THE REPUBLICAN PARTY VINDICATED -TE DEMANDS OFli THEF SOUTHl EXPLADI)D. . -- - -: 8~ I -,, S PEEC H HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, OF ILLINOIS, AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27, 1860. What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood just as well, and even better, than we do now? It is this: Does the proper division of local from Federal author ity, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our / Federal Government to control as to slavery inv our Federal Teryitories? Upon this, Douglas holds the affirmative, a nd Republicans the neg ative. This affirmativ e and denial form an issue; and this issue, this question, is precis ely what the text declares o ur f athers underst ood better than we. [Che er s.] fLe t us no w in quire whet her the " th irty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acte d upon it-ho w the y expr essed that better understanding. In 1784, three years before the Const itution, the Un ited States then owning the Northwe st er n Territory, and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before the m t he question of prohibiting slavery in t hat Territory; and four of the " thirty-nine " who' afterwards framed th e Constit utio n wer e in that Congress, and voted on th at question. Of these, Roger Sherm an, Th oma s Miffin, and Hugh Wil liamso n, voted for the prohibition -thus showing th at, i n their understand ing, no lineedividing local frdm Federal authority, nor anything else, properly fo rbad e the Federal Government to con t ro l as to slavery in Federal territory. The other of the four, James McHenry, voted against the prohibition-showig t hat, for some cause, he th o ught it improper to vote fo r it. In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only Territory owned by the United States, the same question of prohibiting slavery in the Territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and three more of the " thirty-nine " who afterwards signed the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted,vj Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens of the City of 2Vew York: The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the~ facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation. In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New York Times, Senator Douglas said: " Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now." I fully endorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. [Applause.] I so adopt it, because it furnishes a precise and agreed starting-point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry, What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned? What is the frame of government under which we live? The answer ynust be, the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, land under which the present Government first went into operation,) and twelve subsequently-framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789. Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almost exactly tnie to say they framed it; and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated. I take these " thirtynine," for the present, as being " our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." I 11 'Or 1(4 I. il. ! I 2 Wt,' slaves into the Territory, from any place without ey the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to at, slaves so brought. This act passed both branches al..of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Conp- gress were threeof the "thirty-nine" who framed ol the original Constitution. They were-John he -Langd,on' George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. at They all probably voted for it. Certainly they 7. -would have placed their opposition to it upon e record, if, in their understanding, any line dire viding local froa Federal authority) or anyLhing Xm in the Constitution, properly forbade the FedIal e Government to control as to slavery in Federal an territory. [Applause.] In 1803, the Federal oat Government purchased the Louisiana country. 3s Our former territorial acquisitions came from ws certain of our own States, but this Louisiana - coduntry was acquired from a foreign nation. In - 1804, Congress gave a Territorial organization to w- that p'art of it which now constitutes the State Ls of Louisiana. Newv Orleans, lying within that f part, was an old and comparatively large city. t There were other considerable towns and settle -i ments, and slavery was extensively and thorough t ly intermingled with the people. Congress did i- not, in the Territorial act, prohibit slavery; but 3, they did interfere with it-take control of it s in a more marked and extensive way than they y did in the case of Mississippi. The substances a of the provision therein made in relation to',: i, slaves was-.. First. That no slave should be imported inte a the Territory from foreign parts. e Second. That no slave should be tarried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798. Third. That no slave should be carried into it except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave. [Prolonged cheers.] r This act also was passed without ye" and o nays. In the Congress which passed it, there I were two of the "thirty-nine." They were; , Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable , they both voted for it. They would not have I allowed it to pass without recording their oppo L sition to it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local from Fed eral.authority or any provision of the Constitu tion. In 1819 and 1820 came and passed the tecutynwcntttnthSttofTnMissouri question. Many votes were taken, by-4 yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the " thirty-nine "-Rufus King and Charles Pinckney-were members of that Con gress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery pro hibition, and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney'as steadily voted.against slavery pro hibition and against all compromises. [Cheers.] By this, Mr. King showed that, in his under standing, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress'prohibiting slavery in Fed eoral territory; while Mr. Pinckney7 by his votes, fshowed that, in his understanding, there was on the question. They wer e W illi am Bloun William Few, and Abraham Baldwin i ai the all voted for the prohibition-thus showing tha in their understanding, no l ine dividing loci from Federal authority, nor anything else, pro] erly forbade the Federal Government- to eonm as to slavery in Federal