I --
[/ -  /    l
The Rise and Fall of the Democratic Party. 
v.:, i  Xt. I. 0. I,
I.-  -',3.
SPEE EC H
OF
HON. KINSLEY S. BINGHAM,
OF MICHIGAN.
.  o
Delivered in the United States Senate, May 24, 1860.
Mr. PRESIDENT:  The  resolutions  under discussion were presented  by the
honorable Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. DAVIS,] one of the most distinguished
and worthy leaders of the Democratic party.  It is understood  that they  have
been adopted by a large majority of Democratic Senators in caucus; and although
they have notbeen formally voted upon by the Senate, yet] thinlk it fair to presume that they express the opinions and embody the creed, not only of the majority of this honorable body, but of the dominant  party in the country.   The
honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CHESNUT,] in his discussion  of
lhem, says that they "are just, and therefore wise.   In regard to the subjects of
which they treat, they announce the true doctrine of the Constitution.  Among
other things, they denounce  two capita] political  heresies:  that which  claims
sovereign power for the Government-unlimited power.over this subject, and
that which claims sovereign,power for the inhabitants of a Territory."  The fourth
and fifth resolutions are in the following words:
4. Resolved, That neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature, whether by direct legislation or legislation of an indirect and unfriendly nature, possess the power to aanul or impair
the constitutional right of any citizen of the United States to take his slave property into the
common Territories; but it is the duty of the Federal Government there to afford for that, as
for other species of property, the needful protection; and if experience should at any time prove
that the Judiciary does not possess power to insure adequate protection, it will then become
the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency.
"5. Resolved, That the inhabitants of an organized Territory of the United States, when
they rightfully form a Constitution to be admitted as a State into the Union, may then, for the
first time, like the people of a State, when forming a new Constitution, decide for themselves
whether slavery, as a domnestic institution, shall be maintained or prohibited within their jurisdiction; And if Congress shall admit them as a State,' they shall be received into the UnDiba
with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at:the time of their admission,'  *
The'party now known as the Democratic party has been a distinct organization
more thani sixty years, and is almost coeval with the foundation of fhe Governminent. Looking for its paternity to the author of the Declaration of Independence, the immortal Jefferson, the Democratic party has ever claimed to be the
advocate of the largest liberty; of the greatest good to the greatest number; of
equal rights and equal privileges;'of a strict construction of the  Constitution;
and in favor of State rights, in opposition to the powers claimed for the  Federat
Government by the Federal party. The Democratic party has professed opposition to all monopolies-all exclusive privileges;  and two of its great leaders,
Jefferson and Jackson, took 9pen and strong ground against the political decisions
of the Supreme Court, which were designed to control the legislation of Congress,
or to affect the judgament or conscience of its individual members; but never, pre.
vious to the year 1846, did'the Democtatic party, or any of its leaders, deny the:.power of Congress to legislate exclusively for the Territories, and especially to
prohibit the introduction of slavery therein.
* These resolutions have since passed the Senate, but one Defnocrat (Mr. Pugh) voting
against them.
I I
. I.
0       1,
0, 
2
*-                   v-   f
Immedia;tely afe, the close of the Revolutionary, war, Mr. Jeffersu announced
the great principles of civil polity which were to lie at the foundation of the new
States, to be formed out of what was then the only Territory they possessed; and
in 1787, they were formally adopted by Congress, in the promnulgation of the
ordinance which prohibited the introduction of slavery  thereini.  Every  new
settler, as he crossed the border of that great TeIrritory, to establish for himself
and his children a home, had the solemn assurance of the Government that free
labor was never to be degraded by its contact with slavery upon that soil, and
that free men could only live there.
I shall undertake to show, Mr. President, that this benign policy, the salutary
effects of which will be acknowledged as long as we respect the virtues of our
ancestors, was the policy of the Government under the new Constitution, and
especially of the party first known as the Republican, and afterwards as the Democratic party; and that the Republican party of to-day only desires to carry out
the principles which were adopted by the Republican party of 1800, and by the
enforcement of which  the present flourishing States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, have sprung.  One of the first acts,
under the new Constitution, voted for by many of the men who had come fresh
from the Convention which framed that instrument, was approved,  on the 7th
of August, 1789, by General Washington; and the preamble is in these words:
"Whereas, in order that the ordinance of the United States, in Congress assembled, for the
government of the Territory northwest, of the river Ohio, may continue to have full effect, it is
requisite that certain provisitns should be made, so as to adapt the same to the present Constitution of the United States."
Here is a complete recognition of the power of Congress to legislate for the
Territories, and to exclude slavery therefrom; for this act re-enacted and re-established the provisions of that ordinance.   In pursuance of the policy narked
ott by the ordinance to which I have referred, C6ngress, from time to time, in
the organization of Territorial  Governments, applied  the same  restriction of
slavery by direct legislative enactment; and so unquestioned was the complete
power of Congress over the subject, that, in 1802, President Jeffersol approved
the enabling act authorizing the people of Ohio to form  a'State Government,
which contained a proviso that the Constitution should  not be repugnant to
the ordinance of 1787.  Mr. Madison approved a similar act, in relation to Indiana, in 1816, and Mr. Monroe  one-re]ating to Illinois, in 1818.  Acts were
passed during the Administrationr of every Democratic President, down to and
including James K. Polk, when the Territory of Oregon was organized, with the
same prohibition, that there should be " neither slavery nor involuntary servitude
in said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of clime, whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted."  During all this period, Congress  not only
exercised the power unquestioned of prohibiting the existence of slavery in the
Territories, and of requiring the State Constitutions to conform to the provisions
of the ordinance, but it exercised the power of regulating slavery in the $outhwestern Territories.
Under the provisions of the Constitution, Congress could not restrain the foreign slave trade until the year 1808, and that infamous traffic was regarded as
legitimate commerce.  And yet, inr 1794, Congress discriminated against this
species of property, and prohibited the carrying of slaves to any foreign country,
and utterly condemned slaves and slavery.as an article of commerce. In 1798,
ten years before Congress had authority to prohibit the importation of African
slaves into the States  in the act for the government of the-Mississippi Territory,
the seventh sectio. n makes it unlawful to bring slaves into the Mississippi Territory from any place without the United State; imposesta fine of $300 for every
slave thus brought into the Territory in violation of the provisions of the act, and
gives to every slave thvs brought in, his or her freedom.  The doctrine of "nonintervention " had not been invented at that time, and the Congress of that day
was not hindered by constitutional scruples from exercising the sovereign power
of prohibiting the African slave trade in the Territories ten years before they were
authorized to make the same prohibition in the States.
. i
I 11.,
I 
3
In 1804, when the Louisiaaa Territory was drgaized-, similar provisions were
enacted, prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the Territbry from any place
without the United States, with an additional provision against the introduction
of any slaves from the States, that had been imported' since  1798, exercising
unquestioned, express authority to prohibit and'regulate slavery, and all other
matters, in the Territories.  These acts were approved by Jefferson-authority
which the Democratic party has never had the hardihood to dispute. Congress
afterwards, in the year 1836, repealed and nullified ihe Territorial acts of Florida
incorporating certain banks and insurance companies, and this act reced'ed the
sanction of General Jackson.  Congress also, in several instances, legislated in
relation to slavery in Florida.
