ADMISSION OP KANSAS—A PLEA FOR THE CHEROKEES. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. HORACE MAYNAllD, 
 
 fO OF TENNESSEE, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN TFIE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 ArEIL 11, 1860. 
 
 The House having under consideration the bill for the admission of Kansas into 
 he Union— Mr. MAYNARD said : 
 
 Mr. Speaker : We come to the discussion of Kansas affairs now under 
 very different circumstances from those under which we discussed them 
 two years ago. For more than three years, there had reigned within the 
 limits of that unhappy Territory, anarchy and, civil war. We had heard 
 all over the country of Kansas "outrages," of Kansas "wrongs," of con- 
 tests between "border ruffians" and the emissaries of "emigrant aid socie- 
 ties;" of "bowie knives" and "Sharpe's rifles;" of the wounds of "bleed- 
 ing Kansas," and the defloration of her " virgin soil." It is about two 
 years since Congress passed what may be termed an enabling act, to allow 
 Kansas to come into the Union under what is known as the Lecomptoa 
 constitution, if she chose so to do; or, if she did not, to frame a constitu- 
 tion to suit herself, and come in under its provisions. 
 
 The effect of that legislation upon the affairs of Kansas, every gentle- 
 man will bear me witness, has been to bring quiet and peace to her bor- 
 ders. Since the passage of that law we have heard nothing of these out- 
 rages; nothing of the turbulent proceedings that had disgraced her before 
 that time; and if there were anything else wanted to justify the wisdom 
 of Congress in that legislation, the effect produced by it is certainly that 
 additional justification. Consequently, we are now permitted to consider 
 our obligations towards Kansas coolly, carefully, deliberately, without any 
 of the necessity which everybody supposed to be resting upon us during 
 the last and the previous Congress. We are now permitted to inquire 
 whether she comes here and applies for admission to the Union as a State 
 under such conditions that we are constrained to grant the application. 
 
 In the first place, has she a suflacient population to give her, under the 
 last apportionment, a representation in Congress — I mean has she a popu- 
 lation of ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty persons? The 
 act of the last Congress provided, that when that fact should be ascertained 
 by a census legally taken, she should then, if she chose, be permitted to 
 elect delegates to a convention who might frame for her a constitution, 
 and not before. 
 
 It was suggested by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Pendleton) yester- 
 
 Printed by Lemuel Towers. 
 
,C7 0..' 
 
 day, tliat tbe taking of tbat census was devolved by tlie act upon tlie Fed- 
 eral authorities. I do not think so. Such is not the language of the act. 
 Besides, if the Federal Government had undertaken to make sucli a cen- 
 sus, I caie not how fairly, nor with what amount of pains it mig-ht have 
 been done, if the result had demonstrated a population in the Territory 
 of less than ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty persons, pray 
 tell me — and the question is certainly pertinent — pray tell me what do you 
 sup})ose we should have heard about fraud; about Executive interference, 
 and abuse generally of Executive power; of frauds at the Oxford precinct; 
 of frauds at Kickapoo ; of frauds at the Delaware Crossing; of frauds at 
 Lecompton ; of frauds at Leavenworth; of frauds without limit and with- 
 out number ? It was right, it was proper, that the Territory itself should 
 take the census under her own legislation. 
 
 Mr. Pendleton. Do I understand the gentleman to say that I admitted 
 yesterday that the census should be taken by the Federal authority? 
 
 Mr. Maynard. I understood the gentleman not only to admit it, but to 
 assert that it should have been taken by the Federal authoiity ; and that, 
 not having made an appropriation for this purpose, Congress had waived 
 the necessity of a census. 
 
 Mr. Pendleton. On the contrary, I am well aware that, at the time 
 the conference bill was passed, during the discussion of this feature of the 
 bill, ihe question was raised whether the census should be taken by the 
 Federal authority or the Territorial authority. The opponents of the bill 
 then assei ted that it must be by the Federal authority. The friends of the 
 bill, on the contrary, asserted that it need not be taken by the Federal au- 
 thorities. 
 
 Mr. Maynard. I am very glad that I misunderstood the gentleman, or 
 that be has belter considered the matter and corrects his statement. 
 
 Mr. Pendleton. No, sir ; I made no such statement yesterday. I have 
 not changed my position. 
 
 Mr. Darksdale. I understand that this census was not ordered, even 
 by the Territorial Legislature of Kansas, until after the convention had 
 been held. 
 
 Mr. Maynard. I certainly wish to do the gentleman from Ohio no in- 
 justice, and I will quote from his remarks as published in the Globe. He 
 says, speaking of the refusal of Congress to make an appropriation for 
 the taking of a census in Kansas in conformity with the President's recom- 
 mendation — 
 
 " I cannot believe thnl the Congress of the United States would insist upon a cen- 
 sus ns a condition precedent to tlie admission of a State, when they refused to ap- 
 propriate the necessary amount of money for taking it." 
 
 However that may be, it seems that a census has been taken by the au- 
 thority of the Territory. It seems — no doubt to the surprise of the people 
 there, as it was certaitdy to my surprise, for I frankly admit that, from 
 information derived from an ofHcial and anti-Lecompton source, which I 
 deemed perfectly reliable, I had supposed Kansas to contain a j)opulation 
 much larger than the representative ratio — it seems that, upon taking the 
 census, instead of ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty people, 
 she has barely sixty thousand. 
 
 A Voice. The exact number is seventy-one thousand, 
 Mr. Maynard. I am told the census shows she has seventy-one thous- 
 and. I think there is no reference to a census having been taken of the 
 populatiou of that Territory, in the report of the committee upon this sub- 
 
<;;> 
 vv 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ject. We heard nothing about it in debate, until the fact was brought ont 
 yesterday by a question of the geutieuiau from Mississippi, (Mr. Barksdale,) 
 and I am not familiar with its details. 
 
 I am satisfied, by the argument addressed to the House yesterday by the 
 
 Delegate from Kansas — not from the expression of his opinion to that ef- 
 
 ) feet, but as a fair inference to be derived from his argument — that she has 
 
 oi^ not a suflicievit population to entitle her to admission. Two tilings in thf* 
 
 £>^ gentleman's speech were made veiy clear to my apprehension : one, that 
 
 i/) Kansas had not the requisite population under the legislation of the last 
 
 ^ Congre.-s ; the other, that the Delegate regarded her admission to the Union 
 
 as a foregone conclusion, no matter what obstacles or objections might be 
 
 interposed. 
 
 To pass on. There is another objection in my mind to the admission of 
 Kansas under the present application and with the present constitution. 
 During the last Congress, it will be remembered that Minnesota and Ore- 
 gon both made application to be admitted as States. It will perhaps be re- 
 membered that I, and those with whom I act on political questions, opposed 
 the admission of both those States. I opposed the admission of Miuiicsoia 
 with two Representatives, because I did not believe she had a population 
 to entitle her to them. 1 also opposed Oregon because I did not believe 
 she had a population sufficient to entitle her to one Representative; and I 
 do not believe at this day she has, iu point of fact, fifty thousand people 
 within her limits. 
 
