i. '1 -^ •0^ ^ ^^* -v^ ^^ ^ <-. 1^' V ■■>y Q-. . « ' . V A, ■"^^ • A°: ^--/ '^■' '^^-^*' ..<^ *^ C "\i5 < V ..^^ k:?-^^ •-P "^ O * m , O S^ . '??5^' .^ ».^ "oo SPEECH OF J. i_JL OF EUTHERFOED COUNTY, Upon the Bell Resolutions, IN THE HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES, February 8, 1858. The House having under consideration the fol- lowing preamble and resolution from the Sen- ate, viz. : "Whereas, The act of 1820, commonly called the Missouri Compromise act, was inconsistent with the principles declared and laid down in the acts of 1 850, better known as the Compromise Acts of that year; and Whereas, The Missouri Compromise act was a palpable wrong done to the people of the Slave- holding States, and should have been repealed ; and Whereas, The p»incip!es of the Kansas Ne- braska Bill meet our unqualified approbation, and should have received the cordial support of our Senators and Representatives in Congress; Whereas, One of those Senators, the Hon. John Bell, in a speech delivered against the Kansas-Ne- braska Bill, May 25, 185-1, said: "A noble, gener- ous, and highminded Senator from the South, with- in the last few days, before the final vote was taken on the bill, appealed to me in a manner which I cannot narrate, and which affected me most deeply. The recollection of it affects me and influences my feelings now, and ever will. I told that honorable Senator that there was one feature in the bill Avhich made it impossible that I should vote for it, if I waived all other objec- tions. I said to others who had mads appeals to me on the subject, that while it would afford mo great pleasure to be sustained by my constituents, yet, if I was not, I would resign my seat here the moment I found my course upon the subject was not acceptable to them. As for my standing as a public man, and whatever prospects a public man of long service in the councils of the country might bo supposed to have, I would resign them ail with_ pleasure. I told that gentleman that, if upon this or any other great question affecting the interest of the South I should find my views con- flicting materially with what should appear to be the settled sentiment of that section, I should feel it my imperative duty to retire. I declare here to-day that if my countrymen of Tennessee shall declare against my course on this subject, and that shall be ascertained to a reasonable certainty, I will not be seen in the Senate a day afterwards." Therefore, Be it resolved by the General Assem- bly of the State of Tennessee, That we fully con- cur with the Hon. John Bell, as to the duty of a Senator, when the voice of his constituency has de- clared against him on a questiou materially affect- ing their interest. Be it further resolved, That in our opinion the voice of Mr. Bell's countrymen of Tennessee, in the recent election, declared against his course on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, a qestion of vital im- portance to the South." Mr. Richardson said:— Mr. Speaker: If the House will indulge me a short time, I propose to make a few remarks on this subject, and in answer to some of the strange positions which have been taken by my Democratic friends in this debate. I shall pursue a different course from any hereto- fore taken on this subject, and will start out with the assertion that the Compromise of 1850 was acqui- esced in, and endorsed by all the Union men every where in the South. Does any Democrat on the floor deny this ? li there beone, let him speak, because this declaration is my starting point, and I take it as agreed to by all of you. (No one objec- ted.) Let us now see what was the compromise of 1850, and what principles did it establish. Tho Coiupron>lfl3 of lS5d teeludcd six measures, in five Acts, viz: An act making certain propositions to Texas; and establishing a territorial governraentforNew Mexico; an act to establish territorial government for Utah; an act for the admission of California into the Union; nn act for the capture of fugitive slave?; and an act to abolish the slave trade iu the District of Colum- bia. Among other things this Compromise of 1850 nettled, or thought it had settled: 1st. The slavery controversy, by leaving the ques- tion to the people of tho Territories, to be by them settled, in their State Constitutions. 2d. It declared the principle of non-intervention, which was, that Congress would not legislate on the subject of slavery, by establishing or prohibiting it in the territories, nor permit the territorial Legisla- tures to do so. 8d. It required all the acts of the territorial Le- jtielaturcs to be submitted to the Congress of the United States, and to be approved, or they should not become larvs. 4th. It refused to disturb the Missouri Compro- mise line of 1820, commonly called the line of 86° 30'. . ^ 5th. It restricted the right of suffrage m the ter- ritories of Utah and New Mexico to citizens of the United States, and to those recognized as citizens by the treaty made between the United States and Mexico. It is all important in this discussion, m order to have clear and distinct views of the points in.issue, that they be presented fairly and truthfully, and so distinctly presented that every man may see them and understand them. That there may be no quibbling nor shuffling in this matter, I shall now proceed to prove thepropo- pitions which have been laid down, and request my democratic friends to note them. In proof of the first and second propositions, see the territorial act for New Mexico, Sec. 2, p. 447, Minots' edition