LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 DDDD1734flTl 
 
'\ co^,,'\^.-% /.^;^.\ /..ii^.*<i. , 
 
 •\/ 
 
 • •• 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 •■^^■•- •' ' '^**^- V^/ .-isiC^". V^'* 
 
 
 

 -^Ao^ 
 
 
 
 *^^ 
 
 l^' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' • »* 
 
 '' • . • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 ORRIS S. FERUY, OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives, February 10, 1860. 
 
 Tlie House being in Committee of the Wliole 
 on the state of the Union, and having under 
 consideration the President's aanual message — 
 Mr. FERRY said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman, in adopting the principles 
 which govern my public conduct, I am not 
 aware that I am actuated by any desire to ad- 
 vance the interests of one section of the coun- 
 try beyond those of any other. I have sought 
 always to advocate such measures, and such 
 ouly, as, in my deliberate judgment, were cal- 
 culated to promote the welfare of the entire 
 Confederacy. I have felt it to be my duty to 
 act in political affairs not merely for the pres- 
 ent, but for the future also ; not only for the 
 twenty-five millions of the present generation, 
 but for the forty millions of the next; not only 
 for the thirty-lour Suites of to-day, but for the 
 fifty sovereignties which some of us may live to 
 Bee confederated under the Constitution of the 
 RepuV'lic ; in a word, not to be a politician 
 simply, but, in so far as I am able, to be a 
 statesman. It is with such motives that I have 
 made my choice between the great political or- 
 ganizations which divide the public sentiment 
 of the conntry, and my only antagonisms are 
 those v,fhich necessarily arise when I find my 
 cherished principles assailed; schemes, which 
 seem to me destructive, pressed into legislative 
 enaotmenta ; or measures which I deem bene- 
 ficial strenuously resisted. I have no contro- 
 versy with the people of the South ; I am heart- 
 ily tired of the sectional watch-words which 
 have so long resounded in our ears, and I shall 
 not permit myself to be drawn into a dispute 
 upon local aud geographical distinctions. My 
 controversy is with those who guide the action 
 of the Democratic party ; it is there that I find 
 the sources of the evils which afliict us, the 
 fouQtftius of treasonable sentiment, and the 
 
 causes which have led the Government of this 
 Republic into a well-nigh universal betrayal of 
 the common rights of humanity. And when I 
 speak of the Democratic party, I mean the or- 
 ganization which is now called by that name. 
 There was a Democratic party once, sir, of a 
 far different character, and which spoke with a 
 widely different utterance. There was a Dem- 
 ocratic party once, from whose platform all 
 mention of the inalienable rights of man was 
 not erased, and to whose ears freedom had not 
 become a hateful sound. That party is no 
 more ; I speak not oi' it ; it is the living issues 
 and the living organizations of the present 
 which I choose to meet. 
 
 For the first eight weeks of the session, tho 
 Democratic party in this House occupied its 
 time, almost without interruption, in the discus- 
 sion of the slavery question. The President de- 
 votes a large portion of his message to the 
 same topic. The Vice President has been home 
 to Kentucky, and, from the legislative halls_ of 
 that State, has addressed an essay to the nation 
 upon the same subject. A Democratic Senator 
 from Ohio introduced into the Senate, as the 
 first measure of the session, a resolution open- 
 intr anew the whole of this vexed question. 
 The consequence, if not the object, of these 
 proceedings, is seen in a wide-spread agitation 
 thToughout the country, disturbing its business 
 interests, and endangering the peace aud good 
 order of society. The discussion which was 
 forced upon this House has had a large share 
 in producing these unhappy results; nor has 
 the manner in which it has been conducted by 
 gentlemen upon the other side of the llall been 
 calculated to diminish its pernicious effects. 
 With a few honorable exceptions, they have 
 suffered passion to usurp the place of reason; 
 have substituted vituoeration for argument, and 
 

 fibusive epithets for facts. I shall not follow 
 their example. If I cannot preserve the ordi- 
 nary courtesies of decent private life, even in 
 mentioning in debate the political designation 
 of an opponent, I will hold my peace. 
 
 But, sir, the Republican members of this 
 body would be negligent of their duty to the 
 true and loyal men who sent them here, if they 
 bhould not reply, to some extent aud at a (ittiag 
 time, to these unprecedented aud unlbunded 
 assaults upou them. It is in partial dischar^'e 
 of this duty that I now address the House, in 
 so doing, I shall endeavor to state fairly what 
 seem to me the necessary results of the doc- 
 trines avowed by the leadin<^ members of the 
 L)emocratic party on this floor, to controvert 
 those doctrines as well as I am able to do, and 
 to set forth frankly my own views upou the 
 questions at issue. The time has come when 
 we should fully understand each other ; and I 
 am sure that all honorable gentlemen will agree 
 with me, that we ought no longer to deceive 
 ourselves, or delude the people with specious 
 equivocations and juggling j/latforms. 
 