 We opposed the admission of both those States upon another ground — 
 that their respective constitutions perniitted aliens, resident within their 
 limits, to have the privileges of sovereignty by conferring upon them the 
 elective franchise. It will be recollected that my colleague, tlie predeces- 
 sor of the gentleman now sitting before me, (Mr. Quarles,) who for seve- 
 ral years had honorably occupied a position upon the very important Com- 
 mittee on Territories — a position which has been taken away from us under 
 the present organization of the House, and given to a member of the domi- 
 nant party, so that our voice is Tiot heard in the deliberations of that 
 committee — it will be recollected, I say, that my colleague then presented 
 a minority report on the subject of the admission of Oregon, in which he 
 discussed this question with his usual exhaustive ability ; whicli report I 
 prefer, for the sake of convenience and brevity, to adopt as a portion of my 
 argument; and I will take the liberty to append it to my remarks. — (Ap- 
 pendix A.) 
 
 I do not propose to reargue the question. Suflfice it that the position 
 then assumed by us was this: that aliens, unnaturalized foieigners, ought 
 not to enjoy the elective franchise, and cannot, under the Constitution, 
 which was made for the benefit of citizens ; that they ought not, therefore, 
 thus to participate in the government of the country. And ag^in, that this 
 action of individual States, conferring upon aliens the right of suflVage, is 
 an indirect mode of conferring upon them the privileges of naturalization, 
 in utter defiance of the Constitution, which grants this power to Con- 
 gress alone. I know that is said we have nothing to do with the right of 
 siiftrage in the several States, To a certain extent that is true, but net to 
 every extent. We have the right, so far as aftects the common in- 
 terest of the Confederacy, to demand that none but citizens of tlie country, 
 native or naturalized under the laws of Congress, shall be ]»trn)itted lo 
 participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the General Govern- 
 ment. Indeed, I think we may go further. « 
 
4 
 
 Let me pat a case about wliicli I think there will Be no questfon. Siip- 
 pose the Territory of New Mexico, for instance, should apply for admission 
 as a State, with a constitution limiting the right of suffrage exclusively to 
 jtersons of Spanish origin and of pure Oastiliau blood, what v/ould be the 
 etfect of such a provisian 1 It would be not only to establish an aristocra- 
 cy, but indirectly to establish an order of nobility. Will anybody pretend 
 for a moment that we could not inquire into a provision of that kind, and 
 prevent the admission of the Territory coming to us with such a feature 
 in her constitution ? The case of conferring the right of suffrage upon an 
 alien enemy, a savage, a Pagan, a Hindoo, or a Hottentot, will leadily occur,. 
 The framers of the Constitution obviously intended that Congress should 
 lave the solo power of determining who should be citizens of the Confed- 
 eracy, permitted to take part in its governmeDt. 
 
 I do not propose to reargue this question. I argued it in my humble 
 way upon the Oregon bill at the last session of Congress ; and I do not de- 
 •sire at this time either to repeat the argument or to fortify the position I. 
 then assumed. I will merely call the attention of the House to the sup- 
 port accorded to the 'Representatives from Tennessee then upon this floor 
 in opposition to the Democratic party ; to the response which their action 
 on this subject received from their political friends at home. They met in 
 State convention at Nashville, on the 29th of March, 1859, directly after 
 the adjournment of the last session of Congress. The sixth section of the 
 platform adopted by them upon that occasion is as follows : 
 
 "That we are in favor of a reasonable extension of tlie period of probation now 
 prescribed for the naturalization of foreigners, and a more rigid enforcement of the 
 law upon that subject; the prohibition of the immigration of foreign paupers and 
 criminals ; and the prevention of all foreigners not naturalized from voting at elec- 
 tions." 
 
 "And the prevention of all foreigners, not naturalized, from voting at 
 elections," That, sir, was one of the positions on which the Opposition 
 party of Tennessee went before the people last summer, and on which seven 
 out of the ten of her Representatives were returned to this House. 
 
 Without going into this question, or arguing it further, I will call the 
 attention of the House to the provisions of the Kansas constitution, to 
 show that it is obnoxious to the same objection as the constitutions of Min- 
 nesota and Oregon. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. Maynard. Certainly, sir. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK. Permit me to inquire of the gentleman whether Tennes- 
 see, at one time, did not permit negroes to vote? 
 
 Mr. JiIaynard. She did up to the year 1834. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK. Why, then, attempt to debar other States from regulat- 
 inc their suffrage, when Tennessee has done as the gentleman has stated? 
 
 Mr. Maynard. The fact that Tennessee, in antit:ipation of the Dred 
 Scott decision, struck that obnoxious provision from her constitution, I 
 think ought not, certainly at this late day, to be brought up in judgment 
 against her, or any of her Representatives. She decided,*in advance of the 
 Supreme Court, that negroes were not citizens, and treated them accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK. The fact that Tennessee did permit negroes to vote is a 
 recot^nition of the principle that the States have the right to adjust this 
 •question each for itself. 
 
Mr. Matnard. By no means. It is evidence tliat lier people formerly 
 •oXipposed free negrqes to be citizens within the meaning of the Feder-il 
 Constitution. But this opinion she long ago abandoned. I find, in the 
 eleventh section of the act passed by the Territorial Legislature of Kansas, 
 providing for the formation of a constitution for State government, the 
 qualifications of persons entitled to vote in the several elections. Let me 
 call your attention to it ; 
 
 " That all white male citizens of the United States, and all those who shall have 
 declared, on eath, their intention to become siK-h" mm** "who 
 
 shall be over the age of tv/enty-one years, and who shall have been bonafde inhab- 
 itants of the Territory of Kansas, /or the period of six months next preceding each 
 of the respective elections, provided for by this act," m m m m "shall 
 be entitled to vote at tbe several elections," &c. 
 
 Such vrere the parties entitled to vote — aliens v/ho had been in the 
 country but six months, provided they had declared on oath somev?here, 
 and to somebody, their intention to become citizens. What else ? 
 
 "That any person having the qualifications of an elector aforesaid shall be eligi- 
 tle to become a delegate to the convention provided for by this act." 
 
 So it is a legal possibility that this constitution, now presented to us, 
 was framed by a convention which had not amongst its members a single 
 •citizen of the United States, either native or naturalized. 
 
 Let us look at their handiwork- — the constitution itself. 
 
 The fifth article, upon the subject of "suffrage," provides as follows: 
 
 ^' Every wliita male person" — 
 
 Negroes, it seems, are not favorites in Kansas, although they may be 
 •with her friends elsewhere — 
 
 "Ever^^ white male person of twenty-on€ years and upwards, belonging to either 
 of the following classes — who shall have resided in Kansas six months next preced- 
 ing any election, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote at least 
 thirty days next preceding such election — shall be deemed a qualified elector: First, 
 citizens of the United States; second, persons of foreigti birth who shall have de- 
 •alared their intention to become citizens, conformably to the laws of the United 
 States on the subject of naturalization." 
 
