous measure originated with Democrats, and 
 became one of the tenets of the party, I felt im- 
 peratively called upon to examine it with all the 
 care its importance to the country seemed to me 
 to demand, and, from my party associations and 
 affinities, I reviewed and considered it from the 
 ! most favorable point, I am sure. In candor I 
 i confess that I could find no merit in it, or any 
 ] thing to justify the very grave act of rejiealing 
 1 the Missouri compromise, (which had stood re- 
 i vered and nearly as sacred as the Constitution 
 I itself by the whole people of the Union for some 
 I thirty-four years,) and of reopening the slavery 
 question, which had been so solemnly settled, ac- 
 I cording to President Pierce's inaugural address, 
 ' I))' the compromise measures of 1850, I could 
 rot .sanction or support it. I could not longer act 
 with a party which would adopt it as a cardinal 
 feature in its creed. I felt, as no doubt Mr. Pres- 
 1 ident Pierci^ felt, when the measure v/as first 
 s))rung in the Senate upon the country, and when 
 his official mouth-piece, the Union newspaper, 
 I repudiated and denounced it; but I held on to 
 ' my opposition to so unwise, unjust, and wrongful 
 
^1 
 
 a measure, whilst the President and his official 
 mouth-piece turned to the right-about face, and 
 hugged and embraced the identical measure which 
 they had, in good set terms, but a hltle while 
 before, no doubt honestly, condemned. 
 
 But beyond this, and as a graver question than 
 even the repeal of this time-honored compact, 
 there was a measure incorporated in that act by 
 way of explaining or interpreting the intent of 
 Congress in passing the act, more alarming in 
 its character than any act of Congress since the 
 foundation of the Government. I will now pro- 
 ceed to strip this measure of the ingenious con- 
 trivances of language to hide its meaning, and 
 expose it in all "its enormity. 
 
 I have always, Mr. Chairman, regarded slavery 
 as a local, sectional, and not a national institu- 
 tion, and that the nation not only had, but as was 
 its duty to the spirit and the letter of the Consti- 
 tution, always should avoid anything and every- 
 thing even looking like a recognition of its nation- 
 ality. 
 
 But, sir, by the Kansas and Nebraska act 
 slavery loas exjnesshj legalized within those Terri- 
 tories. Now for the proof: 
 
 •' It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to 
 legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor 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 Constitutiou of tlie United 
 State?." 
 
 What mere twaddle it is to contend that Con- 
 gress does not intend to legislate slavery into the 
 Territories. How could Congress legislate it in 
 any more than it could legislate money in , or crime 
 or virtue ? This form of expression is not incon- 
 sistent with a system of legislation that would 
 bring about a state of things by which slavery 
 might slide into a Xefitory that was free. Slavery* 
 was never legislated into any locality; but it has 
 been taken in by virtue of legislation. 
 
 Let us consider the other branch of this legis- 
 lative-judicial interpretation. Congress has sol- 
 emnly declared its true intent to be, not to exclude 
 slavery from the Territories, but to leave the peo- 
 }de thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their 
 domestic institutions in their own way. 
 
 A domestic institution may be the creature of law 
 or a inere conventional regulation. A family, a 
 school, a church, a state of servitude, is a domes- 
 tic institution. In fact, the word domestic, from 
 domus, a house, or home, residence, or family, as 
 domestic concerns, domestic life, domestic duties, 
 domestic affairs, domestic happiness, domestic 
 worship, and in a substantive sense, " one \vho 
 lives in the family of another, a servant or hired 
 laborer," excludes the idea of a legal institution. 
 Congress did not sa}' they intended to leave the 
 people free to form and regulate their institutions 
 in their own way. If they had, it would have 
 been taken to be such institutions as are formed 
 and regulated by law— not conventional or self- 
 formed: but by the .introduction of the word 
 " domestic," which, in it% place in this law, was 
 and is understood and intended to comprehend 
 slavery alone. Congress has inaugurated a new 
 principle of legislation for Territories, essentially 
 differing from the doctrine of non-intervention. 
 
