THE KANSAS QUESTION. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OP ♦ 
 
 
 685 
 366 
 JPV 1 
 
 HON. THOMAS S. BOCOCK. OF VHIGINIA, 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 8, 1858. 
 
 Tiie House being in the (/ommitlee of the Whoirt on the 
 state of tlie Uni«:i — 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: I preferalways to address my- 
 self to the subject before the House, but I know 
 the difficulty which a gentleman encounters here 
 in obtaining the floor, especially on so importanta 
 proposition as the one which I design to discuss. I 
 •therefore resolved some days, I may say week.s, 
 ago, to avail myself of some suitable occasion in 
 the Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
 Union, to deliver to this committee some views 
 which have presented themselves to my mind in 
 relation to a question which has taken up so much 
 of our time, and v/hich has attracted so much of 
 the public attention. 
 
 It was originally my intention, Mr. Chairman, 
 to take but a brief glance, by way of preface and 
 for the purpose of completing the view which it 
 was my purpose to submit, at the original Kan- 
 sas-Nebraska bill; but a speech delivered by my 
 respected colleague from the Norfolk district, 
 [Mr. MiLLsoN,] a short time ago, makes it in- 
 cumbent upon me, in my judgment, to devote a 
 larger portion of my time to a discussion of this 
 preliminary question. I regret this very much; 
 because I know that, in the brief hour allotted to 
 us here, I should scarcely have been able to elab- 
 orate and enforce the views which I design to 
 present upon the great and leading question. As 
 the matter now is, I shall be able to touch but 
 briefly the points I expected to make, both in 
 reply to the speech of my colleeigue, and upon 
 the main question itself. 
 
 And I wish to say here, that feeling confident 
 that I shall not be able to get through all I have 
 to say, 1 hope no gentleman will feel called upon 
 to interrupt me, unless I say something which 
 calls for personal explanation from him, individ- 
 ually. 
 
 Allow me one more word, by way of intro- 
 duction. In what 1 may say in relation to the 
 speech of my colleague, I desire to reciprocate 
 most cordially the kind and friendly tone in which 
 he expressed himself in relation to his colleagues, 
 with whom he has heretofore differed on this 
 Kansas question. And 1 am the more anxious 
 to do so, because I know that I have not com- 
 mand of that accurate and precise phraseology 
 which the gentleman himself commands, and 
 which is necessary to give one's precise meaning. 
 
 The speech of my friend and colleague, like aW 
 his performances, and, jierhaps, in a greater de- 
 gree than any of them heretofore, was able atid 
 ingenious. The onward sweep of his logic was as 
 regular and as graceful as the charge of the light 
 brigade at Balakhiva; but I say, with all respect, 
 that, in my humble judgment, it led to no more 
 useful or valuable result. What, sir, was the great 
 lesson taught by the speech of my colleague .' One 
 might have supposed for a moment that his de- 
 sign was to enforce upon t lie attention of the House 
 the feet that in accepting the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill in 1854, the South did not get all to which it 
 was entitled. If I had been satisfied that this was 
 the purj)ose and intention of my colleague, 1 
 should not have felt called upon to reply to it. But 
 in view of the entire speech, and all the circum- 
 stances which surrounded it, that supposition can- 
 not be maintained. Then, Mr. Chairman, could 
 it be that my worthy friend and colleague felt him- 
 self called upon to expend so much ingenuity and 
 ability, and to give us so fine a display of dialec- 
 
 '■ tics, for the purpose of proving that lie foresaw 
 all the evils which have occurred in Kansas, and 
 
 I that they are the legitimate and proper results of 
 the Kansas-Nebraska bill ? Sir, he who claims 
 
 ! for himself the character of a prophet of the past, 
 or a foreteller of woe, seeks a reputation which, 
 in my humble judgment, is by no means desira- 
 ble. One who felt deeply and thought strongly, 
 and who knew v/ell how to v/reak his thought 
 upon expression, has said: 
 
 " or all tlie horrid, hideous notKs of human woe, 
 Worse than the owl songs or the niidni;;lit lilusu 
 Fs that pnflentdus phrase ' I told you no ." 
 Uttered by iVifiuls, those prophets; of the past, 
 Who, instead of telling what you now should do, 
 Own that they thought that you would fall at last. 
 And s-olace your uliglit lapse 'gainst 'ioiiosjiiores,* 
 By a long meniorauduin of old stories." 
 A prophet of the past ! Why, sir, it can avail 
 but littJe in this case, at any rate; for if the evils 
 which have occurred in Kansas are to continue; 
 if the strife which has occasionally manifested 
 itself there is to break forth anew and with in- 
 creased violence, until the roar of battle and the 
 fury of the storm shall fill the land with uproar, 
 it will be but a poor privilege to come upon the 
 stage,like the chorus in the ancient Greek tragedy, 
 and in the lull of the tempest and the pause of the 
 battle to sing a dirge of doom. If, on'tlie contrary, 
 Kansas is speedily to be admitted into the Unier.i 
 

 C 
 
 and under the benign and genial influences of State 
 independence and State sovereignty, all these 
 evils are to be first localized, and then banished 
 forever If " all the clouds that lower o'er our 
 house," are to be " in the deep bosom of the 
 ocean buried," then, in the panoranna of content- 
 ment and prosperity which will follow, there will 
 be no place for this wail of woe. The memory 
 of Cassandra has but the greenness of the lichens 
 and ivy that cover the ruins of Troy. It is min- 
 gled in the memory with the recollection of a fall- 
 ing city and a scattered people. Had Troy not 
 fallen, it would long ago have perished like 
 " Tlie fat weed that rots on Lethe's wharf." 
 
 I desire now, Mr. Chairman, to notice particu- 
 larly, but briefly, the leading points made by my 
 colleague in his speech against the original Kan- 
 aas-Nebraska bill. Tliey appear to me to have 
 been twofold. He objected to it upon the ground 
 that in its legal and necessary construction, jt sus- 
 tained the idea of territorial sovereignty; and he 
 also objected to iton the ground that it contained 
 what is called the Badger proviso. Permit me to 
 consider those objections seriatim. 
 