territory. Thisaimei, t prohi bition became a law, b eing a part of wbK " is now well known as the ordinance of 178' The question of Federal control of slavery in th Territories seems not to have-been directly befor the Convention which framed the original>:CoD stitution; and hence it is- not recorded that th "I thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged o that instrument, expressed an opine: on the precise question. In 1789, by the first Congres ,which sat under the Constitution, an act wE passed to enforce the ordinance of 1787, inclu ding the prohibition of slavery in the North western!Teriitory.: The bill for thisgact Was~ re ported by one of Ithe "thirty-ni-ie," Thoma Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House a Representatives from Pennsylvania. It wen through all its stages without a word of opposi tion, and finally passed both branches withou yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unani mous passage. [Cheers.] In this Congress ~V~there were sixteen of the " thirty-nine "1 father who framed the original Constitution. The were-John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Willian S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Patterson, Richard Bassett, qeorge Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, and James Madison. This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the Federal ter ritory; else both their fidelity to correct princi ple, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the pro~. hibition. Again: George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the United States, and, as such, approved and signed the bill-thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in. Federal territory. [Loud applause.] No great while After the adoption of the original Constitution, korth Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Ten nessee; and a few years later, Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Missis Ysippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession @!,~ it was made a condition by the ceding States, that the Federal Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides this, sla very was then actually in the ceded country. tUnder these c;ircumstances, Congress, on talking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did ino terfere with it —take control of it-even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congresg organ, '. ized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of aorganization they prohibited the bringing of I I I 3 some sufficient reason for opposing such pro- different from that of their twenty-three com hibition in that case. The cases I have men- peers; had it been manifested at all. tioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I text' I have purposely omitted whatever under have been able to discover. To numerate the standing may have been manifested by any per persons who thus acted, as being four-in 1784, son, however distinguished, other than the thirty three in 1787, seventeen in 1T8.9, three in 1798, ninefathers who framed the original Constitu,two in 1804, and two in 18l9-'20 —there would tion;'and, for the same reason, I have also omit/be thirty-one of them. But this wotld be couint- ted whatever understanding may have been ing John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William manifested by any of the "thirty-nine" even, on Few, Rufus King, and George Red, each twice any other phase of the general question of sla and Abraham Baldwin four times. [Applause.] very. If we should look into their acts and He was a Georgian, too. Renewed applause declarations on those other phases, as the foreign and laughter.] The true number of those of slave trade, and the morality and policy of sla-, the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have very, generally, it would appear to us;that on the" acted upon the question, which, by the text, direct question of Federal control of slavery in they understood better than'we, is twenty-three, Federal Territories, the sixteen, if they had acted leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon at all, would probably have acted just as the it in any way. Here, then, we have twenty- twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were three of our "thirty-nine" fathers, who framed several of the most noted anti-slavery men of the Government under which we live, who have, those times-as Dr. Franklin, [cheers,] Alexanupon their official responsibility and their cor- der Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris-while poral oaths, acted upon the very question wlhiich I there was not one now known to have been otherthe text affirms they "understood just as well, wise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South and even better, than we do now;" and twenty- Carolina. [Applause.] The sum of the whole one of them a clear majority of the whole is, that of our "thirty-nine" fathers who framed "thirty-nine"-so acting upon it as to make the original Constitution, twenty-one-a clear them guilty of gross political impropriety and majority of the whole-certainly understood that wilful perjury, if, in their understanding, any no proper division of local from Federal auproper division between local and Federal au- thority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade thority, or anything in the Constitution they had the Federal Government to control slavery in the made themselves and sworn to support, forbade Federal territories, while all the rest probably the Federal Government to- control as to slavery had the same understanding. Such, unquestionin the Federal Territories. [Cheers.] Thus the ably, was the understanding of our fathers who twenty-one acted; and as actions speak louder framed the original Constitution; and the text than words, so actions under such responsibility affirms that they understood the question better speak still louder. than we. [Laughter and cheers.] \ Tko of the twenty-three voted against Con- But, so far, I have been considering the ungressional prohibition of slavery in the Federal derstanding of the question manifested by the Territories, in the instances in which they acted framers of the original Constitution. Int and by upon the question. But -for what reasons they the originatinstrument, a mode was provided for >t. so voted is not known. They may have done amending it; and, as I have already stated, the so because they thought a proper division of present frame of Government under which we local from Federal authority, or some provision live