T 11 E   C  T I Z E N S O(F  C A X B I 11) G 1,
OCTOBER 1, 1856.
BY
JOE L PARKE R.
CAM BRID GE:
JAME.S M{\UN —ROE AND CO MPANY
1 85 6. 
SOME portions of this Address were necessarily omitted in the delivery,
and the speaker for that reason remarked that he should have to follow
the precedents in Congress, and ask leave to publish his speech. The response, to say nothing of subsequent requests, may be allowed to justify the
publication of it entire. The Constitutional argument may perhaps be of
some value.
CAMBRIDGE:
ALLEN AND FARNHAfM, PRINTERS. 
"IESl1 OF lTUrC t'ANI
CI;XNERAL LIBRARY
&A::    IJ3Qkl, ICIIGAN
A D DR E S S.
MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW- CITIZENS: -
YOUR kind greeting encourages the belief that you will
permit me to say a few words in the first person singular.
The effect of what I may say at this time, supposing it to
have any effect, may depend very much upon the character
in which I appear before you. But, for another and a
different reason, let it be distinctly understood, that I do
not, upon this occasion, represent the sentiments of any
department of Harvard College, and am not here as the
Royall Professor. Upon some of the topics upon which
I may speak, it would have given me pleasure to have held
a free conversation with my associates in the Law School,
but I sedulously avoided it in order to make this disclaimer,
and have no reason to suppose that they concur in my opinions, except a belief that the doctrine is sound, and that they,
therefore, as wise men, must approve of it.
I come before you, then, as a citizen of Cambridge, a constitutional lawyer, if you please, and especially as a Whig;
as one who has been a Whig since the formation of the
Whig party;-withdrawn in a measure from ordinary political contests, but knownii as a Whig. 
4
It was said in 18S52 that an eminent member of the Whig
party prophesied that there would be no Whig party after the
presidential election that year. Certain it is, that many of
the friends of that great statesman did what they could to
accomplish such a result by voting for the present occupant
of the presidential chair.  I was not "left" to do that, but
supported, in good faith, the Whig candidate. When the
citizens of Cambridge, in 1853, elected me a delegate to
the Constitutional Convention, it was as a Whig. And at
the last gubernational election, while approving to some extent the efforts of the American party, sympathizing with
some of the principles of the Freesoil party, and honoring
Governor Gardner for measures of his administration, which
others of his friends disapproved, it did not appear expedient
to separate myself from a party which still clung to existence, and I formed one of the forlorn hope which voted for
the Whig nominee.
The result of that election showed very clearly that the
party, as an effective party, no longer had any existence, and
left to its members the inquiry, -With what party and in
what connection shall a Whig hereafter endeavor to perform
the duty which a good citizen owes to his country?
The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 could not have had my
vote, because there is no provision in it securing a trial to
the fugitive on his rendition and return, and there are obnoxious sections which serve only to exasperate the citizens of
the non-slave-holding States, and seem almost designed for
the purpose of insult. But believing it to be, however unwise, a constitutional enactment, in my public teachings and
private discourse, I have maintained the constitutionality of
that law, and stopped a religious newspaper, conducted with
great ability, on account of my disapproval of the encourage 
ment it gave to a forcible resistance to the execution of that
law.
I may claim, therefore, to be a Whig, a Massachusetts
Whig, a Conservative Whig, a National Whig; perhaps as
sound an expositor of Whig principles as if I were a member of the Whig State Central Committee itself.
The events which have occurred within a recent period,
have rendered the inquiry, "in what connection shall a whig
hereafter endeavor to perform the duty which a good citizen
owes to his country," one of exceeding interest. Notwithstanding the opposition to the Compromise Measures, as they
were called, of 1850, the country was settling down to a quiet
acquiescence, when in 1854 came the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise Act of 1820. Some of you must well recollect
the circumstances which occurred in 1819 and 1820, con.
nected with the admission of Missouri into the Union;
the stern and determined opposition to its admission, unless
coupled with a restriction of slavery within its limits. You
doubtless recall the joy with which you hailed vote after vote
in the House of Representatives, seeming almost to insure
the triumph of freedom; and the revulsion of feeling, almost
dismay, with which you learned, at last, that Missouri had
been admitted without restriction, upon a compromise by
which slavery was thereafter to be excluded from all territory north of 36~ 30' north latitude.
This compromise was eminently a Southern measure,
carried as such measures always are, by the aid of a few
Northern votes; and it was treated for the time in the
slave-holding States as something mnore sacred than ordinary legislative enactments;-as a kind of semni-constitutional law, securing all south of 36~ 30' to slavery. A proposition to repeal it would have been a crime second only to
5 
6
treason. But when, after the third of a century, the time
came for the enjoyment of the equivalent supposed to be
secured to the non-slave-holding States, it was all at once
discovered that the compromise part was not only a mere
legislative act, but that it was unconstitutional legislation.
Then the doctrine arose, that slavery could not be excluded
by Congress from the territories; and slavery having secured
the benefit, rejected the burden attached to it, by a repeal
of the restriction. Until very recently I had supposed that
this repeal was a project of Mr. Douglas to secure the favor
of the slave-holding States, and that the President was drawn
in to its support, by the fear that Douglas would take the
wind out of his sails in the approaching presidential boatrace; but a friend has just furnished me a copy of a New
York paper containing what appears to be an authentic
statement, derived from a gentleman who has spent several
years in Western Missouri, showing that Douglas is not
entitled to the credit, if credit it may be called, of originating the nefarious plot. His was only a secondary agency
in wickedness. It seems that the Ahabs of Western Missouri have long coveted the fertile vineyard of Kansas as
an addition to their slave-holding possessions, and that they
determined to possess themselves of it after the manner of
their great prototype, peaceably, if they could, forcibly, if
they must.
Permit me to read an extract:
"The slavery party in Missouri, under the lead of David R. Atchison,
have long had their eyes upon the Kansas Territory, and were resolved upon
the most desperate expedients to carry slavery there whenever it should be
opened for settlement. Having no idea that it would ever be possible to procure the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise restriction, their plan was to
keep every thing quiet as possible, until they could have every thing ready,
lk 
7
procure a territorial charter, slip over a sufficient number of their own
men to elect a territorial legislature, and as soon as possible form a State
government and get admitted to the Union, and before the people of the
free States should suspect what was going on establish slavery by an act
of the new State legislature. In the latter part of 1853, almost a year before the passage of the Nebraska Bill, a public meeting was held in Platte
county, Missouri, to consider the affairs of Kansas. Atchison made a
speech, and was the master-spirit of the meeting; and it was
"' Resolved, That if the Territory shall be opened to settlement, we pledge
ourselves to each other to extend the institutions of Missouri over the Territory, at whatever sacrifice of blood or treasure.'
"These resolutions were published in the Platte Argus.  This was long
before Douglas had thought of venturing upon the repeal. The pledge
there given is still operating upon those people, and its force precludes the
idea that peace can ever come to Kansas, until it shall be fully admitted to
the Union with its institutions all consolidated as a FREE STATE.
"This meeting attracted little public attention at the time, but it furnishes
the key to all the subsequent history. Atchison has since explained the
process by which he bullied and terrified Pierce and Douglas into the fatal
measure of repealing the restriction. The Blue Lodges began to be
formed immediately after; for it was testified before the Congressional
Committee, by Jordan Davison, a Missourian and a Border Ruffian, that he
was in a Blue Lodge at Pleasant Hill, Missouri, in February, 1854, the
avowed object being to make Kansas a slave State, while the Nebraska
Bill became a law on the 30th of June, 1854, and the Emigrant Aid Society
of Boston held its first meeting on the 30th of July, 1854. A resolution
was adopted on the 10th of June, at Parkville, Missouri, and within that and
the following month was repeatedly adopted by other meetings both in
Missouri and Kansas, debarring'abolitionists' from entering Kansas, -  in
which term they include all friends of free labor, - declaring that the institution of slavery already existed in the Territory, and recommending to
slave-holders to introduce their property as fast as possible."
You have here what purports to be a copy of a resolution
passed at a public meeting in Platte County, in 1853, and
then published in the Platte Argus. It seems that there
can be no mistake, and that the determination was then 
8
formed to make Kansas a slave State at whatever sacrifice
of blood and treasure. The ambition of Douglas, and the
fears of the President were appealed to for aid and support
by a repeal of the Compromise; and thereupon the political
Nebuchadnezzars, who ought to have been turned out to
grass long since, erected an image, composed mainly of brass,
styling it "squatter sovereignty;"    and General Cass fell
down and worshipped it.
It is not necessary to detail to you how the doctrine, that
the settlers of a territory have a right to determine their own
institutions, has since been carried out in practice by those
who promulgated it. The ruffians of Western Missouri, true
to their determination to extend their institutions over Kansas, marched over the border well provided with bowie knives
and revolvers, voted where that served their purpose,
destroyed the ballot-boxes where that was better, drove the
Free State voters from the polls, and elected a majority Qf
the territorial legislature. A more gross case of usurpation
never existed. But this was only the beginning of what is
not yet ended. The usurping legislature met, turned out the
members who were legally elected, and proceeded to pass a
set of laws which would disgrace Turkey or Algiers. The
inhabitants protested, and refused to recognize the authority
of the usurpers, and were maltreated, beaten, and some of
them murdered. They appealed to the United States authorities for protection; and the answer received reminded me
at the time of an anecdote I read several years since, and
which, being professional, has dwelt upon my recollection.
A lawyer named Jones, with no great knowledge of the law,
had become "cock of the walk " in one of the county courts
of Virginia, and managed the court at his pleasure. A
young lawyer settled in the county, and having superior pro 
9
fessional knowledge, interposed legal objections in one of
Jones's suits, which the latter could not answer; and he
thereupon became very much enraged, and swore profanely.
The young advocate finally appealed to the court with the
question, whether it was proper for Mr. Jones to swear in the
presence of the court. The court held a grave consultation,
and delivered judgment in this wise: "Mr. H., if you don't
leave off making Mr. Jones swear so, the court will commit
you." So seemed to be the answer of the general government to the appeal of the Free State settlers of Kansas for
protection.   "Gentlemen, if you don't leave off making
these border ruffians commit all this violence, you shall be
arrested for insurrection."
But the matter soon became too serious for a jest respecting it. The threats of arrest, it soon appeared, were no
empty menace. To all appeals for protection, the answer
was," You must obey the laws."  And what were the laws
to which obedience was thus required? Permit me to give
you a specimen of them.
" If any free person, by speaking or by writing, assert or maintain that
persons have not the right to hold slaves in this Territory, or shall introduce
into this Territory, print, publish, write, circulate, or cause to be introduced
into this Territory, written, printed, published, or circulated in this Territory, any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or circular, containing any
denial of the right of persons to hold slaves in this Territory, such person
shall be deemed guilty of felony, and punished by imprisonment at hard
labor for a term of not less than two years.
" No person who is conscientiously opposed to holding slaves, or who does
not admit the right to hold slaves in this Territory, shall sit as a juror on the
trial of any prosecution for any violation of any of the sections of this act.
"If any person offering to vote shall be challenged and required to take
an oath or affirmation, to be administered by one of the judges of the
election, that he will sustain the provisions of the above-recited acts of Con                               2 
10
gress, [the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 and 1850,] and of the act entitled
'An Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas,' approved
May 30, 1854, and shall refuse to take such oath or affirmation, the vote of
such person shall be rejected.
"Each member of the legislative assembly, and every officer elected or
appointed to office under the laws of this Territory, shall, in addition to the
oath or affirmation specially provided to be taken by such officer, take an
oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, the provisions of an act entitled' An Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters,' approved February 12,
1793; and of an act to amend and supplementary to said last-mentioned
act, approved September 18, 1850; and of an act entitled' An Act to
organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas,' approved May 30,
1854."
"Every person obtaining a license shall take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, and to support and sustain the
provisions of an act entitled' An Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas,' and the provisions of an act commonly known as'The
Fugitive Slave Law,' and faithfully to demean himself in his practice to the
best of his knowledge and ability. A certificate of such oath shall be
indorsed on the license.
"If any person shall practise law in any court of record, without being
licensed, sworn, and enrolled, he shall be deemed guilty of a contempt of
court, and punished as in other cases of contempt.
"Every person who may be sentenced by any court of competent jurisdiction, under any law in force within this Territory, to punishment by confinement and hard labor, shall be deemed a convict, and shall immediately,
under the charge of the keeper of such jail or public prison, or under the
charge of such person as the keeper of such jail or public prison may select,
be put to hard labor, as in the first section of this act specified; and such
keeper or other person having charge of such convict, shall cause such convict, while engaged at such labor, to be securely confined by a chain six
feet in length, of not less than four sixteenths nor more than three eighths of
an inch links, with a round ball of iron of not less than four nor more than
six inches in diameter, attached, which chain shall be securely fastened to
the ankle of such convict with a strong lock and key; and such keeper or
other person having charge of such convict, may, if necessary, confine such 
11
convict, while so engaged at hard labor, by other chains or other means in
his discretion, so as to keep such convict secure and prevent his escape; and
when there shall be two or more convicts under the charge of such keeper,
or other person, such convicts shall be fastened together by strong chains,
with strong locks and keys, during the time such convicts shall be engaged
in hard labor without the walls of any jail or prison."
You perceive how cunningly devised this code was to
secure the introduction of slavery into Kansas. All persons
opposed to slavery were disfranchised and gagged. If they
dared to speak even against the right to hold slaves in the
territory, they were to be deemed guilty of felony, and subjected to imprisonment at hard labor for a term not less than
two years, and might be let out to work on the public highway, fettered with a chain and ball, after the manner of those
convicted of the most infamous crimes under the worst of
despotisms.
Fellow-Citizens! If the people of Kansas had quietly submitted to this usurpation and oppression, they would have
deserved to be slaves themselves; nay, the very act of submission would have made them slaves.  The wrongs inflicted
on the colonists by the mother country, which led to the
Revolution, bear no comparison with this monstrous injustice.
The people attempted to relieve themselves in the only
way which seemed to be practicable, without a resort to violence. Following the example set by the people of Michigan, they chose delegates to a Convention for the formation
of a Constitution, in advance of an authority for that purpose, and asked for admission into the Union as a State.
But what was good constitutional allegiance in Michigan,
was treason in Kansas. A refusal to be gagged, was insurrection; and asking to be admitted into the Union as peacea 
12
ble citizens, desirous of escaping from oppression, was treason
against the peace and dignity of the United States. The
more prominent of the free State settlers who did not escape
were arrested and imprisoned on this charge of treason, while
reiterating their protestations of allegiance and devotion to
the Union, and for the crime of seeking admission into it;
and armed bands, coming from abroad to secure the ascendency of slavery by force, were let loose, to ravage the possessions of those whose only offence was that they were
supporters of free institutions.  Our fathers had  no very
favorable opinion of the Hessians in the war of the Revolution. But the Hessians were not volunteers in the attempt
to subjugate the colonists, and committed no atrocities beyond those usually attendant upon a state of warfare. Not
so with the bands of ragamuffins who have invaded Kansas.
It has been said that civil war was raging there. My friends,
let us do no injustice to civil war. It has horrors enough to
answer for which properly belong to it. But the robbery and
arson, the pillage and murder which have been rife in Kansas
within the last year, are not civil war. I intend no pun in
saying this. The case is too grave and sad for that. I mean
to say that it is not war which has raged in Kansas; but it
is rapine and destruction, and cold-blooded, wilful murder.
We have been accustomed, when we wished to express our
sense of the damning infamy of atrocious deeds of violence
or plunder, in the superlative of condemnation, to characterize them as piracy, and the perpetrators as pirates.  But
it has been reserved to the Atchison men, and the Buford
men, and the Titus men, and the Emory men, in Kansas, to
make  piracy comparatively respectable, inasmuch as they
have shown that there is a depth of infamy more profound
than pirate ever yet has sounded. The buccaneers of former 
13
days did not hold out a false signal of equal rights, and then
gag and plunder and murder their victims, under the hollow
pretence of being a territorial militia, enforcing the laws.
The result of this horrible iniquity has been stated in the
appeals for aid recently made to the people of the Eastern
States. God grant that hearts may feel and hands may open
as they never felt and opened before, in aid of the Free State
settlers in Kansas, that the storms of the coming winter may
not sweep over the desolate hearthstones of those who have
perilled their all in the cause of freedom.