 Mr. Ciiairman, I desire to say here, in the com- 
 mencement of the remarks that I shall make upon 
 ibis question of territorial sovereignty, that if that 
 bill, in its legiiim^ite and necessary construction, 
 did tolerate the idea of territorial sovereignty, I 
 should prefer it, both being constitutional, to the 
 doctrine of congressional restriction; for under 
 congressional restriciion,if you have peace it will 
 be the pepce of admitted inferiority of rights on 
 the one side, and admitted superiority of rights 
 9)1 the other. Under the doctrine of territorial 
 sovereignty you might have strife and conflict; 
 you would probably have a struggle among men 
 of clashing interests and conflicting views to gain 
 the ascendency; but poor as it would be, we would 
 atil) have our chance, and we would have the con- 
 solation, at any rate, to know, if the question were 
 decided against us, it would be decided by those 
 ■who were to be most interested in the question at 
 issue. 
 
 But, sir, I contend that the legitimate and ne- 
 cessary construction of that act does not sustain 
 the idea of territorial sovereignty. The clause 
 to which my colleague alludes is this: 
 
 " It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to 
 legislate sl.ivery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude 
 it therefrom, l)ut to leave the people thereof perfectly tree 
 to form and reyubite their domestic institutions in their own 
 way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." 
 
 Now, it will be remembered that my colleague 
 ridiculed the idea that the Congress of the United 
 States intended gravely to abnegate the power to 
 prohibit slavery in States of the Union already 
 existing; but whatever this provision does not 
 mean, it certainly does mean to do that. That is 
 
 Srecisely what it does mean, most emphatically. 
 Toother construction can be given to it;a:nd, per- 
 haps, the reason for inserting such a provision 
 in the bill was, that in the restriction of 1820 the 
 power was charly and distinctly assumed by the 
 Congress of the United States to prohibit slavery 
 in the States. Here is that restriction: 
 
 " Sec. 8 ^urf he it further enacted, 'i'hat in all that Itrri- 
 tory ceded by France' to the United States, under the i.ame 
 of ijouisjana, which lies north of 36° 3U' north latitude, not 
 included within the limits of the State contemplated hy this 
 act, slavery and involuntary .servitude, otherwise than in the 
 punishuietit of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been 
 duly couvicled, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited." 
 
 And in the joint resolution for the annexation 
 of Texas to the United States, we find this more 
 distinct and emphatic clause: 
 
 " And in such State or States as shall be formed out of 
 said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, sla- 
 very or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be 
 prohibited." 
 
 There is the power distinctly claimed; and in 
 the Kansas and Nebraska bill it is distinctly sur- 
 rendered. I do not contend that the Constitution 
 afforded any pretext for such an assertion of 
 power. Far from it. The claim had been made, 
 however, and the surrender should follow. 
 
 But the gentleman says that the insertion of the 
 words "Territory or," before the word " State," 
 makes that clause applicable to Territories in their 
 territorial condition, as well as to States; and that 
 the necessary construction of it is, that the people 
 of Territories, as such, shall be left free to regu- 
 late their domestic affairs, including the subject of 
 slavery, in their own way. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not contend — I would 
 not be guilty of the want of candor to contend — 
 that the language is not susceptible by possibility 
 of such a construction. What I contend for is, 
 that it is not the necessary construction of the 
 clause. Now, sir, you will bear in mind, that the 
 Territories of the United Slates often act in a 
 somewhat anomalous manner. Consider, if you 
 please, the case of the Territories of Florida, of 
 Michigan, and of Iowa. You will bear in mind 
 that, without any enabling act, without any au- 
 thority whatsoever from the Congress of the Uni- 
 ted States, those Territories proceeded to form 
 State constitutions, and presented them here, ask- 
 ing admission into the Union. What was their 
 condition then.' I admit the doctrine that this 
 was a sort of declaration of independence on the 
 part of these Territories, and that their subse- 
 quent admission into the Union was an acknowl- 
 edgment of that independence. Congress was 
 not bound to admit them, however; and if it had 
 not, they would have remained in a territorial 
 condition. Their status was then subject to the 
 action of Congress. It might have been, then, in 
 reference to this anomalous, or, if I may so ex- 
 press it, hermaphrodite condition, that the words 
 " Territory or State" were used. 
 
 Now, sir, I submit that if the phraseology em- 
 ployed was applicable to the Territories in their 
 territorial condition, the grant was made " sub- 
 ject to the Constitution of the United States." 
 This proviso followed the grant, and controlled 
 it. Whatever power we constitutionally had we 
 gave up, and no more. The gentleman says 
 that the Congress of the United Slates ought to 
 interpret the Constitution for itself, and in pass- 
 ing a law should look to the constitutional limits 
 and not surpass them. I admit, that when the 
 Congress of the United States proposes to pass 
 an ordinary act that is to be a rule of conduct for 
 individuals, it ought to determine for itself, as far 
 as it can, whether it be constitutional or uncon- 
 stitutional; but this was no such act: this, follow- 
 ing the manner of a deed, was a grant of power 
 from the Federal Government to the Territorial 
 Legislature; all that was done was to say, what- 
 ever power we have in relation to this subject, 
 we surrender it to the Territorial Legislature. 1 
 contend, sir, that however the words " Territory 
 or State" be construed, we were not called upon 
 
10 give an unconstltulional vote, for the limitation 
 followed the grant wherever it went. As is fre- 
 quently done in deeds from one man to another, 
 we conveyed whatever power we had, subject to 
 adjudication. 
 
 I submit now, whether we were not right in 
 our action? The question of territorial sovereignty 
 being a matter in dispute between northern and 
 southern Democrats, then if we had required it to 
 he adjudicated by Congress, it would have re- 
 sulted that while we were wrangling upon this 
 question, the opportunity to carry the more im- 
 portant point of repealing the Missouri restric- 
 tion, would have been lost, perhaps irretrievably. 
 
 Now, sir, comes in the decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States to determine the ques- 
 tion. It says tliat this doctrine of territorial sov- 
 ereignty has no countenance in the Constitution; 
 and whatever evils my colleague may think arose 
 before that time, from the doubt which existed on 
 the subject, or whatever evils he might have ap- 
 prehended from this cause, afterwards, from the 
 lime of the decision of the Supreme Court in re- 
 gard to this case, the doctrine of the Kansas-Ne- 
 braska bill stood vindicated and redeemed from 
 ail suspicion or taint of encouraging /erri^oj-iaisou- 
 e)-eigntij. And I would say to my colleague that 
 perhaps others may have foreseen the decision of 
 the Supreme Court as well as himself. Since that 
 decision, all his fears and all his troubles on this 
 subject may be forever quieted. 
 