consists of that original, and twelve amendor principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; atory articles framed and adopted since. Those or they may, without any such question, have who now insist that Federal control of slavery in voted against the prohibition on what appeared Federal Territories violates the Constitution, to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. point us to the provisions which they suppose it ,No one who has sworn to support the Constitu- thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix tion can conscientiously vote for what he under- upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and stands to be an unconstitutional measure, how- not in the original instrurent. The Supreme ever expedient he may think it; but one may and Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves ought to vote against a measure which he deems upon the fifth amendment, which provides that constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it "no person shall be deprived of property with- inexpedient. It therefore would be unsafe to out due process of law;" while Senator Douglas set down even the two who voted against the and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon prohibition as having done so because, in their the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers understanding, any proper division of local from not granted by the Constitution are reserved to Federal authority, or anything in the Constitu- the States respectively, and to the people." Now, tion, forbade the Federal Government to control it so happens that these amendments were framed as to slavery in Federal territory. [Laughter by the first Congress which sat under the Conand prolonged applause.] The remaining six- stitution-the identical Congress which passed teen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have dis-.the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohicovered, have left no record of their understand- bition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. ing upon the direct question of Federal control [Applause.] Not only wasi it the same Conof slavery in the Federal Territories. But there gress, but they were the identical, same indiis much reason to believe that their understand- vidual men who, at the same session, at the ing upon that question would not have appeared same time within the session, had unde? ~on ~.'-. ~.@* 4 sideration, and in progress toward maturity, these constitutional amendments and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The constitutional amendments were introduced before and passed after the act of enforcing the ordinance of 1787; so that during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordinance, the constitutional amendments were also pending. That Congress, consisting in all of seventy-six members, including sixteen of the framers of'the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of thm Government under which we live, which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery -in the Federal Territories. Is it not a little presumptuous in alny one at this d ay to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed and carried to maturity at the same time are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we-better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent? [Applause and great merriment.] It is surely safe to assume that the " thirty nine" framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken alto gether, do certainly include those W ho may be fairly called " our fathers who framed the Gov. ernnient under which we live." And so assum ing, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever in his whole life declared that, in his under standing, any proper division of local from Fed eral authority, or Any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. [Loud'ap plause.] I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century, (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century,) declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. To those who now so declare, I give, not only " our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agree ing with them. Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience, to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers, in any case} we should do 80 upon evidence so conclusivre, and argument so clear, that even their great authorityr, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in ~ w'be whereof we ourselves declare that they * e~ : e understood the question better than we. [Laughter.] If any man, at this day, sincerely believes that a proper division of local from Federal authority, or any par t of t he Con stitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to sla very in the Federal Territories, he is right to say s o, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair a r gument which h e can. But he has no right to mislead others, w ho have less access to himtory, and less eisure to study it, into the false belief that "our fathe rs, who; fr amed the Government under which we live,) were of the same opinion-thus s ubstituting fal se hoo d and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. [Applause.] If any man at th is day s incerely believes " our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from Federal authority, or some part of the Constitution, forbids th e Federal Government to control as to slave ry in the Federal Territories, heais right to say so. But he should at the same time brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their pr inciples better than they did the ms elves, [great laughter,] and especially should he not s hirk that responsibility by- asserting that they " understood the ques tion just as well, and even better, than we do now." [Applause.] But enough. Let all who believe that our " fah o a the r s, who framed he Government und er which we live, understood this ques tion just a s well, and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted, upon it. This is all Republicans ask-all Republicans desire-in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tole rated and pro tected only because of, and so fa r as, its actual presence among us makes that toler ation and protection a necessity. [Loud applause.] Let all the guaranties tho se s fa thers gave it be not gr udgin gly, but fully and f airly maintained. For uree, t this Repub licans contend, and wit this, far as I know o r beli eve, they will be content. [Applause.] And now, if