In the year 1800, a petition from Mississippi Territory was sent into Congress,
praying for permission to take slaves into the Territory.  This petition was intro duced into the House of Representatives. The House passed a bill entitled,
"An act te permit, in certain cases, the bringing of slaves into the Mississippi
Territory"
This Territory was at the southern extremity of the United States, and alto gether surrounded by an old slaveholding population. The bill passed the House
without a division. It was sent to the Senate, where Thomas Jefferson presided,
he being Vice President, where it was rejected by a vote of 14 to 5.
From this statement it will be seen, Mr. President, that for a long'period' int the
history of the Government, and of the Democratic party under its most distinguished leaders, the power of the Government over its Territories, in all respects,
was unquestioned; and that the wise and statesmanlike policy of restricting and
regulating slavery was invariably pursued.
But, "then arose a new king which knew  not Joseph:"  The precepts and
example of Jefferson were discarded. An influence appeared in the Southern
States, which sought to change the settled policy of the,Government, and to establish and perpetuate the institution of slavery.  This influence [ shaJl denominate
the slave power.  Perhaps its first attempt to control the Democratic party was
in the nomination of President in 1844.' Having acquired a large additionial
strength by the admission of the States o,Louisiana,  Missouri, Arkansas, and
Florida, from territory acquired by treaty and purchase, this same power undertook, very adroitly, to precipit.ate the question of the annexation of Texas tinto
the Presidential canvass of that year, and to commit the Democratic party to that
measure.  Mr. Van Buren  was a prominent candidate for nomination  at the
Baltimore Convention; and it was known that, during his Presidency, he had
rejected  proposals for the annexation  of Texas, while Mexico  refused to
acknowledge her independence, and hostilities existed between those two Republics.  As a pretext for defeating his nomination, a letter was thereupon addressed to Mr. Van Buren, inquiring whether he favored the present annexation
of Texas.  He rellied, in manly and statesmanlike terms, that although he  did
desire the annexati6n of Texas, he could never consent to the measure at the
expense of involving us in a war with our sister Republic of Mexico, between
whom and this Government there existed a treaty of peace and friendship.   The
publication of the letter produced the desired effect; and, amidst great excitement, the nomination of Mr. Vabh Buren was defeated, and James K. Polk became the candidate of the party.*  This was an open and'signal triumph of the
slave power; and resolutions were passed in favor of the immediate annexation
of Texas.
The discipline of the Democratic party was at that time rigid and exact; but
now and then a brave and honest man, like my friend fron New Hampshire, who
sits near me, [Mrs HALE,] refused submission to its~ dictation, and openly-opposed the annexation of Texas. There vWas danger of a greneral outbreak in the
party, and something must be done to allay their fears.. At that conjuncture,
Mr. James Buchanan, then a Senator of $he United States, and then, and ever
since, the willing and supple instrument of the slave power, in a speecl upon the
treaty of annexation, which was then pending in the Senate, deliberately and
plausibly undertook to convince the Democracy of the free States that the an'
. I - I - 
4
nexation of Texas, so far from being the means of perpetuating  slavery, or of
strengthening its influenqe, would, under P'ovidenoq, be  the rmans of relieving
the Northern slave States of that terrible incubus  upon their prosperity   I propose to read sorne extraots from that notable speech, which was delivered on the
4th of June, 1844.   Mr. Buchanan said: 
" In arriving at thd conclusion to support this treaty, I had to encounter but one serious obstacle, and this was the question of slavery. Whilst I ever have maintained, and ever shall
maintain, the constitutional rights of the Southern States over their slave property, I yet feel
a strong repugnance. by any act of mine, to extend the present limits of the Union over a new
slaveholding territory.  After mature reflection, however, I overcame these scruples, and now
believe the acquisition of Texas will be the means of limiting, not enlarging, the dominion of
slavery.  There is nothing rash in the counsels of the Almighty.  May not, then, the acquisition of Texas be the means of gradually drawing the slaves far to the South, to a climate more
congenial to their nature; and may they hot finally pass off into Mexico, and there mingle
with a race where no prejudice exista against their color? That the acquisition of Texas
would, ere long, convert Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and probably others of the
more northern slave States, into free States, I entertain not a doubt.  From the very best information, it is no longer profitable to raise wheat, rye, and corn, by slave labor. Wliere these
articles are the ony staples of agriculture, in the pointed and expressive language of Mr.
Randolph,' If the slave does not run away from his master, the master must ran away from
the slave.'"
This was Mr. Buchanan's declaration. Mr. Robert J. Walker, then a Senator
from Mississippi, in a public letter, extensively circulated at the North, said
" The question is asked, Is-slavery never to disappear from the Union?  This if a startling
and momentous question, but the answer is easy, and the proof is clear.  It will certainly disappear, if Texas is reannexed to the Union."
Mr. President, it may seem harsh for me to chargq that these statements were
fraudulently made, with  the intent to  impose  upon and deceive  the Northern
Democracy.   That thousands upon thousands of them, myself among the number, were misled(  and betrayed, by assurances from such high authority, into the
support of the measure for the annexation of Texas, there can be no doubt; and
I siould like tb have some one explain to me how they could have:been truthfully
and honestly made, when the very treaty for the annexation of Texas, with all
the Correspondence, was at that time before the Senate, and the occasion of the
speech  of Mr. Buchanan, from  whic   I have  quoted.   The negotiation of the
treaty was  placed solely upon the ground  that Great Britain was about to exert
her influence to lroc:ure  the abolition of slavery in Texas.   All the schemes of
the slave power, in carrying staves into Texas against the Mexican law and  encouraging the revolt against Mexico, were about to be thwarted   Mr. Buchanan
and Mr. Walker and the Senate knew very well that it was only because slavery
was endangered in Texas, thadt the treaty was  concluded in such hot haste.
I shall take the liberty of reading such extracts from the correspondence as will
prove the truth of my assertions.
Mr. Murphy was  the charge from this Government to Texas;  and, in a letter
addressed  to himr  by Mr. Upshur, Secretary of State, dated Washington, August
8, 1843, he said:
"SIR: A private letter from a citizen of Maryland, then in London, contains the following
passage:
"'I learn, from a source entitled to the fullest conifidence, that there is now here a Mr. An drews, deputed by the Abolitionists of Texas to negotiate with the British Government; that
he has seen Lord Aberdeen, and submitted his projet for the abolition of slavery in Texas;
which is, that there shall be organized a company in England, who shall advance a sum
sufficient to pay for'the slaves now in Texas, and receive in payment Texas lands; that the
sum thus advanced shall be paid over as an indemnity for the abolition of slavery; and I am
authorized by the Texan minister to say to you, that Lord Aberdeen has agreed that the Brit ish Government will guaranty the payment of the interest on this loan, upon condition that
the Texan Government will abolish slavery.'
aThe writer professes to feel entire confidence in the accuracy of this information. He is
a man of great intelligence, sand well versed in public affairs.  Hence I have every reason to
confide in the correctness of his conclusions.