 The prevalent opinion among those who 
 framed the Constitution of this Government 
 was that, in political economy, slavery was to 
 be regarded as an evil ; to some extent, indeed, 
 a necessary evil, in communities where it had 
 existed for many generations, and become in- 
 terwoven with the social habits and business 
 interests; but still an evil, whose peaceable 
 and legal removal was an object of earnest de- 
 sire. In relation to its original establishment 
 in a new society, the opinion was more decided; 
 such establishment was juslly considered a 
 great moral wrong, a sin against God, and a 
 crime against humanity, as well as repugnant 
 to the principles of a sound political economy. 
 And such continued to be the general opinion 
 of the country for more than a generation after 
 the adoption of the Constitutiuu. I shall not 
 weary the House with quotations in conlirma- 
 tion of these statements ; the prools of their 
 correctness will readily occur to all intelligent 
 men. The Democratic party of today de- 
 nounces these sentiments as false and fanatical. 
 It holds, as an abstract proposition, that prop- 
 erty in man exists of natural right ; no more 
 to be condemned in morals or deprecated in 
 policy than property in cattle or merchandise ; 
 that the system of American slavery, which is 
 based upon this property in man, is also, and 
 without reference to collateral circumstances, 
 right — right, not merely where it exists as an 
 involuntary inheritance from preceding genera- 
 tions, but rightfully to be originally established 
 in a community, as a component part of its 
 domestic institutions. And not only this, but 
 that, as a system, it is expedient; productive 
 of vast benefits where it already exists, and 
 calculated to produce the greatest good in so- 
 cieties where, under favoring influences of soil 
 and climate, it may be newly established. 
 
 The Deniocratic party, moreover, insists that 
 
 this property in man is distinctly recognised 
 and protected by the Constitution of the United 
 States ; that wherever the term " property " is 
 used in that instrument, it embraces slaves as 
 truly as any object of legitimate ov/nership; 
 and that every conclusion of legal or logical 
 sequence from the language of the Constitution, 
 which may apply to merchandise of any de- 
 scription, is equally applicable to this. I am 
 I aware that there is a section of the Democratic 
 j party which does not concur in all of the fore- 
 I going views, and I shall have occasion to con- 
 ! sider its position in the coiJrse of my remarks. 
 The influence of this portion in public affairs 
 is, however, at present, comparatively small. 
 The Executive department of the Government, 
 the Democratic members of the Federal Judi- 
 ciary, and an overwhelming majority of the 
 Democratic members of both houses of Con- 
 gress, embrace the opinions which I have now 
 stated. In the discussions in the other wing 
 of the Capitol, and upon this floor, I have heard 
 these doctrines set forth scores of times as 
 component parts of the Democratic creed, and 
 they have been received almost without a word 
 of disapprobation from any one claiming to 
 belong to the Democratic organization. In- 
 deed, I think that it may properly be assumed 
 that, but for the stern resistance which is made 
 to these principles by the Republican party, 
 they would be practically carried out, in all 
 their logical results, by all the departments of 
 the Federal Government. It is proper, there- 
 fore, that I should briefly indicate those results. 
 In the first place, then, if these principles be 
 correct, there is no justification or palliation for 
 the laws of the United States against the Afri- 
 can slave trade. If property in man, as in 
 merchandise, exists of natural right, if its es- 
 tablishment in new communities is just aud 
 expedient, if the Constitution applies to it the 
 same universal guaranty which it applies to all 
 objects of legitimate ownership, then human 
 beings are as proper an article of commerce as 
 cotton; the statute which declares the slave 
 trade piracy is a hideous iniquity, and its execu- 
 tion would be judicial murder. Again, assuming 
 the correctness of the principles already enun- 
 ciated, it is the imperative duty of Congress to 
 provide forthwith, by further legislation, for the 
 protection of property in slaves in the Territo- 
 ries of the United States. Whatever else may 
 be said of this species of property, it is certainly 
 true that it is regarded by the greater portion 
 of Christendom with peculiar repugnance. The 
 emigration which flows into the Territories is 
 very largely composed of men who share in 
 this feeling, and the consequence has been 
 that slaveholders have felt that their estate in 
 their human chattels was entirely insecure, 
 when once removed beyond the protection of 
 State sovereignty. To say that the Constitu- 
 tion guaranties to the owner of property the 
 absolute enjoyment of his rights therein, 
 throughout the Federal possessions, and then 
 
 (o 'i' 
 