of Statutes at large, P 849-50, and closing the section, you will read, '^And provided further. That when admitted as a State the said ter- ritory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into tho Union with or without slavery as their con- stitution may prescribe at the time of their admis- sion." At page 453, idem. Sec 1, you will find the Kime provision in the territorial act for Utah. Mind you now. Congress refused to establish or prohibit slavery in New Mexico and Utah, and prohibited any act by the territorial Legislatures on the subject, confining it entirely to the State Constitution. In proof of the third proposition, see same book, p. 449, sec. 7, for New Mexico; and p. 455, sec. 6, for Utah, and you will read, "That all the laws pass- ed by the Legislative Assembly (of New Mexico and Utah) and the Governor, shall be submitted to the Congress of the United States, and if disapproved, shall be null and of no effect." In proof of the fourth proposition, I give you what Mr. Douglas himself said in his report which he made to the Senate on the 4th of Jan., 1854, when he offered his Nebraska-Kansas Bill. In this report, after alluding to the Missouri ®omproniise of 18'iO, and the views of different statesmen on the SBbject of holding elaves in the tenitorie^^, and by what power it mny bo done, Mr. Dougla?, Ciiair- man of the Committe on Territories, said aa above cited: "Your committee do not feel themselveH called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850. As Congress deemed it wise and prudent to re- frain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexi- can laws, or by an act declaratory of the truo intent of the Constitution, and the extent of tho protection afford by it to slave property in tho territories, so your committee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion, either by af- firming or repealing the 8th section of the Missouri act, (the line of 3G° SO') or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the constitution in respect to tho legal points in dispute. "Your committee deem it fortunate for the peace of tho country and the security of the Union, that the controversy then resulted (in 1850)_in the adop- tion of the compromise measures which the two great political parties, with singular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their faith, and pro- claimed to the world as a final settlement of the controversy and an end of the agitation. A due re- spect, therefore, for the avowed opinions of Sena- tois, as well as a proper sense of patriotic duty, en- joins upon your committee the propriety and neces- sity of a strict adherence to the principles, and even a literal adoption of the enactments of that adjustment in all their territorial bills so far as tho same are not locally inapplicable." I wish now to direct the attention of the IIouso to another thing as proof of my fourth proposition, which will not only prove that the compromise of 1850, did not lepeal the Missouri restriction, or compromise of 1820, but that it re-affirmed and re-endorsed this restriction. If you will read tho 5th article of the 1st section of the act proposing certain ccnditions to Texas, (one of the compromise acts of 1850) you will find t^at Mr. Mason, of Va., off"ered the following proviso, which was adopted and is now a part of the act— "ProyffZwZ, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to im- pair or°qualify anything contained in the 3d article of the 2d section of the joint resolution for annex- ing Texas to the United States, approved March 1st, 1845, either as regards the number of the States that may be hereafter formed out of the State of Texas, or othenvise." What is the 3d article of the 2d section of tho joint resolution for annexing Texas? Why it reads in this wise— "In such State or States as may be formed out of the territory (of Texas) north of the Missouri Compromise line (36 30) slavery shall be forever prohibited." W^ell then, Mr. Mason did not understand that the compromise of 1850 re- pealed the compromise of 1820, for he, himself, in his proviso to the Texas Bill of 1850, re-affirmed and re-endorsed the restriction lien of 36 30, or the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Mark now, that Douglas says that the Compro- ini«c of 1850 neither affirmed nor repealed tho Compromise of 1820— and that the committee bad determinud to pursue the same course in icfeieiice K [yto Nebraska and Kausas, and had also determined to adopt tho same principle in these bills, which the ,. "Compromise ot 1850 had engrafted in tho bills for "^ New Mexico and Utah. Did Douglass and his com- ^^"uiittee do these things? We shall see. V"- In proof of the 5th proposition, see Little and Brown's statutes, page 449, section 6, and page 4o4, section 5, and you will liud in the territorial acts ior New Mexico and Utah, the following provision: "■•Provided, That the right of suftVage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United Stales, including those recognized as citi- T.ens by the treaty with the Republic of Mexico, concluded February 2d, 1848." I have now established all five of my propositions, and placed their denial beyond a controversy. No uian can deny them — no man dare deny them, for the proof has been adduced to eslablish them in every particular. Let me now, Mr. Speaker, briefly recapitulate my positions, which I have proved: The Compromise of 1R50 left the subject of slav- ery to be settled by the people in their State Cou- btitutions. It declared that Congress would not legislate on the subject for the territories, nor recognize the power of the territorial legislatures to do so, there- by establishing truly tho doctrine of non-interven- tion. U required the acts of the Territorial Legisla- tures, on every subject, to be submitted to the Con- gress of the United States, and to be by it approv- ed, or they should be null and void. It refused to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820. It restricted the right of voting in the territo- ries to citizens of the United States, or to those re- cognized as citizens by treaty stipulations. I now come to the Nebraska Kansas Act, and I say that it violated the territorial provisions of New Mexico and Utah, and thereby violated a part of the Compromise of 1850. 