"A movement of this sort cannot be contemplated by us in silence. Such an attempt upon
any neighboring country would necessarily be viewed by this Government with very seep
concern; but when it is made upon a nation whose territories join the slaveholding States of
our Union, it awakens: a still more solemn interest. It cannot be permitted to succeed with 
5
out the most strenuous efforts on our part to arrest a calamity go serious to every part of our
country.                        *
"But there is another view of this subject still more important to us, and secarelj less important to Texas herself.  The establishment, in the very midst of 6ur slaveholdingStates, of
an independent Government, forbidding the existence of lavery, and by a people born, for
the most part, among us, reared up in our habits, and speaking our language, could not fail
to produce the most unhappy effects upon both parties.  If Texas were in that condition, her
territory would afford a ready refuge for the fugitive slaves of Louisiana and Arkansas, and
would hold out to them an encouragement to run away, which no municipal regulaohs of
those States could'possibly counteract.   ~                             p 
In another dispatch, dated January 16, 1844, he-says:
"But this is not all.  If Texas should refuse to come into our Union, measures will instantly be taken to fill her territory with emigrants from Europe. Extensive arrangementsgfr this
are already made, ands they will be carried into effect as seen as the decision of Texas shall
be known.  These emigrants will bring with them European feelings and European optinions.
Emigration from the United States will cease; at all events, the people of the Southern States
will not run the hazard of subjecting their slave property to the control of a population who
are anxious to abolish slavery. Texas will soon cease to be an American State. Her population, her politics, and her manners, will stamp her as European. This fact alone will destroy
the sympathy which now exists between that country and this.;
" But -the firstmineasure of the new emigrants, as soon as they shall have sufficient strength,
will be to destroy that great domestic institution upon which so much of the prosperity of
our Southern country depends. To this England will stimulate them, and she will also furnish the means of accomplishing it.  I have commented upon this topic in the dispatch to Mr.
Everett.  I will only add, that if Texas should not be attached to tlhe United States, she cannot maintain that institution ten years, and probably not'half that time."
The treaty was concluded; and I have but one extract more to read, which  is
the reason assigned to the Mexican  Government, by  Mr.  Calhoun,  who  had
succeeded as Secretary of State, for the action of this Governmnent.   It is dated
April 19, 1844.
"In making the fact known to the Mexican Government, the President enjoins it on you to
give it, in the first place, the strongest assurance that, in adoptIng this measure, our Government is actuated. by no feelings of disrespect or indifference to the honor or dignity of Mexico,
and that it would be a subject of great regret if it should be otherwise regarded by its Governmeht.  And, in the next. place, that the step was forced on the Government of the United
States in self-defence, in consequence of the policy adopted by Great Britain in reference to
the abolition of slavery in Texas. It was impossible for the United States to witness with
indifference the efforts of-Great Britain to abolish slavery there.  They could not but see that
she had the means in her power, in the actual condition of Texas, to accomplish the objects
of her policy, unless prevented by the most efficient measures; and that, if accomplished, it
would lead to a state of things dangerous in the extreme to the adjacent States, and theUnion
itself.  Seeing this, this GoVernment has been compelled, by the neccessity of the case, and a
regard to its constitutional obligations, to take the step it has,' as the only certain and effectual means of preventing it.  It ha taken it in full view of all possible consequences, but not
without a desire and hope that a full and fair disclosure of the causes which induced it to do
so would prevent the disturbance of the harmony subsisting between the two countries, which
the United States is anxious to preserve."
Mr. President, the war which Mexico had taken the pre,aution to assure our
Government woild be the cotisequen,ce of the annexation, followed immediately;
atid an appeal was made to the patriotism of the Northern  Democracy to stand
by the flag of the country. This call was promptly responded to'; but the outraged Democracy of the North, now fully conscious of the ulterior designs of the
slave power to extend that blighting institution across the continein, tq the shores
of the Pacific, with almost entire unanimity determined to splant themselves on
the platform of Jefferson, and in the first appropriation which was made by the
popular branch of the Government, they appended to it the Wilmot proviso;
which required that in all the territory to be acquired, as the result of that war,
slavery should be forever prohibited, except for the punishment of crime.
Mr. President, of the noble stand taken by the peuple and the Democracy of the
North in that crisis, I desire to make a record.  They were true to the instincts
of freedom, and they spoke out heartily everywhere in favor of the precepts and
the example of Jefferson, and against the spread of human bondage. At that
time the Democratic party was in the ascendant in n~airl~ all of- the free Sites,
and the very name produced a talismanic effect, because it was believed to be in
sympathy with the laboring masses. I begin with the State of Michigan, at that
I, 
time one of the strongest and most reliable Iemocratic States in the Union.   In
1847, her Legislature resolved:
"Thatlin the acquisition of any new'territory, whether by purchase, conquest, or otherwise, we deem it the dut  of the General Government to extend over the same the ordinance
of 1787, with al! its rights and privileges, conditions and immunities."
In  1849, the  following resolutions, offered by  Hon. E.'H.  Tljhomson, were
adopted:
"Resolved by the Senate and Howme of Reresentatives of the State of Ml,ichigFa, That we consider
the result of the late war with Mexico, in the acquisition of the Territories of New Mexico and
California, as an enduring monument to the honor of our gallant army, regulars and volun teers, officers and soldiers; and that we rejoice in the prospect of extending over that country
the beneficent lawVs and institutions of a free people.
"Resolved, That we are in favor of the fundamental principles 6f the ordinance of 1787; and
althugh we respect the opinions of many eminent statesmen and jurists, that slavery is a
mere local institution, which cannot exist without positive laws authorizing its existence, yet
we believe that Congress has the power, and that it is their duty, to prohibit, by legislative
enactment, the introduction or existence of slavery within any of;he Territories of the United
States, now or hereafter to be acquired.
"Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested,
to use all honorable means to accomplish the objects expressed in the foregoing resolution;
and that the Governor of this State be requested to forward copies of these resolutions to our
Senators and Representatives min Congress."
Itn the same year, the Democratic State Convention, which nominated a Gov ernor and State officers, passed unanimously the following:
" Resolved, That we re opposed to the extension of slavery into the Territories of New
Mexico and California, believing them to be now free in virtue of the laws of Mexico, and that
its establishment in either of those Territories ought to be prevented."
Ini the year 1847, the Legislature of New Hampshire,'then largely Democratic,
resolved: 
" That in all territory whichi shall hereafter be added to, or acquired by, the United States,
where slavery does not exist at the time of such addition or acquirement, neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crime, whereof the party has been duly
convicted, ought ever to exist, but the same should ever remain free; and we are opposed to
the extension of slavery over any such territory; and that we also approve the vote of our
Senators and Representatives in.Congress in favor of the Wilmot proviso."
In 1848, the Legislature of that State, which had ar overwhelming Democratic
majority, resolved as follows:
"That we are in favor of the passage of q law, by Congress, forever prohibiting slavery in
New Mexico and California, and in all other Territories now acquired, of hereafter to be acquired, by the United States, in which slavery does not exist at the time of such acquisition."
And in 1849, the New Hampshire Legislature, still strongly Democratic, unanimouslIy adopted the following resolutions:
" Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, in Generali Court convened, That, opposed
to every form of oppression, the people -of New Hampshire have ever viewed with deep regret
the existence of slavery in this Union; that while they have steadfastly supported all sections
in their constitutional rights, they have not only lameated its existence as a great social evil,
but regarded it as fraught with danger to the pease and welfare of the nation.
"Resolved, That whiio we respect the rights of the slavholding a swell as the free portions
of this Union, while we will not willingly consent that wrong be done to any member of the
* glorious Confederacy to which we belong, we are firmly and unalterably opposed to the exten Sion of slavery over any portion of American soil now free.