 I shall consider now, for a few brief moments, 
 the other objection of my colleague. It is the ob- 
 jection to what is called the Badger proviso; and 
 permit me to say here, Mr. Chairman, that when 
 that proviso was introduced in the other wing of 
 the Capitol, by the distinguished Senator whose 
 name it bears, I regretted it. I regretted it because 
 I thought it was a concession, in form at least, 
 from the weaker and oppressed interest in the 
 land, and that which had been so long suffering 
 under the injustice of this Missouri restriction, to 
 the stronger and aggressing interest. But I did 
 not attribute to it that importance which my col- 
 league does; and I desire to examine for a while 
 into its true meaning and elTect. What is that 
 proviso .' This is its language: 
 
 '•Nothing herein contained shall he constriii'd to revive 
 or put in lorce any law or regulation that may have existed 
 prior to the act or March, 1S'20, either proleciing, estabhsh- 
 ing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery." 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to consider that 
 proviso in two points of view. The Missouri 
 restriction, which the act of 1854 was intended to 
 repeal, was constitutional or it was unconstitu- 
 tional. I wish to look at it under both these sup- 
 positions. Suppose, now, that the Missouri re- 
 striction of 1820 was constitutional, what did it do.' 
 Why, sir, there were some old French or Spanish 
 laws, recognizing slavery, which existed in the 
 Territory of Louisiana when it was acquired from 
 France, and wiiich were, by tolerance, continued 
 in existence. Here comes then the restriction of 
 1820, and, by implication, suspends these old laws, 
 and makes the ground an open field; and after 
 making it an open fi<;ld, it next advances and takes 
 possession of the field, and erects on it a barrier, 
 a positive prohibition against the introduction of 
 the peculiar property of the South. The effect of 
 the restriction then was twofold. Now, by the 
 repeal of the restriction by the act of 1854, what 
 
 did we do, in that ■aupposition ? We, at least, 
 removed the positive prohibition, and left again 
 the open field of which I have spoken. In that 
 supposition, did we not gain something? 
 
 Well, take the other supposition! Say, now, 
 that the restriction of 1820 was unconstitutionall 
 What, then, was the consequence of the restric- 
 tion .' Then it was null and void ab initio. It had 
 no effect or force whatever. It did not repeal the 
 old French or Spanish laws. They were not, in 
 legal contemplation, suspended. Well, sir, what 
 does this Badger proviso say ? It says, "nothing 
 herein contained shall be construed to revive or put 
 in force," &c. But these laws did not require to 
 be revived by that act of 1854. They were in ex- 
 istence aleunde — not by virtue of the act of 1854, 
 but by virtue of their previous existence never 
 having been suspended. The proviso says that 
 the act of 1854 shall not put them in force. It doea 
 not say that they shall not be in force. I could 
 enlarge on this idea, which I consider strictly legal 
 and tenable; but I prefer, in the little time allowed 
 me, not to dwell longer on this point. I wish to 
 rise to a higher and more compi-ehensive, and, in 
 my opinion, a more statesmanlike conception of 
 this entire question. What is it, sir .' Here, Mr. 
 Chairman, had been a conflict in the land as to 
 the question whether the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States, propria ft^ore, extended or did not 
 extend to the Territories of the United Slates. 
 
 The mighty intellects of Calhoun and Webster 
 had met in stern conflict on this question on the 
 floor of the Senate Chamber, and their followerfl 
 throughout the country liad ranged themselves on 
 the one side and on the other. Not only that, Mr. 
 Chairman, but there was also a contest whether 
 this Government of the United States should be 
 allowed to exert its power to discourage and limit 
 the property of one section of the Union, and to 
 extend and enlarge the property of the other sec- 
 tion. The Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1854 comeB 
 in and decides both these questions. It declares 
 the Constitution of the United States expressly 
 extended to these Territories; and it further de- 
 clares that the Government of the United States 
 shall not exert its power or authority to limit or 
 restrain the property of one portion of the Union, 
 and to stimulate and encourage the interest of the 
 other portion. 
 
 Here, then, we have the Government of Ibe 
 United States surrendering its authority over thie 
 question and expressly declaring the Constitution 
 of the United States extended to these Territories. 
 Then comes the decision of the Supreme Court 
 in the Dred Scott case, declaring that the Consti- 
 tution, so operating in the Territories, shall stand 
 as a tower of strength and a muniment of defense 
 for the property and interests of all sections of the 
 Union — of the one section as well as the other. 
 What now do you wunt with your wicker-work 
 of Spanish and French laws.' You have in the 
 place of them the supreme power, the mighty in- 
 fluence, the permanent protection of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States — the highest American 
 law. You have in that a shield stronger than 
 the shield of Achilles. You have a tower of 
 strength more impregnable than twenty Cron- 
 stadts. And still you talk about your French 
 and Spanish laws ! This, sir, was a great era in 
 the history of American legislation. It was the 
 era of an abdication, of a surrender of usurped 
 
4 
 
 power on the part of the Cotiffrcss of the United 
 States, and of a restoration of the Constitution to 
 its true control and supremacy. It is an abdication 
 apd restoration more important, and grander in 
 every point of view, than any abdication or resto- 
 ration of " prince, potentate, or power," recorded 
 in the history of the world. The Congress of the 
 United States glvea up its usurped power to limit 
 the property of tlie South. The Constitution of 
 the United States is restored to its former rule. 
 And while all are rejoicinor at this f^reat era in 
 American leoislation,at this great abdication and 
 rratoration, my colleague chooses to stand by and 
 complain that the usurper, in going out, takes 
 with him. a litile of the dirty linen of the estab- 
 
 -ILshment. 
 
 But, sir, 1 wish to look at this subject as a .sub- 
 ject of })rophecy. There were more predictions 
 made than one. There were more prophets than 
 rwy colleague in the land at that time. The na- 
 tion was then rattier plethoric of prophets. It 
 was declared, on the other iiand, that if we did 
 
 iloose these French or Spanish laws, our prop- 
 erty would enjoy the protection of the Constitu- 
 tion, and also sucli protection as might be given 
 by the Territiirial Legi.'^lature. And did we not 
 have it.' Herein was prophecy falfiiled. My 
 ooileaeue seems to think that the evils that have 
 arisen in Kansas were the necessnryand the log- 
 ical results of the Kansas-Nebra.ska bill. Now, 
 sir, I submit to him, whether, if they are the 
 natural and legitimate results of the principles of 
 »he Kansas-Nebra.skabill, the same consequences 
 would not follow wherever the cau.se exists.' But, 
 sir, the principles of the Kan-sas and Nebraska 
 bill were applied to the Territory of Nebraska; 
 they have been applied also, in elTect, to New 
 Mexico; and why have not the same evils re- 
 sulted there, if they follow necessarily from the 
 principles of that bill .' 
 