tc refuse a remedy for the violation of those 
 rights, is but a solemn mockery. Nor is this 
 all. The same reasonincr necessarily interposes 
 the limitations of the Constitution apainst the 
 capacity of the people of a Territory to abolish 
 slavery when they come to make their State 
 Constitution ; and every State in this Union, 
 M'hich has em^rsed from the Territorial con- 
 dition since 1789, and, in so doinor, has incor- 
 jiorated into its Constitution what 1 think I may 
 {iroperly call the anti-slavery clause, and has 
 Liiherto relied upon that clause as a sufficient 
 security for its free system, is to-day in its legal 
 condition, according to this exposition of the 
 Constitution of the United States, as much a 
 slave State as ^^outh Carolina or Georgia. For 
 where, I may ask, did the people, while in their 
 Territorial condition, as they must have been 
 while in the act of making their Constitution, 
 acquire their power to abolish slavery jvithin 
 their borders ? From any inherent right so to 
 do ? This is vehemently denied. From any 
 act of Congress ? It is expressly affirmed that 
 Congress can confer no such power. From 
 the Constitution of the United States ? The 
 answer is an unqualified negative. Whence, 
 then, does this power come? The gentleman 
 from Texas, [Mr. Reagan,] in his very able 
 speech, gave the only answer of which, upon 
 the Democratic theory, thft question is suscep- 
 tible. The power is a '''' rcvohitionanj^'' one; 
 against all constitutions, all laws, all govern- 
 mental authority ; it comes by " revolution." 
 The whole Democratic Territorial policy is thus 
 reduced to a system, not of order, but disorder; 
 not of regulated law, but of chronic anarchy; 
 not of peace and stability, but of "revolution." 
 Such are the fundamental principles of the 
 Democratic party, and such are their logical 
 results. 1 meet them in their very beginnings, 
 for it is there that we shall find the starting 
 point of divergence between the two great par- 
 ties upon this subject. I affirm that property 
 in man does not and cannot exist of natural 
 right. It fills me with unspeakable mortifica- 
 tion to be compelled, in this enlightened age 
 and this Christian Republic, to go back to 
 demonstrate the primary truths of common 
 morality. But the necessity exists. The Dem- 
 ocratic organization, extending into every town 
 and village in the Confederacy, is fast becom- 
 ing debauched and demoralized in regard to 
 this whole matter. Its leaders teach that sla- 
 very is right ; and the masses everywhere are 
 being gradually led — by a course downward 
 in morals and backward in civilization — to 
 adopt that teaching as true. If this doctrine 
 fihall become the predominant belief throughout 
 the greater portion of the country, and systems 
 of bondage come to be justified, and approved i 
 by the masses of the people, then I believe 
 that real freedom will speedily thereafter dis- 
 appear from the Republic. I repeat, tlierefore, 
 tliat property in slaves does not and cannot 
 ei^ist of natural right. There is no voice of 
 
 inspiration asserting in man such dominion 
 over his fellow-man, like that which gave to 
 our race " dominion over the fish of the sea, 
 and over the fowl of the air, and over every 
 living thing that moveth upon the face of the 
 earth ;" aad we are, therefore, left to rest our 
 judgment upon the just instincts of the hu- 
 man heart, and the honest guidance of an en- 
 licrhtened conscience. And to these I appeal. 
 There is not a literature of any people or age 
 which does not depict liberty as better than 
 life, and slavery as worse than death. There 
 is not a man in this House who would not, 
 sooner lie down in his grave than become a 
 bondman ; there is not one of us who would 
 not rather see the face of his child upturned 
 to him, dead in its coffin, than to see that child 
 sold as a slave. No promises of sufficient food 
 and decent apparel and comfortable shelter, of 
 care in sickness and support in old age, could 
 change this preference; and if long ages of 
 servitude have produced, in isolated instances, 
 a different choice, the common sense of man- 
 kind justly finds in such phenomena a more 
 conclusive proof of the brutalizing influences 
 of bondage. The laws which are made for the 
 security of this species of property alFord fur- 
 ther evidence that it is based upon wrong. It 
 is impossible that any relation, right in itself, 
 should require such utterly repulsive enact- 
 ments for its maintenance in a civilized socie- 
 ty. I have, to some extent, looked into the 
 statutes and judicial decisions of those com- 
 munities where the institution prevails, and I 
 find (hat they compose a merciless, rfimorseless, 
 terrible machinery for changing a man into a 
 brute. There is but one step wanting to mal<:e 
 the work complete ; they have not yet legal- 
 ized n:iurder. 1 find judges of the highest tribu- 
 nals declaring that this fearful system is ab- 
 solutely necessary for the preservation of prop- 
 erty in man ; and when they have proved that 
 proposition, they have demonstrated that such 
 property cannot originally exist of natura*. 
 right. 
 
 But it is said that, however this may be, we 
 must take things as tliey are ; that property in 
 man is recognised in the Constitution of the 
 United States as legally right, and entitled to 
 the same legal protection as other property, 
 wherever that Constitution is the organic lav/ 
 of the community ; that the Constitution is the 
 organic law of the community throughout all 
 the Federal possessions ; that this practical 
 reco,7uition of the legal rectitude of slavery is 
 even more potent than would be the universal 
 acknowledgment of the right of property in 
 man ; for, as things actually are in our system 
 of government, wherever the Constitution pr' - 
 vails, except where checked and limited by 
 State sovereignty, there is thus superadded tn 
 natural right the guaranty of positive law, I 
 might reply to thit assumption, that the be!i» 
 expounders of constitutional law in this country 
 have held, with great unanimity, that the Con- 
 
gtitution of the United States does not become 
 a part of tue Territorial law until made so by 
 act of Congress, or by the change from the 
 Territorial to the State condition. But it is 
 unnecessary to follow that line of argument, 
 and it would lead me too far from ray purpose. 
 My answer to the assumption which I have 
 mentioned is, that the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States nowhere recognises any natural right 
 of property in man, and nowhere creates such 
 legal right. The Constitution purposely, care- 
 fully, guardedly, ifrnorcs the very existence of 
 such property. The slave is represented on 
 this floor as a jjer.ion^ not as a chattel ; tlie 
 clause for the rendition of fugitives does not 
 purport to restore merchandise to its owner, but 
 a debtor to his creditor; representation and di- 
 rect taxation are to be apportioned among the 
 several States according to an enumeration of 
 persons, not according to an enrollment of 
 property. All that the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States does in reference to this species of 
 property in the States where it exists is to let 
 it alone 5 the protection which it enjoys from 
 Federal interference is the protection of State 
 sovereignty, and not of the Constitution ; and 
 its assurance of the efficiency of that protection 
 is found in the provision that "the powers not 
 ' delegated to the Constitution, nor prohibited 
 ' by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
 
 * respectively, or Ui the people." The Consti- 
 tution nowhere undertakes to designate what 
 shall be regarded as property ; it does not de- 
 fine properly at all. That which the local sov- 
 ereignty treats as property within its jurisdic- 
 tion, is just so far treated as property by the 
 Constitution; if claimed to be property outside 
 of that jurisdiction, it must possess the natural, 
 generic characteristics of property, which I have 
 shown slavery does not. 
 