Resolved, That, in our opinion, Congress has the constitutional power to abolish the slave
,trade, and slavery in the District of Columbia; and that our Senators be instructed, and our
Upr~esentatives be requested, to take all constitutional measures to accomplish these'objects."
The Democratic State Committee of New Rampshire,;in October, 1847, passed
the following resolution:   "Resolved, That we declare it our solemn conviction, as the Democratic party have hereto fore done, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should hereafter exist in any territory
which may be acquired by, or annexed to, the United States; and that we approve of the
votes of our delegation in Congress in favor of the Wilmot proviso." 
In the year 1847, resolutions were passed by the Legislature of Rhode Island
' Against the acquisition of territory, by' conquest or otherwise, beyond the present limits
Qf the United States, for the purpose of establishing therein slaveholding States," &O
i /
16
AiL 
7
By the Legislature of New York:. 
"That if any territory is hereafter acquired by the Unitt  States, or annexed thereto, the
act by which such territory is acquired or annexed, whatever such act may be, should contain
an unalterable fundamental article or provision, whereby slavery or involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever exfluded from the territory acquired or
annexed."
By the Legislature of New Jersey:.  
"That the Senators, &c., be requested to use their best efforts to secure, as a fundamiental
provision to, or proviso in, any act of annexation of any territory hereafter to be acqu'ired by
the United States, &c., that slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishmient for
crime, shall be forever excluded from the territory to be annexed."
By the Legislature of Pennsylvania:  "Against any measure whatever, by which territory will accrue to the Union, unless a a
part of the fundamental law, upon which any compact or treaty for this purpose is baied,
slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall be forever exclude."
By the Legislature of Ohio: 
"For the passage, of measures in that body, [Congress,] providing for the exclusion of slavery
from the Territory of Oregon, and also from any other Territory that now is, or hereafter may
be, annexed to the United States."
By the Legislature of Vermont:
"Against the admission into the Federal Union of any new State whose Constitution tolerates slavery."
By the Legislature ot Connecticut:   
"That if any Territory shall hereafter be acquired by the United States, or annexed thereto,
the act by which such Territory is acquired or annexed, whatever such act may be, should
contain an unalterable fundamental article or provision whereby slavery or involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever excluded from the Territory
acquired or annexed."
And iii 1850, the following:
"Whereas the. people of Connecticut have heretofore, through their Senators and Representatives in General Assembly convened, solemnly and deliberately avowed their purpose to
resist, in all constitutional and proper ways, the extension of slavery into the national.Territories, and the admission of new slave States into the Federal Union; and also to, seek, in a
peaceable and constitutional way, the abolishment of' the slave trade and of slavery in the
District of Columbia; and whereas the important question now before the country touching
these matters makes it desirable that these. convictions sand determinations should be  reaffirmed in the most solemn and public manner: Therefore,
"Resolved, That Congress has full constitutional power to prohibit slavery in the Territories
of the United States by legislative enactment, and that it is the duty of Congress to pass,
without unnecessary delay, such strict and positive laws as will effectuay shut out slavery
from every portion of these Territories."
By the Legislature of Massachusetts, in 1849:
" Resolved, That Congress has full power to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories of the Union; that it has freely exercised such power from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time; and that it is its duty to exercise the power for the perpetual exclusion of the institution from those Territories that are fee and for thetinfi  of te
same in Territories where it exists.
"Resolved, That, when Congress furnishes governments for the Territories of California aid
New Mexico, it will be its duty to establish therein the fundamental principle of the qrdinance
of 1787 upon the subject of slavery, to the end that theinstitution may be perpetually excluded
therefrom, beyond every chance and uncertainty. "'
At a State Convention  of the Democratic party in Massachusetts, composed
of more than six hundred members, in 1849, the following resolutions, introduced
by Hon. B. F. Hallett, then  chairman  of the National Democraitid  Committee,
and of the State Democratic Committee, were adopted unanimously; as appears
from the Boston Post, the organ of the party in New England:i
" Resolved, That we are opposed to slavery in ever~ form and color, and in favor of freedom
and free soil wlierever man lives, throughout God's heritage.';.
"Resolved, That, by common law and common sense, as well as by the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States, (in Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters;)' the state of sl1very is a mere municipal regulation, founded upon and limited to the v'erge Of the territorl
law;' that is, th'e limits of the State creating it.                                - -
"Resolved, therefore, That, as slavery does not exist by any m'unicipal law in thie ne: Tie'ritories, and Congress has no power to institute it, the clock' law"'s of ink State authOiilng
zi 
8
slavery ean never be transported there; nor can slavery exist there but by a local law of the
Territories, sanctioned by Congess."1
This, sir,'is pretty good Republican doctrine, coming from high Democratic
authority. 
In 1848, the Legislature of Ohio resolved:
That the provisions of the ordinance of Congress of 1187, so far as the samerelates to
slavery, should be extended to any territory that may be acquired from Mexico by treaty or
otherwise.". 
In 1849, Illinois resolved:  
"That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to use all
honorable means in their power to procure the enactment of such }aws by Congress for the
government of the countries and Territories of the United States, acquired by the treaty of
peace, friendship, limits, and settlement, with the Republic of Mexico, concluded February 2,
A. D. 1848, as shall contain the express declaration'that there shall be neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude in said Territories, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted."
The same year, the following was adopted in Wisconsin:
"That our Senators in Congress be, and they are hereby, instructed, and our Representatives
requested, first, to oppose the passage of any act for the government of New Mexico and California, or any other Territory now belonging to the United States, or which may hereafter be
acquired, unless it shall contain v provision forever prohibiting the introduction of slavery or
involuntary servitude into said Territories, except as a punishment for crimes  second, to
oppose the admission of any more slave States into the Federal Union."
In 1850, the following was adopted by the General Assembly of the State of
Indiana:
"That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, soto cast
their votes and extend their influence as to have engrafted upon any law that may be passed
for the organization of the Territory recently acquired from Mexico, a provision forever
excluding from such territory slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party has been duly convicted."
By the Legislature of New York:
"Resolved, That the determination indicated by the Governors' messages and resolutions
of the Legislatures of various of the slaveholding States, and by the Representatives of such
States in Congress, to extend domestic slavery over the territory acquired by the late treaty
,of peace with the Republic of Mexico, we feel bound to oppose by all constitutional means;
and recognising the constitutional power of Congress to prohibit, by positive enactment, the
extension of slavery into free territory, our Senators in Congress are hereby instructed and
our Representatives reqested to use thei best efforts to insert such a positive prohibition into
any law they may pass f6r the government of the Territories in question."
In 1847, Go iror Dana, of Maine, a prominent  Democrat, in his message to
the Legislature, in speaking of the right of slaveholders to hold their slaves in the
Territories, sai4:
" On the other hand, the slave States claim that this territory will be acquired, if acquired
at all, by the blood and treasure of all the States of the Union, to become the joint property
of all; to be held for the benefit of all. And they emphatically ask,' Is it consistent with
justice?'  His right to acquire and possess property is one of the inherent rights of man, independent of lawsand Constitutions.  Not so with the right to his slave; that is an unnatural,
an artificial, a statute right; and when he voluntariln passes with a slave to a Territory,
where the statute recognising the right does not exist, then at once the right ceases to exist.
* The slave becomes a free man, with just as much right to claim the master, as the master to
claim the slave."