 If the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
 had been adopted long years ago, before the pub- 
 lic mind had become so distempered anri diseased, 
 no troulile would have followed; but, in my judg- 
 ment, everything would have gone off smoothly 
 and quietly under them. The settlement of Kan- 
 sas would have been left to the ordin:iry laws of 
 settlement; men would have gone ther(? from the 
 ordinary causes, to select them homes and work 
 out their fortuiies; all would have gone off well. It 
 was beciuise the public inind had bncome distem- 
 pered and diseased; it was because the wranglings 
 aere on the floor.s of Congres.s had |)roduced such 
 heart-burning.'i and bad feelings between the two 
 sections of the country, that the.se results followed . 
 Theextrdordinarymeansadopted to settle Kansas; 
 your emigrant aid associatioiu, and the characters 
 of the men whom they sent there; your. Tim Lanes, 
 and your Sharpe 's rifles ; these must bear the blame 
 lor tjie troubles which have arisen in Kansas. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, these evils are upon us, and it 
 is proposed to settle them by the admission of 
 JCansas into the Union as a Slate. The President 
 of the United States ha.s sent a message to the 
 Congress of the United States, communicating to 
 asiheconstitutionadopted at Lecompton,and rec- 
 ommending that Kansas shall be admitted into the 
 Union as a State under that constitution. I stand 
 here to-day to take my position in favor of such 
 admission, and I shall now proceed to give the 
 reasons upon which 1 base my action. 
 
 Now, sir, I am free to adnMt that when this con- 
 stitution comes to us we have the right to inquire,, 
 first, whether there is a sufficient population in 
 Kansas to entitle her to come into the Union as a 
 State. Well, sir, I believe there is no difference 
 j of opinion upon that subject. All parties are 
 I agreed upon that point. The Topeka men seem 
 I to have acted all along upon the supposition that 
 j there was population enough there to justify a 
 j State constitution. TheLecomplonmenhavedone 
 { the same, and those who sustained the measure 
 j proposed by the distinguished Senator from Geor- 
 gia, during the last Congress, seem never to have 
 objected on that ground. 
 
 Then, sir, I admit that you have the right to in- 
 quire whether the form of Government proposed 
 is republican. I believe there is no difficulty upon 
 that subject. All are agreed upon that point. 
 
 There is another and very iinportant inquiry 
 which we have a right to make. We have the 
 right to inquire wiiether the constitution senthere 
 is in fact the constitution of the State of Kansas 
 or not; and it is to that point that 1 propose now 
 to direct my remarks. 
 
 Now, sir, 1 vviah to say in the beginning, that 
 I design to argue this point with all fairness and 
 candor if I can. I shall make certainly very lib- 
 eral aJmissions to the gentlemen on tiie other side. 
 I admit that all republican constitutions " derive 
 their just povrers from tiie consent of the gov- 
 erned." 1 admit the doctrines that " sovereignty 
 makes constitutions;" that "sovereignty rests 
 exclusively with the people of each State;" that 
 "sovereignty cannot be delegated;" that it is 
 " inalienable, indivisible," &c. I also admit fully 
 the doctrines of the Kan.sas and Nebraska bill, 
 that the people, when they come to form their 
 constitution, should be let't tVee to form and reg- 
 ulate their own institutions in their own way. 
 
 Now, sir, if I can maintain the propriety of the 
 admission of Kansas into the Union upon those 
 principles, gentlemen ought to acquiesce; if not, I 
 lose my proposition, and I fail in the effort I am 
 here to make. 
 
 In the first place, then, I admit that govern- 
 ments instituted among men derive their just 
 powers from the consent of the governed. Thai 
 is the first admission. But I deny that it is a 
 necessary corollary from this princij)le that the 
 con.stituiion of a Slate shall be submitted to the 
 votes of all the governed. On the contrary, no 
 constitution that was ever framed, either in this 
 or any other country, was ever submitted to the 
 vote of all the people who were to be governed by 
 it. How many of the States of this Union allow 
 the African race to vote.' I think New England 
 and New York alone aspire to that " oad emi- 
 nence." Yet the African race are among the gov- 
 erned. How many States in this Union allow a 
 citizen just landed upon its soil from any other 
 State, or from a foreign country, to vote.' Not one, 
 I believe. In most of the States in the Union, they 
 require a man to have resided in the State for twelve 
 months, even if a citizen of the United States, be- 
 fore he is allowed to vote. And yet, sir, they are 
 among the governed. How many of the States 
 of this Union allow females and children to vote.' 
 Not one; and yet, are they not in the list of thegov- 
 erned? Then it is a clear proposition, that the fact 
 that a form of government derives its powers from 
 the consent of the governed, does not require the 
 
constitution to be submitted to all who are to be 
 governed under it, I will show, in the sequel, 
 that the consent of the governed is given on the 
 representative princi|(le. 
 
 The next concession which 1 make is to be 
 found in a certain letter written by the late Gov- 
 ernor of Kansas, upon the occasion of his resig- 
 nation of office. He says that — 
 
 " Sovereignly makes constitutions ; that sovereignty rests 
 exclusively Willi the people of each State ; that sovereignly 
 cannot be delciiati'd ; that it is inalienable, indivisible, a 
 unit incapable of partition." 
 
 Now, sir, I admit all that; but I will not con- 
 cede for a moment, because sovereignty is inalien- 
 able, that nets of sovereignty cannot be exercised 
 through some medium, organism, or represent- 
 ative agency; far from it. I think that the cele- 
 brated letter to which I refer afifords a remarkable 
 instance of how areally ai^le man, when sustain- 
 ing a heresy, may entangle and overthrow him- 
 self in the mazes of his own inetapliysics. Robert 
 J. Walker declares: 
 
 " It will not bf! denied that sovereignty is the only power 
 tliat can make a State constitntion, and thai it rests e,xclu- 
 Bively with the people; and il"itis inalienabh', and cannot 
 be delegated, as 1 have shown, then it can only be e.xer- 
 vised by the people themselves." 
 