 It is, in my judgment, a libel npon the Con- 
 stitution to say that slavery exists anywhere by 
 virtue of its provisions. If ever there was an 
 instrument of Government in the world that 
 breathed the very spirit of freedom, it is the 
 Constitution of the United States. It was made 
 "to establish justice and to secure the blessings 
 
 * of liberty ; " it declares that " the privilege of 
 ' the writ of habeas corpus shall not be sus- 
 
 * pended," except in cases of rebellion or inva- 
 sion ; that " no bill of attainder or ex post Jado 
 law shall be passed ; " that " no title of nobility 
 shall be granted by the United States ; " it sub- 
 jects the chief Executive Magistrate to impeach- 
 ment; it provides that "the trial of all crimes, 
 ' except in cases of impeachment, shall be by 
 
 * jury " of the vicinage ; it guaranties " to every 
 
 * State in this Union a republican form of gov- 
 
 * ernmeut ; " it forbids the enactment of any 
 law by the Federal Legislature " respecting an 
 ' establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 
 
 * free exercise thereof, or abridging the free- 
 ' dom of speech or of the press, or the right of 
 ' the people peaceably to assemble and lo peti- 
 
 * tiou the Government for a lediess of griev- 
 
 ' ances ; " it declares that " the right of the peo- 
 ' pie to keep and bear arms shall not be in- 
 ' fringed ; that the right of the people to be se- 
 ' cure in their persons, houses, papers, and ef- 
 ' fects, against unreasonable searches and seiz- 
 ' ures shall not be violated ; " that " no person 
 ' shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
 ' without due process of law ; '' and then, to 
 cover all possible contingencies of danger to 
 the liberties of individuals, it declares that " the 
 ' enunciation, in the Constitution, of certain 
 ' rights, shall not be construed to deny or dis- * 
 'parage others retained by the people ; " and 
 there is no word in that instrument which, even 
 indirectly, implies that the meaning and appli- 
 cation of these general terms are to be restrict- 
 pd by any considerations of race or lineage. 
 No, sir, not one ; and those who go about to 
 tind such restriction ai:e compelled to resort 
 to inairection and outside interpretation to ac- 
 complish their purpose. Every page of the 
 Constitution of the United States is radiant 
 with the light of universal liberty. He who 
 would find there pretext or excuse for bondage, 
 must turn his back upon that light, and grope 
 his way ajmong the shadows of distorted and 
 doubtful construction. 
 
 Why, sir, what were the statesmen of the last 
 century about, when they affixed their signa- 
 tures to the instrument that severed the political 
 ties which had bound the colonies to Great 
 Britain? What were they doing when they 
 framed this Constitution about which we dis- 
 pute so much? "Our institutions," answers 
 Reverdy Johnson, in his pamphlet, "are redo- 
 ' lent of freedom. For freedom our ancestors 
 ' contended during seven years of trial. It waa 
 ' /u'j-teachingsthat inspired and supported them 
 ' during their fearful struggle." Freedom, I ask, 
 then — tor whom, or for what? For the owners 
 of capital, or the possessors of the soil, alone ? 
 Not at all, sir ; not at all. The freedom whose 
 teachings inspired and supported our ancestors 
 was the freedom of man, of all races, in all 
 ranks, and of every lineage. It is the distin- 
 guishing characteristic of our revolutionary 
 war, that it was fought upon this principle. 
 Universal equality in political rights, and the 
 indefeasible title of all men to social and civil 
 liberty, were the foundations of the great argu- 
 ment by which it was justilied. Other nations, 
 in other times, had contended for the rights of 
 kings and princes. The wars which history 
 recounts, had been the struggles of Governmcnis 
 for conquest or defence. In their beginning 
 and in their ending, little thought had been 
 taken for the masses who bore their burdens ; 
 the causes of bolh lay hidden in the caprice of 
 monarchs, the pride of aristocracies, the avarice 
 of capitalists, or the exigencies of commerce. 
 
 With our ikthers the case was very different. 
 From whatever causes ol ui!Justifiab!e taxation 
 the collision may originally have occurred, in 
 the solemn document wliich they put forth as 
 their justification for taking up arms, they 
 
based everything upon the rij:;ht of man, by 
 virtue of his humanity, to political equality 
 and civil liberty. It has been said that the 
 language used had no reference to any other 
 than the white race ; I can bring you, sir, hun- 
 dreds of expressions in the writings of the rev- 
 olutionary fathers and of the framers of the 
 Constitution, wherein slavery is spoken of as 
 antagonistic to the principles of the Declara- 
 tion ; every one of which expressions is utterly 
 meaningless, unless those principles were in- 
 tended to be as universal in their application 
 as the race of man. The doctrine of the 
 Declaration has been called a "glittering gen- 
 erality;" but two of those to whose hands v/as 
 committed the drafting of that instrument were 
 Benjamin Franklin and Roger Sherman ; and 
 neither the shrewd sense of the Boston printer 
 nor the sterling judgment of the Connecticut 
 shoemaker was likely to be betrayed into the 
 adoption of rhetorical formulas. In all nations, 
 and in all ages, the masses of mankind have 
 been, as they ever must be, composed of those 
 who live by the labor of their hands ; the theory 
 of kingly and aristocratic rule has been, and of 
 American Democracy now is, that for those 
 masses servitude is the normal, fitting, and safe 
 condilion ; the theory of the statesmen of 1776 
 uiid of the Rep'iblicans of 1860 is, that for those 
 masses liberty is right, and safest, and best. 
 