In  1849, the Democratic party in Maine held a State  Con vention, at which
Hon. John Hubbard was nominated for Governor.   This Coivention was com posed of six hundred delegates, at which the following resolution was passed,
only one solitary n)ember voting against it:
"Resolved, That the institution of human slavery is at variance with the theory of our Gov ernment, abhorrent to the common sentiment of mankind, and fraught with danger to all who
come within the sphere of its influence; that the Federal Goverpment possesses adequate
power to inhibit its existence in the Territories of the Union; that the constitutionality of
this power has been settled by judicial construction, by cotemporaneous expositions, and by
repeated acts of legislation; and that we enjoin upon our Senators and Representatives in
Congress to make every exertion, and employ all their influence, to procure. the passage of a
law forever excluding slavery from the Territories of California and New Mexico."
.1 I
, " I 
And the Legislature, largely Democratic, passed the following:
Resolved, That the sentiment of this State is profound, sincere, and almost universal, that
the influence of slavery upon productive energy is like the blight of mildew; that it is/a' oral
and social evil; that it does violence to the rights of man, as a thinking, reasonable, and
responsible being.  Influenced by such considerations, this State will oppose the introduction
of slavery into any territorywhich may be acquired as an indemnity or claims upon Mexico."
At a Statr Convention in Penntsylvania, Colonel Samnuel Black, of Pittsburgh,
offered the following resolution, which was adopted unanimously:
" Resolved, That the Democratic party adheres now, as it ever has done, to the Co titution
of the country.  Its letter and spirit they will neither weaken tor destroy - and they re-declare that slavery is a domestic local institution of the South, subject to State legislation
alone, and with which the General Government has nothing to do. Wherever the State law
extends its jurisdiction, the local institutio,n can continue to exist. Esteeming it a violation of State rights to carry it beyond State limits, we deny the power of any citizen to extend
the area of bondage beyond its present dominion; nor do we consider it a part of the compromises of the Constitution, that slavery should forever travel with the advanoing columns
of our territorial progress."
This same Colonel Black is now Governor of Nebraska, and recently vetoed a
bill, which had been- passed by the Legislature, prohibiting  slavery in that Territory.  The  exact progress of Democracy in eleven years  is here  made  quite
apparent.
The Democratic members of the Legisature of the Stoe of New York, in 1848,
in a series of resolutions, included the following:
"Resolved, That while the Democracy of New York will faithfully adhere to all the compromises of the Constitution, and maintain all the reserved rights of the States, they declaresince the crisis has arrived when that question must be met-their uncompromising hostility
to the extension of slavery in territory now free, which has been or may be hereafter acquired,
by any action of the Government of the United States."
Similar resolutions were adopted the same year at Utica, in which Hon. John
Van Buren and Hon. JoiN COCHRANE participated.
At a State Convention                   of the Democratic pry of Ohio, in the year 1848, the
following resolution was adopted:
Resolved, That the people of Ohio now, as they have always done, looking upon the institution of slavery as an evil, unfavorable to the full development of our institutions; and that,
entertaining these sentiments, they will feel it to be their duty, to use all tlie powers consistent with the national compact, to prevent its increase, to mitigate, and finally eradicate it."
Want of time, Mr. President, compels me to omit many similar resolutions of
State Legislatures and Democratic Conventions; but I wish to'call the attention
of the Senate arid of the country to one more Democratic authority in favor of
the prohibition of slavery in the Territories.  It is that of the distinguishe(l and
lamented Silas Wright. In a letter written by him, dated the 15th of April, 1847,
he uses this emphatic language:
"If the question had been propounded to me at any period of my public life, shall the arms
of the Union be employed tX conquer or the money of the Union- be used to purchase territory
now constitutionally free, for the purpose of planting slavery upon it? I should have answered,
no I And this answer to this question is the Wilmot proviso, as I understand it. I am surprised that any one should suppose me capable of entertaining any other opinion, or giving
any other answer as to6 such a proposition."
Mr. President, the DemocraticRepresentatives from the free States responded
with great unanimity to the wishes and instructions of their constituents. Among
the distinguished Representatives of the party who voted for the Wilrot proviso
in the. war appropriation, and.in its application to the organization of Oregon
Territory, may be mentioned Hon. R. McClelland, Senators Felch and Stuart, of
Michigan; Senators Dix and Dickinson, of New York;  Allen, of Ohio; Bright,
of Indiana; Douglas and Breese, of Illinois; Dodge, of WiSconi,in; Brodhead,
of Pennsylyania; Atherton and Norris, of New Hampshire iBradbury and exGovernor Dunlap, of Maine; Benton, of Missouri;  and  Houston, of Texas.
General Cass expressed his great regret that,the hour of adjournment in 1846
arrived before he could record his vote in its favor;  and in 1847, he made a
speech upon the subject, in which he doubted the expediencyv of its adoption at
that time, and said:
9 
10
"It would be quite in season to provide for the government of territory not yet acquired
from foreign countries aferwe shall have obtained it."
With the aid of these timid counsels, and the patronage and influence of the
Administration, the slave power gained a temporary advantage by the postpone ment of the measure, and time to concoct new schemes to defeat it. The Presi dential election of 1848 was approaching.  It is well known that several Northern
Democratic politicians were  aspirants, for tlie'nonmination at Baltimore; and
among the most prominent were General CGss, or Michigan, and Mr. Buchanan,
of Pennsylvania.  The plan adopted was to make Ant onset upon them; to pre scribe a new test, as the condition of giving them  SQuthern support, by which
their ambitious hopes would all be smothered, unless they changed their opinions.
They undertook to debauch our public men, and, with the glittering prize of the
Presidency before their eyes, they demanded a surrender of their principles, con sent to the expansion of slavery, and submission to the behests of this tyrannical
power.
As the State Conventions in Alabama, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia, met to
elect delegates to the Baltimore Convention, they passed resolutions, that "under
no political necessity whatever "would they give their support to the nominee
of the Convention, unless he renounced thle heresy that Congress could prohibit
the introduction of slavery into the Territories.  The State Convention in Georgia
met on the 22d of December, and passed the following:
"Resolved, That the Democratic party of Georgia will support no man for the office of President or Vice President, who shall not. have clearly and unequivocally declared their opposition
to the principles of the Wilmot proviso.
Resolved, That it ismthe constitutional right of every citizen te remove and settlewith his
property into any of the Territories of the United States."
This adroit and well-managea  scheme was successful.  General (ass could
not doubt that "a great change was going on in the public mind," as he admitted
there had been in his own;  and on the 31st of December, 1847, the Nicholson
letter was published in the Union newspaper.  The Senator from  Mississippi
says that it was shown about for several days among the Southern members,  for
their approval.  It is also due to truth for me to say that it was read to the
Michigan delegation in Congress at that time, and that they unanimously djisapproved both of'its principles and of;the policy of promulgating it. I am sorry to
be obliged to add, that their worst fears were realized.
The Nicholson letter denied the power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the
Territories, and claimed a right for the people of the Territories to regulate that
and all other internal matters. I will not stop to discuss the doctrine, which,
although acquiesced in at the time, is now so unsatisfactory to the propagandists
ot'slavery; but I beg leave to quote one single Southern authority against it.  It
is that of the celebrated John Randolph.