 It is only by a careful consideration of alLthe 
 terms in this " stump speech" in the act, that we 
 are enabled to arrive at its " true intent and mean- 
 ing." "To form," in its connection, can only 
 signify to introduce or establish. Wherein " the 
 people" are authorized " to form" their domestic 
 institutions, inasmuch as the formation of such 
 institutions does not require the intervention of 
 legislation, the law regards " the people" as fn- 
 dividuals, and not collectively, as a community, 
 acting under the forms of law. Again: wherein 
 " th€ people" are authorized " to regulate" such 
 institutions, it is equally clear that Congress in- 
 tended such regulation should be by " the peo- 
 ple" collectively. The people of slave States indi- 
 vidually "form" their domestic institutions; col- 
 lectively, as represented in the Legislature, they 
 regulate them. 
 
 Before the repeal of the Missouri compromise, 
 slavery was prohibited in Kansas and Nebraska; 
 and, according to my understanding of- the law, 
 slavery can exist legally only by express legis- 
 lation permitting it; so that, if Congress had con- 
 tented itself with simply repealing the prohibi- 
 tion, slavery could not legally have existed in the 
 Territories in question. 
 
 Now, to put this law to a practical test, to de- 
 termine whether Congress has legalized slavery 
 in thfi Territories, and thus given to it nationality 
 of character, I will put a case. 
 
 Dr. Stringfellow's slave Catosnes out a writ of 
 habeas corpus before Judge Lecompte to procure 
 his freedom on the ground that slavery is not 
 recognized by the organic law. On the hearing, 
 the judge examines the law, and finds, in section 
 twenty -three thereof, that he has been required, 
 in his oath of office, to swear that he would sup- 
 port the Constitution of the United States and 
 the provisions of the Kansas and Nebraska act. 
 He then turns to the thirty -second section, and 
 reads that Coiigress has declared that they did not 
 intend or mean to exclude slavery from the Territory, 
 but to leave every man ivho emigrated to it perfectly 
 free to bring his own domestic institutions icith him, 
 and that the Territorial Legislature is invested 
 with povjer to regulate such institutions. The 
 judge turns to Cato and says to him, " I am sworn 
 to support this law of Congress, and cannot dis- 
 charge you." 
 
 Stripped of all disguise, this modern Democratic 
 doctrine of " popular sovereignty" amounts to 
 this: the extension of slavery into free Territories, 
 by stealthy legislation, or by ruffian force. Each 
 successive extension is a triumph of the Consti- 
 tution antl the Union, in the estimation of the 
 President, or it %vas so, previously to the assem- 
 bling of the late Cincinnati Convention. And yet 
 he tells us that the scope and effect of the repeal 
 of the Missouri compromise was not left in doubt. 
 Does it, or will he, tell us whether slavery can go 
 into the Territory or not.' Does it, or will he, tell 
 us whether or not the Territorial Legislature can 
 establish or prohibit slavery .' The doctrine main- 
 tained by our southern brethren is, that neither 
 Congress nor the Territorial Legislature have the 
 constitutional power to prohibit slavery in the 
 Territories. The Democrats of the North main- 
 tain that there is nothing in the Kansas and 
 
Nebraska bill which authorizes slavery, while 
 some contend that the sovereignty conferred upon 
 the people of the Territory is to legislate upon the 
 subject of slavery, pro and con., and others still 
 insist that no legislation can be had on the subject. 
 Some there are who maintain that the act means 
 slavery, and others that it means freedom. All 
 these views, with others too numerous to name, 
 are divided and subdivided into innumerable 
 grades and shades, so that scarcely any two minds 
 can be found to agree in the matter. And still 
 the President proclaims that the scope and intent 
 of this famous and iniquitous act were not left in 
 doubt ! 
 