 And again, in reference to the Constitution of 
 the United Slates, he says: 
 
 " Each State acted for itselfalone in acoedins to ilie Arti 
 Clesof C'onfi'der.ation in 1778, and each Slate acted lor itself 
 alone in franiinL' and ratifying, each for itself, the Constitn- 
 tion of the United States.' Sovereignty, then, with us, rests 
 exclusively with the people of each State." 
 
 Here, sir, he assumes that each State adopted 
 the Constitution of the United States for itself, 
 and that the Constitution of the United States, 
 teing so ad<ipted, has become the constitution of 
 each particular State. Yet he seems not to have 
 biorne in mind that that very fact upsets his whole 
 theory. Sir, the Constitution of the United States 
 is not to-diiy binding in the State of Virginia, or 
 in any other State of this Union, or else the doc- 
 trine is erroneous that it requires the people in 
 their primary Ciipacity to ratify it. Why, sir, the 
 Constitution of the United States was framed by 
 a convention and ratified by conventions and Le- 
 gislatures in the several States; not in any one case 
 was it referred to a directvote of whatMr. Walker 
 calls the sovereign people. 
 
 Sir, to declare war and to make peace — are they 
 not acts of sovereignty ? And are they not done 
 by representative agencies .' Why may not a con- 
 stitution be formed in like inanner.' Mr. Chair- 
 man, a great deal of confusion exists in the public 
 mind in relation to the question, who arc the peo- 
 ple in whom the sovereignty resides.' I accord 
 with the doctrine of Robert J. Walker, and say 
 it resides in the masses. Every man and every 
 citizen who has rights and power in the commu- 
 nity is a part of the sovereign mass. All of the 
 citi7,cns together constitute tin; original fountain 
 and source of all power in a community. They 
 are the sovereignly. Now, sir,if sovereignty is a 
 unit and indivisible, the whole sovereign mass 
 must act together. If one citizen be wanting, the 
 unity is broken and the sovereignty destroyed. 
 It is clear, then, that if sovereignty resides in the 
 mass, and is indivisiljle, it cannot be carried out 
 into acts wiihoui a medium, an organism, or a rep- 
 resentative agency, as the free mind cannot act 
 except through the agency of the body. This re- 
 
 sults from the fact that it is impossible ever to get 
 all the citizens together in consentaneous action. 
 If this sovereignly is a unit, can a majority exer- 
 cise that sovereignty .' Those who do not act with 
 the majority have a part of the sovereignty in 
 themselves, and their dissent breaks the unity. 
 
 I wish now to inquire upon what principle the 
 majority acts for a comrnunity, and what results 
 from that fact? I say that the majority does not 
 act for the cominunity upon any princijile of nat- 
 ural right. Let us suppose that the whole frame- 
 work of Government could by some mighty con- 
 vulsion be struck from existence in any State of 
 the Union: what would follow .' A primary 
 meeting of the people would be held, to put into 
 operation some rude structure of government. 
 Would all the people assemble.' By no means. 
 That is always impossible. A great many would 
 stay away, and those who stayed away would 
 have a part of the sovereignty in themselves. But 
 according to the principle declared by Governor 
 Walker, those who came would be the represent- 
 atives of those who stayed away. Each man 
 who should attend the primary meeting would 
 represent his absent neighbor and family; and, 
 upon the principle of representation, that primary 
 meeting could act for the whole. If the commu- 
 nity left without government should consist of 
 one hundred thousand people, not inore than 
 eighty thousand could assemble in primary meet- 
 ing. How would they act.' Tiie eighty thou- 
 sand would not agree upon ail questions, or per- 
 haps upon any question; and from necessity, a 
 majority wouldcontrol their decisions, unlesa dif- 
 ferent rule were agreed on. Then forty-one thou- 
 sand, being the majority of the eighty thousand, 
 would speak for the whole community. Upon 
 what principle of natural right or undivided sover- 
 eignty, I ask, can forty-one thousand declare the 
 opinion of one hundred thousand .' Again, take the 
 case of the voters of a community. Upon what 
 principle do they act for the whole? Are they the 
 sovereign mass? No, sir, l)y no means. Take the 
 case of Kansas itself; and allowing that there are 
 one hundred thousand people in that territory, then 
 say that the constitution is to be submitted to the 
 voters. According tostatisiics,the numberof votes 
 would be about one fifth of the entire mass. Take 
 the census of 1840 or 1850, and then the vote at the 
 intervening and succeeding presitlenlial election, 
 and you will find that the votes are rarely, if ever, 
 more than one fifth of the entire number of the 
 people. Then if there were one hundred thousand 
 people in Kansas, the number of voters might 
 have been as high as twenty thousand. Of that 
 twenty thousand, a majority would control, and 
 eleven thousand would constitute that majority. 
 Now, I ask, upon what principle of natural right, 
 or of indivisible sovereignty, can eleven thou.sand 
 voters declare tho.voice of one hundred thousand 
 people? They are the organism or representative 
 agency merely, through which the whole body- 
 speaks, just as a convention is the mouth-piece 
 of the people. 
 
 Chief .Tustice Taney, in giving the opinion of 
 the court in the Dred Scott case, says: 
 
 " Undoubtedly, a person may be acilizini — that is a mem- 
 ber of the eomniiuiity who form the sovirreigiity — althougli 
 ho exercises nosliare oMIie poliiieal power, and is incapaci- 
 tated from holding pariicular offices. Women and mioom. 
 who form a part of the p^ilitical family, eaiinot vote ; and 
 when a property qualification is required to vote or hold a 
 
6 
 
 particular office, those who have not the necessary qualifi- 
 cations cannot vote or hold the office, yet they are citizens. " 
 
 There are a number of the citizens in every | 
 community who constitute a part of the body j 
 politic, who have a portion of the sovereignty in i 
 themselves, but who are not allowed to vote. The 
 voters, then, only represent the people. They are 
 not, in fact, the sovereign people. So I show the 
 universality of the representative principle. A 
 primary meeting-, as usually constituted, is a 
 i-epresentative agency. A convention is a repre- 
 sentative agency. The voters are a represent- 
 ative agency, and any question between them is 
 a question between different representative agen- 
 cies. Each one speaks the voice of the people in 
 its sphere, just as the agent when acting within 
 his power speaks the voice of his principal. Talk 
 about appealing from the convention to the sov- 
 ereign people ! I say, if you appeal to the voters, 
 you only appeal from one representation to an- 
 other representation. Perhaps broader, perhaps 
 better, but still a representative agency. You 
 deny the voice of one organism through which 
 the people speak, and lake the voice of another 
 organism. When there is no law to determine 
 who shall declare the voice of the people, the peo- 
 ple are a law unto themselves, and necessity and 
 circumstances determine. When you have an 
 organized society, the law declares who shall 
 speak for the people in each particular case. 
 