In the year 1803, a petition was presented to Congress, signed by General
Harrison, Governor of the Territory of Indiana, which set forth that he had been
requested to call a Convention for the purpose of taking the sense of- the whole
people upon the subject of'suspendiug, for the period of ten years, the operation
of the sixth article of the ordinance which prohibited slavery; that such Convention had met and united in the petition, which declared that more than ninelentihs of the inhabitants were of opinion that the enforcement of the said article
was prejudicial to their interests. This memorial was referred to a committee, a
majority of whom were Southern men, and at the head of which wasthe distinguished Virginian.  On the 2d ofMarch, of the stime year, Mr. Randolph reported
against the prayer of the petition, and, among other things, said:
"The committee deem it highly -dangercus and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely calculated to promote thoe happiness and prosperity of the northwestern Country, and to give
strength and security to that extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of this sagacious
and benevolent restrai't, it is believedthat the inhabitants of Indiana will, at nO distant day,
find ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and emigration.".a
Sir, the great State of Indiana, with her million and a half of people, and with
all the privileges and glory of free institutions, is a witness to-day of the truth of
the prediction. What is now the State of Michigan was then included in the 
I
11
Territory of Indiana;  and the people of both of those Siates wiU ever  hold in
grateful remembrance the efforts of the noble Southerner, against " squatter s.vereignty," to preserve unimpaired the provision which dedicated that Territory
to free men and free labor.
It may albo I)e proper to say, that the question of suffrage and eligibility to
office in the Territories has uniformly.,n,invariably been  determined by Congress, and that General Cass Uhas since voted for Tei'ritorial organizations in which
those rights were prescribed and definted by Con'ress.  Is slavery of'higher momenit or more sacred than the right of suffrage'and'the eligibility to office?  If
Congress can determine the one, it surely has the power to arrest the desolating
march of the other.
The abandonment of the doctrine so dearly cherished by Jefferson, and which
hard secured freedom in the great States of the Northwest, brought defeat to
General Cass and the Democratic pearty in 1848, but it installed  the slave power
in complete  control.  The Northern section had been  caught in the web, and
they could not relieve themselves from the thraldom.  At first they undertook to
quiet the conscience of the people, by the assertion that slavery was the creature
of local and positive law, and that it could not obtain a foothold in thTeerritories
until it was there lawfully established; and General Cass, in a speech in his own
State, said:
"Slavery is the creature of local law, and can claim neither protection, existence, nor recognition, in the Constitution.  Slavery does not and cannot exist in Kansas whilst it remains
a Territory. The Constitution neither protects nor recognises slavery in the Territories."
Ho's. Henry Clay offered the following resolution in the Senate  on the  29th
January, 1850:
"Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not introduced intQ the territory
acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to
provide by law either for its introduction into, or its exclusiou from, any part of the said territory," &c.
In commending this proposition to the Senate, Mr.-Cly said:
"This resolution, sir, proposes, in the first iristance, a declaration of two' truths-one of law,
and the other of fact.;he truth of law which it declares is, that there does not exist, at this
time, slavery in any portion of the territory acquired by the United States from Mexico. When
I say, sir, that it is a truth, I speak my own solemn and deliberate conviction."
Hon. Greene C. Bronson, a distinguished lawyer and jurist of New  York, in a
letter to Hon. JOHN COCHRANE, in 1848, then a distinguished Fee- Soiler of New
York, said:
"Slavery cannot exist where there is no positive law to uphold it.  It is not necessary that
it should be forbidden; it is enough that it is not specially authorized.  If the owner of slaves
removes with, or sends them into, any country, State, or Territory, where slavery does not
exist by law, they will from that moment become freemen, and will have as good a right to
command the master as he has to command them.  State laws have noextra authority; and
a law of Virginia which makes a man a slave there, cannot make him a slave in New York,
nor beyond the Rocky Mountiins."1
Hon. Edward Bates, a distinguished lawyer of Missouri, recenrtly declared he
did " not believe that the Constitution, by its proper vigor, carries slavery into all
the Territories that may be acquired  by the United States.   He  believes that
freedom is the rule, and slavery the exception.  He does not believe that slavery
can exist in any territory acquired by the United States, except by a positive law
of Congress."
The Detroit Free Press, which is the organ of the Administration, and of the
party, in Michigan, said:
"Slavery cannot go to Kansas or Nebraska, for the all-sufficient reason that there is no law
there permitting it. It is a perfectly well-established legal preposition, that slavery is the
creature of local law, and that it can nowhere exist except by the force of law."
Democratic authority could be multiplied ad i~jnitium to prove the truth of this
position, but the above must suffice.  This short-lived doctrine has already been
displaced; and the accepted theory now is,.that slavery exists in the Territories
by virtue of the Constitution.                         -
But, Mr. President, the fatal step had been taken in the surrender of a high 
12
principle. Henceforward the Northern Democracy were reduced to a state of
vassalage. When the fugitive slave Jaw was passed, they avowed their reediness
to do 4he  "dirty work" imposed by their Southern masters.   If they evinced the
slightest disposition to rebel, a threat to dissolve the Union at once reduced them
to submission.  At last, when their subjection was deemed complete, the abrogation of that sacred anAd tirie-honored.MissourI compromise was demanded.
If a prophet had appeared.'to the honorable  Senator fromi  Illinois in 1845,
when at Springfield, the capital of his adopted  State, he uttered the  following
beautiful apostrophe to  the Missouri conmpromise, he  might  have  said, with
Hazael of old:  "Butwhat!  is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great
thing?"
"The Missouri compromise has been in practical operation for about a quarter of a century,
and received the sanction and approbation of men of all parties in every section of the Union.
It had allayed all sectional jealousies and irritations growing out of the vexed question, and
harmonized and tranquillized the whole country.  It had an origin akin to the Constitution,
conceived in the same spirit of affection, and calculated to remove forever the only danger
which seems to threaten'to sever the Union.  All the evidences of public opinion seemed to
indicate that this compromise had been CANONIZED in the hearts of the American people
as a SACRED THING, which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb."
In a speech in the United  States Senate, delivered  ini 1845, Mr.  3tichanan
said:
" The resolutions went to re-establish the Missouri compromise, by fixing a line within which
slavery was to be forever confined.  That controversy-the  Missouri question-had nearly
shaken this Union to its centre in an earlier and better period of our history; but this compromise,,should it now be re-established, would -prevent the recurrence of similar dangers
hereafter.  Should this question be now left open for one or two years, the country would be
involved in one continued struggle. We should witness a feverish excitement in the public
mind.  Parties would divide on the danger'ous and exciting question of abolition, and the irritation would reach such an extreme as to endanger the existence of the Union itself; but close
it now, and it would be closed fbrever.   Was it desirable again to have the Missouri question
brought home to the people, to goad them to fury? That great question between the two
great interests of our country had been well discussed and decided in the Missouri compromise, and from that moment he had sat down his foot on the solid ground then established,
and there he would let the question stand forever.  Who could complain of the terms of that
compromise?"
In  a letter of Mr. James Buchanan,  dated  Washington, August  25,  1847,
directed to a Harvest-Home  of the Derocrley of  Berks county, Pennsylvania,
I find this language: 
"After Louisiana was acquired from France, by Mr. Jefferson, and when the State of Mis souri, which constituted a part of it, was about to be admitted into the Union, the Missouri
question arose, and, in its progress, threatened the dissolution, of the- Union. This was settled
by the men of the last generation, as other important and dangerous  questions have been
settled, in a spirit of mutual concession. Under the Missouri compromise, slavery was forever
prohibited' north of 36~ 30'; and south of this parallel, the question was left to be decided by
the people. Congress, in the admission of Texas, following in the footsteps of their prede cessors, adopted the same rule; and, in my opinion, the harmony of the States, and even the
security of the Union itself, require that the line of the Missouri compromise should be extended
to any new territory which we may acquire from Mexico."