 I appreciate the ditficulties which surround 
 the [iraclical application of the latter theory in 
 a society where slavery has existed for centu- 
 ries, and become interwoven with the social 
 relations and the interests of capital ; and I re- 
 joice that no political duty demands of me a 
 solution of those difficulties; but that such 
 practical application ought to be made, when- 
 ever and wherever a new community is being es- 
 tablished, I cannot doubt; and both history and 
 the language of the Constitution, as already cited, 
 prove conclusively that such also was the opinion 
 of the founders of this Government. In the af- 
 fairs of States aiid nations, as in those of individ- 
 uals, no violation of the principles of moral rec- 
 titude can ever be practically expedient. Evil, 
 however fair it may seem, and to whatever ex- 
 tent it may be disguised by specious names, 
 will in the end work out only evil. And such, 
 if I may believe the concurrent testimony of 
 many of the purest patriots, the most upright 
 statesmen, and the most judicious citizens of 
 that portion of the Confederacy in which the 
 institution exists, has been its practical result 
 there. As I before remarked, I will not weary 
 the House with stale quotations, but if I can 
 place any reliance upon the evidence of such 
 men as Jefferson, Madison, and George Ma- 
 son, or, at a later period, of McDowell, Faulk- 
 ner, and Thomas Marshall, all capable eye-wit- 
 nesses of the effects which they portray, and 
 all loyal and upright Southern gentlemen, sla- 
 very is the fruitful parent of ignorance, poverty, 
 and vice, destructive of those essential elements 
 of all true popular liberty, freedom of speech, 
 
 of the press, and of political action, and espe- 
 cially injurious to the comfort and happiness of 
 the laboring classes of freemen. 
 
 It is no reply to these statements, to say that 
 the opinions of the last century were formed 
 while the slave trade was in full operation ; that 
 infamous traffic had long ceased at the time of 
 the memorable debate in the Virginia House 
 of Delegates in 1832, but the language of the 
 statesmen of that Commonwealth was as deci- 
 ded, at the later period, as that of their fathers 
 had been. The able and truthful m.en, whom 
 I have named, spoke o? facts, as they existed 
 under their own observation in 1787 and 1832. 
 If they told the truth, those facts remain as the 
 basis of legitimate argument, however much a 
 new generation may have departed from the 
 speculative faith of their fathers. 
 
 To these considerations of expediency should 
 be added another, which operates very power- 
 fully upon my political conduct. While I have 
 no particular apprehension for the safety of the 
 Union, I am yet fully sensible of the manifold 
 advantages which we derive from its existence. 
 Every measure which has even a remote tend- 
 ency to weaken the ties which l)ind the Confed- 
 eracy together, should be sternly opposed ; and 
 I know of no measure, whose tendencies in that 
 direction are more obvious to a reflecting mind, 
 than the schemes now so prevalent for the ex- 
 tension of slavery. Upon this topic, permit me 
 to quote the opinions of Governor McDowell, 
 of Virginia, a statesman whose high intellect- 
 ual attainments were only equalled by the gen- 
 erous qualities of his heart. He says : 
 
 " The existence of slavery creates a political interest in this 
 Union, -wliicli is, of all others, the most positive ; an interest 
 which, in relation to those who do not possess it, is adversa- 
 ry and exclusive ; one v^hich marks the manners of our 
 conntry by a corresjiondent distinction, audis sowing broad- 
 cast aniongst ns, both in our official and private intercourse, 
 the seeds of unkindness and suspicion. On this interest 
 geographical parties have been formed ; on its maintcnanca 
 or restriction the bitterest struggles have been waged ; and, 
 as it contains an ingredient of poliUcal power in our Federal 
 cou7tcih, it will always be the subject of struggle. * * * 
 Slaveholding and nou-slaveholdiug must necessarily consti- 
 tute the chajacteristic feature of our country — must neces- 
 sarily form the broad and indivisible interest upon which 
 parties will combine, and which will and docs compreheml 
 in the jealousies which now surround it, tho smothered and 
 powerful, but, I trust, not tlie irresistible causes of future 
 dismemberment. In all of t't? other crils, then, slavcri/ super- 
 adds the still further one of being a cause of national dissen- 
 sion, of being a fixed and repulsiK clement between the differ- 
 ent memliers of our Ilepublv: — ilself impelling tvilh strong 
 tendency, and aggravating all smaller tendencies to political 
 distrust, alienalion, and liostility." 
 
 The Virginia statesman from whose lips 
 these words of almost prophetic wisdom fell in 
 1832, had the discernment to perceive, and the 
 manliness to declare, that if disunion was to be 
 apprehended at all, the causes of apprehension 
 were to be found, not in opposition to slavery, 
 but in slavery itself. To give those causes 
 greater force and permanence by expanding 
 and strengthening this disorganizing system, is 
 to act the part of the madman who applies the 
 torch to his own habitation. 
 