 So that her members of Congress, who are to be chosen by electors having 
 the same qualifications as are requisite for electors of thS most numerous 
 branch of the State Legislature, may be chosen by aliens in six months after 
 their landing in the country, and, of course, before they shall be natural- 
 ized as citizens. Looking at the qualifications required for members of the 
 Legislature, we find that — 
 
 "No person shall be a member of the Legislature who is not, at the time of elec- 
 tion, a qualified voter of, and a resident in, the county or district from which he is 
 elected." 
 
 Hence it appears that aliens unnaturalized may be representatives in the 
 Legislature of Kansas, and, by virtue of their position, send representatives 
 of the State to the Senate of the United States. What I say is this: 
 that if the period of probation of foreigners, before naturalization, is too 
 long, if six months' residence is sufficient, then change your naturalization 
 laws. If it is right to admit them to citizenship the moment they land 
 upon our shores, change your rule, and make them citizens at once; clothe 
 them with the character of our nationality ; administer to them the oath 
 of fealty to the Constitution, so that you have the power over them to pun- 
 
ish them for treason, should they be guilty of that crime ; so that you have 
 the highest obligation you can impose upon their conscience to be true and 
 loyal to your country and her interests. Then if any State chooses to 
 extend the terra of their probation, she undoubtedly has the power to do 
 so ; and several of the States have exercised this power. Tennessee, for 
 instance, by the same constitution which excluded free negroes from the 
 ballot-box, postponed aliens in the enjoyment of the electoral privilege for a 
 period of six months after their naturalization. Other States, South Caro- 
 lina and Massachusetts particularly, have enlarged this civic quarantine to 
 one and two years ; but this is v/ide of the present debate. 
 
 I do not, therefore, propose to consume any further time upon this ques- 
 tion, knowing, as I do, that a large number of gentlemen upon the one 
 (the Democratic) side of the Chamber are, by their previous congressional 
 action, committed against the principle, and believing, as I must, that the 
 principle has very little weight with gentlemen upon the other (the Re- 
 publican) side. 
 
 I heard it suggested during the last Congress, when we were passing 
 upon the application of Minnesota and Oregon — may I hope the suggestion 
 was not true? I certainly will not vouch for it — that our friends upon this 
 (the Democratic) side of the Hall were very much influenced in their ac- 
 tion, if not in their judgment, by the fact that upon the admission of those 
 respective States, there stood ready a Democratic delegation to take their 
 seats in both Houses of Congress. I hope that none acted upon that con- 
 sideration. I am not prepared to assert that they did, but certainly if they 
 did, they have been most woefullv disappointed. Minnesota now has a 
 Republican representation in this House, and in the Senate her delegation 
 is neutralized by the opposite politics of her Senators ; while in Oregon, 
 such is the state of opinion that the Democratic gentleman now represent- 
 ing her upon this floor, is here barely by the skin of his teeth, with a ma- 
 jority, if I mistake not, of less than fifty, and one of her places in the Sen- 
 ate is ominously vacant. 
 
 If any such consideration now presents itself to gentlemen upon the 
 other (the Republican) side, if they propose to admit Kansas for the pur- 
 pose of any present partisan advantage, either in congressional or presi- 
 dential contests, let me suggest that honesty in the long run is the best 
 policy in politics, as in everything else; that in the turn of the wheel they 
 may fare no better than their Democratic opponents have done in the case 
 of Minnesota. 
 
 But the great object I had in addressing the House at this time, on this 
 question, was to interpose a plea in behalf of the Cherokee nation of In- 
 dians. There was a time when their i-ights were very much regarded by 
 this body ; when the outrages alleged to have been perpetrated upon them 
 furnished a theme for the highest style of eloquence. If you will refer to 
 the history of that tribe all along during the administration of General 
 Jackson, you will find a full verification of my remark. It happens to me 
 to be a resident of the territory which was formerly occupied by that inter- 
 esting people. By successive treaties from 1*785 down to the year 1835, 
 they ceded first one portion, and then another portion, of their territory, 
 until they finally abandoned the whole, and went upon their mournful exo- 
 dus beyond the Father of Waters, and took up their residence on the soil 
 they now occupy. I need not *ell you, Mr. Speaker — for these are things 
 which have passed before your own eyes, and witliin your earlier recollec- 
 tion — that this tribe of Indians is peculiarly interesting in its history and 
 
ha character; that it has numbered many of the most distinguished indi- 
 viduals of the race of red men. 
 
 There was, for example, George Guess, the Cadmus of the western conti- 
 nent, who, unaided and untaught, by the mere force of his individual ge- 
 nius, invented letters, and iustructetl his people in the art of willing — re- 
 ducing to grammatical order their language, said to be wonderful in its 
 flexibility, softer and more delicious than the Tuscan. There have been the 
 Rosses, the Kidges, the Boudiuots, and many other men, who, if they had 
 lived among a mightier people, and had brought to bear their talents, their 
 ability, and their statesmanship on a wider field of action, would have made 
 no mean figure in the history of the worhl. 
 
 As I have said, by the treaty of 1835, they ceded to the United States 
 all that was left of their territory on this side of the Mississippi. As soon 
 as that treaty was made, they commenced their preparation for their long 
 last journey to the West, to meet those of their tribe who had gone before 
 them, under the previous treaty of 1828. It happened to me to visit the 
 territory recently occupied by the Cherokees after they had left it, and be- 
 fore the white men had taken possession of it. It was in the early spring, 
 about the time of the blossoming of the peach trees. I found a deserted, 
 an abandoned, a desolate country. The Indians had taken their movables; 
 but much of their wealth they had, of course, left behind. There were 
 their farms, their houses, their fields, their orchards ; and 
 
 "One rose of the wilderness left on its stalk, 
 To mark where a garden had been." 
 
 They were a civilized people — not of the bighest type of civilization, to 
 be sure, but still they had risen from a savage state to a civilized, and had 
 been treated with by the United States as such. It was indeed a goodly land 
 — a land of fountains and hills, of valleys and water-courses — and I could 
 well understand the great reluctance, the despairing regret, with which 
 they had left it; and also the eagerness with which the white man pressed 
 upon it, as, according to the Delegate from Kansas, he is pressing on the 
 lands they occupy now. 
 
 That exodus is a part of the history of the country. We all recollect 
 how the treatment of the Indians by the people of Georgia was made mat- 
 ter of grave accusation, not only against Georgia, but against the Govern- 
 ment of the United States ; and nowhere was there a louder note of indig- 
 nation than in that portion of the country whose Representatives are now 
 ao urgently pressing on us the impoitance of admitting Kansas under her 
 present constitution. Were you or your fathers sincere then ? I know that 
 several of the gentlemen who have addressed the House on this subject have 
 come into public life since the date of those events, and cannot be supposed 
 to recbUect much about them. But there are men of bald heads, and of 
 white hairs, who do recollect, who do know, all about them, I ask you 
 whether you were sincere then ? And if you were, I appeal to you now, as 
 honest and sincere men, to listen to. what I have to say in behalf of these 
 people. 
 