 Now, apply these principles to the case of Kan- 
 sas. Who was authorized to speak the voice of 
 the people of Kansas in relation to the constitu- 
 tion? The convention, and the convention only. 
 Sir, the convention was the organism through 
 which sovereignty spoke. Its voice was the voice 
 of the people. The Constitution of the United 
 States, framed, as I have said, by a convention, 
 and ratified in each State by a convention, never- 
 theless announces itsrlf as the act of the people. 
 In its preamble it says: " We, the people of the 
 United States, &c., &c., do ordain and establish 
 this Constitution." So in Kansas, the convention 
 was merely the mouth through which the people 
 were presumed in law to speak. The constitu- 
 tion adopted by them was, therefore, the act of 
 the people. You may think that another agency 
 would have been better, but you cannot properly 
 interfere, for this is that which was spoken when 
 we said that we would " leave the people thereof 
 (of Kansas) perfectly free to form and regulate 
 their domestic institutions in their own way." 
 
 I have not undertaken to inquire whether the 
 Legislature which called this convention was a 
 legally-authorized Legislature. I do not think it 
 necessary to stop to argue that question. I do 
 not believe any lawyer in this House will, upon 
 legal principles, deny the proposition. Though 
 the first Legislature may have been elected ori- 
 ginally by fraud, it was the government de facto, 
 and was never set aside by any competent author- 
 ity. Wc are bound to recognize its acts. The 
 whole jurisprudence of Kansas rests upon the 
 legality of the two last Legislatures — the one of 
 which took the sense of the people whether there 
 should be a convention, and the other of which 
 passed the law calling the convention. Mr. Walker 
 himself told them that all the usages and rights of 
 the people of Kansas hung upon the legality of 
 the Legislature of Kansas. He says: 
 
 " If tliat Legislature was invalid, then we arc without 
 
 law or order in Kansas — without town, city, or county or- 
 ganization ; all legal and judicial traiisaciionr^ are void; all 
 titles null, and anarchy reigns throughout our borders." 
 
 Permit me to illustrate this matter. You re- 
 member that a great complaint was made in regard 
 to an election in a sister State not long ago. I am 
 not here, upon this occasion, to decide whether 
 those complaints were well or ill-founded. I can 
 make any supposition I please by way of anal- 
 ogy. Let me say, then, for the sake of the argu- 
 ment, that the vote in the city of Baltimore was 
 illegal, and that the vote of that city controlled 
 the gubernatorial election, and the election of 
 members of the Legislature enough to control the 
 complexion of that body. Will gentlemen say 
 that because that is so, the present Legislature of 
 Maryland has no autl\ority in the State, and that 
 its acts are null and void ? That body is the Le- 
 gislature of Maryland. The Legislature which 
 has the forms is the Legislature which has the 
 power. 
 
 So it is in Kansas. Its Legislature passed a law 
 which is admitted on all sides to be a fair law, 
 for the assembling of a convention. Gentlemen 
 contend that there has been a radical defect in the 
 manner in which this law was carried out. Why, 
 Mr. Chairman, I think that objection has already 
 been very fully answered, and I shall occupy but 
 little time upon it. It is a legal principle in law, 
 which all these gentlemen around me understand, 
 that nobody can take advantage of his own wrong, 
 or of his own laches. If the law passed by tht; 
 Legislature of Kansas for the assembling of that 
 convention had not enabled them to have had a 
 fair election, by which they could send up dele- 
 gates who reflected the voice of the people, I say 
 there might be something in the objection. But 
 the law was sufficient. It was the fault of the 
 people themselves if they were excluded ; and that 
 I will prove by the record. I say, if the people 
 themselves had a chance to be represented in the 
 convention, and would not be represented, it is too 
 late for them to come now and complain; they 
 cannot take advantage of their own laches. Here 
 is what Mr. Stanton said in his message to tlic 
 Legislature of Kansas at its called session on the 
 8th of December, 1857: 
 
 . "The census therein provided for was imperfectly ob- 
 tained from an unwilling people, in nineteen counties of 
 the Territory; while, in the remaining counties, being also 
 nineteen in number, from various causes, no attempt was 
 made to comply with the law. In some instances, people 
 and otficers were alike averse to the proceeding; in others, 
 the oliic-ers neglected or refused to act; and in some then- 
 was but a small population, and no efficient organization 
 enabling the people to liave a representation in the convcn ■ 
 tion." 
 
 He declares here that the " people and officers 
 were, in some cases, alike averse to the proceed- 
 ing;" yet these people, or their friends, now com- 
 plain. 
 
 But Mr. Stanton gives a fuller explanation of 
 this matter in a speech recently delivefed in New 
 York. There he says: 
 
 "Well, now, gentlemen, shortly after I arrived in thfl 
 Territory the process of taking the census was completed; 
 and the returns were made by the sheriffs of the diflercnt 
 counties to the probate .judges of those counties, in order 
 that the census returns ni'ighi be corrected. That law which 
 had been passed at the previous session of the Legislature 
 of the Territory had provided that every voter in the Terri- 
 tory should be registered, and no man should be entitled to 
 vote for delegates to the convention unless he was regi8- 
 tered. Going throngli the Territory. 1 lieard, on all sides, 
 charges of great wrong and injustice; I heard the great 
 
mass of the pnopir proclaiming that the officers of the Ter- 
 ritory had lUterly disregarded right and justice in the per- 
 formance of this duty; in fact, they had not performed the 
 duty at all. They said in many instances men of high char- 
 acter, residents of long standing, men whose residence 
 could not possibly have been unknown to the officers, had 
 been left off the register. I said to them. Gentlemen, you 
 might have gone to the probate judges, and ha*l those names 
 put on the lists. But they said it was not their duty to go, 
 it was the duty of the officers to register their names. Now 
 it is useless for any of us to disguise the truth. The great 
 ina.ss of the free-State peopledidn't carea fig whether their 
 names were registered or not. They were opposed to the 
 convention ; they were opposed to all the laws, and all the 
 proceedings under it." 
 