It has been said in high quarters and low quarters that all
the difficulties in Kansas have been occasioned by the Emigrant Aid Society; that if it had not been for the interference
of that Society, Kansas would in the natural course of things
have come in quietly as a free State. But the resolution
of the Platte County borderers, adopted before the Emigrant
Aid Society was even thought of, show the utter hollowness
and falsity of all such pretences. I have no authority to
speak for the Emigrant Aid Society, and know nothing of
its plans and purposes except what is before the public. I
am willing to take it for granted that the main object of that
society was to facilitate the introduction of settlers into
Kansas with a view of making it a free State, and perhaps
of ultimately deriving a profit to the corporation. If it were
solely with the purpose of aid(ling in the settlement, with the
view of securing the Territory to freedom, it was a perfectly
legitimate object. The repeal of the Compromise opened the
Territory to such efforts on both sides. It was just what was
to have been anticipated. So long as the effort was made in
good faith to promote actual settlement, no reasonable ex ception could be taken. - It was the introduction of those
who were not settlers, for the purpose of voting and over 
14
awing the inhabitants, which furnished ground of complaint;
and I have yet to learn that there is a particle of evidence
that the Emigrant Aid Society has done any such thing.
What has been charged upon it was that it paid the expenses of emigrants, which it had a perfect right to do, but
which it denies having done.
I am aware that near the close of the examinations before
the investigating committee of the House of Representatives,
some testimony was introduced to the effect that two or
three persons who were leaving the Territory just after the
election, said the Emigrant Aid Society paid their expenses
to come there and vote. Some reckless person may so have
said, but I doubt it. If the declaration were made under the
circumstances stated, it would furnish no proof against the
society or its members. But no such charge was made or
suggested until the damning proof of illegal voting by the
Missourians required some set-off, if one could possibly be
conjured up. And then came this proof of declarations by
nobody knows who. It was entirely an after-thought. No
one with a grain of common sense, and any knowledge of
the facts, ever believed a word of it. It may be true that if
Kansas becomes a free State it will be owing to the lawful
and judicious action of the members of the society, counteracting the unholy projects of the border slave-holders, and
the unscrupulous politicians. This is the head and front of
its offending. Honor, then, to the Emigrant Aid Society.
Honor to the City of Lawrence, which it founded, and to
its Free State hotel, the walls of which still stand, notwithstanding the patriotic labors of the sheriff's posse. And,
above all, and beyond all, honor to the stout hearts and
strong arms which have resisted oppression, and abide the
issue with the stern determination that Kansas shall be free. 
It was but a matter of course that great interest should be
manifested respecting the course of the different political
parties on the subject in the impending presidential election.
There are three parties in the field, and we have their platforms before us. It may be well to devote a few moments
to a review of them. The Democratic Convention have
collected together a mass of truisms about which no controversy exists, and reendorsed their adhesion, nominally, to all
that they have maintained heretofore. There is a declaration of eternal hostility to a National Bank. As the Bank
'was killed by General Jackson, about a quarter of a century
ago, and Mr. Webster long since characterized it as an obsolete idea, this plank of the platform was probably designed
as a wooden slab, to be placed over its grave. There is a
resolution in favor of the veto power, and another against a
system of internal improvements. But a democratic Senate
having, within a few days, passed bill after bill making appropriations for internal improvements, over, and notwithstanding, the President's veto, it seems clear that these are shifting
planks of the platform, which can be removed at any time
when the party is in danger, if it stand too firmly upon them.
There is a resolution in favor of the sub-treasury, respecting which no one now proposes a change; and one against
fostering one branch of industry at the expense of another,
which no one seeks to do. There is a resolution that it is
the duty of the government to enforce and practise the most
rigid economy in conducting our public affairs -exemplified
by a most wasteful and extravagant expenditure whenever
the party is in power; and one in favor of a strict construction of the Constitution- which the party uniformly construes
in the most lax manner, or wholly disregards upon flimsy
pretexts, whenever it suits their purposes. Witness, for ex
15 
16
ample, the admission of Texas, with an agreement that it
shall be divided into five States, there being no constitutional authority for the admission, or the agreement. There
are resolutions against the American party, the design of
which is to secure the vote of the naturalized citizens, while
the party privately makes love to the American party, and
proposes a union whenever the defeat of the Republican
party shall require it. So much for show and humbug; and
then comes the plank of planks, in the denunciation of the
Republican party as a sectional party, in the support of the
extension of slavery by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise,- in the nominal recognition of the right of the inhabitants of the territories to form their own institutions
respecting slavery, -a principle which the party were violatilg in Kansas at the very time it was promulgated; closing
with a call upon the next administration for every proper
effort to secure our ascendency in the Gulf of Mexico; which
means, being interpreted, that measures be taken to give
Cuba the opportunity to form her institutions, in the faith
that she cannot form them amiss in relation to slavery.
The American party, or rather the southern section of it,
after a political thanksgiving, presents the perpetuation of
the Federal Union, the recognition of the reserved rights of
the States, non-intervention in those things that belong exclusively to individual States -opposition to a union between church and state -investigation into abuses, and strict
economy; respecting all which, that party has no distinctive
features. There is, besides, the maintenance and enforcement of all laws, until said laws shall be repealed, or shall be
declared null and void by competent judicial authority, which
is broad enough to embrace the enforcement of the laws of
the usurping legislature of Kansas, and was probably de 
17
signed to cover that very case, in the slave-holding States at
least. Witness the nomination of Donelson, to say nothing,
just now, of Mr. Fillmore. The remaining portion relates
mainly to the distinctive principle of that party, that " Americans must rule America."
The Republican party, addressing its call to all without
regard to past differences, who agree in its principles, first
resolved "that the maintenance of the principles promulgated
in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the
Federal Constitution, are essential to the preservation of our
republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution,
the rights of the States, and the union of the States, shall be
preserved."  This, with an indorsement of some particular
principles of the Declaration and of the Constitution may be
regarded as "the glittering and sounding generalities" of the
platform. The application of these principles to the nonextension of slavery, with a recital of the wrongs of Kansas
and a resolution in favor of her admission under the Topeka
constitution, the denunciation of the highwayman's plea, that
"might makes right," and a declaration of opposition to all
legislation impairing the security of liberty of conscience and
equality of rights among citizens, furnish the fanatical and
sectional portion of it. There is besides a support of a railroad to the Pacific, and other internal improvements of a
national character.
There is nothing in the platform of either of these parties
adverse to the integrity of the Union.  On the contrary, each
professes its entire devotion to it. And the Union is in just
about as much danger from the success of one as that of
another. The dissolution of the Union is not dependent
immediately upon the issue of this election. The great, the
all absorbing issue in the controversy is the extension or
3 
18
non-extension of slavery into Kansas, and the Union is eventually in quite as much danger from its extension as from
its non-extension, although there is not so much said about
it. I am free to admit, that if slavery is imposed upon Kansas and such a monstrous iniquity as has occurred shall be
approved, my faith in the virtue and capacity of the people
to sustain a wise and just republican government will be
somewhat shaken.  If the people so decide, "God save the
Commonwealth." But they are too much aroused just now
to permit any such thing. Of prophesies and threats there
has been an abundance. It is asserted that somebody has
said, "if slavery is extended, the Union is worthless and ought
to be dissolved." And somebody has said, that if sixteen
States elect a President, fifteen States won't stand that. And
somebody else has said, that if Colonel Fremont is elected it
will be the duty of somebody to march to Washington and
seize the archives and the treasury. I had rather have the
sub-treasury at New York than the treasury. These exhibitions of froth and folly are not all on one side of any particular line. Nor do the people who make them all wear petticoats; but it is true that some of them come from old grannies, whose age and experience should have taught them
better.
We have seen that the real issue in the present PresidenLial canvass is between the Democratic and the Republican
parties,- the extension or the non-extension of slavery. All
other matters are at this time of minor import. The dis
tinctive principle of the American party, be it good or bad,
is out of sight at present, swallowed up in the all absorbing
question whether slavery shall be imposed upon Kansas.
The party may perhaps preserve its organization. The result of its action in this election will avail it nothing further; 
19
but its capacity for mischief by a pertinacious adherence to
its candidates may be very great.
What is the duty of the Whigs? What is now the duty of
those who, with a steady adhesion to their principles and a
cheerful devotion to the cause, have followed the glorious
Whig banner so long as it was flung to the breeze, alike conscious of a faithful performance of duty, whether in victory
or defeat?
Some of those who have heretofore been prominent members of the Whig party have announced their intention to
support Mr. Buchanan. It has been reported, that a distinguished gentleman of our own State upon being rallied
upon his transition from the Whig to the Democratic party,
replied, that if he was about to leave the ranks of Orthodoxy
he would not stop at Arminianismn, but would go on to infidelity at once. What a marvellous felicity of illustration
that gentleman possesses!
Another gentleman known as a Whig, a senator from
Missouri, in declaring his intention to vote for Mr. Buchanan,
says, " while I cannot approve and do not intend to adopt
the platform of principles promulgated by the late Democratic convention at Cincinnati, I feel assured that notwithstanding the exceptional doctrines it announces, especially
those referring to our foreign relations, the administration of
Mr. Buchanan would be safe, prudent, and conservative."
For myself, I do not understand this support of Mr. Buchanan without adopting his platform. It is said that he is
the platform.  There is no such separation to be made.  If
you vote for the man, you vote for the platform, for he is
pledged to it. A man may
"Steal the livery of the court of heaven
To serve the devil in." 
20
But the service he performs will be a devilish service, and the
anthems he sings will not be "holiness to the Lord."  A man
may train in the Democratic ranks with a Whig overcoat on,
but he must hurrah for the Democratic candidates and keep
step to the music of the Democratic party. The outward
habiliments will not determine the character. The ass covered his shoulders with the lion's skin, but the tremendous
roar which he expected would follow turned out to be nothing but the bray of the donkey, after all.
Let no Whig vote for Mr. Buchanan with the supposition
that the Democratic party have changed their policy respecting Kansas. Up to the time of the election in Maine, no
measures were taken by the administration for the relief of
the Free State settlers.   To all appeals the answer was,
" Obey the laws." Mr. Governor Geary, upon whose appointmrnent there were some hopes of an intention to mete out
a better measure of justice, made haste very slowly to assume
the duties of his office, notwithstanding the disorders which
it was his duty to suppress were most notorious. It seemed
as if he was purposely kept back until that election should
give some indication of the feeling of the people. If every
thing went well in Maine, then Woodson might be left to
follow the course of Shannon, and the banditti permitted to
pursue their ravages as territorial militia.   The eighteen
thousand pounder in Maine struck terror and dismay into
the administration at Washington, and the echoes were forthwith heard in Kansas. Mr. Geary made all speed about that
time to his government, and the St. Louis News, before he
reached that point, proclaimed that there was a lull in the
affairs of Kansas. Atchison, with his invading army, was
probably told, "It won't do, you must go back or Buchanan
will be defeated; "-while the arrest of some 130 Free State
4 
21
men on a charge of treason and murder, for attacking those
who had been committing depredations upon them, may serve
to satisfy even the border ruffians that their interests are well
cared for in the mean time.  How long the "lull" will last,
remains to be seen. Whether the storm will rage again may
depend upon which way the wind blows on the 4th of
November.
Others of the Whigs, not being willing to go to the
I beg your pardon, gentlemen, -not being willing to go into
infidelity in this way, have sought some other association.
A convention calling itself a Whig Convention, was held a
short time since in this State. That there were Whigs in it
I have no doubt; but there is some evidence that it was not
a Whig convention. The suppression of a reasonable discussion, and by unearthly noises, is neither Whig principle
nor Whig practice. But let that pass. You doubtless looked
with solicitude for the views of the convention upon the great
question of the canvass,- the only question of practical importance. The presiding officer, professing to give a somewhat full and formal expression of opinion in relation to the
momentous issues now before the people of the United States,
says of Kansas,  "I cannot forget, moreover, that there are diseases in the political, as
well as in the physical system, for which mere local applications and mere
topical treatment are utterly insufficient and often injurious, and where the
only hope of a radical cure is in purifying and invigorating and building
up anew the general health of the patient. Wise physicians in such cases
prescribe what I believe they call an alterative medicine. And this deplorable Kansas malady will, in my opinion, prove to be precisely one of this
class of disorders. It demands an alterative; and those who rely so much
upon direct applications for the relief of the superficial symptoms, distressing as they are, will find themselves, I fear, grievously disappointed."
It appears to me that the symptoms have not been very 
22
superficial. We all agree that an alterative is necessary; but
what is to be the particular medicine? Pills of lead and
powders of gunpowder are very powerful alteratives, but they
do not generally improve the condition of the patient.
There is some significance in the inquiry afterwards made
by the presiding officer in the course of his speech. What
had a Republican House of Representatives "accomplished for
suffering, bleeding Kansas?" (Not very superficial!) Adding, "does any man here doubt that if men of less extreme
and extravagant views, men more conciliatory and practical in
their purposes, had been in Congress, those odious and abhorrent Kansas laws would have been repealed before the session
closed?"  How this repeal might have been accomplished is
not said. Men more conciliatory and practical in their purposes, might probably have obtained a repeal of some of those
odious and abhorrent laws by the compromise of voting for
Toombs's bill, which would assuredly have sealed the fate of
Kansas, and made it a Slave State beyond redemption.
Another  distinguished  speaker, and  a personal  friend,
said:
"How any man can acquit the administration of President Pierce from
being the source and origin of most of the disorders which are now distracting that region and spreading their exciting influence over the country, I
cannot see. I admit that all the elements of trouble in that territory are
not directly chargeable to the administration; but the administration was
responsible, - first, for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and then for
its course in countenancing the illegal votes from a neighboring region
which put into power a legislature which had the forms of law, but which in
its election and rule was an embodiment of injustice; and for giving its support to the measures of that body, which are disgraceful to humanity, disgraceful to liberty, and disgraceful to the spirit of the age. Now the duty
of the administration was as plain as the light of the sun at noonday. The
whole of this work should have been undone. This legislature should have 
23
been sent home, and the whole of their legislative action should have been
annulled, as the acts of a legislature which had no right to sit."
This is good sound Whig doctrine. But see what immediately follows: -
"The difficulty about Kansas is that it is a card in the hands of politicians during the coming campaign. When the truth about Kansas is known,
you will find that some of the men who have been most loud in denouncing
the Kansas outrages, have been the most vigorous in preventing the measures which are calculated to give peace to that territory."
This sounds very much as if the Republicans, who have
certainly been most loud in denouncing the Kansas outrages,
have prevented the adoption of such measures as the speaker
had just said ought to have been taken.  But he will hardly
assert that. The Republicans held the card, if there was a
card of that sort to be played. Why did not the Admninistration trump that card? They held the trump, in the shape of
the admission of Kansas under the Topeka constitution.
That would not only have taken the card, but would have
ended the game, so far as Kansas was concerned. But that
was just what the slave-holding partners of the Democracy
would not consent to do.
What measures have the Republican party prevented,
which were calculated to give peace to Kansas? Why, they
have prevented the passage of Toombs's bill; and they have
most vigorously refused to compromise in such a manner
that slavery will make sure of Kansas.
The presiding officer, referring to the possible success of
the Democratic party, identified as it is with the overthrow
of the Missouri Compromise and the unjustifiable foreign
policy disclosed and avowed in the Ostend Conference,
says: 
24
" I can see before us no promise, and but little prospect, of either domestic or foreign peace. There is no alterative here. On the contrary, such
a result presents to my mind nothing but an indefinite continuance and prolongation of that wretched state of things which has distressed the heart of
every true patriot for the last six or seven months, -fears without and
fightings within, the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not,
fresh conflicts upon our own soil springing from the squatter sovereignty
doctrines which have been so disastrously inaugurated in Kansas, and fresh
panics of war with foreign powers, disturbing our trade and finances, and
followed, perhaps, by the dread catastrophe itself."
But he adds:
"If I turn, on the other hand, to a contemplation of the triumph of the
Republican party, I perceive clouds and darkness, by no means less dense
or threatening, resting upon the future of our domestic peace."
Now, the main purpose of the Republican party is to l)revent the accomplishment by the Democratic party of what it
is here said is the very "abomination of desolation."  So it
seems that it is just about as dangerous to prevent iniquity
as it is to commit it.