1st. The Nebraska-Kansas act violated the Com- promise of 1850, by permitting the Territoral Legis- lature to legislate on the subject of slavery. The 32d section of the Nebraska-Kansas act declares that "it is the true intent and meaning of the act not to legislate slavery (by Congress) into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu- late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States'." Mr. Cass took the ground and openly declared that slavery was included in the "domestic institu- tions," and in his exposition and explanation of the Nicholson letter, he said : "Is there one man on this floor (United States Senate) who has now any doubt as to the true interpretation of the letter? Now, that tho excitement ot an election has passed away, and we can all look coolly to things as they are, is there any man heie, or elsewhere, who can p>it any other construction upon this letter than that which its words plainly import, that, in the mean- inie, during the pende?ic;/ot' the Ifirriforial govern- ments, they should be allowed to manage their own concerns in their own way ? Does not slavery come within this category?" So spoke Gen. Cass. The Kansas act not only repealed the compromise of 1820, of which I shall speak after awhile, but It :i actually repealed all tho hiws establiching w pro- hibiting slavery in the Teirltory, prior to the Afis- souri Compromise. Now, it must be rocoUoctod that sbvery existed in tho Louisiana Territory, (uml Kansas is apart of the Territory) prior to tlio Miv souri restriction of 1820, and the Missouri restric- tion being imconstitutional, as my Democratic friends assert, and as the friends of the Kansas act asserted at its passage, and as the Supreme Court has decided, if the Congress of the United States had not in the Kansas act repealed the laws estab- lishing slavery in the Territory, prior to the i)assago of the Missouri Compromise, would not slavery have existed in the Territory of Kansas by virtue of the lev loci, or law of tho land ? Mo-)t assuredly it would, and Kansas would be a slave Territory. IJut the Kansas act repealed the lex loci which existed and tolerated slavery in the Territory as a part of the Lousiana purchase, and gave to the territorial Legislature the power to pass enactments on the subject — the power to prohibit or interdict slavery if tliey chose to do so. Li this, the supporters of the Kansas act violated the doctrine of "«o?t-intervention." During the pendency of the Compromise billa of 1850, the celebrated letter of Gen. Cass to Mr. Nich- olson, and every other subject almost, connected with the powers of Congress over the Territories, and with the powers of Territorial Legislators them- selves, were discussed in Congress, and the records show some strange things. The Democrats on this floor, and in this debate, have again and again asserted that their party advo- cated the doctrine of non intervention, and one of them announced that Mr. Bell had never committed himself, to his knowledge, to the principle of non- intervention. Let us see if this is correct. I guess, Mr. Speaker, that gentleman will hear a strange re- port when I read the record, and that they will find some of their leaders in strange company. If you will refer to the Congressional Globe you will find that Mr. Berrien offered an amendment to the Terri- torial Bill in these words, viz: "But no law shall be passed interfering with the piimary disposal of the soil, nor establishing, or prohibiting African slavery." Here now, is tho true doctrine — true non-iutciven- vention. How was the vote? In the affirmative, or for theametidinent, I find the names of Mr. Boll, Mr. Clay, and also the name of Mr. Webster. In the negative, or ar;ainH the amendment, I find the names of Cass and Douglas, Democratic leaders, and the high priests of the party, associated with Chase, Seward and Hale, who are denounced as Black Re- publicans. What think you of this? Here, the question of non-intervention is fairly and plainly proposed — Mr. Bell votes for it, and Messrs. Cass and Douglas vote against it! If then, your leaders at the North are the advocates of non-intervention, why did they not vote for this amendment? The Kansas act established the doctrine of "Terri- torial Sovereignty," called by the Democrats, popU' lar sovereignty, and nick-named "squatter sover- eignty." This new doctrine, territorial sovereignty, wag first promulged by Gen. Cass in his letter to Mr. Nicholson in 1848, and I recollect very well and that during the rresidential canvass of that year, one of the leaders o! the Democratic party in thia state made a speech in my eounty town, and as the whigs had no champion present to reply to him, it fell to my lot, by the calls of my friends, to reply myself. 