they would listen- as I suppose they will not-I wouldads a ddres s a few wo rds to the Sou thern people. [Laughter.] I would say to them: You consider yours elves a reasonable and jnust people, and I consider that in the gen eral qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any othe r pe ople; s t ill, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so on ly to de nounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no bet ter than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to Black Republicans. [Laughter.] In all your conten tions with one another, each of you deems an un conditional condemnation of "Black Republi canism": as the first thing to be attended to. [Laughter.] Indeed, ouch condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite —li cense, so to speak —among you, to:be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you or not be prevailed upon to pause and to consider ~whether this is quite just to 1X3, or even to your 64 I 4 5 selves? Bring forward your charges and speci- fications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. You say we are sectional. We deny it. [Loud applause.] That makes an issue, and the burden of proof is upon you. [Laughter and applause.] You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section-gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then, in case we should,without change ofprinciple,begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. [Great merriment.] You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to sectional, for we shall get n'otes in your section this very year. [Loud cheers.] You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong prin ciple o r pr actice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or. practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started-to discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. [Loud applause.] If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would *rong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. [Laughter.] Do you accept the challenge? No. Then you really believe that the principle which our fathers who framed the Government under which we live thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and endorse it again and again, upon the official oaths, is, in fact, so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration. [Applause.] Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject, up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should some time have a Confederacy of free States. [Applause.] Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warningf a weapon -in your hands against us, or in ou~r hand against you? Could Washington himself speak, would hoe cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us who sustain his policy, or upon you wvho repudiate it? 9Applause.] We repeat that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right a pp lication of it. [Applau se.] But you say yo u a re conservative-eminently conservative-while we are revo lution ary, de structive, or someth ing of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence t o the old and t ried, against the new and untried? We' stick o, contend for, the identical o d old policy' on the point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers who framed the Government un der which we live, while you with one accord reject and scout and spit upon that old policyu,., and in si s t upon substituting som ething new. Then, you disagre e among youtrselves as t o wha t that substitute shall be. You have considera ble variety of new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and d eno unc ing t he old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the f ore ign slave tra de; som e for a Con gressional slave code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to pro - hibit slavery with in thei r limits; so me f or main taining slavery in the Territories thr ough the judiciary; some for the " gur-re at pur-rincipleon [laughter] that "if one man would enslave an - other, no thir and man should obje ct," fantastically called "popular sovereignty "-[renewed laugh - ter and applause]-but never a ma n among y ou in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in the Federal Territories, according to the practice of our fathers who frame d the Gov ernm ent under which we live. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate inl the century within which our Government originated. Con sideri th en, w hether yo ur claim of conservatism for wr eao i yourselves chargn e of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundat ions. Again: you say we have made the sla ver y ques tion more prominent tha n it formerly was. We d eny it. We admit that it is m ore pro minent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, you r innovati on your want of conservatism; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same con ditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times. [Applause.] You charge that wo stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry I [Geat laughter.] John Brown! [Renewed laughter.] John Brown was no Republican, and you have to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. [Loud applause.] Ifrony member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know -it, or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable to not designate the man and prove the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable to assert it, and eSpeciaI~y to persist in the assertion after y-ou have triecl and failed to make the proof. [Great applause.] You need not be told that persisting in a charge.hich Ione does not know to be thue, is simply malicious ....:' 6. /slander. [Applause.] Some of you generously admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry. affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations neces sarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrines and make no declarations which were not held to and made by our fathers who framed the Govern ment under which we live. [Applause.] You never dealt fairly by us il relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. [Laughter.] You did not sweep New York, and New Jersey, and Wisconsin, and Minnesota, pre cisely like fire sweeps over the prairie in high wind. [Laughter.] You are still drumming at this idea. Go on with it. If you think you can, by slandering a woman, make her love you, or by vilifying a man, make him vote with you, goc on and try it, [Boisterous laughter and pro longed applause.] Every Republican man knew, that, as to himself at least, your charge was a f slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. / Republican doctrines and declarations are ac companied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely this does not en courage them to revolt. True, we do, in com mon with our fathers who framed the Govern ment under which we live, declare our belief that slavery is wrong-'[applanse]-but the slaves do not hear us declare even this; for any thing we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it, but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charged the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to sim ply be insurrection, blood, and thunder, among the slaves.'