WW 
 
LETTER 
 
 OF 
 
 y 
 
 HON. PERCY WALKER, 
 
 OF ALABAMA, 
 
 TO HIS CONSTITUENTS, 
 
 IN REFERENCE TO THE ELECTION OF SPEAKER 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WASHINGTON! 
 
 "PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 1856. 
 
E^ 
 
 
 \ 
 
LETTER. 
 
 To the Voters of the First Cotup-essional District of Alabama: 
 
 The protracted struggle for the speakership of the House of Representatives of the present 
 Congress has at length terminated in the election of Nathaniel P. Banks, a Republican mem; 
 ber from Massachusetts; and in that chair which, in the better and purer times of the Republic, 
 was honored by Macon and Cheves, and Lowndes and Clay, now sits one who boasts cf 
 the strength and power of the anti-slavery sentiment in his district, and the full measure of 
 whose ambition must have been attained in his personal and party triumph here, as it imparts 
 a new and fresh impulse to sectional rancor and fanaticism. 
 
 In order that you may see clearly what course 1 have pursued in that contest, and thus 
 enable you to-judge how" far I may merit your approval, I propose, as briefly as the object I 
 have in view will allow, to give you a history of the chief events that occurred during that 
 
 Before the assembling of Congress, it was known that the House of Representatives would 
 be divided into three parties, "to wit: the so-called Republicans, the Democrats, and the 
 National Americans, or Know Nothings. 
 
 The first, and by far the strongest in numbers, represented the anti-slavery sentiment of the 
 free States; the second, the Administration; and the third was composed of men who, believing 
 that the constant and unceasing influx of foreign and distracting elements into the country was 
 pregnant with danger to the purity of the ballot-box, and destructive of that earnest and enlight- 
 ened patriotism which is the life 'and soul of our institutions, were determined, if possible, to 
 effect a change in the system of naturalization; of men who were convinced of the demoral- 
 ization of old parties, and their inefficiency for the general good; and who, moved by the sug- 
 gestions of a hia;h and solemn duty, were anxious to weaken the. force of partijism, which had 
 so long degraded political associations, lowered the character of men, and detracted from the 
 dignity of the Government, and who were emulous of achieving the great work of restoration 
 to "the pure conduct and lofty, patriotic aims of their fathers; a body of men representing a 
 party that had il! if no admixture of the vague, speculative, Germanic theories of Government, 
 nor of continental malcontent, pauperism, and crime, nor of " Red Republicanism, belched 
 forth by unstable France in the hearings and throes of her revolutionary spirit; but a party 
 moved by an earnest, native American sentiment; a party between which and their «"£« 
 country there stood no foreign associations, allegiances, or sympathies, but which cherished 
 the traditions of their own land, revered the memory of its great dead, their heroic deeds and 
 self-sacrificing devotion; a party proclaiming the conviction that there was sufficient of native 
 virtue' and intelligence to frame and administer the laws for the government of the country. 
 
 The antagonism between this party and the Republicans, in consequence of the sectionalism 
 and fanaticism of the latter, precluded all idea of a union with them, either to eflect an organi- 
 zation of the House, or for any other purpose. 
 
 Why the American members did not cooperate with the Democrats, will be seen from what 
 follows. . . 
 
 Congress met on Monday, the 3d of December last; on the Saturday evening- previous, tM 
 Democratic members held a caucus, nominated William A. Richardson, of Illinois, as their 
 candidate for Speaker, and adopted the following resolution: 
 
 " Resolved, That the Democratic members of the House of Representatives, though in a 
 ' temporary minority in this body, deem this a fit occasion to tender to their fellow-citizens of 
 
1 the whole Union their heartfelt congratulations on the triumph , in the recent elections in several 
 
 • of the northern, eastern, and western, as well as southern States, of the principles of the Kan- 
 «. sas-Nebraska bill, and the doctrines of civil and religious liberty which have been so violently 
 'assailed by a secret political order, known as the Know Nothing party; and though in a 
 
 * minority, we hold it to be our highest duty to preserve our organization and continue our 
 'efforts iii the maintenance and defense of those principles, and the constitutional rights of 
 ' every section and every class of citizens against their opponents of every description, whether 
 ' the so-called Republicans, Know Nothings, or Fusionists; and to this end, we look w 
 ' confidence to the support and approbation of all good and true men — friends of the Constitu- 
 ' tion and the Union throughout the country." 
 
 An analysis of this resolution will show that the American members could not support Mr. 
 Richardson without a loss of self-respect, a total surrender of their party position, and an 
 abandonment of one of the fundamental ideas of the American organization. 
 
 The resolution congratulated the country upon the triumph "of the principles of the Kan- 
 sas-Nebraska bill." Now, what principles were embraced in that bill? 
 
 Let us first examine the bill in its bearing upon the slavery question, and the interpretation 
 placed upon it by its supporters. 
 
 It will be recollected that, during the pendency of the measure in the last Congress, the 
 southern people were told that it was intended to restore to them the rights they had lost by 
 the adoption of the Missouri restriction in 1820, by which slavery was prohibited from pass- 
 ing further north than latitude 36° 30'; that it was designed to give them equal rights in 
 all the, Territories; and that the impression was made upon the southern mind that southern 
 members supported the bill under the belief that Kansas would become a slave Territory; and 
 that the President favored the measure under the same belief. It will be further remembered 
 that our leaders at home, and Representatives and Senators in that Congress, predicated their 
 support of the bill upon the ground, that Congress had no power over the subject of slavery 
 in the Territories; that neither the squatters or first settlers in the Territories had, by any 
 inherent right, nor the Territorial Legislature, any power to interdict slavery, and that such 
 power could only be exercised when the people of the Territory, through their delegates, 
 assembled in convention to form a State constitution. 
 
 These representations and arguments induced the South to regard the bill with favor, and 
 persuaded it to insist upon its passage as a measure of justice to that section, wiping out the 
 statutory insult of 1820, and removing the barrier, erected by that statute, to their right of 
 occupancy, with their property of any and every kind, of the Territories which were the com- 
 mon property of all the States. 
 
 No one in Alabama regarded the Kansas-Nebraska act as recognizing what is known as 
 " squatter sovereignty;" that is, that the people of the Territory, either through their Terri- 
 torial Legislature or otherwise, before they met in convention to frame an organic law pre- 
 paratory^ their admission into the Union as a State, possessed the power to prohibit or 
 exclude slavery. The advocacy of the bill upon such a basis, by southern members of Con- 
 gress, would have arrayed the South as one man against it. And though the three or four 
 southern Representatives who resisted the passage of the bill did so because, in their judg- 
 ment, it sanctioned the doctrine of " squatter sovereignty," and though it was alleged that 
 the northern Democratic supporters of the bill based their support of it upon the ground that 
 it recognized that doctrine, and that, instead of equalizing power, would, by opening the 
 country south of 3C° 30' to the North, ultimately, by colonization, increase the number of free 
 States, and give them still greater preponderance, yet the South saw not the danger, and felt 
 no alarm. The bill was heralded to you as an act of justice, though a tardy one, to the South. 
 It was the measure of a Democratic Administration, and its final passage was proclaimed as 
 a new triumph of their policy. , 
 
 The North, not at once perceiving the addition to its power which would result from the 
 establishment of the doctrine of "squatter sovereignty," was inflamed at the repeal of the 
 Missouri compromise. Congress adjourned. The northern Representatives who had voted 
 for the bill were called upon to defend their votes. In almost every instance that defense 
 consisted in the allegation that the bill would enlarge the " area of freedom;" that it conferred 
 upon squatters the right to settle the question whether slavery should, or should not, be ad- 
 mitted; and that, by removing the Missouri inhibition, all the territory, whether North or 
 South,' was laid open to the people of the free States; and that they, by the migratory char- 
 acter and superabundance of their population, had it in their power to convert it all into free 
 States. But the northern mind was, at that time, too much heated to be made sensible of the 
 force of this reasoning, and condemned those of their Representatives who had aided in the 
 passage of the bill. ■ . , 
 
 To show that I have correctly stated the opinions of northern Democrats upon the Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill, 1 call your attention to the following article from a late number of a leading 
 southern journal, viz: the Charleston Mercury: 
 
5 
 
 " Now, we are not disposed to leave any doubt on this matter. In the present asnect of 
 •affairs, when from various quarters laudations of the northern Democracy are rung in our 
 
 « ears, and the State is urged to chain her fortunes to the wheels of the Democratic party ,, it w 
 
 * of the highest importance that the whole truth should be known; andwe therefore thank the 
 ' writer in the Standard for the challenge given us to verify the positions first assumed by us. 
 ' We invite the public and himself to the proofs: and that they may be conclusive, we will 
 « state the position of leading Democrats at the North upon, the Nebraska bill, as deliberately 
 ' defined by themselves. We begin with General Cass: ( ._ 
 
 " In September, 1854, General Cass made a speech at Detroit, in defense of the Nebraska- 
 1 Kansas bill, in which he took the distinct ground, ' That slavery can exist only by virtue 
 ' of the law of the place; that there is no provision in the Constitution which carries slavery 
 ' into any Territory where it did not exist at the time of the acquisition; that it can only exist 
 ' there by virtue o'f law, passed by the territorial government; and that in our Territories 
 ' every man is free — there is no slave — no master.' 
 