 A very able gentleman from Mississippi, 
 [Mr. Lamar,J to whom I always listen with 
 
pleasure, however much I may dissent from 
 his opinions, in the course of an interlocutory 
 discussion some weeks since, asserted that 
 those who are striving for the expansion of sla- 
 very are " seel\ing colonization and empire in 
 ' a manner not inconsistent with the rights or 
 ' interests of a single freeman north of jNIason 
 * and Dixon's line," and asked, with great ear- 
 nestness of manner, what there was in that for 
 us to complain of. To which I answer : your 
 proposition, from your standpoint, may seem 
 conclusive; from mine, it is utterly fj.llacious. 
 Grant that we both vseek expansion and coloni- 
 zation ; we do it under a common Government 
 and a common flag, and are both responsible 
 [or the character and efiects of the expansion 
 of each. We seek to carry with us no system 
 of social or political economy which either you 
 or we believe to be hateful to God or unjust to 
 man ; you desire to spread abroad a system 
 which we believe to be both, and to do so un- 
 der the protection of a Government for which 
 we are responsible as well as you. We are 
 both acting, not for the present only, but for 
 the immediate and the distant future. Our 
 children, as well as yours, are to remember, 
 with unavailing shame and sorrow, that their 
 fathers entailed upon them an institution whose 
 evil tendencies 1 have already portrayed. When 
 the descendants of the slaves whom you shall 
 export to Chihuahua or Tamaulipas, shall feel 
 v/ilhin them those aspirations for liberty which, 
 eoouer or later, will kindle in every human 
 heart, it must be our arms, as well as yours, 
 that shall quench those aspirations in darkness 
 and blood. Upon us, as well as upon you, will 
 devolve the duty of betraying the fugitive from 
 Sonora or Colorado. You tell us exultingly 
 that the negro has twenty Ropresentatives upon 
 this floor ; it is our concern, as well as yours, 
 when you demand the admission of a half score 
 more to represent the degraded bondmen of 
 Cuba. 
 
 Having now attempted to show that the 
 Democratic party, as an organization, is com- 
 mitted to the principle that slavery is in ac- 
 cordance with natural right, and is so expressly 
 recognised and guarantied, to use the phrase 
 of tile day, by the Constitution of the United 
 States, that there is thereby superadded to the 
 obligations of natural right, the authority of 
 positive law for its expansion everywhere in 
 the Federal Territories; that, in addition to 
 the sanctions of natural right and positive law, 
 a true expediency justifies such expansion; 
 and having further attempted to show that all 
 these doctrines are unsound in theory, wrong 
 in morals and vicious in tendency, 1 am next 
 led to consider the position of that portion of 
 tiic Democratic organization which stands with- 
 out the pale of full party communion upon 
 these topics. I suppose that I may, with pro- 
 priety, look to the opinions most recently avow- 
 ed by Mr. Douglas, for the principles which 
 are embraced by this class of politicians ; and, 
 
 if I truly understand those opinions, they are, 
 to my mind, more detestable in morals, and 
 worse in logic, than the doctrines which I havo 
 already considered. I have said that the start- 
 ing-point of divergence between the great par- 
 tics is found in the question, " Is it right or 
 wrong to e&tablish slavery ? " The Democrat 
 in full communion asserts the former, and 
 reasons properly enough upon his theory of 
 morality ; I aver the latt.'r, and endeavor to 
 reason in like manner. But to Mr. Douglas, 
 right and wrong, in this affair, are matters of 
 profound indillerence. He ignores morality 
 altogether. His confession of faith is a politi- 
 cal atlieism. He evades the question of expe- 
 diency in like manner. Is siavery the bless- 
 ing that its friends claim it to be, or a curse, 
 as its enemies assert. How is it to affect the 
 prosperity of the future States of the Confede- 
 racy, the happiness of the coming generations 
 of the people? To such inquiries he returns 
 no answer ; in fac^, he asserts that he does not 
 care how they are answered. For aught that 
 he knows or cares, slavery is just as good as 
 freedom, freedom just as bad as slavery; each 
 no better and no worse than the other. A po- 
 sition more vicious in morals or more utterly 
 devoid of the first elements of statesmanship, I 
 have never encountered in political study. It 
 is an attempt to arbitrate between conflicting 
 principles, by renouncing all principle. It 
 strives to adjust permament antagonisms by 
 the shallowest of temporary expedients. It is 
 exactly adapted to the wants of swindling poli- 
 ticians and lying demagogues. It proceeds 
 from a source where selfish ambition, untiring 
 energy, shufQing inconsistency, and brazea 
 assurance, are the chief qualities which excite 
 the public attention. It is now seeking to 
 evade responsibility, by shifting to the judicial 
 the proper duties of the legislative department. 
 Faithless to everything except personal ambi- 
 tion, it has taught all parlies and all sections 
 that it cannot be trusted beyond the contracted 
 circle of its own selfish interests. It is destined 
 to be crushed out, as it ought to be crushed 
 out, in the struggle which is going on betweea 
 parties thoroughly in earnest, and each anima- 
 ted by convictions of right and duty. 
 