 The law ordered the sheriff in the month of 
 March to make a census and registry, but to pro- 
 vide against any defect in the action of the sheriff 
 it directs that the probate judges should afterwards 
 ait and hear afiplications for a correction of the 
 sheriffs' lists. JMr. Stanton, it appears, advised 
 those that complained to go to these probate 
 judges, but they refused, saying it was not their 
 duty to go. If they might have gone and done 
 themselves justice and refused to do it, I say it is 
 altogether too late for them to come now and com- 
 plain. But, sir, this is a most mysterious sub- 
 ject; (here is much mist and confusion about 
 it. Mr. Stanton says the number of counties de- 
 prived of representation in the convention was 
 nineteen, while GovernorWalker says there were 
 fifteen. But look, if you please, and see what 
 those gentlemen thought of it before the late sin- 
 gular turn in their political fortunes. Remember 
 that this act for the takingof thecensus was passed 
 long before Mr. Walker was appointed Governor 
 of Kansas. The census was to be taken between 
 the first and last of March; the probate judges 
 were to sit from the 10th of April till the Jst of 
 May; to make corrections in the sheriffs' lists, and 
 the election was to take place in June. Now, Mr. 
 Walker reached Lecompton on the 25th of May. 
 At that time the whole matter was completed, and 
 if there had been wrong done, it had been done 
 before that, and he should have known it. Mr. 
 Stanton was his avant courier — the John that 
 went before to make his path straight. He had 
 been in the Territory a considerable time, and 
 according to his own account had received in- 
 formation on this subject, and doubtless commu- 
 nicated it. It cannot be f)resumed that Governor 
 Walker failed to confer freely with iiim. What 
 did he say on the 27th of May, in his inaugural, 
 about the people being excluded from voting, and 
 counties being disfranchised.' Did he say, then, 
 that there was any cause in existence that would 
 prevent the people from voting for representatives 
 in the convention.' Here is what he said: 
 
 " I see in this act calling the conventlou no improper or 
 unconstinuional restrictions upon the right of suH'ruge. 1 
 see in it no test oath or other similar provisions objected to 
 in relation to previous laws, but clearly repealed, as repug 
 iiant to the provisions of this act, so far as regards the elec- 
 tion of delegates to this convention. It is said ihai a fair 
 and full vote will not be taken. Who can safely predict 
 such a result.' Nor is it just for a majority, as they allege, 
 to throw the power into the hands of a minority, from a 
 mere apprehension (I trust entirely unfounded) that they 
 will not be periiiitteil to e.\ercise the riaht of suflVage." 
 
 He believed then, it appears, that there might 
 be a full and fair vote, and urged the people to make 
 the experiment. Then, sir, on the 27th of May, 
 long after these errors were committed, (if they 
 were committed at all,) Mr. Walker believed that 
 no cause existed which should prevent a fairand 
 full vote, according to his own inaugural. I say, 
 
 then, that the legality of the Legislature is to be 
 considered incontestable; and the law passed by 
 that body for a convention being a fair law, under 
 which no man was prevented from voting except 
 by his own fault or neglect, and the voters having 
 previously ordered a convention, that convention 
 is a fair mouth-piece for the people in its own prop- 
 er sphere. What was that sphere.' It was to make 
 and proclaim a constitution. So I think the law 
 of its formation shows. It was the mouth-piece 
 of the people in this respect, and the people spoke 
 through it. It had the right, so far as Kansas was 
 concerned, to proclaim the constitution, and did 
 proclaim the constitution. I have seen it argued 
 that they had the right to proclaim the constitution, 
 but chose to submit it, and did not submit it fairly 
 for ratification. Though I have seen great names 
 vouching for this idea, though I have seen it held 
 forth from the capilols of Slates and from the Cap- 
 itol of this Union, yet, in my humble judgment, 
 it hardly rises to the dignity of special pleading. 
 It seems rather to be the merest quibble, sir. Did 
 nolthe convention proclaim the constitution .' Did 
 they not say in the seventh section of their sched- 
 ule: "This constitution shall be submitted to the 
 Congress of the United States at its next ensuing 
 session.'" Were there any terms or conditions 
 on which the constitution was not to come here 
 for acceptance .' None whatever. That was a cer- 
 tain and fixed fact, with which nothing should in- 
 terfere. The constitution, then, so far as Kansas 
 was concerned, was a thing accomplished, except 
 as to one single clause upon which a vote was to 
 be taken. When they talk about submitting it for 
 ratification or rejection, they always say, by way 
 of qualification, " as follows, "or " in the follow- 
 ing manner or form," &c., under which phrase 
 the extent of submission is always explained. 
 They may not have used the mostekgant phrase- 
 ology; they may not liave used the language best 
 adapted to convey their ideas; but to say, because 
 of this awkward phraseology, that they did not 
 proclaim the constitution, but did actually submit 
 it, seems to resemble very much the course of the 
 young practitioner at the bar who demurs to a 
 declaration on the ground that some word is spelt 
 badly or thatsome phrase is ungrammatical. It is 
 what is sometimes called pettifogging. The con- 
 stitution being proclaimed, it was to be consid- 
 ered the act of the State of Kansas, and could not 
 afterwards be affected by the action of the voters 
 of the Territory; because you are to consider the 
 thing in the relation in which it will stand when 
 the constitution is admitted. The aciof admission 
 will relate back and raise the act of adoption to 
 the dignity of sovereignty. It is to be considered 
 as having been a State at that time. This is 
 always the operation of the act of admission. 
 Congress can only admit Slates, not Territories. 
 Slatesonlycan forinconstituti«ns, not Territories. 
 The Territory declares its independence and as- 
 serts its sovereignty as a State, and Congress, by 
 admission, recognizes its claim. This is the mode 
 in which many, if not all, the new^tates have 
 come into the Union. If, then, you would try 
 the question whether this is the constitution of 
 Kansas or not, you must try it by legal testimony 
 as you would try the questioiuis a juror whether 
 a prisoner were guilty or not guilty. If the legal 
 testimony acquitted, and you from some hearsay 
 rumors should find the accused guilty, you would 
 
8 
 
 eommit a jjreat outrage. So here; if the legal evi- 
 dence, which is the voice of the people speaking 
 through the convention, says that this is the con- 
 stitution of Kansas, you have no right to look 
 elsewhere for proof. All else is illegal testimony. 
 The voters are not authorized to annul the former 
 action of the people in this particular. 
 