 " Doctrines such as these are, of course, in the teeth of the rights of the South, as everywhere 
 « declared by southern men. General Cass himself, in his speech Of the 87th of February, 1854, 
 « defined the position of the South to be, ' that any citizen litis a constitutional right to take 
 « with him, and hold in the Territories, any kind of property recognized as such by the laws 
 ' of the State lie leaves, (including slaves,) and there hold it, whatever may be the local law, 
 ' until prevented by a constitutional provision of the new Slate, i mbracing such district of 
 « country.' General Cass repudiated it utterly; and the Ohio Statesman, a leading Democratic 
 'journal, and an advocate of the Nebraska bill, stigmatized it as ' pro-slavery in its fullest 
 ' extt nt," and declared that ' such a position cannot be tolerated by the northern Democracy. 
 ' Thus, according to General Cass and the Ohio Statesman, the slaves of southern citizens who 
 4 have gone to Kansas, by virtue of the Nebraska-bill, are free. Speaking of General Cass's 
 'position and its own, the Ohio Statesman said: 'We beg leave to assure our southern 
 ' cotemporaries that we have yet to meet the first advocate of the late act of Congress, who 
 'upholds any other construction of the Nebraska-Kansas act than what is embodied in the 
 ' propositions quoted above. In its adherence to this doctrine of the nationality of freedom, 
 ' and the limitation of slavery, the West is and will be a unit.' We trust this will be satis- 
 ' factory to the writer in the Standard, so far as General Cass and a portion of the northern 
 ' Democracy are concerned. 
 
 " But let us pass to another leader of the same party— General Shields. In a speech made 
 ' in October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, in defense of the Nebraska bill, he used the fol- 
 ' lowing language: 
 
 " ' It allowed the people (he said) to fix their own condition, manage their own affairs, and 
 « work out their own happiness in their own way. It gave equal chances to equal States in 
 ' the settlement and government of common territory. Kansas and Nebraska were free now, 
 ' and the people there would keep them free. The establishment of slavery in those Territo- 
 
 * ries was not only improbable, but impossible; and it was always wiser and better to let people 
 ' work out a great good for themselves than have it forced upon them by others; and this was 
 ' the way in which freemen always do what is great and good, by their own free and voluntary 
 ' act. The principles of non-intervention would not only keep Nebraska and Kansas what 
 ' they are now— free— but would, by its full and fair operation, if we acquire the continent to 
 ' the Isthmus of Darien, work with such powerful force and effect, that no man would ever 
 ' see another slave territory on this continent.' 
 
 "After saying much on this head, General Shields alluded to the danger of sectional organ- 
 ' izations, anil of arraying one section of the Union in ageneral sentimentof hostility against the 
 ' other. ' The Nebraska question (he said) would soon settle itself;- as, in the midst of tins 
 'angry discussion, Kansas would present herself with a free constitution, and be admitted as 
 ' a free member of the Confederacy. ' 
 
 " This speech the Washington Union copied, and indorsed with the highest commendations. 
 'Nor is this all. The same paper, in a controversy with the Richmond Enquirer, as to the 
 ' position of General Cass, said: 
 
 " ' In the remarks of General Cass, on the subject of slavery, we recognize the sentiments 
 ' entertained by all northern men. As is well remarked bythe Detroit Free Press, (the organ 
 ' of General Cass.) the sentiments of General Cass are those entertained by Douglas, of Illinois, 
 'Toucey, of Connecticut, Bright, of Indiana, and Dodge, of Iowa, and if General Cass is to 
 ' be denounced for their utterance, then are they, too, subject to the same strictures. 
 
 " Let the writer in the Standard measure the statement's made in the debate quoted by US, 
 ' with these proofs, and discover, if he can, any cause to question them. 1 lere are the distinct 
 'declarations of General Cass and General Shields, back, d by leading Democrjatic 01 
 1 and asserted to be the principles of the entire northern Democracy— principles utti rly sub- 
 ' versive of the Nebraska bill. as understood bythe South, the very pith and marrow of Free- 
 « Soil, and hostile to the rights of slavery and the South." — CharlesU n Mefcury. 
 
6 
 
 Tn further corroboration of the 'correctness of my statements of the position of the north- 
 ern wing of the Democracy, I might call your attention to the disclosures contained in the 
 debates in the House at the present session; but as this is unnecessary, and would extend this 
 communication to an unreasonable length, I shall content myself with quoting an extract from 
 a brief speech lately delivered by Gen. Cass in the Senate, and a letter to the President of the 
 late Democratic Convention in New York, from Mr. C. C. Cambreleng, not long since a lead- 
 ing Democratic member of Congress from New York, and still belonging to that party. 
 
 On the 3d day of January, lb56, Gen. Cass addressed the Senate; and, after alluding to the 
 fact that he bad been alluded to in a debate in the House, a few days previous upon the 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, spoke as follows : 
 
 "The curious inquirer after the truth of history will find I there maintained that the people 
 ' of every organized Territory, possessed of a Legislature, have the right, through such Leg}8- 
 'lature, to regulate all the relations of domestic life — those of parent and child, of husband 
 
 • and wife, and of master and servant, and of all similar conditions, and to introduce or abol- 
 ' ish slavery, as fully as the people of a State; and that the change from a Territorial to a State 
 'government does not enlarge or diminish, or change this power of legislation.'' 
 
 Here we have " squatter sovereignty " in all its length and breadth, indorsed and advoca- 
 ted by the Democratic leader, who has received the highest mark of the confidence and admi- 
 ration of his party. 
 
 The following is the letter of Mr. Cambreleng, with the approving comments of the Demo- 
 cratic journal in which it first appeared : 
 
 [From the Albany Atlas.] 
 " Hon. Churchill C. Cambreleng on Squatter Sovereignty. — We have been permitted 
 
 • by Mr. Ludlow, the President of the Democratic State Convention of the 10th instant, to 
 ' publish the following extracts from a letter to him of one of his most honored constituents. 
 'Mr. Ludlow acted in the convention from his own sense of duty; and, so far as we know, 
 'his conduct has been received with uniform approbation in every Democratic quarter: but 
 ' had it been otherwise, he might well offer the sound and patriotic sentiments of Air. Cam- 
 ' breleng as his letter of instruction, for the course he pursued. It is necessary to remind our 
 ' readers that Mr. Cambreleng represented the city of New York some eighteen years in Con- 
 ' gress, was afterward Minister to Russia, and that, although a North Carolinian by birth, he 
 ' has been one of the most thorough and consistent Free-Soilers in the Democratic ranks since 
 ' the days of Jefferson — that he presided over the Herkimer Convention in 1847, and that he 
 ' is far beyond the reach of every imputation of personal motive, having been, by his own 
 ' wish, for many years withdrawn from public life, and in the enjoyment of every pleasure 
 'and luxury that health, leisure, and wealth can command. 
 
 " Huntington, December 8, 1S55. 
 
 «'W. H. Ludlow, Esq. . 
 