 " And he played upon the harp of a thousand strings, 
 Sperits of just men made perfec." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have now done with the 
 President, so far as relates to his historical legis- 
 lative facts and omissions; but I shall endeavor 
 to hold him up to the public as he is, and to 
 place before him his own mirror, that he may 
 take a retrospective glance at himself. 1 call at- 
 tention to another part of his message, and it is 
 a most humiliating duty that I now feel called on 
 to perform. When I look back no longer ago than 
 the year 1852, two years after the passage of the 
 fugitive slave law, when the two great political 
 parties of the country, comprising nearly our 
 entire population, manifesting a spirit " that man- 
 kind are more disposed to suffer while evils are 
 sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing 
 the forms to which they are accustomed," agreed 
 to abide by the compromises of 1850, as a. finality, 
 and that, under this agreement, the present Chief 
 Magistrate of the nation was elected by an un- 
 precedented majority, my heart sickens at his 
 subsequent political depravity. He has to answer 
 for a willful and audacious violation of the solemn 
 promise he made to the country, and upon which 
 he was elected to the Presidency. He has to an- 
 swer for a gross and sudden violation of the 
 promise he made in his inaugural address, at the 
 time he was sworn into office, that he would 
 take care to see the compromise measure, to stop 
 agitation on the slavery question, and to give 
 peace to the country, and all other laws, faith- 
 fully executed. Instead of keeping his sworn 
 pledge, he has reopened the old controversy, 
 greatly fomented and embittered public feeling, 
 and forfeited the respect of the people. ■ 
 
 The President's course having involved him in 
 difficulties, he seeks to extricate himself by mis- 
 statements, suppressions, and false reasonings; 
 and to divert attention from his own. perfidy, 
 charges back upon America's freemen who halt 
 from following him in his iniquitous career, cal- 
 umnies like the following: 
 
 " It has benn a matter of painful regret to see States con- 
 spicunus for their services in foundiiiji this Republic, and 
 equally sharing its advantages, disregard their constitutional 
 obhgations to it. Althoush conscious of their inahihty to 
 heal aiiiiiiltid and palpaiili^ social evils of their own,alld 
 which ari' cuinplrirly uiihin Ihcir jurisdiction, they engage 
 ill Ihi; <ill'iriM\c nuA linpcli-s undertaking of reforming the 
 domestic iri-iiiiiiif)n> nf other Stati's, wholly beyond their 
 control anil aiiiliurity. In the vain (inrsuit of ends, by 
 them entirely unattainable, and which tliey may not legally 
 attempt to compass, they peril the very existence of the 
 constitution, and all the cotiiitlcss bei'ietits which it has 
 conferred. While the people of the southern Slates confine 
 
 I their attention to their own affairs, not presuming officiously 
 to intermeddle with the social institutions of the northern 
 
 I States, too many of the inhabitants of the latter are perma- 
 nently organized in associations to inflict injury on the 
 
 I former by wrongful acts, which would be the cause of war 
 as between foreign powers, and only fail to be such in our 
 
 j system because perpetrated under cover of the union. 
 " Is it possible to present this subject as truth and the 
 occasion require without noticing the reiterated butground- 
 
 I less allegation, that the South has pejsistently asserted 
 
 ! claims and obtained advantajes in the practical admini-tra- 
 tion in the General Government to the prejudice of the 
 North, and in which the latter has acquiesced? That is, 
 the States which either promote or tolerate attacks on the 
 rights of persons and of property in other States, to disguise 
 theirown injustice, pretend, orimagine, and constantly aver 
 that they whose constitutional rights are thus systematically 
 assailed, are themselves the aggressors. ;^ the present time, 
 this i mputed aggression , resting, as it does, only in the vague 
 declamatory charges of political agitators, resolves itself 
 into misapprehension or misrepresentation of the principles 
 and facts of the political organization of the new Territo- 
 
 I ries of the United States." 
 