'l felt ill prepared to reply to the speech of of such an able debater and distinguished a poli- tician, and took the stand with fear and trembling. I thought and believed that I could build up a speech in reply, on this celebrated letter and made it the principal part of my argument. I read_ the letter and declared to the assembly that the prmcj- ple of Territorial sovereignty was embodied in it and that under its operation not another slave state would ever be added to the Union. The dis tinguished speaker replied after I had concluded my remarks, and charged me with misrepresenting Gen. Cass, and that no such principle could be fairly deduced from the letter. In that canvass, the Whigs every where in this country made the same charge which I did, and every where the Democrats denied it, and charged us with misrepre Fcnting Gen. Cass, and asserted that he held no Buch doctrine, nor did any such principle exist in the Nicholson letter. It turned out, however, that during the next Congress, Mr. Cass himself was called^on to explain what he did mean by this mysterious announcement, and after he had made the explanation, which was precisely as we had explained it, a distinguished Senator called on him to know where the people of a Territory got this power from? Mr. Cass answered, "from God Al- mighty, where wo get all our power." Mr. Speaker, was not this a strange answer to be "iven by a man— by a statesman who acknow- fedges the Constitution of the U. S. States, to be our highest pohtical law! But sir, the answer certainly places the gentleman in the class of some Northern Senators who contend for, and advocate, "a higher law." , , . • Some rich things transpired during the debate in Congress on this principle of territorial sovereignty — the power of a territorial Legislature to legislate as they pleased. I want to read you the remarks of some Southern gentlemen and of some also from the North on this new doctrine which was first announc- od by Mr. Cass — afterwards adopted by Mr. Douglass, and incorporated in the Kansas act; and alsoUie views of some distinguislied Senators as to the powers of a territorial Legislature. I will first read vou what Mr. Jeff. Davis said, "The Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas) says that the inhabitants of a territory have a light to decide what their in- stitutions shall be. When? By what authority?— How many of them? Does the Senator tell me as ho did once before, from the authority of God?— Then one man may go into a territory and establish the fundamental law fur all time to come. I claim that a people having sovereignty over a territory have power to decide what their institutions shall be. That is the democratic doctrine, as I have al- ways understood it ; and under our constitution, the inhabitants of the territories acquire that right whenever the United States surrenders the sovereignty to them by consenting that they shall become States of the Union, and they have no such right before. It is not the inhabitants of the territory, but the people as a political body, the people organized, who have the right; and on becoming a State, bv the authority of the Tiiuted States, exercising sovereignty over the territory, they may establish a fundamental law for all time U) come " This, Mr. Speaker, is my view of the sub- ject and 1 understand that Mr. Bell holds this opin- ion ' Do the democrats on this floor oppose this doctrine? We shall see before we get through with this discussion. But, sir, I have more democartic testimony to give against this "higher law' do«trme of territorial sovereignty, as advocated by Mr. Oasd and Senator Douglass, and now very beautifully ex- emplified by the Governor (or late Governor ot Utah.) , Let me read you what Senator Butler, a true and genuine Southern man, and a Democrat of the pur- est sart, thought of this doctrine. Mr. Butler said: "Sir, I was going on to speak of the people haying a right, independantly of the Constitution, by which even Conn-ress derives its power, to make whatever laws they please for themselves. This is, indeed,^ a new idea. The principle which pervades all legis- lion upon this subject is, that a Territorial Legisla- lature is given bv Congress, subject to all the limi- tations imposed by Congress, and it has no powers except those which are given to it by Congress. In other words, it has power to legislate upon those subjects onlv which are specified in the grant, ihis, I am aware' is inconsistant with the broad notice that those squatters, the moment they put then- feet on the soil, are freeholders, and are entitled to exercise all the privileges of citizens of a State. How do you like this ? These are the words of a democrat. Can you deny it? Where,Iagam ask do you get this doctrine of territorial soyer- eigrity'^ But, sir, I have more testimony against the democratic party yet. Let me now read you what Mr. King, the democrat lor whom you all vot- ed for Vice President, said about this uovol and extraordinary doctrine. , . Mr. King said : "I am opposed to giving to the Territorial Legislatures any power either to prohibnt or introduce slavery. * * / I difter with the Senator from Illinois in toto J:'^''^^ his argument is a free soil speech ; it is the W ilmot proviso, so far as the argument goes. ^ "Sir I never did agree with my friend from Michi- gan 'in regard to what is supposed to be the con- struction of the Nicholson letter. I never did be- lieve that a Territorial Legislature possessed any power whatever, but such as is delegated to it^by the Congress of the United States. * * . . „x