[Boisterous laughter and applause ] Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton in surrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at, Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that South ampton was got up by Black Republicanism. [Laughter.] In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general or even a very extensive slave insurrection is.pos sible. The indispensable concert of action can not be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary free men, black or white, supply it. ~The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels, but there neither are-nor can be supplied the indispensa ble connecting trains. Much is said by Southerna people about the affection of slaves for theirm masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least,. is rue A plot for an uprising could scarcely *.,. : ~ be devised and communicated to twenty inlividuals, before some of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. Thi s i s the rule; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur, as the natural results of slavery; but no general insutruction of slaves, as I think, can happen in thiis country for a long time. Whoever much fears or much hopes for such an event, will be alike disappointed. In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, " it is still in our power to direct the pio/cess of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their! places be, pari yads.u, filled up by free white laborers. [Loud applause.] If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up." Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Fed eral Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institu tion-the power to insure that a slave insurrec tion shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery. [Applause.] John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their igno rance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed.' That afair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assas sination of Kings and Emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression bf a people, till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to lib erate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than in Iis own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry, were, in their philos ophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the smeness of'the two things. [Applause ] And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper's book, and the like, break up the Repu llcan organiz~ tion? - Humani action can bye modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be~ changed. Thlere is a judgment and alfeeling...ainst slavei~ /bl ulhis nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy thiat judg ment and feeling —that sentlment —by breaking up the political organization which rallies around ,it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an I / I ir. wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person;" and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor due," as a " debt " payable in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by cotempo raneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose tt exclud"e from the Constitution the idea that there could be prop erty in man. To show all this is easy and cer tain. When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to -their notice, is it not reason able to expect that they will withdraw the mis taken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it'? And then it is to be remember-\ ed that "our fathers who framed the Govern ment under which we live "-the men who made the Constitution-decided this same constitu tional question in our favor long ago; decided it without a division among themselves, when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.,, Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government, unless such a court decision as you rs is sh all be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Re publican Pre sident. In that supposed event, you s ay you will destroy the Unio n, and the n, y ou sa y, the great crime of having destroyed i t wil l be upon us! [Laughter.] That is cool. [Great laughter.] A hi ghwayman ho lds a pistol to my e a r, and mutter s through his teeth, CStandi and deliver, or I shall kiill you, a nd t hen yo u Will be a m urderer Iw [Continued laughter.] To be sure, what the robber demanded of me-my money-was my own, and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; [" That's so," and applause;] and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarce. ly be distinguished in principle. A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace and in harmony one with another. Let us Repubficans do our part to have it so. ["We will," and applause.] Even though much provoked, let us do nothing'through passion and ill temper. Even though the Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them, if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them. Will they:be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will nlot. In all their present complaints against Us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will apt. We so know be army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it, out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or en larged by the operation? But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights. That has a some w hat r eckless sound; but it would be palliated, if no t fully justified, w ere we prop osing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right plainly writteon down in the Constitution. But we ar e p r oposing no such thing. When you mak e these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to n an a ssumed consti tutional right of y ours, to take sl aves into the Fed era l