 "My dear Sir: Even southern men in Kansas acknowledge that it will inevitably be a 
 ' free State. This is the last struggle for slavery; for the half dozen Territories remaining 
 ' are already free, and will remain so. There would not have been half the trouble about 
 ' Kansas but for Atchison's struggle to get back into the Senate. As the question now stands, 
 ' there ought to be no difficulty whatever in uniting the Democratic party; for the principle 
 ' of the Nebraska and Kansas bill — squatter sovereignty — whatever its origin, gives us every 
 ' Territory belonging to the United States, and all we have now to insist upon is, that it shall 
 ' be honestly enforced — that Kansas shall have fair play. Practically, there is no difference 
 ' worth quarreling about. 
 
 " It appears to me to be perfectly absurd for us to be grumbling about ' squatter sovereignty ' 
 ' at the present time, when squatter sovereignty will make free every inch of territory now 
 ' belonging to the United States. After tin- acquisition of California, with the prospect of 
 ' the addition of more Mexican territory, when General Cass proposed the doctrine of no-ri- 
 ' intervention, it was an important question, as it might have led to the introduction of manv 
 'slave States; but after the South had been completely check-mated by California's declara- 
 ' tion in favor of freedom, we had no reason to object to the doctrine of non-intervention, 
 'or squatter, sovereignty. We have now, besides Kansas and Nebraska, New Alexico, 
 ' Utah, Aiinnesota, Qregon, and Washington, making seven Territories, which will give us 
 • acvn free State's. Some think the fate of Kansas doubtful: but the invasion of tin 1 Missouri 
 ' rowdies, independent of natural causes, will make it a free State. These borderers came' 
 ' over first to vote for pro-slavery men — tin: second time to vote against them in the location 
 ' of the capital— and the third time to make a bluster under Shannon, plunder the peopli .and 
 ' drink whisky. This is tin; last and dying struggle of slavery. Under such circumstances I 
 ' cannot conceive what we can possibly gain by resisting a principle which has hitherto 
 ' excluded shivery from our Territories. 
 
" The slaveholders will not get Kansas, and thev are now deprived of the pretext of going 
 * into the Territories south of 36° 3D', under that compromise. They generally opposed non- 
 ' intervention on that ground, and contended for carrying the compromise line to the Pacific 
 'ocean. It is certainly not for our interest now to have that compromise line restored. 
 ' Why the South should have- voted for its repeal is a question for themselves to settle— they 
 ' all, at the time, admitted that Kansas would never be a slave Slate. I hope our friends will 
 ' meet the issue boldly, and have the question of State organization to the people of the Ter- 
 1 ritory, who have the natural and best right to decide for themselves. 
 
 "Let the squatters settle it— but insist that that principle of the Nebraska act shall be 
 « honestly carried out— that the squatters shall have fair play, and shall not be controlled by 
 ' invaders from Missouri, or any military power whatever. As to ' more slave States, there 
 « are none in prospect, and it is useless to embarrass ourselves by anticipating questions which 
 ■ may or may not arise. We have no alternative but to stick to the national Democratic 
 ' party, and we have no reason whatever, looking ahead, to abandon it. Some of our leaders 
 'have" done the party a vast deal of injury, but some, who intended otherwise, have done 
 ' the cause of freedom no harm, and so far we have no reason to complain. They broke us 
 ' down in the free States bv the repeal of the Missouri compromise; but that is no reason 
 ' why we should extinguish ourselves, and ' fuse' with men who have no principle in common 
 ' with us. 
 
 " I would meet the question flat-footed, and leave to & Co. all the honor of aban- 
 
 ' donino- their old principles, of embracing their enemies, and of throwing up their caps for 
 ' William H. Seward. ' 
 
 "Blair is an honest man. and sticks to whatever he engages in obstinately He has^no 
 ' interested or ulterior motive. C. C. CAMBRELLAU. 
 
 Thus you see that the bill received the support of southern men, for reasons wholly different 
 from those which won for it the approbation of northern members. It was, and is now, inter- 
 preted to mean one thing at the South, while at the North it was insisted that it meant just the 
 opposite. 
 
 Bearing this in mind, you can readily account for the ambiguity of the Democratic caucus 
 resolution above quoted. You will see why the resolution spoke of the principles of the 
 Kansas-Nebraska act, without stating clearly and distinctly what principle it did establish in 
 reference to slavery in the Territories. It was a stroke of party policy. It would not do to 
 announce in plain terms, that it sanctioned the doctrine of " squatter sovereignty, because 
 such a declaration would at once have broken down the Democratic party in the South; While 
 the averment that the act excluded, or was intended to exclude, the principle of" squatter 
 sovereignty, "would at once have severed the northern Democracy from their southern allies. 
 To avoid this party disaster, uncertain terms were employed in framing the resolution, thus 
 insuring the continued union of northern and southern Democrats, by affording a double 
 ground upon which the members from the two sections could stand, and by the maneuver 
 present to the country the spectacle of apparent concord. 
 
 Now, as 4 southern man, and regarding the doctrine of" squatter sovereignty as monstrous, 
 I could not, without stultifying myself, support the candidate nominated upon that resolution, 
 and, by supporting him, thereby indorse what I believed contained a recognition of that 
 doctrine. . 
 
 It is true that, in the canvass of last summer, I stated to you, that if I had been a member 
 of the last Congress, I should, notwithstanding certain objections to the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, have voted for it, because it was, at that time, regarded as a measure of right to the South, 
 and because I agreed with the southern members in the opinion that the doctrine of "squatter 
 sovereignty" was not established bv the bill. My readiness to support the bill at that time, 
 and for the reasons stated, by no means required me, by my action now, to give my indorse- 
 ment to the free State interpretation of it. So much for what may be considered the slavery 
 portion of the Kansas-Nebraska act. . . 
 
 Another principle of that act, the sanction of which, as the future policy to be pursued by 
 the Democratic party in reference to territorial governments, would have been involved in my 
 support of the nominee, Mr. Richardson, is to be found in the fifth section of the act, w Inch 
 confers upon aliens the right of suffrage, and places the unnaturalized foreigner upon an equotUj) 
 with the native-born citizen. . . ... 
 
 Those of you who heard the discussions last summer between my competitor and mysc t, 
 will remember that I then pointed out the evils likely to result from a large and annually 
 swelling foreign population in our midst, coming here with their old nationalities and alien 
 sympathies, bringing with tHeii the memory of those elements which enter so largely into 
 the love of country ; to wit: the legends and traditions of their native lands— reared under 
 forms of goVf rnmenl wholly different from our own— ignorant of oar institutions and laws 
 — havin •' e i cohception of the apparently complex yet really simple frame-work of our Ltov- 
 ernmuiU, its various checks and balances, consisting of a Confederacy of sovereign and inde- 
 
 • 
 
' 8 
 
 pendent States, held in union by a compact voluntarily entpred into with each other, and 
 having a general agent or Government, the creature of their will, and moving within a circle 
 prescribed and denned by the sovereigns who gave it being. You will recollect that at that 
 time I condemned this provision of the Kansas act, and denounced it as an invitation to 
 foreigners who had not even gone through the idle forms of naturalization to emigrate to and 
 nil up those Territories. I then regarded the incorporation of that provision in the bill as a 
 species of demagogism, and I so regard it now. Belonging to the American party — nom- 
 inated by that party in your district — I was elected to Congress with the full knowledge on 
 the part of the voters that I was opposed to the existing naturalization laws; that I had no 
 faith in the idea of molding, by a hasty, hot-bed process, foreigners who were utterly ignorant 
 of our habits and customs, our institutions and laws, and the foundation principles of our 
 Government, into safe and reliable citizens, capable of wisely and considerately discharging 
 the duties and exercising the rights of American citizenship. 
 
 I argued then that the present system of naturalization was, in its practical operation, but 
 a solemn farce; that it was an easy method of manufacturing the ignorant, illiterate, and often- 
 times depraved immigrants into citizens, and thus tending to lower and degrade privileges and 
 immunities which the patriotic and thoughtful native cannot value too highly. 
 