The Convention resolves that the fierce and dangerous
elements of discord let loose by the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, "can never be put to rest until that healing
measure shall be practically reenacted, and the territory once
solemnly dedicated to freedom be received into the Union as
a free State." And then they cannot refrain from expressing
their preference for Mr. Fillmore. That is, in other words, a
recommendation to vote for him.  What, and Donelson, too?
Yes, and Donelson, too!  You cannot scratch that ticket,
because you vote for electors, who, if they vote for Fillmore,
will vote for Donelson, too. Well, what kind of a Whig is
Mr. Donelson, "I should very much like to know!"  A Democratic slaveholder of Tennessee, on the South American 
25
ticket, editor of the Washington Union during Mr. Fillmore's
administration, and an "uncompromising opponent of Whig
men and measures, - condemning indiscriminately" all of it
that was Whig.  How far is Mr. Donelson likely to promote
the admission of Kansas as a free State, or to oppose the
acquisition of Cuba for the express purpose of adding more
slave territory?
But is there any expectation on the part of the Convention, that Mr. Fillmore can be elected? Hardly. The presiding officer is "prepared, if need be, to try how it feels to
vote without any State at all," although he hopes better
things. Rather faint, that. But my eloquent friend is more
explicit:
"Only stand firm," he says, " only let us weather this next point, and
depend upon it, we shall have smoother seas, and more favoring gales the
next year. I only ask you, while you are firm, while you are zealous, to be
also patient and forbearing to one another. The duty that is at this moment
laid upon the Whig party is one that most tries the temper and the soul of
man. It is that which calls for the exercise of the passive virtues, and they
are always harder to bring out than the active virtues. It is an easy thing,
when the trumpet sounds, when the air rings and burns with exhilarating
shouts, when the pulse beats high, and the blood in the veins seems turned
into liquid fire, -it is easy then to fling one's self into the face of the
enemy, and meet victory or death. But to stand still, and have your ranks
mowed down by the enemy's artillery, - to see your friends and brothers
falling on each side, —to hear no word but the calm grave voice of the
commander,' Close up your ranks, boys, and show a firm front to the foe,'
that is hard; but we are of the stuff that can do it."
So it appears that at a time of great excitement in the
country, while there are fears without and fightings within;
while the abomination of desolation stands where it ought
not; while there is no promise and but little prospect of either
4 
26
foreign or domestic peace in the success of the Democratic
party, which has originated all the troubles, while a great
battle is to be fought between slavery and freedom, the Whig
party is to denounce the Republican party, which does battle
for freedom, as one upon whose success clouds and darkness
rest, and to be brought into the field, standing shoulder to
shoulder,- to fire at a target.
If this is done, it is thought that the party will live to fight
another day.
"Depend upon it, Mr. President," (says the last speaker,) "the time
will come when the tide of battle will turn; when' either night or the
Prussians will come,' as Wellington said at Waterloo; when along our
ranks will ring, as did there, the stirring words,'Up, Guards, and at
them."'
At whom?  Why, the victorious party, whichever it may
be, intrenched in the government fortifications.  It would
be unkind to make such a charge upon the remnant of the
vanquished.
Mr. President! when that command shall speed over the
hills, and echo along the valleys of New England, I doubt
not that there will be a mustering of gallant riders, and an
exhibition of noble horsemanship. But the roll call will
show about the number of the glorious six hundred at the
battle of Balaklava, - the charge will accomplish as much
for the purposes of the war, - and there will be not far from
the same proportion of empty saddles.
Fellow-Citizens! I may be old, but I am no fogy. If
there is to be a great political battle, in which the slave
power, assuming the name of Democracy, is arrayed against
the personal liberty of one class of the people, and against
the equal political rights of another class, I wish to enroll 
27
myself in the ranks and do a yeoman's service. I cannot
be brought into the field in the heat of the battle, under any
leaders,- to shoot at a mark.
But I have other reasons why I cannot vote for Mr. Fillmore. Mr. Fillmore in the Presidential chair was not the
same Whig Mr. Fillmore who was previously a representative in Congress. And Mr. Fillmore deserting the Whig
party upon its defeat in 1852, and joining a party whose
distinguishing principle, be it good or bad, is not a Whig
principle, -is no kind of a Whig.  Moreover, Mr. Fillmore,
on his return from Europe this summer, made a speech at
Albany. I could not find it in one of his Boston organs the
other day, where his speeches at Newburg and Rochester and
other places on his route seemed to be stereotyped; but
copies of it are extant, and these are extracts: —
"We see a political party, presenting candidates for the Presidency and
Vice-Presidency, selected for the first time from the free States alone, with
the avowed purpose of electing these candidates by suffrages of one part of
the Union only, to rule over the whole United States. Can it be possible
that those who are engaged in such a measure can have seriously reflected
upon the consequences which must inevitably follow, in case of success?
(Cheers.) Can they have the madness or the folly to believe that our
Southern brethren would submit to be governed by such a Chief Magistrate?
"Suppose that the South, having a majority of the electoral votes, should
declare that they would only have slave-holders for President and Vice-President, and should elect such by their exclusive suffrages to rule over us at
the North?  Do you think we would submit to it?  No, not for a moment.
(Applause.) And do you believe that your Southern brethren are less sensitive on this subject than you are, or less jealous of their rights? (Tremendous cheering.) If you do, let me tell you that you are mistaken. And,
therefore, you must see that if this sectional party succeeds, it leads inevitably to the destruction of this beautiful fabric reared by our forefathers,
cemented by their blood, and bequeathed to us as a priceless inheritance." 
28
This is a direct encouragement to insurrection, or secession by the slave-holding States, if the Republican candidate is elected; and all the more exceptionable coining from
his competitor.  It is not surprising that there have been
divers glosses upon it, attempting to show that Mr. Fillmore
did not mean what he said; but the meaning is quite plain,
and if the truth were known, probably much of the violence
and threats, of which we hear not a little, might be traced
to it.
But suppose Mr. Fillmore had a chance of success. I do
not wonder that this supposition provokes your laughter; but
what is called a National Whig Convention has recently
been held at Baltimore, and has indorsed, the nominations of
the American party, and expressed something like a confidence in his success. I deny the authority of a portion of
the Whigs to indorse the nominations of another party in the
name of the Whig party. But being thus indorsed how is
the election to be accomplished, and what is to be the result?
The answer is clear. By defeating an election by the people,
throwing it into the House of Representatives, and then
standing out in the expectation that the Democratic party
will give in.   An election is thus to be postponed,-the
whole country convulsed with the excitement which will
attend it, -and the matter is to be accomplished at last by
bargain and corruption, making Kansas the subject of a compromise. Compromising seems to have been considered as
Mr. Fillmore's peculiar qualification in the convention at
Boston. The presiding officer evidently regarded compromising with favor:
" In my honest judgment, fellow Whigs, if these perplexing and perilous
questions are ever to be settled wisely, justly, and peaceably, it will not be
by the triumph of either of the principal parties to the strife."
f 
29
Another speaker is again more explicit,
" Now Mr. Fillmore has the support of many members of the Whig party
on the ground that he is a man of that moderation of temper who will reconcile the extremes of opinion on both sides. Nothing but harm can come, if
this attitude of opposition and collision between the North and South is to
continue. Millard Fillmore stands in the position of a man who takes that
moderate part which is never tasteful to the American people. It is one of
the characteristics of the people to favor extreme measures. Moderation,
conciliation, and compromise -that class of qualities and that class of virtues- is not taking to the common American mind."
This is somewhat more clearly foreshadowed in the Baltimore Convention. - But what is the compromise? The question is, Shall slavery be extended into Kansas -Yes or
No? If you say no, you do not compromise. If you say
yes, you surrender. The election of Mr. Fillmore, then, is
compromise, and compromise is surrender.
But it is objected that the Republican party is a fanatical
party and a sectional party, and that it is seeking to deprive
the Southern States of their rights under the constitution.
Some of this was said in the speeches at the convention in
Boston. More by the speakers from the free States at the
Convention in Baltimore, and all of it is iterated and reiterated
by the Democratic party, aided, as we have seen, by Mr. Fillmore himself. In reading the proceedings of the Baltimore
Convention, I was struck with the fact that gentlemen from
the slave-holding States hardly referred to the Republican as
a sectional party, while those from the free States were openmouthed in that style of denunciation. A delegate from New
York "referred at some length to the duty of the South to
stand by those Whigs of the North in support of Mr. Fillmore -to the necessity of the maintenance of the Union,
despite the fanatical efforts of the abolitionists of the North." 
30
It is amusing to contrast this with a remark of Mr. Alexander
Rives of Virginia, who said, "I hail from the South - my
heart throbs with every emotion that can touch the heart of
a Southern man. But yet I tell you that from my heart of
hearts, I loathe the Northern man with Southern principles.
[Applause.] Bring a man from the extreme North, and set
him down in my own cherished domicil, and let him strive
to outvie me in praises of the institutions of the South, and I
say he ought to be kicked out of doors."
Fellow-citizens, I do not recognize the old Anti-slavery
party, nor even the Freesoil party proper, in the present Republican party. With something in common with the former,
and much with the latter, it is not the same. The Republican party presents, as its great distinguishing principle, the
non-extension of slavery, and I propose to show that this is
a sound Whig principle, and a constitutional principle,which once might have been said to be the same thing.
To show it to be a Whig principle, I need go no farther
back than the 29th of September, 1847. On that day the
Whig party of Massachusetts held a convention at Springfield.  Mr. Webster was present, "and addressed the meeting
in his most powerful manner for nearly an hour and a half.
His speech was devoted to a review of the war and its origin,
and the policy of the administration with regard to it." Two
or three short extracts from that speech may be found useful.
"My opposition [to the annexation of Texas] was founded on the ground
that I never would, and never should, - I repeat now, I never will and
never shall,- give my vote in Congress for any further annexation to this
country with a slave representation...
"We hear much, just now, of a panacea for the danger and evils of slavery and slave annexation, which they call the Wilmot Proviso. That sentiment is a just sentiment, but it is not a sentiment to form any new party 
31
upon. It is not a sentiment on which Massachusetts Whigs differ. There is
not a man in this hall who holds to it any more firmly than I do, or one who
adheres to it more than another. I feel some little interest in this matter, Sir.
Did I not commit myself in 1837 to the whole doctrine, fully, entirely?
And I must be permitted to say that I cannot quite consent that more recent
discoverers should claim the merit and take out a patent. I deny the priority of their invention. Allow me to say, Sir, it is not their thunder."...
"We can only say, and in my judgment, Mr. President, I can only say,
that we are to use the first, the last, and every occasion that offers to oppose
the extension of slave power. But I speak of it here as in Congress, as a
political question for statesmen to act upon. We must so regard it. I certainly do not mean to say it is less important in a moral point of view,that it is not more important in many other points of view. But as a legislator, or in an official capacity, I must look at it, consider it, and decide it,
as a matter for political action."
The platform of that convention contained a very full and
emphatic annunciation of Whig principles. It was resolved,
among other things,
"That the acquisition of Mexican territory, under the circumstances of
the country- unless under adequate securities for the protection of human
liberty - can have no other probable result than the ultimate advancement
of the sectional supremacy of the slave power.
"That if the war shall be prosecuted to the final subjugation or dismemberment of Mexico, the Whigs of Massachusetts now declare, and put this
declaration of their purpose on record,- that Massachusetts will never consent that Mexican territory, however acquired, shall become a part of the
American Union, unless on the unalterable condition that'there shall be
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude therein, otherwise than in the punishment of crime.'
" That, in making this declaration of her purpose, Massachusetts announces
no new principles of action in regard to her sister States, and makes no new
application of principles already acknowledged.   She merely states the
great American principles embodied in our Declaration of Independence -
the political equality of persons in the civil State; -the principle adopted
in the Legislation of the States under the confederation, and sanctioned by 
32
the Constitution; in the admission of all the new States formed from the
only territory belonging to the Union at the adoption of the Constitution;it is, in short, the imperishable principle set forth in the ever memorable
ordinance of 1787, which has for more than half a century been the fundamental law of human liberty in the great valley of the Lakes, the Ohio and
the Mississippi, with what brilliant success, and with what unparalleled
results, let the great and growing States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, answer and declare.
"And that uncompromising hostility to all wars for conquest, and to all
acquisitions of territory in any manner whatever, for the diffusion and perpetuity of slavery, and for the extension and permanency of the slave power,
are now- as they have been - cardinal principles in the policy of the
Whigs of Massachusetts, and form, in their judgment, the broad and deep
foundations on which rest, and ever must rest, the prospective hopes, and
enduring interests of the whole country."
There has been no repeal of these resolutions.
With regard to Mr. Webster, who may be allowed by the
Whig friends of Mr. Fillmore to have been a sound exponent
of Whig principles, his opposition to the extension of slavery
was distinctly expressed in a speech at Niblo's Garden in
New York, in 1837; and he adhered to it throughout his
whole life.
When the bill to establish a territorial government in
Oregon was under consideration in August, 1848, Mr. Webster said: 
"For one, I wish to avoid all committals, all traps by way of preamble
or recital; and as I do not intend to discuss this question at large, I content
myself with saying, in few words, that my opposition to the further extension
of local slavery in this country, or to the increase of slave representation in
Congress, is general and universal. It has no reference to limits of latitude
or points of the compass. I shall oppose all such extension and all such
increase, in all places, at all times, under all circumstances, even against all
inducements, against all supposed limitation of great interests, against all
combinations - against all compromises. This is short, but I hope clear and
comprehensive." 
33
It may be noted as a curious piece of political history, that
Mr. Douglas moved an amendment to the bill, in favor of extending the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific Ocean,
which was adopted by the following vote: —
YEAS -Messrs. Atchison, Badger,  Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland,
Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Cameron, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Fitzgerald, Foote, Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, Johnson of
Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalf, Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance of Delaware, Sturgeon,
Turney, and Underwood. Total, 33.
NAYS -Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese, Clarke,
Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Green, Hale,
Hamblin, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Upham, Walker, and Webster. Total, 21.
In Mr. Webster's speech "for the Constitution and  the
Union," March 7, 1850, there was no surrender of his opposition to the extension of slavery. While he declared that if
a proposition were before Congress to establish a government
for New Mexico, and it was moved to insert a provision for a
prohibition of slavery, he would not vote for it, giving as a
reason that "such prohibition would be idle as it respects any
effect it would have upon the territory, and he would not
take pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor
to reenact the will of God,"- he caused extracts from his
speeches in 1837 and 1847 to be read as evidence of his uniform opinions, and added:
"Sir, wherever there is a substantive good to be done, wherever there is
a foot of land to be prevented from becoming slave territory, I am ready to
assert the principle of the exclusion of slavery. I am pledged to it from the
year 1837; I have been pledged to it again and again; and I will perform
those pledges; but I will not do a thing unnecessarily that wounds the feelings of others, or that does discredit to my own understanding."
5 
34
It is in the face of this declaration that it has been impudently said that the compromise measure of 1850 repealed
the Missouri Compromise. One extract more, and that on
his reception at Buffalo in 1851.
"I never would consent, and never have consented, that there should be
one foot of slave territory beyond what the old thirteen States had at the
time of the formation of the Union.  Never! never!"
Mr. Clay also was opposed to the further extension of
slavery. In the debates of 1850 he is reported to have said:
a I am extremely sorry to hear the senator from Mississippi say that he
requires, first, the extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific,
and also that he is not satisfied with that, but requires, if I understood him
correctly, a positive provision for the admission of slavery south of that line.
And now, sir, coming from a slave State, as I do, I owe it to myself, I owe it
to truth, I owe it to the subject, to say that no earthly power could induce
me to vote for a specific measure for the introduction of slavery where it had
not before existed, either south or north of that line. Coming, as I do, from
a slave State, it is my solemn, deliberate, and well-matured determination,
that no power, no earthly power, shall compel me to vote for the positive introduction of slavery either south or north of that line.
"But if, unhappily, we should be involved in war, between the two parts
of this confederacy, in which the effort upon the one side should be to restrain the introduction of slavery into the new Territories, and upon the
other side to force its introduction there, what a spectacle should we present
to the astonishment of mankind, in an effort, not to propagate rights, but, I
must say it, though I trust it will be understood to be said with no design to
excite feeling, - a war to propagate wrongs in the Territories thus acquired
from Mexico.  It would be a war in which we should have no sympathies,
no good wishes; in which all mankind would be against us; in which our
own history itself would be against us; for, from the commencement of the
Revolution down to the present time, we have constantly reproached our
British ancestors for the introduction of slavery into this country." 