 In conclusion, I will indicate the measures 
 which seem to me proper, in order to prevent 
 the further extension of slavery. My own prin- 
 ciples, as already set forth, clearly forbid all 
 Federal interference with the institution in the 
 Slates where it exists. Abolitionists, properly 
 so called, denounce the Constitution, because 
 it does not give to the General Government the 
 power of intervention; and denounce us, be- 
 cause, notwithstanding that fact, we love and 
 stand by the Constitution. Duty and responsi- 
 bility are correlative terms. No political re- 
 sponsibility for the existence of slavery in the 
 States reachel me, and I have, therefore, no 
 political duty to discharge in relation to its ex- 
 tinction there. And beyond this, as a citizen 
 
of Ibe RepuUic, I am bound, in my judgment, 
 to respect the local as v,'ell as the Federal rights 
 of all its other citizens. To interfere by stealth 
 and indirection between the master and slave ; 
 to aid or encourage what are termed under- 
 ground railroads, or other secret machinery, for 
 the violation of those local rights, is a violation 
 of my own obligations, and should be irowned 
 upon by every loyal citizen. And by, it' possi- 
 ble, still more solemn obligations, am I bound 
 not to interfere with violence. There is no evil 
 with which God, in his anger, has ever visited 
 this earth, that will compare, in manifold hor- 
 rors, with servile insurrection : and for that rea 
 son, among others, do I pray that He, in His 
 mercy, in His own good time and way, will re- 
 move the evil of slavery from all our borders ; 
 but the man who, in the full possession ot his 
 mental faculties, goes into a slave State, with 
 force and strong hand, to wrest the hondraau 
 from his master, and persists in his effort to the 
 sacrifice of human life — however unselfish his 
 motives, however lofty his courage, however 
 Christianlike his fortitude — is guilty or murder; 
 and no one, not even the wife of his bosom or 
 the child of his old age, can demand, upon any 
 principle of human or divine justice, that the 
 stern seutence with which the law visits that 
 crime should not be executed. 
 
 Nor do I believe it to be at present necessary 
 that Congress should endeavor, by prohibit()ry 
 legislation, to exclude the system from the Ter- 
 ritories which we already possess. I have no 
 doubt of the power of Congress so to do 5 but 
 it is ofter. neither necessary nor expedient to 
 exercise acknowledged powers. I do not con- 
 sider the Supreme Court as having made a ju- 
 dicial decision upon this subject. Its members 
 have expressed a political opinion, not called 
 for by the case, which is entitled to the same re- 
 spect as a similar opinion uttered by an equal 
 number of able, upright, and learned men, in 
 any other station would be, and no more. The 
 time may come when this power of the Federal 
 Legislature will again be called into requisi- 
 tion, as it so frequently was during the sixty 
 years which succeeded the formation of the 
 Government. At present, I see no necessity 
 for its exercise. The greater portion of our or- 
 ganized Territories is already secure against 
 the ingress of slavery. The organic acts which 
 called the remainder into jjolitical existence 
 provide expressly that such of their Territorial 
 laws as shall be disapproved by Congress shall 
 become null and void. 
 
 Whenever a Territorial Legislature is mad 
 enough or venal enough to enact a slave code, 
 I would exercise the power thus conferred upon 
 Congress, and annihilate the iniquitous statute. 
 
 In every act for the organization of future Ter- 
 ritories, I would incorporate the same clause, 
 and execute it in like manner, whenever a sim- 
 ilar occasion should arise, i would endeavor 
 to restrain that insane lust of dominion which 
 is perpetually seeking foreign acquisition, and 
 is fast becoming the bane of the Republic. I 
 would elect a President of the old Republican 
 faith, whose executive and judicial oilicers, 
 everywhere, should be governed, in the dis- 
 charge of their duties, by fidelity to the Co::sti- 
 tution and the laws, as steadily construed and 
 enforced for more than sixty years after the 
 formation of this Government. 1 would enact a 
 Homestead law, which, by the bestowal of 
 nnbought titles to the soil, should invite the 
 laboring freemen of the United States to lay 
 the foundations of civilized society throughout 
 all our Territories, under the benign influences 
 of universal industry and all-pervading liberty ; 
 and if my fellow-citizens of the slaveholding 
 States desired it, I would pledge the revenues 
 of the Government for the purchase of a region 
 beyond our present limits, wherein to colonize 
 their surplus servile population, afar from irri- 
 tating contact with another and a prouder race. 
 And then, sir, I would risk slavery extension ! 
 
 In doing all this, I believe that I should not 
 violate any constitutional right of any n^an, or 
 class of men, in the Confederacy ; 1 believe 
 that I should not prejudice the real interests oi 
 any part or section of the country ; I believe 
 that I should be doing that which is best for 
 the present generation, and which will be best 
 for the generations that are to come after us. 1 
 should have no apprehension of disunion or re- 
 bellion, or civil convulsion of any kind. I know 
 that the people of my section are true to the in- 
 tegrity of the Republic ; and I believe that tho 
 people of all sections are. The mutterings of 
 treason, the gasconade of secession, the senseless 
 bravado about disunion, do not come from the 
 popular heart anywhere. They fall, without 
 due reflection perhaps, from the lips of some 
 honorable gentlemen who, in the excitement of 
 the moment, may mean what they say ; but, 
 for the most part, they are the desperate resort 
 of the desperate politicians of the Democratic 
 party. To meet such extravagance and folly 
 with sober argument would be to clothe them 
 with a dignity beyond their importance. The 
 gentlemen who utter these things profess an 
 unwillingness to wait for " overt acts." I do 
 not doubt that they will be found just as un- 
 willing to commit " overt acts." Common 
 sense, I trust, has not yet entirely forsaken 
 them. When it shall do so, they may find, too 
 late, that it has not forsaken the constitueu- 
 ciea which, sent them here. 
 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1860. 
 
 IIEPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. 
 
 HON. PRESTON' KTXG, N. Y., Chairman. 
 " J. W. GRIMES, IOWA. 
 " L. F. S. FOSTER, COXN. 
 
 On (he pari of the Senate. 
 " E. B. WASHBURXE, ILLINOIS. 
 
 HON. JOHN COVODE, PENN., Treasurer 
 " E. O. SPAULDIXG, 'N. Y. 
 " J. B. ALLEY, MASS. 
 " DAVID KIL(iORE, INDIANA. 
 " J. L. N. STRATTON, N. J. 
 
 On the pari of the House of Reps. 
 
 The Committee are prepared to furnish the following speeches: 
 
 Hon. II. Wilson, Mass.: Territorial Slave Code. 
 " Johu P. Hale, N. H. 
 " J. J. Perry, Me. : "Posting the Books be 
 
 tween the North and the South." 
 " J. R. Doolittlc, Wis.: The Calhoun Revo- 
 lution — Its Basis and its Progress. 
 
 EIGHT I'AOES. 
 
 ^""u- ^'- ^J; ^'^'^•'"■'^' -"•'• ^' • ^^--^ of the Country. 
 \y. H. Sowrtrd, N. Y.: Rochester Speech. 
 (r. A. Orow, Penn. : Free Homes for Free 
 Men. 
 " Junies Harlan, Iowa: Shall the Territories 
 
 he Africanized ? 
 " John Hickman, Penn.: Who have Violated 
 
 Compromises. 
 " B. F. Wade, Ohio: Invasion of Harper's 
 
 Ferry. 
 " G. W. Scranfon and J. H. Campbell, Penn.: 
 The Speakership. 
 
 " ^'n\ ''''^'^' ^^'^■' Afi'lrcss at Cincinnati : 
 Colonization and Commerce. 
 
 " Orris S. Ferry, Conn. 
 
 " Abraham Lmcoln, 111. : The Demands of 
 the South— The Republican Party Vin- 
 dicated. 
 
 " William Windom, Minn.: The Homestead 
 Hill — Its Friends and lU Foes. 
 
 " Owen Lovejoy, Illinois : The Fanaticism of 
 the Democrat ic Party. 
 Lands for the Landless — A Tract. 
 The Poor Whites of the South— A Tract. 
 
 SIXTEEN PAGES. 
 Hon. Lyman Trumbull, 111.: Seizure of the Ar- 
 senals at Harper's Ferry, Va. and Libert .- 
 Mo., and iu Vindication of the Republi- 
 can Party. 
 « B. F. Wade, Ohio: Property in the Terri- 
 tories. 
 " C. II. Van Wyck, N. Y. : True Democracy- 
 History Vindicated. 
 
 Douglas and Popular Sover-i 
 
 Carl Schurz, W^is. 
 
 eignty. 
 
 TWENTY-FOUR PAGES. 
 Hon. Jacob Collamer, Vermont. 
 
 THIRTY-TWO PAGES. 
 Hon. Thomas Corwin, of Ohio. 
 
 GERMAN. 
 
 EIGHT PAGES. 
 Hon. G. A. Grow, Penn.: Free Homes for Free 
 Men. 
 " James Harlan, Iowa: Shall the Territories 
 
 be Africanized? 
 " John Hickman, Penn.: Who Have Violated 
 Compromises. 
 Carl Schurz, Wid.: Douglas and Popular Sover- 
 eignty. 
 
 SIXTEEN PAGES. 
 Hon. Lyman Trumbull, 111.: Seizure of the Arse- 
 nals at Harper's Ferry, Va. and Liberty, 
 Mo., and in Vindication of the Republi- 
 can Party. 
 " W. H. Seward, N. Y.: The State of the 
 Country. 
 Lands for the Landless — A Tract, 
 
 And all the leading Republican speeches will be published as delivered 
 ing^redufed'rke?:''""'' ""^^^^S^' Speeches and Documents will be st^pplied at the follow- 
 
 Eight pages, per hundred, copies free of posta^'e 
 
 Sixteen " <' " <f * ' " " 
 
 Twenty-four " " « ~ ' " " 
 
 Address either of the above Committee. 
 
 GEORGE HARRINGTON, Secretary. 
 
 $0.50 
 l.GO 
 1.50 
 
 54 Mf 
 

 
 "°^. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rt *^ « • " • » ^^ rt^ • ♦• • • 
 
 
 ^^^n iwA^mi" aV^. :>^a^« ^^^»^ « 
 
 
 ^^.^"^ 
 
 rf'' 
 
 
s^<=u. 
 
 r^^^ 
 
 
 "^J^^A^ 
 
 
 »0' 
 
 
 
 
 '*' **V^'%% /if^*^ *^^*¥^'*o <S^ *iS 
 
 * 4? «^ « V^s 
 
 
 
 
 X/^^^^J" ^V^?^'.o'>^ \*^>\/'^ 
 
 ,0" w^ 
 
 
 A^*^ 
 ^ %