 Besides these general objections, there were others upon which I dwelt as more nearly and 
 directly affecting the future interests and well-being of the slave States. I endeavored to show 
 that the South could not be the gainer by this flood of foreign immigration; that these for- 
 eigners who annually crowded upon our shores were the subjects of governments that not 
 only did not sanction African slavery, but which had in every imaginable form — by the decla- 
 rations of their popular assemblies, by the avowed opinions of their leading public men, in 
 their diplomatic correspondence, and even more formal governmental actions — indicated their 
 hostility to slavery as it exists in this country. I assumed that the subjects and citizens of 
 those governments who sought residences in this country must necessarily, from the force of 
 education, the prevailing public opinion, and the teachings of their rulers, be inimical to our 
 system of domestic servitude; and that as it was well known that four fifths of them settled 
 in the free States and Territories, and among a population who regarded slavery as a moral, 
 social, and political evil, and who for years had been directing their efforts to limit the area of 
 slavery, if not to destroy it where it already exists, I contended that the South, if she were 
 mindful of her interests and safety, should unite to prevent such dangerous additions to the 
 population, and to insist upon a radical change in the system of naturalization. 
 
 With these opinions, so often and so openly declared in the canvass of last year, it could 
 not be expected that I should, at the very threshold of my congressional career, surrender 
 them, and indorse by my vote a resolution sanctioning the very opposite of my convictions. 
 And I would here ask you, that if the aZien-suff'rage provision of the Kansas act is to become 
 the settled policy in the organization of territorial government, and if " scpiatter sovereign- 
 ty " be the approved doctrine, what chance has the South to obtain a foothold in any portion 
 of the territorial domain now belonging to the United States or to be hereafter acquired? Re- 
 member, that the population of the slave States, content with its present lot, is in a great 
 measure a stationary one; that we are a home-abiding people; that we are not migratory, as 
 the people of the North and West are; and, moreover, that we have not a large and annually 
 swelling foreign population; and I repeat the question: What prospect have we, with our non- 
 colonization habits, to increase our power by obtaining the control in any of the Territories 
 now established, or hereafter to be carved out? 
 
 But, passing from a further consideration of this point, it will be observed that the Demo- 
 cratic caucus resolution not only congratulates the country " on the triumph of the principles 
 of the Kansas-Nebraska bill," but also on the triumph of " the doctrines of civil and reli- 
 gious liberty, which have been so violently assailed by a secret political order, known as the 
 Know Nothing party;" thus preferring a charge which had been steadily and persistently 
 denied by that party, and which had its origin either in a total misconception of the aims and 
 purposes of the American party, or in extreme and inflamed partisanship. That resolution 
 furthermore declared that, " though hi a minority, we hold it to be our highest duty to 
 preserve our organization, and continue our efforts in the maintenance and defense of those 
 principles, and the constitutional rights of every section and every class of citizens, against 
 their opponents of every description, whether the so-called Republicans, Know Nothings, or 
 Fusionists;" thus not only stigmatizing us as opposed to the rights secured by the Constitution 
 to the various sections and classes of citizens of our country, but insultingly associating us 
 with the so-called Republicans, whose organization rests solely upon their inveterate hostility 
 to slavery; and who, in their mad crusade against that institution, would mar the peace and^ 
 harmony of the Confederacy, and endanger the very existence of the Union. No member of 
 the American party, who properly values his own personal dignity, who has the intelligence 
 to perceive and the spirit to resent an imputation upon his motives and principles, and an 
 impeachment of his fealty to the Constitution and laws, could cast his vote in favor of a 
 candidate'nominatcd by that caucus and standing upon that platform. 
 
9 
 
 Thus far I have spoken of the resolution itself, ami the unavoidable antagonism its adoption 
 created between Mr. Richardson- and the American members; bill tie inquiry suggests itself, 
 that, if the resolution was not framed and adopted for the purpose of preventing a union 
 between the Americans and Democrats in organizing the House, could the fetter have doubted 
 that such would necessarily be the result of its adoption? When their caucus mi t, th ir foil 
 party strength bad beep ascertained, and it was known, and so declared by them, to be in a 
 minority. It was therefore evident that they could not place a man of their party in the 
 Speaker's chair, without the aid of votes from one of the other two parties. Jjjookingal thi 
 materials 'of which the Democratic party in the House was composed, as shown by the first 
 votes cast for Mr. Richardson, we find that fourteen members, including Mr. Richardson, 
 were from the North Hhd West, while sixty were from the South. The latter, therefore, 
 had the controlling voice in their party action. 
 
 Assuming thai these southern Democrats regarded the slavery question as the paramount 
 one, it is clear that it was their duty to have contributed, as far as possible, to insuring a union 
 between their party and the southern members of the American party, who felt an equal in- 
 terest in the slavery question, and wereprepared to go quite as far in the defense of that institu- 
 tion. Their fealty to their section should have induced them to regard a mere party advantage 
 as a thing- of secondary importance, and persuaded them, not only not to throw obstacles in 
 the way of effecting such a union, but to have made every effort to secure and cement it. But, 
 instead of endeavoring to brine; about such a consummation, and thereby enabling us to pre- 
 sent an unbroken front in a sectional contest, the Democrats, in their caucus resolution, indi- 
 cated their determination to have no such union. 
 
 There is a significant fact, not known to the country, but well understood here, and which, 
 taken in connection with what I have before stated, may throw some little light upon the mo- 
 tives that led to the adoption of the caucus resolution, it is this: that though, the resolution 
 was offered by Mr. Jones, of Pennsylvania, it was written by si distinguished southern Demo- 
 crat, one who did much to break down the southern rights movement, in 1850- '51, and who, 
 in the late elections in his own State, signalized his hostility to the American organization. I 
 leave you to form your own judgment upon their action, and hasten to speak more particu- 
 larly of my own course in what followed. 
 
 Feeling justified in not voting for Mr. Richardson, I, on the first trial to elect a Speaker, 
 supported Mr. Humphrey Marshall, of- Kentucky, who belonged to the American organi- 
 zation, and who occupied the same position as my own in reference to the Kansas-Nebraska 
 act. I continued to vote for him and other southern men (among whom was the Hon. Wil- 
 liam Smith, a Democrat from Virginia, who, though in full communion with his party, had 
 not been in the caucus, and was known to disapprove of its action) until the 13th of December 
 last, when, for the first time, I voted for Henry M. Fuller, of Pennsylvania. I did so upon 
 ascertaining what his opinions were upon the constitutional relations of slavery, the rights of 
 the slave States in reference to the Territories, and his position upon the question of the repeal 
 of the Kansas act and the restoration of the Missouri restriction. 
 
 That these positions were such as eminently to commend him to the support of southern 
 men, will be seen from extracts from the proceedings of the House on the 12th January, (as 
 reported in the Congressional Globe,) to which I postpone calling your attention for the present, 
 in order that I may give you a chronological statement of my own votes. 
 
 From the 13th to the 18th of December I continued to vote for Mr. Fuller. On the latter 
 day, being satisfied that Mr. Fuller could not be elected, and believing it to be my duty to 
 bring together, if possible, the conservative men, and thereby insure such an organization of 
 the House as would tend to the general quiet and avoid the consequences of a sectional con- 
 flict, I made a brief speech, at the conclusion of which I made the following proposition, 
 which was addressed to the Democratic party: 
 
 " I am anxious to see this House organized. I am anxious that this House shall not pass 
 'under the control of the Republican party. I shall feel it my duty to use every possible 
 ' effort to prevent such a consummation as that. And for the purpose of indicating, here and, 
 'elsewhere, my own readiness to act with all men who are really conservative— to act with 
 ' men who are opposed to further disturbance on this exciting subject of slavery— to act with 
 'men who still acknowledge their obligations to the Federal Constitution— to act with men 
 ' who are prepared to abide by the existing laws on the subject of slavery. I say here— and, 
 'if lam not mistaken, 1 think that in this 1 am speakipg for almost the whole of the ip.en 
 ' with whom 1 have thus far acted— I am willing to go into a conference with all men who are 
 ' prepared to stand on that basis, to confi r together, and see if they cannot devise some plan 
 ' by which there may be a safe, healthful, and conservative organization of this House." 
 