 I Mr. Chairman, much of this I have answered, 
 i and I do not read it now so much to comment 
 I upon it, as to call to it especial attention — to ren- 
 I der it conspicuous. Do States disregard their 
 i constitutional obligations by enacting laws to 
 [ compel postmasters to rifle the mails — by passing 
 I laws to imprison free citizens of other States be- 
 i cause of their color, and then to sell them into 
 i slavery to pay their jail fees ? Is not the thrust- 
 i ing of slavery upon Kansas, Ity ruffians of slave 
 [ States, a departure of attention from their own 
 affairs, and an officious intermeddling with social 
 j institutions of other localities? Is the formation 
 i of an association to correct public sentiment 
 ! by moral suasion and the spread of truth, just 
 cause of war? Has the South no advantage in 
 the practical administration of the General Gov- 
 ernment, when, by the settled policy of the Senate 
 for more than a quarter of a century, no northern 
 ' man whp has spoken the truth of slavery can 
 ] pass the ordeal of its approval .' 
 ! There was a time when every American felt a 
 generous glow of conscious pride at the reflection 
 that the assertion, " I am an Ainerican citizen," 
 assured him esteem, respect, and safety at home 
 and abroad; but since an American President has 
 sent forth to the world such a inessage, that gen- 
 erous glow of conscious pride comes back no 
 more — his manhood sinks beneath the degrada- 
 tion, and his self-respect forbids the utterance of 
 j the once proud exclamation, " I am an American 
 I citizen," even as a passport in a foreign land. 
 I It is a new and a curious idea which the south- 
 ern portion of the present Congress, with the 
 Executive, entertain, that all who favor the ex- 
 ; tension of slavery in any way are the thoughtful 
 1 friends of the Union, the true lovers of the coun- 
 try, the real defenders of the Constitution, the 
 true and only patriots of the land. This is the 
 burden of the song which the President sings 
 all through his message, whilst he stigmatizes 
 as " fanatics," " agitators," "disturbers of the 
 peace," " enemies of the Constitution," &c., all 
 those who love freedom better than slavery, the 
 prosperity of the country better than their own 
 indolent ease, and who believe that the Constitu- 
 tion was framed and intended to secure the bless- 
 ings of liberty, and who would defend the Terri- 
 tories against the blighting curse of slavery. 
 
But, sir, the issue is made up. This new party 
 test of " popular sovereignty." alias slavery ex- 
 tension, that has been inaugurated by this Admin- ! 
 istration, has gathered to its support the federal 
 office-holders — the conservative men, par excellence, 
 whether Whigs or Democrp^ts — all the old fogies 
 — and, stealing 
 
 "The livery of the court of Heaven to serve tlie Devil in," 
 
 they take the name of Democracy, and agree to 
 support James Buchanan, in every aspect a most 
 appropriate candidate for such a fusion. He is 
 Federal, he is conservative, both Whig and Dem- 
 ocrat, and is eminently an old fogy. The con- 
 vention that nominated him adopted a platform 
 of about this purport: 
 
 1. Opposition to the improvement of rivers 
 and harbors. 
 
 2. Opposition to a national bank. 
 
 3. In favor of the veto power. 
 
 4. Free religion. 
 
 5. Slavery is national. 
 
 6. The fugitive slave law must be enforced at 
 all hazards. 
 
 7. JVo more agitation of the slavery question. 
 
 8. Indorses Kentucky and Virginia resolu- 
 tions of 1799. 
 
 9. Supports Missouri border ruffianism, and in 
 favor of extending slavery into Kansas by such 
 means. 
 
 10. Compromise measures of lb50. 
 
 11. New States with or without slavery. 
 
 12. Kansas and Nebraska ditto. 
 
 13. In favor of free seas and free trade the 
 world over, except the Gulf of Mexico, which 
 shall be free only to America. 
 
 14. Europe, Asia, and Africa, keep hands off 
 from the western hemisphere, or we'll fight. 
 We are the biggest toad in this puddle, and can 
 manage all the tad-poles if let alone. 
 
 15. We want Cuba; we are strong enough to 
 take her; therefore she is ours. 
 
 16. We v/ill support Walker's government. 
 
 17. In favor of building a railroad to Califor- 
 nia, but for the Constitution. 
 
 I believe this enumeration presents, not un- 
 fairly, the spiritof the Cincinnati platform; seven 
 of the seventeen points go to show their attach- 
 ment to slavery. 
 
 In process of fusion and to |^ fused with this 
 party, is the Know Nothing or American party, 
 with Millard Fillmore as its nominee for the time 
 being. As this party, like the Buchanan party, 
 makes slavery the leading or controlling element 
 in its creed, and being the weaker, it will natu- 
 rally fuse with the stronger. As evidence of 
 what it will do in the future, we may judge by 
 , the past and present*. In the contest in this 
 House these two parties fused in their votes for 
 Speaker, on Smith of Virginia, Oliver of Mis- 
 souri, Porter of Missouri, and Aiken of South 
 Carolina. Since the election of Speaker, on all 
 questions where slavery was in any way involved, 
 they have acted together as naturally as if they 
 were consolidated. In the Brdbks, Keitt, and 
 Herbert cases, they were together. In the con- 
 tested-election cases of Allen and Archer, of Illi- 
 nois, of Chapman and Bennett of Nebraska, of 
 
 Whitfield and Reeder of Kansas, they cooperated. 
 In the Senate, Benjamin, Jones, Feared, and 
 Pratt, have gone over to Buchanan. In view of 
 these facts, for all practical purposes of the ap- 
 proaching presidential election, it is safe to say 
 that the Know Nothings, or American party, will 
 unite with the pro-slavery Buchanan party. 
 