Territories, and to hold the m there as prop erty. Bu t no such right is specifically written in this Constitution. That instrum en t is literally silent ab out any such right. We, on the con trary, deny that su ch a right h as any existence in the C onstituti n, even by implication. [tAp plause.] Your purpose, t hen, plainly stated, is, that you will destroy the Government, unless'you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you pl ease, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will ruin or rul e in all events. This, pla inly s tated, is y our language to us. Perhaps you will say that the Supreme Court has decided the disput e d cons titution al qu estio n in your favor. Not quite so. Bu t, w aiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the court have decided the question for you in a' sort of way. The c ourt have sub~t antially said, it isyour constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a so rt of way, I mean it wa s m ade in a divided court by a bare majority of the Edges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; th at it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning; and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of facts-the statement in the opinion that " the right of propert y i n a slave is distinct ly and expressly affirm ed in the Const itution." An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in it. [Applause.] Bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution, but they pledge their-veracity that it is distinctly and expressly affirmed there" distinctly "-that is, not mingled with anything else; expressly-that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning. If they had onlyr pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implicationi, it would be open to others to show thait neither the word " slave " nor " slavery " is to be found in ~the Constitution, nor the word " property " even, in any connection With language alluding to the things slave or slavery —[applause] —and that I. I cause we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation. The question recurs, What will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we i do let them alone. This, we know by experi-c ence, is no easy task. We have been trying to so convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches, we have constantly pro- tested our purpose to let teem alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact, that they have never detected a man of us in any at- tempt to disturb them. These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly-: done in acts as well as in words. Silence will i, not be tolerated-we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Douglas's new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure; we must pull down our free-State Constitutions; the whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. I am quite aware they do not state their case pre- I cisely in this way. Most of them would proba-p bly say to us, " Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But -we do let them alone —have never disturbed them-so that, after all, it is what we say which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying. I am also aware that they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery with more solemn emphasis than do all ot her saying s agai n st it; and when all t h ese other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be de manded, and nothing be left to resistthe demand. It is nothing to the contrary that they do not demand the wholeof this just now. Demanding what they do, and-for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right and socially elevating, they can not cease to demand a full national recognition of it as a legal right and a social blessing. [Ap plause.] Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground, save our conviction-that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and Constitutions, against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced and swept away. If it is right, we can not justly object to its na tinality - its universality; i iit is wrong, the y ocannot justly insist upon its extension-its en. ~argement.'All they ask we could readily grant, it waoe thought slavery right;all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they th oug ht it wrong. t d lheir thinking it right, and our thin gt dking it wrong, is the precise fact upon wh ich depen d s dmdhe whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame fo r desirin its ~full recognition, as being right; but thinking it s awrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Ca n we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? [" No, no," and applause Wrong as we think slavery is, wo can yet afford to let it alone wherey, is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national Territories, and to overrun us here in these free States? [" No, never," and applause. A voice-," Guess not." Laughter.] If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously ])lied and belabored-contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man-such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do caresuch as -Union appeals, beseeching true Union men to yield to disunionists, reversing the divine ]le, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous, to repentance-[prolonged cheers and laughter]-such as invocations of Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did. Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. [Applause.] Let us have faith that right makes might; and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we uin derstand it. [Mr. IINCOLN then bowed and retired, amid the loud and uproarious applause of his hearers nearly all the audience rising spontaneoualy, and cheering with the full power of their lungs.] PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1860. REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITrEE. Hon. Preston King, N.Y., (Chairman,) J. W. Grimes, Iowa, L. F. S. Foster, Conn., on the part of the Senate; -ion. E. B. Washhun e, Illinois, John Coode,Penn., (Treasurer,) E. G. Spaulding, N.Y., J. B. Alley, Mass., David Kilgore, Ind., J. L. N. Stratton, N.J., on the part of the House of Representatives. During the Presidential Campaign, Speechesi and Documents will be supplied at the following reduced prices: Eight pages, per 100, 50 cents; sixteen pages, per 100, $1.00; twenty-four pages, per 100, $1.50. Address either of the above Committee. GEORGE HARRINGTON, -ry. 1) I i' I I I I I