35
These extracts show the Whig faith in relation to the extension of slavery, into which I have been baptized; and
with this creed before me, I may well believe that Whigs
who are willing that slavery should be farther extended, are
following after strange political gods.
But the argument to show that the opposition of the Republican party to the extension of slavery is not fanatical or
sectional; but that it is for the preservation, thus far, of
equal rights on the part of all the people in the national
representation; and that it is therefore a constitutional measure; may be extended much beyond the proof that it has
heretofore had the support of the Whig party and its most,
eminent leaders.
The representation in the House of Representatives is
politically unequal.   The representation of the non-slaveholding States is based upon free population;-that of the
slave-holding States upon free population, with the addition
of a further representation of three fifths of their slaves;
which they insist are property.   The slave-holding States
have twenty-one members, by reason of their slave representation. This is clearly not an equality of representation. If
the slaves are persons, entitled to be represented as such,
there is no reason for this discrimination. If they are regarded as property, there is just as much reason for a representation founded on the laboring animals which aid in
performing the work upon a farm in a non-slave-holding
State.
That the slave is not a person who is represented in the
national government, is very obvious. He never votes. It
may be answered that the women and children of the non 
slave-holding States do not vote; which is very true. But
the women rear and train those who are one day to exercise
the right of suffrage, and the children are coming forward as
the compeers or successors of those  who do exercise it.
Both classes are therefore directly interested in its exercise,
and form a part of the constituency of the representative.
They are represented, and free population is therefore a
suitable basis on which to apportion a representation. Not
so with the slave. He is not a part of the constituency. No
age qualifies him, no property, if there be a property qualification, ever entitles him to any participation in the elective
franchise. The nurture and training of those who are to
exercise it, and which is to qualify them for its exercise, is
not committed to him. Slaves may minister to the mere
physical wants of those who do, and those who are to exercise this franchise, but they do not imbue their minds with
free principles and high aspirations. They are in no way an
element of a free government. The representation, then, so
far as they are concerned, is the representation of the master;
and it is founded upon property. It is not to be denied that
property may form the basis of representation. It has been
contended that as it pays the greater portion of the taxes,
it furnishes a suitable and proper basis of representation, to
some extent. It was so contended in the Convention to
revise the Constitution of this Commonwealth in 1820. But
the question returns; - viewed as property, why should
three fifths of this peculiar species of property furnish a basis
of representation, while all other property is entirely ex cluded? The solution of this question will be found in the
history of the Constitution, and that of the period which
immediately preceded its formation.
So far as this representation is constitutional, it has its
36
I 
37
existence in the second section of the first article of the Constitution, in these words, -" Representation and direct taxes
shall be apportioned among the several States, which may
be included within this Union, according to their respective
numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
number of free persons, including those bound to service for
a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths
of all other persons." The reason why this should be the
rule is certainly not apparent, but a short investigation will
solve the mystery.
Bills of credit were first resorted to as a means for carrying
on the war of the Revolution, but it soon became apparent
that the credit of the bills mnust be sustained by means for
their redemption. On the 26th December, 1775, Congress
resolved that the thirteen Colonies be pledged for their redemption, -" that each Colony provide ways and means to
sink its proportion in such manner as will be most effectual
and best adapted to the condition, circumstances, and equal
mode of levying taxes in each; and that the proportion or
quota of each respective Colony be determined according to
the number of inhabitants of all ages, including negroes and
mulattoes, in each."
The Committee which reported the articles of Confederation in July, 1776, inserted a similar provision, with an exception of Indians not paying taxes. Upon this a debate
arose. Mr. Chase moved that the quotas should be fixed by
the number of white inhabitants. He admitted that taxation
should be always in proportion to property; that this was in
theory the true rule, but that from a variety of difficulties it
could never be adopted in practice. He considered the number of inhabitants a tolerably good criterion of property, and 
38
that this might always be obtained, and was the best mode
with one exception only. He observed that " negroes are property, and as such could not be distinguished from the lands
or personalties held in those States where there are few
slaves; that the surplus of profit which a northern farmer is
able to lay by he invests in cattle, horses, &c., whereas a
southern farmer lays out the same surplus in slaves; that
there was no more reason, therefore, for taxing the Southern
States on the farmer's head and on his slave's head, than the
Northern!ones on their farmers' heads and the heads of cattle; that the mode proposed would therefore tax the Southern States according to their numbers and their wealth
conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers
only; that negroes in fact should not be considered as members
of the State more than cattle, and that they have no more
interest in it."
Fellow-citizens, please bear in mind that you have here,
very fully stated, the slave-holding view of the relation of
slaves to the State, showing, conclusively, that they are not
represented, and form no part of the basis of an apportionment of representation, unless the basis adopted be property.
It does not follow, however, that they are not, as property,
just subjects of taxation.
Mr. John Adams observed that the numbers of people were
taken by the article as an index of the wealth of the State,
and not as subjects of taxation; —that five hundred freemen
produced no greater surplus for the payment of taxes than
five hundred slaves; -therefore the State in which are the
laborers called freemen should be taxed no more than that in
which are those called slaves.
Mr. Harrison proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves
I 
39
should be counted as one freeman.  He affirmed that slaves did
not do as much work as freemen, and doubted if two effected
more than one.
Mr. Wilson said that other kinds of property were pretty
equally distributed through all the Colonies; there were as
many cattle, horses, and sheep in the North as the South,
and South as the North, but not so as to slaves; that experience has shown that those Colonies have been always able
to pay most which have the most inhabitants, whether they
be black or white; and the practice of the Southern Colonies
has always been to make every farmer pay poll-taxes on his
laborers, whether they be black or white. He acknowledged
that freemen worked the most, but they consumed the most
also, and did not produce a greater surplus for taxation.
The slave was neither fed nor clothed so expensively as a
freeman.
Dr. Witherspoon was of opinion that the value of lands
and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation,
and that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. He
said the cases stated by Mr. Wilson were not parallel; that
in the Southern Colonies slaves pervade the whole Colony;
but they do not pervade the whole continent; and that the
original resolution of Congress to proportion the quotas according to souls, was temporary only, and related to the
moneys before emitted; whereas they were then entering
into a new compact, and stood on original ground.
The amendment of Mr. Chase was rejected, five States
for, six against it, and one divided.
The rule suggested by Dr. Witherspoon was afterwards
substituted for that reported by the Committee, but the final
ratification of the articles did not take place until March,
1781. In the mean time, Congress apportioned various sums 
40
to be raised by each State, with a proviso that the sums
required should not be considered the proportion of any one
State, but should be placed to their credit, and interest
allowed until the quota should be finally adjusted by Congress, agreeably to the rule inserted in the articles of Confederation.
This rule was found to be impracticable. In 1778 Congress required the States to make a return of the houses and
lands. New Hampshire alone complied; and in 1783 Congress adopted a new article on the subject, to be proposed
to the States, providing that the quotas of the several States
should be supplied "in proportion to the whole number of
white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age,
sex, and condition, including those bound to servitude for a
term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not
paying taxes in each State."
Eleven States had assented to the change at the time of
the formation of the Constitution, and we have here substantially the provision which was afterwards inserted in that
instrument as the basis of representation, as well as of taxation. In an address to the States, recommending the adoption of this and other articles of amendment, it was said that
the only material difficulty which attended the change of the
rule, in the deliberation of Congress, was to fix the proper
difference between the labor and industry of free inhabitants
and all other inhabitants; and that the ratio ultimately
agreed on was the effect of mutual concession. The concession seems to have been in rating the value of the labor of
five slaves, the same as that of three freemen; not quite two
to one, according to Mr. Harrison's proposition.
The inquiry naturally arises, why three fifths of the slaves, 
41
which had been introduced into the basis of taxation because
slaves were taken as an index of the wealth and ability of
the masters to contribute and pay, should also be made the
basis of a representation founded on population, when they
are not represented, and have no part or lot in that matter?
The answer is, that this was the result of another compro mise.
The mode to be adopted in voting under the Confedera tion was the subject of great debate in Congress. The arti cle adopted was in these words: " In determining questions
in the United States in Congress assembled, each State
shall have one vote." The larger States contended strenuously for a representation according to numbers.
Mr. Wilson thought that taxation should be in proportion
to wealth, but that representation should accord with the
number of freemen; that government is a collection of the
wills of all; that if any government could speak the will of
all, it would be perfect; and that so far as it departs from
this, it becomes imperfect.
But the small States carried their point.
In the Convention for the formation of the Constitution,
the different subjects were first discussed on resolutions;
afterwards on reports of Committees to which different propositions were referred; and then upon a draft of a Constitution reported by the Committee of Detail. In this mode,
and in incidental discussions when other parts of the Constitution were under consideration, the subject of representation was many times before the Convention, and in different
connections.   The  plan of a National Government introduced by Mr. Randolph of Virginia, with the concurrence of
his colleagues, asserted that the right of suffrage ought to be
6 
42
proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number
of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule might seem
best in different cases. On taking it up for consideration in
Committee, after propositions to amend so as to adopt the
one or the other of those modes, Mr. Madison moved that an
equitable ratio ought to be substituted for the equality established by the articles of Confederation; but the matter was
postponed on the suggestion that the Deputies from Delaware were restrained by their commission from assenting to
any change. It was feared "that the large States would
crush the small ones whenever they stand in the way of their
ambitious views."
It was suggested, in answer, that all the existing boundaries might be erased, and a new partition of the whole be
made into thirteen equal parts.
Mr. Sherman proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in
the first branch should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants, and that in the second branch, or
Senate, each State should have one vote. Dr. Franklin
thought, that the numbers of representatives should bear
some proportion to the represented, although he proposed
proportionate supplies and an equal number of delegates
from each State, the decisions to be by a majority of votes.
Quotas of contribution and actual contributions of the States
were proposed, and the debate was terminated at that time
by the adoption in Committee of the proportion substantially as it stands at present in the Constitution; that "being
the rule in the Act of Congress, agreed to by eleven States
for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States."   Mr.
Gerry thought property not the rule of representation. Why,
then, should the blacks, who were property in the South, be 
43
in the rule of representation more than the cattle and horses
of the North? - Nine States voted in favor of it; New Jersey
and Delaware in the negative.
The subject was debated at length afterwards, when the
representation in the Senate;-when the proportion of the
representation in the first Congress under the Constitution;and when the periodical census were, at different times, under
consideration.
Gen. Pinckney dwelt on the superior wealth of the Southern States, and insisted on its having its due weight in the
government. Mr. Gouverneur Morris said property ought to
have its weight, but not all the weight. If the Southern
States were to supply money, the Northern States were to
spill their blood. Besides, the probable revenue to be expected from the Southern States had been greatly overrated.
Delegates from South Carolina insisted that blacks be included in the representation equally with the whites, and
moved that three fifths be struck out. It was answered that
when the rule of taxation was fixed by Congress, delegates
representing slave States urged that the blacks were still
more inferior to freemen. To which it was replied that the
Eastern States then contended for their equality. Mr King
thought the admission of the blacks along with the whites at
all, would excite great discontent among the States having
no slaves.
Mr. Wilson did not well see on what principle the admission of blacks in the proportion of three fifths could be explained. If admitted as citizens, why not on an equality
with white citizens? If as property, why is not other property admitted? These were difficulties, however, which he
thought must be overruled by the necessity of compromise.
A special Committee made a report of an apportionment, 
44
with a clause authorizing the legislature to regulate future
apportionments according to the principle of wealth and
numbers; and to this Gouverneur Morris moved a proviso,
that taxation should be in proportion to representation.
This was amended so as to read direct taxation. The debate
was then continued upon the representation. Mr. Davie saw,
that it was meant by some gentlemen to deprive the Southern States of any share of representation for their blacks.
He was sure North Carolina would not confederate on any
terms that did not rate them at least as three fifths. Dr.
Johnson was for including blacks equally with the whites in
the computation. Gouverneur M6rris believed Pennsylvania
would never agree upon a representation of negroes. Mr.
Pinckney moved an amendment so as to make blacks equal
to whites in the ratio. He said they were as productive of
pecuniary resources as the laborers of the Northern States:
and it would be politic with regard to the Northern States, as
taxation is to keep pace with representation.  The taxation
clause was then incorporated into the clause respecting representation. Mr. Pinckney's motion for equality was rejected,
two to eight, and the whole proposition adopted, six to two,
Massachusetts and South Carolina divided.
The debate was continued upon the proposition for an
equality of votes in the Senate.  Mr. Madison said: "It
seemed to be now pretty well understood that the real differ ence of interests lay not between the large and the small,
but between the Northern and Southern States. The institution of slavery and its consequences formed the line of
discrimination."
The Committee of Detail having reported a draft of the
proposed Constitution, with a provision that no duties should
be laid on exports, nor on the migration or importation of 
45
such persons as the several States might think proper to
admit, nor prohibit such importations; the opposition to the
slave representation was renewed. When the clause respectilig representation was considered, Mr. King said he never
could agree to let slaves be imported without limitation, and
then be represented in the national legislature. Either slaves
should not be represented, or exports should be taxable. Mr.
Gouverneur Morris moved to insert the word "free" before
the word "inhabitants." Much, he said, would depend on
this point. He denounced slavery as a nefarious institution,
and the slave-trade as a defiance of the most sacred laws of
humanity; and he inquired, "What is the proposed compensation to the Northern States for a sacrifice of every principle
of right, every impulse of humanity?"  "Let it not be said,"
he remarked, "that direct taxation is to be proportioned to
representation. It is idle to suppose that the General Goverlnment can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of the
people scattered over so vast a country. They can only do
it through the medium of exports, imports, and excises."
Mr. Dayton seconded the motion.
Mr. Sherman "did not regard the admission of negroes as
liable to such insuperable objection. It was the freemen of
the Southern States who were to be represented, according to
the taxes paid by them, and the negroes are only included in
the estimate of the taxes."
Mr. Wilson thought the motion premature. An agreement to the clause under consideration would be no bar to
the object of it; and it was rejected, New Jersey alone voting
for it.
Subsequently, Mr. Dickinson moved to limit the number
of representatives to be allowed to the large States. Unless
this were done, the small States would be reduced to entire 
46
insignificance, and encouragement given to the importation
of slaves. And when the clause of the draft providing that
no duties should be laid on the importation of slaves, nor the
importation prohibited, came up, the increase of the inequal ity in the representation by means of the slave-trade, if the
three fifths clause was allowed, was not overlooked. Mr.
Luther Martin (of Maryland) proposed to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves.  "In the first place,"
he said, "as five slaves are to be counted as three freemen in
the apportionment of representation, such a clause would
leave an encouragement to this traffic. In the second place,
slaves weakened one part of the Union, which the other parts
were bound to protect; the privilege of importing them was
therefore unreasonable. And in the third place, it was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the
Constitution."
Delegates from North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia insisted, that those States would never agree to the
plan unless their right to import slaves was untouched.
Some of them intimated that if they were let alone, they
would probably of themselves stop importations. Mr. Rutledge said, if the Northern States consult their interest, they
will not oppose the increase of slaves, which will increase the
commodities of which they will become earriers.
The subject was referred to a committee, which reported a
clause restraining any prohibition of migration or importation prior to 1800, and that a tax or duty might be imposed
upon such migration or importation, at a rate not exceeding
the average of the duties laid on imports. Upon motion of
General Pinekney, opposed by Mr. Madison, the first part of
the report was amended so as to extend the term to 1808;
r 
47
and the second part of it was then amended so that the tax
or duty should not exceed ten dollars.  Mr. Sherman was
against this second part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.
Mr. King and Mr. Langdon considered this as the price of
the first part, and General Pinckney admitted that it was so.
Virginia was decidedly in favor of an immediate restriction.