 Let me call attention to the treaties, the agreements, the bargains, the 
 <yuarantees, under which they were induced to leave their beautiful homes, 
 their almost paradisiacal residence, so graphically described in the pages 
 of our national historian, Mr. Bancroft. (Appendix B.) I say, let us 
 look at the guarantees, the solemn pacts, the treaty obligations which 
 this Government assumed towards them before they were induced to leave 
 
8. 
 
 the land which had been the homes of their fathers— back, back to a time 
 ■whereof, literally, the memory of man runs not to the contrary. 
 
 I will not weary the House by reference to all the treaties that have been 
 made between the Cherokees and the United States. They have been nu- 
 merous. But I will ask attention to a portion of the eighth article of the 
 treaty of 1828: ■ 
 
 "The Cherokee nation, west of the Mississippi, having by their agreement, heed 
 themselves from the liarassing and ruinous effects consequent on their location 
 amidst the white people, and secured to themselves and their posteritv, under the 
 eolemn sanction and guarantee of the United States, as contained in that agreement, 
 a large extent of unembarrassed country," &c. 
 
 That was the motive, tlie reason, which induced those of the tribe who 
 first removed to leave the bones of their ancestors, and to seek a home in the 
 wild region of the West, so remote at that time that it was not supposed 
 the wave of our advancing civilization would be likely to disturb them, 
 much less to submerge them. 
 
 I invite the attention of gentlemen to the final treaty of 1835 ; fori hope 
 that, whatever may be your prepossessions, you wi]l not knovnugly lend 
 yourselves to the commission of wrong, even to a comparatively feeble tribe 
 of Indians. In the second article of that treaty, commonly known as 
 Suhei'merhorn's treaty, made at New Echota, occurs this provision : 
 
 "And whereas it is apprehended by the Cherotees that in the above cession there 
 is not contained a sufficient quantity of land for the accommodation of the whole 
 nation on their removal west of the Mississippi, the United States, in consideration 
 of the sum of $500,000, therefore hereby covenant and agree to convey to the said 
 Indians, and their descendants, by patent, .in fee simple, the following additional 
 tract ot land, situated between the west line of the State of Missouri and tlie Osage 
 reservation : beginning at the southeast corner of the same, and running north along 
 the east line of the Osage lands, fifty miles to the northeast corner'thereof; and 
 theuce east to the west line of the State of Missouri; thence with said line south 
 fifty miles; thence west to the place of beginning; estimated to contain eiiiht hun- 
 dred thousand acres of land; but it is expressly understood that if any of the lands 
 assigned the Quapaws shall fall within the aforesaid bounds, the same shall be re- 
 served and excepted out of the lands above granted, and a pro rata reduction shall 
 be made in the price to be allowed to the United States for the same by the Cher- 
 okees." 
 
 These are the "neutral lands" spoken of by the Delegate from Kansas. 
 By the fifth article of the same treaty it is provided : 
 
 "The United States hereby covenant and agree that the lands ceded to the Chero- 
 kee nation in the foregoing article shall, in no future time, without their consent, be 
 included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or Terrilorv. But 
 they shall secure to the Cherokee nation the right, by their national councils, to 
 make and carry into effect all such laws as they may 'deem necessary for the gov- 
 ernment and protection of the persons and property within tiieir own country, be- 
 longing to their people or such persons as have connected themselves with^'hem : 
 Provided always, That they shall not be inconsistent with the Constitution of the 
 United States and such acts of Congi'ess as have been, or may be, passed, regulating 
 trade and intercourse with the Indians; and also that they shall not be considered 
 as extending to such citizens and Army of the United States as may travel or reside 
 in the Indian country by permission, according to the laws and regulations establish- 
 ed by the government of the same." 
 
 : Mark this language: "Shall not be included within the territorial limits 
 
 \ or jurisdiction of any State or Territory, in all future time, without their 
 
 \consent." What was the object of tliis p^.ople ? It was that they should 
 
 nave an opportunity, by settiiug in the remote region of the West, to occu- 
 
 a tract of country where they should not be disturbed by the presence 
 
9 
 
 of the wliite mnn ; where they should uot be liable to the annoyances and 
 vexations, and the barrassiug. legisUilion which had troubled them in Ten- 
 nessee and Georgia. You remember these disturbances very well. Every 
 lover of music will remember, iu connection with the notes of " Sweet Home," 
 the imprisonment there of its gifted composer — Howard Payne. You 
 remend")er that even the missionaries of the cross were forbidden to carry 
 on their labors among them. And, Mr. Speaker, it is a very siguifli;ant fact, 
 showing how the times change, and we change with them, that the same 
 body of Cliristian people who sent Worcester and Butler as missionaries to 
 the Clierokees, have, within the last year, withdrawn their missionary labor 
 from another Indian tribe in the Southwest, for the sole reason that the 
 people of that tribe are the owners and holders of slaves. 
 
 Mr. Stanton. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question ? 
 I want to know from him how this constitution affects the Indians differ- 
 ently from the Lecompton constitution ; and whether he did not vote for 
 the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution? 
 
 Mr. Maynard. I will answer that question ; and when I come to an- 
 swer it, I will clothe myself in sackcloth, and cvy peccavi ! (Laughter.) I 
 believe I will answer it now. 
 A Voice. Now is the time. 
 
 Mr. Maynard. Mr. Speaker, we have had strifes and contentions over 
 this hapless Territory ; and they have been very bitter, and without ex- 
 ample. We ha\'e had constitution after constitution presented to us. 
 First we had the Topeka constitution ; then the Lecompton constitution; 
 then we had the Crittenden-Montgomery amendment ; and then we had 
 the conference bill. We fought them inch by inch. Gentlemen on this 
 (the Republican) side were eloquent in their denunciations of Lecompton 
 and the conference bill. They were opposing it at every point; and yet 
 the riglits of the red man were never heard of. They were crowded out 
 ■ of view by the superior rights of the black man. I never heard a caveat 
 in their behalf, except by a Senator from my own State, (Mr. Bell,) upon 
 the passage of the Kansas- Nebraska bill, and, if I am not mistaken, by 
 one of the Senators from Texas. 
 
 Now, I ask the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Stanton,) I ask the chair- 
 man of the Committee on Territories, (Mr. Grow,) I ask every member on 
 the other side of this Chamber, why was it that you stood by h^re, and , 
 saw the Lecompton constitution come in, without interposing for the In- 
 dian's prAection? Was it that you could see nothing but the negro? 
 Was it that the Indian had bst all your sympathy ? Why was it, that 
 when you introduced your Ciittenden-Montgomery amendment, for which 
 you all voted, you did not even as much as whisper a word in behalf of the 
 red man ? Has the Indian no rights — I will not say natural rights, but 
 rights guarantied and secured — which white men are bound to respect? 
 I confess, and I confess it very frankly, that the interference by Kansas with 
 the rights of the Cherokee Indians was uot known to me, and I did not 
 even suspect it, until during the present session of Congress. Neither the 
 Committee on Territories, nor the Committee on Indian Affairs, who are 
 especially charged with such ouestions, intimated anything of the kind. 
 Had it come to my knowledge^ should have offered the same amendment 
 to the Lecompton bill that I am about to offer to tliis. 
 