Again, inl the,same letter, he says-:
"Such has been my individual opinion, openly and freely expressed, ever since the commencement of the present unfortunate agitation; and, of all places in the world, I prefer to
put them on record before the incorruptible Democracy of old Berks.  I therefore beg leave to
offer you the following sentiment:
"The Missouri compromise: its adoption, in 1820, saved the Union from threatened convulsion. Its extension, in 1848, to any new territory which we may acquire, will secure the
like happy results."
The ostensible reason for the repeal of the "Missouri compromise was its alleged
unconstitutionality.   To this it may be said that, in 1820, it ieceived the sanction
of an able Congress, and was approved  by Mr. Monroe and all his Cabineta majority, as usual, being composed of Southern mnen; that the provision excluding slavery north of the line of 36~ 301,was reenacted in the resolutions annexing Texas in 1845, and approved by Mr. Tyler and all his Southern Cabinet;
that, upon  the bill for the organization  of the Territory of Oregon, in 1848, it 
~,-I                ";' Z-  
13
was proposed as an amendment fIy the honorable  Senator'from Illinois, [Mr.
DOUGLAS,] and voted for by the following Senators: Messrs. Atchison, Benton,
Badger, Bell, Berrien,'Borland, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Davis, Dickinson, DoIuglas, Downs, Fitzgerald, Foote, Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, JQhnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson of Georg'ia, King, Lewis, Mangumn, Mason,
Metcalf, Pierce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, and Underwood-nearly
all Democrats, and Southern metn.  In the House of Representatives it received
eighty-two votes, among which I final the names of Messrs. Boc~cki, Albert G.
Brown, Burt, Clingman, Howell Cobb, Iverson, Andrew  Johnson, R. W. Johnson, G. WV. JoNes, McDowell, McLane, Phelps, Stephens of Georgia, Rheatt,
Jacob Thompson, and Toombs.  It was also voted for in 1850 by most of the
distinguished men whose names I have just repeated.
No  pretext was  urged for the repeal of the Missouri restriction, that it was
asked for by the people of the Territory. Every possible demonstration was given,
that it was repugnant to the feelings of the peop)le in the free States.  In my
judgment, it was passed to appease the inexorable demand of the slave'terest
for dominion.  As Ahab coveted Naboth's vineyard, so did the propagandists of
slavery cast a longing, wistful look upon the great plains of Kansas.
1 will not detain the Senate, Mr. President, with a recital of the atrocious and
persistent efforts for years to establish slavery in Kanuaas, up to that culmination
of villainy, the Lecompt6n Constitution.  It is sufficient for me to say, that the
unequal struggle'of the friends of freedom  upon those blood-stained fields was
worthy of the best days of the Revolution; and that the Democratic party of the
North had become so completely demtoralized and debauched, that they neither
felt nor (Iare(i to express tihe slightest sympathy for their brethren, who were contending for their rights against the brutal mob of border ruffians, and( the power
anid influence of the Administration.  Their distinguished leader and candidate
for the Presidency, the honorable Senator from  Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] has
avowed, aul)pon the floor of the Senate, that', it was a matter of perfect inrdifference to him, whether slavery is voted in or out;"  atnd his followers, unmoved by
the love of humanity or national glory, are apparently alike hidifferent.
Thus, step by step, Mr. President, has the Democratic party of the North
ceased to be the party of freedom, and been brought under perfect'subjugationr to the interests of slavery.  If anything were wanting to complete the record
of its degra(lation, and  the total abandonment of all its fornmer principles and
leaders, it is the voluntary offer, made at Charleston, to subrimit to anid be guided
by the political opinions of the Supreme Court, as well to those already promulgated, as to those which they may heireafter declare.  For many years the slave
power has been adroitly mantaging to mould and fashion the Supreme Court, so
as to bring it into complete subserviency to their interests.. There is but one
friend of freedom left on the bench —all the'other judges are pro-slavery.  So
constituted, this court has declared thaty slaves'arte property u'nde'r the Constitution, and that they can be lawfully held in any 6f tl)e Territories.  This, opinion,
ill mly judgment, is entitled to no more iespect than that of the same number of
men in this Chamber, or anywhere else; but when we look at the necessary consequence of declaring slaves property under the United States Constitution, and
to what tiIust inevitably be the next decision, the right to-lhold them inr the Sates,
in defiance of State authority, a voluntary engagement to be bound by such,decision is equivalent to a surrender of the whole country to slavery.
The present purposes of the slave power are frankly disclosed in the following
article, which appeared in the Union newspaper of this city, the organ ofthe Administration, on the 17th November, 1857.
"The Constitution declares that' the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the pnvileges
and immunities oA citizens in the several.States.'  Every citizen of one State coming into another Statihas, therefore, a right to the protection of his person, and that property which is
recognised as such by the Constitution of the United States any law of a State to the contrary notwithstanding.  So far from any State having a right to deprive him of this property,
it is its bounden duty to protect him in its possession.
"If these views are correct-and we believe it would be difficult to invalidate -them-it
follows that all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit a citizen of one State
"il
I 
14
from settling in another, and bringing his slave property with himt and most especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of a Government which, as before
stated~ is the protection of person and property, and of the Constitution of the United States-,
which recognises property in slaves, and declares that'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizes in the several States,' among the most
essestial of which is the protection of person and property."
Mr. President, the great thought, which overburdened the heart o~f Jeferson in
his latter days, was the usurpations of the Stpreme Court.   I quote a few of his
prophetic warnings, and trust that the people will heed them:
Extract of a letter to Judge Roane, dated'Poplar Forest, September 6, 1819.
"In denying the right they Usurp of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further
than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that
'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the Government, but
not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the Judiciary is derived.'
If this opinion be sound, then, indeed, is our Constitution a complete felo de se.  For, intending
to establish three departments,,co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and  balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to
prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by
and independent of the nation. * * *
"The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary,
which they may twist and shape into any form they please.  I should be remembered, as an
axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power, in any Government, is independent, is
absolute also; in theory only at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice as
fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.
They are inherently independent of all but moral law.  My construction of the Constitution
is very different from that you quote.  It is, that each department is truly independent of the
others, and has an equal right to decide foritself what is the meaning of the Constitution
in the cases submitted to its action."
Extract from a letter to Thomas Bitchie, dated Monticello, December 25, 1820.
"The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners, constantly
working  under ground to andermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.  They are
construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special Government, to a
general and supreme one alone.  *  *  *  We already see the power, installed for life,
responsible to no authority, (for' impeachment is not even a scarecrow,) advancing with a
noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already
deeply laid, by their decisions, for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the
removal of every check, every counterpoise, to the engulfing power, of which themselves are
to make a sovereign part.  *  *  *  That there should be public functionaries independent
of the nation, whatever may be their demerit, is a solecism, in a Republic, of the first order of
absurdity and inconsistency."