Sir what do you require of them." (The territories?) "That they shall pass no law that is not to be sub- mitted to Congress for its approbation, leaving them strictly to the control of the Congress of the United States in every act that they may pass. And yet, gentlemen get up at this day and advocate on ^ the floor of the Senate, the monstrous doctrine that these Territoral Legislatures, consisting of a mere handful of men, should make laws to affect every description of property." _ c ■ . Now sir-, I will give you the testimony of a giant -none of your "Uttle giants;" but of a man who was indeed a giant-a nian-a northern man, who stood above all other men, as an expounder of the Constitution. I allude to Mr. Webster. He said on the subject of territorial power to legislate on slav- ery "B'lt the whole .lucsii-.n hi this case, 1 uu- i) derstand to be just tliii : Whether the estublisli- iMcnt or exclusiou of Hlavfiy shall bo left to the peo- jile of the territories lo decide when they come to form a State government. Nosv it is agreed on all Imnds that it (slavery) is a matter of municipal law. AVe know that if t-livery were introduced into the territories, the moment the people formed a State government they could abolish it. On the other hand, if it were prohibited, the moment they form- ed a State government they could introduce it, if they saw fit. Nevertheless, it is not upon that ground that I proceed, though I think it is a very proper ground. It conceive that the proper mode of proceeding is to leave this matter to State Lrg- islatioii, after tlic Territories sliall have become State.i.^^ Here, sir, is the true ground — the true doctrine for all men to advocate, and especially for us of the South. I endorse it most cordially. Does any democrat on this fieor object to it ? Here is the man who has been denounced again and again, by the democrats of the south, as an enemy to the south — as an abolitionist, and by every other name that could prejudice our people against him, advo- cating the only doctrine which can possibly save the south from being over run by free soilers in the trrritories. Do you oppose Mr. Bell because he holds this doctrine V Do you oppose it? Let us have no dodgmg — no evasion of the point — come up to the figiit, and tell us whether you endorse this doctrine, or the "higher law," squatter saver- eign doctrine of Cass and Douglass. Mr. Speaker: What a horrible state of things is existing in Utah at this time ! It is all the legitimate result of this new fangled idea aimounced in the Kansas act that the inhabitants of a Territory have the right to legislate as they please. In olden times, and up to the passage of the Kansas bill, all the acts of the territorial legislatures had to be approved by Congresss before they became laws, but just as soon as you announced the new doctrine that a Territorij ■was a sovereignty, why Utah set up for herself. We never had any trouble with Brighara Young nor his people in Utah while the old doctrine was practiced and Congress supervised their legislation, but as soon as you announced that a Territory was a sov- ereignty, why Brigham set up for himself, as he had the right to do under your declaration. I ask, sir, is it not best in view of the character of the Territories which are now being organized, and which are to continue to be organized for a great many years to come, — I say, sir, is it not best that Congress should have the supervision of their teiri- toriallegislation? If you will think for a moment where they are situated, of what classes of human beings they are to be peopled, will you not conclude that it is safest for the purity of our goverment, and for the perpetuity of our institutions that Congress shall exercise its guardianship over them as it did in the days of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Mad- ison, Monroe, Jackson and Polk? The laws enacted by Kansas were not required to be submitted to Congress for its approval, as the laws of Utah and New Mexico were, and therefore, in this respect, the Kansas act violated the Com- promise of 1850. The Kansas act violated the Compromise of 1850, in repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820, as I Lave shown. The Kansas act viulatcd tin) Compromise of 1S50 in permitting persons to vote wiio had only taken an oath to support the Constitution, and declared ihclr iutnition of becoming citizens! The Compro- mise acts declared that none should vote but citi- zen?, aM(i those recognized as citizens l)y treaty stipnlaiions. I have now shown, Mr. Speaker, that instead of the Kansas act carrying out and establishing the principles of the Conipi-omise of ISSi), it has posi- tively violated the Compromise — established new and dangerous principles, and which are well cal- culated to arouse the fears of every man who loves good government and has any respect for the fath- ers of our country. Was Mr. Bell, then, under any obligation to voto for the Kansas bill, believing that it was a mis- chievous measure, and calculated to do harm? I say he was not. And may I not appeal to you. Sir, and every gentleman on this floor, if his predictions of the evils which would result from its passage, have not befallen the country in even a worse form than he predicted ? You know they have ; you all know it, and yet you call on him to resign, and say his countrymen have decided againsthim, M'hen not one of you dare advocate the principles which ho opposed. What principle now — name it — what principle in the Kansas bill do you advocate which