 To this proposition, made in perfect good faith, Mr. J. Clancy Jones, Democrat from 
 Pennsylvania, who had introduced the caucus resolution above referred to, and who assumed 
 to be the leader of his party, answered as follows: 
 
10 
 
 " The Democratic party will meet in no caucus, except in a caucus called by that party 
 
 • itself, and on its Well-settled principles. That i:» the only political caucus that we will attend. 
 ' [Cries of ' Good, good!' and laughter.]" 
 
 After this very decisive, if not rude, rejection of my proposition, I continued to vote for Mr. 
 Fulleii until the 3d of January, when, still moved by a desire to effect an organization, such 
 as at least the South would be content with, I addressed the House as follows: 
 
 " I rise for the purpose of offering a resolution, in the hope of facilitating the organization 
 ' of the House. We have been engaged in, thus far, wholly ineffectual efforts to obtain that 
 
 * end. It is known to the House and the country that such have been ^he facts. It is known 
 ' here and elsewhere what are the obstacles in the way of effecting that organization; and the 
 « whole is resolved -into this simple truth, that party feeling on both sides of this House is so 
 'fixed as to have thus far prevented anything like a cooperation and a union between the 
 'conservative elements of the body. On one side, sir, we have seen presented a large, firm 
 ' body, under the name of the Republican party, uniformly casting their suffrages for a distin- 
 ' guishefl gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Banks,] and solely on a great sectional question. 
 « In another portion of the House, we see what the press of the country has termed ^ the 
 ' immortal seventy-four,' rendering their support for a distinguished gentleman from the State 
 ' of Illinois, [Mr. Richardson,] predicating their support for that gentleman upon his identity 
 ' with a well-known political measure. We know that there is a third and still smaller party 
 ' here; composed, as we believe, of men eminently conservative in their political opinions, of 
 ' men desirous of effecting such an organization here as shall insure good order and decorum in 
 ' this body, as shall insure everywhere, as far as the presiding officer can have the power of 
 ' insuring it, a strict observance of all the obligations of the great organic law of the land.. 
 ' Thus far, as I have said, these barriers have risen, day after day, against bringing about a 
 'good and healthful organization. 
 
 "The time has come, sir, when the country is demanding that we should do something 
 ' more than waste our time and the general treasury in these unavailing efforts: and I trust 
 ' that tlic resolution which I now offer may receive the sanction of a majority of this body. 
 ' I have cast my eye over the entire House. I have taken as a candidate for the speakership 
 ' a gentleman not entirely identified with any of the parties now arrayed against each other in 
 ' this country — a man of high character; a man of unquestioned mark and ability; a man of 
 ' singular firmness of purpose; a man having that rare independence of spirit which moves 
 ' him, in high party times, although temporarily acting with a great party of the land, to rise 
 ' in his place on this floor, and to truthfully and' manfully indicate to the House and the coun- 
 ' try his desire and his wish that we should organize with the union and conservative elements 
 ' of the House; a man called, it is true, a Democrat, but one who has said here that he does 
 ' not claim to belong to that party in the strict technical and party sense of the term, but that 
 « he acts with that party because of a gerieral coincidence and harmony of opinion; a man who 
 'has said that he was not in the caucus which nominated the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. 
 ' Richardson;] that he had nothing to do with that caucus; that he refused to go into it; that 
 « his support of that gentleman was not the result of any mere party inclination on his part, 
 ' but a support rendered because he knew and felt that the gentleman from Illinois was sound 
 ' on what he conceived to be the great ruling question of the day. Now, sir, it is known that 
 ' for weeks past I have, day after day, steadily and unflinchingly given my suffrage for a dis- 
 ' tinguisiied gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania, [Mr. Henry M. Fuller.] I have 
 ' seen and felt for days past, that it is beyond my power, and the power of the small body of 
 ' men with whom it has been my honor to act, to carry out our wishes, and to put him in that 
 • chair; and if I now withdraw my support from him, I take this occasion to say that it is in 
 ' nowise from any distrust that I 'have either as to his competency or his patriotism; but it is 
 ' nothing but the result of a conviction of my mind that we have not the ability to place him 
 ' where we desire. 
 
 " Mr. Clerk, I have said more than I designed; and I have risen merely for the purpose of 
 'making One more effort to bring about the organization of this House on a sound and true 
 ' basis, by faking a man not obnoxious as a mere party man— a man standing somewhat by him- 
 ' self, and on his own independence. I hold in my hand a resolution, which is in thesewords: 
 "Resolved, That the Hon. William W. Boyce, of South Carolina, be declared the Speaker 
 ' of this House. 
 
 " I offer it in the same spirit that induced me, on the 18th of last month, to suggest to this 
 'House that there should be a conference of the conservative elements of all parties^ to be called 
 ' and held, in the hope and for the purpose, if possible, of bringing about and insuring a proper 
 ' organization of this body. In the same spirit I now offer the resolution. What its fate may 
 ' be here, 1 cannot tell; but, sir, it is made in good faith; and, for one, I shall render the gen- 
 ' tleman named a cheerful and ready support, because it is due to him as a man and a poli- 
 ' tician. I think that it holds out the promise of a result which is so much desired by all good 
 ' men." 
 
11 
 
 A motion was mule by Mr. Sage, Republican, of New York, to lay my resolution on 
 the table. Upon this motion, all the Democrats except nineteen voted in the affirmative, 
 while all the National Americans save nine voted in the negative. Had [.before offering the 
 resolution, taken the precaution of consulting the members of my party, 1 am satisfied that 
 the whole body would have voted with me. After the failure of this resolution, 1 continued 
 my support ofMr. Poller to the 12th of January, 1856, on which day the Beveral candidates 
 for the speakership, to wit: Messrs. Richardson, Banks, Puller, and Pennington, in 
 response to certain' interrogatories propounded to them, clearly defined their positions. 
 
 Mr ZoLLicdFPER, of Tennessee, submitted the following questions, which, from their 
 phTaseology, you will perceive, were intended for Mr. Richardson, but which wen- answered 
 by the three leading candidates: 
 
 « 1. Am I right in supposing that the gentleman from Illinois regards the Kansas-Nebraska 
 ' bill as promotive of the formation of free States in the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska? 
 
 «2. Ah, 1 right in supposing he advocates the constitutionality of the WilmOl proviso?,that 
 ' in 1850 he opposed its application to the territories acquired from Mexico, only upon 
 '-ground that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as the Mexican local laws in those territories 
 « already abolished slavery— which ought to be sufficient for all Free-Soil me* ? and that he 
 ' committed himself to the position, that if territorial hills (silenl upon the subject of slavery, 
 'and leaving the' Mexican law to operate) were defeated, he would vote for bills with the 
 1 Wilmot proviso in them? • . . . e 
 
 " 3. Am I right in supposing that his theory is, that the Constitution of the United states 
 ' does not carry slavery to, and protect it in, the Territories df the United States? 1 hat in 
 ' the territory acquired from France (including Kansas and Nebraska) the Missouri restriction 
 'was necessary to make the territory free,because slavery existed then.' under France at 
 ' the time of the acquisition, but that the Kansas and Nebraska bill, which repeals that restric- 
 'tion, but neither legislates slavery into those Territories nor excludes it therefrom, in his 
 ' opinion, haves those Territories without either local or constitutional law ' protecting slavery; 
 « and that, therefore, the Kansas and Nebraska bill promotes the formation of free States m 
 ' Kansas and Nebraska?" 
 