Equally impressive and eloquent was John Randolph, who said:
"But, sir, if you pass the law, the judges are to put their veto upon it by declaring it unconstitutional. Here is a new power, of a dangerous and uncontrollable nature, contended
for. The decision of a constitutional question must rest somewhere. Shall it be confided to
men immediately responsible to the people, or to those who are irresponsible? for the responsibility by impeachment is little less than a name. PFrom whom is a corrupt decision most to
be feared? To me it appears that the power which has the right of passing, without appeal,
on the validity of your laws, is your sovereign.  *  *  *  But, sir, are we  not as deeply
interested in the true exposition of the Constitution as the judges can be? With all due deference to their talents, is not Congress as capable of forming a correct opinion as they are'? Are
not its members acting under a responsibility to public opinion which can and will check
their aberrations from duty?"
Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, said:
"According to some gentlemen, we were to regard the Judiciary more than the law, and
both more than the Constitution. It was a misfortune the judges were not equal in infaillibility to the God who made them. The truth was, if the judge was a party man out of power,
he would be a party man in. The office would not change human nature."
Now, Mr. President, let me  quote from  General  Jackson, in his veto of the
bank bill:
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it oight not to
control the co-ordinate authorities of this Government.  The Congress, the Exe'tive, and
the court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public
officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he
understands it, and not as it is understood by others.  It is as much the duty of the House of
Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President, to decide upon the constitutionality of
any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval, as it is of the
1-1 
15.
Supreme judges, when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opin?ion of
the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congres. over the judges;
and, on that point, the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme
Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting
in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning
may deserve." 
General Jackson was aware that he had taken a strong position in that case;
and he closes, most solemnly, with an appeal to his Creator. He -ays:
"I have now done my duty to my country. If sustained by my fellow-citizens, I shall be
grateful and happy; if tot, I shall find, in the motives which impel me, ample grounds for
contentment and peace." 
I do not expect to make  my case  any stronger; but there is an "old public
functionary," who now occupies the White House, whose opinions were once
entitled  to some  respect.   I wish  to contrast them, to show the degeneracy of
the times, and especially of the Demberatic party.
In a speech in the United States Sen-         In his message: to Congress, as Presate, July 7, 1841, on the bank question,  ident of the United States, he said
Mr. Buchanan said:                              "Slavery existed at that perioff, (1854,) and
"Now, if it were not unparliamentary lan-  still exists; in Kansas, under the Constitution
guage, and if I did not desire to treat all my  of the United States.  This point has at last
friends on this (Whig) side of the House with  been firmly decided by the highest tribunal
the respect which I feel for them, I would say  known to our laws.  How it could ever have
that the question having been settled so as to  been doubted is a mystery."
bind the consciences of members of Congress
when voting on the present bill, is ridicu-    And in his letter to Professor Silliman,
lous and absurd.  If all the judges and all the  he reiterated the above, and added:
lawyers in Christendom had decided in the         Slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the
affirmative, when the question is brought home             o e    n       Kansas          i
Constitution of the United States. Kansas is,
to one as a legislator, bound to vote for or
to on   s    egsatr budovoefortherefore, as much a slave State as Georgia or
against a new charter, upon oath to support  South Carolina "
the Ccinstitutioq, I inust exercise my own judg- 
ment.  I would treat with profound respect           h
the arguments and opinions of judges and con-    In his last message the President said:
stitutional lawyers:;, but if, after all, they fail    "The right has been established of every
to convince me that the law was constitution-  citizen to take his property of auy kind, inal, I should be guilty of perjury before high  cluding slaves, into the common Territories beHeaven if I voted in its favor.               longing equally to all the States of the Con  "But even if the Judiciary had settled the  federacy, and to have it protected there under
question, I should never hold myself bound by  the Federal Constitution.  Neither Congress
their decision, while acting in a legislative  nor a Territorial Legislature nor any human
character.  Unlike the Senator from Massa- power has any authority to annul or impair
chusetts, [Mr. Bates,] I shall never consent to  this vested right."
place the liberties of the people in the hands of
any judicial tribunal."
In the Berks county letter, written in
1847, he said:
"Having urged the adoption of the Missouri 
compromise, the inference is irresistible that
Congress, in my opinion, possesses the power
to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the
Territories."
Mr. President, I have said enough  to prove the total depravity of the Democratic party North; the utter abandonment of their principles; their comn)plete
and thorough subserviency to Southern dictation. I will not use the harsh language which the Senator from Texas [Mr. WIGFALL] employed the other day,
when he said:
" Threaten them, and they will crouch to your feet like so many hounds. Oinly swear that
you are going to dissolve the Union, and the timid creatures will get down on all fours, bite
the dust, and kiss the rod raised to chastise them."
But I will say, they have lost the manly, independent spirit, which was the
characteristic of the party in the days of General Jackson.
Mr. President, the sentiments of the people of the free States, to whom the
acts of their Democratic public servants have  been submitted, are well known,
and they have been unequivocally expressed. No man has been able to stand 
'9 16-;      -.
up before an enlightened constituency, and justify his betrayal of the interests of
free labor. Even the distinguished Senator from Illinois only obtained a majority
of his Legislature through an unjust apportionment; the popular majority was
ag'dnst him.
The people of the great Northwestern States, now numbering nearly ten millions of freemen, will ever hold in grateful recollection the memory of those
whose statesmanlike and patriotic foresight deticated the soil ul)onwhich they
live to free labor; and they are not unmindful of the duty they owe to their posterity.  They mean to prove to the world  that the same:eal for liberty which
inspired their ancestors still animates them.  With slavery in the States of this
Confederacy, they claim no other right to interfere than to unite with an enlightened Christian world in a public sentiment before which all great wrongs
must sooner or later give way. But in the broad Territories of this Union they
are determined slavery never shall obtain a foothold. The auction block for fellowmen shall never be established there; the crack of the driver's whip, the clink of
the fetter, or the moan of the slave mother at the loss of her offspring, shall never
be heard there; but those broad plains, those fertile valleys, and those mountain
gorges rich in shining metal, shall be wrought alone by the willing hands of free
men.   As fastas they are peopled, the school-housie and the ehurch will spring
up, and civilization and refinement will bring comfort and happiness to the entire
population.
Mr. President, a new era is about to dawn upon us; the desperate struggle
which has just taken pldce at Charleston is one of the dying throes of the slave
power.  The most important functions of this Govertment-executive, legislative, and judicial-have fallen under its crontrol; and its immense patronage has
been arrayed in the unholy work of extending slavery.  It must soon surrender
the power which it has wielded so despotically over the party in the North and
over the whole country.  The slave co(le which these resolutions indicato will
never by passed; and the doctrine that slavery exists by virtue of the Constitution
of the United States will soon fall into contempt.  A party is about to take possession of this Government, with the same name and the same  principles of
the Republican party of 1800. An enlightened people are thoroughly aroused
to the good work; and they will reverse the decisions of your Supreme Court,
and the policy which haa prevailed under Democratic rule; they will make freedom rnational and slavery sectional.   Their candidates, LINCOLN and HAMLIN,
are thoroughly identified with the interests of the latboring classes, from which
they halve sprung; and they are thoroughly imbued with thie principles and the
love of liberty.  Around  such  standard.bearers the hosts of the people  will
gather, and bear them on to victory.  Their inauguration in power will restore
the Government to its original design, so beautifully expressed in the preamrnble
to the Constitution, and " form a more perfect Union, estab)lish justice, insure
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Published by the Republican Congressional Committee.  Price $1 per hundred.