 Gentlemen may say that this is a legal and tech- 
 nical view of the question. All I have to say about 
 that is, that if we have the law upon our side, how 
 can the other side come and ask for equity.' He 
 who asks equity must do equity. He who comes 
 into court in such a capacity must come with clean 
 hands. In what condition do the Topekaites come 
 before us to make complaint ? The last President, 
 the present President of the United States, Gov- 
 ernor Walker himself, all have said that these men 
 come not with clean hands. It is pr(,)claimed on 
 all sides that they were combining and consorting 
 together to overthrow the existing government; 
 that they were guilty of moral treason, of sedi- 
 tion, of everything except actual treason; and for 
 them to come now and ask equity against those 
 who have the law upon their side, is, it seems to 
 me, making a most unheard of demand. When 
 on alien comes here, you do not allow him to vote 
 till he has renounced his allegiance to his own 
 Government, and proclaimed his allegiance to this, 
 because you have not evidence of his attachment 
 to this Government. We require a citizen of 
 another State to remain some time in our own 
 State, in order to give evidence of attachment to 
 our institutions. These men have heretofore not 
 only given no evidence of attachment to the insti- 
 tutions of Kansas, but every evidence of malig- 
 nant hate. Let Governor Walker tell their spirit 
 and temper. In his proclamation to the people 
 of Lawrence, he says: 
 
 " Permit me to caH your attention, as still claiming to be 
 citizens oftlie United Statos, to the results of your revolu- 
 tionary proceedings. You arc inaugurating rebellion and 
 revolution; yim are disregarding the laws of Congress and 
 of the territorial governincint, and defying tlieir authority ; 
 you are conspiring to overthrow the Government of the 
 United States in this Territory. Your purpose, if carried 
 into ettect in the mode designated by you, by putting your 
 laws forcibly into execution, would involve you in the guilt 
 and crime of treason. You stand now, fellow-citizens, upon 
 the brink of an awful precipice, and it becomes my duty to 
 warn you ere you take the fatal leap into the gulf below. 
 If your proceedings are not arrested, you will necessarily 
 destroy the peace of this Territory, and involve it in all the 
 horrors of civil war. I warn you, then, before it is too 
 late, to recede from the perilous position in which you now 
 stand." 
 
 And these are the men who ask for a relaxa- 
 tion of law ill their behalf! 
 
 I intended to have said a few words further i n 
 reference to this point, but 1 have not time. I 
 want to say to gentlemen on the other side of the 
 Hall, who have sf>ught to establish the Topeka 
 constitution , and who, nevertheless, come here and 
 complain of irregularity — I want to say to those 
 who talk about sifbverting the will of the people 
 and popular sovereignty, and v/ho, at the same 
 time, boldly declare that if every man, woman, and 
 child within the limits of Kansas were to ask for a 
 8lave-protectingconsiitution,they would no tallow 
 it — I want to say to them: " Oh, for a forty-parson 
 power to chant your praise, hypocrisy !" I make 
 no appeal to them. But there are gentlemen on 
 this side of the Hall, Mr. Chairman, who do im- 
 
 agine, at least, that they follow their doctrines to 
 their logical and natural results in opposing the ad- 
 mission of Kansas. There are men who do be- 
 lieve that the principles of popular sovereignty 
 lead to this conclusion. To them I appeal. Think 
 again, and trust your friends a little more. A more 
 patient aiid confiding examination may yet show, 
 that by logical and fair deduction, that doctrine 
 leads to the conclusions which 1 have spoken. 
 
 I have seen ip reference to some of them, and 
 particularly to a distinguished gentleman in the 
 otherwingoftheCapitol, that he has left the stand- 
 ard under which lie so long fought; has parted 
 from friends whom he has proved and I'ound faith- 
 ful; and has turned away to join the ranks of his 
 life-long enemies. It is true, too, that he carries 
 many with him When the archangel rebelled 
 in heaven, he carried a tenth part of the heavenly 
 hosts with him. If the gentleman continues in his 
 defection, he can find neither his interest nor his 
 pleasure in the bosom of his new allies. He cannot 
 in his heart apjirovf their principles or purposes. 
 They have too many of their own, older, and 
 more tried leaders, to reward, to do aught for 
 him. They have on their bodies too many scars 
 inflicted by his stalwart arm to love him over- 
 much. If it is not yet too late for him to hearken 
 to the voice of one whom he knows to have been 
 for long years, and truly, his friend, I would call 
 upon him to come back and take his position again 
 in the ranks of that party wlrose triuinphs and 
 whose successes have been the dream of his boy- 
 hood and the glory of his manhood. I know that 
 that would require some sacrifice of personal feel- 
 ing. A great man can make that sacrifice; a little 
 man cannot. Convince a small man, and he hates 
 you forever. A great man sees the error of his 
 ways, and retraces his steps. He will have the 
 consolation of restoring harmony to the only na- 
 tional party left in the land; and what is higher, 
 and holier, and better, he may restore peace to 
 a torn, an exasperated, and an endangered coun- 
 try. Stern truth requires me to say that, whether 
 he returns or does not return; let whoever may 
 choose turn against us or turn for us — our course 
 is onward. If, as I trust, it is onward to victory, 
 then whoever may throw himself in tiur path will 
 be but crushed beneath the wheels of our con- 
 quering chariot. But whether the course of the 
 Democratic party is onward to victory or to de- 
 feat, still for us of the South there is no retreat We 
 are the weaker and the endangered section. We 
 cannot yield our ground. The stronger may, and 
 yet be strong and mighty, and greatly prepond- 
 erant. We strike for safety and self-protection: 
 they foraccumulated power. I do not know what 
 will be the effect of a refusal to admit Kansas 
 under the Lecompton constitution, lam not au- 
 thorized to s|>eak the views of A'^irginia. She has 
 not spoken for herself. But I will say this: that, 
 in my judgment, wherever a true and enlightened 
 view of her own honor leads, there she will go; 
 and when she speaks, there is not a true son of 
 hers in all the land, wherever he may be, who 
 will not follow her command. And this, too, I 
 will say: that, although hand join in hand to pre- 
 vent, the destiny of Virginia, for once and for all, 
 for now and forever, is indissolubly united with 
 that of her sister States of the South. 
 
 Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 CONGRESS 
 
 016 087 979 8