 I was about remarking when interrupted that among the notable men of 
 the tiuie^ in which we live, is .John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokee 
 Nation ; a man who belongs to that class of noble and heroic characters, 
 
10 
 
 the founders of States aa<l the law-givers to an unsettled and rude popula- 
 tion. Thouo;h long acquainted with him by reputation, though having for 
 years known and admired his character, I never chanced, uniil within 
 the last few weeks, to make his personal acquaintance ; and it was then 
 that I learned for the first time — and to my surprise and indignation — 
 that the territory that is proposed to be incorporated into the State of Kan- 
 sag embraces, not merely these eight hundred thousand acres of " neutral 
 lands" iii<;luded in that part of the treaty which I have read, but also a 
 portion of the other lands belonging to that nation. " Why," said he to me, 
 ''it is just putting us in the same condition, and renewing in our midst the 
 same struggle and strife that for years we had with the people of Georgia, 
 and to escape which we removed to the West." 
 
 But, asks my friend from Ohio, (Mr. Pendleton,) are not all the Indian 
 tribes in the same condition as the Cherokees? No, no, no ; they have not 
 all left their old hunting grounds; they have not all abandoned the graves 
 of their fathers, and the lands where they hunted and roamed as the Cher- 
 okees have done, and they are not all, as the Cherokees are, by the adop- 
 tion of the Christian religion, by the establishment and endowment of 
 schools, by ihe enactment of written laws, and by their judicial administra- 
 tion, entitled to be ranked with the civilized people of the world. 
 
 After the Cherokees had removed beyond the Mississippi, we all know, 
 from the history of the times, that the old controversy growing out of the 
 question of removal — a controversy which was not only canied on by the 
 chiefs, but went down to the very humblest of the people — continued to 
 work its unhappy consequences in their new home, and resulted in a dimi- 
 nution of the numbers of the tribe. But the first article of the treaty of 
 1846, to which I call the attention of the House for a moment, provided 
 that "ail the lands now occupied by the Cherokee nation shall be secured 
 to the whole Cherokee people for their common useiand benefit, and patents 
 shall be issued for the same." Since the ratification of that treaty of 1846, 
 harmony and quiet have prevailed among them, and they have increased 
 until they now numbei', as I learn, something more than twenty-five thou- 
 sand ; and live in the hope that the time may not be far remote when they 
 shall be admitted as one of the members of this Confederacy. Sir, the 
 question, whether or not the red man is capable of the highest civilization, 
 has never been settled ; possibly it never may be; certainly not if the policy 
 that is sought to be perpetuated by this bill should obtain, and if he is to 
 be overrun by the white population — settlers who are crowding in upon 
 him in defiance of his rights. These rights have been warmly uiged by 
 the gentleman from Missouri, (Mr. Clark,) both in his repoit and in his 
 speech. What says the Delegate from Kansas? That the objection to the 
 admission of his Territory, based upon the rights of the Indians, is n mere 
 technicality — a mere sticking in the bark! A more striking illustration of 
 the doctrine that might m.ikes right, than was afibrded by this part of his 
 speech, cannot well be conceived. 
 
 Having stated what I consider the rights of the Cherokees, as guarantied 
 by the treaties of 1828, 1835, and 1840, I will examine the provisions of 
 the bill, to see whether those rights are invjpled. 
 
 In the first section are defined the boundaries of the proposed State of 
 Kansas, which boundaries unquestionably include the eight hundred thou- 
 sand acres of " neutral lands," as well as a long, if not very wide, portion of 
 the main reservation, or, rather, grant. Thus we propose directly to vio- 
 late our treaty guarantee, by including within the "territorial limits" of 
 
11 
 
 Kansas the very lands that we pledged ourselves should never be so in- 
 cluded, in all future time, without their consent. Appended to the section 
 is an illusory, a deceptive proviso, as follows: 
 
 Provided, Thut notliing contained in the said constitution re3pecting the boundary 
 of said State siiall be construed to impair the rights of person or projierty now pei'- 
 taining to the Indians in said Territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextin- 
 guished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any 
 tei-iitory which, by tr-^aty with such Indian tribes, is not, witliout the consent of 
 said tribe, t > be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or 
 Territory ; but all such territory shall be excepted out of the boundaries, and con- 
 stitute no part of the State of Kansas, until said tribe shall signify their assent to 
 the President of the United States to be included within said State, or to affect the 
 authority of the Government of the United States to make any regulation respect- 
 ing sucl> Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, 
 which it would have been competent to make if this act had never passed. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, that proviso can possibly have no effect to relieve these 
 people from the inconvenience of being included within the territorial 
 limits of one of the States. The position was taken yesterday, by the 
 gentleman from Illinois, (Mr. McClernand,) that the treaty would be 
 superior, and of course would be the paramount law. Undoubtedly; 
 but by the action of this bill, ijjso facto, the treaty is violated. The spirit, 
 the intent, the life of the treaty with the Cherokees was, that they should 
 have secured to them a permanent residence to all time ; never to be 
 brought within the boundaries of any State ; so that they might not be 
 subjected again to the troubles they had felt by being within the limits of 
 Georgia, and so tempting the cupidity of her citizens or stimulating her 
 State pride to remove them as intruders unwelcome within her borders. 
 It is mockery for us to say that the treaty is the supreme law, while in the 
 very act of violating it. 
 
 What are we doing now ? We first throw a State line around the In- 
 dians, like the coil of a lasso, and then, by this illusory proviso, declare that 
 they are not, in legal contemplation, included within the designated limits 
 of the State, and that its jurisdiction is not to be exercised over them until 
 they sliall " signify their assent." Gentlemen here very well know what 
 that language means. It means, to turn white men loose upon them and 
 make the country too hot for them ; to place them in an attitude where 
 they would be forced to give their " assent ;" to tell them, as we did in 
 1835, "Stand and delivei-'or perish;" to remit them to the same heritage 
 of evil from which we promised to protect them when we induced them to 
 leave their ancient home in the East. If I did not misunderstand the Del- 
 egate from Kansas, ali'eady some seven hundred white families have gone 
 upon those " neutral lands," and taken up their abode there. 
 
 Mr. ClzVrk, of Missouri. I ask the permission of the gentleman to call 
 his attention to a letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in refer- 
 ence to the encroachments that are being made upon those lauds. I ask 
 the geutleman to have the letter read. It is a short letter. 
 
 Mr. Maynard. Very well ; let it be read. 
 
 The Cleik read the letter, as follows: 
 
 % DKrARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
 
 Office Indian Affairs, Alarch 13, 1860. 
 