I have thus presented an extended, and yet very limited,
sketch of the debates and proceedings, that you may see
how the slave-holding States relieved themselves, in the Congress of the Confederation, from taxation, (or what was in
the nature of taxation,) on account of their slaves, by transferring the basis from population to that of real estate; and
how, when the latter basis failed, by reason of a neglect to
make returns, and there was a report of a committee in favor
substantially of the former basis, -by proposing that two
slaves should be counted as one freeman, and alleging that
the labor of slaves was not of as much value as that of freemen by about that ratio, they succeeded in reducing the
slave portion of the basis of taxation to three fifths, by a
compromise; - how, in the Convention which formed the
Constitution, by insisting that there should be a representation on account of slaves, because wealth or property was a
proper subject of representation, and alleging that the labor
of a slave was of the value or nearly the value of that of a
freeman, they succeeded in obtaining a representation on
three fifths of their slaves, by another compromise, upon
which, direct taxation and representation were to go together,
the taxation being the equivalent or consideration, mainly,
which was to satisfy the non-slave-holding States for the
inequality; and how, afterwards, by insisting on an unre 
48
stricted right to import slaves, threatening something like
secession or disunion if that demand was not acceded to,
they obtained a provision prohibiting restriction for twenty
years, subject to a duty, by another compromise.
The slave-holding portion of the basis of representation
was evidently very distasteful to some of the members, even
sugar-coated as it was by taxation on the same basis; and it
was undoubtedly rendered somewhat more palatable by the
insertion of the provision by which Congress might prohibit
the importation of slaves after 1808, and thus far restrain the
extension of the inequality, while at the same time it prevented a further "defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity."
In the Convention of Massachusetts for the ratification of
the Constitution, Mr. King, explaining the section respecting
representation, is reported to have said, "It is a principle of
this Constitution that representation and taxation should go
hand in hand. This paragraph states that the number of
free persons, including those bound to service for a term of
years, and including Indians not taxed, three fifths of all
other persons. These persons are the slaves. By this rule
are representation and taxation to be apportioned. And it
was adopted because it was the language of all America."
And to make the idea of taxation by numbers more intelligible, he said, "five negro children of South Carolina are to
pay as much tax as the three governors of New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, and  Connecticut."   Another member  (Mr.
Nasson) wished "the honorable gentleman had considered
this question on the other side, as it would then appear that
this State will pay as great a tax for three children in the
cradle, as any of the Southern States will for five hearty
working negro men." 
49
In answer to a suggestion that Congress may draw their
revenue wholly by direct taxes, it was said, "They cannot
be induced to do so; it is easier for them to have resort to
the impost and excise; but it will not do to overburden the
impost, because that would promote smuggling, and be dangerous to the revenue; therefore Congress should have the
power of applying, in extraordinary cases, to direct taxation."
One of the speakers in the Convention at Boston, is reported to have said: -
"There is another matter concerning which we hear a great deal in these
days of excitement,- and, allow me to say, a great deal which, in my judgment, is mischievous. Men who have accustomed themselves to speak without reverence to the Constitution of their country, which no man who is fit
for a Republican can, are constantly attempting to make us believe that the
provision of the Constitution which determines the representation in the
House of Representatives, is a grant of enhanced power to the slave States
over that which is accorded in the council of the nation to the free States.
And those repeated attempts are not always in vain, and there are many
good men and true who really believe it. Now, what is the provision concerning which all this hue and cry is made, and on account of the existence
of which these designing men are endeavoring to make us believe that the
Constitution has established an oligarchy in the South? Here it is:
"'Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union, according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.'
"This is the whole provision, and many men having this alone presented
to them, think that the addition to the enumeration of three fifths of the
slaves, is a grant of increased power to the slave State. But he who will
examine the whole of the Constitution, in all those parts which have reference to representation from the several States, will see that, instead of being
a grant, it is a limitation of power.
" Strike this' obnoxious' provision out, and see what would be the effect
of that insane proceeding. The immediate and the only effect would be,
7 
that the slave States would be entitled to and would have more representatives than they now have, while the free States would have less than they
now have.  Is that what these philanthropic gentlemen want?
"The Constitution provides,- and I suppose that we shall all agree that
it ought to provide,- that representation should be based upon population.
Strike out the'oligarchical provision,' as I have heard it called, and the
enumeration in the slave States would include not only three fifths, but the
whole of the slave population.'
On reading this, I was very much at a loss to understand
wherein the misrepresentation consisted, and how, if the provision cited were struck out, the Constitution would provide
that representation should be based upon population.   A
friend suggested that the meaning must be, that if that part
of the provision which gives the representation for three fifths
of the slaves, which is the "obnoxious" or "oligarchical provision," were struck out, such would be the result. But that
would not give a representation upon the whole number of
slaves, for in that case the numbers upon which the representation is to be apportioned, would be determined by the
whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service, and excluding Indians not taxed.   If the whole
clause respecting the mode in which the numbers are to be
determined was struck out, the Constitution would be a different thing from what it is,- which would be true, in fact,
if you strike out the whole, or any substantial part, of the
provision. What it would have been, if not what it is, no
one can say. It is very clear, however, from the debates, that
it would not have contained a clause by which the whole
number of slaves would be included in the ratio of representation. The position, therefore, that an increased representation, and an unequal representation, is granted to the
slave States, seems not to be impeached by this argument.
50 
51
I need not say to you that, under this provision of the
Constitution, taxation and representation have not gone
"hand in hand,"-  no substantial equivalent having been
received for the inequality of the representation. The clause,
so far as respects representation, has been always active and
operative, and the inequality is constantly increasing; but as
it regards taxation it has been almost a dead letter, quite so
for more than a third of a century, there having been no
direct taxation during that time.
Whether the basis be regarded as one founded upon population, or property, there is an inequality which is contrary to
the spirit of our free institutions.
The inequality exists also in the election of President and
Vice-President. At the coming election, the slave-holding
States will have twenty-one electoral votes, by reason of their
slave population;  the  Constitution providing  that  "each
State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof
may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number
of senators and representatives to which the State may be
entitled in the Congress." But for this unequal vote, Mr.
Buchanan's chance would be the mere shadow of a shade.
But this inequality is not a subject of complaint, with any
view to redress or change. The people of the non-slave-holding States ratified the Constitution, with these provisions as
parts of it. If they made a bad compromise, it is no more
than they have done in other instances. Let it stand. Let
those entitled have the benefit of it; but it is proper that
these matters should be brought into view, when the account
of the wrongs and injustice done to the slave-holding States
is audited for the purpose of ascertaining the balance. There
is no design on the part of the Republican party, so far as I 
am aware, to attempt an escape from the due operation of
these constitutional provisions.
But the inquiry arises, What is the extent and limit of this
constitutional provision authorizing a representation based
upon three fifths of the slave population? This is a question
upon which I proceed to speak, and but for which I should
not be here.
The question is, whether all the States now in the Union,
and those which may be admitted hereafter, are entitled by
this constitutional provision to a representation based upon
three fifths of their slaves? or whether, in its legitimate
operation, it is confined to States formed out of territory
embraced within the limits of the United States at the time
the Constitution was adopted? If the latter, then two of
the twenty-one representatives from the slave-holding States,
who have their seats upon that part of the basis, are not
there in pursuance of the Constitution, but upon some other
foundation; and any other States which may hereafter be
formed from the territory acquired or annexed since the adoption of the Constitution, will not be entitled to this unequal
representation, even if they are slave States. If this be true,
two electoral votes, which will probably be cast in the pending election, (one in Louisiana, derived entirely from her
slave population, and one in Missouri, derived from her slave
population, and a fraction of the free population too small to
have given her a representative, but for the aid of the slave
basis,) will be cast by reason of the unequal and wrongful
representation from those States; and will be, therefore, of
themselves, so far as they may affect the election, a political
injustice. And if all this be so, then the Republican oppo
52 
53
sition to the extension of slavery, as the most effectual way
of preventing further injustice, which it may not be easy to
escape if the extension is permitted, is neither sectional nor
fanatical, but is founded upon the Constitution itself.
There is something in the history of the debates upon the
Constitution, which might tend to show that this provision
might have been confined to those States which were in existence when the Constitution was formed, through a power
to annex a condition to the admission of any new slave State
by which it should be entitled to representation upon its free
population alone. A provision reported by the Committee of
Detail, in connection with the clause authorizing the admission of new States, in these words, "If the admission be
consented to, the new State shall be admitted on the same
terms with the original States," was struck out by nine votes
to two, for the reason expressed, that circumstances might
arise which would render it inconvenient to admit new States
on terms of equality, and that the legislature should be left
free.
It is not necessary, however, that I should now rely upon
that, in order to sustain my position. I am willing to concede, for the sake of the argument, that this provision respecting representation embraces all States which might lawfully
be included in the Union, in pursuance of the provisions of
the Constitution, as understood by the framers of it, and construed by those best qualified to determine its scope and
meaning; and more than this cannot be required. It would
be subversive of the first principles of law to extend the compromise respecting representation beyond the constitutional
limits for the admission of States into the Union.  For
instance, suppose the Constitution had provided that the
States mentioned in it, with Vermont and the five States to 
54
be formed north-west of the Ohio, might be included in the
Union, but that no State should be divided, and that no
other State should be admitted; then the provision respecting representation would regulate the proportion of all the
States which might thus be included, but could not lawfully
and fairly be construed to extend farther. And if, contrary
to the supposed provision respecting the admission of States,
a foreign State should be admitted into the Union by a
major vote of Congress, or by treaty, or in any other way
except an amendment of the Constitution, the State so admitted would not be within the constitutional provision
respecting representation, but must depend for her representation in the national councils upon some other authority
than the Constitution.
We come, then, to the question, What States might be
admitted into the Union, as formed by the Constitution, under
and according to the provisions of that instrument?
Although Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the
Convention, the Constitution made provision for her as if she
had been represented. The original thirteen States, therefore,
were entitled to membership, and the ratification of nine of
them was sufficient for its establishment among the States so
ratifying. The third section of the fourth article is in these
words: -
" New States may be admitted by the Congress into the Union; but no
new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other
State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or
parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress."
It may be said that this language is broad enough to include the admission of all the globe; but it is quite clear that 
such could not have been the intent of those who framed or
of those who adopted it; and the well-settled rule of construction, applicable to organic as well as other laws, is, that
in determining the meaning, the context, subject-matter,
spirit, and reason of the law, are to be taken into consideration. New States may be admitted. What new States?
We understand from other parts of the Constitution, that a
State, to be admitted, must have a republican form of government. Here is one qualification of the general terms not
contained in the section itself. If we turn to the introductory
clause or preamble of the Constitution, we find not only by
whom, but for what purposes, the Constitution was framed.
" We, the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and
our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America." This looks very much like
another qualification. The United States then existed as a
nation, with limits defined by the treaty of peace. It was
not established to-form a more perfect union with the inhabitants of Great Britain, or those of any other foreign State
and their posterity; and if not, the provision for admission is
not broad enough to embrace them.  All those for whom it
was framred may be included.  Those for whom it was not
framed are not within the clause of admission.   The argu ment, however, does not rest on that alone. Fortunately the
means for determining this question are accessible; but the
inquiry may embrace a few facts in the previous history of
the country. When the colonial charters were granted, the
knowledge of the geography of this country was very limited,
and perhaps there were other reasons for the extent of some
55 
of the grants. Connecticut, Carolina, and Georgia extended
west to the South Sea, and Virginia extended from sea to
sea west and north-west. Upon the Declaration of Independence, the new States claimed according to the colonial
charters.  The treaty of peace was made with "the United
States" in 1783, and specified their boundaries, the westerly
line being the middle of the Mississippi; and of course the
limits of the States on that side were defined by that boundary.  Nearly all the country west of the mountains was at
that time a wilderness, and the land in possession of the
Indians, but the several States claimed the portion of it which
was within their charter limits. Other States having no vacant
lands, insisted that these uninhabited lands, having been acquired by the common means and common expenditure of
blood and treasure, ought to belong to all, and be applied to
the discharge of the debt incurred by the war. Maryland
declined to ratify the Articles of Confederation for a long
period, the principal reason being that the lands were not
thus appropriated. In 1780, New York passed an act which
was completed in March, 1781, by a formal instrument executed by her delegates in Congress, defining her limits, and
ceding to the use and benefit of such States as should
become parties to the Confederation, all her claims northward
and westward of those limits.
In 1783, Virginia authorized a conveyance to the United
States in Congress assembled of all her right to the territory
northwest of the Ohio, which was perfected in 1784, by a
transfer of all her right, title, and claim, as well of soil as of
jurisdiction. With the exception of certain lands reserved,
this cession was to the same uses as that of New York. The
act contained a condition that the territory so ceded should
be formed into States containing a suitable extent of terri
56 
57
tory, not less than one hundred, nor more than one hundred
and fifty miles square, or as near thereto as circumstances
will admit; and that the States so formed shall be distinct
republican States, and admitted members of the Federal
Union, having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and
independence as the other States."
In 1785, Massachusetts made a cession of certain of her
claims. And in 1786, Connecticut did likewise.
At the time of the formation of the Constitution, Vermont
was desirous of admission into the Union, which was opposed by New York, on account of her claim to the territory
claimed by Vermont.
As early as 1782 a petition from Kentucky asserted the
right of Congress to create new States, and prayed that the
power might be asserted in their behalf; and some measures
had been taken by Virginia with a view to the erection of a
separate State west of the mountains.
There had been a petition likewise from inhabitants of
Western Pennsylvania, complaining of grievances, and praying that Congress would give a sanction to their independence, and admit them into the Union.
The people of the District of Maine had contemplated a
separate government; and the erection of another in Western North Carolina was foreseen.
It was under these circumstances that the question came
up in the Convention, what provision should be made in the
Constitution relative to the admission of new States.
The 10th article of the plan proposed by Mr. Randolph
was a resolution, "that provision ought to be made for the
admission of States lawufully arising within the limits of the
United States, whether from a voluntary junction of territory
8 
58
or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the
National Legislature less than the whole."
This resolution was agreed to, and was afterwards incorporated into a report of a Committee on Resolutions.   The
report, with this resolution in the same words, was afterwards referred to the Committee of Detail.
Thus far this matter had formed the subject of little or no
debate.
In the course of the discussions upon representation, "Mr.
Gerry wished before the question should be put that the
attention of the House might be turned to the dangers apprehended from Western States. He was for admitting them
on liberal terms, but not for putting ourselves into their
hands. They will, if they acquire power, like all men, abuse
it. They will oppress commerce, and drain our wealth into
the Western country. To guard against these consequences,
he thought it necessary to limit the number of new States to
be admitted into the Union, in such a manner that they
should never be able to outnumber the Atlantic States." He
accordingly moved, "that in order to secure the liberties of
the States already confederated, the number of Representatives in the first branch, of the States which shall hereafter
be established, shall never exceed in number the Representatives from such of the States as shall accede to this Confederation."
Mr. King seconded the motion. Mr. Sherman thought
there was no probability that the number of future States
would exceed that of the existing States.   If the event
should ever happen, it was too remote to be taken into consideration at that time. Besides, we are providing for our
posterity, for our children and our grandchildren, who would 
59
be as likely to be citizens of new Western States as of the
old States. On this consideration alone, we ought to make
no such discrimination as was proposed by the motion."
In the Report of the Committee of Detail, the plan as
matured at that time was introduced in these words, namely:
— " We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c. (reciting the names of the thirteen States) do
ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution for
the government of ourselves and our posterity."
The 17th article of the plan was: -"New  States, lawfully constituted or established within the limits of the United
States, may be admitted by the legislature into this government; but to such admission the consent of two thirds of
the members present in each House shall be necessary. If a
new State shall arise within the limits of any of the present
States, the consent of the legislatures of such States shall
also be necessary to its admission. If the admission be consented to, the new States shall be admitted on the same
terms with the original States. But the legislature may
make conditions with the new States concerning the public
debt which shall then be subsisting."
When this article was taken up for consideration, a long
debate arose, and divers amendments were proposed.
Mr. Gouverneur Morris moved to strike out the last two
sentences, namely: -"If the admission be consented to, the
new States shall be admitted on the same terms with the original States. But the legislature may make conditions with the
new States concerning the public debt which shall be then subsisting." He did not wish to bind down the legislature to
admit Western States on the terms here stated.
Mr. Madison opposed the motion, insisting that the Western States neither would nor ought to submit to a union 
60
which degraded them from an equal rank with the other
States.
Col. Mason. If it were possible by just means to prevent
emigration to the Western country, it might be good policy;
but go the people will, as they find it for their interest; and
the best policy is to treat them with that equality which will
make them friends and not enemies.
