LIBRARY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS AUTHORIZED EDITION. LIFE STEPHEN A, DOUGLAS TO WHICH ARE ADDED HIS SPEECHES AND EEPORTS. BY H. M. FLINT. P PHILADELPHIA: UBLTSHBD BY JOHN E. POTTEK No. 617 SANSOM STREET. 1865. LIBRARY T-nTTtr-r^-r-i r- TT'-vr r\T? <~" A T TTT/^'DXTTA Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1863, by J. EDWIN POTTER, la Iflt Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. , PREFACE. FOR every intelligent American citizen the minute details of the career of any man who has figured prominently in the political affairs of his country, cannot be devoid of interest. The leading facts in the public life of such a man as Stephen A. Douglas, especially, must possess an interest absorbing and intense, far beyond that excited by the events connected with the most of those who have actively participated in the stirring scenes which have tran- spired of late years in the halls of our National Legislature. Mr. Douglas was so emphatically a self-made man, that the sympathies of every one struggling upward against fortune and misfortune, through evil report and through good report, must be keenly awakened by the particulars of his early history ; he was so successful, and at such an early age, that not a little of the tinge of romance rests upon many passages of his life ; he was so energetic and resolute in whatever he undertook, that his highly-charged temperament outcropping in familiar chat, elaborate letter, off- hand speech, running debate, and finished oration exhilarates all who are brought in contact with its manifestations ; he was so skilled in the polemics of politics, that his Congressional record constitutes a well-furnished storehouse, from which the young aspirant for fame in forensic fence may select the best weapons, offensive and defensive, adapted to almost every possible emergency and contin- gency ; he was so much at home upon the stump, that most of his extemporaneous efforts may safely be recommended as models for the student in that accomplishment, deemed by Americans the greatest, the a~t of speaking to the crowd, rather than at them ; he was so warm a friend and so decided a hater, that every positive 3 4 PREFACE. nature must in a measure identify itself with him ; he was so p-i Ucn- larly a man of the people, that the faithful portraiture of him and the best possible is that furnished by himself in his speeches and debates must keep his memory fresh and green in the popular heart, the more he is comprehended, the better he is understood ; and finally, he died comparatively so young, that a tender, melancholy invests his, as it were, unfinished life. The occurrences of the past two years have served as an apocalypse to the most of us; and in the light of this sew revelation the exciting events associated with much of the Congressional legisla- tion of the past twenty years beget far other feelings than formerly were aroused. We are, necessarily, more charitable in our judg- ments of our political opponents of other days. A closer acquaint- ance with many of them has tended to materially change the opinions we once honestly entertained of such. Besides saddest occurrence that can befal a trustful spirit ! from many with whom we ever have acted, whose names we fondly deemed towers of strength, the mask has fallen, and we have been forced to see them, not as we thought them not as we would have seen them but as they are our party's and what is higher far than party our country's direst foes. With these changed and still changing views, it cannot be unde- sirable to pass the leading political events of those years again and again in review. There are lessons to be gleaned from them which we have not even yet fully learned. With these events the lamented Douglas was closely identified; and the following pages, which are believed to contain a true and faithful exposition of the leading incidents of his brilliant and instructive career, have been prepared in the hope that they may occasion somewhat at least of the careful study which the life of so great a man deservea. CONTENTS. CHAPTER L IXTRODUCTORY, .10 CHAPTER II. Parentage, Birth, and early Life of Stephen A. Douglas He Studies Law Goes to the West Teaches School Admitted to Practise Law Hia Success as a Lawyer, and the Causes of it Becomes Attorney General of Illinois Elected to the State Legislature Electioneers for Martin Van Buren for President, in 1840 Makes 207 Speeches in that Year, and carries Illinois for the Democracy Becomes a Judge of the Supreme Court Is Elected to Congress in 1843, . . . .16 CHAPTER IH. Mr. Douglas' First Session in Congress His Speech upon the Improve- ment by Congress of Western Rivers and Harbors His Great Speech on the Bill to Refund General Jackson's Fine- General Jackson's Opinion of the Speech Mr. Douglas Reflected to Congress, ... 20 CHAPTER IV. Speech in Favor of the Re-Annexation of Texas Mr. Douglas reports Joint Resolutions, declaring Texas to be one of the United States Texas Annexed, 25 n CONTENTS. CHAPTER V. Speech in Vindication of the Administration Mr. Douglas elected to Con- gress a third time, . . . . . i . . 28 CHAPTER VL Mr. Douglas Elected to tne United States Senate He opposes the Wllmot Proviso Speech on the Ten Regiment Bill Bill for the Establishment of the Territory of Nebraska Pass to Gen. Santa Anna Exertions of Mr. Douglas in procuring Grants of Land to the Illinois Central Railroad He endeavors to extend the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacifio Ocean The Design defeated by Northern Votes Bill for the Admission of California Indian Titles in the North-west Protection to Emi- grants, . '-* . . . . .32 CHAPTER VII. Mr. Douglas supports the Compromise Measures of Henry Clay Great Speech on the 13th and 14th of March Speech in favor of the Omnibus Bill, June 3 The Nicholson Letter of General Cass Mr. Douglas re- turns to Chicago He is Denounced by the Local Authorities He beards the Lions in their Den Speech to the Citizens of Chicago Its Effect, .... '. : "; ' . l ' . . . .39 CHAPTER VIII. Speech in favor of making Gen. Winfield Scott a Lieutenant-General Speech on the Fugitive Slave Law Speech on the Foreign Policy of the United States Retrospective View of the Course of Mr. Douglas iu Congress up to this Time (1852) Mr. Douglas the real Author of the Compromise Measures of 1850 Bill for the Organization of the Territo- ries of Kansas and Nebraska Mr. Douglas opposes the Oregon Treaty with England Opposes the Peace Treaty with Mexico Speech on the Clayton and Bulwer Treaty Report on the Organization of Nebraska and Kansas The Nebraska Bill Debate on it The bill passed, . 47 CHAPTER IX. If r. Douglas at Chicago, 1S54, . , . "V V Y ' . .. , * -66 CONTENTS. Vll CHAPTER X. Report of Mr. Douglas on the Territorial Policy of the Government Speech in Reply to Trumbull, and in Support of the Bill authorizing the People of Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government Speech in Reply to Mr. Collamer The Bill passed by the Senate Report of Mr. Douglas on the House BUI, .72 CHAPTER XI. A Retrospect Origin and Causes of Disagreement with the President Not Provoked by Mr. Douglas Mr. Buchanan owes his Nomination at Cincinnati to Mr. Douglas Telegraphic Dispatches His Efforts to Elect Mr. Buchanan in 1856 Speech at Springfield in 1857, defending the Administration President's Instructions to Governor Walker Consti- tution to be Submitted Executive Dictation Differences of Opinion tolerated on all Subjects except Lecompton Mr. Douglas' Propositions for Adjustment Resolutions of Illinois Democracy Controversy termi- nated by the English Bill War Renewed by the Administration Coali- tion between the Federal Officeholders and the Abolitionists Mr. Dou- glas^ last Speech in the Senate preparatory to Illinois Canvass, . 80 CHAPTER XII. New Aspect of Affairs at the Federal Capitol Mr. Douglas calls on the President for Information in regard to Affairs in Kansas Great Speech of Mr. Douglas against the Lecompton Constitution Speech in Favor of the Crittenden-Montgomery Amendment Speech on the Eng- lish Bill Speech in favor of conferring on the President Power to pun- ish British Outrages, ... ite CHAPTER XIII. Mr. Douglas returns to Chicago Brilliant Reception Makes his Speech opening the Campaign Lays down Principles on which he conducted it,. ... , 104 Vlll CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIV. Mr. Douglas leaves Chicago for New Orleauis Received at St. Louis and Memphis Brilliant Reception at New Orleans. . * 142 CHAPTER XV. Mr. Douglas again in Washington Experiences a Change of Atmosphere Scene shifts Removed from Post of Chairman of Territorial Commit- tee His Services as Chairman Pretext of Removal Freeport Speech Letter to California in reply to Dr. Gwin, . . . . .144 CHAPTER XVI. Letters to Dorr and Peyton Speeches in Ohio, and Cincinnati Platform Charleston Convention Presidental Aspirants The Harper Article Black's Reply Appendix of Attorney General Rejoinder of Senator Douglas The Chase and Trumbull Amendments Consistency of Sena- tor Douglas, . . . '* . .' . , . . . . 168 CHAPTER XVII. Great Speech of Mr. Douglas on the Harper's Ferry Invasion Anxiety to hear him His Speeches in Reply to Senators Fessenden, JeflF. Davis, and Seward The Caucus of Senators Their Utopian Platform, . 189 CHAPTER XVIII. Conventions of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan ; also of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and New York Claims of the North-west Conclusion, . . . 205 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF STEPHEN A, DOUGLAS, INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. THE object of the author of this book is to present to the people of the United States a truthful delineation of the character and qualities of one of the greatest American states- men. The public life of Mr. Douglas naturally divides itself into five periods. The first, from his entrance into Congress in 1843, to the close of the war against Mexico, in 1848. Second, from the close of the Mexican War to the passage of the Compromise measures of 1850. Third, from the passage of the Compromise of 1850, to the passage of the Nebraska Bill in 1854. Fourth, from the passage of the Nebraska Bill, to the third election of Mr. Douglas to the Senate, in the fall of 1858. Fifth, from the commencement of his third Senato rial term, in March, 1859, to his too early decease. During the first period, Mr. Douglas appears among the most active and influential friends of the re-annexation of 10 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Texas to the United States, and causes to be run thro* gb Texas the Missouri Compromise line of 36 30' ; and wtien the war with Mexico breaks out, he is found among the ablest supporters of the administration, and one of the fore- most of our statesmen in upholding the honor of our flag and in prosecuting the war with a vigor and prudence that led to an honorable and satisfactory peace. In this period, too, Mr. Douglas is seen endeavoring to carry out in good faith the principles of the Missouri Compromise, by extending the line of 36 30' westward through our acquisitions from Mexico to the Pacific Ocean ; in which attempt he was frus- trated by northern Freesoilers. GREAT MEASURES OF MR. DOUGLAS. The second period was one of the most important in the whole life of Mr. Douglas. He is seen at this time, shaping and molding for the territories of the United States, those institutions of government upon which his fame as a states- man rests, and upon which depend the happiness of millions of American citizens, and the prosperity of a dozen new States. In treating of this period of the life of Mr. Douglas, I have shown that he is the real author of the Compromise measures of 1850, so generally attributed to Henry Clay. In this period, too, we see Mr. Douglas coming home to hia constituents, and in the presence of an infuriated mob, pro- claiming the propriety and expediency of those measures with such matchless eloquence, that the voices of faction and fanaticism were hushed, and the citizens of Chicago passed resolutions declaring their adherence to those very measures which they had the day before denounced. Toward the close of the third period, we see Mr. Douglas bringing forward the details of his great plan for the gov eminent of the territories, in the shape of the Kansas and STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 11 Nebraska bills ; explaining and elucidating the principles upon which they are based, and urging their adoption by Congress. And when these measures were passed, we see him coming home to a constituency that refused to hear him vindicate their justice and propriety. During the fourth period, we see the evils that resulted in Kansas, from attempts to evade or disregard the principles of the Nebraska Bill. We see the President of the United States exerting the whole strength of his administration in attempting to force a constitution repugnant to their wishes on the people of Kansas ; and Mr. Douglas energetically and with all his might resisting the tyrannical proceeding, and vindicating the right of the people of the territories in all time to come, to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. When the British also, in 1 85 8, attacked no less than thirty-three of our vessels in the space of four weeks, and when the Senate were about to pass the customary resolutions, declaring that such acts were very annoying tc the United States, and ought not to be committed, we see Mr. Douglas urging upon Congress the instant adoption ot such energetic measures on our part as should compel Great Britain not only to cease such outrages in future, but also to make reparation for those she had committed. "THE RETURN FROM ELBA." During this period also, we see the great campaign in the autumn of 1858, the election of a senator from Illinois for the next six years, the gallant stand made by Mr. Douglas, and the unscrupulous efforts made by federal officials ana Abolitionists to crush him. Like Napoleon on his return from Elba, Mr. Douglas, on his return to Illinois, in- spired his numerous friends with unbounded enthusiasm. We see the momentous struggle between Mr. Douglas and the 12 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP Democratic party on the one side, and the allied force* of the Republicans, Abolitionists, and office-holders on the other. We see the battles and skirmishes of the cam- paign ; in every engagement, we see the utter discomfiture of the unholy alliance, and the triumph of the right and always, in the forefront of the battle, we hear the clarion voice of the great leader of the democracy. Finally, we see his victory over all his enemies, and witness his triumphant return to the Senate, bearing high aloft the glorious banner of the Democracy, unstained and untarnished. During the last period, we see the hostility of the Executive manifested in the removal of Mr. Douglas from the chair- manship of the Committee on Territories ; the war of the pamphlets ; the Senate proceedings following the horrible plot of John Brown ; and the ridiculous attempt on the part of a few senators to make a platform for the Charleston Convention entirely incompatible with the known principles of Mr. Douglas. We see the uprising of the people all over the nation in favor of Mr. Douglas for the Presidency, the proceedings of the several State conventions, and their unanimity in designating Mr. Douglas as their choice above all other men. Finally, we see the meeting of the Charleston Convention ; and the nomination of Judge Douglas for the Presidency, in spite of the determined effort of factionists. PERSONAL APPEARANCE. The Rev. Wm. H. Milburn, the blind preacher, in his interesting book, " Ten Years of Preacher Life," gives the following graphic sketch of his impressions of Mr. Douglas : " The first time I saw Mr. Douglas was in June, 1838, standing on the gallery of the Market House, which some of my readers may recollect aa situate in the middle of the square of Jacksonville. He and Colonel John J. Hardin were engaged in canvassing Morgan County for Congress. He STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 13 Iras upon the threshold of that great world in which he has since played 60 prominent a part, and was engaged in making one of his earliest stump speeches. I stood and listened to him, surrounded by a motley crowd of backwood farmers and hunters, dressed in homespun or deerskin, my boyish breast glowing with exultant joy, as he, only ten years my senior, battled so bravely for the doctrines of his party with the veteran and ac- complished Hardin. True, I had been educated in political sentiments opposite to his own, but there was something captivating in his manly straightforwardness and uncompromising statement of his political prin- ciples. He even then showed signs of that dexterity in debate, and vehe- ment, impressive declamation, of which he has since become such a master. He gave the crowd the color of his own mood as he interpreted their thoughts and directed their sensibilities. His first-hand knowledge of the people, and his power to speak to them in their own language, employing arguments suited to their comprehension, sometimes clinching a series of reasons by a frontier metaphor which refused to be forgotten, and his de- termined courage, which never shrank from any form of difficulty or dan- ger, made him one of the most effective stump-orators I have ever heard. " Less than four years before, he had walked into the town of Winches- ter, sixteen miles southwest of Jacksonville, an entire stranger, with thirty-seven and a half cents in his pocket, his all of earthly fortune. Hia first employment was as clerk of a * Vandu,' as the natives call a sheriff's ale. He then seized the birch of the pedagogue, and sought by its aid and by patient drilling, to initiate a handful of half-wild boys into the sub- lime mysteries of Lindley Murray. His evenings were divided between reading newspapers, studying Blackstone, and talking politics. He, before long, by virtue of his indomitable energy, acquired enough of legal lore to pass an examination, and ' to stick up his shingle,' as they call putting up a lawyer's sign. And now began a series of official employments, by which he has mounted within five and twenty years, from the obscurity of a village pedagogue on the borders of civilization, to his present illustrious and commanding position. In the twelve or thirteen years that had elapsed from the time of his entering the State, a friendless, penniless youth, he has served his fellow-citizens in almost every official capacity, and entered the highest position within thir power to confer. " No man, since the days of Andrew Jackson, has gained a stronger hold opon the confidence and attachment of his adherents, or exercised a more dominating authority over the masses of his party than Judge Douglas, Whether upon the stump, in the caucus, or the Senate, his power and suc- cess in debate are prodigious. His instincts stand him in the stead o? imagination, and amount to genius. 14: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF "Notwithstanding the busy and boisterous political life which be has led with all its engrossing cares and occupations, Mr. Douglas has, neverthe less, by his invincible perseverance, managed to redeem much time for Belf-improvement. He has been a wide and studious reader of history and its kindred branches. Contact with affairs has enlarged his under- standing and strengthened hisjudgment. Thus, with his unerring sagacity, his matured and decisive character, with a courage which sometimes ap- pears to be audacity, but which is in reality tempered by prudence, a will that never submits to an obstacle, however vast, and a knowledge of the people, together with a power to lead them, incomparable in this genera- tion, he may be accepted as a practical statesman of the highest order. The correspondent of the New York " Times " describes Mr. Douglas as follows : " The Little Giant, as he has been well styled, is seen to advantage on the floor of the Senate. He is not above the middle height ; but the easy and natural dignity of his manner stamps him at once as one born to command. His massive head rivets undivided attention. It is a head of the antique, with something of the infinite in its expression of power : a head difficult to describe, but better worth description than any other in the country. Mr. Doug- las has a brain of unusual size, covered with heavy masses of dark brown hair, now beginning to be sprinkled with silver. His forehead is high, open, and splendidly developed, based on dark, thick eyebrows of great width. His eyes, large and deeply set, are of the darkest and most brilliant blue. The mouth is cleanly cut, finely arched, but with something of bitter and sad experience in its general expression. The chin is square and vigorous, and is full of eddying dimples the muscles and nerves showing great mobility, and every thought having some external reflexion in the sensitive and expressive features. Add now a rich, dark complexion, clear and healthy ; smoothly shaven cheeks ; and handsome throat ; small, white ears ; eyes which shoot out electric fires ; small white hands ; small feet ; a fu 1 ! chest and broad shoulders ; STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 10 and with these points duly blended together, we have a pio* ture of the Little Giant. " As a speaker, Mr. Douglas seems to disdain ornament, and marches right on against the body of his subject with irresistible power and directness. His rhetorical assault has nothing of the cavalry slash in its impressiveness, rather resembling a charge of heavy infantry with fixed bayonet, and calling forcibly to mind the attack of those ' six thousand English veterans " immortalized by Thomas Davis : " Steady they step adown the slope, Steady they climb the hill ; Steady they load steady they fire Marching right onward still.' His voice is a rich and musical baritone, swelling into occa- sional clarion-blasts toward the close of each important period. He is heard with breathless attention, except when now and again the galleries feel tempted to applaud these demonstrations appearing to give particular uneasiness to the Administration, Secession, and Republican senators." Mr. Douglas was twice married. He left two little sons, the children of his first wife, who was a southern lady. In 185*7, he married Miss Adele Cutts, daughter of James Madison Gutts, Esq., second Controller of the Treasury, a beautiful and accomplished woman, and well known in Washington for the amiability of her disposition, and the goodness of her heart. He had one child, a daughter, by his second marriage. TFB LIFE AND SPEECHES OP CHAPTER H. Parentage, Birth, and early Life of Stephen A. Douglas He Studies Law Goes to the West Teaches School Admitted to Practise Law His Success as a Lawyer , and the Causes of it Becomes Attorney General of Illinois Elected to the State Legislature Electioneers for Martin Van Buren for President, in 1840 Makes 207 Speeches in that Year, and carries Illinois for the Democracy Becomes a Judge of the Supreme Court Is Elected to Congress in 1843. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS was born in the town of Brandon, Vermont, on the 23d day of April, 1813. His father was a native of the State of New York, and a physician of high repute. His grandfather was a Pennsylvanian by birth, and a soldier in. the Revolutionary War. He was one of those Boldiers of Washington who passed that terrible winter at Valley Forge, and was present at the surrender of Lord Corn- wallis. His great-grandfather was also an American by birth, but his ancestors came originally to this country from Scot- land. Dr. Douglas died when his little son Stephen was only three months old. From the age of ten to that of fifteen years, Stephen was sent to the common schools of the neigh- borhood. During the last two years of this term, he was noted for remarkable aptitude for his studies, and was ex tremely diligent and attentive. His quick perception, excel- lent memory, and determination to excel in his studies, were subjects of remark by his teachers, even at that early period. His disposition was amiable and kind, of which fact there are numerous instances related by those who were his school STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. IT fellows. His temper, however, was naturally quick and vivacious. At the age of fifteen, he expressed to his mother his earnest desire to prepare for college ; but it was decided at a family council that the expense of a collegiate education would make that idea impossible. " Well, then," said Stephen, " I will earn my own livirg ;" and he immediately engaged himself as an apprentice to the trade of cabinet- making, which was then an excellent and lucrative business. He worked at this trade for eighteen months, and then abandoned it altogether, as it proved entirely too severe for his constitution. His master has since jocularly remarked, that during the time Stephen was with him, he displayed his greatest ingenuity in the construction of bureaus, cabi- nets, and secretaries. At the age of seventeen, he entered the academy at Brandon, and pursued his studies there for more than a year. His mind was extremely active at this time, and he made rapid advancement in those branches of learning to which he directed his attention. When the family removed to Canandaigua, New York, he attended the academy there as a student. Having decided to make the law his profession, he entered the office of Mr. Uubbell, and studied law till 1833. EARLY LIFE. In the spring of that year he went to the West, in search of an eligible place in which to establish himself as a lawyer. He went to a number of cities and towns in the West, among them Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, and Jackson- ville, Illinois. At Winchester, a little town sixteen milea from Jacksonville, he found there was no school, and imme- mediately opened one. He obtained forty pupils without any difficulty, whom he taught for three months, at $3 00 pel 18 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP quarter. He devoted his evenings, during this time, to tke prosecution of his law studies. In March, 1834, he was admitted to practise law, by the judges of the Supreme Court of the State. He at once opened a law office, and became remarkably successful as a legal practitioner. Within a year after his admission, and while not yet twenty-two years of age, he was elected by the legislature of Illinois, attorney-general of the State. In 1836, he was elected to the legislature by the Democrats of Morgan- County, and resigned the office of attorney-general. At the time he took his seat in the legislature, he was the youngest member of that body. In 1837, he was appointed by Presi- dent Van Buren register of the land-office at Springfield, Illinois. In November of the same year, he received the Democratic nomination for Congress, although he was then under twenty-five years of age, and consequently ineligible. He attained the requisite age, however, before the day of election, which was in August, 1838. At this election upward of 36,000 votes were cast, of which Mr. Douglas re. ceived a majority. About twenty votes were rejected by the canvassers, because in them the name of Mr. Douglas was spelled incorrectly. The quibble was a most unworthy one, and would not stand at this day. As it was, the Whig can- didate was declared to be elected by a majority of only five votes; and the election was everywhere regarded as a triumph of Mr. Douglas. ME. DOUGLAS AS A LAWYER. Retiring now from political life, Mr. Douglas devoted himself with assiduity to the practice of his profession. He was an able and successful lawyer, and his business increased rapidly. There are many persons now living, who were clients and neighbors of Mr. Douglas at this tune, and who STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 19 remember well his demeanor as an advocate. He was noted v among other things, for the careful preparation of his cases, and for his tact and skill in the examination of witnesses. He never went into court with a case until he thoroughly understood it in all its bearings. His addresses to the jury were generally plain and clear statements of the matters of fact, the arguments logical and conclusive, and his manner earnest and impressive. He rarely failed to enlist the feel- ings and sympathies of a jury. In the year 1840, Mr. Douglas entered with ardor into the celebrated "Hard Cider and Log Cabin" campaign, and threw the whole weight of his influence in favor of Martin Van Buren, the democratic candidate for President, and against the " Tippecanoe and Tyler too " candidates of the Whig party. During seven months of that year, he tra- versed the State of Illinois in all directions, and addressed 207 meetings of the people. General Harrison was elected President, but Illinois was carried for the Democratic candi- dates, and Mr. Douglas was mainly instrumental in bringing about this result. ME. DOUGLAS ELECTED TO CONGRESS. In December, 1840, Mr. Douglas was appointed secretary of state of Illinois. In February, 1841, he was elected by the legislature a judge of the Supreme Court of the State. This was only seven years after he had received, from the judges of that court, his license to practise law. He re- mained upon the bench of the Supreme Court for three years. In 1843 he was elected to Congress by 400 majority ; and in 1844 by a majority of 1,900 votes. He was elected a representative a third time in 1846, by a majority of 3,000 votes. 20 THE LIFE ANw SPEECHES OF CHAPTER III. Mr. Douglas' First Session in Congress His Speech upon the Improve- ment by Congress of Western Rivers and Harbors His Great Speech on the Bill to Refund General Jackson's Fine General Jackson's Opinion of the Speech Mr. Douglas Reflected to Congress. ON taking his seat in Congress, Mr. Douglas did not at once rush into the debates of the House. He was perfectly informed, concerning the interests of his constituents, over which he exercised a watchful care. But for the first session or two of Congress, he spoke rarely, and briefly ; familiariz- ing himself, by study and observation, with the rules of debate, and the usages of parliamentary bodies. When he did rise to address the House, it was on some practical question ; and his remarks were always forcible, and to the point. IMPROVEMENT OP WESTERN RIVERS. His first speech in Congress was upon the improvement of western lakes and harbors, delivered December 19, 1843 He had moved that so much of the President's message aa referred to that subject, be referred to a select committee. He insisted upon a select committee, " because the question involved important interests requiring an accurate know- ledge of the condition of the country, its navigable streams, and the obstructions to be removed. A thorough or agination of subjects so various, extensive, and intricate. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 21 I and requiring so much patient labor and toil, could not be expected from those who reside at a great distance. He desired a full, elaborate, and detailed report from those whose local positions would stimulate them. Let this be granted, and the friends of the measure would be content to leave its policy and propriety to the judgment of the House." While Mr. Douglas has never ceased to take a lively interest in river and harbor improvements and the protection of inland navigation, experience soon convinced him that the practice of appropriating from the federal treasury for such purposes had utterly failed to accomplish its object, and that a system of tonnage duties which he matured, and on several occasions has introduced into the Senate, should be substituted for Congressional appropriations. Since the sys- tem of tonnage duties has been elaborated in Congress, and is becoming understood by the public, the most enlightened friends of the navigating interests are becoming satisfied that the substitute proposed by Mr. Douglas would prove not mly more economical, but more effective and beneficial in .he accomplishment of their views. In connection with this subject, it should be added, that Mr. Douglas was mainly instrumental in securing the passage of the law by which the maritime and admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts was extended over the northern lakes. SPEECH IN FAVOR OF REMITTING GEN. JACKSON'S FIOT1 On the 7th of January, 1844, he delivered an eloquent speech on the bill to refund to Gen. Jackson, the fine unjustly imposed on him by Judge Hall, of New Orleans. From this speech we make the following extracts : " I maintain," said Mr. Douglas, " that in the exercise of the power of proclaiming martial law, Gen. Jackson did not violate the Constitution, nor assume to himself any authority 22 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF not fully authorized and legalized by his position, his duty-, and the necessity of the case. Gen. Jackson was the agent of the government, legally and constitutionally authorized to defend the city of New Orleans. It was his duty to do this at all hazards. It was then conceded, and is now conceded, that nothing but martial law would enable him to perform that duty. His power was commensurate with his duty, and he was authorized to use the means essential to its perform- ance. This principle has been recognized and acted upon by all civilized nations, and is familiar to all who are conversant with military history. It does not imply the right to suspend the laws and civil tribunals at pleasure. The right grows out of the necessity. The principle is, that the commanding general may go as far, and no further than is absolutely necessary to the defence- of the place committed to his pro- tection. There are exigencies in the history of nations, when necessity becomes the paramount law, to which all other considerations must yield. If it becomes necessary to blow up a fort, it is right to do it. If it is necessary to sink a ship, it is right to sink it. If it is necessary to burn a city, it is right to burn it." ********* Mr. Douglas then gave a graphic description of the state of affairs at New Orleans in December, 1814, and January, 1815 ; concluding thus : " The enemy, composed of disciplined troops, four times as numerous as our own force, were in the immediate vicinity of the city, ready for the attack at any moment ; the city, filled with traitors, anxious to sur- render ; spies transmitting information to the enemy's camp. The governor of the State, the judges, the public authorities, and all the chief citizens, earnestly entreated Gen. Jackson to declare martial law, as the only means of maintaining the safety of the city. Gen. Jackson promptly issued the order, and enforced it by the weight of his authority. The city STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 23 was saved. The country was defended by a succession of the most brilliant military achievements that ever adorned the annals of any country or any age. Martial law was con- tinued no longer than the danger existed. Judge Hall him- self had advised, urged, and solicited Gen. Jackson to declare it." ********* " The last of the high crimes and misdemeanors imputed to Gen. Jackson at New Orleans, is that of arresting Judge Hall, and sending him beyond the limits of the city, with instructions not to return till peace was restored. The justification of this act is found in the necessity which required the declaration of martial law, and its continuance and enforcement until the enemy should have left, or the treaty of peace be ratified. Judge Hall, who was by birth an Englishman, had confederated with Louallier's band of conspirators. Their movements were dangerous. Gen. Jackson took the responsibility, and sent the judge beyond the lines of his camp. Was this a contempt of court ?" ********* " I envy not the feelings of the man who can calmly reason about the force of precedents in the fury of the war-cry, when c booty and beauty ' is the watchword. Talk not to me of ' forms, and rules of court ' when the enemy's cannon are pointed at the door ! The man who could philo- sophize at such times, would fiddle while the Capitol was burning. There was but one form necessary on that occa- sion, and that was, to point cannon and destroy the enemy." ********* " I grant that the bill is unprecedented : but I desire, on this day, to make a precedent that shall command the admi- ration of the world. Besides, sir, the government has repeatedly recognized and sanctioned the doctrine, that in ases of necessity, the commander is fully justified in super 24 THE LIFE AND SPE^oHES. OF seding the civil law ; and that Congress will make remunera- tion, when the commander acted with the view of promoting the public interests. The people demand this measure, and they will never be satisfied till their wishes shall have been respected, and their will obeyed." JACKSON'S OPINION OF THIS SPEECH. The bill was passed, and the fine refunded. A year after- ward, Mr. Douglas, in company with several other members of Congress, paid their respects to the venerable hero and patriot, at the Hermitage. When Mr. Douglas was intro- duced, the old general grasped him warmly by the hand, and requested him to step with him into a private room. There, in the presence of two other gentlemen now living, and from one of whom we have received this relation, the venerable soldier, in a voice trembling with emotion, thus addressed the young statesman : " Mr. Douglas, I read, with feelings of lively gratitude, your speech in Congress last winter, in favor of remitting the fine imposed on me by Judge Hall. I knew when I proclaimed and enforced martial law, that I was doing right. But never, until I had read your speech, could I have expressed the reasons which actuated my con- duct. I knew that I was not violating the Constitution of my country. When my life is written, I wish that speech of yours to be inserted in it, as my reasons for proclaiming and enforcing martial law in New Orleans." STEPHEN A. DOUGLAB. 25 CHAPTER IV. RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. Speech in Favor of the Re- Annexation of Texas Mr. Douglas reports Joint Resolutions, declaring Texas to be one of the United States Texas Annexed. ME. DOUGLAS was among the earliest advocates of the annexation of Texas ; on which subject he made an able speech on the 6th of January, 1845. In this speech he showed that the Texas question was not at that time a new one : that it did not originate with Mr. Tyler : that one of first acts of the administration of Gen. Jackson had been to re-open negotiations with Mexico for the annexation ot Texas: that Mr. Van Buren, then secretary of state, had addressed a long dispatch to Mr. Poinsett, our minister to Mexico, instructing him to endeavor to secure Texas, and directing him to give $5,000,000 for it: that the attempt had been renewed by President Jackson in 1833, and again in 1835. He showed by the authority of John Quincy Adams, in his official letters, especially the one dated March 12, 1818, that the western boundary of Louisiana extended to the Rio del Norte : that the settlements made between the rivers Sabine and Rio del Norte, by La Salle, in 1685, under the authority of Louis XIV -, king of France, together with those on the Mississippi and the Illinois, formed the basis of the original French colony of Louisiana, which was ceded to the United States in 1803 ; and quoted the language of Mr. Adams, " that the claim of the United 26 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo del Norte was as clear as their right to the island of New Orleans." He then went on to show that as the Rio del Norte was the western boundary of Louisiana, and Texas was included in the cession of 1803, all the inhabitants of that country were, by the terms of the treaty, naturalized, and became citizens of the United States ; and all who migrated there between 1803 and 1819 went there under the shield of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and with the guaranty that they would be forever protected by them, and quoted from the treaty of cession as follows : " The in- habitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Constitution, to the enjoy- ments of all the rights of the United States." " To the fulfillment of these stipulations," said Mr. Doug- las, " the sacred faith and honor of this nation were solemnly pledged. Yet, in violation of one of them, Texas was ceded to Spain by the treaty of 1819. The American Republic was severed by that treaty, a part of its territory joined to a foreign kingdom, and American citizens were transformed into the subjects of a foreign despotism. Texas did not assent to the separation ; she protested against it promptly and solemnly. The protest and declaration of independence of Texas, hi June, 1819, says, 'The recent treaty between Spain and the United States has dissipated an illusion, and has aroused the citizens of Texas. They see themselves abandoned to the dominion of Spam ; but, spurning the fet- ters of colonial vassalage, they resolve, under the blessing of God, to be free and independent.' " Most nobly have they maintained that righteous resolve ; first, against the despotism of Spain, and then the tyranny of Mexico, until, on the , plains of San Jacinto, victory estab- ished their independence and made them free." STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS-. 27 Mr. Douglas proceeded to enumerate the advantages that rould attend the annexation of Texas, and then went on to show that it must be done in accordance with the principles of the Constitution ; proving the doctrine to have been sanc- tioned and settled, that foreign territory may be annexed, organized into territories and States, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. In con- cluding his remarks upon this point, Mr. Douglas said, " The conclusion is irresistible that Congress, possessing the power to admit a State, has the right to pass a law of annexation. I do not say that territory cannot be acquired in any other way than by act of Congress. We may acquire it by con- quest, or by treaty, or by discovery. We claim the Oregon Territory by virtue of the right of discovery and occupation. But if we wish to acquire Texas without making war or relying upon discovery, we must fall back upon the power to admit new States, and acquire the territory by act of Con- gress, as one of the necessary and indispensable means of executing that enumerated power. Our federal system is admirably adapted to the whole continent; and while I would not violate the laws of nations, nor treaty stipulations, nor in any manner tarnish the national honor, I would exert all legal and honorable means to drive Great Britain, and the last vestiges of royal authority, from the continent of North America, and extend the limits of the Republic from ocean to ocean. I would make this an ocean-bound republic, and have no more disputes about boundaries or red lines upon maps." The treaty for the annexation of Texas having failed in the Senate, Mr. Douglas, among others, introduced joint resolutions in the House of Representatives for the annexa- tion of Texas to the United States ; and at the next session, being chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported Ihe bill by which Texas was declared one of the States 28 THE LIFE A NIT SPEECHES OF CHAPTER V. WAR WITH MEXICO. Speech in Vindication of the Administration Mr. Douglas elected to Con- gress a third time. ME. DOUGLAS vigorously supported the administration of President Polk, in the measures it adopted for the prosecu- tion of the war against Mexico; and on the 13th of May, 1846, made a long and able speech hi favor of the bill making appropriations for the support of the army. The object of this speech was to vindicate our government, and to demon- strate that it had not been in the wrong, in the origin and progress of the war. It will be remembered that the war was. denounced by the Whig party as unholy and damnable, and the government of the United States was vilified and traduced without measure, for taking the only course that could be taken, in order to preserve the national honor. Henry Clay, the great leader of the Whigs, did not, indeed, join in this shameful cry. His eldest son, Henry Clay, jr., fought gallantly in the war, and fell at Buena Vista : and the old patriot was not one of those who gave aid and comfort to the enemy. But Thomas Corwin, and others like him, de- clared in Congress that while the President could command the army, they thanked heaven that they could command the purse, and that he should have no funds to prosecute this war ; and called upon the Mexicans to welcome the soldiers STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 20 of the American army, with " bloody hands and hospitable graves !" In reply to this, Mr. Douglas presented a mass of evidence from official documents, showing that for years past we had had ample cause for war against Mexico, and quoting thf- declaration of President Jackson's last special message, that the wanton character of the outrages upon the persons and property of our citizens, upon the officers and flag of the United States, independent of recent insults to this govern- ment and people, would justify in the eyes of nations, imme- diate war. MEXICAN OUTRAGES. " Aside from the insults to our flag," said Mr. Douglas, " the indignity to the nation, and the injury to our commerce, not less than ten millions of dollars are due to our citizens, for these outrages w r hich Mexico has committed within the last fifteen years. The Committee on Foreign Relations of the U. S. Senate, said in their report in 183 7, that they might ' with justice recommend an immediate resort to war or re- prisals ;' and the House Committee, at the same session, re- ported that ' the merchant vessels of the United States have been fired into, and our citizens put to death.' It should be borne in mind that all those insults and injuries were com- mitted before the annexation of Texas before the proposi- tion of annexation was ever seriously entertained by this government. For offences much less aggravated, France made her demand for reparation, and proclaimed her ultima- tum from the deck of a man-of-war off Vera Cruz. Redress being denied, the French fleet opened their batteries on the Castle of San Juan de Ulloa, compelled the fortress to sur- render, and the Mexican government to accede to their de- mands, and to pay $200,000 in addition, to defray the expenses of enforcing the payment of the claim. Our wrongs are teE 30 THE r I F U AND SPEECHES OF fold greater than those of France, in number and enormity ; yet her complaints have been heard in tones of thunder from the mouths of her cannon. " When the question of annexation was recently agitated, Mexico gave notice to this government that she would regard the consummation of the measure as a declaration of war. She made the passage of the resolution of annexation the pre- text for dissolving the diplomatic relations between the two countries." HOUSTON'S TREATY WITH SANTA ANNA. Mr. Douglas then briefly related the facts relative to Mr. Slidell's appointment as minister to Mexico, the contemp- tuous reception that he met with there, and his final rejection by the government of Paredes ; and also gave a brief sketch of the early military operations on both sides. By references to the documentary archives of the government, he proved that the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Texas, and cited the fact that immediately after the battle of San Ja- cinto, Santa Anna proposed to General Sam Houston, com- mander of the Texan army, to make a treaty of peace by which Mexico would recognize the independence of Texas with the Rio del Norte as the boundary, and that such a treaty was made, in which the independence of Texas was acknowledged by the government de facto of Mexico, and the Rio del Norte recognized as the boundary. He showed that according to the well-established principles of interna- tional law, the acts of the government de facto are binding on that nation in respect to foreign states : and concluded by a defence of the course pursued by President Polk, in order- ing General Taylor to occupy with his forces territory that was as much ours as Florida or Massachusetts. Mr. Douglas was prominent among those who, in the Ore- gon controversy with Great Britain, maintained that ouf STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 31 title to the whole of Oregon was clear and unquestionable. He declared in the House of Representatives, that he would never, now or hereafter, yield up one inch of Oregon, either to Great Britain or to any other foreign government. He advocated the policy of giving notice to Great Britain to ter- minate the joint occupation; of establishing a territorial government over Oregon, protected by a sufficient military force ; and of putting the country at once into a state of pre- paration, so that if war should result from the assertion of our just rights, we might drive Great Britain and the last vestige of royal authority from the continent of North America. 82 THB LIFE AND SPEECHES OF CHAPTER VI. THE WAR WITH MEXICO: 1847-1848, Mr. Douglas Elected to the United States Senate He opposes the Wllmot Proviso Speech on the Ten Regiment Bill Bill for the Establishment of the Territory of Nebraska Pass to Gen. Santa Anna Exertions of Mr. Douglas in procuring Grants of Land to the Illinois Central Railroad He endeavors to extend the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific Ocean The Design defeated by Northern Votes Bill for the Admission of California Indian Titles in the Northwest Protection to Emigrants. THE WILMOT PROVISO. MR. DOUGLAS had been reflected to Congress in 1846 ; but before Congress met, the legislature of the State of Illinois elected him a senator for six years from the 4th of March 1847. So far as the question of slavery was involved in the orga- nization of territories and the admission of new States, Mi- Douglas early took the position that Congress ought not to interfere on either side ; but that the people of each Terri- tory and State should be allowed to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. In accordance with this principle, he opposed the Wilmot Proviso whenever it was brought up. SPEECH ON THE TEN REGIMENT BILL. On the 30th of January, 1848, Mr. Douglas made a speech in the Senate on the Ten Regiment Bill, which provided for the STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 33 raising, for a limited time, of an additional military force. IL this speech, Mr. Douglas alluded to the fact that the war with Mexico had been in progress nearly two years. The campaign of 1846 had resulted in the most brilliant victories that ever adorned the annals of any nation. The States of California, New Mexico, Chihuahua, New Leon, and Tamaulipas, besides many towns and cities in other Mexican States, had been one after another reduced to our possession. After a defence of President Polk from the charge of changing his grounds in regard to the causes of the war and the objects of prose- cuting it, he showed that the war was not one of conquest, but of self-defence forced on us by Mexico ; and that the declaration of the President, that the first blood of the war was " American blood shed upon American soil," was the simple truth. " That in order to compel Mexico to do us jus- tice, it was necessary to follow her armies into her territory, to take possession of State after State, and hold them until she would yield to our reasonable demands. Indemnity for the past, and security for the future, was the motive of the war." When Mr. Douglas rose to make this speech, his desk was piled with original Mexican documents, all official, from which he proved that the Rio Grande always was the western boundary of Texas. After first defeating the Mexicans, the Texans on the 2d of November, 1836, adopted a declaration of independence, and on 17th published their constitution. In both of these documents, the Rio Grande was stated as the boundary. After the memorable victory of San Jacinto, on the 21st of April following, a treaty was made and ratified May 12th, between Santa Anna on the part of the Mexican government, and Gen. Houston on the part of Texas, which prescribed the boundary of Texas, the Rio Grande being the western line. M* Douglas then proceeded to show that the war had beer ^camenced by the act of Mexico, and cited the official 34 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF instructions from President Paredes to the Mexican genera) commanding on the right bank of the Rio Grande, in which he says, April, 18, 184G, "It is indispensable that hostilities be commenced, yourself taking the initiative against the enemy." In closing this speech, Mr. Douglas paid a glowing tribute to the volunteers who had so gallantly rushed to the standard of their Country, and especially to the 7,000 volun- teers from Illinois. PASS TO SANTA ANNA. Gen. Santa Anna had been an exile from his country when the Mexican War began ; and, desiring to return to Mexico, he was permitted to pass through our squadron. This was done in pursuance of orders from the War Department to the commander of our fleet in the Gulf of Mexico. The Government was violently assailed for having permitted this ; Mr. Clayton of Delaware having charged the President, by giving this pass to Santa Anna, with being guilty of a blunder worse than a crime. On the 17th of March, Mr. Douglas, in a brief, but comprehensive speech, defended the policy of the administration in this matter, and showed that the admission of Santa Anna, so far from being a blunder, was a wise and politic measure. The results of the war proved that he was right, and that Mr. Clayton was mistaken. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD. The bill granting to the State of Illinois the right of way through the lands of the United States, which had beei originally introduced into the Senate by Mr. Dougl; April 10, 1848, was passed on the 31st of May : the measui owing its success mainly to his exertions. The object of tl bill was to construct a railroad connecting Chicago and STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 35 great lakes of the North, with the Mississippi River at Cairo. The road was built, and it has proved to be of incal- culable benefit, not only to the State of Illinois, but to the whole country. In the debate on the bill, Mr. Douglas explained that the proposed road was to be the entire length of the State from north to south, not far from 400 miles. The bill proposed to grant the land in alternate sections, increasing the price of the other sections to double the minimum price. It was fol lowing the same system that had been adopted in reference te improvements of a similar character in Ohio, Indiana, Alabama, Iowa, and Wisconsin, by which principle each alternate section of land was ceded, and the price of the alternate sections not ceded was doubled, so that the same price is re- ceived for the whole. These lands had been in the market about twenty-three years ; but they would not sell at the usual price of $1 25 per acre, because they were distant from any navigable stream. A railroad would make the lands salable at double the usual price. The road was begun by tho State of Illinois in 1836, and about a million of dollars were expended upon it by the State. With the exception of the county at the northern end of the road, more than one-hall of the whole of the lands along the line were then vacant ; in most of the counties, it was so. Around the towns the land was all taken up and cultivated, but there were large prairies where the land was in all, its original wildness. ITS BENEFIT TO ILLINOIS. It must be remembered that this was twelve years ago. Illinois twelve years ago was very different from the Illinois of to-day. There was then not a single mile of railroad in the State; and the greater fart of the line of the proposed railroad passed for miles and miles without coming in sight 36 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP of a house, or any other indication of civilized life. What a contrast now ! The proposed road built, known even in Europe as one of the most prosperous in America ; other railroads crossing it in all directions ; the reserved alternate sections of land nearly all sold, at prices ranging from two dollars and a half to seven and a quarter per acre, thus yield- ing to the government a much larger sum for one half than was before asked for the whole; the whole of the soil of Illinois, acknowledged to be the richest in the world, re- deemed from its primitive wildness, blooming and blossoming like a garden, and teeming with abundant harvests ; a mar- ket brought to every farmer's door ; and this prosperity owing its origin and material progress to the exertions oi Mr. Douglas in securing the passage of this bill. It is but an act of simple justice to those illustrious states men to add, that John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Danie Webster, Thomas H. Benton, and Lewis Cass, seconded the efforts of Mr. Douglas by able and eloquent speeches in favor of this great measure. MISSOURI COMPROMISE REPUDIATED. In August, 1848, Mr. Douglas offered an amendment to the Oregon Bill, extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted in 1820, ard extended through Texas in 1845. The amendment was adopted in the Senate, but was rejected in the House of Representatives by northern votes. It is important to mark well this fact. The first time that the principles of the Missouri Compromise were even aban- doned, the first time they were ever rejected by Congress, was by the defeat of that provision in the House of Repre- sentatives, in 1848. That defeat was effected by northern STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 37 votes with Freesoil proclivities. It was that defeat which reopened the slavery agitation in all its fury, and caused the tremendous struggle of 1850. It was that defeat which cre- ated the necessity fr of any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of my judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom ; and each of the said district courts shall have arid exercise the same jurisdiction, in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, as is vested in the circuit and district courts of the United States; and the said supreme and district courts of the s*id territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus, in all cases in which the same are granted by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia. To which may be added the following proposition affirmed by the act of 1850, and known as the Fugitive Slave Law. That the provisions of the " act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February 12, 1793, and the provisions of the act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act, approved September 18, 1850, shall extend to, and be in force in, all the organized Territories, as well as in the various States of the Union. From these provisions it is apparent that the Compromise measures of 1850 affirm, and rest upon, the following propositions : First : That all questions pertaining to Slavery in the Territories, and the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose. Second : That " all cases involving title to slaves," and " questions of personal freedom," are to be referred to the adjudication of the local tri- bunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Third : That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in all " the original Territories," the same as in the States. The substitute for the bill which your Committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the pre- cise language of the Compromise measures of 1850. The bill thus reported was considered in Committee of the Whole, and then made the special order for the following Monday. The debate was continued Jan. 31st, Feb. 3d, 5th, and 6th. 62 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF On the 23d of January, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, reported a substitute for the original bill, in nearly the same terms, in which, after defining the limits of the territory, it was proposed to constitute it a Territory, to be afterward admitted as a State, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admis- sion. It was declared to be the true intent and meaning of the act to carry into practical operation the principles of the Compromise measures of 1850, to wit, That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein ; and that the provisions of the Con- stitution and laws of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, are to be carried into faithful execution in all the organized Territories. To the words " the Constitution and all laws of the United States not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States," the substitute proposed to add these words : " Except the 8th section of the Act for the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850, and is declared inoperative.' DEBATE ON THE NEBRASKA BiLL. On the 30th of January, Mr. Douglas made his first speech in favor of the Nebraska Bill. We give the speech in a sub- sequent part of this work. On the 15th of February, Mr. Douglas moved to strike out of his substitute the assertion that the Missouri restric- tion " was superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850," and insert instead the following : " Which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 03 legislation of 1850 (commonly called the Compromise measures), is hereoy declared inoperative and void ; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States," which prevailed yeas 35, nays' 10 as follows: YEAS /or Douglas 1 Amendment : Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bayard, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Hunter, John- son, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tenn, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pierce, Pettit, Pratt, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Ky. Toombs, Wellei, Williams 35. NAYS against the Amendment : Messrs. Allen, Chase, Dodge of Wise., Everett, Fish, Foote, Houston, Seward, Sumner, Wade 10. The vote on this amendment is significant, and we invite to it the attention of the reader. Here we have the em- phatic declaration of every Democratic senator, especially of every Democratic senator from the slave States, in favor of the great peace measure of non-intervention with slavery in the States and Territories, avowing "the true intent and meaning of this act to be, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." How this doctrine, deemed sound, then, contrasts with the late shibboleth of the Senate caucus, that if the people of a Territory want slavery. Congress shall not interfere, but if they do not want it, Congress is to legislate it on them. Mr. Badger of N. C. moved to add to the aforesaid sec- tion: 44 Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revivg 5 fl-t THK LIFE AND SPEECHES OF or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the to the aet of 6th of Marph, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibit- ing, or abolishing Slavery." Carried yeas 35, nays 6. It had been charged by Edmund Burke, of New Hamp- shire, and other Abolition enemies of the measure at the north, that the repeal of the restriction would revive slavery in Kansas and Nebraska, by putting in force the old French laws. The object of Mr. Badger was to set this slander at rest. Every Southern Democrat voted for the proviso. The question on the engrossment of the bill was now reached, and it was carried yeas 29, nays 12 as follows : YEAS To engross the bill for its third reading : MESSRS. Adams, Atchison, Badger, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Hunter, John- son, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tenu., Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Williams 29. NAYS against the engrossment : Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wise., Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Hamlin, James, Seward, Smith, Sumuer, Wade t Walker 12. On the night of the 3d of March, 1854, Mr. Douglas closed the debate in a speech of great eloquence and ability. The attention of the reader is particularly directed to those passages in which Mr. Douglas speaks of the necessity for the organization of these Territories ; and to his elucidation of what had generally been called the Missouri Compromise, in which he proves that Missouri was not admitted into the Union under the Missouri restriction, the Act of 1820, but under Mr. Clay's compromise, or joint resolution, of March 2, 1821 ; and also to the broad nationality of the views of the whale speech. We give it entire in a subsequent part of the work. STEPHEN A. DOUG LAS. 65 The vote was then taken, and the bill passed yeas 37, nays 14. So the bill was passed, and its title declared to be " An Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kan- sas." The bill being approved by the President, became a law. We give it entire, in a subsequent part f this work. 66 THE LITE AND SPBBCHKi OF CHAPTER IX. MR. DOUGLAS AT CHICAGO, 1854* IT is difficult to give a full idea of the excitement that pre- vailed at Chicago, at the time of the passage of the Nebraska bill. It far surpassed the excitement in 1850, relative to the Compromise measures. The ranks of the Abolitionists, always full there, had been largely recruited during the last three years : and among the new converts were many professed ministers of the Gospel. These men eagerly seized on any pretext that would give them a little notoriety, and as the public mind, that is to say, the Abolition sentiment in Chicago, was already worked up to a high pitch, they con- ceived the idea of treating Senator Douglas as a delinquent schoolboy. Accordingly, they addressed to him, and pub- lished in the Chicago daily papers at the same time, a most scurrilous and abusive letter, in which they impiously arro- gated to themselves the authority to speak " in the name of Almighty God," and soundly berated Mr. Douglas for his course in the Senate. With admirable temper, Mr. Douglas wrote them a letter, which will be found in a subsequent part of this work. In the autumn of 1854, Mr. Douglas returned to Chicago. * The city was convulsed with excitement. The Nebraska Bill, and its author, were denounced in the most bitter and violent manner. Neither were understood. The opposition organs, the " Tribune," the " Journal," and the " Press," had STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 67 for months teemed with articles written in the most savage style, in which the Nebraska Bill and its provisions had been studiously misrepresented and misquoted, and Mr. Douglas vilified and abused as the author of countless woes to genera- tions yet unborn. It is no compliment to the intelligence of the readers and supporters of these papers to state what is, nevertheless, the fact, that these statements were swallowed with eager credulity, and that Mr. Douglas was regarded by the Abolitionists as a monster in human form. In a few days after his arrival in Chicago, Mr. Douglas caused the announcement to be made that he would address the citizens in vindication of the Nebraska Bill. A meeting was accordingly appointed, to take place at North Market Hall. At the hour of meeting, the vast space in front of the Hall was filled with men, the crowd numbering nearly ten thousand persons. Probably one-third of the number were really desirous to hear the senator's speech ; but by far the greater part of the crowd were violent and radical Abolition- ists, who were determined that he should not speak. HIS SPEECH THERE. Mr. Douglas appeared before the meeting, on an open bal- cony, and commenced his address. He a'lluded to the excite- ment that prevailed, but asked a patient hearin and pro- mised his auditc ; to be as brief as he could be, consistently with a full exposition of the subject. He spoke of the sa ^ed rights of the people of the Territories to form and regu ^e their domestic institutions in their own way ; the great prin- ciple that lay at the foundation of the Nebraska Bill. At this part of his remarks, several prominent Abolitionists com- menced to groan and hiss. Others followed the example* The noise and tumult increased. The senator stopped speaking, and stood calmly, with his 68 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF arms folded upon his breast, and his eye surveying the angry and excited multitude. He waited patiently till the noise sub- sided, and then, stretching forth his hand, he proceeded. He described the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and alluded to the fact that for the last ten years, he had endeavored, at every session of Congress, to have them organized. Here the groans and hisses were redoubled in violence, and came from all parts of the meeting. The most opprobrious epi- thets were applied to Mr. Douglas, and the most insulting language used to him by rowdies in the crowd. In vain se- veral gentlemen endeavored to restore order. The Aboli- tionists were determined that Mr. Douglas should not be heard ; and they succeeded. For nearly four hours after this did Mr. Douglas essay to make himself heard ; and each time did the yells and hootings of the infuriated multitude drown his voice. At last, it being Saturday night, he deliberately pulled out his watch under the gaslight, and observing that it was after twelve o'clock, he said in a stentorian voice, which was heard above the din of the crowd : " Abolitionists of Chicago ! it is now Sunday morning. I will go to church, while you go to the devil in your own way." A SCENE FOR A PAINTER. In her whole history, Chicago has never witnessed so dis- graceful a scene as this. There was a parallel occurrence in the life of Rienzi, the last of the Roman Tribunes, thus described by the great English novelist : " On they came, no longer in measured order, as stream after stream from lane, from alley, from palace, and from hovel the raging sea received new additions. On they came their passions excited by their numbers women and men, children and malignant age in all the awful array of aroused, released, unresisted physical strength and brutal wrath : ' Death to the traitor death to the tyrant death to him who has taxed th peo STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 69 pie !' * Mora '1 traditore che ha fatta la gabella ! Mora!' Such was the cry of the people such the crime of the senator ! They broke over the low palisades of the capitol they filled with one sudden rush the vast space a moment before so desolate now swarming with human beinga athirst for blood ! "Suddenly came a dead silence, and on the balcony above stood Rienzi his face was bared, and the morning sun shone over that lordly brow, and the hair grown grey before its time, in service of that maddening mul titude. Pale and erect he stood neither fear, nor anger, nor menace but deep grief and high resolve upon his features ! A momentary shame a momentary awe, seized the crowd. " He pointed to the gonfalon, wrought with the republican motto and arms of Rome, and thus he began : " ' I too am a Roman and a citizen ; hear me !' " ' Hear him not ; hear him not ! his false tongue can charm away our senses !' cried a voice louder than his own ; and Rienzi recognized Cecco del Vecchio. " 'Hear him not ; down with the tyrant !' cried a more shrill and youth. ful tone ; and by the side of the artisan stood Angelo Villani. " ' Hear him not; death to the death-giver!' cried a voice close at hand, and from the grating of the neighboring prison glared near upon him, aa the eye of a tiger, the vengeful gaze of the brother of Montreal. " Then from earth to Heaven rose the roar ' Down with the tyrant down with him who taxed the people !' "A shower of stones rattled on the mail of the senator still he stirred not. No changing muscle betokened fear. His persuasion of his own wonderful powers of eloquence, if he could but be heard, inspired him yet with hope. He stood collected in his own indignant but determined thoughts ; but the knowledge of that very eloquence was now his deadliest foe. The leaders of the multitude trembled lest he should be heard; ' and doubtless? says the contemporaneous biographer, * had he but spoken he would have changed them all? " Thus it was at the meeting at the North Market The leaders of the multitude trembled lest Douglas sho Jdbe heard; they remembered the effect of his eloquence in 1&5G, and they knew that if he was permitted to speak m u , he oould and would convince the citizens of Chicago, id the second time, that he was right and they were wrong. 70 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES Of SPEECH Al THE TEEMONT HOUSE. After the close of the canvass of that year, in which Mr. Douglas had addressed the people in every portion of Illinois, he returned to Chicago, and on the 19th of November, two hundred and fifty gentlemen of that city, personal and po- litical friends of Senator Douglas, tendered him the compli- ment of a public dinner at the Tremont House. After the repast, and in response to a toast in compliment to the " dis- tinguished guest, the originator and successful advocate of the Illinois Central Railroad, and the champion of State Rights and Constitutional Liberty," Mr. Douglas made the speech which we give in a subsequent part of this work. In this speech, Mr. Douglas takes up and critically ex* amines the Nebraska Bill, and proves the soundness of the principles on which it is founded : he fastens upon the House of Representatives in 1848 the responsibility for all the sub- sequent slavery agitation, by their rejection of the Missouri Compromise line, after it had passed the Senate : he proves that the Abolitionists and Freesoilers, by supporting Van Buren, pledged themselves to blot out the Missouri Compro- mise line : he calls to the recollection of his hearers the fact, that he was abused and vilified in the year 1848, and called " Stephen A. Douglas the solitary exception," meaning that he was the only northern member of Congress who was in favor of adhering to the Missouri Compromise line ; and the other fact, that the same Abolitionists and Freesoilers now pretend to support a measure which they then declared infamous. He graphically describes the manner in which the Compro- mise measures of 1850 were formed; and then, passing again to the Nebraska Bill, he shows that its great principle was to guarantee to the people of all the new Territories the right (which the Constitution of the United States had already STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 71 secured, but which the Missouri Compromise had taken away) of determining the question of slavery for themselves. He proves, by the unequivocal testimony of the oldest and wisest patriots of the country, that the Abolitionists have proved to be the very worst enemies of the slaves, have riveted stronger their chains, taken away some of the privileges which they had before enjoyed, and actually put a stop to their owners emancipating them. THE " KEPTJBLICAN " PARTY ANALYZED. The last part of the speech is a complete and searching ex- position of the platform and principles of the new " Repub- lican party " which had just been formed. He proves it to be purely an abolition party, the principles of which were entirely sectional, arraying the North against the South, and which, of course, could never be a national party. We give this speech entire in a subsequent part of this work. 72 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OV CHAPTER X. TEBRITOBIAL POLICY OF MB. DOUGLAS, 1856. Report of Mr. Douglas on the Territorial Policy of the Government Speech in Reply to Trumbull, and in Support of the Bill authorizing the People of Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government Speech in Reply to Mr. Collamer The Bill passed by the Senate Report of Mr. Douglas on the House Bill. AFFAIRS IN KANSAS. THE 34th Congress met on the first Monday in December, 1855, but the House of Representatives was unable to organize or to choose a Speaker for nine weeks. On the 31st of December, President Pierce transmitted his An- nual Message to Congress, in which he only slightly alluded to the recent troubles in Kansas. On the 24th of January, however, he sent a special message to Congress in regard to the affairs in Kansas, which will be found in a subsequent part of this work. On the 12th of March, 1856, Mr. Douglas made his great report on the affairs of Kansas Territory. In this report, he elucidates the constitutional principles under which new States may be admitted, and Territories organized. He ex Doses the designs of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Soci ety ; traces from their inception the treasonable acts of that necret military organization, the "Kansas Legion;" and STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 73 proves that all the troubles in Kansas originated in attempts to violate or circumvent the principles and provisions of the Nebraska Bill. This report will be found in a subsequent part of this work. Mr. Jacob Collamer, of Vermont, who constituted the minority of the committee, made a minority report on the same day. TBUMBULL'S SPEECH. Two days afterward, on the 14th of March, Mr. Lyman Trumbull, who had taken his seat a few days before, as a senator from Illinois, in the place of General Shields, ad- dressed the Senate in opposition to the views expressed in the report of Mr. Douglas. Mr. Douglas was absent from the Senate chamber at the time, but notwithstanding his knowledge of this fact, Mr. Trumbull was offensively per- sonal. It might have been supposed that in making his first speech in the Senate, Mr. Trumbull would have had some regard to common decency and propriety. But in point of fact, he was so violent and coarse in his invective as to dis- gust the whole body of senators. As soon as the rules of the Senate would permit, he was stopped by Mr. Weller of Cali- fornia, who called for the special order of the day, which was the bill to increase the efficiency of the army. But as this was his first speech, he had the effrontery to insist upon con- tinuing his rigmarole of abuse, and did go on till nearly 4 o'clock. Shortly before that time, Mr. Douglas entered the Senate chamber, and when Mr. Trumbull had exhausted the "ials of his wrath, and sat down, Mr. Douglas said : Mr. President, I was very much surprised when it was communi- cated to me this afternoon that my colleague was making a speech on the Kansas question, in which he was arraigning my own conduct and the statements and principles set forth in the report which I had the honor to submit to the Senate two days since from the Committee on Territories. 74 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF The feeble state of my own health, which is well known to th Senate, rendered it imprudent for me to be in the Senate chamber to-day, and I stayed away for that reason. I never dreamed that any man in this body would so far forget the courtesies of life, and the well known usages of the Senate, as to make an assault in my absence in violation of the distinct understanding of the body when the subject was postponed. My colleague says that he did not know that I was not here. Now, [ am informed that my friend from Texas (Mr. Eusk), when the morning hour expired, suggested, among other reasons for a post- ponement, that I was absent. The senator from Texas told my col- league that I was absent, and, therefore, according to the courtesies of the Senate, his speech should have been postponed. In the face of a fact known to every man present, my colleague now dares to say that he did not know I was absent. Sir, I believe in fair and free discussion. Whatever speeches I may have to make in reference to my colleague or his political posi- tion, or in reference to other senators, will be made to their faces. I do not wish to avoid the responsibility of a reply to the points that shall be made. I will not attempt to reply to my colleague upon hearsay, having been absent, from the causes which I have stated during the delivery of the greater portion of his speech. I desire, however, to ask him, with a view to fix the time for the discussion of the subject, at what period of time I may reasonably look for his printed speech? I desire to reply to its statements, and I ask the question with a view to have the subject postponed until the time which he may name. ME. TEUMBULL. I think my remarks will be published on Mon- day. ME. DOUGLAS. If I can rely on seeing the speech published in the "Globe " on Monday, I will reply to it on Tuesday; and I shall ask the Senate to accord to me that courtesy. I propose to reply on the next day after its publication. MB. SEWAED and MB. TBUMBULL. Take your own time. MR. DOUGLAS. Sir, I understand this game of taking my own time. Last year, when the Nebraska Bill was under consideration, the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) asked of me the cour- tesy to have it postponed for a week, until he could examine the question. I afterward discovered that, previous to that time, he had written an exposition of the bill a libel upon me and sent it off under his own frank ; and the postponement thus obtained by my courtesy was in order to take a week to circulate the libel. I do not choose to take my own time in that way again. I wish to meet these misrepresentations at the threshold. If I am right, give me au opportunity to show it. If my colleague is right, I desire to give him the fullest and fairest opportunity to show it. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 75 TRUMBULL REBUKED. I desire now to say a word upon another point. I understand that my colleague has told the Senate, as being a matter very material to this issue, that he comes here as a Democrat, having always been a Democrat. Sir, that fact will be news to the Democracy of Illinois. I undertake to assert there is not a Democrat in Illinois who will not say that such a statement is a libel upon the Democracy of that State. When he was elected, he received every Abolition vote in the Legislature of Illinois. He received every Know Nothing vote in the Legislature of Illinois. So far as I am advised and believe, he received no vote except from persons allied to Abolitionism or Know Nothingism. He came here as the Know-Nothing-Abolition candi- date, in opposition to the united Democracy of his State, and to the Democratic candidate. How can a man who was elected afl an Abolition-Know Nothing, come here and claim to be a Democrat, in* good standing with the Democracy of Illinois ? Sir, the Illinois De- mocracy have no sympathies or alliances with Abolitionism in any of its forms. They have no connection with Know Nothingism in any of its forms. If a man has ever been a Democrat, and becomes either an Abolitionist or Know Nothing, or a Free Soiler, he ceases that instant to be a Democrat in Illinois. Sir, why was the statement of my colleague being a Democrat made, unless to convey the idea that the Illinois Democracy would harbor and associate with a Know Nothing or an Abolitionist ? Sir, we do no such thing in Illinois. There is a high wall and a deep ditch between the national Democracy of that State, including the old national Whigs, on the one side, and all Know Nothing and Abo* lition organizations on the other. I can say to senators that Know Nothingism and Abolitionism in Illinois are one and the same thing. Every Know Nothing lodge there adopted the Abolition creed, and every Abolition society supported the Know Nothing candidates. It may be different in the South ; but in the Northwest, and espe- cially in Illinois, a Know Nothing or an Abolitionist means a Rebublican. My colleague is the head and front of Republi- canism in Illinois in opposition to Democracy. You might as well call the distinguished senator from New York (Mr. Seward), or the member from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), or any other leader of the Republican forces, a Democrat, as to call my colleague a Democrat. Why has that assertion been brought into this debate ? Did it prove that my report was wrong ? Did it prove that it was courteous to make an assault on that report in my absence ? On the 17th of March, Mr. Douglas reported from the Committee on Territories, " A bill to authorize tke People 76 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF of the Territory of Kansas to form a Constitution and State government, preparatory to their admission into the Union when they have the requisite population." On the 20th of March, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate in support of this bill, and in reply to the tirade of Mr. Trumbull. In this speech, he vindicates his report ; shows that the report of Mr. Collamer keeps out of sight the mate- rial facts of the case ; and proves that it was the design of the reckless leaders of the Freesoil party, to produce a con- flict with the Territorial government. He defends the Mis- isourians from the charge of invading and conquering Kansas, and proves that the whole responsibility of all the disturb- ances in Kansas, rests upon the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Society. When he reached the concluding paragraph of his remarks, he turned to where Trumbull uneasily sat, and fix- ing upon him his eagle eye, pronounced in a clear and sonor- ous voice, and in emphatic tones, those words referring to the certainty of the fact that even in the United States, the traitor's doom would fall upon the traitor's head. Trumbull turned pale, and his head sank upon his breast. He felt that he was convicted. The speech will be found in a subsequent part of this work. REPUBLICAN' HYPOCEIST EXPOSED. , Mr. Collamer made a speech upon the same subject, on tne 3d of April, and on the 4th, Mr. Douglas responded. Mr. Collamer had labored hard to show that the free State men in Kansas were not such bad fellows after all. But in thib speech Mr. Douglas shows by incontestable evidence, their blood-thirsty nature, their determination to conquer all who did not believe with them, and to resist the constituted authorities to a bloody issue, and their preparations of arms and munitions of war, with which to resist. He raises th STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 77 specious veil of "peaceful emigration," which concealed the movements of the free State party in Kansas, and exposes the secret springs by which they were really actuated, showing that they were guilty of rebellion and treason. This speech is a full and complete exposition of the real history of Kan- sas, up to that time. The reader will not fail to observe, toward the conclusion of the speech, how completely Mr. Douglas exposes the hypocrisy of the Black Republican party ; and how conclusively he shows the hollowness and insincerity, as well as the inconsistency and heartlessness, of their professions of regard for the negro. Strong in the consciousness of the rectitude of the principles of the Demo- cratic party, he delineates, with withering scorn, the incon- sistent and jarring elements that make up the creed of the Republican faith, and dares the leaders of that party to the fight. Like some experienced general, at the head oi a numerous and well disciplined army, an army which loves, idolizes, and trusts in their leader knowing his own strength and confident of victory because he knows that his cause is just, he throws down the gage of battle, and challenges the onset of the opposing squadrons. The leaders of the Republican party quailed before him in the Senate ; as that party itself afterward quailed under the irresistible charge of the Democracy. The speech will be found in a subsequent part of this work. On the 30th of June, Mr. Douglas reported to the Senate on several bills submitted for the pacification of Kansas, as also most decidedly against Mr. Seward's proposition to admit Kansas as a State under the bogus " Topeka " consti- tution. Mr. Seward then moved to strike out the whole of Mr. Douglas' bill, and insert instead, one admitting Kansas under the Topeka constitution. This motion was defeated ayes 1 1 36. 78 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF The bill was now reported as amended, and the amend ment made in Committee of the Whole concurred in. Tho bill was then (8 A.M. on the 3d, the Senate having been in session all night), ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and, on the question of its final passage the vote stood yeas 33, nays 12 as follows : YEAS Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigier, Bright, Brodhead, Brown. Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Pratt, Pugh, Eeid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weller, Wright, and Yulee 33. NAYS Messrs. Bell, of New Hampshire, Collamer, Dodge, Durkee, Fessen- den, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson 12. So the bill passed the Senate. "We give it, in the shape m which it was sent to the House, in a subsequent part of this work. On the 8th of July, Mr. Douglas reported back from the Committee on Territories the House bill to admit Kansas as a State, with an amendment striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting instead the Senate bill (No 356) just referred to. Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, moved that all the Territorial laws of Kansas be repealed and the Territorial officers dis- missed : rejected yeas 12, nays 32. Mr. Collamer of Vermont, proposed an amendment, pro- hibiting slavery in all that portion of the Louisiana purchase north of 36 30' not including the Territory of Kansas rejected yeas 12, nays 30. STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 79 The amendment reported by Mr. Douglas (i. e. the Senate bill as passed) was then agreed to yeas 32, nays 13 and the bill in this shape passed the Senate. But the House of Representatives, where the majority was composed of a fusion of all shades and classes of opponents refused to act upon it, or to concur in it, and the session terminated without the concurrence of the House 6 80 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES O CHAPTER XI. RETROSPECTIVE. A Retrospect Origin and Causes of Disagreement witb the President Not Provoked by Mr. Douglas Mr. Buchanan owes his Nomination at Cincinnati to Mr. Douglas Telegraphic Dispatches His Efforts to Elect Mr. Buchanan in 1856 Speech at Springfield in 1857, defending the Administration President's Instructions to Governor Walker Consti- tution to be Submitted Executive Dictation Differences of Opinion tolerated on all Subjects except Lecompton Mr. Douglas' Propositions for Adjustment Resolutions of Illinois Democracy Controversy termi- nated by the English Bill War Renewed by the Administration Coali- tion between the Federal Officeholders and the Abolitionists Mr. Dou- glas' last Speech in the Senate preparatory to Illinois Canvass. IN order that the reader may appreciate the nature and im- portance of the issues involved in the memorable senatorial canvass in Illinois in 1858, it is but proper we should state distinctly the origin and causes of the unfortunate disagree- ment between Mr. Douglas and the administration of Mr. Buchanan. It will be remembered that Mr. Buchanan owed his nomi- nation at Cincinnati to the direct and personal interposition of Mr. Douglas. But for the telegraphic dispatches which he sent to his friends urging the withdrawal of his own name and the unanimous nomination of Mr. Buchanan, that gentle- man could never have received the nomination by a two- thirds vote, according to the rules of the convention and the usages of the party. STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 81 These dispatches are important, serving to show the mag* nanimity of Mr. Douglas, and his anxiety to promote the union and harmony of the Democratic party. The names of James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Lewis Cass, and Stephen A. Douglas, were put in nomination by their respective friends. There were 296 votes in the Con- vention. On the first ballot Buchanan received 135^, Pierce 122^, Douglas 33, and Cass 5. Judge Douglas' votes were from the following States : Ohio, 4 ; Kentucky, 3 ; Illinois, 11 ; Missouri, 9; Iowa, 4 ; Wisconsin, 2. There were very few changes in the ballotings until after the fourteenth, when Pierce was withdrawn. The two succeeding ballots were about the same. The sixteenth was as follows : Buchanan, 168; Douglas, 122; Cass, 6. When this ballot was an- nounced, Col. Richardson, of Illinois, arose, and after making a short explanatory speech, said that he had just received a dispatch from Judge Douglas, which he sent to the chair to be read, after which, he said he would withdraw that gentle- man's name from before the Convention. This dispatch is so characteristic of Senator Douglas, that we cannot refrain from reproducing it here. Its self-sacrificing spirit, its con- ciliatory tone, and its pure Democracy, commend it to the attention of the country at the present state of political affairs. It breathes the spirit of devotion to the Democratic party which has ever characterized the public life of its great author. It applies to the Presidential Convention system the great principle for which his whole life has been devoted the principle that the majority should rule. Let it be re- membered, that in the Cincinnati Convention he would not allow his name to be used one moment after any other states- man had received a majority of the votes! But here is Judge Douglas' letter, and we ask for it the careful perusal of every Democrat in the nation : 82 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF WASHINGTON, June 4, 1856. DEAR SIR : From the telegraphic reports in the newspapers, I feaf that an embittered state of feeling is being engendered in the Con- vention, which may endanger the harmony and success of our party. I wish you and all my friends to bear in mind that I have a thou- sand fold more anxiety for the triumph of our principles than for my own personal elevation. If the withdrawal of my name will contribute to the harmony of our party, or the success of our cause, I hope you will not hesitate to take the step. Especially is it my desire that the action of the Convention will embody and express the wishes, feelings, and prin- ciples of the Democracy of the republic ; and hence, if Mr. Pierce, or Mr. Buchanan, or any other statesman, who is faithful to the great issues involved in the contest, shall receive a majority of th& Convention, I earnestly hope that all my friends will unite in insur- ing him two- thirds, and then in making his nomination unanimous. Let no personal considerations disturb the harmony or endanger the triumph of our principles. S. A. DOUGLAS. To HON. W. A, RICHARDSOK, Cincinnati, 0. The reading of this dispatch was interrupted by frequent and tremendous applause. The other dispatches are as follows : June 5, 1856, 9 A.M. DEAR SIR : I have just read so much of the platform as relates to the Nebraska Bill and slavery question. The adoption of that noble resolution by a unanimous vote of all the States, accomplishes all the objects I had in view in permitting my name to be used before the convention. If agreeable to my friends, I would prefer exerting all my energies to elect a tried statesman on that platform to being the nominee myself. At all events do not let my name be used in such manner as to disturb the harmony of the party or endanger the suc- cess of the work so nobly begun. S. A. DOUGLAS. HON. W. A. RICHARDSON, of Illinois, Burnet House, Cincinnati, Ohio. WASHINGTON, June 6th 9 A.M. Mr. Buchanan having received a majority of the convention, is, in my opinion, entitled to the nomination. I hope my friends will give effect to the voice of the majority of the party. S. A. DOUGLAS. Box. W. A. RICHARDSON. (See "Washington Union," June 7th, 1856. ) Many of Mr. Douglas' warmest friends complained of him bitterly for ha\ ing thus withheld his own name and secured STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 83 the nomination of his rival, at the critical moment, when it became evident the latter could not possibly have been nomi- nated without the positive and efficient aid of the former ; and this withdrawal in favor of Mr. Buchanan, was afterwords used in some quarters as a point of objection to Mr. Douglas 7 nomination at Charleston. But the whole political course of Mr. Douglas, for a quarter of a century, had been in harmony with the sentiment enunciated and enforced in those de- spatches, that he felt " a thousand fold more interest in the success of the principles of the Democratic party than in his own individual promotion." Immediately after the adjournment of the convention, Mr. Douglas entered the canvass with that energy and vigor for which he was remarkable, and it is but fair to add that to his herculean efforts, in Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and other States in the campaign of '56, was Mr. Buchanan indebted for Ms election, more than to any other man living or dead. When the election was secured, and the inauguration had taken place, Mr. Douglas had no personal favors to ask of the President for either himself or friends, and hence had no grievances to complain of or disappointments to resent. Before he left Washington for his home, it is well known that he was personally consulted by the President, and approved of the policy of his administration in regard to Kansas affairs, to be promulgated by Governor Walker in his message and address to the people of that Territory, viz., that the consti- tution which was about to be formed at Lecompton should be submitted to and ratified by the people, at a fair election to be held for that purpose, before the State couli be admitted into the Union. Subsequently, when Governor Walker was on his way to Kansas, he called on Judge Douglas at Chicago by direction of the President, as he himself says, and read to him +hs inaugural address which he was to publish on his arrival in 84: THE LTFE AND SPEECHES OF the Territory, in which the governor stated that he was authorized by the President and his cabinet to give the assur- ance that he and they would oppose the admission of Kansas Into the Union as a State under any constitution which was not first submitted to and ratified by the people. After copying his instructions from the President in favor ef the submission of the constitution to the people, Governor Walker added : " I repeat, then, as my clear conviction, that unless the convention submit the constitution to the vote of all the actual resident settlers of Kansas, and the election be fairly and justly conducted, the constitution will be and ought to be rejected by Congress." In this interview, Judge Douglas assured Governor "Walker, as he had previously assured the President, that he might rely on his cordial and hearty cooperation in carrying out the policy that Kansas should not be forced into the Union with any constitution which had not been previously sub- mitted to and ratified by the people at a fair election regu- larly held for that purpose. A short time afterward, June 12th, 1857, Mr. Douglas made his celebrated Springfield speech, in which he warmly defended the administration of Mr. Buchanan, commended his territorial policy, and predicted for him a successful and brilliant administration. We have the best reasons for the assertion that his friendly relations with, and kind feelings toward Mr. Buchanan continued uninterrupted and undimin- ished until after their well-known interview in Washington city, about the first of December of that year, upon the ques- tion of admitting Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, without submitting the constitution to the people for ratification or rejection. Mr. Douglas insisted that ho was bound in honor, good faith, and due regard for the fun- damental principles of all free government, to resist the mea- sure at every haaird and under all circumstances. Here we STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 85 find the origin and sole cause of the disagreement between the President and Mr. Douglas, so far as the friends of the latter have ever been able to discover. The difficulty was not of Mr. Douglas' own seeking or procurement. He only claimed that so far as he was concerned it was his right and duty to carry out in good faith the policy to which he, Go- vernor Walker, the President, and every member of hia cabinet, stood publicly and irrevocably pledged. The Presi- dent claimed that it was his right and duty, in a message to Congress, to recommend the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. Mr. Douglas did not question either the right or the duty of the President, provided "he thought the Lecompton constitution was the act and deed of the peo- ple of Kansas, and a fair embodiment of their will." While conceding to the President entire freedom of action according to his sense of duty, Mr. Douglas claimed the same privilege for himself, as a senator representing a sovereign State. The President, however, would tolerate no difference of opinion among friends on this question. Upon the tariff upon specific and ad valorem duties upon the Pacific Rail- road upon the Homestead Bill upon the Neutrality Laws and, indeed, on any and every other question, Democratic senators and representatives, and cabinet officers, were at liberty to think and act as they pleased, without impairing their personal or political relations with the President. But on the Kansas question, having determined to abandon the principles and reverse the policy to which he had pledged the administration and the party, he regarded Mr. Douglas' refusal to follow him in his change of principles and policy as a serious reflection upon his own conduct. All freedom of judgment and action was denied. Implicit obedience to the behests of the President was demanded. The senator was required to obey the mandate of the Executive, instead of to represent the will of his constituency. The represents- 86 THE LIFE AND SfEEOHES OF tivea of the States and of the people were required to sur. render their convictions, their judgments and their consciences to the Executive, and to receive instructions from him instead of them. These were the terms and the only conditions upon which Mr. Douglas could preserve friendly relations with the Pre- sident. He met the issue with characteristic alacrity and boldness. He denounced the Lecompton constitution in firm but respectful terms, not because it provided for a slave State, but because it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and did not reflect their will. Foreseeing the rent the agitation of this unfortunate question was likely to make in the Democratic party, and the irreparable damage to which it would be likely to lead, Mr. Douglas was anxious to heal the breach and settle the diffi- culty on any fair and just terms, that were consistent with fidelity to his own constituency, and to those principles of popular rights and self-government to which he was so solemnly pledged, and upon which he believed the peace and harmony of the country depended. He submitted various propositions in a spirit of conciliation and fraternal feeling for the pacification of .the difficulty. He proposed to refer the Lecompton constitution back to the people of Kansas, for their adoption or rejection, at a lair election, to be held in pursuance of law for that purpose, and if ratified by a majority of the legal votes cast at such election, Kansas was to be declared a State of the Union without further legislation. He proposed to pass an act of Congress authorizing the Territorial legislature to call a new convention and form a constitution, and submit the same to the people for adoption at the polls, and if ratified at such election, Kansas should be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as such constitution should prescribe, as provided in the case of Mh> STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS* 87 nesota, to which the President had referred as affording an example to be followed in all future cases of admission of new States. He offered to accept what is known as the " Crittenden- Montgomery Amendment," as a satisfactory solution of the question, in harmony with the fundamental principles of self-government. And finally, he proposed a general law, which would not only settle the existing difficulty, but prevent all future con- troversies on the subject, providing that " neither Kansas nor any other Territory shall be admitted into the Union as a State, until it shall have been ascertained, by a legal census, to contain population requisite for a member 6f Congress, according to the existing ratio of representation for the time being ; and that the example of the Minnesota case shall be a rule of action in the future, as recommended in the Presi- dent's message." This proposition was offered substantially at a later period of the session in the House, by General Quitman, of Missis- sippi, who intended to have called it up in the event of the failure of the English bill. It would have been happy for the Democratic party and the country had it been accepted. Besides thoroughly uniting the party, it would have laid the foundation of a sound and healthy principle governing the admission of new States, and would have saved Congress from acting on the Kansas Wyandot constitution. These several propositions and all others for conciliation and harmony, were unceremoniously rejected by the partisans of the President, and the unconditional submission of the rebels demanded under the penalty of having all their friend a removed from office and made victims of Executive ven- geance. The system of proscription and persecution which followed is too fresh in the public mind to require recapitu* lation. 88 THE LIFE AND 'SPEECHES OF The wisdom and forecast evinced by Mr. Douglas in opposing the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton con* stitution, has been amply vindicated by succeeding events. The immense vote by which it was rejected when submitted under the temptations of the English bill the subsequent confession of actors in the fraudulent voting the discovery of the bogus election returns the statements of Governor Denver, and other well-authenticated facts and circumstances attest the correctness of Mr. Douglas' position ; while the declaration of Senator Hammond, who voted for the mea- sure, that " the constitution ought to have been kicked out of Congress," and the high repute which Governor Wise and other leading southern statesmen who opposed the project held in the respect and confidence of the Southern people, clearly indicate that their " sober second thought" did justice to the statesmanlike view which Mr. Douglas took of this unfortunate issue. RESOLUTIONS OF ILLINOIS DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION. Notwithstanding the ferocity with which the warfare waa continued against Mr. Douglas and his friends during the Lecompton controversy, all fair-minded men took it for granted that hostilities would cease with the settlement of the question out of which the contest arose. Mr. Douglas and the Illinois Democracy seem to have entertained this reasonable expectation, as appears from the proceedings of the Illinois Democratic State Convention, which assembled at Springfield, on the 21st of April, 1858, for the nomination of candidates for State officers. While the resolutions were ex- plicit and firm in the assertion of the principles on which they had rejected the Lecompton constitution, they were conciliating in spirit and respectful in language. They con- tain no assault en the President, no attack upon the adminis STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 89 tration, and indulge in no complaint at the unprovoked, and vindictive warfare which had been waged against them. They maintain a dignified and manly silence, a generous forbearance on all these points, with a view to the preserva- tion of the organization, the usages, and the integrity of the Democratic party upon its time-honored principles, as enun- ciated in the Cincinnati Platform. The resolutions adopted by the Convention were introduced into the Senate by Mr. Douglas on the 25th of April, "AS FURNISHING THE PLAT- FORM ON WHICH THE ILLINOIS DEMOCRACY STAND, AND BY WHICH I MEAN TO ABIDE." They were as follows : Colonel McClernand, from the committee to prepare solutions for the consideration of the convention, made the following report; which was read, and, on motion, each resolution was separately read and unanimously adopted: 1. Resolved, That the Democratic party of the State of Illinois, through their delegates in general convention assembled, do re-assert and declare the principles avowed by them as when, on former occasions, they have presented their candidates for popular suffrage. 2. Resolved, That they are unalterably attached to, and will maintain inviolate, the principles declared by the national convention at Cincinnati in June, 1856. 3. Resolved, That they avow, with renewed energy, their devotion to the Federal Union of the United States, their earnest desire to avert sec- tional strife, their determination to maintain the sovereignty of the States, and to protect every State, and the people thereof, in all their constitu- tional rights. 4. Resolved, That the platform of principles established by the national democratic convention at Cincinnati is the only authoritative exposition of Democratic doctrine, and they deny the right of any power on earth, except a like body, to change or interpolate that platform, or to prescribe new or different tests ; that they will neither do it themselres nor permit it to be done by others, but will recognize all men as democrats who stand by and uphold Democratic principles. 5. Resolved, That in the organization of States the people have a right to decide, at the polls, upon the character of their fundamental law, ard 90 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF that the experience of the past year has conclusively demonstrated th wisdom and propriety of the principle, that the fundamental law under which the Territory seeks admission into the Union should be submitted to the people of such Territory, for their ratification or rejection, at a fair election to be held for that purpose ; and that, before such Territory is admitted as a State, such fundamental law should receive a majority of the legal votes cast at such election; and they deny the right, and condemn the attempt, of any convention, called for the purpose of framing a con- stitution, to impose the instrument formed by them upon the people against their known will. 6. Resolved, That a fair application of these principles requires that the Lecompton constitution should be submitted to a direct vote of the actual inhabitants of Kansas, so that they may vote for or against that instrument, before Kansas shall be declared one of the States of this Union ; and until it shall be ratified by the people of Kansas, at a fair election held for that purpose, the Illinois Democracy are unalterably opposed tc the admission of Kansas under that constitution. 7. Resolved, That we heartily approve and sustain the manly, firm, patriotic, and democratic position of S. A. Douglas, Isaac N. Morris, Thomas L. Harris, Aaron Shaw, Robert Smith, and Samuel S. Marshall, the Democratic delegation of Illinois in Congress, upon the Question of th-e admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution ; and that, by their firm and uncompromising devotion to Democratic principles, and to the cause of justice, right, truth, and the people, they have deserved our admiration, increased, if possible, our confidence in their integrity and patriotism, and merited our warm approV-ation, our sinrere and hearty thanks, and shall receive our earnest support. 8. Resolved, That in all things wherein the national administration sustain and carry out the principles of the Democratic party as expressed in the Cincinnati platform, and affirmed in these resolutions, it is entitled to, and will receive, our hearty support. By the adoption of the English bill a few days afterward, the Lecompton controversy was at an end so far as Congress was concerned. By that act the question was banished from the halls of Congress and remanded to the people of Kansas to be determined at an election to be held on the first Mon- day in August, 1858. ID a speech in the Senate after the passage of the English STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 91 bill, Mr. Douglas referred to the Leconipton controversy as at an end a dead issue which should no longer distract and divide the Democratic party, in these words : But when the bill became a law, the whole question was remanded to Kansas, to be decided at an election, which has been fixed for the first Monday in August. Whichever way the people of Kansas may decide the question at that election will be final and conclusive. If they reject the proposition submitted by Congress, the Lecompton constitution is dead, and there is an end of the controversy. If, on the contrary, they accept the 'proposition,' Kansas, from that moment, becomes a State of the Union, and thus the controversy terminates. Whether they shall accept or reject the proposition is a question for the people of Kansas to decide for themselves, and with which neither Congress nor the people of the several States, nor any person, official or otherwise, outside of that Terri- tory, has any right to interfere. Hence, the Lecompton controversy is at an end ; for all men, of all parties, must be content with and abide by whatever decision the people of Kansas may make. NO POINT OF DIFFERENCE NOW BETWEEN DEMOCRATS. And again, in the same speech, Mr. Douglas said : Under these circumstances the question naturally arises, what con- troverted principle is there left for Democrats to differ and divide about ? In the first place, we all agree, not only Democrats, but men of all par- ties, that whatever decision the people of Kansas may make at the election on the first Monday in August must be final and conclusive. Now, if we can agree, as I have always avowed my willingness to do, to sustain President Buchanan's recommendation, that in all future cases the constitution shall be submitted to the people, as was required in the Minnesota case, all matters of dispute and controversy will be at an end and our Territorial policy will be firmly placed on a wise and just basis. Whatever justification or excuse may be urged for the war- fare upon Mr. Douglas and his friends during the Lecompton controversy, no patriotic reason can be assigned after the of the English bill and the adoption of the magnani- 92 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF mous and conciliating resolutions of the Illinois State conven tion, for forming a coalition in that State with the Abolition* ists to defeat the regular Democratic nominee for State offi- cers, members of the legislature, congressmen, and a United States senator, and filling their places with abolitionists. No other reason can be assigned for keeping up the warfare aftei 1 the question had been finally settled than an insatiable desire for revenge. No administration can be justified in dividing and destroying the party by which it was elevated to power upon the plea of resentment for real or imaginary grievances growing out of a past political issue. The coalition between the Republicans and the federal officeholders in Illinois, for the purpose of electing Mr. Lincoln to the Senate in the place of Mr. Douglas, by violating ah 1 the usages and bolting the regular nomination of the Democratic party, must form a dark page in the history of Mr. Buchanan's administration* Having been voted down and defeated by overwhelming ma- jorities in the regular organization in every county in the State for the election of delegates to the State convention, the federal officeholders called a new convention at Spring- field on the 9th of June, 1858, and formed a separate ticket to be supported by the bolters, for the avowed purpose of defeating the regularly nominated ticket of the party, and securing the ascendency of Black Republicanism in Illinois by means of the division thus produced in the Democratic ranks. On the 15th of June, 1858, Mr. Douglas made a speech in the Senate, in which he exposed the combination between the federal officeholders and the Abolitionists in Illinois, and called the attention of the Democratic party in Congress, and of the whole country, to this unholy and unnatural alli- ance ; and also showing that the federal officials professed to have the authority of the President and his cabinet for th course they were pursuing. THE LIFE AND SPEECHES "OF 93 CHAPTER XH. Or the 2d of February, 1858, President Buchanan trans* mitted to Congress a copy of the proposed constitution of tfiai*,as, framed by the convention at Lecompton ; accompanied by a message from himself, from which we make the following jfemarkable extracts : The Kansas convention, thus lawfully constituted, proceeded to frame a constitution ; and having completed their work, finally ad- lourned on the 7th day of November last. They did not think pro- pei to submit the whole of this constitution to a popular vote ; but tht,y did submit the question whether Kansas should be a free or a slave State to the people. No person thought of any other question. For my own part, when I instructed Governor Walker in general terms iii favor of submitting the constitution to the people, 1 had no object in view except the all-absorbing question of slavery. I then believed, and still believe, that under the organic act the Kansas convention were bound to submit this all-important question of slavery to the people. It was never, however, my opinion that, independently of this act, they would have been bound to submit any portion of the constitution to a popular vote in order to give it va- lidity. It has been solemnly adjudged, by the highest judicial tribunal known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of the United States. Kansas is therefore, at this mo- ment, as much a slave State as Georgia or South Carolina. Without this, the equality of the Sovereign States composing the Union, would be violated, and the use and enjoyment of a Territory acquired by the common treasure of all the States, would be closed against the people and the property of nearly half the members of the Confeder- acy. Slavery can, therefore, never be prohibited in Kansas, except by means of a constitutional provision, and in no other manner can this be obtained so promptly, if a majority of the people desire it, as by admitting it into the Union under its present constitution. On the other hand, should Congress reject the constitution, under the idea of affording the disaffected in Kansas a third opportunity of prohibiting slavery in the State, which they might have done Vwice before if in the majority, no man can foretell the consequences, [f Congress, for the sake of these men who refused to vote for dele- gates to the convention, when they might have excluded slavery from *he constitution, and who afterward refused to vote on the 21st December last, when they might, as t\ey claim, have stricken slavery the constitution, should now reject the State, because sla^erj 94: STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. remains on the constitution, it is manifest that the agitation upon this dangerous subject will be renewed in a more alarming form thar it has ever yet assumed. DOUGLAS INTERROGATES THE PRESIDENT. Two days after the reception of this extraordinary message by Congress, Senator Douglas called on the President for more definite information regarding the faets to which the message alluded, as follows : ME. DouaLAS I desire to offer a resolution, calling for informa- tion which will hasten our action on the Kansas question. I will read it for information ; but if it gives rise to debate, of course it will go over : Resolved That the President be requested to furnish all the information within his possession or control on the following points : 1. The return and votes for and against a convention at an election held in the Territory of Kansas, in October, 1856. 2. The census and registration of votes in the Territory of Kansas, under the provisions of the act of the said legislature, passed in February, 1857, provid- ing for the election of delegates and assembling a convention to Trame a con- stitution. 3. The returns of an election held in said Territory on the 21st of December, 1857, under the schedule of the Lecompton constitution, upon the question of "constitution with slavery" or "constitution without slavery." 4. The returns of an election held in the Territory of Kansas on the 4th day of January, 1858, under the authority of a law passed by the legislature of said Territory, submitting the constitution formed by the Lecompton convention to a vote of the people for ratification or rejection. 6. The returns of the election held in said Territory on the 4th day of Janu- ary, 1858, under the schedule of the Lecompton constitution, for Governor and other State officers, and for members of the legislature, specifying the names of each officer to whom a certificate of election has been accorded, and the number of votes cast and counted for each candidate, and distinguishing be- tween the votes returned within the time and in the mode provided in said schedule, and those returned subsequently and in other modes, and stating whether at either of said elections any returns of votes were rejected in con- sequence of not having been returned in time, or to the right officer, or in pro- per form, or for any other cause, stating specifically for what cause. 6. All correspondence between any of the Executive departments and Se- cretary or Governor Denver relating to Kansas affairs, and which has not been communicated to the Senate. Resolved That in the event all the information desired in the foregoing reso- lution is not now in the possession of the President, or of any of the Executive departments, he be respectfully requested to give the proper orders and take the necessary steps to procure the same for the use of the Senate. MR. SLIDELL objected, and the resolutions, under the rules, were had over. THE LIFE AND 8*JtiECHES OF 95 MINORITY REPORT ON KANSAS AFFAIRS. The majority of the Committee on Territories being in favor of the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton con- stitution, submitted through Mr. Green a report to that effect. On the same day, February 18, 1858, Mr. Douglas submitted a Minority Report, which will be found in a subse- quent part of this work. This report is a most vigorous argument, showing that there was no evidence that the Lecompton constitution was the act of the people of Kansas, or that it embodied their will ; that the right of admission accrued to a Territory only when they had sufficient population ; that the President and his cabinet had solemnly assured the people of Kansas that the constitution should be submitted to them for their free acceptance or rejection ; that the 60 delegates composing the Lecompton convention were chosen by 19 of the 38 counties of the Territory, while the other 18 counties were entirely disfranchised ; he tears away the thin veil that covered the designs of the members of the Lecompton convention, and shows that while knowing that an immense majority of the people of Kansas were opposed to the introduction of slavery they yet determined that they would form a constitution sanc- tioning slavery, and submit it in such a form as to render it impossible for them to reject it ; that the election held in Kansas on the 21st of December, 1857, was not valid and binding on the people of the Territory, for the reason that it was not held in pursuance of any law ; that the election of January 4, 1858, was lawful and valid, having been fairly conducted under a valid law of the Territorial legislature ; and that there was a majority of. 10,000 votes against theLe compton constitution. 