 Opposed to this combination the people have 
 presented Colonel John C. Fremont, upon a plat- 
 form embodying the following declaration of prin- 
 ciples: 
 
 1. Opposition to the extension of slavery into 
 free Territories, the admission of Kansas as a 
 free State, and the restoration of the Government 
 to the principles of Washington and Jefferson. 
 
 2. Maintenance of the right to life, liberty, and 
 the pursuit of happiness, as the chief end of gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 3. Congress has no power under the Constitu- 
 tion to legalize slavery in the Territories. 
 
 4. It is the duty of Congress to prohibit polyg- 
 amy and slavery in the Territoi-ies. 
 
 5. That it is our duty to punish the frauds, 
 outrages, and usurpations in Kansas. 
 
 6. In i^vor of river and harbor improvements. 
 
 7. In favor of the Pacific railroad. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, this movement of the people to 
 bring the Government back to the control of first 
 principles, is imperiously demanded on account 
 of the wickedness of this Ailministration. It is 
 no party movement — no contest, as of old, be- 
 tween Whigs ami Democrats, about questions of 
 bank and tariil^- out, sir, it is a struggle for civil 
 liberty — for the rights of man. It reaches fun- 
 damental principles, the very foundation of our 
 Government. It is to decide whether the best 
 energies — indeed the entire powerof this Govern- 
 ment shall be devoted to the perpetuation of lib- 
 erty or slavery. There is no half-way work — no 
 half-way house — no compromise in this struggle. 
 It is the beginning of the end, and " may God 
 prosper the right!" 
 
 Colonel John C. Fremont, of all men, is tAc 
 man for the crisis. He is no hackneyed poli- 
 tician, but is fresh from the people. The laurels 
 that crown his brow were earned in no partisan 
 contest, but were awarded hiai by the entire 
 country for his achievements in science — his in- 
 trepidity of character — his vast discoveries — for 
 benefits conferred upon his country and the world. 
 He opened up to view and settlement a vast empire 
 in the West. He scaled the Rocky Mountains, 
 and at his bidding California sprang in to existence, 
 and now out of her abundance is filling the world 
 with wealth. His spirit hovered over her in her 
 infancy, and taught her the lessons of freedom. 
 He discovered and pointed out the " passes" 
 through which she has received her population. 
 He brought her into the sisterhood of States, 
 and, as United States Senator, provided her with 
 wholesome laws. He has called the commerce 
 of Asia across the Pacific to our western shore. 
 By his own almost unaided achievements, he has 
 established a world-wide reputation for himself, 
 reflecting honor and glory upon his country. 
 
 " In the bright lexicon of youth, 
 Which fate reserves for a glorious manhood, 
 There is no such word as fail .'" 
 
J 
 
 8 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 This was his motto in early life, and most faith- 
 fully has he lived up to it. When stout hearts 
 quailed and weather-beaten cheeks blanched, his 
 cry was "onward!" and his career has been on- 
 ward and upward, surmounting all difficulties. 
 The voice of resolution kept uttering within him, 
 " there is no such word as fail." His character 
 (for it is formed) belongs to the American people, 
 and if we desired a model for youth to follow, 
 we need notgo abroad for the contribution. If it 
 wereasked, "Whathashe done that should entitle 
 
 011 897 439 b 
 
 him to be Pi 
 
 MADE HIMSEI 
 
 Fremont has 
 fame — its we 
 done more ? 
 
 The energy and endurance of a Bonaparte — 
 the intellect of a Jefferson — the firmness of a 
 Jackson, are qualities ho possesses, fitting him 
 for the exalted station of Chief Magistrate, and 
 are requisite to recover for our common country 
 the glory that has been lost by mal-administration . 
 
 Printed at the OfBce of the Congressional Globe. 
 
011897 439 6^1 
 
 ^ 
 
 HOLUNGER 
 pH8J 
 
 MILL RUN F3-1543