Mr. Gouverneur Morris did not mean to discourage the
growth of the Western country. He knew that to be impossible. He did not wish, however, to throw power into their
hands.
Mr. Sherman was for fixing an equality of privileges.
Mr. Langdon was in favor of the motion.  He did not
know but circumnstances might arise which would render it
inconvenient to admit new States on terms of equality.
Mr. Williamson was for leaving the legislature free.   The
existing small States enjoy an equality now, and for that
reason are admitted to it in the Senate. This reason is not
applicable to new Western States.
On Mr. Gouverneur Morris's motion for striking out, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia aye, - nine; Maryland and Virginia no, - two.
After Mr. Morris's amendment striking out the provision
for equality had prevailed, he moved as a substitute for the
residue of the article, "New States may be admitted by the
legislature into the Union; but no new State shall be erected
within the limits of any of the present States, without the
consent of the legislature of such State, as well as the general legislature." The first part to " Union," was agreed to
nem. con. Mr. L. Martin opposed the latter part.  "Nothing,"
he said, "would so alarm the limited States, as to make the 
61
consent of the larger States, claiming the Western lands,
necessary to the establishment of new States within their
limits." The motion was agreed to, six to five. The article
coming before the House as amended, Mr. Sherman thought
it unnecessary. The Union could not dismember a State
without its consent.
Dr. Johnson suggested, that as the clause stood, Vermont
would be subjected to New York, contrary to the faith
pledged by Congress.
Mr. Sherman moved to postpone, to take up this amendmerit, and moved as an amendment, "The legislature shall
have power to admit other States into the Union; and new
States to be formed by the division or junction of States now
in the Union, with the consent of the legislature of such
States."   Mr. Madison adds, [" The first part was meant for
Vermont, to secure its admission,"] which shows clearly that
the general language used did not refer to foreign territory;
as is shown in fact by the whole of the debate.
Mr. Gouverneur Morris's substitute, after being amended,
was agreed to, 8 to 3,- New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland in
the negative.
An amendment by Mr. Dickinson was adopted without
count, and the article was thus framed substantially as it
now stands in Art. IV. sect. 3 of the Constitution, "Congress" being substituted for "legislature," with some change
in the arrangement of the sentence.
In all this long debate, and among the various propositions
to amend, I find nothing indicating a supposition on the part
of any member, that provision was to be made for the admission of a State formed from territory not then within the
limits of the United States. The general clause providing
that new States may be admitted into the Union, passed, as 
620
we have seen, without dissent, which it could not have done
had there been a supposition that it contemplated the possibility of the addition of foreign territory. That was intended
to provide for the admission of Vermont, and perhaps to
cover the admission of the States to be formed from the territory northwest of the Ohio, although it would seem to have
been understood that the ordinance adopted by Congress
July 13, 1787, (about six weeks prior to these proceedings in
the Convention,) had settled the affairs of that territory by
a fundamental law and compact, so that no provision in the
Constitution was necessary in reference to that territory.
The residue of the article related to cases of new States to
be formed from the territory of the existing States, by
division, and perhaps by the junction of parts of States, - a
main part of the controversy being, whether Congress should
have power to do this without the consent of the States to
be affected. No mention was made of Canada, for whose
admission into the Confederation provision was made in the
Articles of Confederation. It was quite proper to give her
an opportunity to join in the Revolution. As she had not
done so, the Constitution was not made for her.
It appears that the provision for the admission of new
States, extended only to the territory then embraced in the
United States; not only from the preamble, but because it
was framed with reference to the existing state of things;
because all its language is satisfied without extending it to
foreign territory; because it would have been regarded as
indecorous, if not hostile, toward Great Britain and Spain,
had provision been made for a contingent admission, founded
on anticipated dismemberm-nents of their territory; because
Canada, for the admission of which provision was made in
the Articles of Confederation, is left out; because the debates 
63
show conclusively that no foreign territory was within the
contemplation of the Convention, - and it is believed that
no suggestion of a construction which would include such
territory, is to be found in the debates in the State conventions; and because any provision for admitting foreign territory would have been fatal to the Constitution. No one conversant with the history of the Constitution can doubt it.
The jealousy of the Western States which were to be admitted shows this.
But this is not all upon this point. The construction of
the Constitution nearest to a contemporaneous one, clearly
held the provision not to extend to foreign territory.
Upon the adoption of the Constitution, the settlement of
the Western country was more rapid, and the importance
of the navigation of the Mississippi became more and more
apparent.
An arrangement was had with Spain respecting the navigation through her territory, and for a deposit of merchandise at New Orleans.
Difficulties, and jealousy, and excitement arose, and there
was a proclamation by the Intendant at New Orleans, that
the right of deposit no longer existed; whether with or without the direction of his government is now immaterial.
Spain about that time ceded Louisiana to France by the
treaty of St. Ildefonso, and a negotiation was opened with
France for the purchase of the Island of Orleans and the territory eastward.
Mr. Madison, then Secretary of State, sent to Mr. Livingston, our minister to France, the project of a treaty, the 7th
article of which is as follows:
" Art. 7. To incorporate the inhabitants of the hereby ceded territory 
64
with the citizens of the United States on an equal footing, being a provision
which cannot now be made, it is to be expected from the character and
policy of the United States that such incorporation will take place without
unnecessary delay. In the mean time they shall be secure in their persons
and property, and in the enjoyment of their religion."
While this matter was under consideration, the danger of
a war between France and England became imminent; and
Bonaparte, probably convinced that he could not hold Louisiana if war was declared, proposed to sell the whole of it,
and no less.
Mr. Livingston, and Mr. Monroe who joined him about
that time, were not authorized to make such a purchase.
But the matter admitted of no delay; an answer to the proposition must be given forthwith; and they took the responsibility, and negotiated a treaty, April 30, 1803, for the purchase,
which contained this as its third article, namely: -
"Art. 3. The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in
the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according
to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the
rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in
the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment
of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess."
The article, it is perceived, is somewhat more definite than
that contained in Mr. Madison's draft of a treaty for the
smaller cession. It is not, perhaps, to be inferred with certainty from the article prepared by Mr. Madison, that he
entertained a decided opinion that Louisiana could not be
admitted into the Union as a State without an amendment
of the Constitution; but upon the conclusion of the treaty,
Mr. Jefferson's opinion to that effect was distinctly ex 
pressed. In a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas, Sept. 7, 1803,
he said:
"Whatever Congress shall think it necessary to do, should be done with
as little debate as possible, and particularly so far as respects the constitutional difficulty. I am aware of the force of the observations you make on
the power given by the Constitution to Congress, to admit new States into the
Union, without restraining the subject to the territory then constituting the
United States. But when I consider that the limits of the United States are
precisely fixed by the treaty of 1783, that the Constitution expressly declares
itself to be made for the United States, I cannot help believing the intention
was not to permit Congress to admit into the Union new States, which should
be formed out of the territory for which, and under whose authority alone,
they were then acting. I do not believe it was meant that they might
receive England, Ireland, Holland, &c. into it, which would be the case on
your construction. When an instrument admits two constructions, the one
safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that
which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from
the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction
which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in the
possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by
construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the
grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no
Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of
the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies and delineates the
operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers
necessary to carry these into execution....  I confess, then, I think
it important, in the present case, to set an example against broad construction, by appealing for new power to the people. If, however, our friends
shall think differently, certainly I shall acquiesce with satisfaction; confiding, that the good sense of our country will correct the evil of construction
when it shall produce ill effects."
Other letters written by him are to the same effect.
The treaty was ratified by the Senate, at a special session
of Congress, Oct. 20, 1803. The ratification was in executive session, and I have found no sketch of the debate. The
9
65 
66
subject came before the Senate soon after, on a bill to authorize a creation of stock, for the purpose of carrying the treaty
into effect. A few extracts from that debate will show the
opinion upon this subject.
Mr. Pickering said:
"Neither the President and Senate, nor the President and Congress, are
competent to such an act of incorporation. He believed that our administration admitted that this incorporation could not be effected without an
amendment of the Constitution; and he conceived that this necessary
amendment could not be made in the ordinary mode by the concurrence of
two thirds of both Houses of Congress, and the ratification by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States. He believed the assent of
each individual State to be necessary for the admission of a foreign country
as an associate in the Union; in like manner as in a commercial house, the
consent of each member would be necessary to admit a new partner into
the company; and whether the assent of every State to such an indispensable amendment were attainable, was uncertain."
Mr. Tracy:
"Congress have no power to admit new foreign States into the Union,
without the conisent of the old partners.  The article of the Constitution, if
any person will take the trouble to examine it, refers to domestic States
only, and not at all to foreign States; and it is unreasonable to suppose that
Congress should, by a majority only, admit new foreign States, and swallow
up, by it, the old partners, when two thirds of all the members are made
requisite for the least alteration in the Constitution. The words of the Constitution are completely satisfied, by a construction which shall include only
the admission of domestic States, who were all parties to the Revolutionary
war, and to the compact; and the spirit of the association seems to embrace
no other.
"But it is said, that this third article of the treaty only promises an introduction of the inhabitants of Louisiana into this Union, as soon as the principles of the federal government will admit; and that, if it is unconstitutional, it is void; and, in that case, we ought to carry into effect the
constitutional part. 
67
" I shall be asked, sir, what can be done?  To  this question I have two
answers; one is, that nothing unconstitutional can or ought to be done; and
if it be ever so desirable that we acquire foreign States, and the navigation
of the Mississippi, &c., no excuse can be formed for violating the Constitution; and if all those desirable effects cannot take place without violating
it, they must be given up. But another and more satisfactory answer can
be given. I have no doubt but we can obtain territory either by conquest
or compact, and hold it, even all Louisiana, and a thousand times more if
you please, without violating the Constitution. We can hold territory; but
to admit the inhabitants into the Union, to make citizens of them, and
States, by treaty, we cannot constitutionally do; and no subsequent act of
legislation, or even ordinary amendment to our Constitution, can legalize
such measures. If done at all, they must be done by universal consent of
all the States or partners to our political association. And this universal
consent, I am positive, can never be obtained to such a pernicious measure as
the admission of Louisiana, of a world, and such a world, into our Union.
This would be absorbing the Northern States, and rendering them as insignificant in the Union as they ought to be, if, by their own consent, the measure should be adopted."
Mr. John Quincy Adams:
"For my own part, I am free to confess that the third article, and more
especially the seventh, contain engagements placing us in a dilemma, from
which I see no possible mode of extricating ourselves but by an amendment,
or rather an addition to the Constitution.  The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Tracy), both on a former occasion, and in this day's debate, appears to me to have shown this to demonstration. But what is this more
than saying that the President and Senate have bound the nation to engagements which require the cooperation of more extensive powers than theirs,
to carry them into execution? Nothing is more common in the negotiations
between nation and nation, than for a minister to agree to and sign articles
beyond the extent of his powers. This is what your ministers, in the very
case before you, have confessedly done.  It is well known that their powers
did not authorize them to conclude this treaty; but they acted for the benefit of their country; and this House, by a large majority, has advised to
the ratification of their proceedings."
I 
Mr. Taylor, of North Carolina, who was in favor of the
treaty, said:
"The territory is ceded by the first article of the treaty.  It will no
longer be denied that the United States may constitutionally acquire territory. The third article declares that'the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States.' And these
words are said to require the territory to be erected into a State. This they
do not express, and the words are literally satisfied by incorporating them
into the Union as a territory, and not as a State. The Constitution recognizes, and the practice warrants, an incorporation of a territory and its
inhabitants into the Union, without admitting either as a State."
Mr. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, who also supported the
treaty:
"But if gentlemen are not satisfied with any of the expositions which
have been given of the third article of the treaty, is there not one way, at
least, by which this territory can be held? Cannot the Constitution be so
amended, (if it should be necessary,) as to embrace this territory?  If the
authority to acquire foreign territory be not included in the treaty-making
power, it remains with the people; and in that way all the doubts and difficulties of gentlemen may be completely removed; and that, too, without
affording France the smallest ground of exception to the literal execution
on our part of that article of the treaty."
Mr. Wilson C. Nicholas, of Virginia, to whom the letter
of Mr. Jefferson was addressed, did not venture, against the
opinion there expressed, to contend that Louisiana could be
admitted as a State, without an amendment of the Constitution.  He said:
"If, as some gentlemen suppose, Congress possesses this power, they are
free to exercise it in the manner that they may think most conducive to the
public good. If it can only be done by an amendment to the Constitution,
it is a matter of discretion with the States whether they will do it or not;
6S
I 
69
for it cannot be done' according to the principles of the federal Constitution,' if the Congress or the States are deprived of that discretion which
is given to the first, and secured to the lasts by the Constitution. In the
third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, it is said,' new States
may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.' If Congress have the
power, it is derived from this source; for there are no other words in the
Constitution that can, by any construction that can be given to them, be
considered as conveying this power. If Congress have not this power, the
constitutional mode would be by an amendment to the Constitution."
The treaty had been the subject of a debate in the House,
a few days before. The constitutional right to acquire territory by purchase, was more strenuously questioned in the
House than in the Senate. The right to admit territory, if
acquired, was also denied.
Mr. Griswold, of New York, said: —
' It was not consistent with the spirit of the Constitution that territory
other than that attached to the United States at the time of the adoption of
the Constitution should be admitted; because at that time the persons who
formed the Constitution of the United States had a particular respect to the
then subsisting territory. They carried their ideas to the time when there
might be an extended population; but they did not carry them forward to
the time when addition might be made to the Union of a territory equal to
the whole United States, which additional territory might overbalance the
existing territory, and thereby the rights of the present citizens of the
United States be swallowed up and lost. Such a measure could not be consistent either with the spirit or the genius of the government."
Mr. Griswold, of Connecticut:
"The government of the United States was not formed for the purpose
of distributing its principles and advantages to foreign nations. It was
formed with the sole view of securing those blessings to ourselves and our
posterity. It follows from these principles that no power can reside in any 
70
public functionary to contract any engagement, or to pursue any measure,
which shall change the Union of the States....
"A new territory and new subjects may undoubtedly be obtained by conquest and by purchase; but neither the conquest nor the purchase can incorporate them into the Union. They must remain in the condition of colonies,
and be governed accordingly. The objection to the third article is not that
the province of Louisiana could not have been purchased, but that neither
this nor any other foreign nation can be incorporated into the Union by
treaty or by law; and as this country has been ceded to the United States
only under the condition of an incorporation, it results that, if the condition
is unconstitutional or impossible, the cession itself falls to the ground."
On the other hand, Mr. Smilie, of Pennsylvania, after citing the article, added:  " Now, where is the difficulty?  We are obliged to admit the inhabitants
according to theprinciples of the Constitution.  Suppose those principles
forbid their admission; then we are not obliged to admit them. This followed as an absolute consequence from the premises. There existed, however, a remedy for this case, if it should occur: for, if the prevailing opinion
shall be, that the inhabitants of the ceded territory cannot be admitted under
the Constitution as it now stands, the people of the United States can, if
they see fit, apply a remedy, by amending the Constitution so as to authorize
their admission. And if they do not choose to do this, the inhabitants may
remain in a colonial state."
Mr. Nicholson, of Maryland:  " Whether the United States, as a sovereign and independent empire, had
a right to acquire territory, was one question, but whether they could admit
that territory into the Union, upon an equal footing with the other States,
was a question of a very different nature.  Upon this latter point, he meant
to offer no opinion, because he did not consider it before the House. When
the subject should come properly into discussion, he should have no objection not only to enter at large into the constitutional authority to admit the
newly acquired territory into the Union as a State, but likewise to inquire
whether this was really the spirit and intention of the third article of the
treaty? The question now before the committee was, Is it expedient to
carry this treaty into effect? 
71
Mr. Rodney, of Delaware -
" How are these people to be admitted? According to the principles of
the federal Constitution. Is it an open violation of any part of the Constitution?  No.  An express reservation is made  by those who formed the
treaty, that they must be admitted under the Constitution. Now, if admitted agreeably to the Constitution, it cannot be said to be in violation of it,
and if not in violation of it, the fears of gentlemen are groundless."