 In reply to them, Mr. Fuller, of Pennsylvania, spoke as follows: 
 
 " Mr. Clerk, I voted for the resolution offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
 ' Zolmcoffer] yesterday, because I cordially approve of the principle embodied m that reso- 
 ' lution. Early in the session 1 felt it a duty, in justice to myself and to those with whom 1 
 ( had been acting, to declare the opinions I entertained, and the course of action I should pursue 
 ' upon certain question's of public policy. I desire to say now, sir, what I believe is known to 
 ' the majority— if not to all— of those who have honored me with their confidence, that 1 have 
 ' been ready at any and all times to withdraw my name from this protracted canvass. I have 
 ' felt unwilling to stand, or to appear to stand, in the way of any fair organisation of this body. 
 " In answer to the specific interrogatories here presented, I say that I do not regard the 
 ' Kansas and Nebraska bill as promotive of the formation of free States; and I will further 
 ' say, sir, that I do not believe that it is promotive of the formation of slave States. [Cries 
 'of 'Good !'] The second interrogatory relates to trfccohstitutionaliryef the Wilmot proviso. 
 ' I was not a member of the Congress of I860, and have never been called upon to affirm or 
 
 • deny the constitutionality of the Wilmot proviso. 
 
 " 1 have never assumed the position, that 'if territorial bills (silent upon the subject ot 
 ' slavery, and leaving the Mexican law to operate) were defeated, be [1 ] would vote for a bill 
 ' with the Wiin tot proviso in it.' That question relates to the legislative actum ot the dis- 
 < tinguished gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Richardson.] My political existehce commend d 
 'since that flood. [Laughter.] 1 was not a member of that Congress, and having never 
 ' taken any public position upon that subject heretofore, I am willing, m all frankness and 
 'candor, to do so now; and I do so with great.defen nee and t( meet for ile.se distinguished 
 ' men who, in times past, have entertained and expressed different opinions. Public history 
 1 informs us that slavery i xisted before the Constitution, and, in my judgment, now exists 
 
 • independent of the Constitution. Winn the pi ople of the confederated. Stales met, by their 
 ■ representatives, in convention, to form that Constitution, slavery i xisted in all but one ot the 
 ' States of the Confederacy. The people, through their representatives, having an existing 
 'and acknowledged right to hold slaves, conceded this— the right to prohibit importation— 
 'after the year 1808. They made no cession, so far as regarded the existence of domestic 
 ' slavery. They claimed— and it was granted— the right of reclamation incase of escape. They 
 ' claimed— and it was granted— the right of repr< sentation as an elemi nl of political power. 
 < \ ,,( | hold, in the absence of expri ss authority, that I Songress has no constitutional right 
 
 • to le jislate upon the subject of slavery. [Applause.] I hold that the Territories are the 
 'common property of ail th , md that the people of all the States have a common right 
 ' to enter upon and occupy those Territories, and they are protected in that occupation by the 
 
12 
 
 ' flag of our common country, that Congress has no constitutional power either to legislate 
 ' slavery into, or exclude it from, a Territory. Neither has the Territorial Legislature, in my 
 ' judgment, any righl to legislate upon that subject, except so far as it nun- be necessary to 
 ' protect the citizens of the Territory in the enjoymenj of their property, and that in pursuance 
 ' of its organic law, as established by congressional legislation. When the citizens of the 
 'Territory shall apply for admission into the Union, they may determine for themselves the 
 ' character of their institutions, (by their State constitution-.) and it is their right then tq declare 
 ' whether they will tolerate slavery or not, and, thus fairly deciding for themselves, should be 
 ' admitted into the Union as States without reference to the subject of slavery. The Consti- 
 ' tution was formed by the people of the States for purposes of mutual advantage and protec- 
 ' tion. The States are sovereignties, limited only so far as they have surrendered their powers 
 ' to the General Government. The General Government, thus created and limited, acts with 
 ' certain positive, defined, and clearly ascertained powers. Its legislation and administration 
 ' should be controlled by the Constitution; and it cannot justly employ its powers thus dele- 
 ' gated to impair or destroy any existing or vested rights belonging to the people of any of the 
 ' States." 
 
 On the same day he answered as follows certain interrogataries propounded by Mr. Barks- 
 bale, of Mississippi. 
 
 " Mr. Clerk, I shall answer the questions specifically and directly, reserving to myself the 1 
 'privilege of more full explanation hereafter. 
 
 " 'Are you in favor of restoring the Missouri restriction, or do you go for the entire pro- 
 ' hibition of slavery in all the Territories of the United States.'' 
 
 " I am opposed to any legislation upon those subjects for reasons already given. 
 
 " ' Are you in favor of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia and the United States 
 ' forts, dock-yards, &c.?' 
 
 " I am not, sir. 
 
 " ' Do you believe in the equality of the white and black races in the United States, and do 
 ' you wish to promote that equality by legislation ?' 
 
 " I do not, sir. I acknowledge a decided preference for white people. [Laughter.] 
 
 " 'Are you in favor of the entire exclusion of adopted citizens and Roman Catholics from 
 ' office?' 
 
 " Mr. Clerk, I think with General Washington — and he is a very high authority — that it 
 ' does not comport with the policy of this country to appoint foreigners to office to the exclusion 
 ' of native-born citizens. [Loud applause in the galleries.] But I wish to say that I proscribe 
 ' no man because of his religion; I denounce no man because of his politics. I accord to 
 * all the largest liberty of opinion and of expression, of conscience and of worship. I care not, 
 ' sir, what creed a man may profess; I care not to what denomination he may belong; be he 
 ' Mohammedan, Jew, or Gentile, I concede to him the right to worship according to the dictates 
 'of his own judgment. I invade no man's altar, and would not disturb any man's vested 
 ' rights. Whatever we have been, whatever we are, and whatever we may be, rests between 
 ' us and Heaven. I allow no mortal to be my mediator; and, judging no man, will by no man 
 ' be judged. With regard to those of foreign birth, I do not desire to exclude them. I say to 
 ' them: ' Come, enter upon the public lands; occupy the public territory; build up for yourselves 
 ' homes, acquire property', and teach your children to love the Constitution and laws which 
 ' protect them;' but I do say that, in all matters of legislation, and in all matters of adminis- 
 ' tration, Americans should govern America. 
 
 " 'Do you favor the same modification of the tariff now that you did at the last session of 
 ' Congress?' 
 
 " I was not a member of the last Congress, and all that I would now ask upon the subject 
 ' of the tariff is ' to be let alone. ' " 
 
 He had previously stated, from his place in the House, that he was opposed to a renewal 
 of the agitation of the slavery question — opposed to a repeal of the -Kansas-Nebraska act and 
 the restoration of the Missouri restriction, and that, he would vote for the admission of new 
 States, whether their constitutions did or not recognize slavery. Afterwards, to wit, on the 
 26th of January last, he voted against each of the following resolutions, which were offered by 
 Mr. Duxx, a Republican from Indiana: 
 
 " Resolved, That regarding the political complexion of the present House of Representa- 
 ' fives as indicating the undoubted sentiments of a large majority of the people of the United 
 ' States against the act of the last Congress, repealing the restriction against slavery in the 
 ' Territories of Kansas and Nebraska imposed by the compromise of 18:20, no man ought to 
 ' be chosen Speaker of this body who does not fully and heartily harmonize with that senti- 
 1 incut, or who will hesitate to exert himself earnestly for the restoration of that restriction, 
 • in terms or in substance. 
 
 " Resolved, That said restriction ought to be restored as an act of justice to all the people 
 ' of the United States, as a proper vindication of the wisdom, patriotism, and plighted honor 
 
13 
 
 • of the great statesmen who imposed it, and as a necessary and certain means of reviving that 
 '' concord and harmony among the States of the American Union which are essential to the 
 'welfare of our people and the perpetuity of our institutions. 
 
 " Resolved, That a useless and factious agitation of the slavery question, in or out. of Con- 
 gress, is unwise, unjust to a portidn of the American people, and, to some extent, injurious 
 ' to every sectio'n of our country, and therefore should not be countenanced; but until the 
 
 • Missouri restriction of 1820 shall have been restored, in fact or in substance, to the said 
 'Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, fatty and completely, to that extent and for that purpose, 
 ' it is our solemn duty to the past, the present, and the future, steadily and (irmly to persist 
 ' in our efforts." 
 
 On the same day, Mr. Foxr.BR offered and voted for the following resolution: 
 
 " Resolved, That any agitation of the question of slavery, in or out of Congress, is unwise, 
 
 ' unjust to a portion .of the American people, and injurious to every section of our country, 
 
 'and therefore should not be countenanced." 
 