 Sir: Your communication, at the instance of a meeting held by the settlers upon 
 the Cherokee neutral lands, in Kansas Territory, bearing date February 28, 1860, 
 Las been received and duly considered by this office. 
 
 It is stated, in your letter above referred to, that the settlers, in whose behalf you 
 write, made their settlements upon what was supposed at the time to be the reser- 
 
12 » 
 
 vation set apart for the Xew York Indian?, and that they were not aware, until re- 
 cent surveys, their locations were upon the Cherokee lands. The excuse offered, in 
 a legal point, is entitled to but little consideration. The Cherokee lands, as well as 
 the New York tract, wei'e alike secured to those tribes originally by solemn treaty 
 obligations, which should have been sufficient to protect them from trespass by all 
 law-abiding citizens. So far from that, not only those two reservations, but alinost 
 every reservation in Kansas Territory, have been cither settled oi- trespassed upon 
 bj' the whites. This increased disregard of law and treaty stipulations induced 
 Congress, on the 12th day of June, 18.58, to pass an additional act, more stringent, 
 if possible, than the intercourse act of 1834, requiring the Commissioner of Indian 
 Affairs to remove all pei-sons from an^ tribal Indian reservations who may be found 
 thereon in violation of law. This act is to be found on page 332, United States 
 Statutes at Lai-ge, volume 1 1. Hence it will be perceived that no discretion is left 
 to me as to the course to be pursued. 
 
 However much my sympathy may be invoked in behalf of those who are regarded 
 almost as my neighbors, still the law is imperitive, and must be obeyed. 
 
 Whether these lands are needed for the use of the Indians or not, forms no con- 
 sideration for delaying the execution of the law. It is unpleasant to me to occupy 
 a position antagonist to what the hardy pioneer regards as his legal or equitable 
 claims, or claims based upon supposed rights; but they cannot expect me to deviate 
 where both law and official duty command. 
 
 It is proper, also, that I should say, that no treaty with the Cherokees, for the 
 purchase of the tract in question, is anticipated. The Senate of the United States 
 have intimated that no treaty involving the payment of money from the Treasury 
 will receive the assent of that body. 
 
 The large amount of vacant lands in Kansas and elsewhere would seem to fully 
 justify this determination. It is uunecessary for me to attempt to disguise the fact 
 that I should exceedingly regret a collision "between the citizens and the authorities 
 of the United States, and sincerely hope that the settlers upon the Indian lands 
 will avoid so great a calamity; but, as at present advised, unless they obey the 
 notice, the strong arm of the (xovernment will be emploj'ed to enforce it, however 
 formidable they may be in numbers. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, A. B. GREENWOOD, 
 
 Cotntnisxio'iier. 
 Charles W. Blair, Esq., Fort Scott, Kansas Territory. 
 
 Mr. Maynard. Take the facts there distdosed iu connection with what 
 was said last evening by the Delegate from Kansas ; turn then, if you please, 
 to that Indian people settled there, with no protection or secuiity but the 
 guarantees of our treaties, and I ask if they may not well be alarmed, if 
 they may not well be apprehensive of a repetition of all the evils thtdr 
 race has ever felt in the presence of the wliite man? Shall we, by our 
 legislation, put the State of Kansas in a position where any portion of hev 
 people will have an inducement or a temptation or an oppoitunity to invade 
 the I'ights of these Indians further, and then, in sheer mockery, provide 
 that they shall not disturb them without this assent? Surrender, and not 
 a drop of blood shall be spilled ; they accept your faith, and you bury them 
 alive. Is this the spirit in which we keep our jiliglited troth in dealing 
 with an ancient friend, and a people powerless to protect themselves against 
 our aggressions ? 
 
 It is well known, I suppose, that the Cherokees are slaveholders, and 
 have been for many years. I understand there are now about two 
 thousand slaves belonging to the people of the nation. Whether that 
 is right or wrong is a question upon which I shall, in tliis discussion, 
 express no opinion. How far tins tribe are^debted for their civiliza- 
 tion to the fact that they have held an inferior race in subjection, 
 is a social problem which I shall not now consider. I confine inyself 
 to the fact that, under their laws, they hold this species of property, and 
 hold it under a guarantee which we ought to respect. I will not stop to 
 inquire what will be their condition, what will be the security of this prop- 
 
13 
 
 erty, wlier. included witliiu the limits of tbe free State of Kansas. It is 
 simply remitting the Indians to tlie old ''border ruffiau" quarrel. I sub- 
 mit wlietber it is rigbt, whether it is just, whether it is fair, to subject these 
 inoffVnt-ive people, at ihe hazard of their nascent civilization, to the same 
 strifes from which we have ourselves so recently escaped. In this view of 
 the case — for I do not wish to consume the time of the House unnecessa- 
 rily, and I am aware other gentlemen desire to participate in the discussion — 
 I will embrace this opportunity to make the motion that "House bill No. 23, 
 for the admission of Kansas into the Union, be recommitted to the Com- 
 mittee on Territories, with instructions to amend it by limiting the bounda- 
 ries, so as to exclude all lauds belonging to the Cherokee nation of Indians." 
 • Thus much I think gentlemen on this (the Republican) side owe to them- 
 selves ; they owe it to the American character ; they owe it to this tribe of 
 Indians, weak and feeble though they are, barely numbering thousands 
 where we number millions. Do not attempt to evade responsibility, and 
 to give repose to your conscience by comparing your action with that of 
 the Democrats — by showing that, if you have disregarded the rights of the 
 Indians, so have your political antagonists. This is not an is«ue between 
 you and them ; nor yet between the North and the South. It is a ques- 
 tion of national honor — of public faith between the United States and the 
 Cherokees. It is not enough, when they complain, to say to them that 
 they were included in the provisions of the Kansas and Nebraska bill. It 
 is not enough to tell them that they were embraced and not provided for 
 within- the limits of the Lecompton constitution. That might do very well 
 as an argiimenturn ad hominem, for the members of the Uouse ; but it is no 
 answer to the people who are to be affected and oppressed by this legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 The following is the portion of Mr. Zollicofier's minority report, alluded 
 to as expressing the deliberately-considered views of the southern Opposi- 
 tion in the last Congress, on the question of alien suffrage : 
 
 "There is a single point in the constitution of Oregon against which he feels it 
 his duty to enter his solemn protest. He allndes to the clause allowing unnatural- 
 ized aliens to vote for members of the Legislature. He regards this clause as viola- 
 tive of the fundamental principle of the Constitution of the United States. It can- 
 not be doubted that such alien electors are thereby to be regarded as at once intro- 
 duced as a component part of the sovereign power controlling the Federal Goverti- 
 ment. The}' therebj' become, according to all practical usage, electors of Repre- 
 sentatives in Congress — electors of tht)se who choose United States Senators, and 
 hold the power to determine the electors of President and Vice President of the 
 United States. Thus, to the body of aliens so introduced into the body-politic is 
 given a direct or indirect power of control over every department of the Federal 
 Government. This, he respectfully but earnestly submits, is subversive of the very 
 foundation idea of the Government itself. 
 