Mr. John Randolph: -
"A stipulation to incorporate the ceded country does not imply that we
are bound ever to admit them to the unqualified enjoyment of the privileges
of citizenship. It is a covenant to incorporate them into our Union- not
on the footing of the original States, or of States created under the Constitution - but to extend to them, according to the principles of the Constitution, the rights and immunities of citizens, being those rights and immunities of jury trial, liberty of conscience, &c., which every citizen may
challenge, whether he be a citizen of an individual State, or of a territory
subordinate to and dependent on those States in their corporate capacity.
In the mean time they are to be protected in the enjoyment of their existing
rights. There is no stipulation, however, that they shall ever be formed
into one or more States."
I have thus cited that part of the debates upon this subject in the Senate and House which bears directly upon this
question, for the purpose of showing, that while the right to
admit a State formed out of foreign territory was emphatically denied, no one attempted to controvert those arguments by asserting the existence of a constitutional power;
but the argument was evaded by contending that the third
article of the treaty did not stipulate for any admission as a
State. It is true that it may be inferred, from the remarks
of one or two of the friends of the administration, that personally they were ready to assert that the territory acquired 
72
could be admitted, but the argument was suffered to go by
default.
Upon the question, very much discussed in the preceding
debate, whether the United States possessed a constitutional
power to acquire territory by purchase, permit me to say that
I have no doubt that such a power exists in certain cases as
an incident to the powers expressly granted. The right to
make war may involve a right of conquest as an incident.
It does not follow that the subject-matter of the conquest is
to become one of the States of the Union. Nor is it by any
means to be concluded, that because the United States may
acquire territory by conquest, they may acquire it by purchase in any and every case and for every purpose. The
United States have no right to purchase territory merely for
sale again. But the purchase may be made as an incident
to the power to regulate commerce, embracing the power to
provide for the necessities of commerce. On this principle,
the arrangement with Spain was lawful; and a purchase for
the purpose of the free navigation of the river, and for a place
of deposit and transhipment, was within the just constitutional powers of the government.   If this could not be
effected without the purchase of the whole of Louisiana, I
d(lo not doubt the right to acquire that territory, and then to
sell any part of it which was not necessary for the purpose
for which it was required, or to retain it as a territory. But
all that is far from proving a right on the part of Congress to
admit any portion of it as a State.
Along with the right to acquire territory is the right to
govern it. I shall not detain you with an argument to show
this. It results as a necessity almost; as a right, certainly,
proved upon sound principles, and shown by a uniform prac 
73
tice of this government up to the present time; not even
abandoned at the present day.
Nor shall I stop to show that the stipulation in the treaty,
that the inhabitants of the ceded territory should be incorporated into the Union, had no relation to those parts of the
territory in which at the time there were no civilized inhabitants, and gave no rights to their future inhabitants. France
had no intention and could have no desire to provide for the
comfort and security of persons who, half a century afterwards, should emigrate from the States and settle in the
unsettled portion of the country which she ceded. It was
very clearly shown in the debate in 1803 that the treaty-making power could not stipulate for the admission of a State,
so as to require its admission. But if it could, the third
article of the treaty did not extend to the "howling wilderness," nor does the fact that slaves then existed in Louisiana
show any right now to hold them in Kansas.
The question whether a State formed out of territory
acquired since the adoption of the Constitution, could be
admitted by Congress, came before that body again in 181011, on the application of Louisiana for admission. - Notwithstanding the opinions of Mr. Jefferson and others, the dominant party did not see fit to propose an amendment of the
Constitution.
The success of the application was a foregone conclusion,
b    u     t      the minority were not willing to yield a constitutional
principle without an attempt to maintain it; and the friends
of the measure were therefore compelled to contend for the
power. The attempt to maintain the doctrine even at that
late day, and under such circumstances, is to have its full
weight. Unfortunately for the argument, however, the rea
10 
74
sons given tend either to prove nothing, or to prove the converse of the proposition which they are adduced to support.
Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee:  " We have been told by that gentleman that though States may be admitted into the Union, no territory which did not belong to the original States
can be admitted to be a State. I, said Mr. R., do solemnly protest against
this doctrine, and do deny its constitutionality. It is with States as with
individuals; if an individual, the head of a family, purchases a farm adjoining that on which he lives and resides, and probably (?) acquires all the right
and title thereto, will any one deny it to be his? Will any one say that he
has not power to incorporate it with his former farm, so that both shall be
one, or in other words, that purchased with the other shall be but one? It
is believed no one will say so.  The purchaser, Sir, can do more  he can
place his son or sons thereon, and although so placed, and out of their
father's house, they will remain belonging to the family. The United States,
a sovereign, have power to purchase adjacent territory."
The Honorable gentleman failed to remember that the
owner of a farm is not created by a written constitution for
certain limited purposes.
Mr. Gholson, of Virginia: -
"In this delegation of power I can perceive nothing to warrant the inference that it is confined to such territory only as the United States then possessed, or that it excludes the incorporation into the Union of subsequent
acquisitions. Indeed this is altogether a novel doctrine, and all the interpretations of the Constitution have been contrary to it. Upon examination, I
presume it would prove too much even for its advocate. For if the construction insisted on would exclude Orleans from the Union, it would likewise
exclude the Mississippi Territory, since the latter as well as the former was
acquired by the United States posterior to the adoption of the Constitution;
and the gentleman has not applied his doctrine to the Mississippi Territory;
nor will it, I imagine, be attempted to be shown that the Mississippi is to be 
shut out of the Union, contrary to our engagements to Georgia, when she
ceded to the United States that territory."
But Georgia was within the limits of the United States,
and the territory ceded by her therefore not foreign territory.
Mr. R. M. Johnson, of Kentucky, after reciting the third
article of the treaty -
"We are thus solemnly bound by compact to admit this Territory into the
Union as a State, as soon as possible, consistent with the Constitution of the
United States. What principle of the Constitution will be violated by their
admission into the Union as a State? In fact, we are bound by the principles of the Constitution; we are bound to the people of the United States;
we are bound by conscience, and we are bound by a still more sacred tie to
Him who gave us independence, to extend the blessings of liberty to these
people whenever it is practicable."
Mr. Macon, as cited by Mr. Quincy, said: -
" If this article had not territories without the limits of the old United
States to act upon, it would be wholly without meaning. Because the ordinance of the old Congress had secured the right to the States within the old
United States, and a provision for that object, in the new Constitution, was
wholly unnecessary."
Mr. Bibb cited the first part of the clause, "New States
may be admitted into the Union," and said there was a
general power granted, and what followed showed two limitations upon it, and, according to his rule, "the expression of
these two excluded all idea of any other."- Whereas, in
truth, the limitations applying solely to territory within the
United States, show the scope and intent of the general
clause to which they are attached.  If that had been in
75
1. 
76
tended to be universal, there would probably have been some
]imitations without as well as within.
Mr. Poindexter, delegate from Mississippi, argued that
other territory than that belonging to the United States at
the time of the adoption might be admitted, because it had
been the constant practice to annex Indian territory to the
old States, and to form new States of lands purchased from
different tribes of Indians in the United States,- alleging
that they were foreign powers; not considering that the
statement itself showed that the lands were within the United
States, and that the political doctrine is that the Indians
have only a usufructuary right.
Mr. Wright, of Maryland, urged that Vermont was not a
member of the Confederation, nor of the Convention; that
she therefore was not one of the United States; was foreign
as to them, and she had been admitted, and correctly so, for
a long period; forgetting to remember that the territory was
claimed by New York, and some of it by New Hampshire,
and that it was within the limits of the United States, as
defined by the treaty of peace. He contended further, that
as the admission of Canada into the Confederation was provided for in the Articles, it could not be doubted that she
might be received as a new State by becoming independent,
or by purchase; whereas, as has been already suggested, the
reason why, after the peace, Canada should have been intentionally excluded from any admission, is quite apparent.
Mr. Wheaton of Massachusetts, and Mr. Gold of New
York, denied the right to admit. And Mr. Quincy, who now,
at a patriarchal age, contends for constitutional freedom with
the vigor and ardor of youth, made a most eloquent argument
against the admission, in the introductory part of which he
I 
77
uttered the memorable declaration, the latter part of which,
slightly changed, furnished for a long period, a sort of political
war-cry for his opponents: —
"I am compelled to declare it as my deliberate opinion, that, if this bill
passes, the bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved; that the States which
compose it are free from their moral obligations, and that, as it will be the
right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to prepare definitely for a separation- amicably if they can, violently if they must."
I should not do justice to the subject, if some further extracts from that speech were not presented:
" I think it may be made satisfactorily to appear not only that the terms
'new States' in this article did mean political sovereignties to be formed
within the original limits of the United States, as has just been shown, but,
also, negatively, that it did not intend new political sovereignties, with territorial annexations, to be created without those original limits. This appears
first from the very tenor of the article. All its limitations have respect to
the creation of States, within the original limits. Two States shall not be
joined; no new State shall be erected, within the jurisdiction of any other
State, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned, as
well as of Congress. Now, had foreign territories been contemplated, had
the new habits, customs, manners, and language of other nations been in tho
idea of the framers of this Constitution, would not some limitation have been
devised, to guard against the abuse of a power, in its nature so enormous,
and so obviously, when it occurred, calculated to excite just jealousy among
the States, whose relative weight would be so essentially affected by such an
infusion at once of a mass of foreigners into their Councils, and into all the
rights of the country? The want of all limitation of such power would be
a strong evidence, were others wanting, that the powers, now about to be
exercised, never entered into the imagination of those thoughtful  and  prescient men, who constructed the fabric. But there is another most powerful
argument against the extension of this article to embrace the right to create
States without the original limits of the United States, deducible from the
utter silence of all debates at the period of the adoption of the Federal
'N 
78
Constitution, touching the power here proposed to be usurped.  If ever there
was a time, in which the ingenuity of the greatest men of an age was taxed
to find arguments in favor of and against any political measure, it was at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution. All the faculties of the human
mind were, on the one side and the other, put upon their utmost stretch, to
find the real and imaginary blessings or evils likely to result from the proposed measure. Now I call upon the advocates of this bill to point out, in
all the debates of that period, in any one publication, in any one newspaper
of those times, a single intimation, by friend or foe to the Constitution, approving or censuring it for containing the power, here proposed to be
usurped, or a single suggestion that it might be extended to such an object
as is now proposed. I do not say that no such suggestion was ever made.
But this I will say, that I do not believe there is such an one anywhere to be
found. Certain I am, I have never been able to meet the shadow of such a
suggestion, and I have made no inconsiderable research upon the point.
Such may exist -but until it be produced, we have a right to reason as
though it had no existence."
"But there is an argument, stronger even than all those which have been
produced, to be drawn from the nature of the power here proposed to be
exercised. Is it possible that such a power, if it had been intended to be
given by the people, should be left dependent upon the effect of general
expressions; and such, too, as were obviously applicable to another subject;
to a particular exigency contemplated at the time? Sir, what is this power
we propose now to usurp? Nothing less than a power changing all the proportion of the weight and influence possessed by the potent sovereignties
composing this Union. A stranger is to be introduced to an equal share,
without their consent. Upon a principle, pretended to be deduced from the
Constitution, this Government, after this bill passes, may and will multiply
foreign partners in power, at its own mere motion; at its irresponsible pleasure; in other words, as local interests, party passions, or ambitious views
may suggest. It is a power, that, from its nature, never could be delegated;
never was delegated; and as it breaks down all the proportions of power
guarantied by the Constitution to the States, upon which their essential
security depends, utterly annihilates the moral force of this political contract."
In the year 1832, Mr. John Quincy Adams addressed a 
79
letter to Mr. Speaker Stevenson, which was published in the
National Intelligencer. Some portions of it relate particularly to this subject. Brief paragraphs follow: -
" Had I been present, I should have voted in favor of the ratification. I
had no doubt of the power to conclude the treaty. I did vote and speak in
favor of the bill making appropriations for carrying the treaties into execution...
"But I voted against the bill' to enable the President of the United States
to take possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States,
by the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th April last, and for the temporary government thereof'  (See Biorens's United States Laws, Vol. III. p.
562, both those Acts.) My speech on the bill authorizing the creation of the
stock, may be found in the Fourth Volume of Elliot's Debates and Illustrations of the Federal Constitution, p. 258; and it points out the distinction
upon which I voted for one of those bills, and against the others....
"I believed an amendment of the Constitution indispensably necessary to
legalize the transaction; and I further believed the free and formal suffrages of the people of Louisiana themselves were as necessary for their
annexation to the Union, as those of the people of the United States. I
made a draft of an article of amendment to the Constitution, authorizing
Congress to annex to the Union the inhabitants of any purchased territory;
and of a joint resolution directing that the people of Louisiana might meet
in primary assemblies, and vote upon the question of their own union with
the United States. Of both these experiments, had Mr. Jefferson had the
courage to make them, the result was as certain as the diurnal movement of
the sun. But Mr. Jefferson did not dare to make them. He found Congress mounted to the pitch of passing those acts, without inquiring where
they acquired their authority; and he conquered his own scruples as they
had done with theirs....
"The administration, and its friends in Congress, had determined to assume and exercise all the powers of government in Louisiana, and all the
powers for annexing it to the Union, without asking questions about their
authority.
" A letter from Mr. Jefferson to Dr. Sibley has been recently published,
written June, 1803, after he had received the Louisiana treaties, in which
he clearly and unequivocally expresses the opinion that an amendment to 
80
the Constitution would be necessary in order to carry them into full execution. Yet, without any such amendment to the Constitution, Mr. Jefferson did, as President of the United States, sign all those acts for the government and taxation of the people of Louisiana, and did exercise all the
powers vested in him by them."...
And last, though not least, Mr. Webster's opinion that the
true construction of the Constitution did not authorize the
admission of States formed from foreign territory, is clearly
expressed in his speech on the exclusion of slavery from the
territories; and, I think, in others of his speeches.
I claim thus to have shown you; - by the course of the debates at the time the Constitution was formed, and afterwards;- by argument; -and by the opinions of eminent
men;-that the original and true construction of the clause
contained in it, giving power for the admission of new States,
did not authorize the admission of States formed from foreign territory; and that Louisiana, therefore, was admitted
by an act of sovereign power, under color of the Constitution, but not in pursuance of its provisions. -But she is in
the Union, and I trust will long remain there. She cannot
be put out, nor go out, except by a great political convulsion.
Congress could admit, as we see, because Congress did admit; but Congress does some other things without a constitutional warrant. That admission, like those other things,
once done, cannot be recalled; and, therefore, as to the fact
of admission itself, it is the same as if a constitutional
authority existed. And so of other States admitted since,
and coming within the principle.
But it is by no means true that all the results should follow, the same as if the admission were constitutional. The
admission is to be judged of by itself, and not by the constitutional rules which it has violated. 
81
Suppose, instead of the conclusion that Louisiana was
admitted by an act of sovereign power, it should be conceded
that she was admitted, not without constitutional warrant,
but by virtue of a construction of the third section of the
fourth article. That is shown not to have been the original
meaning nor the original construction, and therefore not the
true construction; and such new construction of that article
does not enlarge the compromise provision in relation to the
representation. The States thus admitted are admitted on
such terms as Congress shall prescribe under the new construction, so those terms do not violate the equal rights of
others; and especially the equal right of representation, to
which the other States of the Union are entitled, except so
far as equality has been surrendered by the true construction
of the clause respecting representation. - In other words, the
enlargement of the clause respecting admission, by construction, and not by the act of the people, does not enlarge
the compromise in the clause of representation, nor the application of that clause to cases for which it was not intended.
But it may be said that Louisiana and other new States
are entitled to the advantage of this slave representation by
virtue of their acts of admission, (that of Louisiana providing, that the State "shall be one, and is hereby declared to
be one of the United States of America, and admitted into
the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all
respects whatever.")  In fact a doctrine has recently been
broadly asserted which goes still farther, and denies that Congress has a right to attach an exclusion of slavery to the
admission of a State; alleging that if Congress admits a State,
it must be admitted on an equal footing with other States, and
that the whole question of slavery, so far as the States are
11 
82
concerned, is a local question and the subject of purely local
law.  It was said in the Convention at Boston:
"The government of the United States has no power either to make or
to unmake State Constitutions. Gentlemen seem to forget that the government of the United States is a government with limited and defined powers
- and that this whole question of slavery is, so far as the States are concerned,
a local question and the subject of purely local law. If Congress admit a
State at all, it must admit it on an equal footing with the other States. The
power of Congress to admit a State is the power to admit just such States as
the existing States are. The power to admit at all is acquired from an explicit provision of the Constitution, and the word State in that provision
means, and can only mean, just what the word State means wherever it
occurs in the same instrument.