7 96 STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. DEBATE ON LECOMPTON. During the month of March, 1858, the proposition to admit Kansas under the Lecompton constitution was warmly debated in the Senate. On the 22d, Mr. Douglas made a speech which was one of the ablest efforts of his life, and will be read with interest and admiration, as long as a vestige of the political history of the Union exists. In this speech, after a rapid and brief review of his course in Congress, he shows that it was the chief merit of the Compromise mea- sures of 1850, that they provided a rule of action which should apply everywhere, north and sou^h of 36 30', not only to the territories we then had, but to all we might afterward acquire ; and thus prevent all strife and agitation in future. He shows that the Lecompton constitution is not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and does not emoody their will. In concluding, he alludes to the ap- proaching termination of his senatorial term, and to the efforts that the Executive would make to prevent his reelec- tion. In tones that rang through the Senate chamber clear and sonorous as the blast of a trumpet, he gave utterance to these noble sentiments : " I do not recognize the right of the President to tell me my duty in the Senate chamber. When the time comes that a Senator is to account to the Executive, and not to his State, what becomes of the sovereignty of the States ? Is it intended to brand every Democrat as a traitor who is opposed to the Lecompton constitution? Come what may, I intend to vote, speak, and act, according to my own sense of duty. I have no vindication to make of my course. Let it speak for itself. Neither the frowns of power nor the influence of patronage will change my action, or drive me from my principles. I stand immovably upon the principles of State Sovereignty, upon which the campaign was fought and the election won. I will stand by the Constitution of the united States, with all its compromises, and perform all my obligations under it. If I shall be driven into private life, it is a fate that has no terrors for me. I prefer private THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 97 tfte, preserving my own self-respect, to abject and servile submission to executive will. If the alternative be private life, or servile obe- dience to executive will, I am prepared to retire. Official position has no charms for me, when deprived of freedom of thought and action." We give this great speech entire in a subsequent part of this work. It was delivered in the evening, the Senate chamber being brilliantly illuminated, and the galleries crowded, many ladies being admitted to seats on the floor of the Senate. On the next day, however, March 23, the bill admitting Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, passed the Senate by a vote of 33 to 25. Previous to taking this vote, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, moved a substitute for the bill, to the effect that the Constitution be submitted to the people of Kansas at once ; and if approved, the State to be admitted by the President's proclamation. If rejected, the people to call a convention and frame a constitution to be submitted to the popular vote. Special provisions mado against frauds at elections. The substitute was lost yeaa 24, nays 34. On the first of April, the bill as passed was taken up in the House of Representatives, and Mr. Montgomery, of Penn- sylvania, offered, as a substitue, the same one proposed by Mr. Crittenden. This was adopted in the House, ayes 120, nays, 112. THE ENGLISH BILL. The Senate refused to concur in this substitute, and a committee of conference was appointed by each House, who reported what has since been known as the English bill, which passed both Houses of Congress, and became a law. But in the debate in the Senate on the Crittenden-Mont- gomery amendment, Mr. Douglas spoke in its favor and 98 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. against the English bill, and in the course of his remarkr said: "I had hoped that the principle of self-government in the Territo- ries, the great principle of popular sovereignty which we all profess to cherish, on which all our institutions are founded, would have been carried out in good faith in Kansas. I believe, sir, that if the amendment inserted by the House of Representatives be concurred in by the Senate to-day, and become the law of the land, the great principle of popular sovereignty, on which all our institutions rest, will receive a complete triumph, and there will be peace and quiet and fraternal feeling all over this country. " We are told that this vexed question ought to be settled ; that the country is exhausted with strife and controversy; and that peace should be restored by the admission of Kansas. Sir, why not admit it? You can admit it in one hour, and restore peace to the country, if you will concur with with the House of Representatives in what is called the Oittenden amendment. This amendment provides that Kansas is admitted into the Union on the fundamental condition pre- cedent that the constitution be submitted to the people for ratification, and if assented to by them, it becomes their constitution ; if not assented to, they are to proceed to make one to suit themselves, and the President is to declare the result, and Kansas is to be in the Union without further legislation. Concur with the House of Representa- tives, and your action is final ; Kansas is in the Union, with the right to make her constitution to suit herself; and there is an end to the whole controversy." The English bill, as passed, will be found hi a subsequent part of this work. On the 29th of April, Mr. I>ouglas again addressed the Senate on the same general subject, with more particular reference to the English bill, for the admission of Kansas, which had passed the House of Representatives. In this speech, he says : Mr. President : I have carefully examined the bill reported by the committee of conference as a substitute for the House amendment to the Senate bill for the admission of Kansas, with an anxious desire to find in it such provisions as would enable me to give it my sup- port. I had hoped that, after the disagreement of the two houses upon this question, some plan, some form of bill, could have been THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 99 agreed upon, which would harmcnize and quiet the country, and reunite those who agree in principle and in political action on this great question, so as to take it out of Congress. I am not able, in the bill which is now under consideration, to find that the principle for which I have contended is fairly carried out. The position, and the sole position, upon which I have stood in this whole controversy, has been that the people of Kansas, and of each other Territory, in forming a constitution for admission into the Union as a ' State, should be left perfectly free to form and mold their domestic insti tutions and organic act in their own way, without coercion on the one side, or any improper or undue influence on the other. The question now arises, is there such a submission of the Lecomp- ton constitution as brings it fairly within that principle ? In terms, the constitution is not submitted at all ; but yet we are told that it amounts to a submission, because there is a land grant attached to it, and they are permitted to vote for the land grant, or against the land grant ; and, if they accept the land grant, then they are required to take the constitution with it ; and, if they reject the land grant, it shall be held and deemed a decision against coming into the Union under the Lecompton constitution. Hence it has been argued in one portion of the Union that this is a submission of the constitution, and in another portion that it is not. We are to be told that sub- mission is popular sovereignty in one section, and submission in another section is not popular sovereignty. Sir, I had hoped that when we came finally to adjust this question, we should have been able to employ language so clear, so unequi- vocal, that there would have been no room for doubt as to what was meant and what the line of policy was to be in the future. Are these people left free to take or reject the Lecompton constitution ? It they accept the land grant they are compelled to take it. If they reject the land grant, they are out of the Union. Sir, I have no special objection to the land grant as it is. I think it is a fair one, and if they had put this further addition, that if they refused to come in under the Lecompton constitution with the land grant, they might proceed to form a new constitution, and that they should then have the same amount of lands, there would have been no bounty held out for coming in under the Lecompton constitution ; but when the law gives them the six million acres in the event they take this con- stitution, and does not indicate what they are to have in the event they reject it, and wait until they can form another, I submit the question whether there is not an inducement, a bounty held out to influence these people to vote for this Lecompton constitution ? It may* be said that when they attain the ninety-three thousand population, or if they wait until after 1860, if they acquired the population required by the then ratio which may be one hundred and ten thousand or one hundred and twenty thousand- -and form a constitution under it, we shall give then the same amount of land that is now given by this- grant. That may be so, and may not b j.00 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. BO. I believe it will be so ; and yet in the House bill, for which this is a substitute, the provision was that they should have this same amount of land, whether they came in under the Lecompton consti- tution or whether they formed a new constitution. There was no doubt, no uncertainty left in regard to what were to be their rights under the land grant, whether they took the one constitution or the other. Hence that proposition was a fair submission, without any penalties on the one side, or any bounty or special favor or privilege on the other to influence their action. In this view of the case, I am not able to arrive at the conclusion that this is a fair submission either of the question of the constitution itself, or of admission into the Union under the constitution and the proposition submitted by this bill. There is a further contingency. In the event that they reject this constitution, they are to stay out of the Union until they shall attain the requisite population for a member of Congress, according to the then ratio of representation in the other House. I have no objection to making it a general rule that Territories shall be kept out until they have the requisite population. I have proposed it over and over again. I am willing to agree to it and make it applicable to Kansas if you will make it a general rule. But, sir, it is one thing to adopt that rule as a general rule and adhere to it in all cases, and and it is a very different, and a very distinct thing, to provide that if they will take this constitution, which the people have shown that they abhor, they may come in with forty thousand people, but if they do not, they shall stay out until they get ninety thousand ; thus discriminating between the different character of institutions that may be formed. I submit the question whether it is not congres- sional intervention, when you provide that a Territory may come in with one kind of constitution with forty thousand, and with a dif- ferent kind of constitution, not until she gets ninety thousand, or one hundred and twenty thousand ? It is intervention with inducements to control the result. It is intervention with a bounty on the- one side and a penalty on the other. I ask, are we prepared to construe the great principle of popular sovereignty in such a manner as will recognize the right of Congress to intervene and control the decision that the people may make on this question ? I do not. think that this bill brings the question within that prin- ciple which I have held dear, and in defence of which I have stood here for the last tive months, battling against the large majority of my political friends, and in defence of which I intend to stand as long as I have any association or connection with the politics of the country. Mr. President, I say now, as I am about to take leave of this subject, that I never can consent to violate that great principle of State equality, of State sovereignty, of popular sovereignty, by any discrimination, either in the one direction or in the other.* Mj position is taken. I know not what its consequences will be per THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF J 01 sonally to me. I will not inquire what those consequences may he. If I cannot remain in public life, holding firmly, immovably, to the great principle of self-government and state equality, I shall go into private life, where I can preserve the respect of my own conscience under the conviction that I have done my duty and followed the principle wherever its logical consequences carried me. SUBSEQUENT AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. On the next day, however, April 30, the Senate passed the English bill. So far as the action of Congress was concerned, Kansas was admitted: that is, provided the people there chose to come in under the English bill. But they did not so choose. In order to give complete- ness to this view of affairs in Kansas, we will state, though in doing so we greatly anticipate the order of time, that when the election took place, under the provisions of the English bill, the people of Kansas indignantly rejected the proposi- tions of the bill, and at the election held on the 3d of August, 1858, trampled the odious Lecompton constitution under their feet, by a majority of 10,000 votes. Soon after the election, Gov. Denver resigned, and Samuel Medary of Ohk was appointed governor. The Territorial legislature met in January, 1859, repealed many of the laws of the previous session, passed a new apportionment act ; and an act referring to the people the question of a new constitutional convention, the election to be held March 21. The people decided for a constitutional convention by a majority of 3,881. The con- vention met at Wyandot, on the 5th of July, 1859, and adopted a constitution by a small majority, the minority pro- testing against its adoption. MB. DOUGLAS ON BRITISH AGGRESSION. On the 29th of May, 1 858, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate, on the general subject of the recent British aggression ou 102 8TEPHF.N A. DOUGLAS. our ships, in a speech which made a most powerful impres- sion, not only on the Senate, but on the whole countiy. He ridiculed the idea of simply passing resolutions on the sub- ject; and urged the importance, nay, the necessity, of at once adopting such energetic measures as should convince England that the time had come at last when this natioA would no longer submit to her aggressions. He urged that the President of the United States should be clothed with power to punish instantly and effectually, all outrages on our flag, as soon as committed : " confer the power, and hold him responsible for its abuse." He showed that the Presi- dent of the United States was utterly powerless abroad, and that unless some such measures as he proposed should be adopted, the outrages of Great Britain would be contin- ued. He then proceeded to prove, from his own observation, that the coast of America was not defenceless ; that indeed, the coast of the United States is in a better condition of de- fence than that of Great Britain ; that New York was at this day better defended than London or Liverpool: and that it is easier for a hostile fleet to enter the harbor of either of those cities than the harbor of New York. " While I am opposed to war," said Mr. Douglas, " while I have no idea of any breach of the peace with England, yet, I confess to you, sir, if war should come by her act, and not ours ; by her invasion of our rights, and our vindication of the same; I would administer to every citizen and every child Hannibal's oath of eternal hostility as long as the En- glish flag waved, or their government claimed a foot of land upon the American continent, or the adjacent islands. Sir, I would make it a war that would settle our disputes for- ever, not only of the right of search upon the seas, but the right to tread with a hostile foot upon the soil of the Ameri- can continent or its appendages." The reader will find the whole of this eloquent and patri. THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF otic speech, in a subsequent part of this work. It electrified the whole nation. Men breathed freer and easier when they read it : and no one with a spark of American feeling in hia breast failed to respond to the noble sentiments of the gal- lant senate r from Illinois. J<4 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. CHAPTER Mr. Douglas returns to Chicago Brilliant Reception Makes his Speech opening the Campaign Lays down Principles on which he conducted it. SOON after Congress adjourned, in June, 1858, Mr. Douglas returned to Illinois to engage in his canvass for reelection to the Senate, and to vindicate the line of policy which he had felt it his duty to pursue. He arrived at Chicago on the 9th of July, and was welcomed by such a reception as no public man has ever received in this country. The newspapers of that city, of all shades of political opinions, agreed in repre- senting it as one of the most magnificent orations on record. Many columns of their sheets were filled with descriptions of the arrangements for the reception, the vast concourse of people estimated at 30,000 the processions, illumination of houses, fireworks, banners, cannon, etc., etc., which greeted Mr. Douglas' return to his home. The great event of this imposing pageant, however, was the speech of Mr. Douglas, in reply to the address of wel- come. After an appropriate and feeling acknowledgment of the honor done him in this grand testimonial, he proceeded to a discussion of the principles involved in the great contro- versy in which he was engaged. As this was the opening speech of the canvass, and clearly defines the principles on which it was afterward conducted through a series of more than one hundred joint and separate debates, we shall make such copious extracts as may enable the reader to understand the points in issue in that memorable campaign. THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP PRINCIPLES OF SELF-fiOVEKNMENT, AS APPLICABLE TO THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. If there is any one principle dearer and more sacred than all others in free governments, it is that which asserts the exclusive right of a free peo- ple to form and adopt their own fundamental law, and to manage and regulate their own internal affairs and domestic institutions. (Applause.) "When I found an effort being made, during the recent session of Con- gress, to force a constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, and to force that State into the Union with a constitution which her people had rejected by more than 10,000 majority, I felt bound, as a man of honor and a representative of Illinois, bound by every consideration of duty, of fidelity, and of patriotism, to resist to the utmost of my power the consummation of what I deemed fraud. (Cheers.) With others I did resist it, and resisted it successfully until the attempt was abandoned. (Great applause.) We forced them to refer that constitution back to the people of Kansas, to be accepted or rejected, as they shall decide at an election, which is fixed for the first Monday of August next. It is true that the mode of reference and the form of the submission was not such as I could sanction with my vote, for the reason thzrt it discriminated between free States and slave States ; providing that if Kansas consented to come in under the Lecompton constitution it should be received with a popula- tion of 35,000 ; but if she demanded another constitution, more consistent with the sentiments of her people and their feelings, that it should not be received into the Union until she had 93,420 inhabitants. (Cries of " hear, hear," and chefers.) I did not consider that mode of submission fair, for the reason that any election is a mockery which is not free that any elec- tion is a fraud upon the rights of the people which holds out inducements for affirmative votes, and threatens penalties for negative votes. (Hear, hear.) But whilst I was not satisfied with the mode of submission, whilst I resisted it to the last, demanding a fair, a just, a free mode of submission, still, when the law passed placing it within the power of the people of Kansas at that election to reject the Lecompton constitution, and then make another in harmony with their principles and their opinions (Bravo, and applause), I did not believe that either the penalties on the one hand, or the inducements on the other, would prevail on that people to accept a constitution to which they are irreconcilably opposed. (Cries of " glori- ous," and renewed applause.) All I can say is, that if their votes can be controlled by such considerations, all the sympathy which has 106 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. expended upoa them has been misplaced, and all the efforts that have been made in defence of their right to self-government have been made in ao unworthy cause. (Cheers.) NO EIGHT TO FORCE EVEN A GOOD THING ON AN UNWILLING PEOPLE. I will be entirely frank with you. My object was to secure the right of the people of each State and of each Territory, North or South, to de- cide the question for themselves, to have slavery or not, just as they choose ; and my opposition to the Lecompton constitution was not pre- dicated upon the ground that it was a pro-slavery Constitution (cheers), nor would my action have been different had it been a free-soil Constitu- tion. My speech against it was made on the 9th of December, while the vote on the slavery clause in that Constitution was not taken until the 21st of the same month, nearly two weeks after. I made my speech solely on the ground that it was a violation of the fundamental principles of free government ; on the ground that it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas; that it did not embody their. will; that they we're averse to it ; and hence I denied the right of Congress to force it upoa them, either as a free State or a slave State. (Bravo.) i deny the right of Congress to force a slaveholding State upon an unwilling people. (Cheers.) I deny their right to force a free State upon an unwilling people. (Cheers.) I deny their right to force a good thing upon a people who are unwilling to receive it. (Cries of " Good, good," and cheers.) The great principle is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to adopt it ; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, the right of free judgment upon the question is dearer to every true American than any other under a free government. My objection to the Lecompton con- trivance was that it undertook to put a constitution on the people of Kansas against their will, in opposition to their wishes, and thus violated the great principle upon which all our institutions rest. It is no answer to this argument to say that slavery is an evil, and hence should not be tole- rated. You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is a good or an evil. You allow them to decide for themselves whether they desire a Maine liquor law or not ; you allow them to decide for them- selves what kind of common schools they will have ; what system of banking they will adopt, or whether they will adopt any at all ; you allow them to decide for themselves the relations between husband and wife, I THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 107 parent and child, and guardian and ward : in fact, you allow them to de- cide for themselves all other questions, and why not upon this ques- tion? (Cheers.) Whenever you put a limitation upon the right of any people to decide what laws they want, you have destroyed the fundamen- tal principle of self-government. (Cheers). ORIGIN OF THE IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT. The Republican convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln for United States senator in opposition to Mr. Douglas, was held in the city of Springfield, on the 15th of June, 1858. Immediately after Mr. Lincoln's unanimous nomination was announced, he read to the convention a carefully elaborated speech accepting the nomination which he had prepared in anticipation of that event, and which was published for cir- culation by order of the convention, as an authoritative ex- position of the principles of the . Republican party. Mr. Douglas referring to this speech, said : Mr. Lincoln made a speech before that Republican convention which unanimously nominated him for the Senate a speech evidently well pre- pared and carefully written in which he states the basis upon which he proposes to carry on the campaign during this summer. In it he lays dowi two distinct propositions which I shall notice, and upon which I shall take a direct and bold issue with him. (Cries of " Good, good," and great applause). His first and main proposition I will give in his own language, Scrip- ture quotation and all (laughter). I give his exact language : " In my opinion it [the slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States old as well as new, North as well as South." In other words, Mr. Lincoln asserts as a fundamental principle of thia government, that there must be uniformity in the local laws and domestio institutions of each and all the States of the Union ; and he therefore in 108 STEPHEN 'A. DOUGLAS. vites all the non-slaveholding States to band together, organize as tm body, and make war upon slavery in Kentucky, upon slavery in Virginia, Jipon slavery in the Carolinas, upon slavery in all the slaveholding States in this Union, and tc persevere in that war until it shall be exterminated. He then notified the slaveholding States to stand together as a unit and make an aggressive war upon the free States of this Union with a view of establishing slavery in them all ; of forcing it upon Illinois, of forcing it upon New York, upon New England, and upon every other free State, and that they shall keep up the warfare until it has been formally established in them all. In other words, Mr. Lincoln advocates boldly and clearly a war of sections, a war of the North against the South, of the free States against the slave States a war of extermination to be continued relent- lessly, until the one or the other shall be subdued and all the States shall cither become free or become slave. Now, my friends, I must say to you frankly, that I take bold, unqualified issue with him upon that principle. I assert that it is neither desirable nor possible that there should be uniformity in the local institutions and domestic regulations of the different States of this Union. The framers of our government never contemplated uniformity in its internal concerns. The fathers of the Revolution, and the sages who made the Constitution, well understood that the laws and domestic institutions which would suit the granite hills of New Hampshire, would be totally unfit for the rice plantations of South Carolina (cheers) ; they well understood that the laws which would suit the agricultural districts of Pennsylvania and New York, would be totally unfit for the large mining regions of the Pacific, or the lumber regions of Maine. (Bravo.) They well understood that the great varieties of soil, of production, and of interests, in a republic as large as this, required different local anil domestic regulations in each locality, adapted to the wants and interests of each separate State (cries of 41 bravo" and "good,") and for that reason it was provided in the federal Constitution that the thirteen original States should remain sovereign and supreme within their own limits in regard to all that was local, and inter- nal, and domestic, while the Federal Government should have certain speci- fied powers which were general and national, and could be exercised oulj b7 the federal authority. (Cheers). THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 109 IP UNIFORMITY WEKE EITHER DESIRABLE OR POSSIBLE, HOW IS IT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED ? How could this uniformity be accomplished if it were desirable and possible ? There is but one mode in which it could be obtained, and that must be by abolishing the State legislatures, blotting out State sovereignty, merging the rights and sovereignty of the States in one consolidated empire, and vesting Congress with the plenary power to make all the police regulations, domestic and local laws, uniform throughout the limits of th Republic. When you shall have done this you will have uniformity. Then the States will all be slave or all be free ; then negroes will be free every- where or nowhere ; then you will have a Maine liquor law in every State or none ; then you will have uniformity in all things local and domestic by the authority of the Federal Government. But, when you attain that uniformity you will have converted these thirty-two sovereign, independent States into one consolidated empire, with the uniformity of disposition reigning triumphant throughout the length and breadth of the land. ( u Hear," " hear," " bravo," and great applause.) From this view of the case, my friends, I am driven irresistibly to the conclusion that diversity, dissimilarity, variety in all our local and domestic institutions, is the great safeguard of our liberties ; and that the framers of otir institutions were wise, sagacious, and patriotic when they made this government a confederation of spvereign States with a legislature for each, and coni'erred upon each legislature the power to make all local and do- mestic institutions to suit the people it represented, without interference from any other State or from the general Congress of the Union. If we expect to maintain our liberties we must preserve the rights and sovereignty of the States, we must maintain and carry out that great principle of self- government incorporated in the Compromise measures of 1850; indorsee by the Illinois legislature in 1851 ; emphatically embodied and carried out in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and vindicated this year by the refusal to bring Kansas into the Union with a constitution distasteful to her people. (Cheers.) NO CRUSADE AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT THE DRED SCOTT DECISION THE LAW OF THE LAND AND MUST BE OBEYED. The other proposition discussed by Mr. Lincoln in his speech consists in a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States on account of the Dred Scott decision. On this question, also, 1 desire to say to you 110 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. nnequhocally, that I take direct and distinct issue with him. I have no warfare to make on the Supreme Court of the United States (Bravo), either on account of that or any other decision which they have pro- nounced from that bench. ( 41 Good, good," and enthusiastic applause.) The Constitution of the United States has provided that the powers of gov- ernment (and the constitution of each State has the same provision) shall be divided into three departments, executive, legislative and judicial. The right and the province of expounding the Constitution, and construing the law, is vested in the judiciary, established by the Constitution. As a lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear before the court and controvert any principle of law while the question is pending before the tribunal ; but when the decision is made, my private opinion, your opinion, all other opinions must yield to the majesty of that authoritative adjudication. (Cries of " it is right," " good, good," and cheers.) I wish you to bear in mind that this in- volves a great principle, upon which our rights, and our liberty and our property all depend. What security have you for your property, for your reputation, and for your personal rights, if the courts are not upheld, and their decisions respected when once firmly rendered by the highest tribunal known to the Constitution ? (Cheers.) I do not choose, there- fore, to go into any argument with Mr. Lincoln in reviewing the various decisions which the Supreme Court has made, either upon the Dred Scott case, or any other. I have no idea of appealing from the decision of the Supreme Court upon a constitutional quStion to a tumultuous town-meet- ing. (Cheers.) I am aware that once &a eminent lawyer of this city, now no more, said that the State of Illinois had the most perfect judicial system in the world, subject to but one exception, which could be cured by a slight amendment, and that amendment was to so change the law as to allow an appeal from the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, on all constitutional questions, to two justices of the peace. (Great laughter and applause.) My friend, Mr. Lincoln, who sits behind me, reminds me that that proposition was made when I was judge of the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, I do not think that fact adds any greater weight of authority to the suggestion. (Renewed laughter and applause ) It mat-- ters not with me who was on the bench, whether Mr. Lincoln or myself, whether a Loekwood or a Smith, a Taney or a Marshall ; the decision of the highest tribunal known to the Constitution of the country must be final until it has been reversed by an equally high authority. (Cries of "bravo" and applause.) Hence, I am opposed to this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, by which he proposes to take an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these high constitutional questions to a Republican caucus. (A voice " Call it Freesoil," and cheers.) Yes, or to THE LIFE ANL) SPEECHES OF HI any other caucus or town-meeting, whether it be Republican, American, 01 Democratic. (Cheers.) I respect the decisions of that august tribur.al; I shall always bow in deference to them. I am a law-abiding man. I will sustain the Constitution of my country as our fathers hare made it. I will yield obedience to the laws, whether I like them or not, as I find them on the statute book. I will sustain the judicial tribunals and constituted authorities in all matters within the pale of their jurisdiction, as defined by the Constitution. (Applause.) OFKS A WHITE MAN'S GOVERNMENT NEGROES NOT CITIZENS. But I am equally free to say that the reason assigned by Mr. Lincoln for resisting the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case does not in itself meet my approbation. He objects to it because that decision de- clared that a negro descended from African parents who were brought Lere and sold as slaves, is not, and cannot be, a citizen of the United States. He says it is wrong, because it deprives the negro of the benefits of that clause of the Constitution which says that citizens of one State shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States ; in other words, he thinks it wrong because it deprives the negro of the privileges, immunities, and rights of citizenship, which pertain, ac- cording to that decision, only to the white man. I am free to say to yon that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. (Great applause.) It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such a manner as they should determine. (Cheers.) It is also true that a negro, or any other man of an inferior race to a white man, should be permitted to enjoy, and humanity requires that he should have all the rights, privileges and immu- nities which he is capable of exercising consistent with the safety of society. I would give him every right and every privilege which his capacity would enable him to enjoy, consistent with the good of the society in which he lived. (" Bravo.") But you may ask me what are these rights and these privileges. My answer is that each State must decide for itself the nature and extent of these rights. (" Hear, hear," and applause.) Illinois has 'ecided for herself. We have decided that the negro shall not be a slave, and we have at the same time decided that he shall not vote, or serve on juries, or enjoy political privileges. I am content with that system of policy which we hare adopted for ourselves. (Cheers.) I deny the right of any other State to complain of our policy in that respect, or to interfere with it, or to attempt to change it. On the other hand, the 1 Stte of 4Mn 8 112 STEPHEN A. DOU&LAS. has decided, as she had a right to under the Dred Scott decision, that in that State a negro may vote on an equality with the white man. The sovereign power of Maine had the right to prescribe that rule for herself. Illinois has no right to complain of Maine for conferring the right upon negro suffrage, nor has Maine any right to interfere with, or complain of, Illinois because she has denied negro suffrage. (" That's so," and cheers.) The State of New York has decided by her constitution that a negro may vote, provided that he owns $250 worth of property, but not otherwise. The rich negro can vote, but the poor one cannot. (Laughter.) Although that distinction does not commend itself to my judgment, yet I assert that the sovereign power of New York had aright to prescribe that form of the elective franchise. Kentucky, Virginia, and other States have provided that negroes, or a certain class of them in those States, shall be slaves, having neither civil nor political rights. Without indorsing or condemning the wisdom of that decision, I assert that Virginia has the same power., by virtue of her sovereignty, to protect slavery within her limits as Illinois has to banish it forever from our borders. (" Hear, hear," and applause.) I assert the right of each State to decide for itself on all these questions, and I do not subscribe to the doctrine of my friend, Mr. Lincoln, that uniformity is either desirable or possible. I do not acknowledge that the States must all be free or must all be slave. I do not acknowledge that the negro must have civil and political rights everywhere or nowhere. I do not acknowledge that the Chinese must have the same rights in California that we would confer upon him here. I do not acknowledge that the Coolie imported into this country must necessarily be put upon an equality with the white race. I do not ac- knowledge any of these doctrines of uniformity in the local and domestic regulations in the different States. (" Bravo," and cheers.) Thus you see, my fellow-citizens, that the issues between Mr. Lincoln and myself, as respective candidates for the TJ. S Senate, as made up, are direct, unequivocal, and irreconcilable. He goes for uniformity in our domestic institutions, for a war of sections, until one or the other shall be subdued. I go for the great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the right of the people to decide for themselves. (Senator Douglas was here interrupted by the wildest applause ; cheer after cheer rent the air ; the baud struck up u Yankee Doodle ;" rockets and pieces of fireworks blazed forth ; and the enthusiasm was so intense and universal that it was some time before order could be restored and Mr. Douglas resume. The scene at this period was glorious beyond description.) THE LIFE AND SPEECHES O I" 113 (WANDS BY THE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION AND THE CINCIN- NATI PLATFORM. My friends, you see that the issues are distinctly drawn. I stand by the same platform that I have so often proclaimed to you and to the people of Illinois heretofore. (Cries of " That's true," and applause.) I stand by the Democratic organization, yield obedience to its usages, and support its regular nominations. (Intense enthusiasm.) I indorse and approve the Cincinnati platform (renewed applause), and I adhere to and intend to carry out as part of that platform the great principle of self-government, which recognizes the right of the people in each State and Territory to decide for themselves their domestic institutions. (" Good, good," and cheers.) In conclusion, he denounces the " unholy alliance :" Fellow-citizens, you now have before you the outlines of the propositions which I intend to discuss before the people of Illinois during the pending campaign. I have spoken without preparation, and in a very desultory manner, and may have omitted some points which I -desired to discuss, and may have been less explicit on others than I could have wished. I Slave made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination which has been made against me. (Enthusiastic applause.) The Republi- can leaders have formed an alliance, an unholy, unnatural alliance, with a portion of the federal officeholders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. (Cheers.) I know they deny the alliance while avowing the common purpose ; but yet these men who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Republican senator in my place, are just as much the agents, the tools, the supporters of Mr. Lincoln as if they were avowed Republicans, and expect their reward for their services when the Republicans come into power. (Cries of " That is true," and cheers.) I shall deal with these allied forces just as the Rus- sians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol. The Russians when they fired a broadside at the common enemy did not stop to inquire whether it hit a Frenchman, an Englishman or a Turk, nor will I stop (laughter and great applause), nor shall I stop to inquire whether my blows hit the Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal offices and yet acting in concert with the Republicans to defeat the Democratic party and its nomi- nees. (Cheers, and cries of " Bravo.") I do not include all of the federal officeholders in this remark. Such of there as are Democrats and show 114: STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. their Democracy by remaining inside of the Democratic organization and supporting its nominees, I recognize as Democrats, but those who, having been defeated inside of the organization, go outside and attempt to divide and destroy the party in concert with the Republican leaders, have ceased to be Democrats, and belong to the allied army whose avowed object is to eiect the Republican ticket by dividing and destroying the Democratic party. (Cheers.) Immediately after his reception at Chicago, Mr. Douglas entered actively on his canvass over the entire State, making more than one hundred speeches in less than four months, and enduring an unparalleled amount of physical exertion and fatigue. History fails to cite any public man who ever received such continued ovations at the h^nds of his people as greeted Mr. Douglas all through h/'a Illinois campaign. We make room for a letter which ay^eared in one of the Chicago papers of the day, descriptive of his journey from that city to Bloomington, to fill his first appointment, with the remark that the same demonstrations of popular enthusi- asm and manifestations of popular admiration and love met Mr. Douglas everywhere through his canvass. The picture of the correspondent does but bare justice to the facts as they existed. SENATOR DOUGLAS AMONG THE PEOPLE IAASAGE FROM CHI- CAGO TO SPRINGFIELD GEEAT ENTHUSIASM LONG THE LINE OP THE ST. LOUIS AND ALTON RAILROAD GLORIOUS DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE POPULAR FEELING. BLOOMINGTON, -My 16, 1868. If there was- ever any doubt that Senator Douglas possess^ the popular heart of the people of Illinois, that doubt has been dispelled to-day. His passage from Chicago to this place has been a perfect ovation. There was not a station or cottage that the train passed from which there was not a greeting and a " God speed" sent forth ; and the evidences or popular feel* iiig evinced in his favor are conclusive that the result in November will be one of the most glorious triumphs of the Democracy ever acfc*evatl State. THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 115 Senator Douglas, as you are aware, left Chicago in the 9 o'clocK train this morning, on the St. Louis, Alton and Chicago Railroad, to meet an appointment which he made at Springfield for to-morrow. The train which bore him was tastefully decorated with flags, the engine being almost hid beneath them, and banners were also displayed on the cars with the inscrip- tion " Stephen A. Douglas, the Champion of Popular Sovereignty." As the train passed along, the crowds who had assembled to give a parting cheer to the " Little Giant " performed their labor of love energetically and well. The train was soon out of Chicago and flying along the track ; and now Mr. Douglas, having a few moments to devote to those " on board," shook hands and exchanged compliments with a number of impatient pas* seugers who crowded around him, anxious to evince their respect and high admiration of the man. As the train swept through Bridgeport, the employees of the road sta- tioned there had assembled together, and greeted Senator Douglas with three hearty cheers. A little incident occurred as we passed Bridgeport which is perhaps worthy of notice. One of the flags with which the train was decorated caught on the branches of a tree, and a gentleman seeing it, exclaimed, " See, Judge Douglas, there is one of your flags waving from that tree." " Yes," replied the Judge, "and before this campaign is over, my flags will be seen waving from every tree in the State'." At every station on the road at Brighton Course, Summit, Athens and Lockport the people were out waiting an opportunity to testify their respect to their patriot senator ; and not a little interest was added to these demonstrations by the number of pretty girls and blooming matrons who took part in them, and testified by the waving of handkerchiefs and smiles of approval that there was one besides their lovers and husbands who had a place in their hearts. As the train approached Joliet, the shrill whistle of the engine to " break up " was answered by the roar of artillery from the town ; and when we reached the station, about 11 o'clock, we found some four or five hundred people awaiting us. The thunders of the guns were answered by the cheers of welcome by the crowd, who pressed around the cars anxious to get a glimpse of Senator Douglas. There being a delay at this place of twenty minutes for dinner, the senator spent it in shaking hands with and receiving the congratulations of those who had assembled to see him. The beaming countenances of the sturdy yeomanry, whose faces were lighted up with joy at meeting the man whom they delighted to honor, showed that the heart felt what the mouth uttered. One fine looking specimen of human nature, whose strong, sturdy frame, and sunburn! 116 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. healthy cheek, bore testimony to his having spent the best part of his day! in the open air, exclaimed, after shaking hands with the senator, "By G d, that did me good !" At Joliet, a platform car, decorated with thirteen flags, and bearing a twelve-pounder and gun-carriage, was hitched on to the train, and after we left that town, as we approached each station, " Popular Sovereignty," as'the gun was called, gave lively notice that we were on hand. At El- wood, a crowd was awaiting us, and as the train passed through, cheer after cheer went up, whilst two or three individuals expressed their enthu- siasm by the discharge of their revolvers. As the train approached Wilmington, "Popular Sovereignty's" note was echoed by a piece of artillery in the town, and as we reached the station, we found the citizens, accompanied by a fine brass band, awaiting Senator Douglas. The cars had hardly stopped, when a gentleman, whose head was silvered o'er with age, jumped on the train, and seizing Senator Dou- glas by the hand, cried, " Welcome, Judge Douglas, welcome to Wilming- ton," and then three hearty cheers, such as only the farmers of the Prairie State can give, rose in the air, and the people crowded around to shak* Mr. Douglas by the hand. The train was delayed here several minutes, order to afford the people an opportunity of seeing their senator. At all the other stations Stewart's Grove, Gardner, Dwight, Odell, Cay uga, Pontiac, Rook Creek, Peoria Junction, Lexington, and Towanda, th people were out awaiting the train, and greeted Senator Douglas with lou<* hurrahs. At each of these stations large numbers got on board for Bloom ington. As we approached Bloomington, " Popular Sovereignty" gave notice that we were about, and his roar was answered by another of wel- come from the town. About 5,000 people had assembled here to meet Senator Douglas, and the whole town and surrounding country were pre- sent on horseback, in vehicles, and on foot, to welcome his arrival. The train was overrun with people who clambered on top of the cars, and tum- bled in on all sides, and the enthusiasm manifested was similar to that shown on his arrival at Chicago on Friday last. The thunders of the guns, the music of the band, and the shouts of the multitude filled the air. The scene can better be imagined than described. The crowd closed in around the cars in an impenetrable mass, and, taking possession of Senator Doug- las, they carried him over to the platform, where he received their per- sonal welcomes. After some time spent in this manner, the senator was placed in an open carriage, provided by the Committee of Arrangements, and the escort, composed of the Bloomington Rifles, a cavalcade of horse men, and citizens on foot, headed by the Bloomington brass band, took up its march for the London House where rooms had been engaged bj THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 117 the committee for their guest. Flags were displayed from the house, and strips of muslin ran along the balconies, bearing the inscription, u S. A. Douglas, the champion of Popular Sovereignty." Arriving at the house, the procession was dismissed, and after giving three times three cheers for Senator Douglas, gradually dispersed, to re-assemble at 7 o'clock, P.M., in the court-house square, for the purpose of listening to his address. At 7 o'clock, the roar of the cannon, and the firing of rockets, the ring- of the court-house bell, and the music of the band attached to the Bloom- ington Guards, who attended the meeting in uniform, gave notice to the people to assemble ; and in half an hour the large square surrounding thn court-house was crowded with people, whilst Washington, Jefferson, and Madison streets were in the same condition ; and the windows and doors of the houses fronting the square were thronged with ladies and gentle- men. There were about 10,000 persons in attendance, and the committee of arrangements expected a much larger number, who were prevented from coming in from the country by the heavy rain which fell in thia neighborhood all last night and to-day. The court-house was illuminated, and a stage was erected on the west side for the meeting. At about 8 o'clock, Allen Withers, Esq., chairman of the Committee of Arrangements, called the meeting to order. Dr. E. R. Roe, in a very elo- quent speech, welcomed Senator Douglas, and assured him, on behalf of the people of McLean County, that his course, during the last session of Congress, was fully approved by them, and that they were ready to show that approval, in a substantial manner, at the polls in November next. SPEECH AT BLOOMINGTON. In the course of his speech at Bloomington, Mr. Douglas referred to the Compromise measures of 1850, and the iu str actions of the Illinois legislature of 1851 to carry out the same principle of self-government in the organization of new Territories, as follows : Illinois stands proudly forward as a State which early took her position in favor of the principle of popular sovereignty, as applied to the Territo- ries of the United States. When the Compromise measures of 1850 passed, predicated upon that principle, you recollect the excitement which prevailed throughout the northern portion of this State. I vindicated those mea- iures then, and defended myself for having voted for them, upon the groucd 118 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. that they embodied the principle that every people ought to have the privilege of forming and regulating their own institutions to suit them- selves that each State had that right, and I saw no reason why it should not be extended to the Territories. When the people of Illinois had an opportunity of passing judgment upon those measures, they indorsed them by a vote of their representatives in the legislature sixty-one in the affirmative, and only four in the negative in which they asserted that the principle embodied in the measures was the birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, a principle vindicated by our Revolutionary fathers, and that no limitation should ever be placed upon it, either in the organization of a Territorial government, or the admission of a State into the Union. That resolution still stands unrepealed on the journals of the legislature of Illinois. In obedience to it, and in exact conformity with the principle, I brought in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, requiring that the people should be left perfectly free in the formation of their institutions, and in the or- ganization of their government. I now submit to you whether I have not in good faith redeemed that pledge, that the people of Kansas should be left perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions to suit themselves* ("You have," and cheers.) And yet, while no man can rise in any crowd and deny that I have been faithful to my principles, and redeemed my pledge, we find those who are struggling to crush arfd defeat me, for the very reason that I have been faithful in carrying out those measures. ("They can't do it," and great cheers.) We find the Republican leaders forming an alliance with professed Lecompton men to defeat every Demo- cratic nominee, and elect Republicans in their places, and aiding and de- fending them in order to help them break down Anti-Lecompton men whom they acknowledge did right in their opposition to Lecompton (" They can't do it.") The only hope that Mr. Lincoln has of defeating rat for the Senate rests in the fact that I was faithful to my principles, and that he may be able, in consequence of that fact, to form a coalition with Lecompton men who wish to defeat me for that fidelity. (" They will never do it. Never in the State of Illinois" and cheers.) He again refers to the coalition between the federal office- holders and the abolitionists, to break down the Democratic party This is one element of strength upon which he relies to accomplish his object. He hopes he can secure the few men claiming to be friends of the Lecompton constitution, and for that reason you will find he does not aay a word against the Lecompton constitution or its supporters. He is aa THE LIFE. AND SPEECHES OF 119 ft.lent as the grave upon that subject. Behold Mr. Lincoln courting Leoomr>- ton votes, n order that he may go to the Senate as the representative of Republican principles ! (Laughter.) You know that the alliance exists. I think you will find that it will ooze out before the contest is over. (" That's ray opinion," and cheers.) Every Republican paper takes ground with my Lecompton enemies, en- couraging them, stimulating them in their opposition to me, and styling my friends bolters from the Demoeratic party, and their Lecompton allies the true Democratic party of the country. If they think that they can mislead and deceive the people of Illinois, or the Democracy of Illinois, by that sort of an unnatural and unholy alliance, I think they show very little sagacity, or give the people very little credit for intelligence. (" That's so," and cheers.) It must be a contest of principle. Either the radical aboli- tion principles of Mr. Lincoln must be maintained, or the strong, constitu- tional, national Democratic principles with which I am identified, must be carried out. There can be but two great political parties in this country. The contest this year and in 1860, must necessarily be between the Democracy and the Republicans, if we can judge from present indications. My whole life has been identified with the Democratic party. (Cheers.) I have devoted all my energies to advocating its principles, and sustaining its organization. la this State the party was never better united and more harmonious than at this time. (Cheers.) The State Convention which assembled on the 2d of April, and nominated Fondey and French, was regularly called by the State Central Committee, appointed by the previous State Convention for that purpose. The meetings in each county in the State for the appoint- ment of delegates to the convention, were regularly called by the county committees, and the proceedings in every county in the State, as well as m the State Convention, were regular in all respects. No convention was ever more harmonious in its action, or showed a more tolerant and just spirit toward brother Democrats. The leadens of the party there assem- bled declared their unalterable attachment to the time-honored principles and organization of the Democratic party, and to the Cincinnati platform. They declared that that platform was the only authoritative exposition of Democratic principles, and that.it must so stand until changed by another National Convention ; that in the meantime they would make no new tests, and submit to none ; that they would proscribe no Democrat, nor permit the proscription of Democrats because of their opinions upon Lecomptonism, or upon any other issue which has arisen ; but would recognize all men as Democrats who remained inside of the organization, preserved the usages of the party, and supported its nominees. (Great applause.) These bjltr 120 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. ing Democrats who now claim to be the peculiar friends of the national administration, and have formed an alliance with Mr. Lincoln and the Re- publicans, for the purpose of defeating the Democratic party, have ceased to claim fellowship with the Democratic organization, have entirely sepa- rated themselves from it, and are endeavoring to build up a faction ia the State, not with the hope or expectation of electing any one man who pro- fesses to be a Democrat, to office in any county in the State, but merely to secure the defeat of the Democratic nominees, and the election of Repub- licans in their places. What excuse can any honest Democrat have for abandoning the Democratic organization, and joining with the Republi- cans ("None!") to defeat our nominees, in view of the platform estab- lished by the State Convention ? They cannot pretend that they were pro- scribed because of their opinions upon Lecompton or any other question, for the Convention expressly declared that they recognize all as good De- mocrats who remained inside of the organization, and abided by the nomi- nations. If the question is settled, or is to be considered as finally dis- posed of by the vote on the 3d of August, what possible excuse can any good Democrat make for keeping up a division for the purpose of pro- strating his party, after that election is over, and the controversy has ter minated. DEED SOOTT DECISION NEGRO EQUALITY. But I must now bestow a few words upon Mr. Lincoln's main objection to the Dred Scott decision. He is not going to submit to it. Not that he is going to make war upon it with force of arms. But he is going to appeal and reverse it in some way ; he cannot tell us how. I reckon not by a writ of error, because I do not know where he would prosecute that, except before an Abolition Society. ("That's it," and applause.) And when he appeals, he does not exactly tell us to whom he will appeal, except it be to the Republican party, and I have yet to learn that the Republican party, under the Constitution, has judicial powers ; but he is going to appeal from it and reverse it either by an act of Congress, or by turning out the judges, or in some other way. And why ? Because he says that that decision deprives the negro of the benefit of that clause of the.Constitution of the United States which entitles the citizens of each State to all the privileges and immuni ties of citizens of the several States. Well, it is very true that the decision does have that effect. By deciding that a negro is not a citizen, of course it denies to him the rights and privileges awarded to citizens of the United States. It is this that Mr. Lincoln will not submit to. Why ? For the palpable reason that he wishes to confer upon* the negro all the right*. THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 121 privileges, and immunities of citizens of the several States. I will not quarrel with Mr. Lincoln for his views on that subject. I have no doubt that he is conscientious in them. I have not the slightest idea but that he conscientiously believes that a negro ought to enjoy and exercise all the rights and privileges given to white men ; but I do not agree with him, and hence I cannot concur with him. I believe that this government of oura was formed on the white basis. (Prolonged cheering.) I believe that it was established by white men (applause) by men of European birth and descended of European races, for the benefit of white men and their pos- terity in all time to come. (" Hear, hear.") I do not believe that it was the design or intention of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or the framers of the Constitution to include negroes or other inferior races with white men as citizens. (Cheers.) Our fathers had at that day Been the evil consequences of conferring civil and political rights upon the negro in the Spanish and French colonies on the American continent, and the adjacent islands. In Mexico, in Central America, in South America, and in the West India Islands, where the negro, and men of all colors and all races are put on an equality by law, the effect of political amalgamation can be seen. Ask any of those gallant young men in your own county, who who went to Mexico to fight the battles of their country, in what friend Lincoln considers an unjust and unholy war, and hear what they will tell you in regard to the amalgamation of races in that country. Amal- gamation there, first political, then social, has led to demoralization and degradation until it has reduced the people below the point of capacity for self-government. Our fathers knew what the effect of it would be, and from the time they planted foot on the American continent, not only those who landed at Jamestown, but at Plymouth Rock and all other points on the coast, they pursued the policy of confining civil and political rights to the white race, and excluding the negro in all cases Still Mr. Lincoln con- scientiously believes that it is his duty to advocate negro citizenship. He wants to give the negro the privileges of citizenship. He quotes Scripture again, and says: "As your Father in Heaven is perfect, be ye also per- fect," and he applies that Scriptural quotation to all classes, not that he expects us all to be as perfect as our Master, but as nearly perfect as pos- sible. In other words, he is willing to give the negro an equally under the law, in order that he may approach as near perfection or an equality with the white man as possible. To this same end he quotes the Declara- tion of Independence in these words : "We hold these truths to be self- evident that all men were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pnr- iuit of happiness," and goes on to arg-ie that the negro was, .acludod, or 122 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. intendei to be included, in that declaration by the signers of the paper. He says that by the Declaration of Independence; therefore, all kinds of men, negroes included, were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and further, that the right of the negro to be on an equality with the white man is a Divine right conferred by the Almighty, and rendered inalienable according to the Declaration of Inde- pendence. Hence no human law or constitution can deprive the negro of that equality with the white man to which he is entitled by Divine law. ("Higher law.") Yes, higher law. Now, I do not question Mr. Lincoln's sincerity on this point. He believes that the negro by the Divine law is created the equal of the white man, and that no human law can deprive him of that equality thus secured ; and he contends that the negro ought, therefore, to have all the rights and privileges of citizenship on an equality with the white man. In order to accomplish this, the first thing that would have to be done in this State would be to blot out of our State Constitution that clause which prohibits negroes from coming into this State and making it an African colony, and