 "The Constitution of the United States was established by the people or cUizens 
 of the United States for their own benefit, and that of those who are to come after 
 them, and not for the benefit of \mnaturalized foreigners, owing no allegiance to the 
 Government, and not bound to*|lefend it. It was ratified by the States; and they 
 are bound to observe and respect its principles. The first clause in the Constitution. 
 is the following declaration : 
 
 "'We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, es- 
 tablish justice, insure domestic tranquility, piovide for the common defence, and 
 secure the blessings of liberty to onrselves and our posterity, do ordain and establisli 
 this Constitution for the United States of America.' 
 
- ^ 14 
 
 "The undersigned would call attention to the words 'the people.' The Supreme 
 Court, in the Dred Scott decision, interpreting this clause of the Constitution, ex- 
 pressly declares: 
 
 "'The words "the people of the United States" and "citizens" are sj'nonymous 
 terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, ac- 
 cording to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the pow- 
 er and conduct the Government tlirougli their representatives. They are what we 
 familiarly call tlie sovereign people; and every citizen is one of this people, and a 
 constituent member of this sovereigntj'.' 
 
 "That is, tiie Constitution, where it says 'the people,' means 'the citizens,' and 
 that 'every citizen' is a ' con.stituent member of tlie body politic,' who 'form the 
 sovereignty,' 'liold the power and conduct the Government through their Repre- 
 sentatives."' But does this exclude 'unnaturalized foreigners?' Unquestionably it 
 does. The court continues: 
 
 •"The Constitution has conferred on Congress the riglit to establish a uniform 
 rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held 
 by this court to be so. Consequently, no State since the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with tlie rigliU cmd privileges secured 
 to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government' <fee. 
 
 " Again, says the court : 'The word "citizen" excludes unnaturalized foreigners, 
 the latter forming no part of the sovereigntt/, owing it no aUegianxe. and are there- 
 fore under no obtigaiions to defend it.' The undersigned believes, with the Supreme 
 Court, that the' citizens of the United States are the body politic, 'the sovereigptj-,' 
 and that ' unnaturalized foreigners,' who form no part of the sovereignty, owe it no • 
 allegiance, and are under no obligations to defend it, cannot possiblj' be admitted 
 to 'hold the power and conduct the Government through their llepresentatives' 
 without violence to the Constitution. 
 
 " He believes with John C. Calhoun that ' alien' and 'citizen' are correlative terms, 
 and stand in contradistinction ' to each other;' that 'the effect of naturalization is 
 to remove alienage ;' that ' to remove alienage is simply to put the foreigner in the 
 condition of the native born;' that 'whatever ditl'ereuce of opinion there maybe 
 as to what other rights appertain to a citizen, all must, at least, agree that he has 
 the right of petition, and also to claim the protection of his Government. These 
 belong to him as a member of the body politic, and the possession of them is what 
 separates citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that 
 a State can make an alien a citizen of the State, or, to present the question more 
 specifically, can confer upon him the right of voting, would involve the absurdity 
 of giving him a direct and immediate control over the action of the General Govern- 
 ment, from which ho has no right to claim the protection, and to which he has no right 
 to present a petition.' (See speech in Senate, April 2, 1832.) 
 
 " It will be seen that Mr. Calhoun held that the ' right of voting' appertains to 
 citizenship. The Supreme Court expressed the same sentiment in other words ; that 
 is, that the citizens form the sovereignty, hold the power, and conduct the Goven- 
 ment. For the right of voting is the power to 'conduct the Government.' Mr. 
 Jefferson said, ' a republic' is ' a government hg its citizens in mass,' (see letter to John 
 Taylor;) and again, that ' the true foundation of republican government is the equal 
 right of every citizen in his person and property, and in their vio.nagement.' (See 
 letter "to Mr.Kercheval.) These are but various forms for expressing the same fun- 
 damental principle. So general has become this concurrence of opinion among the 
 most accredited expounders of the Constitution, that Webster, in his dictionarj-, de- 
 fines a 'citizen' to be, 'in the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who 
 has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise., or the qualificitions which ena- 
 ble him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate;' elsewhere he says 
 
 , P- , -^ - - 
 
 damental article of republican government. It was incuiubent on the conventions, 
 therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution.' And this they ac- 
 cordingly did in the second section of the first article, as follows : 
 
 " 'The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every 
 second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall 
 have the qualifications' requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the 
 State Legislature.' 
 
 " Here the words ' the people' of the several States are, as the Supreme Court has 
 declared, equivalent to ' the citizens of the several States, and therefore unquestiona- 
 
15 
 
 h]-y exclude all but cUixens. The ■word ' qualifications,' in the last clause of the sec- 
 tion, excludes even a portion of the citizens; such portion as may be excluded for 
 want of a freeholder, or otlier 'qualification requisite' in the several States. In 
 some of tlietn, at tlie time the Constitution was framed, all citizens not possessing a 
 ' freeiioUr were exchided ; while in otliers other qualifications were requisite for 
 electors of the most numerous branch of the Legislature. In some, all citizens were 
 allowed to vote ; in none, howevei-, was the right granted to unriaturalixed foreigners. 
 Such a thought as allowing aliens to take part in the election of members of Con- 
 gress, never seems to have occurred to the convention. The word 'qualifications' 
 was unquestionably intended to limit, to restrict, to confine the body of voters to 
 such portion of the citizens as were allowed to vote in tiie several States, while the 
 words ' the people of the several States' absolutely excluded all others ; because 
 the aliens were 'no part of the sovereignty, owing it no allegiance, and under no 
 obligations to defend it.' 
 
 "Upon this point, f .rtunatelj', we are not left to conjecture. The whole debate 
 in convention on the adoption of this section of the Constitution is before us, and it 
 throws a flood of light upon this question. Here is its substance. Gouverneur 
 Moi'ris moved to strike out of this section the clause relating to ' qualifications,' and 
 to insert instead that none but 'freeholders' should vote. The debate then turned 
 wholly u]ion this precise issue. Mr. Wilson opposed the motion of lAv. Morris, on 
 the ground tliat it would be 'hard and disagreeable to exclude from voting' those 
 who vote for representatives in the State Legislatures. Mr. Ellsworth said 'the 
 people will not readily subscribe to the national Constitution if it should subject 
 t'aeui to be disfranchised.' Colonel Mason said, ' eight or nine States have extended 
 the right of suffrage beyond freelt.olderx. What will the people there say if they 
 should be disfranchised?' Mr. Butler 'opposed abridgment.' Mr. Dickinson sup- 
 ported the amendment, advocating 'restriction of the right' of sutt'rage ' to free- 
 holders.' Mr. Madison said 'the riglit of suffrage is certainly one of the fundamental 
 articles of republican, government, and ought not to be left to be regulated by the 
 Legislature.' Whether the constitutional qualif cation ouglU to be a freehold, woidrl 
 with him depend much on tlie reception such a change would meet with by the peo- 
 ple, &c. In several of the States a freehold was now the qualif cation.' l>v, Frank- 
 lin was opposed to ' the elected narroicing the limits of the electors.' Mr. Mercer 
 objected to tlie footing ou which the qualification was put. Mr. Rutledge opposed 
 'the idea oi restrtibvng the right of suffrage to the freeholders.'" 
 