Mr. Bell opposed ? Speak out. Ah, there is one, and what is it ? Why, Mr. Bell was opposed to the repeal of the Compromise of 1820, — the Missouri restriction ! Yes, and so were the men wlio made the Compro- mise of 1850, and so were all those old patriots and statesmen, who are now denominated by you as old fogies, and enemies of the South. Well, but you say in your preamble, that "the principles of the Kansas act meet your unqualified approbation." Which one of them ? I have examin- ed all that are peculiar to the act, which do you ap- prove ? Territorial sovereignty ? Alien sufirage ? The principle for the inhabitants of a territory to legislate as they please? No matter who they are, or how many? Did you tell our people that you advocated these principles? Did you tell them that you opposed Mr. Bell because he was opposed to these principles? No sir, you did no such thing. Your whole cry was that Mr. Bell had affiliated i with the Black Bepublicaus, and was opposed to the Kansas bill, when neither you nor many of those to whom you talked, knew anything about the prin- ciples of the bill which were peculiar to it, and which Mr. Bell opposed. Mr. Speaker: It would bo a fortunate thing for the American people, if this Kansas act had never been passed. I believe. Sir, (and I speak for myself alone) that this celebrated Kansas Bill has been the cause of more mischief to our country — and will continue to be the source of more evil, more jeal- ousy, and more sectionalism amongst our people, than all the acts of our Government beside. I be- lieve, sir, that it was concieved in, sin ; that it was shapcned in iniquity, and that its tendency has been to evil, and that continually. Ever since its introduction into Congress, the national council has been the theatre of personal abuse, and sectional harangues. Ever since its passage, the political skies have been o'ercast with clouds of portentous a appcaraiicp, and anon, tba thumlor of dimuption, rfisuiiion ami civil war, have been heard in our bor- der». Would that I could erase from the etntute book that urifortunatfi act, ort''«i some mighty phjsieian would arise who could administer aletheaii draught to the nation that it might forever forget that such iiu act was ever passed; or that we could summon from the spirit land a Clay and a Webster, to heal the dissentions of our people. Mr. Speaker, was it not an unfortunate act. Has it settled anything? True, it has broken down the "restriction line of 36, oO"; and according to the decision of the Supreme Court, a man has a right to carry and hold his negroes in any territory belong- ing to the United States, — but did he not have this right before? Most assuredly ho did, for the right PS secured to him by the Constitution of the United States, as declared by the Federal Judiciary. The Kansas act then did not settle this question. But what did it do? It broke up and destroyed a com- promise made by our fathers, which wa& made to heal the divisions of our people — which did heal them and which might have stood in all time to come, to the injury of no man on the face of the earth. Mr. Speaker, I never advocated the justice of this "restriction clause." The 7iecessitij for such an act ought never to have existed. We were all one people — bound together by one common bond, and liad one destination. But in an unguarded hour an evil spirit sprung up in our midst, and his fiendish yells fell on the ears of our sages "like a fire bell at night." It was then sir, when the fears of our fathers were aroused for the safety of the only citadel of human liberty on this greeu earth, that they in their wisdom and patriotism said: "That slavery nor voluntary servitude, except for crime, shall nev- er exist north of 3G deg. So', north latitude." Well sir — There was but little in this declaration — practically, it amounted to nothing at all, if you please — for Mr. Clay is said to have laughed at the idea of how small a thing should have quieted the nation, and restored peace and good feeling. Small things sometimes produce mighty results. Confi- dence alone, will enable all the Banks in the nation to resume specie payment to-morrow, and confidence will enable them to continue just so long as they please, and yet confidence will not put one silver dol- lar more in their vaults! There is magic in the word. But the restriction was uncoiistitutional, says one, and ought to have been removed! So also was the purchase of Louisiana; and the only difference be- tween the two acts my be told in a few words — Mr. Jefferson knew when he purchased Louisiana, that he was doing an unconstitutional act; but the authors and supporters of the "restriction," did the actiunwittingly. Mr. Jefferson was sustained, and is now sustained for doing an act which he believed to be unconstitutional, while the authors of the "restric- tion act" are condemned for doing what they be- lieved they had the right to do! Let the "restriction act of 1820" have been con- stitutional or uncoustituonal— let it have been j^er se, right or wrong — and small in itself, and insignificant as it may have been, yet by its repeal wo have melancholy exemplification (to ub9 tho language of one of our greatest Statesmen) how small a share of huuiau wisdom is necessary to destroy a nation'n happines". The meanest pigmy, clothed with authority, and'armed with a sceptre, can, in a mo- ment, destroy a nation's prosperity, which all tho intellectual giants of the land cannot repair in a' series of years. •■ That evil has grown out of the repeal of the nci