permit them to come and spread over these charm- ing prairies until in midday they shall look black as night. When our friend Lincoln gets all his colored brethren around him here, he will then raise them to perfection as fast as possible, and place them on an equality with the white man, first removing all legal restrictions, because they are our equals by Divine law and there should be no such restrictions. He wants them to vote. I am opposed to it. If they had a vote I reckon they would all vote for him in preference to me, entertaining the views I do. (Laughter.) But that matters not. The position he has taken on this question not only presents him as claiming for them the right to vote, but their right, under the Divine law and the Declaration of Independence, to be elected to office, to become members of the legislature, to go to Con- gress, and to become governors, or United States senators (laughter and cheers), or judges of the Supreme Court; and I suppose that when they control that court that they will probably reverse the Dred Scott decision. (Laughter.) He is going to bring negroes here, and give them the right of citizenship, the right of voting, the right of holding office and sitting on juries, and what else ? Why, he would permit them to marry, would he not? and if he gives them that right, I suppose he will let them marry whom they please, provided they marry their equals. (Laughter.) If the Divine law declares that the white man is the equal of the negro woman ; that they are on a perfect equality ; I suppose he admits the right of the negro woman to marry the white man. (Renewed laughter.) In other words, hi? doctrine that the negro by Divine law is placed on a perfect equality with the white man, and that that equality is recognized by th THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 123 of Independence, leads him necessarily to establishing negro equality under the law; but whether even then they would be so in fact, would depend upon the degree- of virtue and intelligence they possessed, and certain other qualities that are matters of taste rather than of law. (Laughter.) I do not understand Mr. Lincoln as saying that he expects to make them our equals socially, or by intelligence, nor, in fact, as citizens, but that he wishes to make them equal under the law, and then say to them "as your Master in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." Well, I confess to you, my fellow-citizens, that I am utterly opposed to that system of abolition philosophy. ("So am I," and cheers.) MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND LET YOUR NEIGHBORS ALONE CLAY AND WEBSTER. In Kentucky they will not give a negro any political rights or any civil rights. I shall not argue the question whether Kentucky in so doing has decided right or wrong, wisely or unwisely. It is a question for Kentucky to decide for herself. I believe that the Kentuckians have consciences as well as ourselves; they have as keen a perception of their religious, moral and social duties as we have, and I am willing that they shall decide this slavery question for themselves, and be accountable to their God for their action. It is not for me to arraign them for what they do. I will not judge them lest I shall be judged. Let Kentucky mind her own business, and take care of her negroes, and we attend to our own affairs, and take care of our negroes, and we will be the best of friends ; but if Kentucky attempts to interfere with us, or we with her, there will be strife, there will be discord, there will be relentless hatred, there will be everything but fraternal feeling and brotherly love. It is not necessary that you should enter Kentucky and interfere in that State, to use the language of Mr. Lincoln. It is just as offensive to interfere from this State, or send your missiles over there. I care not whether an enemy, if he is going to assault us, shall actually come into our State or come along the line and throw his bomb-shells over to explode in our midst. Suppose England should plant a battery on the Canadian side of the Niagara River, opposite Buffalo, and throw bomb-shells over, which would explode in Main street, in that city, and destroy the buildings, and that when we pro- tested, she should say, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, that she never dreamed of coming into the United States to interfere with us, and that she was just throwing her bombs over the line from her own side, which she had a right to do, would that explanation satisfy us ? (" No ;" " Strike bim again.") So it is with Mr. Lincoln. He is not going into Kentucky 124: STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. out he will planx his batteries on this side of the Ohio, where he ^s safi. and secure for a retreat, and will then throw his bomb-shells his abolition documents over the river, and will carry on a political warfare and get up strife between the North and South until he elects a sectional President, reduces the South to the condition of dependent colonies, raises the negro to an equality, and forces the South to submit to the doctrine that a house divided against itself cannot stand, that the TJirion divided into half slave States and half free cannot endure, that they must all be slave or they must all be free, and that as we in the North are in the majority we will not permit them to be all slave, and, therefore, they in the South must consent to the States all being free. (Laughter.) Now, fellow-citizens, I submit whether these doctrines are consistent with the peace and harmony of this Union. (" No, no.") I submit to you, whether they are consistent with our duty as citizens of a common confederacy ; whether they are consistent with the principles which ought to govern brethren of the same family. I recognize all the people of these States, North and South, East and West, old or new, Atlantic and Pacific, as our brethren, flesh of one flesh, and I will do no act unto them that I would not be willing they should do unto us. I would apply the same Christian rule to the States of this Union that we are taught to apply to individuals, " do unto others as you would have others do unto you," and this would secure peace. Why bhould this slavery agitation be kept up ? Does it benefit the white man or the slave ? Who does it benefit except the Republican politicians, who use it as their hobby to ride into office. (Cheers.) Why, I repeat, should it be continued ? Why cannot we be content to administer this govern- ment as it was made a confederacy of sovereign and independent States. Let us recognize the sovereignty and independence of each State, refrain from interfering with the domestic institutions and regulations of other States, permit the Territories and new States to decide their institutiona for themselves as we did when we were in their condition ; blot out these lines of North and South and resort back to those lines of State boundaries which the Constitution has marked out and engraved upon the face of the country ; have no other dividing lines but these and we will be one united, harmonious people, with fraternal feelings and no discord or dis eension. (Cheers.) These are my views and these are the principles to which I have devoted all my energies since 1850, when I acted side by side with the immor- tal Clay and the godlike Webster in that memorable struggle in which Whigs and Democrats united upon a common platform of patriotism and the Constitution, throwing aside partisan feelings in order to restore peace and harmony to a distracted country. And when I stood beside the death THE LIFE AND SPEECH PJ OF 125 bed of Mr. Clay and heard him refer with feelings and emotions of the deepest solicitude to the welfare of the country, and saw that he looked upon the principle embodied in the great Compromise measures of 1850, the principle of the Nebraska Bill, the doctrine of leaving each State and Territory free to decide its institutions for itself, as the only means by which the peace of the country could be preserved, and the Union per- petuated, I pledged him, on that death-bed of his, that so long as I lived my eaergies should be devoted to the vindication of that principle, and of his fame as connected with it. (" Hear, hear," and great enthusiasm.) I gave the same pledge to the great expounder of the Constitution, he who has been called the "godlike Webster." I looked up to Clay and him as a son would to a father, and I call upon the people of Illinois, and the people of the whole Union to bear testimony that never since the sod has been laid upon the graves of those eminent statesmen have I failed on any occasion to vindicate the principle with which the last great, crowning acts of their lives were identified, or to vindicate their names whenever they have been assailed ; and now my life and energy are devoted to this great work as the means of preserving this Union. (Cheers.) This Union can only be preserved by maintaining the fraternal feeling between the North and the South, the East and the West. If that good feeling can be pre- Berved the Union will be as perpetual as the fame of its great founders. It can be maintained by preserving the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State and each Territory to settle its domestic concerns for itself, and the duty of each to refrain from interfering with the other in any of ita local or domestic institutions. Let that be done and the Union will be perpetual ; let that be done, and this republic, which began with thirteen States, and which now numbers thirty-two, which when it began only extended from the Atlantic to the Mississippi but now reaches to the Pacific, may yet expand North and South until it covers the whole conti- nent and becomes one vast oqean-bound confederacy. (Great cheering.) Then, my friends, the path of duty, of honor, of patriotism is plain. There are a few simple principles to be preserved. Bear in mind the dividing line between State rights and federal authority ; let us maintain the great principles of popular sovereignty, of State rights, and of the Federal. Union as the Constitution has made it, and this republic will endure forever. mSTTY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PAETY. In the course of Mr. Douglas' speech at Edwardsville, on the 6th of August, an old Democrat sprang to his feet and 126 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.. exclaimed, " These are the principles of all us DougUf Di crats !" To which Mr. Douglas replied : My friend you will pardon me for telling you that there is no such term in the Democratic vocabulary as Douglas Democrats. Let there be no divisions in our ranks no such distinction as Douglas Democrats, or Buchanan Democrats, or any other peculiar kind of Democrats. Let us retain the old name of Democrat, and under that name recognize all men as good Democrats who stand firmly by the principles and organization of the party, and support its regular nominations. Let us have no divisions in our ranks on account of past differences, but treating bygones as bygones let the party be a unit in the accomplishment of the great mission which it has to perform. This sentiment was received with rapturous applause. SPEECH AT WINCHESTER TOUCHING INCIDENTS. At "Winchester, where he settled when he first emigrated to Illinois, in 1833, he responded to the address of welcome, thus: To say that I am profoundly impressed with the keenest gratitude for the kind and cordial welcome you have given me, in the eloquent and too partial remarks which have been addressed to me, is but a feeble expres- sion of the emotions of my heart. There is no spot in this vast globe which fills me with such emotions as when I come to this place, and recog- nize the faces of my old and good friends who now surround me and bid me welcome. Twenty-five years ago I entered this town on foot, with my coat upon my arm, without an acquaintance in a thousand miles, and with- out knowing where I could get money to pay a week's board. Here I made the first six dollars I ever earned in my life, and obtained the first regular occupation that I ever pursued. For the first time in my life I then felt that the responsibilities of manhood were upon me, although 1 was under age, for I had none to advise with, and knew no one upon whom I had a right to call for assistance or for friendship. Here I found the then settlers of the country my friends my first start in life was taken here, not only as a private citizen, but my first election to public office by the people was conferred upon me by those whom I am now addressing, and by their fathers. A quarter of a century has passec, and that pen* THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 1^7 niless boy stands before you, with his heart full and gushing with the san timents which such associations and recollections necessarily inspire. In the midst of that portion of his speech, hi which he was vindicating the doctrine of popular sovereignty, applica- ble to the Territories, one of his early friends exclaimed, in a loud voice, " Stephen, you shall be the next President ;" to which Mr. Douglas instantly replied : My friend, I appreciate the kindness of heart which makes you put forth that prediction, but will assure you that it is more important to this coun try, to your children and to mine, that the great principles which we are now discussing shall be carried out in good faith by the party, than it is that I or any other man shall be President of the United States. (Three cheers.) I am also free to say to you that whenever the question arises with me whether I shall be elevated to the Presidency or any other high position, by the sacrifice of my principles, I will stand by my principles and allow the position to take care of itself. (Three cheers.) I have always admired that great sentiment put forth by the illustrious Clay, that he would rather be right than be President. (" Good.") I say to you that ] have more pride in my history connected with the vindication of this great principle of popular sovereignty than I would have in a thousand Presidencies. (Three cheers.) Mr. Douglas, again advocating that " by-gones be by- gones," when Kansas rejected the English bill, said, in a ppeech at Pittsfield : By the rejection of the Lecompton constitution the controversy which it caused is terminated forever, and there will be no cause for reviving it, and it never will be revived unless it is brought up in an improper and mischievous manner, for improper and mischievous purposes. I say that the controversy can never rise again if we act properly, and for this rea- son: the President of the United States, in his annual message, declared that he regretted that the Lecompton constitution had not been submitted to the people. I joined him in that regret, and thus far we agreed. He further declared in that message, that it was a just and sound principle te require the submission of every constitution to the people who were to live under it, and to this I also subscribed. He then declared that, in hia opinion, the example set in the Minnesota case, wherein Congress required 9 1 28 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. the submission of the constitution to the people, should be followed here- after forever as a rule of action ; in which opinion I heartily concurred. So far we agreed perfectly, and were together. Well, then, what did we differ about ? He said that while it was a sound principle that the consti- tution should be submitted to the people, and while he hoped that here- after Congress would always require it to be done, yet that there were such circumstances connected with Kansas as rendered it politic and expedient to admit her unconditionally under the Lecompton constitution. I differed with him on that one point, and it was the whole matter at issue between him and me, his friends and mine. That point is now decided. The peo- ple of Kansas have set it at rest forever, and I trust that he is satisfied with their decision as well as myself. That being the case, why should we not come together in the future and stand firmly by his recommendation that hereafter Congress shall, as in the Minnesota case, require the consti- tution of all new States to be submitted to the people in all cases ? If we only do stand by that principle in the future, another Lecompton contro- versy can never arise the friends of self-government will then all be united, and there will be no more discord or dissensions in our ranks, "Why not rally on that plank as the common plank in the platform of our party, upon which not only all Democrats, but all national men, all friends of popular sovereignty, can stand together, shoulder to shoulder. THE FREEPOBT SPEECH. In the joint debate at Freeport, Mr. Lincoln propounded to Mr. Douglas a series of questions, and among them was the following, to which he desired an explicit reply : " Can the people of a Territory of the United States in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State constitution ?" To this question Mr. Douglas gave an affirmative reply, in accordance with the opinions which he had so often ex- pressed, in 1850, during the pendency of the Compromise measures, and in 1854, in support of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and in harmony with the known opinions of the most eminent men of the Democratic party, and especially of THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 129 General Cass, in his Nicholson letter, and of Mr. Buchanan, in his letter accepting the Cincinnati nomination. It being a joint debate, in which his time was limited, and having a large number of other questions to answer, Mr. Douglas contented himself with a direct and unequivocal answer, without entering into any argument in support of the propositions. His reply, as published in the unrevieed report of the debate, is as follows : The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, can the people of a Territory in any lawful way against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution ? I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution. (Enthusiastic ap- plause.) Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska Bill on that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855 and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pre- tending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract ques- tion whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the consti- tution ; the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour any- where, unless it is supported by local police regulations. (Right, right.) Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature, and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the intro- duction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, theit legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and com- plete under the Nebraska Bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satis- factory on that point. MB. DOUGLAS AT ALTON REBUKES EXECUTIVE DICTATION. And now this warfare is made on me because I would not surrender my convictions of duty, because I would not abandon my constituency, and re eeive the orders of the Executive authorities how I should vote in rdinarily retain it. Therefore, though the right would remain, the remedy being wiiheld, it would follow that the owner would be practically debarred, by the circumsinces of the case, from taking slave property into a Territory where the sense of the inhabitants was opposed to its introduction. So much for the oft-repeated fallacy offorcing slavery upon any com- munity." You will also find that the distinguished s-eakor of the present Houso of Representatives, Hon. James L. Orr, costrued the Kansas and No THE LIFE AND SPEECHES. OF 133 braska Bill in this same way in 1856, and also that that great intellect of the South, Alex. H. Stevens, put the same construction upon it in Con- gress that I did in my Freeport speech. The whole South are rallying to the support of the doctrine that, if the people of a Territory want slavery, they have a right to have it ; and if they do not want it, that no power on earth can force it upon them. I hold that there is no principle on earth more sacred to all the friends of freedom than that which says that no in- stitution, no law, no constitution, should be forced on an unwilling people contrary to their wishes ; and I assert that the Kansas and Nebraska. Bill contains that principle. It is the great principle contained in that . ill. It is the principle on which James Buchanan was made President. Without that principle he never would have been made President of the Uuited States. I will never violate or abandon that doctrine if I have to stand alone. (Hurrah for Douglas.) I have resisted the blandishments and threats of power on the one side, and seduction on the other, and have gtood immovably for that principle, fighting for it when assailed by northern mobs, or threatened by southern hostility. (" That's the truth,' and cheers.) I have defended it against the North and the South, and I will defend it against whoever assails it, and I will follow it wherever ita logical conclusions lead me. (" So will we all," " hurrah for Douglas.") I say to you that there is but one hope, one safety for this country, and that, is to stand immovably by that principle which declares the right of each State and each Territory to decide these questions for themselves. (Hear him, hear him.) This government was founded on that principle, and must be administered in the same sense in which it was founded. The Democracy of Illinois determined at the opening of their campaign, in view of their relations toward the adminis- tration, to invite no speakers from abroad to participate in the labor of their canvass. In the event of any gentlemen volunteering their services, they would be most gratefully accepted. A few exceptions, however, were made to this rule, at the suggestion of friends in other States. Private betters had been received by numerous gentlemen in the State, to the effect that Yice-President Breckinridge warmly sympathized with the Illinois Democracy in their fierce strug- gle with their confederated enemy, and that his feelings were painfully exercised by the imminent dangers that environed 134: .STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. fche prospects of Mr. Douglas' reelection to the Senate. In- deed, it was suggested that the Vice-President had expressed a desire to lend the weight of his great talents and exertions in the good cause ; and, if invited, would cheerfully engage in the canvass, as he had done before when himself a candi- date in the contest of 1856. Accordingly, invitations were sent to Mr. Breckinridge, and Governor Wise of Virginia, who, it was understood, warmly sympathized with Judge Douglas in his struggle, as he had done through his whole anti-Lecompton course in Congress ; to which invitations these ^gentlemen sent characteristic replies, which we think of suf- ficient importance to here insert. LETTER OF MR. BRECKINRIDGE. VBRSAILLBS, Ky., Oct. 4, 1858. DEAR SIR : I received this morning your letters of the 28th and 29th ult., written as chairman of the Democratic State Committee of Illinois, also one of Mr. V. Hickox, who informs me that he is a member of the same committee. My absence from home will account for the delay of this answer. 'In these letters it is said that I am reported to have expressed a desire that Mr. Douglas shall defeat Mr. Lincoln in their contest for a seat in the Senate of the United States, and a willingness to visit Illinois and make public speeches in aid of such result ; and if these reports are true, I am invited to deliver addresses at certain points in the State. The rumor of my readiness to visit Illinois and address the people in the present canvass is without foundation. I do not propose to leave Kentucky for the purpose of mingling in the political discussions in other States. The two or three speeches which I delivered recently in this State rested on peculiar grounds, which I need not now discuss. The rumor to which you refer is true. I have often, in conversation, expressed the wish that Mr. Douglas may succeed over his Republican com- petitor. But it is due to candor to say, that this preference is not founded on his course at the late session of Congress, and would not exist if I sup- posed it would be construed as an indorsement of the attitude which he then chose to assume toward his party, or of all the positions he ha taken m the present canvass. It is not necessary to enlarge on theae things* THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 135 1 will only add, that my preference rests mainly on these considerations : that the Kansas question is practically ended that Mr. Douglas, in recent speeches, has explicitly declared his adherence to the regular Democratic party organization that he seems to be the candidate of the Illinois De- mocracy, and the most formidable opponent in that State of the Republican party, and that on more than one occasion during his public life he has defended the union of the States and the rights of the States with fidelity, courage, and great ability. I have not desired to say anything upon this or any other subject about which a difference may be supposed to exist in our political family, but I did not feel at liberty to decline an answer to the courteous letter of your committee. With cordial wishes for the harmony of the Illinois Democracy, and the hope that your great and growing State, which has never yet given a sec- tional vote, may continue true to our constitutional Union, I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, JOHN C. BRECKINRIDCHC. HON. JOHN MOORE, Chairman of the Committee. LETTER OF GOVERNOR WISE. RICHMOND, VA., 1858. To HON. JOHN MOORB, Chairman f the Democratic State Committee of Illinois: DEAR SIR : I cannot express to you the emotions of my bosom, excited by your appeal to me for aid in the warm contest which your noble De- mocracy is waging with abolitionism. Every impulse prompts me to rush to your side. Your position is a grand one, and in some respects un- exampled. In the face of doubt and distrust attempted to be thrown upon your Democracy, and its gallant leader, by the pretext of pretenders that you were giving aid and comfort to the arch enemy of our country, peace and safety, and our party integrity, I see you standing alone isolated by a tyrannical proscription, which would, alike foolishly and wickedly, lop off one of the most vigorous limbs of national Democracy, the limb of glorious Illinois ! I see you, in spite of this imputation, firmly fronting the foe, and battling to maintain conservative nationality against em- bittered and implacable sectionalism constitutional rights, operating proprid vigore, and every way against all unequal and unjust federal or territorial legislation ; The right of the people to govern themselves against all force or fraud ; The right of the sovereign people to look at the " returns," and 136 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. the "returns," of all their representative bodies, agents, trustees, of servants ; The responsibility of all governors, representatives, trustees, agents, and servants, to their principals, the people, who are " the governed," and the source of all political power ; Utter opposition to the detestable doctrine of the absolutism of con- ventions to prescribe and proclaim fundamental forms of government at their will, without submission to the sovereign people a doctrine fit only for slaves, and claimed only by legitimists and despots of the old world ; Powers of any sort not expressly delegated to any man, or body of men, are expressly " reserved to the people ;" No absolute or dictatorial authority in representative bodies. The repre- sentative principle as claiming submission and obedience to the will of the constituents ; The sovereignty of the organized people supreme above all mere repre- sentative bodies, conventions, or legislatures, to decide, vote upon, and determine what shall be their supreme law ; Justice and equality between States and their citizens, and between voters to elect their agents and representatives, and to ratify or reject any proposed system of government ; Submission to the constitution and laws of the federal Union, and strict observance of all the rights of the States and their citizens, but resistance to the dictation or bribes of Congress, or any other power, to yield the inalienable right of self-government ; Protection in the Territories, and everywhere, to all rights of persona and of property, in accordance with the rights of the States, and with the constitution and laws of the Union; Equity and uniformity in the mode of admitting new States into the Union, making the same rules and ratios to apply to all alike ; The rejection of all compromises, conditions or terms which would dis- criminate between forms of republican constitutions, admitting one, with one number of population, and requiring three times that number for another form equally republican ; The great law of settlement of the public domain of the United States, free, equal, and just, never to be " temporized " or " localized " by tem- porary or partial expedients, but to be adjusted by permanent, unifonr and universal rules of right and justice. Maintaining these and the like principles, I deem it to be the aim of the Struggle of the devoted Democracy in this signal contest. And so under- standing them, I glory in their declaration and defence. I would sacrifice much and go far to uphold your arms in this battle. I would most gladly THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 137 visit your people, address them, and invoke them to stand fast by the standard of their faith and freedom, and never to let go the truths for rhich they contend, for they are vital and cardinal, and essential, and can never be yielded without yielding liberty itself. But, sir, I am like a tied man, bound to my duties here ; and, if my office would allow me to leave it, I could not depart from the bedside of illness in my family, which would probably recall me before I could reach Illinois ; and my own state of health admonishes me that I ought not to undertake a campaign as arduous as that you propose. I know what the labors of the stump are, and am not yet done suffering bodily from my efforts for Democracy in 1855. For these reasons, I cannot obey your call; but, permit me to add : Fight on! fight on ! fight on ! never yield but in death or victory ! And, oh ! that I was unbound and co"ld do more than look on, throbbing with every pulse of your glorious struggle with its every blow and breath cheered with its hopes, and chafed by Ha doubts You have my prayers, and I am, Yours truly, HENRY A. WISE. The Democracy of Illinois were not satisfied with the spirit and tone of Mr. Breckinridge's letter, nor did they acknowledge the justice of the Vice-President's insinuation, that their position was no better than Black Republicanism, contained in the following paragraph : I have often, in conversation, expressed the wish that Mr. Douglas my succeed over his competitor ; but it is due to candor to say, that this pre- ference is not founded on his course at the last session of Congress, and would not exist if I supposed it would be construed as an indorsement of the attitude which he then chose to assume toward his party, or of all the positions he has taken in the present canvass. The speeches of Mr. Breckinridge, in favor of the Ne- braska Bill, while that measure was pending in Congress, and in 1856, when a candidate for the Vice-Presidency, in each of which he advocated the doctrine of popular sove- reignty, in terms quite as explicit as those employed by Mr. Douglas in his Freeport speech, were too fresh in the minds of lilmoisans to permit this implied rebuke from a geu- 138 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. tleman whom they had so recently aided in electing to th< Becond office in the gift of the people to pass without hare thoughts. Nor did the Illinois Democrats exactly relish tlu ambiguous and equivocal language in which the Vice-Presidem gave his reasons for preferring Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. The tone and temper of the noble letter of Govern 01 Wise, replete with fervid interest in the struggle, is in strik ing contrast with that of Mr. Breckinridge, and the two letter! appearing about the same time, produced a profound impres Bion on the minds and feelings of the Illinois Democracy. MB. DIXON'S LETTER. Pending the campaign, the Hon. Archibald Dixon, late United States senator from Kentucky, addressed a letter tc the Hon. Henry S. Foote, under date of September 30 1858, in which the public career of Mr. Douglas was referred to, his position on the Lecompton constitution sustained and his course on the Nebraska Bill vindicated. Mr. Dixou was formily a Whig, and will be remembered as having firsl moved the repeal of the Missouri restriction in the Senate an amendment which was modified and accepted by Mr Douglas, and subsequently incorporated into the Nebraska Kansas Bill. The following extract will show in what estimation Mi- Douglas was held by one of the retired statesmen of the coun- try, no longer influenced by partisan feeling and persona] rivalry : Of Judge Douglas, personally, I have a few words to utter which I could not withhold, without greatly wronging my own conscience. When I er- tered the United States Senate a few years since, I found him a decided favorite with the political party then dominant both in the Senate and the country. My mind had been greatly prejudiced against him, and I felt no| disposition whatever to sympathize, or to cooperate with him. It soon THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 139 became apparent to me, as to others, that he was, upon the whole, fai the ablest Democratic member of the body. In the progress of time my respect for him, both as a gentleman and a statesman, greatly increased. I found him sociable, affable, and in the highest degree entertaining and instructive in social intercourse. His power, as a debater, seemed to me unequalled in the Senate. He was industrious, energetic, bold, and skill- ful in the management of the concerns of his party. He was the acknow- edged leader of the Democratic party in the Senate, and, to confess the ruth, seemed to me to bear the honors which encircled him with Buffi ient meekness. Such was the palmy state of his reputation ~nd )opularity on the day that he reported to the Senate his celebrated Kan- as and Nebraska Bill. On examining that bill, it struck me that it was deficient in one material espect ; it did not in terms repeal the restrictive provision in regard to lavery embodied in the Missouri Compromise. This, to me, was a defi- iency that I thought it imperiously necessary to supply. I accordingly )ffered an amendment to that effect. My amendment seemed to take the Senate by surprise, and no one appeared more startled than Judge Doug- as himself. He immediately came to my seat and courteously remon- trated against my amendment, suggesting that the bill which he had ntroduced was almost in the words of the Territorial acts for the organi- zation of Utah and New Mexico ; that they being a part of the Compro- mise measures of 1860, he had hoped that I, a known and zealous friend f the wise and patriotic adjustment which had then taken place, would not be inclined to do anything to call that adjustment in question or weaken it before the country. I replied that it was precisely because I had been, and was, a firm and zealous friend of the Compromise of 1850, that I felt bound to persist in the movement which I had originated ; that 1 was well satisfied that the Mis- souri restriction, if not expressly repealed, would continue to operate in ,he Territory to which it had been applied, thus negativing the great and salutary principle of non-intervention, which constituted the most promi- nent and essential feature of the plan of settlement of 1850. We talked for some time amicably,- and separated. Borne days afterward Judge Douglas came to my lodgings, while I was confined by physical indisposi- ion, and urged me to get up and take a ride with him in his carriage. I accepted his invitation and rode out with him. During our short excur- sion we talked on the subject of my proposed amendment, and Judge Douglas, to my high gratification, proposed to me that I should allow him to take charge of the amendment and ingraft it on his Territorial Bill. I 140 STEPHEN A. DOTTGLAS. acceded to the proposition at once, whereupon a most interesting inter change occurred between us. On this occasion, Judge Douglas spoke to me, in substance, thus : " 1 have become perfectly satisfied that it is my duty, as a fair-minded nationa\ statesman, to cooperate with you as proposed in securing the repeal of the Missouri Compromise restriction. It is due to the South ; it is due to the Constitution, heretofore palpably infracted ; it is due to that character for consistency^ which I have heretofore labored to maintain. The repeal, if we can effect it, will produce much stir and commotion in the free States of the Union for a season. I shall be assailed by demagogues and fana- tics there, without stint or moderation. Every opprobrious epithet will be applied to me. I shall be probably hung in effigy in many places. It is more than probable that I may become permanently odious among those whose friendship and esteem I have heretofore possessed. This proceed- ing may end my political career. But, acting under the sense of the duty which animates me, I am prepared to make the sacrifice. I will do it." He spoke in the most earnest and touching manner, and I confess that I was deeply affected. I said to him in reply : " Sir, I once recognized you as a demagogue, a mere party manager, selfish and intriguing. I now find you a warm-hearted and sterling patriot. Go forward in the pathway of duty as you propose, and though all the world desert you, I never W&" The subsequent course of this extraordinary personage is now before the country. His great speeches on this subject, in the Senate and else- where, have since been made. As a true national statesman as an inflexible and untiring advocate and defender of the Constitution of hia country as an enlightened, fair-minded, and high-souled patriot, he has fearlessly battled for principle ; he has with singular consistency pursued tae course which he promised to pursue when we talked together in Wash- ington, neither turning to the right nor to the left. Though sometimes reviled and ridiculed by those most benefited by his labors, he has p^vcr been heard to complain. Persecuted by the leading men of the party he had so long served and sustained, he has demeaned himself, on all occa- sions, with moderation and dignity ; though he has been ever earnest in the performance of duty, energetic in combating and overcoming the ob- stacles which have so strangely beset his pathway, and always readv to meet and to overthrow such adversaries as have ventured to encounter him. He has been faithful to his pledge ; he has been true to the South and to the Union, and I intend to be faithful to my own pledge. I am sincerely grateful for his public services. I feel the highest admiration for THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 141 a.l his noble qualities and high achievements, and I regard his reputation &s part of the moral treasures of the nation itself. And now, in conclusion, permit me to say that the southern people cannot enter into unholy alliance for the destruction of Judge Douglas, if they are true to themselves, for he has made more sacrifices to sustain southern institutions than any man now living. Southern men may, and doubtless have, met the enemies of the South in the councils of the nation, and sustained, by their votes and their speeches, her inalienable rights under the Constitution of our common country ; northern men may have voted that those rights should not be wrested from us ; but it has remained for Judge Douglas alone, northern man as he is, to throw himself " into the deadly imminent breach," and like the steadfast and everlasting rock of the ocean, to withstand the fierce tide of fanaticism, and drive back those angry billows which threatened to ingulf his country's happiness. I have the honor to be, very respectfully and cordially, your friend and fellow-citizen, ARCH. DIXON. Our limits will not allow us to refer further to the incidents of the Illinois campaign. The canvass on both sides was conducted with unparalleled spirit and energy until the day of the election. The result is well known. The Republicans were completely routed, and a Democratic legislature chosen. Mr. Douglas' majority on joint ballot was eight, three in the Senate and five in the House. Most of the federal office- holders voted the Republican ticket, and the reason assigned for this act of treachery to the party was, that the entire Catholic vote had remained faithful to the party with which they had usually acted. 142 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS CHAPTER XIV. Mr. Douglas leaves Chicago for New Orleans Received at St. Louia and Memphis Brilliant Reception at New Orleans. SOON after the close of the Illinois campaign, in November, 1858, Mr. Douglas, with his family, left Chicago for the pur- pose of making a brief visit to New Orleans, to attend to some pressing private matters which his public duties had constrained him too long to neglect. He gave no notice of his intention to make the trip, desiring to perform the jjur- ney as speedily and quietly as possible. Remaining in St. Louis a day, for a boat to convey him down the river, the news of his presence soon spread through the city, and \hat night he was honored with a serenade by a large concourse of citizens, who assembled around the hotel and insisted on a speech. Mr. Douglas acknowledged the compliment in a few appropriate remarks, and expressed his gratification that the people of Missouri, who were so deeply interested in the institution of slavery, so justly appreciated the nature and importance of the contest through which he had recently passed in Illinois. Proceeding down the river without giving any public notice of his destination, Mr. Douglas was surprised when, nearly a hundred miles above Memphis, he was notified tuat THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 143 the Democracy of that city had learned by telegraph of his intended visit to ]STew Orleans, and had appointed a commit- tee of one hundred persons and chartered a steamer to pro- ceed up the river and meet him, for the purpose of inducing him to stop a day at Memphis and accept of the hospitalities of that city. Not feeling at liberty to decline so flattering an invitation, Mr. -Douglas placed himself in the hands of the committee, and on the following day addressed a large meet ing of the citizens of Memphis on the political topics of the day. In this speech Mr. Douglas confined himself mainly to a discussion of the points presented in the Illinois campaign, prefacing it with the declaration, that no political creed was sound which could not be proclaimed equally as well in one State of the Union as in the other. On a comparison of the published report of this speech, as it appeared in the news- papers of the day, we find that he asserted the same views on the Territorial question in Memphis as he had done in Illinois. The cordial and enthusiastic approbation with which his audience received his speech, must have satisfied Mr. Dou- glas that Democracy was the same in Tennessee as in Illinois. At New Orleans, Mr. Douglas' reception was truly grand and magnificent. Approaching the Crescent at 9 o'clock at night, he was received by the city authorities, the military and the citizens, amidst the firing of cannon and in the glare of a brilliant illumination. He was escorted to the St. Charles Hotel, where he was lodged as the guest of the city, and addressed by the mayor on behalf of the municipal au thorities, and by Hon. Pierre Soule on behalf of the citizens, in eloquent speeches of congratulation on his brilliant victory in Illinois over the enemies of the Constitution and the Union, to each of which he made an appropriate response. 10 144 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. CHAPTER XV. lir. Douglas again in Washington Experiences a Change of Atmosphere- Scene shifts Removed from Post of Chairman of Territorial Commit- tee His Services as Chairman Pretext of Removal Freeport Speech Letter to California in reply to Dr. Gwin. WHEN Mr. Douglas reached Washington, where Executive power and patronage stifles popular sentiment, he found him- self suddenly plunged into a very different atmosphere from that which he had been breathing in the past few weeks. Failing in their efforts to defeat his reelection to the Senate by a disreputable coalition with the abolitionists of Illinois, his enemies contrived a new scheme to humble and degrade the unsubdued rebel. For thirteen years previous, he had been chairman of the Committee on Territories, two years in the House and eleven in the Senate. In that capacity, he had reported and successfully carried through Congress bills for the admission of the following States : Texas, Iowa, Wis- consin, California, Oregon, and Minnesota. During the same period, he had reported and successfully carried through Congress bills to organize the following Ter- ritories : Oregon, Minnesota, New Mexico, Utah, Washing- ton, Kansas, and Nebraska. In that time, he had met and mastered every intricate question which had arisen connected with the organization of the Territories and the admission of new States. Confessedly, he was more familiar with all sub- jects pertaining to Territorial legislation, than any other liv- ing man. His peculiar qualifications and acquaintance with THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 145 the subject, induced the Senate, on the day of his first entrance into that body, to put him at the head of the Terri- torial Committee. He had been unanimously nominated in the Democratic caucus, and reflected chairman of that com- mittee each succeeding year. With a full knowledge on the part of every senator of his views and opinions on Territorial policy, what excuse can be given for the removal of a man from a position which he had so long filled with such distin- guished ability, and for which he was so eminently qualified ? With or without excuse, however, the deed was consum- mated in a secret caucus, and in Mr. Douglas' absence. The public indignation at his removal was almost universal. Indeed, so heavily did it fall on those engaged in it, but three or four senators have ever had the boldness to confess themselves parties to the act, and even these have assigned a reason as a pretext for the deed, which is an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and but a poor compli- ment to their own understanding; since they affected to call in question Mr. Douglas' political orthodoxy for the expres- sion of an opinion in his Illinois campaign, which he had advanced and elaborated in his speeches on the Compromise measures of 1850, and upon the passage of the Kansas- Nebraska Bill, and indeed upon every discussion of the slavery question in which he had participated for the ten years previous to his removal. Notwithstanding Mr. Douglas, in all his joint debates with Mr. Lincoln, in Illinois, had taken direct issue with him on all his abolition propositions assuming bold ground against negro citizenship reasserting his old position, that aniformity in the institutions of the various States was neither possible nor desirable treating negro-slavery as purely a question of climate, production, and political economy, to be regulated by their inexorable laws sustaining the Fugitive Slave Law, and avowing his willingness, if not strong enough, to vote to 14:6 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. make it stronger maintaining the binding force of all supreme /udicial decisions vindicating the equality ot all the States, and proclaiming the right of all their citizens to emigrate into the common Territories on the basis of an entire equality under the local law, with their property of all descriptions, whether horses, clocks, negroes or what not denouncing the doctrines of the "irrepressible conflict," when advanced by Lincoln four months prior to Se ward's Rochester speech sustaining the regular organization of the Democratic party, and maintaining the Democratic creed as enunciated in the Cincinnati platform ; notwithstanding all these facts, they seized on an answer of Mr. Douglas to a question propounded by Mr. Lincoln, at Freeport, took it from its context and offered it to the country as the reason for his removal from the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories. It went for nothing that Col. Jefferson Davis had uttered, a few weeks before, at Portland, similar views touching the power of the people of the Territories, which Mr. Douglas quoted and indorsed in a joint debate with Mr. Lincoln at Alton, as containing his own views nothing that Stephens, Orr, Cobb, and a host of Democratic lights, great and small, were committed to the same proposition nothing that Mr. Douglas was simply repeating as the Washington " Union " at that time in an elaborate article charged and proved (alleg- ing that he was consistently unsound), what he had uttered frequently in the debates on the Compromise measures of 1850 nothing that Col. Richardson, when the Democratic candidate for Speaker, in 1855, had expressed similar opinions, and received, afterward, every Democratic vote in tho House it booted nothing that Mr. Douglas was on record one hundred times advocating the same doctrine while these very men (his present accusers) were his advocates for the Presidency. These things all stood for nothing. THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ME. DOUGLAS' CALIFORNIA LETTER. It is a remaikable fact, that while Mr. Douglas was removed from the Committee on Territories in December, 1858, no senator ever publicly assigned Mr. Douglas' Freeport speech as a cause for it, until in July, 1859, Dr. Gwin gave this reason in a speech in California. Mr. Douglas promptly replied to Dr. Gwin's speech, in a letter addressed to the editor of the San Francisco " National," from which we extract so much as relates to this subject : The country is now informed for the first time that I was removed from the post of chairman of the Committee on Territories because of the senti- ments contained in my " Freeport speech." To use the language of Mr. Gwin, " The doctrines he had avowed in his Freeport speech had been condemned in the Senate by his removal from the chairmanship of the Territorial Committee of that body." The country will bear in mind this testimony, that I was not removed because of any personal unkindness or hostility ; nor in consequence of my course on the Lecompton question, or in respect to the administration ; but that it was intended as a condem- nation of the doctrines avowed in my "Freeport speech." The only posi- tion taken in my " Freeport speech," which I have ever seen criticised or controverted, may be stated in a single sentence, and was in reply to an interrogatory propounded by my competitor for the Senate : " That " the Territorial legislature could lawfully exclude slavery, either by non-aetion or unfriendly legislation." This opinion was not expressed by me at Free- port for the first time. I have expressed the same opinion often in the Senate, freely and frequently, in the presence of those senators who, as Mr. Gwin testifies, removed me "from the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories," ten years after they knew that I held the opinion, and would never surrender it. I could fill many columns of the " National " with extracts of speeches made by me during the discussion of the Compromise measures in 1850, and in defence of the principles embodied in those measures in 1851 and 1852, in the discussion of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill in 1854, and of the Kansas difficulties and the Topeka revolutionary movements in 1856, in aD of which I expressed the same opinion and defended the same position which was assumed in the " Freeport speeech." I will not, however, bur 148 STEPHEN A. DOT7GLA8. den your columns or weary your readers with extracts of all these speeches, but will refer you to each volume of the "Congressional Globe" for the last ten years, where you will find them fully reported. If you cannot conveniently procure the the " Congressional Globe," I refer you to an editorial article in the Washington " Union" of October 5, 1858, which, it was reported, received the sanction of the President of the United States previously to its publication, a few weeks after my "Freeport speech" had been delivered. The " Union " made copious extracts of my speeches in 1850 and 1854, to prove that at each of those periods I held the same opinions which I expressed at Freeport in 1858, and, consequently, de- clared that I never was a good Democrat, much less sound on the slavery question, when I advocated the Compromise measures of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Bill in 1854. In the article referred to, the Washington Union said : " We propose to show that Judge Douglas' action in 1850 and 1854 was taken with especial reference to the announcement of doctrine and programme which was made at Freeport. The declaration at Freeport was, that in his opinion the people can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from a Territory before it comes in as a State ;' and he declared that his competitor had 'heard him argue the Nebraska Bill on that principle all over Illinois in 1854, 1855, and 1856, and had no excuse to pretend to have any doubt on that subject.' " T) e Union summed up the evidence furnished by my speeches in the Senite in 1850 and 1854, that the " Freport speech" was consistent with my former course, with this emphatic declaration . " Thus we have shown that precisely the position assumed by Judge Douglas at Free- port had been maintained by him in 1850, in the debates and votes on the Utah and New Mexican Bills, and in 1854 on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill ; and have shown that it wat owing to his opposition that clauses depriving Territorial legislatures of the power of excluding slavery from their jurisdictions were not expressly inserted in those measures. " The evidence thus presented by the Washington " Union" the evidence of an open enemy is so full and conclusive, that I have uniformly advo- cated for ten years past the same principles which I avowed at Freeport, that I cannot refrain from asking you to spread the entire article before your readers, as an appendix, if you choose, to this letter. The question whether the people of the Territories should be permitted to decide the slavery question for themselves, the same as all other right? ful subjects of legislation, was thoroughly discussed and definitively settled in the adoption of the Compromise measures of 1850. The Territorial bills, tut originally reported on by the Committee on Territories, extended the THE LIPE AND SPEECHES OF 149 authority of the Territorial legislature to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution, without excepting African slavery. Modi- fied by the Committee of Thirteen, they conferred power on the Territorial legislature over jill rightful subjects of legislation, except African slavery. This distinct question, involving the power of the Territorial legislature over the subject of African slavery, was debated in the Senate from the 8th of May until the 31st of July, 1860, when the limitation was stricken out by a vote of yeas 33, nays 19; and the Territorial legislature authorized to legislate on all rightful subjects, without excepting African slavery. In this form and upon this principle, the Compromise measures of 1850 were enacted. When I returned to my home in Chicago, at the end of the session of Congress, after the adoption of the measures of adjustment, the excite- ment was intense. The City Council had passed a resolution nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act, and releasing the police from all obligations to obey the law or assist in its execution. Amidst this furious excitement, and surrounded by revolutionary movements, I addressed the assembled populace. My speech, in which I defended each and all of the Compro- mise measures of 1850, was published at the time, and spread broadcast throughout the country. I herewith send you a copy of that speech, in which you will find that I said " These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that every people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating their own internal concerns and domestic institutions in their own way. It was supposed that those of our fellow-citizena who emigrated to the shores of the Pacific and to our other territodes, were as capable of self-government as their neighbors and kindred whom they left behind them ; and there was no reason for believing that they have lost any of their intelligence or patriot- ism by the wayside, while crossing the Isthmus or the Plains. It was also believed that after their arrival in the country, when they had become familiar with its topography, climate, productions, and resources, and had connected their destiny with it, they were fully as competent to judge for themselves what kind of laws and institutions were best adapted to their condition and interests, as we were, who never saw the country, and knew very little about it. To question their competency to do this was to deny their capacity for self-government. If they have the requisite intelligence and honesty to be intrusted with the enactment of laws for the government of white men, I know of no reason why they should not be deemed competent to legislate for the negro. If they are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protection of life, liberty, and property of morals and education to determine the relation of husband and wife, of parent and child I am not aware that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate the affairs of master and servant. These things are all confided by the Constitution to each State to decide for itself, and I know of no reason why the same principle should not be extended to the Territories." This speech was laid on the desk of every member of the Senate, at thn 150 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. opening of the second session of the 31st Congress, in December, 1850 when, with a full knowledge of my opinions on the Territorial question, I was unanimously nominated in the Democratic caucus, and reelected by f,he Senate chairman of the Committee on Territories. From that time to this I have spoken the same sentiments, and vindicated the same posi- tions in debate in the Senate, and have been reelected chairman of the Committee on Territories at each session of Congress, until last December, by the unanimous voice of the Democratic party in caucus and in the Sen- ate, with my opinions on this Territorial question well known to, and well understood by every senator. Yet Mr. Gwin testifies that I was condemned and deposed by the Senate for the utterance of opinions in 1858, which were put on record year after year so plainly and so unequivocally as to .'eave neither the Senate nor the country in doubt. Thus does Mr. Gwin, n his eagerness to be my public accuser, speak his own condemnation, for le voted for me session after session, with my opinions, the same that I epoke at Freeport, staring him in the face. On the 4th of January, 1854, I reported the Nebraska Bill, and, as chairman of the Committee on Territories, accompanied it with a special report, in which I stated distinctly " that all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appro- priate representatives to be chosen by them for that purpose." And that the bill proposed " to carry these propositions and principles into practical operation in the precise language of the Compromise measures of 1850." The Kansas-Nebraska Act, as it stands on the statute book, does define the power of the Territorial legislature " in the precise laaguage of the Com- promise measures of 1850." It gives the legislature power over all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution, without excepting African slavery. During the discussion of the measure it was suggested that it was necessary to repeal the 8th section of the act of the 6th of March, 1850, called the Missouri Compromise, in order to permit the people to control the slavery question while they remained in a Territorial condition, and before they became a State of the Union. That was the object and only purpose for which the Missouri Compromise was repealed. On the night of the 3d of March, 1854, in my closing speech on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, a few hours before it passed the Senate, I said : " It Is only for the purpose of carrying out this great fundamental principle of self-government that the bill renders the 8th section of the Missouii Aot inoperative and void." The article of the Washington " Union " of Ocfobei THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 5, 1858, to which I have referred, quotes this and other passages of ray speech on that occasion, to prove that the author of the Nebraska Bill framed it with express reference to conferring on the Territorial legisla- ture power to control the slavery question. And further, that I boldly avowed the purpose at the time in the presence of all the friends of the bill, and urged its passage upon that ground. I have never understood that Mr. Gwin, or any other senator who heard that speech and voted for the bill the same night, expressed any dissent or disapprobation of the doctrines it announced. That was the time for dissent and disapprobation ; that was the time to condemn, if there were cause to condemn, and not four or five years later. The record furnishes no such evidence of dis*scnt or disapprobation ; nor does the history of those times show that the Democratic party, in the North or in the South, or in any portion of the country, repudiated the fundamental principle upon which the Kansas- Nebraska Act is founded, and proscribed its advocates and defenders. If Mr. Gwin did not understand the Kansas-Nebraska Bill when it was under consideration, according to its plain meaning as explained and defended by its authors and supporters, it is not the fault of those who did understand it precisely as I interpreted it at Freeport, and as the country understood it in the Presidential canvass of 1856. Mr. Buchanan, and leading members of his cabinet, at all events, understood the Kansas- Nebraska Act in the same sense in which it was understood and defended at the time of its passage. Mr. Buchanan, in his letter accepting the Cincinnati nomination, affirmed that " this legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and, in accordance with them, has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." General Case, now secretary of state, has always maintained, from the day he penned the " Nicholson Letter " to this, that the people of the Territories have a right to decide the slavery question for themselves whenever they please. In 1856, on the 2d day of July, referring to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, he said : " I believe the original act gave the Territorial legislature of Kansas full power to exclude or allow slavery." Mr. Toucey, the secretary of the navy, interpreted that act in the same way, and, on the same occasion in the Senate, said : " The original act recognizes in the Territorial legislature all the power which they can have, subject to the Constitution, and subject to the organic law of the Territory." Mr. Cobb, the secretary of the treasury, in a speech at West Chester, Pennsylvania, on the 19th of September, 1866, advocating Mr. Buchanan'i election to the Presidency, said : 152 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, "The government of the United States should not force the institution o ; slavery upon the people either of the Territories or of the States, against the will of the people, though my voice could bring about that result. I stand upon the principle the people of my State decide it for themselves, you for yourselves, the people of Kansas for themselves- That is the Constitution, and I stand by the Constitution." And again, in the same speech, he said : "Whether they" (the people of a Territory) " decide it by prohibiting it, ac- cording to the one doctrine, or by refusing to pass laws to protect it, as contended for by the other party, is immaterial. The majority of the people, by the action of the Territorial legislature, will decide the question; and all must abide the decision when made." Here we find the doctrines of the Freeport speech, including " non-ac- tion " and " unfriendly legislation " as a lawful and proper mode for the ex- clusion of slavery from a Territory clearly defined by Mr. Cobb, and the election of Mr. Buchanan advocated on those identical doctrines. Mr. Cobb made similar speeches during the Presidential canvass in other sections of Pennsylvania, in Maine, Indiana, and most of the northern States, and was appointed secretary of the treasury by Mr. Buchanan as a mark of gratitude for the efficient services which had been thus rendered. Will any senator who voted to remove me from the chairmanship of the Territorial Committee for expressing opinions for which Mr. Cobb, Mr. Toucey, and General Cass were rewarded, pretend that he did not know that they or either of them had ever uttered such opinions when their iiominationB were before the Senate ? I am sure that no senator will make so humiliating a confession. Why, then, were those distinguished gentlemen appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate aa cabinet ministers if they were not good Democrats sound on the slavery question, and faithful exponents of the principles and creed of the party } Is it not a significant fact that the President and the most distinguished and honored of his cabinet should have been solemnly and irrevocable pledged to this monstrous heresy of " popular sovereignty," for asserting which the Senate, by Mr. Gwin's frank avowal, condemned me to the extent of their power ? It must be borne in mind, however, that the President aad members of the cabinet are not the only persons high in authority who are committed to the principle of self-government in the Territories. The Hon. John C. Breckinridge, the Vice-President of the United States, was a member of the House of Representatives when the Kansas-Nebraska Bill passed, and in a speech delivered March 23, 1854, said : " Among the many misrepresentations sent to the ountry by some of the enemies of this bill, perhaps none is more flagrant than the charge that it proposes to legial.tt* lavery into Kansas and Nebraska. Sir, if the bill contained such a feature li vottld uol 1HE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 153 receive my rote. The right to establish involves the correlative right to prohibit, and denying both I would vote for neither " The effect of the repeal, (of the Missouri Compromise,) therefore, is neither to estab lish nor to exclude, but to leave the future condition of the Territories dependent wholly upon the action of the inhabitants, subject only to such limitations as the federal Con- stitution may impose It will be observed that the right of the people to regulate in their own way all their domestic institutions is left wholly untouched, except that whatever is done must be done in accordance with the Constitution the supreme law for us all." Again, at Lexington, Kentucky, on the 9th of June, 1856, in response to the congratulations of his neighbors on his nomination for the Vice- Presidency, Mr. Breckinridge said : " The whole power of the Democratic organization .is pledged to the following proposi- tions : That Congress shall not interpose upon this subject (slavery) in the States, in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia; that the people of each Territory shall deter- mine the question for themselves, and be admitted into the Union upon a footing of perfect equality with the original States, without discrimination on account of the allow- ance or prohibition of slavery." Touching the power of the Territorial legislature over the subject of * slavery, the Hon. James L. Orr, late speaker of the House of Representa- tives, on the llth of December, 1856, said: " Now, the legislative authority of a Territory is invested with a discretion to vote for or against the laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every Territory, when the Ter- ritory is open to settlement and slaveholders go there, to protect slave property. But if they decline to pass such law, what is the remedy ? None, sir, if the majority of the people are opposed to the institution ; and if they do not desire it ingrafted upon their Territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in the Territorial legis- lature for its protection, and then it is as well excluded as if the power was invested in the Territorial legislature to prohibit it." Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, in a speech in the House of Representatives on the 17th of February, 1854, said : The whole question of slavery was to be left to the people of the -Territories, whether north or south of 86 80', or any other line It was based upon the truly republican and national policy of taking this disturbing element out of Congress and leaving the whole question of slavery in the Territories to the people there to settle it for themselves. And it is in vindication of that new prin- ciple then established for the first time in the history of our government in the year ^, the middle of the nineteenth century, that we, the friends of the Nebraska Bill, whether from the North or South, now call upon this house and the country to carry out In good faith, and give effect to the spirit and intent of those important measures of Te ritorial legislation." 154 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Again, on the 17th of January, 1856, he said : " I am milling that the Territorial legislature may act upon the subject whan and how they may think proper." Mr. Benjamin, of Louisiana, in a speech in the Senate on the 25th of May, 1854, on the Nebraska Bill, said : " We find, then, that this principle of the independence and self-government of the people in the distant Territories of the confederacy harmonizes all these conflicting opinions, and enables us to banish from the halls of Congress another fertile source of content and excitement." On February 15, 1854, Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, said of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill : 44 It submits the whole authority to the Territory to determine for itself. That in my judgment, is the place where it ought to be put. If the people of the Territories choose to exclude slavery, so far from considering it as a wrong done to me or to my consti- tuents, I shall not complain of it. It is their business." Again, on March 2, 1854, one day before the passage of the bill through this Senate, Mr. Badger said : 44 But with regard to that question we have agreed some of us because we thought it the only right mode, and some because we think it a right mode, and Uuder existing cir- cumstances the preferable mode to confer this power upon the people of the Territories." On the same day Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, said : 44 Now, I believe that under the provisions of this bill, and of the Utah and New Mexico bills, there will be a perfect carte blanche given to the Territorial legislature to legislate as they may think proper I am willing to trust them. I have been willing to trust them in Utah and New Mexico, where the Mexican law prevailed, and I am willing to trust them in Nebraska and Kansas, where the French law, according to the idea of the gentleman, may possibly be revived." In the House of Representatives, June 25, 1856, Mr. Samuel A. Smith, Tennessee, said : 44 For twenty years this question had agitated Congress and the country without a Single beneficial result. They resolved that it should be transferred from these halls, that all unconstitutional restrictions should be removed, and that the people should de- termine for themselves the character of their local and domestic institutions under which they were to live, with precisely the same rights, but no greater than those which were tnjoyed by the old thirteen States." And further ; 44 IB 1864, the same questien was presented, when the necessity arose for tte organim* THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 155 tlon of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and the identical principle was ay plied for Us solution." In the Senate, on the 25th of February, 1854, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa (now Democratic candidate for governor of that State), said : " And, sir, honesty and consistency with our course in 1850 demand that those of us who supported the Compromise measures should zealously support this bill, because it Is a return to the sound principle of leaving to the people of the Territories the right of determining for themselves their domestic institutions." And in the House of Representatives, December 28, 1855, Mr. George V. Jones, of Tennessee, said : " Then, sir, you may call it, by what name you please non-intervention, squatter sovereignty, or popular sovereignty. It is, sir, the power of the people to govern them- elves, and they, and they alone, should exercise it, in my opinion, as well while in a 'erritorial condition as in the position of a State." And again, in the same speech, he said : " I believe that the great principle the right of the people in the Territories, as well as in the States, to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way is clearly and unequivocally embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and if it is not, it Bhould have been. Believing that it was the living, vital principle of the act, I yoted for t. These are my views, honestly entertained, and will be defended." I could fill you columns with extracts of speeches of senators and repre- sentatives from the North and the South who voted for the Kansas-Nebraska Bill and supported Mr. Buchanan for the Presidency on that distinct issue ; thus showing conclusively that it was the general understanding at the time hat the people of the Territories, while they remained in a Territorial con- dition, were left perfectly free, under the Kansas-Nebraska Act, to form and regulate all their domestic institutions, slavery not excepted, in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. This is the doctrine of which Mr. Gwin spoke when he aid : "To contend for the power and a sovereign power it is of a Territorial legislatiue to 'xclude by non-action or hostile legislation is pregnant with the mischiefs of never- mding agitation, of civil discord, and bloody wars. 1 It is an absurd, monstrous, and dangerous theory, which demands denunciation from very patriot in the land ; and a profound sense of my duty to you would not permit me o do less than to offer this brief statement of my views upon a question so vital to the relfare of our common country." Whj did not the same " profound sense of duty " to the people of CalW ornia require Mr. Gwin to denounce this " absurd, monstrous, and daa< 156 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. gerous theory when pronounced and enforced by General Cass, in s npport of the Compromise measures of 1850, and thence repeated by that eminent statesman at each session of Congress until 1857, when Mr. Gwin voted for his confirmation as secretary of state? Why did not Mr. Gwin obey the same sense of duty by denouncing James Buchanan as the Democratic candidate* for the Presidency, when he declared, in 1856, that "the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits ?" Why did he not perform this imperative duty by voting against Mr. Cobb, who made northern votes for Mr. Buchanan by advocating this same "absurd, monstrous and dangerous theory of 'non-action' and 'unfriendly legisla- tion '"when he was appointed secretary of the treasury? And, in short, why did he not prove his fidelity to a high sense of duty by protesting against my selection as chairman of the Senate's Committee on Territories in the Democratic caucus by a unanimous vote, at every session that he has been a senator, from 18"50 to 1858, with a full knowledge of my opinions? The inference is, that Mr. Gwin, from his remarks on the " Dred Scott decision," is prepared to offer it as an excuse for the disregard for so many years of that profound sense of duty which he owed to the people of California. It may be that before the decision his mind was not clear as to the sense of duty which now moves him. Of that decision he " In March, 1857, the Supreme Court decided this question, in all its various relations, in the case of Dred Scott. That decision declares that neither Congress nor a Territorial legislature possesses the power either to establish or to exclude slavery from the Territory, and that it was a power which exclusively belonged to the States ; that the people of a Territory can exercise this power for the first time when they form a constitution ; that the right of the people of any State to carry their slaves into a common Territory of the United States, and hold them there during its existence as such, was guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States; that it was a right which could neither be subverted nor evaded, either by non-action, by direct or indirect Congressional legislation, or by any law passed by a Territorial legislature." Surely Mr. Gwiii had never read the opinion of the Court in the case of " Dred Scott," except as it had been perverted for partisan purposes by newspapers, when he undertook to expound it to the good people of Cali- fornia. It o happens that the court did not decide any one of the propositions BO boldly and emphatically stated in the " Grass Valley " speech ! The court did not declare that " neither Congress nor a Territorial le- gislature possessed the power either to establish or exclude slavery from THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Territory, and that it wa& a power which exclusively belonged to the States." The court did not declare " that the people of a Territory can exercise this power for the first time when they come to form a constitution. The court did not declare "that the right of the people in any State to carry their slaves into a common Territory of the United States, and hold them there during its existence as such, was guaranteed by the Constitu- tion of the United States." The court did not declare " that it was a right which could neither be subverted nor evaded, either by non-action, by direct or indirect Con- gressional legislation, or by any law passed by a Territorial legislature." Neither the decision nor the opinion of the court affirms any one of those propositions, either in express terms or by fair legal intendment. This version of the "Dred Scott Decision." had its origin in the unfor- tunate Lecompton controversy, and is one of the many political heresies to which it gave birth. PROTECTION TO AMERICAN CITIZENS ABROAD. On tht3 18th of February, 1859, President Buchanan had sent to Congress a special message, in which he urged the neces- bity of passing " a law conferring upon the President of the United States the authority to employ a sufficient military or naval force, whenever it might be necessary to do so, for the protection of American citizens when out of the immediate jurisdiction of the United States. Mr. Douglas spoke iu favor of such a law, and said : " I think sir, that the Presi- dent of the United States ought to have the power to re- dress sudden injuries upon our citizens, or outrages upon our flag, without waiting for the action of Congress. The Ex- ecutive of every other powerful nation on earth has that authority. Our merchants are now being driven out of the trade in the Mexican and South American ports, for the want of authority in the Executive to demand and enforce instant redress the moment the outrage is perpetrated. I go fur- ther, sir ; I would intrust the Executive with the authority, when an outrage is perpetrated upon our ships or commerce, 158 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. to punish it instantly. I desire the President of the United States to have as much authority to protect American citi- zens, American property, and the American flag, abroad, as the Executive of every other civilized nation on earth pos- sesses." SLAVE PROPERTY IN THE TERRITORIES. On the 23d of February, in a debate on the Legislative Appropriation BiU, Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, made a speech in the Senate, insisting on a code of laws protecting slavery in the Territories. Admitting that, if the people of the Terri- tories did not want negroes, they could lawfully legislate so as to accomplish their purpose, he assumed that it was the right and duty of Congress'to enact laws to sustain it against the popular will. Taking Mr. Douglas' position on the question (as he said) for granted, Mr. Brown declared that he wished to hear from other Democratic senators from the free States, and to know whether they would vote to protect the rights of slaveholders in the Territories. No one rising for several minutes after, Mr. Brown concluded his remarks, and the Senate being about to proceed to the consideration of other subjects, Mr. Douglas arose and observed that if no other northern Democratic senator desired to be heard on the points presented by the senator from Mississippi, he craved the attention of the Senate for a while. He thanked Mr. Brown for taking his position for granted on the question pre- sented to the other northern Democrats. He had yet to know that there was one Democrat in the free States who would vote to protect slavery in the Territories by Congressional enactment against the popular decision. In this speech he shows that all property in the Territories, including slaves, is, and must be, subject to the local law of the Territorial legislature : that the Territorial legislature has the same power over slaves in the Territory, as it has over all other property ; and THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 1^9 no more : he explains his Freeport speech ; reminds the Sen- ate that his past record shows that he would never vote for a Congressional slave code for the Territories ; shows the absurdity of such a code ; and demonstrates that if the peo- ple of a Territory want slavery there, they will enact laws for its protection : he shows that it was the intent of the Ne- braska Bill to confer on the Territorial legislature all the power that Congress possessed on the subject of slavery, to let them wield it as the people of the Territory chose : he elucidates the truly equitable and just provisions of that bill, and shows that it expressly forbids the enactment of a Con- gressional slave code for the Territories. In the course of his remarks he said : The senator from Mississippi and myself agree that under the de- cision of the Supreme Court, slaves are property, standing on an equal footing with all other property ; and that consequently, the owner of slaves has the same right to carry his slave with him to a Territory, as the owner of any other species of property has to carry his property there. The right of transit to and from the Territories is the same for one species of property as it is for all others. Thua far the senator from Mississippi and myself agree that slave pro- perty in the Territories stands on an equal footing with every other species of property. Now, the question arises, to what extent is pro- perty, slaves included, subject to the local law of the .Territory? "Whatever power the Territorial legislature has over other species of property, extends, in my judgment, to the same extent, and in like manner, to slave property. The Territorial legislature has the same power to legislate in respect to slaves, that it has in regard to any other property, to the sams extent, and no further. If the sena- tor wishes to know what power it has over slaves in the Territories, I answer, let him tell me what power it has to legislate over every other species of property, either by encouragement or by taxation, or in any other mode, and he has my answer in regard to slave property. But the senator says that there is something peculiar in slave pro- perty, requiring further protection than other species of property. If so, it is the misfortune of those who own that species of property. He tells us that, if the Territorial legislature fails to pasy a slave code for the Territories, fails to pass police regulations to protect slave property, the absence of such legislation practically excludes slave property as effectually as a constitutional prohibition would exclude it. I agree to that proposition. He says, furthermore, that it is competent for the Territorial legislature, by the exercise of the 11 160 STEPHEN A. DOTGLAS. taxing power, and other functions within the limits of the Constitn tion, to adopt unfriendly legislation which practically drives slavery out of the Territory. I agree to that proposition. That is just what I said, and all I said, and just what I meant by my Freeport speech in Illinois, upon which there has been so much comment throughout the country. ******** The senator from Mississippi says they ought to pass such a code ,; but he admits that it is immaterial to inquire whether they ought or ought not to do it ; for if they do not want it, they will not enact it ; and if they do not do it, there is no mode by which you can com- pel them to do it. He admits there is no compulsory means by which you can coerce the Territorial legislature to pass such a law ; and for that reason he insists that, in case of non-action by the Ter- ritorial legislature, it is the right and duty of southern senators and representatives to demand affirmative action by Congress in the en- actment of a slave code for the Territories. He says that it is not necessary to put the question to me, whether I would vote for a Con- gressional slave code. He desire to know of all other northern De- mocrats what they will do ; he does not wish an answer from me. 1 am much obliged to him for taking it for granted, from my past record, that I never would vote for a slave code in the Territories by Congress ; and I have yet to learn that there is a man in a free State of this Union, of any party, who would. The senator from Mississippi defined it very well in his speech. His position was, that while the Constitution gave him the right of protection in a Territory for his slave property, it did not, of it- self, furnish adequate protection. He drew a distinction between the right and the fact, and said that the protection could only be furnished by legislation ; that legislation could only come from one of two sources the Territorial legislature or the Congress of the United States. He would look'to the Territorial legislature in the first instance. If he got adequate legislation there, he was con- tent; but if the Territorial legislature failed to act, and give him that adequate legislation, in the form of what is commonly called a slave code, such non-action was equivalent to a denial of his rights ; and, losing his rights, it was no consolation to him that he had been deprived of them by the non-action of a Territorial legislature ; and hence he would demand -of Congress the passage of laws to protect his slaves, and to punish men for running them off; to fur- nish such remedies for the violation of his rights as he thought he was entitled to from the Territorial legislature. He said he would demand this from Congress. He further said that he would base his demand on Congress to pass this slave code on the ground that the Territorial legislature was the creature of Congress ; and, if it did not do its duty, Congress should pass such laws as were neces- sary to protect slave property in the Territories. All I have to say, on the point presented by the senator from Mis* THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF louri, is thh : while our Constitution does not provide remedies for stealing negroes, it does not provide remedies for stealing dry-gwods, or horses, or any other species of property. You cannot protect any property in the Territories, without laws furnishing remedies for its violation, and penalties for its abuse. Nobody pretends that you are froing to pass laws of Congress making a criminal code for the Terri- tories, with reference to other species of property. The Congress of the United States never yet passed an act creating a criminal code for any organized Territory. It simply organizes the Territory, and leaves its legislature to make its own criminal code. Congress never passed a law to protect any species of property in the organized Ter- ritories ; it leaves its protection to the Territorial Legislatures. The question is, whether we shall make an exception as to slavery ? The Supreme Court makes no such distinction. It recognizes slaves as property. When they are taken to a Territory, they are on an equal footing with other property, and dependent upon the same system of legislation, for protection, as other property. While all other pro- perty is dependent on the Territorial legislation for protection, I hoM Ih at slave property must look to the same authority for its pro- *,ection. SLAVERY DEPENDENT ON THE LOCAL LAW. I leave all kinds of property, slaves included, to the local law for protection ; and I will not exert the power of Congress to inter- fere with that local law with reference to slave property, or any other kind of property. If the people think that particular laws on the subject of property are beneficial to their interests, they will enact them. If they do not think such laws are wise, they will refrain from enacting them. They will protect slaves there, provided they want slavery ; and they will want slavery, if the climate be such that the white man cannot cultivate the soil, so as to render negro com- pulsory labor necessary. Hence, it becomes a question of climate, of production, of self-interest, and not a question of legislation, whether slavery shall, or shall not. exist there. But the senator from Mississippi says he ha8 a right to protection. The owner of every other species of property may say he has a right to protection. The man dealing in liquors may think that, inasmuch as his stock of liquors is property, he has a right to protection. The man dealing in an inferior breed of cattle, may think he has a right to protection ; but the people of the Territory may think it is their interest to improve the breed of stock by discrimination against infe- rior breeds ; and hence they may fix a higher rate of taxation on the one than on the other. I am willing to test this question by the illustration the senator presents of a Maine liquor law. I shall not stop to inquire whether the Maine liquor law is constitutional or not; first, because Congress \Q not the tribunal to decide it ; and secondly, because, by the platform 362 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. to which the senator from Mississippi and myself both stand pledged as the rule for our political action, it is provided that that question shall be sent to the court to test the constitutionality of the law, anwer is derived from the crown or government, and not inherent STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. In my reply I showed that the people of the Territories do pass laws for the protection of life, liberty and property, and, in pursuance of those laws, do deprive the citizen of life, liberty and property, whenever the same become forfeited by crimes ; that they exercise the sovereign power of taxation over all private property within their limits, and divest the title for non-payment of taxes ; that they exercise the sovereign power of creating corporations, municipal, public and private ; that they possess " legislative power " over " all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution and the organic act;" and I quoted the language of Chief Justice Mar- shall, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, that " all legislative powers appertain to sovereignty '." Now let us see with what bad grace and worse manners, and yet how completely the attorney-general Tracks down fromhis main po- sition, that the Territories " have no attribute of sovereignty about them :" " Every half-grown boy in the country who has given the usual amount of study to the English tongue, or who has occasionally looked into a dictionary, knows that the sovereignty of a government consists in its uncontrollable right to exercise the highest power. But Mr. Douglas tries to clothe the Territories with the ' attributes of sovereignty,' not by proving the supremacy of their jurisdiction in any matter or thing whatsoever, but merely by showing that they may be, and some of them have been, authorized to legislate within cer- tain limits, to exercise the right of eminent domain, to lay and collect faxes for territorial purposes, to deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property, as a pun- ishment for crime, and to create corporations. All this is true enough, but it does by no means follow that the provisional government of a Territory is, therefore, a sovereign in any sense of the word.'' ABSURDITIES OF BLACK'S ARGUMENTS. So he surrenders at last. This discussion furnishes a single exam- ple of what perseverance can accomplish. It lias taken a long time to drive the attorney-general into the admission that the people of a Territory are clothed with the LAW-MAKING POWER; witli the right "to legislate within certain limits" (that is to say, upon " all right- ful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution ") ; with " the right of eminent domain, to lay and collect taxes for Territorial purposes, to deprive a citizen of life, liberty, and property, as a pun- ishment for crime, and to create corporations." 1 am not quite sure that "every half-grown boy in the country who has given the Usual amount of study to the English tongue, or has occasionally looked into a dictionary," does know that these powers are all "attri- butes of sovereignty ;" but I am very confident that no respectable court, jurist, or lawyer, " on this side of China " (Judge Black alone excepted), ever exposed their ignorance by questioning it, much lesa had the audacity to deny it. Since the fact is admitted, that the Territories do possess and may rightfully exercise those u legislative powers " which are i ecognized throughout the civilized world * the 178 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF very highest attributes of sovereignty the power over life, liberty arid property I shall not waste time in disputing with th attorney- general about the name by which he chooses to call them. It ii sufficient for ray purpose that I have at last forced him into the ad- mission that the law-making power over all rightful subjects of legis- lation appertaining to life, liberty, and property, resides in, and may be rightfully exercised by the Territories, subject only to the limita- tions of the Constitution. This brings to my notice another important confession in Judge Black's rejoinder, intimately connected with the preceding, which is: THAT IT is AN INSULT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SUPPOSE THAT THE PEOPLE OF ANT ORGANIZED TERRITORY WOULD ABUSE THE EIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT IF IT WERE OONOEDED TO THEM. This last confession, taken in connection with the previous admis- sion of the power, removes the last vestige of any substantial objec- tion to the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the Territories. Unable to make any plausible argument against it in theory and upon prin- ciple, as explained in " Harper's Magazine," Judge Black expended all the powers and energies of his intellect in his first pamphlet to render the doctrine odious and detestable upon the presumption of its probable practical results. He argued that it might result in " legis- lative robbery;" that " they may take every kind of property in mere caprice, or for any purpose 'of lucre or malice, without process of law, and without providing for compensation ;" that " they may order the miners to give up every ounce of gold that has been dug at Pike's Peak ;" that they may " license a band of marauders to despoil the emigrants crossing the Territory." These were the arguments employed by the attorney-general, in the beginning of this controversy, to render the doctrine of popular sovereignty odious and detestable in the eyes of all honest men, and to prepare the minds of the people for the favorable reception of his new doctrine, that property in the Territories must be protected under the laws of the State whence the owner removed. Very soon, however, the lawyers began to amuse themselves and the public by exposing the folly and absurdity of the pretence that the Territo- rial courts could apply the judicial remedies prescribed by the legislature of Kentucky, or of any other State. Becoming ashamed of his position, Judge Black wrote an appendix to his pamphlet, in which he declared that while the "title which the owner acquired in the State " from whence he removed must be respected in the Terri- tory, " THE ABSURD INFERENCE which some persons have drawn from it- is not true, that the master also takes with him the JUDICIAL REME- DIES which were furnished him at the place where his title was ac- quired," and that "the respective rights and obligations of the parties jiust be protected and enforced ~by the law prevailing at the placB wh,tro they are supposed to be violated." dy this time it was my turn to reply, when I showed that his doc- if true, established a RIGHT WITHOUT A REMEDY, and if the STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 179 people of the Territories could not be trusted in the management of their own affairs, and in the protection of life, liberty, and property, they could not be relied upon to provide the remedies ! This reply was made in good faith, and believed to be pertinent to the issue and fatal to his position. Instead of receiving it in good temper, obviating the force of it by fair argument, if it were possible for hi in to do so, he flies into a rage and denies that he " said that an emi- grant to a Territory had a right to his property without a remedy," and that "it is an insult to the American people to suppose that any community can le organized within the limits of our Union who will tolerate such a state of things." Listen to his patriotic indignation at the bare suggestion that the people of the Territories cannot be trusted to guard and protect the rights of property and provide the remedies : " I never said that an immigrant to a Territory had a right to his property without a remedy ; but I admit that he must look for his remedy to the law of his new domicil. It is true that he takes his life, his limbs, his reputation, and his property, and with them he takes nothing but his naked right to keep them and enjoy them. He leaves the judicial remedies of his previous domicil behind him. It is also true that in a Territory just beginning to be settled, he may need remedies for the vindication of his rights above all things else. In his new home there may be bands of base marauders, without conscience or the fear of God before their eyes, who are ready to rob and murder, and spare nothing that man or woman holds dear. In such a time it is quite possible to imagine an abolition legislature whose members owe their seats to Sharpe'a rifles and the money of the Emigration Aid Society. Very possibly a legisla- ture so chosen might employ itself in passing laws unfriendly to the rights of honest men and friendly to the business of the robber and the murderer. I concede this, and Mr. Douglas is entitled to all the comfort it affords him. But it is an insult to the American people to suppose, that any community can be organized within the limits of our Union, who will tolerate such a state of things." Why did Judge Black insult the American people by supposing and assuming that they would do these things if left free to regulate their own internal polity and domestic affairs in their .own way? It was deemed a necessary expedient in order to render popular sovereignty arid its advocates odious and detestable. Why then did he, in the course of the same discussion, turn round and say it was an insult to the American people to suppose that the people of the Territories would do those things when allowed to regulate their own affairs in their own way ? This, too, was in turn deemed a necessary expe- dient in order to avoid the horn of the dilemma into which he had been fairly driven, and escape the odium of an attempt to deceive the southern people, of which he had been fairly convicted of advocating a " right without a remedy." To what desperate shifts will men resort or be driven when they deliberately abandon principle FOE expediency ? N"o more striking or humiliating illustration of this truth was ever given than this con troversy presents. Each change of ground, every shifting of position has been done as an expedient to avoid what at the time was deemed 180 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF a worse alternative. The ground on which Mr. Buchanan was elected, that " the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide foi themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits," was changed, and in lieu of it the position assumed that 4k slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of the Constitution," as an expedient to obtain the support of certain southern ultras and fire-eaters who had always opposed popular sovereignty, on the sup- position that without such support Mr. Buchanan's administration would be in a minority in the two houses of Congress. The confes- sion that " the Constitution certainly does not establish slavery in the Territories, nor anywhere else," was made, and the position that slavery may be protected in the Territories under the laws of other States, assumed as an expedient to avoid the necessity of supporting a Congressional slave code. The confession that the people of the Territories may exercise legislative powers over all righful subjects of legislation, pertaining to life, liberty, and property, was made as an expedient to avoid the odium of advocating a right without a remedy, by showing that the Territorial legislatures might lawfully and rightfully pass all laws and prescribe all judicial remedies neces- sary for the protection of property of every description, slavery in- cluded. The declaration that it is an insult to the American people to suppose that the people of the Territories, when left free to ma- nage their own affairs in their own way, would be guilty of u legisla- tive robbery," would confiscate private property, seize it in mere spite, etc., was deemed a necessary expedient for the purpose of proving that the people might safely be trusted to furnish the pro- tection and provide the remedies without which slaves could not be held and slave property protected in the Territories under the laws of other States. ******* Turning from Judge Black to Dr. Gwin, it is but respectful to say a few words upon his letter, which illuminated the columns of the cen- tral organ of my assailants the day previous to Judge Black's rejoin- der. The identity of language, thought, and style, which pervades the two productions, while rejecting the idea that they could have been written with the same pen, furnishes conclusive evidence that great men will think ali'ie when in the same vein. For example- Dr. Gwin says : " The difference BETWEEN MB. DOUGLAS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, BUB- tained by this decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, is thisj' etc., etc. Judge Black says : " The whole dispute (as far as it is a doctrinal dispute) BETWEEN HR. DOUG- LAS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY /ie* substantially in these two propositions," etc., etc. This coincidence, without wearying the reader with other exam- ples, will suffice to show the unity of purpose and harmony of design STEPHEK A. DOUGLAS. 181 with which ' my assailants pursue me. To separate " Mr. Douglas " from the "Democratic party " seems to be the patriotic end to which they all aim. They may as well make up their minds to believe, if they have not already been convinced of the fact by the bitter experi- ence of the last two years, that the thing cannot be done. I gave them notice, at the initial point of this crusade, that no man or set of men on earth, save one, could separate me from the Democratic ?arty ; and as I was that one, and the only one who had the power, did not intend to do it myself nor permit it to be done by others ! At this point (Nov. 7), Mr. Douglas was forced to stop writing by a seve reattack of inflammatory rheumatism, which soon prostrated him with a dangerous illness, from which he was not expected at one time to recover. In a moment of consciousness he directed the unfinished manuscript to bo taken to the printer, with a note which concludes as follows : " I am too feeble, however, to add more. Here let the controversy close for the present, and perhaps for ever." THE CHASE AND TEUMBULL AMENDMENT. We cannot close this chapter without referring to "the record " to which Mr. Douglas alludes in his brief " note " as wishing to comment on in reply to Mr, Gwin. It will be found in the " Congressional Globe " of the First Session of the thirty-third Congress, vol. xxviii. It com- pletely exposes the attempted trickery of the Chase amend- ment. It shows what the Senate regarded as the true meaning of that clause in the Kansas Nebraska Bill which left the people of the Territories perfectly free " to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way," and that that meaning was, in the language of Senator Badger, " an unrestricted and unreserved reference to the Territorial authorities or the people themselves to determine upon the question of slavery." After the appearance of the Harper article, Mr. Gwin of California endeavored to produce the impression that neither 182 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mr. Douglas nor other senators understood, when the Kansas Nebraska Bill was before them, that the people of the Terri- tories could legislate on the subject of slavery during the Territorial condition ; and that had senators so understood the bill, it would have destroyed the measure ; and further, that Mr. Douglas, if he took a different view of the bill from that, acted in bad faith to the Senate and the country in not saying so " before the bill became a law." The records of Congress show the very reverse of this to be the fact. The record shows that both Mr. Douglas and the Democratic as well as other senators understood the Kansas Nebraska Bill to mean that the people of the Territories, while in the Territorial condition, could legislate on slavery as on any other domestic affair. It shows, also, that both Mr. Chase's amendment and Mr. Trumbull's amendment were legislative tricks, gotten up for political effect outside of Congress. As the Kansas Nebraska Bill stood before Mr. Chase offered his amendment, it read : It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people therein perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitu- tion of the United States. Mr. Chase's amendment proposed to add these words : Under which the people of the Territory, through their appropri- ate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of sla- very therein. Mr. Chase made a brief speech in support of his amend ment, in the course of which he said : After I hare obtained a vote upon this question, I shall want to know, and if no other senator shall do it, I will move amendments calculated to ascertain, whether it be intended to give the principle of non-intervention asserted by the bill full scope. If it is to b^ adopted, I want to see it adopted aad fully carried out. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 183 MR. PBATT said: Mr. President, the principle which tie senator from Ohio adopts as the principle of his amendment, is that the ques- tion shall be left entirely and exclusively to the people whether they will prohibit slavery or not. Now, for the purpose of testing the sin- cerity of the senator, and for the purpose of deducing the principle of his amendment correctly, I propose to amend it by inserting after the word " prohibit " the words u or introduce," so that if my amend- ment be adopted, and the amendment of the senator from Ohio as so amended be introduced as part of the bill, the principle which he says he desires to have tested will be inserted in the bill that the people of the Territories shall have power to prohibit or introduce slavery as they may see proper. I suppose the question will be taken on the amendment which I offer to the amendment. ME. SEWARD. Is an amendment to an amendment to an amend- ment in order ? MR. CHASE. The amendment which I offered is an amendment to an amendment. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the senator from Maryland is not now in order. MR. PRATT. Perhaps the senator from Ohio will accept it. ME. CHASE, in the course of his reply, said : Now, sir, I desire to have the sense of the Senate on the question, whether the Territorial legislatures to which you propose to refer this great question vital to the future destiny of the people who are to emigrate into these Territories can, subject to the Constitution, protect themselves, if they see fit to do so, from slavery. The senator from Maryland, Mr. Pratt, has proposed an amendment to my amendment. I cannot accept it, but it will be entirely within the power of the Senate to agree to his if they see fit to do so. ME. SHIELDS. If the honorable senator will permit, I will suggest to him, if he wishes to test that proposition, to put the converse as suggested by the honorable senator from Maryland, and then it will be a fair proposition. Let the senator from Ohio accept the amend- ment of the senator from Maryland for the purpose of testing the question. MB. CHASE. I was about to state why I could not accept the amendment of the senator from Maryland. I have no objection that the vote, shall be taken on it, and it is probable that it would receive the sanction of a majority here, but with my views of the Constitu- tion, 1 cannot vote tor it. I do not believe that a Territorial legis- lature, though it may have power to protect the people against slavery, is constitutionally competent to introduce it. Senator Badger, of North Carolina, took Mr. Chase in hand, and exposed the insincerity of the Ohio senator, and also told what was the true meaning of the bill. He said : Mr. President, I have understood, I find, correctly the purport o/ 184 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF the amendment offered by the honorable senator from Ohio . The purposes of the amendment, and the effect of the amendment, if adopted by the Senate, and standing as it does, are clear and obvious. The effect of the amendment, and the design of the amendment, are to overrule and subvert the very proposition introduced into the bill upon the motion of the chairman of the Committee on Territories, (Mr. Dopglas.) Is not that clear ? The position, as it stands, is an unrestricted and unreserved reference to the Territorial authorities, or the people themselves, to determine upon the question of slavery ; and, therefore, by the very terms, as well as by the obvious meaning and legal operations of that amendment (of Mr. Pratt), TO ENABLE THEM EITHEB TO EXCLUDE OR TO INTRODUCE OB TO ALLOW SLAVERY. If, therefore, the amendment proposed by the senator from Ohio were appended to the bill in the connection in which he introduces it, the necessary and inevitable effect of it would be to control and limit the language which the Senate had just put into the bill, and to give it this construction, that though Congress leaves them to regu- late their own domestic institutions as they please, yet in regard to the subject matter of slavery, the power is confined, to the exclusion or prohibition of it. I say this is both the legal effect and the manifest design of the amendment. The legal effect is obvious upon the statement ; the design is obvious upon the refusal of the gentleman to incorporate in his amendment what was suggested by my honor- able friend from Maryland, the propriety and fairness of which were instantly seen by my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shields.) ********** I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that I shall vote against the amendment of the senator from Ohio. The clause as it stands is ample. It submits the whole authority to the Territory to deter- mine for itself. That in my judgment is the place where it ought to be put. If the people of these Territories choose to exclude slavery, so far from considering it a wrong done to me or to my constituents, 1 shall not complain of it. It is their own 'business.^ ********** The question being taken by yeas and nays on the amend- ment of Mr. Chase, it resulted yeas 10, nays 36. . YEAS Messrs. Chase, Dodge of "Wis., Fessenden, Fish, Foote, Haralin, Seward, Smith, Sumner and Wade 10. NAYS Messrs. Adams, Atchison. Badger, Bell, Benjamin, Brod- head, Brown, Butler, Clay, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt, Husk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Toucey, Walker, Weller and \Villiains-36. And so the amendment was rejected. It will, be observed STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 185 that Dr. Gwin, who quotes Mr. Douglas' vote against the Chase amendment as conclusive evidence that the Nebraska Bill was not intended to confer on the Territorial legislature the power of introducing or excluding slavery, was present participating in these proceedings, without uttering one word of dissent or disapprobation of the speeches of Messrs. Pratt, Shields and Badger, when the latter declared that the bill as it stood without the Chase amendment, " submits the whole authority to the Territorial legislature to determine for itself," " and that if the people of these Territories choose to exclude slavery, so far from my considering it a wrong done to me or my constituents, I shall not complain of it it is their own business." The reader will doubtless be curious to know why it hap- pened that so many of the senators who participated in the removal of Mr. Douglas from the chairmanship of the Com- mittee on Territories for construing the Nebraska Bill in the same manner as Mr. Badger construed it the day before it received their votes, could have remained silent in their places without one word of dissent or protest. The Trumbull proposition referred to by Dr. Gwin, was offered as an amendment to the bill for the admission of Kansas into the Union as a State, two years after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and was rejected solely upon the ground that it was irrelevant to the bill for the admission of a State, and not because it did not declare the true intent and meaning of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It was in the following words : And l)e it further enacted : That the provision in the act "to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska," which declares it to be " the true intent and meaning of said act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution o/ the United States," was intended to and does confer upon or 186 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF to the people of the Territory of Kansas full power at any time through its Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from said Ter- ritory, or to recognize or regulate it therein. The official report of the proceedings on this amendment (see App. to "Cong. Globe," July 2d, 1856) shows that this amendment was discussed by Senators Benjamin, Trumbull, Fessenden, Cass, Douglas, Bigler, Toucey, Hale, Seward and Bayard, and that no one of them denied or intimated that the amendment did not declare the true intent and meaning of the original act, and that those who opposed it did so upon the ground that it was irrelevant to the bill under con- sideration. ME. CASS said: Now, in respect to myself, 1 suppose the Senate knows clearly my views. I believe the original act gave the Territo- rial legislature of Kansas full power to exclude or allow slavery. . . . . This being my view, I shall vote against the amendment. ME. DOUGLAS said: The reading of the amendment inclines my mind to the belief, that in its legal effect it is precisely the same with the original act, and almost in the words of that act. Hence, I should have no hesitancy in voting for it, except that it is putting on this bill a matter which does not belong to it. ME. BIGLEE said : Now, sir, I am not prepared t.o say what the intention of the Congress of 1854 was, because I was not a member of that Congress. I will not vote on this amendment, because I should not know that my vote was expressing the truth. I agree too, with the senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass), and the senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas), that this is substantially the law as it now exists. ME. TOTJOET said : Now, I object to this amendment as superflu- ous, nugatory, worse than that, as giving grounds for misrepresenta- tion. It leaves the subject precisely where it is left in the Kansas- Nebraska Bill. ME. BAYARD said : I have an objection to the amendment proposed by the honorable senator from Illinois (Mr. Trumbull), which to me would be perfectly sufficient, independent of any other : and that is, it is nothing more or less than an attempt to give a judicial exposition by the Congress of the United States to the Constitution ; and I hold that they have no right to usurp judicial power. The question being taken by yeas and nays on the amend* ment, resulted, ayes 11, nays 34, as follows : STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 187 YEAS Messrs. Allen, Bell, of K H., Collamer, Durkee, Fessen- den, Foote, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull and Wade 11. NAYS Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Oass, Clay, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Mai- lory, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weller, Wright and Yulee 34. So the amendment was rejected. Upon this transcript from the records we have three com- ments to make, which cannot fail to impress the reader. First, That during this whole debate no senator pretended that Mr. Trumbull's amendment did not declare the true intent and meaning of the Nebraska Act, according to its legal effect and plain reading. Second, That every senator who spoke against the amend- ment, assigned as the sole reason for his vote, either that it was irrelevant or an attempt by Congress to usurp judicial power. Third, That the senators who arraigned and condemned Mr. Douglas as too unsound to be chairman of the Terri- torial Committee for no other reason than that he then con- strued the Kansas-Nebraska Act the same as previously., listened to this debate without one word of dissent, and by their silence acquiesced in the construction which the author of the bill distinctly affirmed in their presence. Indeed, it may be said that this construction of the act was unanimously affirmed by the Senate, on thia occasion the Republicans assenting to it by their votes in favor of the amendment, and all the others by their acqui- escence in the reasons assigned by Messrs. Cass, Douglas, Bayard, Bigler and Toucey for voting against it. If, however, the senators should attempt to escape the conclusion under cover of the reasons assigned by Mr. Bayard, that the amendment was "nothing more or less than an attempt to give a judicial exposition, by the Congress of the United 188 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF States, to the Constitution," and " that they have no rig) , to usurp judicial power," with what consistency could the gentlemen meet in secret caucus and propose resolutions, to be offered in open Senate, as a platform for the Charleston Convention ; thus " giving a judicial exposition," by the caucus and the Senate, to the Constitution, on the identical point which Mr. Bayard denounced as "a usurpation of judicial power," and in the justice of which denunciation they all appeared at the time to acquiesce? STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 189 CHAPTER XVH. PROTECTION OF STATES FROM INVASION THE SENATOEIAL CAUCUS. Great Speech of Mr. Douglas on the Harper's Ferry Invasion Anxiety to hear him His Speeches in Reply to Senators Fessenden, Jeff. Davis, and Seward The Caucus of Senators Their Utopian Platform. THE first session of the 36th Congress met on the first Mon- day in December, 1859. The great practical measure of the session was the proposition of Mr. Douglas, embraced in the resolution which he offered on the 16th of January, 1860, instructing the Judiciary Committee to report a bill to pro- tect each State from invasion by people of other States. A day or two before the introduction of this resolution, a sharp passage at arms took place in the Senate between Mr. Douglas and Messrs. Clay, Jeff. Davis, and Green, which is thus described by the correspondent of the " New York Herald:" ME. PUGH, of Ohio, a sharp, keen, and plucky debater, and the right-hand man of Mr. Douglas, brought the controversy to a focus. There was a good deal of cross-firing and sharp-shooting against the doctrines and speeches of the Little Giant, from Green, Iverson, Glay, Davis, Gwin, and other southsiders, till at length the Little Giant himself was brought to the floor. He complained of ill-health ; but he never looked better in his life never appeared fresher in the ring, and never acquitted himself more to the admiration of his friends. He was like a stag at bay, and right and left he dashed among his pursuers. It is useless here to repeat this branch of the debate. It was the feature of the day and of the session. 190 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mr. Douglas announced to-day that he will abide by the decision of the convention, for the sake of the Democratic party, though he will not accept its nomination except upon the doctrine of popular sovereignty, as enunciated in the Cincinnati platform. EXTRACTS FKOM THE DEBATE. This was Mr. Douglas's first appearance in the Senate after his severe and protracted illness, and it was thought rather ungenerous in these senators to make a combined and con certed attack upon him under the circumstances. It is con- ceded, however, by all who listened to the debate, that he never bore himself more gallantly or came out of a contest more successfully. The objects of the assaults upon him were to justify his removal from the Committee on Territories, upon the ground that he held opinions incompatible with the Democratic creed. We give several extracts from this im- portant debate. In reply to Mr. Davis of Mississippi, Mr. Douglas said : I have never complained of my removal from the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories, and I never intended to allude to that subject in this body; but I do assert that the record proves that the Senate knew for eleven years that I held the identical opinions which I expressed in my Freeport speech, and which are now alleged as the cause of my removal ; and during that period, with a full knowledge of those opinions, which were repeated over and over again in this body, within the hearing of every member of the Se- nate, I was, by the unanimous vote of the body, made chairman of that committee, being reflected each year for eleven years. The cause now assigned for my removal is that I hold the identical opinions to-day that I held and repeatedly expressed during that whole period. If this be the true state of the facts, what does it prove ? Simply, that those who removed me changed at the end of the eleven years, and I was not sound because I did not change aa suddenly as they. My only offence consists in fidelity to the princi- ples that I had avowed during that whole period. If at the end of that time ny opinions were incompatible with those of a majority. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 191 It shows that the majority had changed their policy but that I had not changed my opinions. Mr. Green answered by charging that Mr. Douglas, in 1856, had declared in the Senate that the question, in respect to the extent of the power of a Territorial legislature over the subject of slavery, was a judicial question, which could be alone authoritatively determined by the Supreme Court )f the United States. Mr. Douglas, in reply, said : In 1856 I did say it was a judicial question, and I said it over and over again before 1856. I have said it since that time. I declared in my Illinois speeches that it was a judicial question, I have declared the same thing in every publication I have made during the last year. I assert, now, that it is a judicial question. The point is that for years it was no want of soundness in principle that I held one side of that judicial question while others held the opposite. I assert that the Senate did know which side of the judicial question I held. But I have always said that I would abide the decisions of the Su- preme Court, not only as a matter of policy but from considerations of duty. I take the law as expounded by the Supreme Court, I re- ceive the Dred Scott decision as an authoritative exposition ; but I deny that the point now under consideration has been decided in the Dred Scott case. There is no one fact in that case upon which it could have arisen. The lawyers engaged on each side never dreamt that it did arise in the case. It is offensive and injurious to the reputation of the court to say that they decided a great question which had been the smbject of agitation to the extent of convulsing the whole country, when it did not arise in the case, and when it was not argued by counsel. Sir, it would prove the court unworthy to decide the great question in a civilized country if it would take cog- nizance of a case when there was no fact upon the record upon which it could arise, when the counsel on either side never dreamt that it was in issue, when there was no argument on it, and foreclose the right of self-government to thousands and hundreds of thousands of people without a hearing. But one word more : I assert, and the debates will prove, that the understanding of the Kansas-Nebraska 13 192 THE LIFE AND 8PEECH38 OF Bill was that this was a judicial question to be decided when it should arise on a Territorial enactment. The speech of the senator from Va. (Mr. Hunter), shows clearly that it was to arise on a Territorial enactment, and all the speeches ol ill of us show that it was in that way and at that time that this judicial question was expected to arise and be decided. The under- standing was that when a Territorial legislature passed an act on this subject, of which any man complained, he should be able' to bring the matter before the Supreme Court ; and to facilitate the court in getting jurisdiction, we amended the bill by putting in a clause providing that a case affecting the title to slaves might be taken up to the Supreme Court without reference to the amount in- volved. That clause was inserted in order to get this judicial ques- tion before the Supreme Court of the United States. How ? On a Territorial enactment, and nobody ever dreamt that the court was going in a decision on a case which did not affect that question to decide this point without argument and without notice, and preclude the rights of the people without allowing them to be heard. "Whenever a Territorial legislature shall pass an act divesting or attempting to divest or impair or prejudice the right to slave property, and a case under that act shall be brought before the Supreme Court, I will abide by the decision and help in good faith to carry Mr. Clay, of Alabama, was the next to assail Mr. Douglas and to impeach the soundness of his principles and the con- sistency of his course upon the slavery question. In reply to him, Mr. Douglas said : I say to the gentleman from Alabama,' that while I have sought no sympathy and desire DO sympathy, I shrink from no vindication of myself. I leave the public to judge whether there has not been rather a doubling of teams on me every time I have engaged in debate for the last two years. After fighting an unholy alliance in ray own State, between federal officeholders and abolitionistg, and triumphing over them, did I come here at the last session and make any parade of that fact ? No, sir, I remained silent. I made nc vindication of myself; I made no complaint of my removal from the chair of the Territorial Committee ; I never alluded to it, and the matter would never have passed my lips if it had not been thrust in STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 193 my face in debate in the Senate to-day. The discussion of last year was brought on by others and not by me, and yet we have been told by a senator (Mr. Gwin) while making a speech in the country, that those who removed me from the head of that committee expected me to defend myself, and complained that I waited until the end of the session, after I had been tried, condemned and executed in my ab- sence. Sir, I had no defence to make. I scorn to make any defence. L stood conscious of the rectitude of my own motives and the correct- ness of my own actions. I claimed the right to hold and vindicate my own opinions, and to impeach no other man's conduct or the integrity of his purpose. I yield to every senator the right of differ- ing from me, and I never make a test on him for doing so. **** **** I have but a word more to say now, and that is on another point. The senator from Alabama tells me that if he had not supposed that I had changed my opinions, he would never have extended to me the right hand of fellowship as a Democrat. "Well, sir, I do not know ihat my Democracy would have suffered much if he never had. I am willing to compare records with him as a Democrat. I nevei make speeches, proclaiming to the world that if I cannot get my man nominated I will bolt the convention and break up the Demo- cratic party, and then talk about the right hand of Democratic fellowship. Sir, that senator has placed himself beyond the pale of Democratic fellowship, by the pronunciamento that he will not abide the decision of the National Convention, if the speeches, which 1 see attributed to him in the newspapers, are true. I do not understand this thing of belonging to an organization, going into a convention and abiding by the result if you win and bolting if you lose. I never thought that it was deemed fair dealing in any profession. If you take the winnings when you gain, I always thought you had to pay your bets when you lost : a man who tells me and the world that he only goes into a convention to abide the result in the event of its deciding in his favor, has no right to talk about extending the hand of Democratic fellowship. Now, sir, I have the kindest feelings toward the gentleman personally. He has a right to differ from me ; he has a right to bolt the Charleston Convention ; he has a right to proclaim to the world beforehand that he means to do so; but ha has no right to go into the convention unless he intends to abide the 194 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF result. He has no right to claim that he belongs to the convention and say that he will bolt the nominee; and hence I say to that senator, with all kindness, that if he does not extend to me the right hand of Democratic fellowship I shall survive the stroke. If 1 should happen to be the nominee of the Charleston Convention, and he should vote against me, I am not certain that it would diminish my majority in his own State. I am not counting his support. Permit me to say to that senator that it will be time enough to threaten that he will not vote for me when I ask him to do it. Permit me to say further to him that I am doing quite as much honor to him if I con- sent to accept his vote, as he will do me by conferring it. ******** When threats are made of not extending the hand of Democratic fellowship, I should like to understand who it is that has the right to say who is in the party and who not. I believe that more than two- thirds of the Democracy of the United States are with me on this disputed point. James Buchanan received about eighteen hundred thousand votes at the last election, more than twelve hundred thousand of them in the free States, and something over six hundred thousand in the slaveholding States, and you have heard it said by the senator from Ohio to-day, and I believe it, that ninety-nine out of every one hundred Democrats in the northern States agreed with him and me on this question. Then one-third of the Democratic party are going to read out the remaining two-thirds. Your candidate will have a good chance of election if you shall have done it, will he not? The only importance attached to the question of the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories is this : heretofore no test has been made as ix> a man's opinions on this judicial question, and hence I could hold the position of chairman by a unanimous vote, without objection ; but now it is made a test. I do not make it I only resist your test if you make it on me. While I do not want the chairman- shipwhile I have performed labor enough on that committee, lor eleven and a half years, to be anxious to get rid of it yet the coun- try cannot fail to take notice that my removal at the end of eleven years, is significant in one of two points of view. It was either per- sonal or political. I acquit every man of the suspicion that it waa personal. Then it must have been political. What does it signify ? Jt is a proclamation to the Senate that a man holding tLe opinions J STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 195 fio is not sonnd enough to serve as chairman of a committee. Is he sound enough for a cabinet officer, for a district attorney, for a collec- tor of the port, for a post-master, for a lighthouse-keeper ? All these classes of officers are now being removed, except cabinet officers, for holding the same opinions as myself. If you were to nominate for the Presidency a man who intends to pursue this prescriptive policy that every man holding the opinions I do is marked as a victim for vengeance the moment your candidates are elected, what chance have you of electing them ?" After a colloquy between Mr. Davis and Mr. Douglas, the latter proceeded : " I seek no war with any senator on either side of the chamber, and especially I seek none on political issues with Democratic sena- tors. Every word I have said has been in defence of myself against the imputation that I had changed my line of policy, which I utterly deny. I did understand, and I understand now, that when applica- tions are made to the present Administration for office, the question of a man's opinion on popular sovereignty is asked, and the applicant is proscribed if he agree with me in opinion. The country under- stands therefore that if a man representing this prescriptive policy is the next President, every man in the country who holds tho opinions of the senator from Ohio and myself is to be proscribed from every office, high or low. Such is now the case. Is any gen- tleman prepared to take the Charleston nomination with the undei- standing that he is to proscribe two-thirds of the party, and then degrade himself so low as to seek the votes of the men whom he has marked as his victims ? If no tests are to be made, there can be harmony ; if these tests are to be made, one-third will not subdue two-thirds. I do not intend to surrender an opinion or to tr/ and force one upon any other senator or citizen. I arraign n> man because of his opinions." 1P6 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF INCIDENTS OP THE GEEAT SPEECH. On Monday, the 23d of January, the resolution submitted on the 16th instant having been made the special order for that day, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate in its support. It was known hi Washington for some time previously that he would speak on that day, and this fact drew to the Capitol an immense concour&e of people. It would seem that the mantles of Clay and Webster had fallen upon the shoulders of Douglas, for it is well known that for years was it simply necessary to say "Douglas speaks to-day," in order to have the Senate chamber thronged by all the wit and beauty in the capital. On this occasion, although it was known that Mr. Douglas would not begin to speak till nearly two in the afternoon, yet as early as ten in the morning, numerous groups of people were seen wending their way to the Capitol. At eleven, the galleries were full, and the tide of silk and satin, cambric and crinoline, continued to gather in the avenues and lobbies. Crowds of ladies and gentlemen continued to pour in, till at noon every seat in the immense chamber was occu- pied, and all the standing-place jammed. The members of the House of Representatives came in almost hi a body, and occupied the floor. The foreign diplomatic corps too, were present in full force. Never before had there been such a scene in the new chamber. Douglas was to speak not for Illinois, not for the West, but for the pacification of the whole country, and the perpe- tuity of the Union. The reader will comprehend the character of this speech from the subjoined extracts: STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 197 INVASION OF STATES. The hr*-ar having arrived for the consideration of the special order, the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted jjy Mr. Douglas on the 16th instant : "Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report a bft 1 . for the protection of each State and Territory of the Union against invasion by the authorities or inhabitants of any other State or Territory ; and for the suppression and punishment of conspiracies or combinations in any State pi Territory with intent to invade, assail, or molest the gov ernment, inhabit ants, property, or institutions of any other State or Territor y of the Union.' ME. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, the governor of Virginia addressed an official communication to the President of the United States, in which he said: " I have information from various quarters, up.on which I rely, that a con- spiracy of formidable extent, in means and numbers, is formed in Ohio, Penn- sylvania, New York, and other States, to rescue John Brown and his associ- ates, prisoners at Charlestown, Virginia. The information is specific enough to be reliable " Places in Maryl-and, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have been occupied as depots and rendezvous by these desperadoes, unobstructed by guards or otherwise, to invade this State, and we are kept in continual apprehension of outrage from fire and rapine. I apprise you of these facts in order that you may take steps to preserve peace between the States." To this communication the President of the United States, on the 28th of November, returned a reply, from which I read the follow- ing sentence : "I am at a loss to discover any provision in the Constitution or laws of the United States which would authorize me to 'take steps 'for this purpose.' [That is, to preserve the peace between the States.] This announcement produced a profound impression upon tb^, public mind, especially in the slavaholding States. It was generally received and regarded as an official and authoritative announcement that the Constitution of the United States confers no power upon the Federal Government to protect the several States of this Union against invasion from the other States. I shall not stop to inquire whether the President meant to declare that the existing laws confer no authority upon him, or that the Constitution empowers Congress to enact no laws which would authorize the federal interposition to protect the States from invasion ; my object is to raise the inquiry, and to ask the judgment of the Senate and of the House of Repre- sentatives on the question, whether it is not within the power of Congress, and the duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to en aet all laws which are necessary and proper for the protection of 198 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP each and every State against invasion, either from foreign powers or from any portion of the United States. * * * * * * Sir, what were the causes which produced the Harper's Ferry outrage ? Without stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm and deliberate conviction that the Harper's Ferry crime was the natural, logical, inevitable result of the doctrines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained and enforced in their platform, their partisan presses, their pamphlets and books, and especially in the speeches of their leaders in and out of Congress. (Applause in the galleries.) Order being restored, Mr. Douglas proceeded : I was remarking that I considered this outrage at Harpar's Ferry as the logical, natural consequence of the teachings and doctrines of the Republican party. I am not making this statement for the pur- pose of crimination or partisan effect. I desire to call the attention of members of that party to a reconsideration of the doctrines that they are in the habit of enforcing, with a view to a fair judgment whether they do not lead directly to those consequences on the part of those deluded persons who think that all they say is meant in real earnest, and ought to be carried out. The great principle that un- derlies the organization of the Republican party is violent, irrecon- cilable, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery, with the view of its ultimate extinction throughout the land ; sec- tional war is to be waged until the cotton fields of the South shall be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields of New Itork and Massachusetts shall be cultivated by slave labor. In furtherance of this article of their creed, you find their political organization not only sectional in its location, but one whose vitality consists in ap- peals to northern passion, northern prejudice, northern ambition against southern States, southern institutions, and southern people. ***** He Can any man say to us that although this outrage has been perpe- trated at Harper's Ferry, there is.no danger of its recurrence? Sir, is not the Republican party still embodied, organized, sanguine, con- fident of success, and defiant in its pretensions ? Does it not now hold and proclaim the same creed that it did before this invasion ? It is true that most of its representatives here disavow the acts of John Brown at Harper's Ferry. I am glad that they do so ; I am rejoiced that they have gone thus far ; but I must bo permitted to say to them that it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless they also repudiate and denounce the doctrines and teachings which produced the act. Those doctrines remain the same ; those teachings are being poured into the minds of men throughout the country, by means of speeches, and pamphlets, and books, and through partisan presses. The causes that produced the Harper's Ferry invasion are STEPHEN A. DOtfGLAS. 199 '/now ia active operation. Is it true that the people of all the border States are required by the Constitution to have their hands tied, without the power of self-defence, and remain patient under a threat- ened invasion in the day or in the night ? Can you expect people to be patient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night without first stationing sentinels around their houses to see if a band of ma- rauders and murderers are not approaching with torch and pistol ? Sir, it requires more patience than freemen ever should cultivate, to submit to constant annoyance, irritation and apprehension. If we expect to preserve this Union, we must remedy, within the Union, and in obedience to the Constitution, every evil for which disunion would furnish a remedy. Upon the conclusion of this speech Mr. Fessenden at- tempted to break its force by a violent partisan attack on Mr. Douglas and the Democratic party ; to which Mr. Doug- las instantly replied, repelling the assaults and vindicating the position of the Democratic party upon the slavery ques- tion. We invite attention to extracts : ME. DOUGLAS' REPLY. Swr, I desire a law that will make it a crime, punishable by impri - sonment in the penitentiary, after conviction in the United States court, to make a conspiracy in one State, against the people, property, government, or institutions of another. Then we shall get at the root of the evil. I have no doubt that gentlemen on the other side will vote for a law which pretends to comply with the guarantees of the Constitution, without carrying any force or efficiency in its pro- visions. I have heard men abuse the Fugitive Slave Law, and express their willingness to vote for amendments ; but when you came to tho amendments which they desired to adopt, you found they were such as would never return a fugitive to his master. They wo'uld go for any fugitive slave law that had a hole in- it big enough to let the ne- gro drop through and escape; but none that would comply *with ths obligations of the Constitution. So we shall find that side of the House voting for a law that will, in terms, disapprove of unlawful expeditions against neighboring States, without being efficient in affording protection. But the senator says it is a part of the policy of the northern Democracy to represent the Republicans as being hostile to southern institutions. Sir, it is a part of the policy of the northern Demo- cracy, as well as their duty, to speak the truth on that subject. I dipted the following resolutions : STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 213 Jteolved, That we, the Democracy of the Union, in Convention assembled, do hereby declare our affirmation of the resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform of principles by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing that Democratic principles are unchangeable in their natuie when applied to the same subject- matters. Resotoed, That it is the duty of the United States to afford ample and complete protec- tion to all its citizens, whether at home or abroad, and whether native or foreign born. Resolved, That one of the necessities of the age in a military, commercial and postal point of view, is speedy communication between the Atlantic and Pacific States, and the Democratic party pledge such Constitutional power of the Government as will insure th construction of a Railroad to the Pacific coast, at the earliest practicable period. Resolved, That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of Cuba on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain. . Resolved, That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave law, are hostile in character and subversive to the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effects. Resolved, That it is in accordance with the Cincinnati platform, that during the exis- tence of Territorial Governments, the measure of restriction, whatever it maybe, imposed by the Federal Constitution on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the subject of the domestic relations, as the same has been or shall hereafter be finally determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, should be respected by all good citizens, and en- forced with promptness and fidelity by every branch of the General Government. On this platform, word for word, as printed above, the majority of our late National Convention nominated the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas for President of the United States. MR. DOUGLAS' LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE. WASHINGTON, Friday, June 29, 1860. GENTLEMEN : In accordance with the verbal assurance which I gave you when you placed in my hands the authentic evidence of my nomination for the Presidency by the National Convention of the Democratic party, I now send you niy formal acceptance. Upon a careful examination of the plat- form of principles adopted at Charleston and reaffirmed at Baltimore, with an additional resolution which is in perfect harmony with the others, I find it to be a faithful embodiment of the time-honored principles of the Demo- cratic party, as the same were proclaimed and understood by all parties in the Presidential contests of 1848, 1852, and 1856. Upon looking into the proceedings of the Convention also, I find that the nomination was made with great unanimity, in the presence and with the concurrence of more than two-thirds of the whole number of dele- gates, and in accordance with the long-established usages of the party. My inflexible purpose not to be a candidate, nor accept the nomination un- der any contingency, except as the regular nominee of the National Demo- 214 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF cratic party, and in that case cnly upon the condition that the usages, aa well as the principles of the party, should be strictly adhered to, had been proclaimed for a long time and become well known to the country. These conditions having all been complied with by the free and voluntary action of the Democratic masses and their faithful representatives, without any ageucy, interference, or procurement, on my part, I feel bound in honor and duty to accept the nomination. In taking this step, I am not unmind- ful of the responsih ilities it imposes, but with firm reliance upon Divine Providence, I have the faith that the people will comprehend the true na ture of the issues involved, and eventually maintain the right. The peace of the country and the perpetuity of the Union have been put in jeopardy by attempts to interfere with and to control the domestic affairs of the people in the Territories, through the agency of the Federal Government! If the power and the duty of Federal interference is to be conceded, two hostile sectional parties must be the inevitable result the one inflaming the passions and ambitions of the North, the other of the South, and each struggling to use the Federal power and authority for the aggrandizement of its own section, at the expense of the equal rights of the other, and in derogation of those fundamental principles of self-gov- ernment which were firmly established in this country by the American Re- volution, as the basis of our entire republican system. During the memorable period of our political history, when the advo- cates of Federal intervention upon the subject of slavery in the Territories had well-nigh " precipitated the country into revolution," the northern interventionists demanding the Wilmot Proviso for the prohibition of slavery, and the southern interventionists, then few in number, and with- out a single Representative in either House of Congress, insisting upou Congressional legislation for the protection of slavery in opposition to the wishes of the people in either case, it will be remembered that it required all the wisdom, power and influence of a Clay and a Webster and a Cass, supported by the conservative and patriotic men of the Whig and Demo- cratic parties of that day, to devise and carry out a line of policy which would restore peace to the country and stability to the Union. The essen- tial living principle of that policy, as applied in the legislation of 1850, was, and now is, non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Terri- tories. The fair application of this just and equitable principle restored harmony and fraternity to a distracted country. If we now depart from that wise and just policy which produced these happy results, and permit the country to be again distracted ; if precipitated into revolution by 9 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 21 5 gectionul contest between Pro-Slavery and Anti-Slavery interventionists, where shall we look for another Clay, another Webster, or another Casa to pilot the ship of state over the breakers into a haven of peace and safety, The Federal Union must be preserved. The Constitution must be main- tained inviolate in all its parts. Every right guaranteed by the Constitu* tion must be protected by law in all cases where legislation is necessary to its engagement. The judicial authority as provided in the Constitution must be sustained, and its decisions implicitly obeyed and faithfully exe- cuted. The laws must be administered and the constituted authorities upheld, and all unlawful resistance to these things must be put down with firmness, impartiality and fidelity if we expect to enjoy and transmit unimpaired to our posterity, that blessed inheritance which we have received in trust from the patriots and sages of the Revolution. With sincere thanks for the kind and agreeable manner in which you have made known to me the action of the Convention, I have the honor to be, Your friend and fellow citizen, S. A. DOUGLAS. Tion. -Wm. H. Ludlow, of New York ; R. P. Dick, of North Carolina ; P. C. Wickliff, of / ' oisiana, and others of Committee. LIFE AND SPEECHES OF CONCLUSION. THE result of the Presidential Campaign of 1860 in which Mr. Douglas actively participated, although well aware that the division in the Democratic party rendered his own election an impossibility is well known. Mr. Douglas received only the electoral vote of Missouri, and three- sevenths of the vote of New Jersey, though he received a popular vote of 1,365,979 ; while John C. Breckenridge, with a popular vote of but 841,953, secured the electoral vote of all the remaining Southern States eleven in number except Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, which voted for John Bell. Upon the outbreak of the great rebellion, Mr. Douglas, like a true patriot, took his stand in behalf of the Govern- ment. His last public speech, indeed, was a noble declara- tion in favor of the Union, at any and all hazards. Returning from Washington with his wife to Chicago, on the first day of May, 1861 going home, though he knew it not, to die he was met at the depot by an immense assem- blage of citizens of all parties, who insisted on escorting him in procession to the great Wigwam, which was already packed with ten thousand persons. HIS LAST WORDS FOR THE UNION Room having been made for the admission of Mr. Douglas, he was addressed by Thomas B. Bryan, in behalf of Chicago Mr. Douglas replied : Mr. Chairman : I thank you for the kind terms in which you have been pleased to welcome me. I thank the Committee and citizens of Chicago for STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 217 fchis grand and imposing reception. I beg you to believe that I will not do you nor myself the injustice to believe this magnificent ovation is personal homage to myself. I rejoice to know that it expresses your devotion to the Constitution, the Union, and the flag of our country. (Cheers.) I will not conceal gratification .at the uncontrovertible test this vast audi ence presents that what political differences or party questions may have divided us, yet you all had a conviction that when the country should be in danger, my loyalty could be relied on. That the present danger is imminent, no man can conceal. If war must come if the bayonet must be used to maintain the Constitution I can say before God my conscience is clean. I have struggled long for a peaceful solution of the difficulty. I have not only tendered those States what was theirs of right, but I have gone to the very extreme of magnanimity. The return we receive is war, armies marched upon our capital, obstruc- tions and dangers to our navigation, letters of marque to invite pirates to prey upon our commerce, a concerted movement to blot out the United States of America from the map of the globe. The question is, Are we to maintain the country of our fathers, or allow it to be stricken down by those who, when they can no longer govern, threaten to destroy? What cause, what excuse do disunionists give us for breaking up the best Government on which the sun of heaven ever shed its rays ? They are dissatisfied with the result of a Presidential election. Did they never get beaten before ? Are we to resort to the sword when we get defeated at the ballot-box ? I understand it that the voice of the people expressed in the mode appointed by the Constitution must command the obedience of every citizen. They assume, on the election of a particular candidate, that their rights are not safe in the Union. What evidence do they present of this ? I defy any man to show any act on which it is based. What act has been omitted to be done ? I appeal to these assembled thousands that BO far as the constitutional rights of the Southern States, I will say the constitutional rights of slaveholders, are concerned, nothing has been done, and nothing omitted, of which they can complain. There has never been a time from the day that Washington was inaugu- rated first President of these United States, when the rights of the Southern States stood firmer under the laws of the land than they do now ; there never was a time when they had not as good a cause for disunion as they have to- . day. What good cause have they now that has not existed under every Administration ? If they say the Territorial question now, for the first time, there is no act of Congress prohibiting slavery anywhere. If it be the non-enforcement of the laws, the only complaints that I have heard have been of the too vigorous and faithful fulfilment of the Fugitive Slave Law. Then what reason have they ? 21S LIFE AND SPEECHES OF The slavery question is a mere excuse. The election of Lincoln is a mere pretext. The present secession movement is the result of an enormous con- spiracy formed more than a year since, formed by leaders in the Southern Confederacy more than twelve months ago. They use the Slavery question as a means to aid the accomplishment of their ends. They desired the election of a .Northern candidate, by a sectional Tote, in order to show that the two sections cannot live together. When the history of the two years from the Lecompton charter down to the Presiden- tial election shall be written, it will be shown that the scheme was deliber- ately made to break up this Union. They desired a Northern Republican to be elected by a purely Northern rote, and then assign this fact as a reason why the sections may not longer live together. If the disunion candidate in the late Presidential contest had carried the united South, their scheme was, the Northern candidate suc- cessful, to seize the Capitol last spring, and by a united South and divided North hold it. That scheme was defeated in the defeat of the disunion candi- date in several of the Southern States. But this is no time for a detail of causes. The conspiracy is now known. Armies have been raised, war is levied to accomplish it. There are only two Bides to the question. Every man must be for the United States or against it. There can be no neutrals in this war; only patriots or traitors. Thank God, Illinois is not divided on this question. (Cheers.) I know they expected to present a united South against a divided North. They hoped, in the Northern States, party questions would bring civil war between Democrats and Republicans, when the South would step in with her cohorts, aid one party to conquer the other, and then make easy prey of the victors. Their scheme was carnage and civil war in the North. There is but one way to defeat this. In Illinois it is being so defeated by closing up the ranks. War will thus be prevented on our own soil. While there was a hope of peace I was ready for any reasonable sacrifice or com- promise to maintain it. But when the question comes of war in the cotton- fields of the South or the corn-fields of Illinois, I say the farther off the better. We cannot close our eyes to the sad and solemn fact that war does exist. The Government must be maintained, its enemies overthrown, and the more stupendous our preparations the less the bloodshed, and the shorter the struggle. But we must remember certain restraints on our action even in time of war. We are a Christian people, and the war must be prosecuted in a manner recognized by Christian nations. We must not invade Constitutional rights. The innocent must not suffer, nor women and children be the victims. Savages must not be let loose. But while I sanction no war on the rights of others, I will implore my country STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 219 men not to lay down their arms until our own rights are recognized. (Cheers.) The Constitution and its guarantees are our birthright, and I am ready to enforce that inalienable right to the last extent. We cannot recognize seces- sion. Recognize it once, and you have not only dissolved government, but you have destroyed social order, upturned the foundations of society. You have inaugurated anarchy in its worst form, and will shortly experience all the horrors of the French Revolution. Then we have a solemn duty to maintain the Government. The greater our unanimity the speedier the day of peace. We have prejudices to overcome from the few short months since of a fierce party contest. Yet these must be allayed. Let us lay aside all criminations and recriminations as to the origin of these difficulties. When we shall have again a country with the Unitei States flag floating over it, and respected on every inch of American soil, it will then be time enough to ask who and what brought all this upon us. I have said more than I intended to say. (Cries of " Go on.") It is a sad task to discuss questions so fearful as civil war; but sad as it is, bloody and disastrous as I expect it will be, I express it as my conviction before God, that it is the duty of every American citizen to rally round the flag of his country. I thank you again lor this magnificent demonstration. By it you show you have laid aside party strife. Illinois has a proud position united, firm, determined never to permit the Government to be destroyed. (Prolonged cheering.) Not long afterward he was attacked with an acute disease, of which he expired at ten minutes past nine o'clock in the morning of the fourth of June, 1861, shortly after the com- pletion of the forty-eighth year of his age. The career of Mr. Douglas as a statesman, will ever form a brilliant and familiar portion of our country's history. As a public man, he was prompt, enterprising and persistent. At the very outset of his legislative career, he identified his name with two of the most popular and useful public works in Illinois, by proposing as a member of his legislature, a series of resolutions recommending their early construction. The one, the Illinois and Michigan Canal, which opens up a communication with the waters flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, and those flowing into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, The other, the Illinois Central Railroad, which furnishes an 220 LIFE AND SPEECHES OP overland connection between the upper Mississippi and Lake Michigan, and the main Mississippi at Cairo. And after- wards Ke materially contributed to the completion of the latter improvement, by his influence as a Senator of the United States, in procuring the grant of land made by Congress for that purpose. This was a proud triumph of persevering statesmanship, and will long endure as a worthy monument to his fame. Its priceless benefits are to-day hailed by all Illinoisans as marking a new and joyous era in the history of their beloved State. As a debater, Mr. Douglas was great, truly great, in the dexterous use of passing facts and familiar circumstances. In this he was probably greater than any of his illustrious contemporaries. This was the type of his mind it was his forte. Less eloquent than Clay, less logical than Webster, less versatile than Benton, he was the superior of them all in the readiness of his intellect and the distinctness and clear- ness of his statements as a public speaker. He was always unostentatious, copious, clear, and forcible. As an extempore speaker, his capabilities were transcendant and amazing, and unquestionably placed him in the first rank of debaters of any age and country. As an orator, his manner was peculiar to himself. Although possessing but little of the qualities of the rhetorician, and still less of the art of the theatrical declaimer, yet his action was far from ungraceful, while his voice was singularly full and sonorous. What he lacked as a rhetorical declaimer, he more than made up by the earnestness and vehemence of his delivery. Like Demosthenes, whose style he appears to have cultivated, he was always in earnest, ever on fire. His power over his hearers was often demonstrated by his success in swaying Senates and controlling the violence of the populace. In his social characteristics he was remarkable for tho STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 221 singular magnetism of his personal presence, the talismanic touch of his kindly hand, the gentle amenities of his domestic life, and the ineradicable clftsp of his friendships. These are the pearls beneath the rough shells of his political life. Many will recall the gentle tone and cordial greeting with which he used to woo and win, and hold the young partisans of his faith, and the warm promoters of his success. Ever ready with his counsel, his means, and his energies, he led them as much by the persuasiveness of his heart, as the logic of his head. The same gentle demeanor which fondled his children and taught them a beauty of manners beyond all praise, the same pure respect and tenderness with which he treated his noble wife and companion, silvered the cords of attachment which bound his friends to him, and made his home at Washington and his sojourns elsewhere, recollec- tions as sweet as memory can embalm. His devotion to the Union was strong even in death. Could there be a more solemn, a more touching, a more affecting scene, than when the angel of death was flapping his broad wing over the emaciated frame of this intellectual giant, when the grave was opening to receive him, and when, in a moment of apparent consciousness, his lovely and loving and devoted wife asked the dying statesman if he had any message to send to his two sons ? When not hearing, or not understanding the question, she knelt over him and whispered it once more in that ear so soon to be as deaf to sound as the clod that covers him. Rallying for a moment, his eye flashing, his whole frame dilating, " Tell them," said he, " TO OBEY THE LAWS AND SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OP THE UNITED STATES." His last utterance was the fit climax of a life devoted to the study of this Government, and of a patriotism which never swerved from its love for the Union. It was worth whole battalions of armed men. A word from him made 222 LIFE AND SPEECHES. calm from tempest, and resolved doubt into duty. His thought swayed the tides of public opinion as vassals to his will. After his hot contests in the Senate during the first session of the last Congress (1860-61), after his heroic campaign in the South, closing at Norfolk in his courageous reply to the disunionists ; after his struggles for the last few months, when he strung his energies to the utmost in plead- ing for peace and conciliation ; after all had failed, and anarchy stalked with haughty head through the land, and even jeopardized the metropolis of the nation, it was the consummate glory of his life to have given his last and most emphatic utterance for the maintainance of the Government, even though its administration was given to his old political antagonist, and although he knew that such expression imperilled the lives of a hundred thousand of his friends. May his countrymen ever remember his dying counsels, and so well maintain the Constitution which he loved, that by the re-union of the divided members of our Republic, they who drew from his noble life so many political blessings, may receive a great benefit even from his lamented and untimely death. But be the issue what it may, his fame is forever printed in the hearts of the American people. From the Green Mountains of his native State to the white tops of the Pacific Sierras, while the heavens bend above our land to bless it, the rivers roll and the mountains stand to unite it, or the ceaseless interchange of traffic and thought goes on by sea and rail by telegraph or post the people of America, from whose midst as a poor boy, by his own self-reliance he sprung, will preserve in the pantheon of their hearts, to an immortal memory, the name of STEPHEN ARNOLD DOUGLAS. SPEECHES AND REPORTS ON THE MEASURES OF AT^JUSTMESiT. Delivered in the City Hall, Chicago, Illinois, Oct. 23, 1850. THE agitation on the subject of slavery now raging through the breadth of the land presents a most extraordinary spectacle. Congress, after a protracted session of nearly ten months, succeeded in passing a system of measures, which are believed to be just to all parts of the Republic, and ought to be satisfactory to the people. The South has not triumphed over the North, nor has the North achieved a victory over the South. Neither party has made any humiliating concessions to the other. Each has preserved its honor, while neither has sur- rendered an important right, or sacrificed any substantial interest. The measures composing the scheme of adjustment are believed to be in harmony with the principles of justice and the Constitution. And yet we find that the agitation is re-opened in the two extremes of the Union with renewed vigor and increased violence. In some of the southern States, special sessions of the legislatures are being called for the purpose of organizing systematic and efficient measures of resistance to the execution of the laws of the land, and for the adoption of disunion as the remedy. In the northern States, munici- pal corporations, and other organized bodies of men, are nullifying the acts of Congress, and raising the standard of rebellion against the authority of the Federal Government. At the South, the measures of adjustment are denounced as a dis- graceful surrender of southern rights to northern abolitionism. At the North, the same measures are denounced with equal violence as a total abandonment of the rights of freemen to conciliate the slave power. The southern disunionists repudiate the authority of the highest judicial tribunal on earth, upon the ground that it is a pliant and corrupt instrument in the hands of northern fanaticism. The northern nullifiers refuse to submit the points at issue to the same exalted tribunal, upon the ground that the Supreme Court of the United States is a corrupt and supple instrument in the hands of the southern slavocracy. For these contradictory reasons the people in both sections of the 15 4 1HE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP Union are called upon to resist the laws of the land, and the authority of the Federal Government, by violence, even unto death and disunion. Strange and contradictory positions! Both cannot be true, and I trust in God neither may prove to be. We have fallen on evil times, when passion, and prejudice, and ambi- tion, can so blind the judgments and deaden the consciences of men, that the truth cannot be seen and felt. The people of the North, or the South, or both, are acting under a fatal delusion. Should we not pause, and reflect, and consider, whether we, as well as they, have not been egregiously deceived upon this subject ? It is my purpose this evening to give a candid and impartial exposition of these mea- sures, to the end that the truth may be known. It does not become a free people to rush madly and blindly into violence, and bloodshed, and death, and disunion, without first satisfying our consciences upon whose souls the guilty consequences must rest. The measures, known as the adjustment or compromise scheme, are six in number : J , The admission of California, with her free constitution. 2. The creatiou of a Territorial government for Utah, leaving the people to regulate their own domestic institutions. 3. The creation of a Territorial government for New Mexico, with like provisions. 4. The adjustment of the disputed boundary with Texas. 5. The abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. 6. The Fugitive Slave Bill. The first three of these measures California, Utah, and New Mexico I prepared with my own hands, and reported from the Committee on Territories, as its chairman, in the precise shape in which they now stand on the statute-book, with one or two unimportant amendments, for which I also voted. I, therefore, hold myself res- ponsible to you, as my constituents, for those measures as they passed. If there is anything wrong in them, hold me accountable ; if there is anything of merit, give the credit to those who passed the bills. These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that every people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating their own internal concerns and domestic institutions in their own way. It was supposed that those of our fellow-citizens who emi- grated to the shores of the Pacific and to our other territories, were a* capable of self-government as their neighbors and kindred whom they left behind them ; and there was no reason for believing that they have lost any of their intelligence or patriotism by the wayside, while crossing the Isthmus or the Plains. It was also believed, that after their arrival in the country, when they had become familiar with its topography, climate, productions, and resources, and had con- nected their destiny with it, they were folly** competent to judge for themselves what kind of laws and institutions were best adapted to their condition and interests, as we were who never saw the country, and knew very little about it. To question their competency to do STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 5 this, was to deny thair capacity for self-government. If they have the requisite intelligence and honesty to be intrusted with the enact- ment of laws for the government of white men, I know of no reason why tley should not be deemed competent to legislate for the negro. If the) are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protection of life, liberty, and property of morals and education to determine the relation of husband and wife of parent and child I am not aware that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate the affiiirs of master and servant. These things are all confided by the Constitution of each State to decide for itself, and I know of no reason why the same principle should not be extended to the Terri- tories. My votes and acts have been in accordance with these views in all cases, except the instances in which I voted under your instructions. Those were your votes, and not mine. I entered my protest against them at the time before and after they were recorded and shall never hold myself responsible for them. I believed then, and believe now, that it was better for the cause of freedom, of humanity, and of republicanism, to leave the people interested to settle all these questions for themselves. They have intellect and consciences as well as we, and have more interest in doing that which is best for themselves and their posterity, than we have as their self-constituted and officious guardians. I deem it fortunate for the peace and harmony of the country that Congress, .taking the same view of the subject, rejected the Proviso, and passed the bills in the shape in which I originally reported them. So fur as slavery is concerned, I am sure that any man who will take the pains to examine the history of the question, will come to the conclusion that this is the true policy, as well as the sound republican doctrine. Mr. Douglas here went into a historical view of the subject, to show that slavery had never been excluded in fact from one inch of the American continent by act of Congress. When the federal Consti- tution was formed in '87, twelve of the thirteen States, then compos- ing the Confederation, held slaves, and sustained the institution of slavery by their laws. Since that period slavery had been abol- ished in six of these twelve original slave States. How was this effected ? Not by an act of Congress. Not by the interposition of the Federal Government. Congress had no power over the subject, and never attempted to interfere with it. Slavery was abolished in those States by the people of each, acting for themselves, and upon their own motion and responsibility. The people became convinced that it was for their own interests, and the interests of their posterity, pecuniarily and morally, and they did it of their own free will, and rigidly enforced their own laws. So it was in the territory northwest of the Ohio River. By the act of Congress, known as the Ordinance of '87, slavery was prohibited by law, but not excluded in fact. Slavery existed in the Territories of Illinois and Indiana, in spite of the Ordinance, under the authority of the Territorial laws. Illinois was a slaveiiolding Territory in da (J THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF fiance of the act of Congress, but became a free State by the action of our own people, when they framed our State constitution, prepa- ratory to their admission into the Union. So it was with Indiana. Oregon prohibited slavery by the action of her people under their provisional government, several years before Congress established a Territorial government. In short, wherever slavery has been excluded, and free institutions established, it has been done by the voluntary action of the people interested. Wherever Congress at- tempted to interfere in opposition to the wishes of the people of the Territory, its enactments remained a dead letter upon the statute- book, and the people took such legislative action as comported with their inclinations and supposed interests. Mr. Douglas then referred to the country acquired from Mexico, and called the attention of the audience to the fact, that the aboli- tionists had all predicted that slavery would certainly be introduced into those territories, unless Congress interfered and prohibited it by law, and condemned him because he was opposed to such interfer- ence. The problem is now solved. What was then a matter o opinion and disputation, has become a historical fact. Time has settled the controversy, and shown who was right and who was wrong. The Wilraot Proviso was not adopted. Congress did not prohibit slavery in those territories, and yet slavery does not exist in them. In California, it was prohibited by the people in the consti- tution with which that State was admitted into the Union. It is well known that the people of New Mexico, when they formed a constitution with the view of asking admission, also prohibited sla- very. These facts show conclusively that all the predictions of the abolitionists upon this subject have been falsified by history, and that my own have been literally fulfilled. I refer to these facts, not in the spirit of self-gratulation, but to show that these men, who have alarmed the friends of freedom, and for a time partially controlled the popular sentiment, were themselves mistaken, and misled their ' followers ; at the same time that their doctrine was at war with the whole spirit of our republican institutions. But let us return to the measures immediately under discussion. It must be conceded that the question of the admission of California was not free from difficulty, independently of the subject of sla- very. There were many irregularities in the proceedings ; in fact, every step in her application for admission was irregular, when viewed with reference to a literal compliance with the most approved rules and usages in the admission of new States. On the other hand, it should be borne in mind that this resulted from the necessity of the case. Congress had failed to perform its duty had established nv Territorial government, and made no provision for her admission into the Union. She was left without government, and was there- fore compelled to provide one for herself. She could not conform to rules which had not been established, nor comply with laws which Congress had failed to eiiaot. The same irregularities had occurred, STEPHEN A. DOTJRLAS. 