 "Thus the whole body of debaters saw in the word 'qualification' nothing but 
 restriction, limitation, narrowing the limits of the electors. The final conclusion was 
 to narrow the limits only where the States had themselves expressly done so — that 
 is, everj'where to let those citizens vote for Representatives in Congress who were 
 
 germitted to vote for members of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, 
 ut the idea of letting aliens vote is not only excluded absolutel}' by the first clause 
 of the section confining the right to the ' people' or citizens, but from the whole tenor 
 of the debate, it is manifest that it did not enter the brain of any solitary member 
 of the convention. 
 
 "The undersigned does not mean to assert that Congress can look into the consti- 
 tution of a State asking for admission further than to see that it is republican, and 
 not in conflict with that of the United States; or that the General Government can 
 regulate the right of suffrage in the States. Far from it. It is the right of every 
 State to determine who of its own citizens shall vote for every office; and in regard 
 to offices strictly municipal, the States may, constitutionally, if they clioose, permit 
 aliens to vote. But whilst the States may confer upon aliens rights tf citizenship 
 in matters pertainmg exclusively to the State, they cannot constitute the status of 
 of eitizensliip, they cannot convert aliens into citizens, that power having been con- 
 ferred by the Constitution upon Congress alone; and they cannot, therefore, give to 
 aliens the rights of citizetiship in matters pertaining to the Federal Govarnment. 
 But to give to aliens the right to vote for members of the State Legislature, as is the 
 case in the Oregon constitution, gives them incidentally a power of control over 
 every department of the General Government, and therefore it is our d\ity to resist 
 this innovation upon the rights of the General Govermnent at the verj' threshhold. 
 As the people framed, and the States ratified, the General Government as it is con- 
 stituted, they are bound by every consideration of good faith to stand by it in its 
 letter and spirit. Whilst the rights of the States as they have been reserved should 
 be sedulously maintained, those rights which have been concetled to the General 
 Government should not be I'uthlessly ignored. Especially is this truth with regard 
 to those elemental principles upon which rests its selfpreservation. The General 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 16 
 
 Governmeut stands between us and all foreign ii 'HIIIIIIIIII|||||||i|||||||||||||||P 
 
 lished by the fi<f-(??ts of the United States for QJg ggg gg^ « f 
 
 those who are to become citizens by birthright o. ^^ e 
 
 governments, in all ages, from the time of Grecian republics down to our time, the 
 right of sartVage has been held to belong to- none but citizens. This fundamental 
 principle of self-preservation having been fully granted to our General Government, 
 it is unwise and unsafe to ignore it, and give tlioughtlessly the destinies of such a 
 government into the hands of those who 'owe it no allegiance,' have 'no right to 
 claim its protection,' or even to present to it 'a petition.' 
 
 " When a State has once been admitted into the Union, with such provision as 
 that pointed out in the Oregon constitution, the undersigned would not counsel co- 
 ercion by the Federal Government to bring about a change. But when a Territory 
 asks to put on the garb of State sovereignty, and to be admitted into the Union, is, 
 in his judgment, tlie precise point of time at which to make this issue. Such pro- 
 posed State should be required to conform, to use the language. of Mr. Madison, to 
 tlie 'fundamental articles of republican government' — parlicularl}- that great first 
 article which regards a ' rejuiblic,' to use the language of Mr. Jefi'erson, as a ' govern- 
 ment bjf its citizens in mass.' In this particular, the Oregon constitution is not onlj' 
 not 'republican,' but is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States. 
 For this, and the foregoing reasons, the undersigned is constrained to withhold his 
 assent fioui the bill admitting Oregon into the Union. 
 
 "F. K. ZOLLICOFFER." 
 
 (B.) 
 
 The following description by the great historian of the region originally 
 occupied by the Cherokee?, will be recoguized as exquisitely truthful by 
 every one familiar with Eastern Tennessee, and the country surrounding. 
 Can the most callous read it without an emotion of sympathy ? 
 
 "The mountaineers of aboriginal America were the Cherokees, who occupied 
 the upper valley of the Tennessee river, as far west us Muscle Shoals, and the high- 
 lands of Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama — the most ]iieturesque and mo-t salubrious 
 region east of the Mississippi. Tiieir homes were encircled bv blue hills rising be- 
 yond hills, of which the lofty peaks would kindle witli the early light, and the over- 
 shadowing ridges envelop the valleys like a mass uf clouds. There the rocky cliffs, 
 rising in naked grandeur, defy the lightning, and mock the loudest ]ieals of the thun- 
 der-storm; there the gentler slopes are covered with magnolias and flowering forest 
 trees, decorated with roving climbers, and ring with the perpetual note of the whip- 
 poor-will ; there the wholesome water gushes profusely from the earth in transpar- 
 ent spi'ings; snow-white cascades glitter on the hillsides; and the river.«, shallow, 
 but pleasant to the eye, rush through the narrow vales, which the abundant straw- 
 berry crimsons, and coppices of rhododendron and flaming azalea adorn. At the 
 fall of the leaf, the fruit of the hickory and the chestnut is thickly strown on the 
 ground. The fertile soil teems with luxuriant herbage, on which the roebtick 
 fattens; the vivifying breeze is laden with fragrance; and daybreak is ever 
 welcomed by the shrill cries of the social night hawk and the liqtiid carols 
 of the mocking-bird. Through this lovely region were scattered the little vil- 
 lages of the Cherokees, nearly fifty in number, each consisting of but a few cabins, 
 erected where the bend in the mountain stream offered at once a defence and 
 a strip of alluvial soil for culture. Their towns were always by the side of some 
 crock or river, and they loved their native land; above all, thej' loved its rivers — 
 the Keowee, the Tugeloo, the Flint, and the beautiful branches of the Tennessee, 
 llunuing watei-s, inviting to the bath, tempting the angler, alluring wild fowl, were 
 necessary to their paiadise. Their language, like that of the Iroquois, abounds in 
 vowels, and is destitute of the labials. Its organization has a' common character, but 
 etyinology has not yet been able to discover conclusive analogies between the roots of 
 words. The 'beloved' people of the Cherokees were a nation bj' themselves. Who 
 can say for how many centuries, safe in their undiscovered fastnesses, they had 
 decked their war-chiefs with the feathers of the eagle's tail, and listened to the 
 counsels of their 'old beloved men?' Who oan tell how often tlie waves of bar- 
 barous migrations may have broken harmlessly against their cliffs, where nature 
 was the strong ally of the defenders of their land ?" — JJancroft, vol. 3, p. 240. 
 
\ 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 016 088 964