 He also voted against the following resolution, which was introduced by Mr. MEAClCAM,a 
 Republican from Vermont: 
 
 "Resolved, That in the opinion of this House the repeal of the Missouri compromise of 
 ' 1^20, prohibiting slavery north of latitude 36° 30', Was an example of useless and factious agi- 
 
 • tation of the slavery question, both in and out of Congress, which was unwise and unjust 
 
 • to a portion of the American people." 
 
 You have here the evidence of his soundness upon the great question in which you are so 
 nearly concerned. Southern members of all parties in the House admitted that his position 
 was such as to win their full and entire approval. 
 
 To enable you to compare his position with that of Mr. Richardson, the Democratic can- 
 didate, I present you with his answers to Mr. Zollicoffer's question: 
 
 " Mr. Richardson. In reply to the first question of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr 1 . 
 ' Zollicoffer,] I have to say I voted for the bills organizing the Territories of Nebraska and 
 
 • Kansas, because I thought them just to all, and I defended that vote before my constituents 
 « upon that ground. I intended then, and I intend now, that the people who go there, or who 
 < have gone "there, shall decide the question of slavery for themselves, and, so far as I could, 
 ' admit them as States, with or without slavery, as the people should decide. In common 
 « with northern and southern gentlemen, I have said that, in my opinion, slavery would never 
 ' go there; but I have never, here or elsewhere, urged that as a reason why I voted for that 
 ' bill. 1 voted for the bill because it was just, right, and proper, and wanted nothing more to 
 ' defend myself. I repeat here an argument. 1 have mad. 1 over and over again before my con- 
 ' Stituents, and it is this: if a majority of the people of Kansas or Nebraska are in favor of 
 ' slavery, they will have it; if a 'majority are opposed to it, then they will not have it. This 
 ' is the practical result of every theory advocated by the friends of the Nebraska and Kansas 
 'bill. I gave my sanction to' this principle in supporting the territorial bills of 1850, and 
 ' have uniformly supported the seme principles since, whenever presented for my action, and 
 'shall continue' to do so in all future cases that may arise. It is a principle lying at the 
 'foundation of all popular Governments, that the people of each separate or distinct com- 
 « munity shall decide for themselves the nature and character of the institutions under which 
 « they shall live, and by this principle I am prepared to live and die. I therefore voted for 
 ' the Nebraska and Kansas bill neither as a pro-slavery nor anti-slavery measure, but as a 
 ' measure of equal right and justice' to the people of all sections of our common country. 
 
 " Will the Clerk now read the next question? 
 
 "The Clerk read the second question, as follows: 
 
 " ' Am I right in supposing that he advocates the constitutionality of the Wilmot proviso ; 
 ' That in 1850 he apposed its application to the Territories acquired from Mexico only upon 
 ' the ground that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as the .Mexican local laws in those Territories' 
 ' already abolished slavery, which on-lit to be sufficient for all Free-Soil men ? And that he com- 
 
 • mitt&d himself to the position, that if territorial bills (silent upon the subject of slavery, and 
 
 • leaving the Mexican laws to operate) were defeated, he would vote for bills with the Wilmot 
 ' proviso in them ?' 
 
 " Mr. Richardson. The next question requires a more extended reply. In the year 1803 
 « we acquired Louisiana; it. was slave territory. In 1890 We divided, by line of 36° 30', that 
 
 • territory; north of the line was to be free.' In 1845 We annexed Texas; that was slave" 
 'territory-, we divided that by extending the tine of 36° 30' through that— north to be free. 
 
 • In 1848 we acquired territory from Mexico. That was free. I voted repeatedly to extend 
 ' the same line west to the Pacific ocean. I voted for that line with a few Representatives 
 'from the North, and the whole body of southern Representatives. When 1 gave those 
 ' votes, I did not believe then, nor do 1 believe now, that I violated the Constitution of the 
 
14 
 
 ' United States. If you have power, under the Constitution, to exclude slavery from half of 
 ' a territory, I think you have power to exclude from all, though such an exercise would be 
 ' unjust and wrong. I have never, therefore, voted to exercise that power, except upon the 
 ' principle of compromise. In this connection I desire to read from a speech of mine, deliv- 
 ' ered in this Hall April 3, 18.~>0, and make a word or two of comment upon it: 
 
 " ' There is, I regret to say, a willingness upon the part of the Democrats of the North to 
 ' see this proviso passed, that General Taylor may be compelled to show to the world, and 
 
 • " the rest of mankind," who was cheated in the last presidential election — whetherit was his 
 ' friends North or South. They know that a fraud was practised upon the one or the other. 
 ' They know that in the South, General Taylor was represented as all that any one in favor 
 ' of slavery extension could desire — that he was bound to southern institutions by two hundred 
 ' bonds. At the North, it was said that he was for confining slavery to its present limits. 
 ' One or the other \vas cheated. But I submit to my northern friends, if the peace and har- 
 ' mony of twenty millions of people, and the perpetuity of our free institutions, are not of 
 ' more importance than the exposure of this bad faith upon the part of an Administration 
 ' that, if let alone, will fall by its own weight? The public voice everywhere indicates its 
 ' certain and inevitable overthrow. 
 
 " ' In times past, our policy sooner or later has prevailed, and we should stand firm, how- 
 
 • ever dark the hour, encouraged by former success. We should not be driven from our 
 ' positions because our opponents have to come to them for safetjr. I might ask them if they 
 ' are to be driven from their firm and stern opposition to a United States bank, because those 
 ' who once thought that certain ruin would lay waste the land unless such an institution was 
 'incorporated, have changed their opinions, and stand with us in opposition? Are they 
 ' willing to be driven in opposition to the Independent Treasury, because those who once 
 
 • opposed now support it? Arc you to be driven from all the past, now triumphantly vindi- 
 ' cated, because opposition has ceased? We should stand firm in the support of right, truth, 
 
 • the Constitution of our country, no matter who shall come to their support, or desert; stand 
 ' by them to the last, and if they fall let us perish with them. We should never survive the 
 ' existence of this Government. 
 
 " ' There is one thing that 1 wish, in this connection, Mr. Chairman, to say to thegentle- 
 ' men from the South, and the northern Whigs: if the bill for territorial governments, silent 
 
 • upon the subject of slavery, shall be defeated, then I am for bills with the Wilmot proviso, 
 ' in order to give governments to the people in the Territories; and I speak for four of my 
 ' colleagues, assured that they will feel constrained to pursue a like course. And if General 
 ' Taylor shall approve the proviso, then it will have passed; and it is for them to determine 
 ' what shall or shall not be done, and let the responsibility rest with them.' 
 
 " I take this occasion to say, that the sentiment last quoted, uttered in a moment of excite- 
 ' merit, I, upon reflection, repudiate as unjust and improper. I thank the gentleman that he 
 ' has afforded me the opportunity to give this public expression of my disapproval of that 
 4 statement. 1 uniformly voted against placing the Wilmot proviso in any territorial bill. 
 ' I voted against it, because I believed it to be unjust to the people of a portion of this Union. 
 
 "The Clerk then read the third interrogatory, as follows: 
 
 " 'Am I right in supposing that his theory is, that the Constitution of the United States 
 ' does not carry slavery to, and protect it in, the Territories of the United States? That in the 
 ' territory acquired from France, (including Kansas and Nebraska*) the Missouri restriction 
 ' was necessary to make the territory free, because slavery existed there under France at the 
 ' time of the acquisition; but that the Kansas and Nebraska bill, which repeals thai r striction, 
 
 • but neither legislates slavery into those Territories, nor excludes it therefrom, in bis opinion, 
 ' leaves those Territories without cither local or constitutional law protecting slavery; and 
 ' that, therefore, "the Kansas and Nebraska bill promotes the formation of free States in Kansas 
 ' and Nebraska?' 
 