7 however, and been waived, in the x admission of other States under peculiar circumstances. True, they had not all occurred in the case of any one State ; but some had in one, others in another ; so that, by looking into the circumstances attending the admission of each of the new States, we find that all of these irregularities, as they are called, had intervened and been waived in the course of our legisla- tive history. Besides, the territory of California was too extensive for one State, (if we are to adopt the old States as a guide in carving out new ones,) being about three times the size of New York; and her boundaries were unnatural and unreasonable, disregarding the topography of the country, and embracing the whole mining region and her coast in the limits. Thus it will be seen that the slavery question was not the only real difficulty that the admission of Cali- fornia presented to the minds of calm and reflecting men ; although it cannot be denied that it was the exciting cause, which stimulated a large portion of the people in one section to demand her instant admission, and in the other, to insist upon her unconditional rejec- tion. Even in this point of view, I humbly conceive that the ultras in each extreme of the republic acted under a misconception of their true interests and real policy. The whole of California from the very nature of the country, her rocks and sands, elevation above the sea, climate, soil, and productions was bound to be free territory by the decision of her own people, no matter when admitted or how divided. Hence, if considered with reference to the preponderance of political power between the free and slaveholding States, it was manifestly the true policy of the South to include the whole country in one State ; while the same reasons should have induced the North to subdivide it into as many States as the extent of the territory would justify. But, in my opinion, it was not proper for Congress to act upon any such principle. We should know no North, no South, in our legislation, but look to the interests of the whole coun- try. By our action in this case, the rights and privileges of Califor- nia and the Pacific coast were principally to be affected. By erect- ing the country into one State instead of three, the people are to be represented in the Senate by two in the place of six senators. If their interests suffer in consequence, they can blame no one but themselves, for Congress only confirmed what they had previously done. The problem in relation to slavery should have been much more easily solved. It was a question which concerned the people of California alone. The other States of the Union had no interest in it, and no right to interfere with it. South Carolina settled that question within her own limits to suit herself; Illinois has decided it in a manner satisfactory to her own people ; and apon what prin- ciple are we to deprive the people of the State of California of a right which is common to every State in the Union? The bills establishing Territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico are silent upon the subject of slavery, except the provision that, when they should be admitted into the Union as States, eack 8 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF should decide the question of slavery for itself. This latter provision was not incorporated in my original bills', for the reason that I con- ceived it to involve a principle so clearly deducible from the Consti- tution that it was unnecessary to embody it in the form of a legal enactment. But when it was offered as an amendment to the bills, I cheerfully voted for it, lest its 'rejection should be deemed a denial of the principle asserted in it. The abolitionists of the North pro- fess to regard these bills as a total abandonment of the principles of freedom, because they do not contain an express prohibition of sla- very ; while the ultras of the South denounce the same measures as equivalent to the Wilmot Proviso. Of the Texas boundary I have but little to say, for the reason that I have scarcely heard it alluded to since my return home, although many complaints are made against it in other portions of the free States. It was an unfortunate dispute, which could result in no practical benefit to either party, no matter how decided. The Terri- tory in controversy was of no considerable value. If there was a spot on the. face of the American continent more worthless than any other ; if there was a barren waste more desolate--sands more arid, and rocks more naked than all others it was the country in dispute between Texas and the United States. Distant from navigation, and almost inaccessible for want of means of communication ; void of timber, fuel, water, or soil, with the exception of here and there a nook in the gorges of the mountains, it was entirely useless, save as it afforded hiding-places for the wild and roaming savages. And yet the controversy was none the less serious and tierce in consequence of the barrenness of the country. Texas believed it to be hers, and deemed it a point of honor to maintain her title at all hazards and against all odds. Many of the States entertained doubts of the vali- dity of the Texan claim, while others considered it entirely without foundation. In this state of the case, each party having partial pos- session, was mustering troops to render its possession complete to the exclusion of the other. Many of the slaveholding States, from sympathy with the peculiar institutions of Texas, were preparing to array themselves on the one side, while most of the free States, from aversion, to those institutions, were expected to array themselves on the other. Thus were we plunging headlong and madly into a civil war, involving results which no human wisdom could foresee, and consequences which could be contemplated only with horror. Fortunately this unnatural struggle was averted by the timely and judicious interposition of Congress. The Committee on Territories, to whom the subject had been referred, found it impossible to ascer- tain and agree upon the true boundary line of Texas, and accord- ingly authorized me, as their chairman, to report a bill for adjusting the boundary upon an arbitrary but convenient line, drawn through the centre of the desert, and to pay Texas dollars for relin- quishing her claim to the waste lands outside of that line. I, there- fore, reported this provision, at the same time that I b: ought in the STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 9 lills for California, Utah, and New Mexico, with the intention of moving to fill the blank with ten millions of dollars. When the Committee of Thirteen, which was subsequently appointed, united into one the several bills which had been reported by the Commit- tee on Territories, and thus formed.what has been known as the "Omnibus Bill," they made a slight 'change in the line which had been agreed upon by the Territorial Committee. Upon the defeat of the Omnibus, Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, brought in a separate bill for adjusting this boundary, predicated upon the principle, also, of an arbitrary but convenient line through the Desert, changing the courses, however, so as to obviate some objections which have been urged to the others, and paying Texas ten millions of dollars for re- linquishing her claim. This bill, after having been joined in the House of Representatives to the bill establishing a Territorial gov- ernment for New Mexico, passed both houses, and became the law of the land. The people of Texas have since ratified it at the polls by an overwhelming majority ; and thus this dangerous element of agitation has been withdrawn from the controversy by the mutual assent of the parties. And yet there are organized parties, in both extremes of the Union, who are striving to reopen the controversy by persuading the people that the rights and interests of their own particular section have been basely betrayed in the settlement of this question. At the South, it is boldly proclaimed, and every where repeated, that sixty thousand square miles of slave territory have been sold and converted into free soil. On the other hand, the northern nullifiers and abolitionists are industriously impressing it upon the people that more than fifty thousand square miles of free soil have been transferred to Texas, and converted into slave terri- tory by the act of Congress adjusting the Texas boundary. Such are the extremities to which prejudice and ambition can lead des- perate men! Neither party has gained or lost anything, so far as the question of slavery is concerned. Texas has gained ten millions of dollars, and the United States have saved, in blood and treasure, the expenses of a civil war. The next in the series of measures was the bill for the abolition oi the slave trade in the District of Columbia. This bill was prepared and reported by the Committee of Thirteen, and I gave it my cordial support. I has been represented at the South as a concession to the North, to induce us to perform our duties under the Constitution in the surrender of fugitives from labor, and much opposition has been raised against the whole scheme of adjustment on that account. I did not regard it in that light. My vote was given upon no such con- siderations. I believed each of the measures substantially right in itself, and, under the extraordinary circumstances by which we were surrounded, eminently wise and expedient. The bill does not abolish slavery in the District does not emancipate the few slaves that ar3 there, and interferes with no man's right of property. It simply provides that slaves shall not be brought from the surrounding 10 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF States, or elsewhere, into the District for sale. In this respect, Con gress only followed the example of the legislatures of Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, and, in fact, most of the slaveholding States. The country embraced within the limits of the District of Columbia, therefore, stands in precisely the same relation to the slave trade under this law, that it would have stood under the laws of Maryland, if it had never been separated from that State. What justification can there be then, for the assertion that this was a con- cession to the North ? It does nothing more nor less than to apply the general principles of the legislation of a majority of the southern States to the District of Columbia. But, while it was no concession from one section to the other, I had a right to expect that those modern philanthropists who have declaimed so eloquently and vio- lently against the disgrace of the National Capitol, by the slave trade within its precincts, would have rejoiced with exceeding joy at the passage of this act. I have listened in vain for one word of appro- val or commendation from the advocates of abolition or nullification. While the whole series of Compromise measures are denounced in coarse and unmeasured terms, not one word of congratulation to the friends of freedom not a word of approval of the act or of the conduct of those who voted for it is allowed to escape their lips. All the other measures of the scheme of adjustment are attempted to be kept in the background, and concealed from the public view, in order that more prominence and importance may be given to what they are pleased to call "THE INFAMOUS FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL/' Before I proceed to the exposition of that bill, I will read the pre- amble and resolutions passed by the Common Council of this city, night before last. Mr. Douglas then read as follows : " Whereas, The Constitution of the United States provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it ; and, " Whereas, The late act of Congress purporting to be for the recovery of fugitive slaves, virtually suspends the habeas corpus, and abolishes the right of trial by jury, and by its provisions, not only fugitive slaves, but white men, 4 owing service' to another in another State, viz., the apprentice, the mecha- nic, the farmer, the laborer engaged on contract or otherwise, whose terms of service are unexpired, may be captured and carried off summarily, and without legal resource of any kind ; and, " Whereas, No law can be legally or morally binding on us which violates the provisions of the Constitution ; and, " Whereas, Above all, in the responsibilities of human life, and the practice and propagation of Christianity, the laws of God should be held paramount to all human compacts and statutes : Therefore, 44 Resolved, That the Senators and Representatives in Congress from the free States, who aided and assisted in the passage of this infamous law, and those who basely sneaked away from their seats, and thereby evaded the question, richly merit the reproach of all lovers of freedom, and are fit only to be ranked with the traitors, Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot. who betrayed bis Lor* and Master for thirty pieces of silver. "And Resolvtd. That the citizens, officers, and police of the city be, and STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 11 they are hereby requested to abstain from all interference in the capture and delivering up of the fugitive from unrighteous oppression, of whatever nation, name, or color. v k> Resolved, That the Fugitive Slave Law lately passed by Congress is a cruel and unjust law, and ought not to be respected by any intelligent community, and that this Council will not require the city police to render any assistance for the arrest of fugitive slaves. " AYES Aid. Miliiken, Loyd, Sherwood, Foss, Throop, Sherman, Richards, Brady and Dodge. " NAYS Aid. Page and Williams." But for the passage of these resolutions, said Mr. D., I should not have addressed you this evening, nor, indeed, at any time before my return to the Capitol. I have no desire to conceal or withhold nay opinions, no wish to avoid the responsibility of a full and frank expression of them, upon this and all other subjects which were embraced in the action of the last session of Congress. My reasons for wishing to avoid public discussion at this time, were to be found in the state of my health and the short time allowed me to remain among you. Now to the resolutions. I make no criticism upon the language in which they are expressed ; that is a matter of taste, and in every thing of that kind I defer to the superior refinement of our city fathers. But it cannot be disguised that the polite epithets of "traitors, Benedict Arnold, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his Lord and Master for thirty pieces of silver," will be understood abroad as having direct personal application to my esteemed col- league, Gen. Shields, and myself. Whatever may have been the inten- tion of those who voted for the resolutions, I will do the members of council the justice to say, that I do not believe they intended to make any such application. But their secret intentions are of little consequence, when they give their official sanction to a charge of infamy, clothed in such language that every man who reads it insist give it a personal application. The whole affair, however, looks strange, and even ludicrous, when contrasted with the cordial recep- tion and public demonstrations of kindness and confidence, and even gratitude for supposed services, extended to my colleague and myself upon our arrival in this city one week ago. Then we were welcomed home as public benefactors, and invited to partake of a public dinner, by an invitation numerously signed by men of all parties and shades of opinion. The invitation had no sooner been declined, for reasons which were supposed to be entirely satisfactory, and my colleague started for his home, than the Common Council, who are presumed to speak officially for the whole population of the city, attempted to brand their honored guests with infamy, and denounce them as Bene- dict Arnolds and Judas Iscariots! I have read somewhere that it was a polite custom, in other countries and a different age, to invite those whom they secretly wished to destroy to a feast, in order to secure a more convenient opportunity of administering the hemlock ! I acquit the Common Council of any design of introducing that custom 12 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF into our hospitable city. But I have done with this subject, so fa* as it has a personal bearing. It is a far more important and serious matter, when viewed with reference to the principles involved, and the consequences which may result. The Common Council of the city of Chicago have assumed to themselves the right, and actually exercised the power, of determining the validity of an act of Congress, and have declared it void upon the ground that it violates the Constitution of the United States and the law of God ! They have gone further ; they declared, by a solemn, official act, that a law passed by Congress " ought not to be respected by any intelligent community," and have called upon "the citizens, officers, and police of the city" to abstain from rendering any aid or assistance in its execution! What is this but naked, unmitigated nullification ? An act of the American Congress nullified by the Common Council of the city of Chicago! Whence did the council derive their authority? I have been able to find no such provision in the city charter, nor am I aware that the legislature of Illinois is vested with any rightful power to confer such authority. I have yet to learn that a subordi- nate municipal corporation is licensed to raise the standard of rebel- lion, and throw off the authority of the Federal Government at pleasure ! This is a great improvement upon South Carolinian nul- lification. It dispenses with the trouble, delay, and expense of con- vening legislatures and assembling conventions of the people, for the purpose of resolving themselves back into their original elements, preparatory to the contemplated revolution. It has the high merit of marching directly to its object, and by a simple resolution, writ- ten and adopted on the same night, relieving the people from their oaths and allegiance, and of putting the nation and its laws at defi- ,ance ! It nas heretofore been supposed by men of antiquated notions, wljo have not kept up with the progress of the age, that the Supreme Court of the United States was invested with the power of deter- mining the validity of an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the forms of the Constitution. This was the doctrine of the entire North, and of the nation, when it became necessary to exert the whole power of the government to put down nullification in another portion of the Union. But the spirit of the age is progres- sive, and is by no means confined to advancement in the arts and physical sciences. The science of politics and of government is also rapidly advancing to maturity and perfection. It is not long since that I heard an eminent lawyer propose an important reform in the admirable judicial system of our State, which he thought would render it perfect. It was so simple and eminently practicable, that it could not fail to excite the admiration of even the casual inquirer. His proposition was, that our judicial system should be so improved as to allow an appeal on all constitutional questions from the Supreme Court of this State to two justices of the peace ! When that shall have been effected, but one other *QQIM will be necessary to render STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 18 our national system perfect, and that is, to change the federal Con- stitution, so as to authorize an appeal, upon all questions touching the validity of acts of Congress, v from the Supreme Court of the United States to the Common Council of the city of Chicago ! So much for the general principles involved in the acts of the council. I will now examine briefly the specific ground of objection urged by the council against the Fugitive Slave Bill, as reasons why it should not be obeyed. The objections are two in number : first, that it suspends the writ of habeas corpus in the time of peace, in violation of the Constitu- tion ; secondly, that it abolishes the right of trial by jury. How the council obtained the information that these two odious provisions were contained in the law, I am unable to divine. One thing is certain, that the members of the council, who voted for these resolutions, had never read the law, or they would have discovered their mistake. There is not one word in it in respect to the writ of habeas corpus or the right of trial by jury. Neither of these sub- jects is mentioned or referred to. The law is entirely silent on those points. Is it to be said that an act of Congress which is silent on the subject, ought to be construed to repeal a great consti- tutional right by implication ? Besides, this act is only an amend- ment amendatory to the old law the act of 1V93 but does not repeal it. There is no difference between the original act and the amendment, in this respect. Both are silent in regard to the writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury. If to be silent is to suspend the one and abolish the other, then the mischief was done by the old law fifty-seven years ago. If this construction be correct, the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended, arid a trial by a jury abolished, more than half a century, without anybody ever discov- ering the fact, or, if knowing it, without uttering a murmur of com- plaint. Mr. Douglas then read the whole of the act of 1T93, and compared its provisions with the amendment of last session, for the purpose of showing that the writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial -by jury were not alluded to or interfered with by either. But I main- tain, said Mr. D., that the writ of habeas corpus is applicable to the case of the arrest of a fugitive under this law, in the same sense in which the Constitution intended to confer it, and to the fullest extent for which that writ is ever rightfully issued in any case. In this I am fully sustained by the opinion of Mr. Crittenden, the attor- ney-general of the United States. As soon as the bill passed th? two houses of Congress, an abolition paper raised the alarm that the habeas corpus bill had been suspended. The cry was eagerly caught up, and transmitted by lightning upon the wires, to every part of the Union, by those. whose avocation is agitation. The President of the United States, previous to signing the bill, referred it to the attorney-general, for his opinion upon the point whether any portion of it violated any provision of the Constitution of U.e 14: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF United States, and especially whether it could possibly be constmed to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I have the answer of the attorney- general before me, in which he giyes it as his decided opinion that every part of the law is entirely consistent with the Constitution, and that it does not suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I would commend the argument of the attorney-general to the careful perusal of those who have doubts upon the subject. Upon the presentation of this opinion, and with entire confidence in its correctness, President Fillmore signed the bill. [Here Mr. Douglas was interrupted by a person present, who called his attention to the last clause of the 6th section of the bill, which he read, and asked him what construction he put upon it, if it did not suspend the writ of habeas corpus.] Mr. Douglas, in reply, expressed his thanks to the gentleman who propounded the inquiry. His object was to meet every point, and remove every doubt that could be possibly raised ; and he expressed the hope that every gentleman present would exercise the privilege of asking him questions upon all points upon which he was not fully satisfied. He then proceeded to answer the question which had been propounded. That section of the bill provides for the arrest of the fugitive and the trial before the commissioner ; and if the facts of servitude, ownership, and escape be established by competent evi- dence, the commissioner shall grant a certificate to that effect, which certificate shall be conclusive of the right of the person in whose favor it is issued to remove the fugitive to the State from which he fled. Then comes the clause which is supposed to suspend the habeas corpus : " And shall prevent all molestatian of said person i/r persons Try any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever." The question is asked, whether the writ of habeas corpus is not a "PROCESS" within the meaning of this act? I answer, that it undoubtedly is such a " process," and that it may be issued by any court or judge having competent authority not for the purpose of u molesting " a claimant, having a servant in his possession, with such a certificate from the commissioner or judge, but for the purpose of ascertaining the fact whether he has such a certificate or not ; and if so, whether it be in due form of law ; and if not, by what authority he holds the servant in custody. Upon the return of the writ of habeas corpus, the claimant will be required to exhibit to the court his authority for conveying that servant back ; and if he produces a " certificate " from the commissioner or judge in due form of law, the court will decide that it has no power to " molest the claimant" in the exercise of his rights under the law and the Constitution. But if the claimant is not able to produce such certi- ficate, or other lawful authority, or produces one which is not in conformity with law, the court will set the alleged servant at liberty, for the very reason that the law has not been eomplied with. The Bole object of the writ of habeas corpus is to ascertain bj what STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 15 authority a person is held in custody; to release him if no such authority be shown ; and to refrain from any molestation of the claimant, if .egal authority beK produced. The habeas corpus is necessary, therefore, to carry the fugitive law into effect, and, at the same time, to prevent a violation of the rights of freemen under it. It is essential to the security of the claimant, as well as the protection of the rights pf those liable to be arrested under it. The reason that the writ of habeas corpus was not mentioned in the bill must be obvious. The object of the new law seems to have been, to amend the old one in those particulars wherein experience had proven amendments to be necessary, and in all other respects to leave it as it had stood from the days of Washington. The provisions of the old law have been subjected to the test of long experience to the scrutiny of the bar and the judgment of the courts. The writ of habeas corpus had been adjudged to exist in all cases under it, and had always been resorted to when a proper case arose. In amending the law there was no necessity for any new provision upon this subject, because nobody desired to change it in this respect. But why this extraordinary effort, on the part of the professed friends of the fugitive, to force such a construction upon the law, in the absence of any such obnoxious provision, as to deprive him of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus? The law does not do so in terms ; and if it is ever accomplished, it must.be done by implica- tion, contrary to the understanding of those who enacted it, and in opposition to the practice of the courts, acquiesced in by the people, from the foundation of the government. One would naturally suppose, that if there was room for doubt as to what is the true construction, those who claim to be the especial and exclusive friends of the negro would contend for that construction which is most favorable to liberty, justice, and humanity. But not so. Directly the reverse is the fact. They exhaust their- learning, and exert all their ingenuity and skill, to deprive the negro of all rights under the law. What can be the motive ? Certainly not to protect the rights of the free, or to extend liberty to the oppressed ; for they strive to fasten upon the law such a construction as would defeat both of these ends. Can it be a political scheme, to render the law odious, and to excite prejudice against all who voted for it, or were unavoidably absent when it passed ? No matter what the motive, the effects would be disastrous to those whose rights they profess to cherish, if their efforts should be successful. Now, a word or two in regard to the right of trial by jury. The city council, in their resolutions, say that this law abolishes that right. I have already shown you that the council are mistaken that the law is silent upon the subject, and stands now precisely as it has stood for half a century. If the law is defective on that point, the error was committed by our fathers in 1793, and the people have acquiesced in it ever since, without knowing of its existence or car- ing to remedy it. The new act neither takes away nor confers tJie 16 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF right of trial by jury. It leaves it just were our fathers *Ati the Constitution left it under the old law. That the right Oi trial bj jury exists in this country for all men, black or white, bond or free, guilty or innocent, no man will be disposed to question who under- stands the subject. The right is of universal application, and exists alike in all the States of Union ; it always has existed, and always will exist, so long as the Constitution of the United States shall be respected and maintained, in spite of the efforts of the abolitionists to take it away by the perversion of the fugitive law. The only question is, where shall this jury trial take place ? Shall the jury trial be had in the State where the arrest is made, or the State from which the fugitive escaped? Upon this point the act of last session says nothing, and of course, leaves the matter as it stood under the law of '93. The old law was silent on this point, and therefore left the courts to decide it in accordance with the Constitution. The highest judicial tribunals in the land have always held that the jury trial must take place in the State under whose jurisdiction the question arose, and whose laws were alleged to have been violated. The same construction has always been given to the law for surrendering fugi- tives from justice. It provides also for sending back the fugitive, but says nothing about the jury trial, or where it shall take place. Who ever supposed that that act abolished the right of trial by jury ? Every day's practice and observation teach us otherwise. The jury trial is always had in the State from which the fugitive fled. So it is with a fugitive from labor. When he returns, or is surrendered under the law, he is entitled to a trial by jury of his right of free- dom, and always has it when he demands it. There is grert unifor- mity in the mode of proceeding in the courts of the southern States iii this respect. When the supposed slave sets up his claim, to the judge or other officer, that he is free, and claims his freedom, it be- comes the duty of the court to issue its summons to the master to appear in court with the alleged slave, and there to direct an issue of freedom or servitude to be made and tried by a jury. The master is also required to enter into bonds for his own appearance and that of the alleged slave at the trial of the cause, and that he will not remove the slave from the county or jurisdiction of the court in the mean time. The court is also required to appoint counsel to conduct the cause for the slave, while the master employs his own counsel. All the officers of the court are required by law to render all facili- ties to the slave for the prosecution of his suit free of charge, such us issuing and serving subpoenas for witnesses, etc. If upon the trial the alleged slave is held to be a free man, the master is required to pay the costs on both sides. If, on the other hand, he is held to be a slave, the State pays the costs. This is the way in which the trial by jury stood under the old law ; and the new one makes no change in this respect. If the act of last session be repealed, that will neither benefit nor injure the iagitivej so far as the right of trial by jury i* STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 17 For these two reasons the habeas corpus and the trial by ju r y the ! Jommon Council have pronounced the law unconstitutional, and de- clared that it ought not to be respected by an enlightened community. i have shown that neither of the objections are well founded, and that if they had taken the trouble to read the law before they nullified it, they would have avoided the mistake into which they have fallen. I have spoken of the acts of the city council in general terms, and it may be inferred that the vote was unanimous. I take pleasure in stating that I learn from the published proceedings that there was barely a quorum present, and that Aldermen Page and Williams voted in the negative. Having disposed of the two reasons assigned by the Common Council for the nullification of the law, I shall be greatly indebted to any gentleman who will point out any other objection to the new law, which does not apply with equal force to the old one. My object in drawing the parallel between the new and old law is this : The law of '93 was passed by the patriots and sages who framed our glorious Constitution, and approved by the father of his country. I have always been taught to believe that they were men well versed in the science of government, devotedly attached to the cause of freedom and capable of construing the Con- stitution in the spirit in which they made it. That act has been enforced and acquiesced in for more than half a century, without a murmur or word of complaint; from any quarter. I repeat will any gentleman be kind enough to point out a single objection to the new law, which might not be urged with equal pro- priety to the act of '93 ? [Here a gentleman present arose, and called the attention of Mr. Douglas to the penalties in the seventh section of the new law, and desired to know if there were any such obnoxious provisions in the old one.] Mr. Douglas then read the section referred to, and also the fourth section of the act of '93, and proceeded to draw the parallel between them. Each makes it a criminal offence to resist the due execution of the law ; to knowingly and willfully obstruct or hinder the claimant in the arrest of the fugitive ; to rescue such fugitive from the claim- ant when arrested ; to harbor or conceal such person after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor. In this respect the two laws were substantially the same in every important particular. Indeed the one was almost a literal copy of the other. I can con- ceive of no act which would be an offence under the one, that would not be punishable under the other. In the speeches last night, grout importance was given to the clause which makes it an offence to harbor or conceal a fugitive. You -were told that you could not clothe the naked, nor feed the hungry, nor exercise the cr dinary charities toward suffering humanity, without incurring the penalty of the law. Is this a true construction of that- provision ? The act does not so read. The law says that you shall not " harbor or con- ceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arret of such 18 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF person after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was x fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid." This does not deprive you of the privilege of extending charities to the fugitive. You may feed him, clothe him, may lodge him, provided you do not harbor or conceal him, so as to prevent discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge that he is a fugitive. The offence consists in preventing the discovery and arrest of the fugitive after knowledge of the fact, and not in the extending kindness and charities to bin*. This is the construction put upon a similar provision in the old law by the highest judicial tribunals in the land. The only difference between the old law and the new one, in respect to obstructing its execution, is to be found in the amount of the penalty, and not in the principle involved. But it is further objected that the new law provides, in addition to the penalty, for a civil suit for damages, to be recovered by an action of debt by any court having jurisdiction of the cause. This is true ; but it is also true that a similar provision is to be found in the old law. The concluding clause in the last section of the act of '93 is as follows : " Which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, by action of debt, in any proper court to try the same ; saving, moreover, to the person claiming such labor or service, hu right of action for or on account of the said injuries, or either of them.' 1 '' Thus it will be seen, that upon this point there is no difference oetween the new and the old law. Is there any other provision of this law upon which explanation is desired ? [A gentleman present referred to the 10th section, and desired an explanation of the object and effect of the record from another State therein provided for.] I am glad, said Mr. D., that my attention has been called to that provision ; for I heard a construction given to it, in the speeches last night, entirely different to the plain reading and object of that sec- tion. It is said, that this provision authorizes the claimant to go before a court of record of the county and State where he lives, and there establish by ex-parte testimony, in the absence of the fugitive, the facts of servitude, of ownership, and escape ; and when a record of these facts shall have been made, containing a minute description of the slave, it shall be conclusive evidence against a person corres- ponding to that description, arrested in another State, and shall con- sign the person so arrested to perpetual servitude. The law con- templates no such thing, and authorizes no such result. I have the charity to believe that those who have put this construction upon it have not carefully examined it. The record from another State predicated upon " satisfactory proof to such court or judge" before whom the testimony may be adduced, and the record made, is to be conclasive of two facts only : 1st. That the person named in this record does owe service to the person in whose behalf the record is made. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 19 2d. That such person has escaped from service. The language of the law is, that " the transcript of the record authenticated," etc., "shall be held and taken to be full and conclu- sive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of such person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned." The record is conclusive of these two facts, so far as to authorize the fugitive to be sent back for trial under the laws of the State whence he fled ; lut it is no evidence that the person arrested here is the fugi- tive named in the record. The question of identity is to be proven here to the satisfaction of the commissioner or judge, before whom the trial is had, by " other and further evidence." This is the great point in the case. The whole question turns upon it. The man arrested may correspond to the description set forth in the record, and yet not be the same individual. We often meet persons resem- bling each other to such an extent that the one is frequently mis- taken for the other. The identity of the person becomes a matter of proof a fact to be established by the testimony of competent and disinterested witnesses, and to be decided by the tribunal before whom the trial is had, conscientiously and impartially, accord- ing to the evidence in the case. The description in the record, unsupported by other testimony, is not evidence of the identity. It is not inserted for the especial benefit of the claimant much less to the prejudice of the alleged slave. It is required as a test of truth, a safeguard against fraud, which will often operate favorably to the fugitive, but never to his injury. If the description be accurate and true, no injustice can possibly result from it. But if it be erroneous or false, the claimant is concluded by it ; and the fugitive, availing himself of the error, defeats the claim, in the same manner as a dis- crepancy between the allegations and the proof, in any other case, results to the advantage of the defendant. I repeat, that when an arrest is made under a record from another State, the identity of the person must be established by competent testimony. The trial in this instance, would be precisely the same as in the case of a white man arrested on a charge of being a fugitive from justice. The writ of the governor, predicated upon an indictment, or even an affidavit from another State, containing the charge of crime, would be con- clusive evidence of the right to take the fugitive back ; but the identity of the person in that case, as well as a fugitive from labor, must be proven in the State where the arrest is made, by competent witnesses, before the tribunal provided by law for that purpose. In this respect, therefore, the negro is placed upon a perfect equality with the white man who is so unfortunate as to be charged with an offence in another State, whether the charge by true or false. ID. some respects, the law guards the rights of the negro, charged with being a fugitive from labor, more rigidly than it does those of a white man who is alleged to be a fugitive from justice. The record from another State must be predicated upon "proof satisfactory to the court or judge" before whom it is made, and must set forJl* 16 20 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES D* the "matter proved," before it can be evidence against a fugitive from labor, or for any purpose ; whereas, an innocent white man, who is so unfortunate as to be falsely charged with a crime in another State, by the simple affidavit of an unknown person, without indictment or proof to the satisfaction of any court, is liable to be transported to the most distant portions of this Union for trial. Here we find the act of last session is a great improvement upon the law of '93 in reference to fugitives, white or black, whether they fled from justice or labor. But it is objected that the testimony before the court making the record is ex parte, and therefore in vio- lation of the principles of justice and the Constitution ; because it deprives the accused of the privilege of meeting the witnesses face to face, and of cross-examination. Gentlemen forget that all pro- ceedings for the arrest of fugitives are necessarily ex parte, from the nature of the case. They have fled beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and the object of the proceeding is, that they may be brought back, confront the witnesses, and receive a fair trial according to the Constitution and laws. If they would stay at home in order to attend the trial, and cross-examine the witnesses, the record would be unnecessary, and the fugitive law inoperative. It is no answer to this proposition to say that slavery is no crime, and therefore the parallel does not hold good. I am not speaking of the guilt or inno- cence of slavery. I am discussing our obligations under the Consti- tution of the United States. That sacred instrument says that a fugitive from labor "shall be delivered up on the claim of the owner." The same clause of the same instrument provides that fugitives from justice shall be delivered up. We are bound by our oaths to our God to see that claim as well as every other provision of the Constitution carried into effect. The moral, religious and constitutional obligations resting upon us, here and hereafter, are the same in the one case as in the other. As citizens, owing allegiance to the government and duties to society, we have no right to inter- pose our individual opinions and scruples as excuses for violating the supreme law of the land as our fathers made it, and as we are sworn to support it. The obligation is just as sacred, under the Constitu- tion, to surrender fugitives from labor, as fugitives from justice. And the Congress of the United States, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, are as imperatively commanded to provide the necessary legislation for the one as for the other. The act of 1Y93, to which I have had occasion to refer so frequently, and which has been read to you, provided for these two cases in the same bill. The first half of that act, relating to fugitives from justice, applies, from the nature and necessity of the case, principally to white men ; and the other half for the same reasons, applies exclusively to the negro race. I have shown you, by reading and comparing the two laws in your presence, that there is no constitutional guarantyor common law right or leg-al, or judicial privilege for the protection of the MrLite men against, oppression and injustice, under the law. framed STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 21 in 1793, and now in force, for the surrender of fugitives from justice, that does not apply in all its force in behalf of the negro, when arrested as a fugitive from labor, under the act of the last session. "What more can the friends of the negro ask than, in all his civil and legal rights under the Constitution, he shall be placed on an equal footing with the white man ? But it is said that the law is suscepti- ble of being abused by perjury and false testimony. To what human enactment does not the same objection lie ? You, or I, or any other man, who was never in California in his life, is liable, under the Constitution, to be sent there in chains for trial as a fugitive from justice, by means of perjury and fraud. But does this fact prove that the Constitution, and the laws for carrying it into effect, are wrong, and should be resisted, as we were told last night, even unto the dungeon, the gibbet and the grave ? It only demonstrates to us the necessity of providing all the safeguards that the wit of man can devise, for the protection of the innocent and the free, at the same time that we religiously enforce, according to its letter and spirit, every provision of the Constitution. I will not say that the act recently passed for the surrender of fugitives from labor, accom- plishes all this ; but I will thank any gentleman to point out any one barrier against abuse in the old "law, or in the law for the surrender of white men, as fugitives from justice, that is not secured to the negro under the new law. I pause, in order to give any gentleman an opportunity to point out the provision. I invite inquiry and examination. My object is to arrive at the truth to repel error and dissipate prejudice and to avoid violence and bloodshed. Will any gentleman point out the provision in the old law, for securing and vindicating the rights of the free man, that is not secured to him in the act of last session ? [A gentleman present rose and called the attention of Mr. Douglas to the provision for paying out of the treasury of the United States the expenses of carrying the fugitive back in case of anticipated resistance.] Ah, said Mr. D., that is a question of dollars and cents, involving no other principle than the costs of the proceeding ! I was discuss- ing the question of human rights the mode of protecting the rights of freemen from invasion, and the obligation to surrender fugitives under the Constitution. Is it possible that this momentous question, which only forty-eight hours ago was deemed of sufficient import- ance to authorize the city council to nullify an act of Congress, and raise the standard of rebellion against the Federal Government, has dwindled down into a mere petty dispute, who shall pay the costs of suit ? This is too grave a question for me to discuss on this occasion. I confess my utter inability to do it justice. Yesterday the Consti- tution of the ocean-bound republic had been overthrown; the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended ; the right of trial by jury had been abolished ; pains and penalties had been imposed upon every humane citizen who should feed the 22 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF hungry and cover the naked ; the law of God had been outraged by an infamous act of a traitorous Congress ; and the standard of rebel- lion, raised by our city fathers, was floating in the breeze, calling on all good citizens to rally under its sacred folds, and resist with fire and sword the payment of the costs of suit upon the arrest of a fugitive from labor ! I i provision no one wi . _ _ _ . few days to remain with you, and desire to make a clean business of this matter on the present occasion. Is there any other objection ? [A gentleman rose, and desired to know why the bill provides for paying ten dollars to the commissioner for his fee in case he decided in favor of the claimant, and only five dollars if he decided against him.] 1 presume, said Mr. Douglas, that the reason was that he would have more labor to perform. If, after hearing the testimony, the commissioner decided in favor of the claimant, the law made it his duty to prepare and authenticate the necessary papers to authorize him to carry the fugitive home ; but if he decided against him, he had no such labor to perform. The law seems to be based upon the principle that the commissioner should be paid according to the ser- vice he should render five dollars for presiding at the trial, and five dollars for making out the papers in case the testimony should re- quire him to return the fugitive. This provision appears to be exciting considerable attention in the country, and I have been ex- ceedingly gratified at the proceedings of a mass meeting held in a county not far distant, in which it was resolved unanimously that they could not be bribed, for the sum of five dollars, to consign a freeman to perpetual bondage ! This shows an exalted state of moral feeling, highly creditable to those who participated in the meeting. I doubt not they will make their influence felt throughout the State, and will instruct their members of the legislature to reform our criminal code in this respect. Under our laws, as they have stood for many years, and probably from the organization of our State government, in all criminal cases, on the preliminary examination before the magistrates, and in all the higher courts, if the prisonei be convicted, the witnesses, jurors, and officers, are entitled to their fees and bills of costs ; but if he be acquitted, none of them receive a cent. In order to diffuse the same high moral sense throughout the whole community, would it not be well, at their next meeting, to pass another resolution, that they would not be bribed by the fees and costs of suit in any case, either as witnesses, jurors, magis- trates, or in any other capacity,- to consign an innocent man to a dismal cell in the penitentiary, or expose him to an ignominious death upon the gallows ? Such a resolution might do a great deal of good in elevating the character of our people abroad, at the same time that it migh* inspire increased confidence in the liberality and conscientiousness >f those who adopted it. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 23 Is there any other objection to this law ? [A gentleman rose, and called the attention of Mr. Douglas to the provision vesting the appointment of the commissioners under it in the courts of law, instead of the President and Senate, and asked if that was not a violation of that provision of the Constitution which says that judges of the Supreme Courts, and of the inferior courts, should be appointed by the President and Senate.] I thank the gentleman, said Mr. D., for calling my attention to this point. It was made in the speech of a distinguished lawyer last night, and evidently produced great effect upon the minds of the audience. The gentleman's high professional standing, taken in con- nection with his laborious preparation for the occasion, as was appa- rent to all, from his lengthy written brief before him, while speak- ing, inspired implicit confidence in the correctness of his position. My answer to the objection will be found in the Constitution itself, which I will read, so far as it bears upon this question : " The President shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, where appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law." Now it will be seen that the words " inferior courts ' v are not men- tioned in the Constitution. The gentleman in his zeal against the law, and his frenzy to resist it, interpolated these words, and then made a plausible argument upon them. I trust this was all unin- tentional, or was done with the view of fulfilling the "higher law." But there is another sentence in this same clause of the Constitu- tion which I have not yet read. It is as follows : " But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they may think proper in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the heads of Departments." The practice under this clause has usually been to confer the power of appointing those inferior officers, whose duties were executive or ministerial, upon the President alone, or upon the head of the appro- priate department ; and in like manner to give to the courts of law the privilege of appointing their subordinates, whose duties were in their nature judicial. What is meant by "inferior officers," whose appointment may be vested in the " courts of law," will be seen by reference to the 8th section of the Constitution, where the powers of Congress are enumerated, and among them is the following : - " To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.' 1 Is the tribunal which is to carry the fugitive law into effect infe- rior to the Supreme Court of the United States ? If it is, the Con- stitution expressly provides for vesting the appointment in the court* of law. I will remark, however, that these commissioners are not 24 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF appointed under the new law, hut in ohedience to an act of Con gross which has stood on the statute books for many years. If those who denounce and misrepresent the act of last session, had conde- scended to read it before they undertook to enlighten the people apon it, they would have saved themselves the mortification of ex- posure; as 1 will show by reading the first section. Here Mr. Douglas read the law, and proceeded to remark: Thus it will be seen" that these commissioners have been in office for years, with their duties prescribed by law, nearly all of which were of a judicial character, and that the new law only imposes additional duties, and authorizes the increase of the number. Why has not this grave constitutional objection been discovered before, and the people informed how their rights have been outraged in violation of the supreme law of the land ? Truly, the passage of the fugitive bill has thrown a flood of light upon constitutional principles ! Is there any other objection to the new law which does not apply to the act of '93? [A gentleman rose, and said that he would like to ask another question, which was this : if the new law was so similar to the old one, what was the necessity of passing any at all, since the old one was still in force ?] Mr. Douglas, in reply, said, that is the very question I was anxious some one should propound, because I was desirous of an oppor- tunity of answering it. The old law answered all the purposes for which it was enacted tolerably well, until the decision by the Su- preme Court of the United States, in the case of Priggs vs. the State of Pennsylvania, eight or nine years ago. That decision rendered the law comparatively inoperative, for the reason that there were scarcely any officers left to execute it. It will be recollected that the act of '93 imposed the duty of carrying it into effect upon the magistrates and other officers under the State governments. These officers performed their duties under that law, with fidelity, for about fifty years, until the Supreme Court, in the case alluded to, decided that they were under no legal obligation to do so, and that Congress had no constitutional power to impose the duty upon them. From that time, many of the officers refused to act, and soon afterward the legislature of Massachusetts, and many other States, I laws making it criminal for their officers to perform these duties. Hence the old law, ajthough efficient in its provisions, and similar in most respects, and especially in those now objected to, almost identical with the new law, became comparatively a dead letter for want of officers to carry it into effect. The judges of the United States courts were the only officers left who were authorized to execute it. In this State, for instance, Judge Drummond, whose residence was in the extreme northwest corner of the State, within si x miles of Wisconsin and three of Iowa, and in the direction where fugitives were least likely to go, was the only person authorized to try the case. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 25 If a fugitive was arrested at Shawneetown or Alton, three or fom. hundred miles from the residence of the judge, the master would attempt to take him across the river to his home in Kentucky 01 Missouri, without first establishing his right to do so. This was calculated to excite uneasiness and doubts in the minds of our citi- zens, as to the propriety of permitting the negro to be carried out of the State, without the fact of his owing service, and having es- caped, being first proved, lest it might turn out that the negro was a free man and the claimant a kidnapper. And yet, according to the express term of the old law, the master was authorized to seize his slave wherever he found him, and to carry him back without process, or trial, or proof of any kind whatsoever. Hence, it was necessary to pass the act of last session, in order to carry into effect, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the provisions of the law and the Constitution on the one hand, and to protect the free colored man from being kidnapped and sold into slavery by unprincipled men on the other hand. The purpose of the now law is to accom- plish these two objects to appoint officers to carry the law into effect, in the place of the magistrates relieved from that duty by the decision of the Supreme Court, and to guard against harassing and kidnapping the free blacks, by preventing the claimant from carry- ing the negro out of the State, until he establishes his legal right to do so. The new law, therefore, is a great improvement in this re- spect upon the old one, and is more favorable to justice and freedom, and better guarded against abuse. [A person present asked leave to propound another question to Mr. Douglas, which was this : " If the new law is more favorable to free- dom than the old one, why did the southern slaveholders vote for it, and desire its passage ?"] Mr. Douglas said he would answer that question with a great deal of pleasure. The southern members voted for it for the reason that it was a better law than the old one better for them, better for us, and better for the free blacks. It places the execution of the law in the hands of responsible officers of the government, instead of leav- ing every man to take the law into his own hands and to execute it for himself. It affords personal security to the claimant while arrest- ing his servant and taking him back, by providing him with the opportunity of establishing his legal rights by competent testimony before a tribunal duly authorized to try the case, and thus allay al] apprehensions and suspicions, on the part of our citizens, that he is a villain, attempting to steal a free man for the purpose of selling him into slavery. The slaveholder has as strong a desire to protect the rights of the free black man as we have, and much more interest to do so ; for he well knows, that if outrages should be tolerated under the law, and free men are seized and carried into slavery ; from that moment the indignant outcry against it would be so strong here and everywhere, that even a fugitive from labor could not be returned, lest he also might happen to be free. The interest of the slaveholder *?6 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF therefore, requires a law which shall protect the rights of all free men black or white, from any invasion or violation whatever. I ask the question, therefore, whether this law is not better than the old one better for the North and the South better for the peace and quiet of the whole country ? Let it be remembered that this law is but an amendment to the act of '93, and that the old law still remains in force, except so far as it is modified by this. Every man who voted against this modification, thereby voted to leave the old law in force ; for I am not aware that any member of either house of Congress ever had the hardihood to propose to repeal the law, and make no provisions to carry the Constitution into effect. But the cry of repeal, as to the new law, has already gone forth. Well, sup- pose it succeeds ; what will thor.e have gained who joined in the shout ? Have I not shoTrn that fell the material objections they urge against the new law, apply with equal force to the old one ? "What do they gain, therefore, unless Uiey propose to repeal the old law, also, and make no provision for performing our obligations under the Constitution ? This must be the object of all men who take that position. To this it must come in the end. The real objection is not to the new law, nor to the old one, but to the Constitution itself. Those of you who hold theoe opinions, do not mean that the fugitive from labor shall be taken back. That is the real point of your objec- tion. You would not care a farthing about the new law, or the old law, or any other law, or what provisions it contained, if there was a hole in it big enough for the fugitive to slip through and escape. Habeas corpuses trials by jury records from other States pains and penalties the whole catalogue of objections, would be all moon- shine, if the negro was not required to go back to his master. Tell me, frankly, is not this the true character of your objection ? [Here several gentlemen gave an affirmative answer.] Mr. Douglas said he would answer that objection by reading a portion of the Constitution of the United States. He then read as follows : "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, into consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This, said Mr. D., is the supreme law of the land, speaking to every citizen of the republic. The command is imperative. There is no avoiding no escaping the obligation, so long as we live under, and claim the protection of, the Constitution. We must yield implicit obedience, or we must take the necessary steps to release ourselves from the obligation to obey. There is no other alternative. We must stand by the Constitution of the Union, with all its compro- mises, or we must abolish it, and resolve each State back into its original elements. It is, therefore, a question of union or disunion. VVe cannot expect our brethren of other States to remain faithful to the compact, and permit us to be faithless. Are we' prepared, there- STEPHEN A. DOTJGLAS. 27 fore, to execute faithfully and honestly the compact our fathers have made for us ? [Here a gentleman rose, and inquired of Mr. Douglas, whether the clause in the Constitution providing for the surrender of fugitive slaves was not in violation of the law of God ?] Mr. Douglas in reply : The divine law is appealed to as authority for disregarding our most sacred duties to society. The city council have appealed to it, as their excuse for nullifying an act of Congress ; and a committee embodied the same principle in their resolutions to the meeting in this hall last night, as applicable both to the Consti- lution and laws. The general proposition that there is a law para- mount to all human enactments the law of the Supreme Ruler of Universe I trust that no civilized and Christian people is prepared to question, much less deny. We should all recognize, respect, and revere the divine law. But we should bear in mind that the law of God, as revealed to us, is intended to operate on our consciences, and insure the performance of our duties as individuals and Christians. The divine law does not prescribe the form of government under which we shall live, and the character of our political and civil insti- tutions. Revelation has not furnished us with a constitution a code of international law and a system of civil and municipal jurispru- dence. It has not determined the right of persons and property much less the peculiar privileges which shall be awarded to each class of persons under any particular form of government. God has created man in his own image, and endowed him with the right of self-government, so soon as he shall evince the requisite intelligence, virtue, and capacity to assert and enjoy the privilege. The history of world furnishes few examples where any considerable portion of the human race have shown themselves sufficiently enlightened and civilized to exercise the rights and enjoy the blessings of freedom. In Asia and Africa we find nothing but ignorance, superstition, and despotism. Large portions of Europe and America can scarcely lay claim to civilization and Christianity ; and a still smaller portion have demonstrated their capacity for self-government. Is all this contrary to the laws of God ? And if so, who is responsible ? The civilized world have always held, that when any race of men have shown themselves so degraded, by ignorance, superstition, cruelty, and barbarism, as to be utterly incapable of governing themselves, they must, in the nature of things, be governed by others, by such laws as are deemed applicable to their condition. It is upon this principle alone that England justifies the form of government she has established in the Indies, and for some of her other colonies that.Russia justifies herself in holding her serfs as slaves, and selling them as a part of the land on which they live that our Pilgrim Fathers justified themselves in reducing the negro and Indian to servitude, and selling them as. property that we in Illinois and toost of the free States, justify ourselves in denying the negro and j.ie Indian the privilege of voting, and all other political rightsand 28 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF . that many of the States of the Union justify themselves in depriving the white man of the right of the elective franchise, unless he is for- tunate enough to own a certain amount of property. These things certainly violate the principle of absolute equality among men, when considered as component parts of. a political society or government, and so do many provisions of the Constitution of the United States, as well as the several States of the Union. In fact, no government ever existed on earth in which there was a perfect equality, in all things, among those composing it and governed by it. Neither sacred nor profane history furnishes an example. If inequality in the form and principles of government is therefore to be deemed a viola- tion of the laws of God, and punishable as such, who is to escape ? Under this principle all Christendom is doomed, and no Pagan can hope for mercy ? Many of these things are, in my opinion, unwise and unjust, and, of course, subversive of republican principles ; but I am not prepared to say that they are either sanctioned or con- demned by the divine law. Who can assert that God has prescribed the form and principles of government, and the character of the poli- tical, municipal and domestic institutions of men on earth ? This doctrine would annihilate the fundamental principle upon which our political system rests. Our forefathers held that the people had an inherent right to establish such Constitution and laws for the govern- ment of themselves and their posterity, as they should deem best calculated to insure the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; and that the same might be altered and changed as expe- rience should satisfy them to be necessary and proper. Upon this principle the Constitution of the United States was formed, and our glorious Union established. All acts of Congress passed in pursuance of the Constitution are declared to be the supreme laws of the land, and the Supreme Court of the United States is charged with expound- ing the same. All officers and magistrates, under the Federal and State governments executive, legislative, judicial, and ministerial are required to take an oath to support the Constitution, before they can enter upon the performance of their respective duties. Any citi- zen, therefore, who in his conscience, believes that the Constitution of the United States is in violation of a " higher law," has no right, as an honest man, to take office under it, or exercise any other func- tion of citizenship conferred by it. Every person born under the Constitution owes allegiance to it ; and every naturalized citizen takes an oath support it. Fidelity to the Constitution is the only passport to the enjoyment of rights under it. When a senator elect presents his credentials, he is not allowed to take his seat until he places his- hand upon the holy evangelist, and appeals to his God for the sincerity of his vows to support the Constitution. He, who does this, with a mental reservation or secret intention to disregard any provision of the Constitution, commits a double crime is morally guilty of perfidy to his God and treason to his country ! If the Constitution of the United States is to be repudiated upon STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 29 the ground that it is repugnant to the divine law, where are the friends of freedom and Christianity to look for another and a better ? "Who is to be the prophet to reveal the will of God and establish a Theocracy for us ? Is he to be found in the ranks of northern abolitionism, or of southern disunion ; or is the Common Council of the city of Chicago to have the distinguished honor of furnishing the chosen one ? I will not venture to inquire what are to be the form and principles of the new government, or to whom is to be intrusted the execution of its sacred functions ; for, when we decide that the wisdom of our revolutionary fathers was foolishness, and their piety wickedness, and destroy the only system of self government that has ever real- ized the hopes of the friends of freedom, and commanded the respect of mankind, it becomes us to wait patiently until the purposes of the Latter Day Saints shall be revealed unto us. For my part, I am prepared to maintain and preserve inviolate the Constitution as it is with all its compromises, to stand or fall by the American Union, clinging with the tenacity of life to all its glorious memories of the past and precious hopes for the future. Mr. Douglas then explained the circumstances which rendered his absence unavoidable when the vote was taken on the fugitive bill in the Senate. He wished to avoid no responsibility on account of that absence, and therefore desired it to be distinctly understood that he should have voted for the bill if he could have been present. He referred to several of our most prominent and respected citizens by name, as personally cognizant of the fact that he was anxious at that time to give that vote. He believed the passage of that or some other efficient ^ law a solemn duty, imperatively demanded by the Constitution. 