of 1820 is too true to admit of a doubt. None but' those who are blind and deaf to the signs of the! times, can but fear that the cloud which now lowers! o'er the plains of Kansas miy contain the thunderl which will shake this Union to its centre, even ifj it should not break up its very foundations. To that unlbrtunate Territory, prematurely born, peace has been a stranger. Tlie very first appointment for Governor to Kan- sas was unhappy and impolitic. For the South had been taught by the southern democrats, who supported the Kansas-Nebraska bill, that under the provisions of the act, Nebraska might be a free stale, but that Kansas tvould be a slave state. It is true that some Northern democrats said that the bill, "was a bill for freedom and that under its pro- visions not another inch of Slave territory would ever be added to the U. States;" but ^ill, we knew that doctors would disagree; and some were so gul- lable as to believe that "Buck, Breck and/r«e Kan- sas" meant nothing more than Buchanan for P esi- dent — Breckenridge for Vice President, and Kan- sas to do as she pleases. Well, Mr. Speaker, Buch- anan was elected President — Breckenridge^ Vico President; but what became of Kansas? I said that the first appointment for Governor was unhappy and impolitic. If Mr. Pierce, the then President, and his advisers, had desired any compromise between the North and South as to the partitioning of this immense Territory, why did he not appoint a slaveholder Governor of Kan sas, and a non-slave holder Governor of Nebraska? ] Strange to say, he appointod a frcc-soiler for Kan- sas, and a slave holder for Nebraska. This act was one of the first to arouse my sus- picion of the sincerity of the President towards the South. I always have believed that he acted in bad faith towards us, and if the appointments have been reversed a different state of things would have ex- isted and Kansas inight have been a slave State. But impolitic counsels prevailed — a free-soiler was appointed and from Reeder to Walker we have had free-soilers sent as Governors to Kansas, and noth- ing but discord, strife and civil war have prevailed. All the evil consequences, worse even than antici- pated by Mr. Bell, have resulted from the passage of the Kansas bill, and no mortal man can tell what may not yet happen before peace is restored to that unfortunate Territory. Gentlemen say "that the principles of the Kansas' bill meet their unqualified approbation." What principles ? I have examined all that argpeculiar to it and violative of the compromise of 1850, which one do they endorse that Mr. B. opposed ? Come up now gentlemen, face the music ! Tell us which one of the principles /)ccM/«ar to the Kansas bills do you approve? Is it "territorial sovereignty ?" No, because you told tho people in the late canvass that there was no such principle in it, and if there wa?, you did not approve it. Do vuti ijppioTo the principle, coii?»equenl, Hpoti this soveifignty, of permiuing tlio teriiiorial legis- latures to lej^islate na they please itidependent ol'the supervision of Congress, as they were perrailted to do in the Kansas act? and violiitive of the territo- rial acts for New Mexico and Utah, as per compro- mise 18-30 ? You dare not Fay yea, becaus" if you do, you stultify yourselves when you s.iy "that the Kansas act carried out the pi inciples of the com- promise of 18501 Do you advocate the right of persons to vote be- fore they become citizens? If you do, you again violate the principle of the compromise of 1850, which permitted none but citizens to vote ! For what then do you condemn Mr. Bell, and why do you call on him to resign ? Have you dis- cussed those principles before the people? Have the people decided against Mr. Bell on any one of these principles? I say emphatically they have not and will not. Tis true, Democracy has tri- umphed in Tennessee — you have a majority here and you use it to expel Mr. Bell from the U. S. Senate; but I again declare it is not because of his oppositkn to the principles peculiar to the Kansas bill. The Kansas bill is a heterogeneous mixture of • -nrie and novel principles unheard of, or not advo- •d before in any territorial bill since the organi- zation of our government, and like the democratic phiform, to which the gentleman alluded, was made up )f all sorts of ingredients to delude and charm tb'; people both North and South, They remind mn of the charmed pot in Macbeth, and having al- ' .'d to the simile before my people, I will here jat it. The weired sisters were engaged in mak- 1' ;:■ a charm, and you recollect, Mr. Speaker, that terrible were the ingredients which they put in it. Let me recite those put in by the second witch, calling them over aa she deposited them in the bailing cauldron — "Fillet of a fenny snake, In the cauldron boil and bake. , Eye of newt and toe of frog — ': ^ AVool of bat and tongue of dog; Adder's fork and blind worm's sting — Liziard's leg and owlet's wing, Forma charm of powerful trouble; In the cauldron boil and bubble." When the three sing : «. Black spirits and white, Red spirits and gray. Mingle, mingle, mingle, You that mingle, may." Yes, sir, and they did mingle, and such a ming- iing was never witnessed before, as when this Cin- cinnati platform was adopted. A word now, Mr. Speaker, as to Mr. Bell, and I f-hall conclude. Mr. Bell is the oldest public servant now alive in Tennessee; I mean he has been in public life longer than any other man in Tennessee. He was born in this (Davidson) county, and com- menced the practice of law