 " Mr. E.ICHARDSOX. The Constitution does not, in my opinion, carry the institutions 
 ' of any of the States into the Territories; but it affords the same protection there to the 
 ' institutions cif one State as of another. The citizen of Virginia is as much entitled, in the 
 ' common territory, to the protection of his properly, under the Constitution, as the citizen 
 ' of Illinois, but both are dependent upon the (legislation of the territorial government for laws 
 ' to protect their property, of whatever kind it may be. Thus, it will be seen, that though 
 ' there may be upon this point a difference theoretically — involving question's for judicial decis- 
 ' ion — yet there is none, practically, among the friends of non-intervention by Congress, as 
 ' tin.' practical result is to place the decision of the questions in the hands of those who are 
 'most deeply interested in its solution, namely, the people of the Territory, who have made 
 'it their home, and whose interests are the most deeply involved in the character of' the insti- 
 'tutions under which they are to live. If this great principle of non-intervention and sclf- 
 ' government is wrong, then, indeed, the American Revolution '"'as fought in vain, and it is 
 ' time we cease to venerate tin; memory of the patriotic dead, who purchased with their 
 'fortunes and blood the free institutions of the several separate, indct < ; dent, and eopqiiid 
 
15 
 
 ' States, forming the Union under which we have so prosperously and happily grown to be so 
 •great." 
 
 I need not enter into an argument to show how much better for the Smith Mr. Fuller's 
 creed is than that of Mr. Richardson. That. suihVirntly appears by the above record, and I 
 am content to submit it to you without further comment, merely remarking that, in placing 
 the declarations of these two gentlemen in juxtaposition, my desire is to justify my support 
 of Mr. Fuller, and by no means to damage Mr. RrcHARtfsoN in your estimation. 1 have seen 
 much of him during this session, and cheerfully accord to him the possession of fine, manly 
 qualities. His nature is a bold, frank one. His opinions upon all political quefctlOBS are 
 freely expressed, and of his patriotism there can be no question. 
 
 On the 23d of January, 1856, and after he had been vbted tor by his party one hundred and 
 twenty-one times. Mr. Richardson gave notice to tie' House ib.it alter thai day his " name 
 would be unconditionally withdrawn from the pending canvass for the speakership." 
 
 The Democrats met in caucus in the evening, and adopted the following resolution: 
 
 " Resolved, That, adhering to the principles announced by the Democratic caucus thai flam- 
 < mated Mr. Richardson for Speaker, and in view of bis withdrawals a candidate, we hereby 
 'nominate for the office of Speaker of the present House of Representatives the' Hon. James 
 'L. Orr, of South Carolina." 
 
 I did not support him for the same reasons that constrained me to withhold my suffrage 
 from Mr. Richardson. They were, by the caucus, placed upon the same platform,and were 
 therefore equally objectionable: and, in addition to this, Mr. Or.u had largely contributed to 
 prevent the Democratic vote being cast for his colleague, Mr. Eoyce, when his name was 
 proposed by me. 
 
 Before asking you to follow me through mv subsequent votes, I will call your attention to 
 other proceedings-, which form a material and very significant portion of the history oi the 
 org! nizatiori of the House. The first nominee of the Republican party was the Hon. Lewis 
 D. Campbell, of Ohio. He continued as such for twenty-three ballots, and then, on the 7th 
 of December, formally withdrew his name. t and Mr. Banks was -nominated in his si eat!. After 
 the thirty-fourth ballot, upon which Mr. Banks received one hundred votes, lacking eleven 
 of being elected, Mr. Thorington, a Republican from Iowa, offered a resolution to elect by 
 &plurality vote, but subsequently withdrew it. After the fifty-ninth ballot, a plurality reso- 
 lution was offered by Mr. Hickman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania. This resolution was laid 
 upon the table. A similar resolution was at various times offered by members of the Repub- 
 lican party, but was as often defeated by the united votes of the Americans and Democrats 
 combined with those of a few Republicans who were opposed to Mr. Banks. In the progress 
 of the struggle, however, it became evident that several members of the Democratic party were 
 preparing to unite with the Republicans in carrying the resolution, and this impress ton doubt- 
 less determined the Hanks men to cling to him. That the latter regarded tin; passe-- of such 
 a resolution as insuring his election, was evidenced by the fact that they uniformly roted for 
 it, and that lie so considered it was manifested by his invariably voting for it. Tie- Americans 
 constantly opposed it, because they felt convinced that its adoption would place Mr. Banks 
 in the chair, and they n sorted to every parliamentary expedient to defeat it. * 
 
 On the 15th of January, Mr. Washburn, a Republican from Maine, renewed tie- proposi- 
 tion to elect by a plurality vote. Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina, a leading Democrat, 
 stated that for 'two weeks' he had been in favor of adopting such a resolution, but was 
 disinclined to it after hearing the answers of Mr. Banks, on the 12th, to tie qu, Lions pro- 
 pounded by Mr. Zollicoffer and others to the several candidates. On a motion to lay the 
 resolution on the table, two Democratic supporters of Mr. Richardson— to w.i: Messrs. 
 Barclay and Hickman, of Pennsylvania— voted in the negative, but the resolution waste.. .led 
 by a vote of one hundred and five to one hundred anil one. After this, a plurality n solution 
 w'as sevc-al times pressed upon the House, but was d< feated. On the 30th of January, Air. 
 C lingman introduced it, and upon counting the votes there were 106 yeas and llu nays; the 
 following Democrats voting in the affirmative, viz: Barclay, Clingman, Hickman, Kelly, 
 and Williams. 
 
 On the 2d of February, Mr. S.A.Smith, of Tennessee, Democrat, renewed [the proposition, 
 and it was adopted by the following vote, viz: yeas 113, nays 104; Messrs. Barclay, Cling- 
 man, Herbert, Hickman, Jewett, Kelly, S. A. Smith, and Williams, Democrats, voting 
 for it. And thus tin- .-lection of Mr. Banks was insured, as lie on the same day received Hie 
 i of voti .-- necessary under that resolution to eleel him. 
 
 of 
 
 Missouri, who, though he had generally voted with tie.- Americans, did not belong to their 
 
organization. A motion was made to lay 011 897 900 ft h was carried, 
 
 there being 144 yeas and 69 nays. In favor oi tattling tne proposition mere were thirty-nine 
 Democrats. If they had voted in the negative, the motion would have failed by a vote of 
 one hundred and eight to one hundred and five. 
 
 On the 1st of February, Mr. Cobb, of Alabama, proposed the name of the Hon. William 
 Aiken, of South Carolina, as Speaker, and he received all the American votes except one. 
 When the final struggle came on, on the next day, Mr. Aiken and Mr. Banks were the con- 
 testants. Upon the last ballot, Mr. Aiken received all the American votes except six, who 
 voted for Mr. Fuller, and all the Democratic votes except two. He was beaten by three 
 votes. 
 
 The illiberality manifested by the Democratic party towards the American during the whole 
 contest for Speaker, the slur cast upon them by the resolution of the Democratic caucus, and 
 the rejection of every overture made by the Americans for conciliation and harmony, and the 
 agency of the Democrats in passing the plurality rule, were the causes that induced the six 
 Americans not to cast their votes for Mr. Aiken. They never doubted that Mr. Banks would 
 be elected Speaker in the event of the adoption of the plurality rule, and upon that conviction 
 steadily opposed it. But for the adoption of that rule, he never would have been elected. I 
 leave you to judge whether those who united with his supporters in forcing that rule upon the 
 House are not justly responsible for a result so much to be deprecated. 
 
 But I will not longer dwell upon this subject. I have endeavored to lay before you a truth- 
 ful, if not very connected, history of this unprecedented contest. You have seen what my 
 course has been. If it secures your approbation, I shall be gratified; should it not, I shall be 
 content with my own conviction that I have borne myself as became me as a man and as the 
 Representative of an enlightened constituency. 
 
 In bringing this long letter to a conclusion, I trust that I may be permitted to say, that the 
 circumstances by which I have been surrounded here, and the evidences I have witnessed of 
 sectional hostility to the South, have drawn my affections more closely to her, and given (if 
 that were possible) new power to myallegiance to her;and that in that sectional battle which, 
 in my judgment, must come, sooner or later, and in which we are to contend for our rights, I 
 shall be found where duty and affection call me. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, PERCY WALKER. 
 
 Washington, Februarij 5, 185G. 
 
UBR ARy 
 
 Tlllll II ,i,. NGR £ss 
 
 °°11897 
 
 900 A