"To admit a community which should not possess the same degree of
sovereignty as is possessed by the people of the existing States, would not
be to admit a State - it would be the admission of something else than a
State. But Congress may refuse to admit. Of course she may. And these
logicians without logic say if she may refuse to admit she may surely admit
with conditions. Now, sir, certainly with some conditions -but those conditions must be in regard to subjects concerning which the Constitution shall
have conferred upon Congress power in reference to the existing States of
the Union."
Upon this I remark, first, that the opinion of Mr. Webster,
to whose opinions the speaker has been supposed heretofore
to have paid some deference, is distinctly shown to have been
the other way in his speech on the admission of Texas, in
1845; in that on the exclusion of slavery, in 1848; and in
other speeches. He could have had no doubt that a condition
annexed, that slavery should be excluded, would be valid.
But I will not rely upon authority alone to controvert this
proposition.
The deed of cession by Virginia of the territory northwest 
83
of the Ohio, required that the territory ceded should be laid
out and formed into States containing a suitable extent of
territory, &c., "and that the States so formed should be dis tinct republican States, and admitted members of the Federal
Union, havin, the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and
independence as the other States." It was completed, I think,
in March, 1784.
It is stated in a paper read by Governor Coles before the
Historical Society of Pennsylvania, in June last, that a few
days after the deed of cession, at the instance of Mr. Jefferson
a committee was raised, consisting of Thomas Jeflerson of Va.,
Samuel Chase of Maryland, and David Howell of Rhode
Island, for the purpose of organizing and providing for the
government of the territory. Mr. Jefferson, as chairman of
the committee, made a report, now to be seen in the archives
of Congress, in the Department of State at Washington. It
provided, "that the territory ceded, or to be ceded by individual States to the United States,' shall be formed into distinct
States,' the names of which were given and the boundaries
defined; and the divisions thus made contemplated and embraced all the western territory lying between the Florida and
Canada lines. That is, it included the territory which had
been' ceded' to the northwest of the Ohio River, and that'to
be ceded' to the southwest of that river, or elsewhere, by individual States to the United States." There was a proviso,
that both the Territorial and State Governments should be
established on a basis, the fifth article of which was, that
after 1800 there should be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of said States, otherwise than in the punishment
of crimes, &c. On the 19th of April, on motion of Mr. Spaight
of North Carolina, this article was struck out. There were
six States in favor of the article, three against it, and one 
84
divided; but it required two thirds of the ten States voting
to adopt it. This plan of government, as thus amended,
was adopted April 2d, 1784, but no organization appears to
have been had under it.
In March, 1785, Mr. King of Massachusetts moved a similar provision, which was committed to a cornmittee, but what
further action was taken upon it does not appear.
In July, 1786, Congress recommended to Virginia, to revise her act of cession so as to empower Congress to divide
the territories into not more than five, nor less than three
"distinct republican States," which should thereafter" become
members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of
sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the original States."
Before this was done by Virginia, Congress adopted the
immortal Ordinance of July 13th, 1787, and in anticipation
of the consent of Virginia, inserted in the 5th article, a provision that there should be formed in the Territory, not less
than three, nor more than five States, the boundaries of which
should become fixed and established as soon as Virginia
should alter her act of cession. And the 6th article prohibited slavery, with a proviso by which a fugitive slave
might be reclaimed. This Ordinance passed unanimously.
On the 30th of December, 1788, Virginia passed an act,
which, after stating, by way of preamble, the recommendation
of Congress; and setting forth the passage of the Ordinance
of 1787; recited, ratified, and confirmed the fifth article of the
Ordinance;- thus complying with the recommendation.
Now, it seems quite clear, that neither Virginia nor Congress supposed that the prohibition of slavery rendered the
States to be formed under the restriction, inferior to the
other States; or in any way deprived them of "the same
rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the other 
85
States," which they were to have by the deed of cession, and
by the act of Congress requesting an alteration of it. The
only change was in limiting the number of States and estab lishing certain boundaries.
The several acts admitting the States northwest of the
Ohio, like the act respecting Louisiana, admit them "into the
Union upon an equal footing with the original States, in all
respects whatsoever." And yet slavery is for ever prohibited
there.
A prohibition of slavery, then, does not deprive a State of
its equality with the other States.
The six free States in the Northwest, will learn with some
surprise probably, that they hold any degraded rank in the
Union. Until the shining of the light which has recently
burst forth from the darkness of slavery, no one had a surmise that they were not in the Union upon "an equal footing
with the original States."
Again;-the admission of Louisiana was clogged with
divers "fundamental conditions."  It is admitted that Congress may annex "some conditions." Why not a condition
restricting slavery? What is there in this condition that renders it improper above all others?  Nothing! Nothing whatever iOn the contrary, it seems to be just the thing respecting
which, a condition should be imposed because of the difference of situation of the different States in that respect, and
the inequality of the representation. As some of them are
already prohibited from having slaves, they may well insist
that if others are admitted it shall be with the same prohibition which rests on them.   And what they may insist
on, other States are at equal liberty to contend and vote for.
But still further. The article authorizing Congress to
admit new States, does not prescribe the terms on which they 
86
shall be admitted. There is nothing, then, against the annexation of any condition which Congress pleases to attach.
Any condition, therefore, which is not in conflict with the
great principles of the republic, is admissible; and slavery,
thank God! is not yet one of those principles. The debate,
and the action of the Constitutional Convention, striking out
the restriction which had been reported, show that Congress
was intentionally left free to impose conditions upon the admission of the new States within the contemplation of the
article; and that this was designed to extend even to a restriction upon equal representation in Congress, if the case
should appear to require it. Virginia provided against the
exercise of this power of Congress to restrict slavery, in the
case of Kentucky, by her act of consent. And so did North
Carolina, in relation to Tennessee. It is quite clear, then,
that when new States are formed out of territory not within
the United States at that time, the admission may be upon
any terms which Congress sees fit to annex, if they are consistent with the existence of a republican government.   If
the admission is by an act of sovereign power not warranted
by the Constitution, the act of power will of itself determine the limits of its exercise. If it be by a new construction of a  constitutional  article,  such  construction  may
authorize an exercise of the power upon any limitations or
conditions, provided they are not in contradiction to the
express terms of the article, or to the rest of the instrument,
so as to make the Constitution at variance with itself.
It may be asked, -" If the Constitution does not confer
upon Louisiana and Missouri a right to a representation on
account of their slaves; and if the admission of a State upon
terms of equality does not give a right to hold slaves, and have
such a representation; how is it that those States have now,
kt 
87
each a representative upon the slave basis? The answer is,
that they have such representation by the last apportionment
act. Congress has seen fit to place them in the same condition as if they were within the constitutional provision.
And as the House is the judge of its own elections, they are
secure of it until the next apportionment. In fact, so long
as the apportionment stands, the House, it may be said, is
bound to recognize the right to the representation that it gives.
Congress has admitted the State. The thing is done and
the admission stands.  It cannot be repealed.  Congress
has apportioned the representation, and it stands according to
the apportionment until terminated.
Those States having had a representation founded on the
slave basis, may be unwilling to part with it hereafter; and
I, for one, am quite content that they shall retain it, upon a
compromise that there shall be no farther extension of slavery;
provided the compromise may be one which shall not be corn
promised over again.
The argument which I have thus stated respecting the constitutional right to admit new States, is of no practical value
so far as it regards the admission of the territories now belonging to the United States. Their admission is a political
necessity; and, moreover, the power has been so often exercised, that the further exertion of it in respect to the territories now acquired, may be said to be settled by construetion. But it may serve to show that no other territories
ought to be acquired for the purpose of admission. - It may
serve to show that the territories now existing, even if admitted
with slavery, will not be entitled to a representation upon the
slave basis. - It may serve to show, that if a State should be 
88
admitted under a restriction of slavery, and should afterwards
change her constitution so as to admit slavery, (which some
of the people of Illinois once attempted,) she would not
thereupon be entitled to a slave representation through a
violation of her obligations. - It may serve to show that there
is no constitutional objection to a restriction of slavery as the
condition of the admission of a State, as the very best
means of preventing further inequalities in the representation. - And it may serve to show that the Republican party
is not a fanatical party, and that their platform is not a sectional platform.
The hosts which throng upon that platform and cluster
around it, are inspired by the same devotion to civil liberty
and equal rights which immortalized the fathers in the days
of the Revolution. - The pillars of fire which go before those
hosts on their onward march, are the pillars of the Constitution. - The thunder which rolls in the light cloud over their
heads, and in its reverberations from the Atlantic and the
Pacific,- from the Gulf of Mexico and the British Provinces,
echoes back, "No  FARTHER EXTENSION OF SLAVERY! " is
good, sound, constitutional,  Whig  thunder.-  The  forked
lightning which plays along the line of their advance, is the
electricity of free principles.- And the blazonry of their banners is,'.' VICTORY FOR FREEDOM!" 
NO  T E.
PERSONAL: -As the newspapers say when they announce that
somebody is about to eat his dinner and lodge at a tavern.
As these sheets were passing through the press, I read in a speech
of Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, delivered in Faneuil Hall, October 24th,
the following:
"They charge upon our candidate the earliest suggestion of resistance to the will
of the people, the earliest qualification of the modern Republican doctrine of passive
submission to the powers that be,- not choosing to remember that from the very
same lips by which an off-hand and misconstrued remark of Mr. Fillmore has been
most severely criticized and condemned, there had previously fallen the distinct and
deliberate declaration, that'some of his father's blood was shed on Bunker Hill at
the commencement of one Revolution, and that there is a little more of the same
sort left, if it shall prove that need be, for the beginning of another.' These were
the well remembered wordsj as lately as the 2d of June last, of that learned head of
the neighboring Law School, who has felt called upon within a few weeks to quit his
official chair, and compromise the neutrality of his position, in order to arraign Mr.
Fillmore for having counselled resistance to authority; and who availed himself of
the same opportunity, if the newspaper reports are correct) to question the propriety,
and ridicule the position of Mr. Winthrop and Mr. Hiillard, at the late Whig Convention. I shall not follow his example further than to say, that I would be greatly
relieved, as a friend to the University and the Law School, if I could have as clear
a perception of the propriety of his course, as I have of that of my friend Mr. Hillard or even of my ownm." -Boston Courier, Oct. 25th.
The "well remembered words" thus repeated, form part of the
closing sentence of a speech made by me respecting the infamous as                                   12 
90
sault of Brooks upon Senator Sumner. I like them best in the con
nection in which they were originally placed, and therefore restore
them to the context, quoting a few of the words which preceded them.
"But this is not all. The felon blow which struck down the citizen and the
Senator, prostrated at the same time the privileges of the Senate and the freedom
of debate guarantied by the Constitution of the United States. It was vengeance
for the free expression of unpalatable opinions, and designed to deter others from
the exercise of their constitutional rights; and it is but the last of a series of outrages similar in character though not in degree, which have made the city of Washington a bear garden, and the capitol little better than a den of wild beasts.
"It is this blow to freedom of speech and constitutional privileges which gives
this act a painful significance, above that of any mere private assault upon a citizen,
or even upon one of those appointed to represent the interests of a sovereign State
in the Congress of the United States. It is this prostration of constitutional liberty
which has called us here at this time, and it is this which demands of us, and of all
others who respect the law, and possess a love of liberty, a careful, deliberate, unimpassioned consideration of the consequences to which such occurrences will lead
if their repetition is permitted."
"But notwithstanding all such demonstrations of approbation, it is not to be
assumed that this atrocious deed will be characterized as chivalrous, and its miserable perpetrator be hailed as a gallant son of the South, by any beyond the halls
of Congress, except a few choice spirits who should rank below the bully and the
blackguard. It is by no means to be concluded, as yet, that it will be sustained by
high-minded men of honorable standing in the Southern States. And until that
is made apparent it is not to be treated as the act of the South."
*       *       *       *        *       *       *       *        *
"In the mean time, however, with nothing of threat, and nothing of offence, let
it be made to appear in all constitutional modes, that these assemblages of the people are not matter of form; that they are not formal protests; that they are not
mere expressions of indignation, however deep; but that they are to be taken as
the exponents of an unalterable and unconquerable determination to assert and
maintain the supremacy of the law; free thought and free speech; freedom of debate and immunity therefor; at whatever cost and at all hazards.
"Let it be understood that the government of the United States must protect the
delegates who assemble in her halls of legislation, and not suffer them to be struck
down on the very spot where they are entitled to privilege, and immunity, and 
91
absolute safety. Let it be assured that no representative of Massachusetts,- that
no representative of any State in the Union,- is to be deterred by violence'from
espousing whatever opinions he may choose to espouse, from debating whenever he
may see fit to debate, or from speaking whatever he may see fit to say on the floor
of the Senate.' Let it be remembered that there are other forms of oppression
more odious than a colonial government and a Boston Port Bill, bad as they were.
The stamp act and the tea tax convulsed the civilized world. But taxation, even
without representation, is but as the small dust of the balance, when compared
with the constitutional right of freedom of debate, within the limits of parlia,
mentary law, in the halls of legislation.
"For myself, personally, I am, perhaps, known to most of you as a peaceable
citizen, reasonably conservative, devotedly attached to the Constitution, and much
too far advanced in life for gasconade; but, under present circumstances, I may be
pardoned for saying that some of my father's blood was shed on Bunker Hill, at the
commencement of one revolution, and that there is a little more of the same sort
left, if it shall prove that need be, for the beginning of another."
I am not willing to suppose that no difference has been perceived
between this expression of opinion, that, When freedom of debate in
the halls of legislation is suppressed by violence, and the government
utterly fails of being a free representative government, the time will
have arrived for a revolution, which shall restore it to its former
purity, -and that declaration of Mr. Fillmore, substantially, that,
The election of the candidate of one party, according to all constitutional modes and forms, will cause a dissolution of the Union, and
should be regarded as furnishing a justification for such a result.Mr. John M. Botts, a citizen of a Southern State, said of the allegation,
that Mr. Fillmore had made such a declaration, that it was a libel
upon him, and that if Mr. Fillmore had said it, he would be the last
man in the United States that would vote for him. A citizen of a
Northern State admits that he so said, but calls it, "an off-hand, and
misunderstood remark," and censures those who take exception to it.
But it is alleged that I have compromised  "the neutrality of my
position." If such be the fact, it will be the subject of profound regret, as I have, just at this time, a very poor opinion of compromises. 
92
In the Revised Statutes of Massachusetts, Chapter 23, Section 7,
I read as follows:  "It shall be the duty of the president, professors, and tutors of the university at
Cambridge, and of the several colleges, and of all preceptors and teachers of academies, and all other instructors of youth, to exert their best endeavors, to impress on
the minds of children and youth, committed to their care and instruction, the principles of piety, justice, and a sacred regard to truth, love to their country, humanity
and universal benevolence, sobriety, industry, and frugality, chastity, moderation,
and temperance, and those other virtues, which are the ornament of human society,
and the basis upon which a republican constitution is founded; and it shall be the
duty of such instructors to endeavor to lead their pupils, as their ages and capacities
will admit, into a clear understanding of the tendency of the above-mentioned
virtues to preserve and perfect a republican constitution, and secure the blessings
of liberty, as well as to promote their future happiness, and also to point out to
them the evil tendency of the opposite vices."
QUERE:-  How  far a Professor of a College "compromises the
neutrality of his position," when, as a private citizen, before a different
auditory, and in another connection, he endeavors to maintain those
principles of piety, justice, regard of truth, love of country, humanity,
and those other virtues which are the ornament of human society and
the basis upon which a Republican Constitution is founded, which it is
made his duty, by statutory enactment, to impress upon the minds of
his pupils? -  How far he departs from "the propriety of his course"
when he endeavors to lead others "into a clear understanding of the
tendency of the above-mentioned virtues to preserve and perfect a
Republican Constitution, and secure the blessings of liberty; "- and
when he attempts to disseminate a knowledge of the true principles of
the Constitution of the United States?
Perhaps it may be admitted as some extenuation of my failure to
know when, and where, and upon what subjects I may speak, that I
was not before aware of the fact that upon great questions of morals
and politics, involving, possibly, the very existence of a free government, I hold any neutral position.
J. P.