at a very early age in the adjoining county of Williamson. In the year Ml?, he^was elected by the mana- gers of a fourth of July celebration to deliver an oration, which ho did, and before he left tho ground he was nominated by public acclaim as a candidate to represent tho county in the Senatorial branch of the Gcnetal Assembly, which waa to convene in Ifie city of Knoivilio on tho Srd Monday of Sept. fol- lowing. And although Mr. Bell had only ono month to canvass, and had also an opponent al- ready in the field — a gentleman of tried abilitieti and high qualifications, yet he was elected by a handsome vote, and some say even before he was constitutionally clligible. He served the session, returned to middle Ten- nessee — married, in my county, the daughter of a most excellent and worthy gentleman, and set- tled soon afcerwards in Nashville to pursue tho practice of the law, which he did, until the summer of 1827, when he made the memorable canvass for Congress against a man who was considered the ablest and shrewdest politician in the State — I al- lude to the Hon. Feliz Grundy. It was indeed an exciting and able canvass. They canvassed tho district, then composed of the counties of Davidson, AViiliamson and Rutherford, and every where tho people rushed in crowds to hear the disputants. I shall never forget the scene in my county town, Murfreesboro. The people were wild with anxiety to hear, and a vast mnjtitude convened, a thing then unusual, and unknown in our country. I was but a school boy, and I recollect that many of us left and went to hear the young man meet the champion of many battles. It was the first po- litical speech I ever heard, and I shall never forget the appearance of Mr. Bell on that occasion. As was perfectly natu-ral, ^Ir. Bell being much the younger man, ho had our sympathies. We rejoiced at the result of the debate, and all — every one, I think, left Bell men. He continued to represent the people in Congress after the district was changed, and was once elect- ed Speaker of the House of Representatives. In 1S40, he received the appointment of Secre- tary of war in Gen. Harrison's cabinet, and in 1842 resigned, having filled the office with distinguished ability and to the entire satisfaction of bis friends. He remained in private life until 1847, when ho was elected by an overwhelmning majoriiy to rep- resent the county of Davidson in the popular branch of the General Assembly, and during the session I had the pleasure of helping to elect him a Senator to the Congress of the United States. In 1853 he was re-elected, and his term of office expires, by the Constitution, on the 4th of March, 1859. And now, Mr. Speaker, here is a man who com- menced public \\{q forty years ago — who has spent the vigor of his manhood, and almost the whole of his life in the service of his country, and greatly too, as every public man knows, to his own private injury — who has now grown old in maintaining tho character and dignity of Tennessee in the councils of the nation — whose term of service will expire, at furthest, in a little more than one year from thia time. I say, sir, this man who stands now almost as tho only link, if not the only one, which connects us of the present day to the heroes of the Revolu- tion, and to the fathers of our glorious Constitution, is to bo driven from the Senate, even before his time, by the party, calling itself Democratic ! Well, sir, I have no favors to ask of you for Mr. Bell. Strike him down. We defy you; But remember, wo shall take an appeal to the peop!'^ of Tennessee. Many of vou hopo thnt ha will disobey yonr mnn- i date— I know not. You bucceeded once before in driving from the Senate that old patriot and states- | man, Hugh L. Whit-e, and the people of Tennes see emptied the vials of their wrath on your heads for such an outrageous act. It >nai/ he .10 again. But, Mr. Speaker, who is to succeed him ? Where is your man to fill his place in the Senate? You may strike him down, but who is to fill the seat which he has occupied with such distinguished ability? Whom have you got that can stand as conservator of the peace in these perilous times ? Who, of all your men, can stand in his place in the Senate, and command the respect and confidence of the conflicting sections now at work for the de- struction of our Union ? You have not got the man — he does not belong to your party— you may se- lect, and doubtless will select some one to succeed him, but I imagine his successor, when ho comes to occupy the seat which Mr. Bell has filled with so much credit to himself and honor to his country, will feel very much like Martin Van Buren looked when be was dressed in Gen. JacksonV regimental and commanded to walk in the footsteps of bis illus trious predecessor. Note. ^It is proper to remark that during the de livery of this speech, the speaker was frequently ir terrupted by interrogations from various gentlemer w liich caused many digresions from the course whic he had chalked out for himself. This will explai to those who heard the speech the impossibility 1 writing it out, precisely as it was delivered. Whi! therefore some points, which the speaker regret are necessarily omitted because of his indistinti recollection of them in a running debate, yet tb views of the speaker on all the points pertaining ' the subject under debate, are as fully written o as he is able to do, and in accordance with the not which he had prepared for the occasion, some which were also omitted for want of time. W46 ^-^* im /\ m y- ^^-1 V 7 ' '^ - <^ « "« *