'In conclusion, Mr. I), made an earnest appeal to our citizens to rally as one man to the defence of the Constitution and laws, and above all things, and under all circumstances, to put down violence and disorder, by maintaining the supremacy of the laws. He referred to our high character for law and order heretofore, and also to the favorable position of our city for commanding the trade between the North and South, through our canals and railroads, to show that our views and principles of action should be broad, liberal, and national, calculated to encourage union and harmony, instead of disunion and sectional bitterness. He concluded by remarking, that he considered this question of fidelity to the Constitution and supre- macy of the laws, as so far paramount to all other considerations, that he had prepared some resolutions to cover these points only, which he would submit to the meeting, and take their judgment upon them. If he had consulted his own feelings and views only, he should have embraced in the resolutions a specific approval of all the measures of the compromise ; but as the question of rebellion and resistance to the Federal Government has been distinctly presented; it has been thought advisable to meet that issue on this occasion, dis tiuct and separate from all others. 30 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mr. Douglas then offered the following resolutions, which were adopted without a dissenting voice : Resolved, That it is the sacred duty of every friend of the Union to maintain, and preserve inviolate, every provision of our federal Constitution. Resolved, That any law enacted by Congress, in pursuance of the Constitu- tion, should be respected as such by all good and law-abiding citizens, and should be faithfully carried into effect by the officers charged with its execution. Resolved, That so long as the Constitution of the United States provides, that all persons held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another State, "SHALL BE DELIVERED UP on the claim of the party to whom the service or labor may be due," and so long as members of Congress are required to take an oath to support the Constitution, it is their solemn and religious duty to pass all laws necessary to carry that provision of the Constitution into effect. Resolved, That if we desire to preserve the Union, and render our great Republic inseparable and perpetual, we must perform all our obligations under the Constitution, at the same time that we call upon our brethren in other States to yield implicit obedience to it. Resolved, That as the lives, property and safety of ourselves and our families depend upon the observance and protection of the laws, every effort to excite any portion of our population to make resistance to the due execution of the laws of the land, should be promptly and emphatically condemned by every good citizen. Resolved, That we will stand or fall by the American Union and its Constitu- tion, with all its compromises, with its glorious memories of the past and pre- cious hope of the future. [The following was offered in addition by B. S. Morris, and also adopted :] Resolved, That we, the people of Chicago, repudiate the resolutions passed by the Common Council of Chicago upon the subject of the Fugitive Slave Law passed by Congress at its last session. On the succeeding night the common council of the city repealed their nullifying resolution by a vote of 12 to 1. STEPHEN A DCUGLAS. 31 ON" THE CLAYTON BULWER TEEATY. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, March 10 and 17, 1853. On returning to the Senate of the United States at th special session, commencing on the 4th March, 1843, Senator Clayton, of Delaware, offered the following resolutions : message to the Senate of the 18th February last, as having been agreed upon by the Department of State, the British minister, and the state of Costa Rica, on the 30th of April, 1852, having for their object the settlement of the terri- torial controversies between the states and governments bordering on the river San Juan. Resolved, That the secretary of state be directed to communicate to the Senate such information as it maybe in the power of his department to furnish, in regard to the conflicting claims of Great Britain and the state of Honduras, to the island of Roatan, Bonacca, Utilla, Barbarat, Helene, and Morat, in or near the Bay of Honduras. On the 8th and 9th of March, 1853, he addressed the Senate on the subject, and arraigned Senators Cass, Mason, and Douglas, for the part they had taken in the debate during the regular session. On the 10th of March, Mr. Douglas replied as follows : ME. PEESIDENT : I have nothing to do with the controversy which has arisen between the senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton) and my venerable friend from Michigan (Mr. Cass), who is now absent in consequence of the severe illness of one nearest and dearest to him. We all know enough of that senator to be assured that when he shall be in his place, he will be prompt to respond to any calls that may be made upon him. Neither have I anything to do with the dispute which has grown up among senators in respect to the boundary of Central America, and the position of the British settle- ment at the Balize. I leave that in the hands of those who have made themselves parties to the controversy. Nor shall I become a party to the discussion upon the issue between the senator from Delaware and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in their report on that question. Not having been present when the committee made their report, and not yet having had the opportunity of reading it, I leave th chairman of the committee to vindicate hi 32 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF positions, as I doubt not he will prove himself abundantly able to do 1 have, therefore, only to ask the attention of the Senate to sucb points as the senator from Delaware has chosen to make against u speech delivered by me a few weeks ago in this chamber. The senator seems to complain that I should have questioned the propriety of withholding from the consideration of the Senate what is known as the Hise treaty, and the substitution of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty in its place'. Those two treaties presented a distinct issue of great public concern to the country ; and it was a difference of opinion between him and me as to which system of policy should prevail. I advocated that system which would secure to the United States the sole and exclusive privilege of controlling the communi- cation between the two oceans. He substituted that other policy which opened the privilege to a partnership between the United States and Great Britain. The senator has assigned various reasons for withholding the Hise treaty from the consideration of the Senate. The first is, that it was concluded by Mr. Hise without the authority of this government. That may be true, but it is the first time I have heard it argued as a valid reason for withholding from the consideration of the Senate a treaty the objects and pro- visions of which were desirable. The treaty with New Granada^ which he so warmly commends in his speech, was made by Mr. Bid- lack without authority. President Polk stated this fact in his message communicating the treaty to the Senate, and the senator from Delaware has read that message and incorporated it into his speech. He therefore knew that fact when he gave as a reason for withholding the Hise treaty, that it was made without authority. The treaty of peace with Mexico, to the provisions of which the senator has also referred on another point, was entered into by Mr, Trist, not only without authority, but in bold defiance of the instruc- tions of our government to the contrary. The administration of President Polk did not feel at liberty to withhold these two treaties from the Senate, merely because they were made without authority or in defiance of instructions, for the reason that the objects intended to be accomplished by the treaty were desirable, and the provisions could be so modified by the Senate as to make the details conform to the objects in view. It may not be amiss for me to remind the senator from Delaware, that he was a member of the Senate at the time the Mexican treaty was submitted for ratification, and that he voted for it, notwithstanding it was concluded in opposition to the instructions of our government. If, therefore, the senator has any respect for the practice of the government heretofore, or for his own votes recorded upon the very point in controversy, he is not at liberty to object to the treaty upon the ground that it was concluded by our diplomatic agent without authority. I understand the rule to be this : whenever the treaty is made in pursuance of instructions, the Executive is under an implied obliga- tion to submit it to the Senate foi ratification. .But if it be entered STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 33 fcto without authority, or in violation of instructions, the admin- istration are at liberty to reject it unconditionally, or to send it to the Senate for advice, amendment, ratification, or rejection, according to their judgment of its merits. Whether the Hise treaty was per- fect in all its provisions, or contained obnoxious features, is not the question. It furnished conclusive evidence that the government of Nicaragua was willing and anxious to confer upon the United States the exclusive and perpetual privilege of controlling the canal between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, instead of a partnership between us and the European powers. The senator from Delaware (then secre- tary of state) had the opportunity of securing to his own country that inestimable privilege, either by submitting the Hise treaty to the Senate, with the recommendation that it be so modified as to obviate all the objections which he deemed to exist to some of its provisions, or by making a new treaty which should embrace the principle of an exclusive and perpetual privilege without any of the obnoxious provisions. He did not do either. He suppressed the treaty refused to accept of an exclusive privilege to his own country and caused a new treaty to be made, which should lay the foundation of a partnership between the United States and Great Britain and the other European powers. The next reason assigned for withholding the Hise treaty from the Senate is that it had not been approved by Nicaragua. It is true .that Nicaragua did not ratify that treaty ; but why did she fail to do so ? I showed conclusively in the speech to which the senator was replying that the non-approval was in consequence of his instructions, as secretary of state, to Mr. Squier, our charge d'affaires to Nicaragua. It required the whole influence of the representative of our govern- ment in that country to prevent the ratification and approval of the Hise treaty by the state of Nicaragua. Sir, it is not a satisfactory reason for suppressing the treaty, therefore, that it had not been ratified by the other party, when the non-ratification was produced by the action of the agent of this government in pursuance of in- structions. ME. CLAYTON. I desire distinctly to understand the senator. If I understood him, he said that Mr. Hise's treaty was rejected in consequence of Mr. Squier's interference. ME. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. ME. CLAYTON". And then I understand him to say that Mr. Squier did it by instruction. ME. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAYTON. Now will the senator submit the truth to sub- stantiate that assertion ? I know of no such instruction. ME. DOUGLAS. I will do that with a great deal of pleasure. Mr. Hise was sent to the Central American States by Mr. Polk. He negotiated a treaty with the state of Nicaragua the treaty iii question on the 21st of June, 1849. Prior to that time he had beeu recalled, and Mr. Squier had been appointed by the admmistra 34 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF tion which succeeded that of President Polk. Mr. Hise had re- ceived no knowledge of his removal ; no instructions from the new administration at the time when he made the treaty. In the in- structions which the secretary of state gave to Mr. Squier on the 2d of May, 1849, when he was about to proceed to Central America to supersede Mr. Hise, you will find that he was directed to " claim no peculiar privilege ; no exclusive right ; no monopoly of com- mercial intercourse " for the United States. I will read from the letter of Instructions : "We should naturally be proud of such an achievement as an American work ; but if European aid be necessary to accomplish it, why should we re- pudiate it, seeing that our object is as honest as it is openly avowed, to claim no peculiar privilege ; no exclusive right ; no monopoly of commercial inter- course, but to see that the work is dedicated to the benefit of mankind, to be used by all on the same terms with us, and consecrated to the enjoyment and diffusion of the unnumbered and inestimable blessings which must flow from it to all the civilized world !" Then, sir, after having instructed Mr. Squier as to the character of the treaty which he was to form a treaty which was to open the canal to the world a treaty which was to give us no peculiar privilege, and secure to us no exclusive right after giving that in- struction, the secretary, in the concluding paragraph, says : "If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to have it properly modified to answer the ends we have in view." ME. CLAYTON. Is that the passage ? ME. DOUGLAS. That and the other together. ME. CLAYTON. I endeavored to correct the misapprehension of the honorable senator yesterday in reference to that. That is not an instruction to the minister to Central America in regard to the treaty made by Mr. Hise, or any other treaty. It is a direction to the minister to Central America to see that any contract which had been made by the local government should be so made as not to be assignable. If the gentleman will read the context, he will see at once that that does not allude to a treaty. It is merely, I say again, an instruction to the minister in that country to look to it, that the capitalists who were about to construct the canal should not specu- late upon the work. There is nothing there touching a treaty ; nothing whatever. The gentleman is entirely mistaken. The whole construction is in reference to the character of tne contract o* charter. ME. DOUGLAS. I will read the preceding sentence, and we will *ee then who is mistaken : " If they do not agree to grant us passage on reasonable and proper terms, refuse our protection an! our countenance to procure the contract from Nicaragua >r STEPHEN A. DOUGLA&. 35 ME. CLAYTON. If the gentleman will look at the context which goes before, he will see that the word " they " refers to the capitalists. ME. DOUGLAS. I will read what goes before : "See that it is not assignable to others; that no exclusive privileges are granted to any nation that will not agree to the same treaty stipulations with Nicaragua ; that the tolls to be demanded by the owners are not unreasonable or oppressive ; that no power be reserved to the proprietors of the canal or their successors to extort at any time hereafter, or unjustly to obstruct or embarrass the right of passage. This will require all your vigilance and skill, if they do not agree to grant us passage on reasonable and proper terms, re- fuse our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from Nicaragua. If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incau- lously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to rave it projj-sriy modified to answer the sr^ds we have in view." ME. CLAYTON. The honorable senator will observe that that does lot refer to a treaty. The grant of the right of way was a different jning. It ^as a contract between the Voai government and the capitalists. Not a treaty at all. ME. DOUGLAS. The senator's explanation is doubtless satisfactory eo himself. He may imagine that it will suit his present purposes to place upon his instructions the construction for which he now con- tends ; but it is wholly unwarranted by the language he employed. His instructions speak of securing the right of way to " us." To whom did he allude in the word "us?" Did he refer to the capitalists, proprietors and speculators, who should become the owners of the charter ? Was he one of the company, and therefore authorized to use the word "us," when speaking of the rights and Drivileges to be acquired of a foreign nation through his agency as jeoretary of state ? I have supposed that Mr. Squier was sent to Oeutral America to represent the United States, and to protect our rights and interests as a nation. I have always done the senator from Delaware the justice to believe that when he gave those in- structions to Mr. Squier he was acting on behalf of his country to secure the right of way for a canal to the United States and not to a few capitalists and speculators under the title of "us." For the honor of our country I will still do him that justice, notwithstanding his disclaimer. His instructions also speak of the right of way to "nations," and caution Mr. Squier to see that "no exclusive privi- leges are granted to any nation," etc. it is plain, therefore, that in the instructions relating to the secur- ing the right of way for a canal to the nations of the earth, Mr. Squier was directed to see that no exclusive privilege was granted to any other nation, and not to claim any peculiar advantages for our own. Then follows the concluding paragraph, which has been read: " If & charter or grant of the rights of way shall have been incautiously or in- considerately made before your arrival in the country, seek to have it properly modified to answer the ends we have in view." Modified how ? If before the arrival of Mr. Squier in the country 17 36 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mr. Else shall have acquired a charter or grant which si: ill secure peculiar privileges or exclusive rights for this country, Le was to seek to have it so modified as to open the same rights and privileges to all other nations on equal terms. This is what I understand to be the meaning of those instructions, and it is clear that Mr. Squier understood them in the same way ; for when he arrived in Nicaragua, and discovered, by a statement in a newspaper of the Isthmus, that Mr. Hise was about making a treaty for a canal, without knowing what its terms were, without waiting to ascertain its provisions, he sent at once a notice to tfie government of Nicaragua, that Mr. Hise was not authorized to treat that he did not understand the policy and views of the new administration that he had been recalled, and that any treaty he might make must be considered and treated as an unofficial act. He communicated this protest to the secretary of state on the same day, and then proceeded to his point of de>tma- tion, where he made a treaty for the right of way for a canal to all nations on the partnership plan in pursuance of his instructions. These two treaties the Hise treaty and the Squier treaty were in the Department of State at the same time the one having arrived about the middle of September, and the other about the first of October. It then became the duty of the senator from Delaware, as secretary of state, to decide between them : in other words, to de- termine whether he would accept of an exclusive privilege to hia own country, or enter into partnership with the monarchies of Europe. He did determine that question, and his decision was in favor of the partnership, and against his own country having the exclusive control of the canal. Then, sir, I think I was authorized to say what I did say, that the non- ratification of Hise treaty by the government of Nicaragua was procured by the agent of General Taylor's administration in that country, and that the agent acted under the authority of this go- vernment. He certainly acted in obedience to what he understood to be his instruction, and that is, the instruction, that if such a char ter had been incautiously granted, to seek to have it modified to con- form to the ends had in view, as stated in the instruction. MB. CLAYTON. Will the senator allow me to interrupt him? It is not a very material point, still it is better to have it right than wrong. If the senator will only read the last paragraph, he will see that the charter or grant of the right of way which Mr. Squier was instructed to see was not incautiously made, was a very different thing, indeed, from the treaty ; and he will see that that is the thing which I directed the minister to look to, as I stated, and endeavored to be understood yesterday, and aa I was anxious to be understood by the gentleman on this point what I instructed the minister to look to was that the contract of these capitalists should not be such as would enable them to extort from persons using the canal. The last sentence of the instruction applies, if he wil] look at it excli wvaly to the ca*e of the contract, and not to that tf the treaty. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 37 One remark more : How is it possible for the gentleman to recon- cile the fact, that the State Department could know or imagine that Mr. Hise had made a treaty on the 2d of May, 1850, when those in- structions were given, when, in point of fact, Mr. Hise was not heard from until June afterward ? How could I imagine any such thing ? And again : how could I possibly suppose that Mr. Hise had made a treaty, or was going to make a treaty, when the records of the State Department showed me the instructions given to him by Mr. Buchanan, in which he tells Mr. Hise to make no treaty whatever with Nicaragua? If the gentleman can reconcile these things, I should be happy to hear him. ME. DOUGLAS. I will have less difficulty in reconciling these things with my views of his instructions than he will with his construction of them. I have already shown that the instructions related to the right of way to nations and not to individuals ; that they were in favor of equal rights to all nations, and opposed to any peculiar pri- vileges to our own country. Is it not as reasonable to suppose that the instructions meant what they said, as it is to conceive that our minister was directed to procure the modification of contracts pre- viously entered into with individuals, and for the observance of which Nicaragua was supposed to have pledged her faith as a nation? "Was our minister sent there to represent individuals in their schemes of procuring charters and contracts on private account, or to inter- fere with and prevent the faithful observance of such contracts as that government might previously have made with our own citizens or others ? While this supposition might extricate the senator from his present difficulty on this point, it would not tend to elevate the character of our diplomacy during his administration of the State Department. I think I do the senator more justice by the construc- tion I have put upon his conduct than he does by his own explana- tion. But, sir, I wish to know whether I understand the senator now ? Does he wish now to be understood assaying that he preferred an exclusive privilege to his own country to a partnership with Eng- land? ME. CLAYTON. No, sir. ME. DOUGLAS. Ah ! then as he did not prefer the exclusive pri- vilege to a partnership with the European powers, does he wish the Senate to understand that he did not mean to convey his true idea in his instructions ? If he preferred the partnership to the exclusive privilege, was it not his duty to make known that wish in his in- structions ? Why should he complain when I show that by his in- structions he said precisely what he now avows to be his policy upon that subject ? Why, sir, I am defending the consistency of his own opinions, according to his present views, by showing that his instructions embraced what he says now was his true policy ir. favor of a partnership with other nations, instead of an exclusive privilege to our own country. 38 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF But, sir, whatever may have been his meaning in those instruc- tions, it is undeniable that Mr. Squier understood them as I now do, and acted upon them accordingly. Hence, as 1 have already re- maiked, before he arrived upon the theatre of his operations, and upon the mere authority of a newspaper paragraph, that Mr. His was about making such a treaty, he sent ahead a messenger to in- form the government of Nicaragua that Mr. Hise had no autho- rity to treat upon the subject that he had been recalled that he was not informed of the views and purposes of the new adtainistra- tion and that whatever treaty he made must be regarded and treated as an unofficial act and requesting that "new negotiations may be entered upon at the seat of government." The new negotiations were immediately opened accordingly, and on the 3d of September terminated in a treaty, which was a substi- tute for that which Mr. Hise had previously made. I do not under- stand that the Hise treaty was formally rejected or disavowed by the government of Nicaragua. It was treated as an unofficial act a mere nullity upon the authority of Mr. Squier's protest. I again submit the question to the Senate, therefore, whether I am not fully justified in the statement that the non-approval of the Hise treaty by the government of Nicaragua was in consequence of the action of the agent of this government in that country, under the instruc- tions of the senator from Delaware as secretary of state? I am only surprised that he should attempt to avoid the responsibility of the act, since, when hard pressed in this discussion, he has been driven into the admission that he preferred a partnership with the monarchies of the Old World to an exclusive privilege for his own country. If such were his opinions and preferences, he was bound by every consideration of duty and patriotism to have given th in- structions, and produced the result which I have attributed to him. Why not avow that which he now acknowledges to have been his purpose, in obedience to what he conceived to be his duty ? 1 only ask him to assume the responsibility and consequences of his own conduct, and then to assign such reasons as he may be able in justi- fication. The next reason which he gives for suppressing the Hise treaty is totally inconsistent with the first. He alleges that the clause guar- anteeing the independence of Nicaragua was wholly inadmissible, and could never receive his sanction. In a report which was communi- cated to the House of Representatives in 1850, he assigned the same reason, and stated that such a guaranty was a departure from our uniform policy, and had no precedent in our history except in the one case of the French colonies in America. Of course courtesy requires me to acknowledge that the senator really believes that this was one of the reasons which induced him to withhold the Hise treaty from the Senate. I must be permitted, however, to inform him that he is entirely mistaken : that the clause in question did not constitute an objection in his mind at that time STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 39 that it is an afterthought which he has since seized hold of to justify an act which he had previously performed upon totally different grounds. The evidence of these facts will be found recorded in a dispatch written by the senator from Delaware, as secretary of state, on the 20th of October, 1849, to Mr. Lawrence, our minister to Eng- land. The document containing this dispatch was printed and laid upon our tables a few days since, and is entitled Senate Ex. Doc. No. 27. It will be remembered that the Hise treaty was communicated to the Department of State on the 15th of September, and the Squiet treaty about the first of October of the same year. On the 20th of October, Mr. Clayton (in the dispatch to which I refer), discussed om relations with the Central American states at great length among other things communicated to Mr. Lawrence the substance of these two treaties and directed him to make the same known to Lord Palmerston. I read from, the dispatch : "If, however, the British government shall reject these overtures on our part, and shall refuse to cooperate with us in the generous and philanthropic schema of rendering the interoceanic communication by the way of the port and riveL San Juan free to all nations upon the same terms, we shall deem ourselves jus. tih'ed in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and despite her or position or hostility. With a view to this alternative, we have a treaty wil f the state of Nicaragua, a copy of which has been sent to you, and the stipul r tions of which you should unreservedly impart to Lord Palmerston. You w 11 inform him, however, that this treaty was concluded without a power or in- struction from this government; that the President had no knowledge of ta existence, of the intention to form it, until it was presented to him by r. Hise, our late chargS d'affaires to Guatemala, about the 1st of September la? t ; and that, consequently, we are not bound to ratify it, and will take no step ior that purpose, if we can, by arrangements with the British government, pJ-ice our interests upon a just and satisfactory foundation. But, if our effort for 'his end should be abortive, the President will not hesitate to submit this or s jme other treaty which may be concluded by the present charg6 d'affaires to 'jkia- temala, to the Senate of the United States for their advice and consent, -with a view to its ratification ; and if that enlightened body should approve it, h<- also will give it his hearty sanction, and will exert all his constitutional power to execute its provisions in good faith a determination in which he may Confi- dently count upon the good will of the people of the United States." Here we find the true reason assigned for withholding the Hise treaty from the Senate. It was to induce Great Britain to enter inro partnership with us. Lord Palraerston is informed that if Great Bri- tain refuses our offer of a partnership, that '' we shall deem ourselves justified in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and in despite of her opposition or hostility," and that u with a view to this alternative," he held the Hise treaty in reserve, to be submitted to the Senate for ratification or not, dependent upon the decision of Great Britain in relation to the partnership. This is the only reason assigned for withholding the treaty from the Senate. The pretext that it was made without authority is expressly negatived by the threat to accept the exclusive privilege, in the event that England refuses to enter into the partnership. Not a word of objection that 40 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF it guarantees the independence of Nicaragua ! But the testimony does not stop here. This same dispatch furnishes affirmative evi- dence conclusive and undeniable that the ''guaranty" constituted no portion of his objection to the Hise treaty was not deemed ob- jectionable by him at that time but, on the contrary, was looked upon with favor, and actually proposed by Mr. Clayton himself as a desirable provision which* might be incorporated into a treaty for the protection of the canal ! I read from the same dispatch : ' You may suggest, for instance, that the United States and Great Britain should enter into a treaty guaranteeing the independence of Nicaragua, Hon- duras and Costa Rica, which treaty may also guarantee to British subjects the privileges acquired in those States by the treaties between Great Britain and Spain, provided that the limits of those States on the east be acknowledged to be the Carribean Sea." Now, sir, let me ask the senator from Delaware what becomes of his pretext that .he deemed the guaranty of the independence of Nicaragua an insuperable objection to the Hise treaty? Have I not proven by his own dispatches, written at the time, that such an idea could never have entered his brain when he determined to withhold the treaty from the Senate ? that it was an afterthought upon which he has since seized as an excuse for an act which had been previously done with a view to another object, and for different reasons ? I will now proceed to consider the fourth objection made by the senator to the Hise treaty. He goes on to criticise its various pro- visions, denounces them as ridiculous, as absurd, as unconstitutional, and he puts the question with an air of triumph whether there was a man in this body who would have voted for all the pro-visions of that treaty. Sir, I have no fancy for that species of special pleading which attempts to avoid the real issue by a criticism upon mere details which are subject to modification at pleasure. Does not the senator know that when a treaty is made, the objects of which are desirable, while the details' are inadmissible, the practice has been to send it to the Senate, that the object may be secured and the details so modified as to conform to the ends in view ? Whoever supposed before that a treaty, desirable in its leading features, was to be rejected by the department, merely because there was an obnox- ious provision in it ? I could turn upon the senator with an air of as much triumph, if I had practised it as well, and ask him if there wae a man in this body who would have voted for the Mexican treaty of peace as it was sent to us by the Executive? Do we not all know that the treaty which was ratified by about four-fifths of the Senate came to us in a shape in which it could not receive one solitary vote upon either side of the chamber? Do we not know that M.-. Polk in his message communicating the treaty intimated that fact, and called the attention of the Senate to the obnoxious provisions? While it contained provisions which would exclude the President from the possibility of ever ratifying it, which would have STEP HEN A. DOUGLAS. 41 prevented every senator from giving his sanction to it, yet inasmuch as the main objects of the treaty .met the approval of the President, and it was only matters of detail that were obnoxious and inadmis sible, he sent it to the Senate that its details might be made to har monize with its objects. Sir, the vote to strike out the obnoxious features in the treaty was unanimous. Not one man in the body, not even the senator from Delaware,- dared to affirm those clauses or vote to keep them in the treaty. Having perfected it so as to suit the v iews of about four-fifths of the Senate, it wns ratified with the vote & the senator recorded in the affirmative, according to my recol- lection. If, therefore, the senator from Delaware had followed the practice which he sanctioned by his own vote in the case of the Mexican treaty, he would have sent the Hise treaty to the Senate for amend- ment and ratification, even if the details had been obnoxious to all the objections he now urges to them. For this reason I do not deem it necessary to occupy the time of the Senate in reply to his objec- tions relative to making a canal outside the limits of the United States, or the creation of a company either by Congress or the Presi- dent for that purpose. I care not whether these provisions were admissible or inadmissible. It is not material to the argument. It can have no bearing upon the question. The Hise treaty was evi- dence of one great fact, which should never be forgotten, and that fact is, that Nicaragua was willing and anxious to grant the United States forever the exclusive right and control over a ship canal between the two oceans. The secretary of state (Mr. Clayton), knew that fact. If the details were not acceptable to him, he could have availed himself of the main provisions and made the details to suit himself; I confine myself therefore to the great point that you might have had the exclusive privilege if you had desired it. You refused it with your eyes open, and took a partnership in lieu of it. All about the details is a matter of moonshine. You could have modified them to suit yourself before sending the treaty to the Senate, or you could have followed the example of Mr. Polk, in the case of the Mexican treaty, and sent it to the Senate with the recom- mendation that the details be thus modified. All this talk about obnoxious features and objectionable provisions about guarantees of independence and want of authority to make the treaty must be regarded as miserable attempts to avoid the main point at issue. Why this pitiful equivocation, if the senator was really in favor of the European partnership in prefere: ice to the exclusive privilege for the United States, as all his acts prove the whole tenor of his correspondence clearly and conclusively prove was the case? If he thinks his policy was right, why not frankly avow the truth, and justify upon the merits ? I am not to be diverted from my purpose by his assaults upon the administration of Presi dent Polk, nor by his array of great names in opposition to the view j I entertain. History will do justice to Mr. Polk and Mr. BuohanaD 42 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF upon this as well as all other questions connected with their admi- nistration of the government. In the speech to which the senator professed to reply, I did not make an allusion to party politics. I do not think the term Whig or Democrat can be found in the whole speech. I am sure that it does not contain a partisan reference to the state of political parties in the country during the period to which my remarks applied. I attempted to discuss the question upon its merits, independent of the fact whether my views might come in conflict with those professed hy either of the great parties, or entertained by the great men of our country at some former period. I should have been better satisfied if the senator had pursued the same course, instead of calling upon Jackson, Polk and Buchanan, and sheltering himself behind their great names, while attempting to detract from their fame by representing them as having sacrificed the interests and honor of their country. ME. CLAYTON. I deny it. There was not one word in my speech which went to arraign Mr. Polk or General Jackson, or anybody. There was nothing like a party spirit in this speech. If the gentle- man so understood me, he entirely misunderstood me. I stated the fact that Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan had been applied to by the local government of Nicaragua for the intervention of this govern- ment to protect it from the aggressions of the British. 1 stated, and proved the fact, that the Monroe doctrine had never been carried out that Mr. Polk on that occasion had declined to interfere ; but I disclaim, entirely assailing him, and endeavor to reconcile his whole course of conduct as being consistent with what he stated in the House of Representatives on the Panama mission. MB. DOUGLAS. I accept the explanation. It is perfectly satisfac- tory, but I am very unfortunate in apprehending the meaning of language. He said that Mr. Polk had avowed himself in favor of asserting the Monroe doctrine. He then said that Mr. Polk had abandoned and refused to carry it out when this question arose. He said the President of Nicaragua, to use his own language, " poked that declaration into Mr. Folk's own teeth." MR. CLAYTON. I used no such word. MR. DOUGLAS. At least, that he thrust it into his teeth. MR. CLAYTON. I did not. MR. DOUGLAS. Well, never mind about the precise word. At all events, he went on to show that Mr. Polk was pledged to the Mon- roe doctrine, that he failed to carry it out, that no administration ever carried it out, that it had been abandoned whenever a question arose which gave an opportunity for carrying it into effect. When he chose to put Mr. Polk into the position of making declarations and violating them, making protests and abandoning them, making threats and never executing them, I very naturally supposed, accord- ing to the notion of a western man, that he was attacking him. i' Laughter.) MR. CLAYTON. I endeavor to show that Mr. Polk had made his STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 43 K-commendation to the Congress of the United States that he was perfectly justifiable in not considering that as the established doc- trine of the country, because the Congress of the United States had never adopted it. On that principle I endeavor to reconcile the course of Mr. Polk with itself. The gentleman has undertaken to represent me as assailing Mr. Polk, when if he had paid attention to what I said unfortunately he was out during the greater portion of the time I was discussing the subject he would have seen that I was endeavoring to prove that the course of that President of the United States, in this particular, was made liable to the exception which is taken to it ; that he was not bound by the declaration of the Monroe doctrine unless Congress adopted it, because he was not the govern- ment. ME. DOUGLAS. Of course I accept the explanation of the senator with a great deal of pleasure, and I am gratified to know that I misapprehend him; but it really did appear to me that I was justified in putting that construction upon what he said, inasmuch as he went on to show that when he came into the State Department, he found Great Britain with her protectorate over the Mosquito coast, and spreading over more than half of Central America that during Mr. Folk's administration, and while he was negotiating the treaty of peace with Mexico, Great Britain seized the town of San Juan, at the mouth of the proposed canal, and that Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan remained silent, without even a protest against this unjus- tifiable aggression ; and when he denounced that seizure as an act originating in hostility to this country, to cut off communication with our Pacific possessions ; and when he said that it would have been wiser to have closed the door and shut out the British lion, than to allow him to enter unresisted, and then attempt to expel him ; and when he boasted of having expelled the British lion after Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan had permitted him to enter the house in contempt of their declaration of the Monroe doctrine, I really thought that he was attempting to censure Mr. Polk for letting the lion come in ; but it seems I was mistaken. He did not mean that, and not meaning it, upon my word I do not know what he did mean. (Laughter.) When I heard all this, and much more of the same tenor, it oc- curred to me that it amounted to a pretty good arraignment of Mr. Polk and his administration ; and that his object was to glorify him- self and General Taylor, at the expense of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Polk, by accusing the latter of having tamely submitted to British aggressions of great enormity, which the former promptly rebuked by expelling the British from Central America. Let me ask him the question did the Clayton and Bulwer treaty expel the British from Central America ? Has England abandoned her protectorate ? What power has she surrendered ? What functionary has she recalled ? What portion of the country what inch of territory has she given up? Will the senator from Delaware inform me what England ha* abandoned in pursuance or by virtue of the Clayton and Bulwer 44 THE LIFE A^D SPEECHES OF treaty ? I can show him where she has extended her possession* since the date of that treaty, and in contempt of its stipulations, can point him to the seizure of the Bay Islands and the erection of them into a colony to the extension of her jurisdiction in the vicinity of the Balize to her invasion of the Territory of Honduras on the main land and to the continuance of her protectorate over the Mosquito coast. I can point him to a series of acts designed by Great Britain to increase her power and extend her possessions in that quarter. Will he point me to any one act by which she has re- duced her power or curtailed her possessions ? He boasts of having expelled the British from Central America. Will he have the kind- ness to inform the Senate how, when, and where this has been effected ? Where is the evidence to sustain this declaration ? I called for information on this point in my speech the other day. The senator replied to all other parts of that speech in detail and at great length. Of course, want of time was the reason for his omission to respond to these pertinent inquiries. (Laughter.) MR. CLAYTON. No, sir ; I replied to it, but the senator was ou ot his seat. MB. DOUGLAS. I was in my seat the most of the time the senator was speaking on that part of the subject, but unfortunately I heard no response to. this interrogatory. Now, sir, in regard to this Bay Island colony, I may be permitted to say, although it is by the way of digression from the line of argument which I was marking out for myself, that it presents a clear case not only in derogation of the Monroe doctrine, but in direct violation and contempt of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. I will do the senator the justice to say, that the Bay Island colony has not been erected in pursuance of the treaty, but in derogation of its provisions. The question arises, are we going to submit tamely to the establishment of this new colony ? If we acquiesce in it we submit to a double wrong a contravention of our avowed policy in regard to European colonization on this conti- nent ; and a palpable and open violation of the terms and stipulations of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. If we tamely submit to this two- fold wrong, the less we say henceforth in regard to European colo- nization on the American continent, the better for our own credit. Here is a case where we must act promptly if we ever intend to act. I do not wish to make an issue with England about the Balize she has been in possession there longer than our nation has existed as an independent republic. I do not wish to make an issue with her in regard to Jamaica, because she cannot surrender it upon our demand without dishonor, and she is bound to fight if driven to an extremity on that point. I do not want to make an issue with her m reference to any colony she has upon the continent or adjacent to it, where she may be said to have had a long and peaceful possession. Sir, if I was going to make the issue on any one of these points, I would pursue a more manly course by declaring war at once instead of resorting to such an expedient. I would mak tL<* STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 45 issue solely and distinctly on the Bay Island colony, for the reason that there she is clearly in the wrong, the act having been done in violation of her plighted faith. It was done in contempt of our avowed policy. She cannot justify it before the civilized world, and therefore, dare not fight upon such an issue. England will fight us when her honor compels her to do it, and she will fight us for no other cause. We can require Great Britain to discontinue the Bay Island colony, and I call upon the friends of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, whose provisions are outraged by that act, to join in the de- mand that that colony be discontinued. Upon that point we are in the right : England is in the wrong ; and she cannot, she dare not fight upon it. And, sir, when England backs out of one colony upon our remonstrance, it will be a long time before she will establish another upon this continent without consulting us. And, sir, when England shall have refrained from interfering in the affairs of the American continent without consulting the wishes of this govern- ment, what other power on earth will be willing to stand forward and do that which England concedes it prudent not to attempt ? I may be permitted to say, therefore, that the only issue that I desire to see at this time, upon our foreign relations, as they are now presented to rne, is upon the Bay Island colony : and let us require that that be discontinued, and that the terms of our treaty stipulations be obeyed and fulfilled. Whn that issue shall have been made and decided in our favor, we will not have much need for general resolutions about the Monroe doctrine in future. But, sir, this was a digression. The point that I was discussing was this : that while it has been a matter of boast for years that the Clayton and Bulwer treaty drove Great Britain out of Central America, she has not surrendered an inch ; and what is more, she is now proposing negotiations with us wilh a view to new arrange- ments, by which she shall hereafter give up her protectorate. Yes, sir, your late secretary of state and President, Everett and Fillmore, have communicated to Congress the fact that the British minister was pro- posing new negotiations, new arrangements, by which Great Britain shall hereafter give up that which the senator makes it a matter of boast that he had secured by his treaty. That is a little curious. I do not understand this self-gratulation of having accomplished a great and wonderful object, by the expelling of the British lion from the place where Mr. Polk allowed him to come and abide, and still a new negotiation or a new arrangement is deemed necessary to secure that which the senator from Delaware boasts of having accomplished long since ! England professes to be desirous of surrendering her protectorate. Then, why does she not do it ? The British minister proposes to open negotiations by which England shall withdraw her authority from Central America, and the late secretary of state (Mr. Everett) entertains the proposition favorably, while the senator from Delaware congratulates the country upon his having effected the desired end in his treaty three years ago. 16 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF If Messrs. Everett and Fillmore were correct in entertaining Mr. Crampton's proposition for a new arrangement, certainly the senator from Delaware is at fault in saying that his treaty expelled the Brit- ish from Central America. My opinion as to whether it did expel them or not, is a matter of not much consequence. I have always thought the language of the treaty was so equivocal, that no m;.n could say with certainty, whether 'it did aholish the protectorate < r not. One clause seemed to abolish it ; another seemed to recogni/e its existence, and to restrain its exercise ; and you could make as good an argument on one side as the other. But I gave notice at the time the treaty was ratified, that I would take the American side, and stand by the senator from Delaware in claiming that England was bound to quit ; but our late secretary of state and the President, Everett and Fillmore, think otherwise; and now it becomes a question whether new negotiations to accomplish that very desirable object are necessary or not ? Mr. President, I return to the point which I was discussing when the senator interrupted me, and led me off in this digression, to wit . That the simple question presented in this matter, when stripped of all extraneous circumstances, was this : Should we have accepted, when tendered, an exclusive right of way forever, from one ocean to the other ? The senator from Delaware thought not, and the admin- istration of General Taylor sustained him in his view of the question. I thought we ought to have embraced the offer which tendered us the exclusive control forever over this great interoceanic canal. The senator attempts to sustain his position by quoting the authority of General Jackson and Mr. Polk. Sir, he is unfortunate in his quotation. I do not think that, fairly considered, he has any such authority. I am aware that in 1835 that senator offered a resolution in this body, which was adopted, recommending a nego- tiation to open the Isthmus to all nations, and that General Jackson sent out Colonel Biddle to collect and report information on the subject ; brt when the resolution was adopted, the question was then presented under circumstances very different from those which existed w^en the senator suppressed the Hise treaty. At that time the Central American States had granted to the Netherlands the privilege of making a canal. Others had already secured the privi- lege, aid in that point of view it was reasonable to suppose that the most we could do was to get an equal privilege with European nations. That was not the case presented when the exclusive privi- lege was offered to us and the offer declined by the senator from Delaware without consulting the Senate. But there is no evidence that General Jackson ever entertained the opinions attributed to him. Colonel Biddle, who was appointed by General Jackson to explore the routes and collect and report information, availed himself of his official position to obtain an exclusive privilege to himself and his associates on private account. When the existence of this private contract came to the knowledge of the secretary of state, Mr. Forsyth, he reprimanded our charge at STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 4:7 Granada, for having given any countenance to it. And why f Not because it contained an exclusive privilege to the United States, for it did not give us any privilege. Mr. Biddle had been sent out there to get information to be laid before the administration. He had no power to negotiate no authority to open diplomatic rela- tions. He had no power to take any one step in procuring the privi- lege. He made use of his official position, and, in the opinion of the administration, abused it, by securing a private grant to himself, without the authority, protection, or sanction of the government of his own country. Mr. Forsyth was indignant because his agent had disobeyed his authority, and turned the public employment into a private specula- tion. That is not the question presented here. That contract did not give the United States the privilege at all. It gave it to Colonel Biddle and his associates. But I find nothing in that trans- action, and in all the public documents relating to it, to show that General Jackson would have refused the exclusive privilege to his own country if it had been tendered to him. How is it, then, with Mr. Polk ? According to my recollection of the facts, New Granada had granted the privilege of making a canal to a Frenchman by the name of Du Quesne I will not be cer- tain of his name and it was desirable to get permission to carry the mails across there. The grant had passed into the possession of a citizen of a foreign power, and the most that our government could ask, was to be put upon an equal footing with that other power. It did not present the question of the privilege being tendered to us, and we refusing to accept it. But I shall take no time in going into a vindication of those ad- ministrations. In the remarks that I made the other day, I chose to vindicate my own course without reference to past administrations or present party associations, and I will pursue the same line of de- bate now. One word upon the point, made by the senator, that the Hise treaty was unconstitutional. Was it not constitutional to accept the exclusive privilege to the United States'? If it was not, and his constitutional' objection is valid, it goes a little too far. If you had no right to accept an exclusive privilege to us under the Constitution, what right had you to take a partnership privilege in company with Great Britain? If you had no right to take the privilege for the benefit of American citizens alone, what right had you to take one for the benefit of Englishmen and Americans jointly ? [f you have no right to make a treaty by which you will protect an American company in making that canal, what right had you to make a treaty by which you pledged yourselves to protect a British company in making the same work ? I choose to put the senator upon the defensive, and let him demonstrate his right to do this thing jointly with England, and then I will draw from his argument my right to do it for the benefit of America alone. I choose to put Aim in the position of demonstrating the existence of the constitu 48 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF tional power. He, in his treaty, exercised the power. I have not. And he, having exercised it, having pledged the faith of the natioa to do the act, I have a right to call upon him to show the authority, under the Constitution of the United States, to make a guaranty jointly with England for the benefit of English subjects as well a American citizens ; and when he proves the existence of that power v he has proved the right of the government to do the same thing foi the benefit of America and American citizens, omitting England anc* British subjects. Sir, as I before said, I have no fondness for this special pleading about the peculiar provisions of a treaty, when the real point WLS the extent of the privilege which we should accept. Now, sir, I was in favor of an exclusive privilege, and I will tell you why. I desired to see a canal made ; and when made, I desired to see it under the control of a power enabled to protect it. I desired to see it open to the commerce of the whole world, under our protection upon proper terms. How was that to be done, except by an exclusive privilege to ourselves ? Then, let us open it to the commerce of the world on such terms and conditions as we should deem wise, just and politic. Could we not do this as well by our volition as England could in conjunction with us ? Would it not be as creditable to ue as a nation to have acquired it ourselves, and then opened it freely, as to have gone into a partnership by which we should have no con- trol in prescribing the terms upon which it should be opened ? And besides, if the grant had been made to us, and we had accepted it, and then thrown it open to the commerce of all nations on our own terms and conditions, we held in our hands a right which would have been ample security for every nation under heaven to keep the peace with the United States. The moment England abused the privilege by seizing any more islands, by establishing any more colonies, by invading any more rights, or by violating any more treaties, we would use our privileges, shut up the canal, and exclude her com- merce from the Pacific. We would hold a power in our hands which might be exercised at any moment to preserve peace and pre- vent injustice. Peace and progress being our aim, we should still have continued to be the only government on earth whose public policy from the beginning has been justly and honestly to enforce the laws of nations with fidelity toward all the nations. Sir, when you surrendered that exclusive right, you surrendered a great element of power, which in our hands would have been wielded in the cause of justice for the benefit of mankind. I was not for such a restrictive policy as would exclude British vessels trom going through the canal, or the vessels of any other nation which should respect our rights. I would let them all pa.,t, long as they did not abuse the privilege ; close it against th*,La when^they did. I insist that the American people occupy a posits on this continent which rendered it natural and proper that we shov/d exercise that power. I have no fear of a war with England, i BTEPIIEN A.DOUGLAS. 49 have none now. War should be avoided as long as possible. But, sir, you need have no apprehension of a war with her, for the reason that if we keep in the right, she dare not fight us, and she will not, especially for anything relating to American affairs. She knows she has given a bond to keep the peace, with a mortgage on all her real estate in America as collateral security, and she knows she forfeits her title to the whole," without hope of redemption, if she commits a breach of the bond. She will not fight unless compelled. We could have fortified that canal at each end, and in time of war could have closed it against our enemies, and opened it at our own pleasure. "We had the power of doing it ; for the Hise treaty contained provisions for the construction of fortifications at each terminus and at such points along the line of the canal as we thought proper. We had the privilege of fortifying it, and we had the right to close it against any power which should abuse the privilege which we conferred. Then, sir, what was the objection to the acceptance of that exclu- sive privilege ? I do not see it, sir. I know what were the private arguments urged in times which have gone by, and which I trust never will return ; that England and other European powers never would consent that the United States should have an exclusive con- trol over the canal. Well, sir, I do not know that they would have consented, but of one thing I am certain, I would never have asked their consent. When Nicaragua desired to confer the privilege, and when we were willing to accept it, it was purely an American ques- tion with which England had no right to interfere. It was an Ame- rican question about which Europe had no right to be consulted. Are we under any more obligation to consult European powers about an American question than the allied powers were, in their Congress, to consult us, when establishing the equilibrium of Europe by the agency of the Holy Alliance ? America was not consulted then. Our name does not appear in all the proceedings. It was a European question, about which it was presumed America had nothing to say. This question of a canal in Nicaragua, when nego- tiations were pending to give it to us, was so much an American question, that the English government was not entitled to be con- sulted. England not consent! She will acquiesce in your doing what you may deem right so long as you consent to allow her to hold Canada, the Bermudas, Jamaica, and her other American possessions. I hope the time has arrived when we will not be told any more that Europe will not consent to this, and England will not consent to that. I heard that argument till I got tired of it when we were discussing the resolutions for the annexation of Texas. I heard it again on the Oregon question, and I heard it on the California question. It has been said on every occasion whenever we had an issue about acquir- ing territory, that England would not consent ; yet she has acquiesced in whatever we had the courage and the justice to do. And why ? Because we kept ourselves in the right. England was so situated with her possessions on this continent, that she dare not fight in an 50 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF unjust cause. We would have been in the right to have accented tlio privilege of making this canal, and England would never have dared to provoke a controversy with us. I think the time has come when America should perform her duty according to our own judgment, and our own sense of justice, without regard to what European powers might say with respect to it. I think this nation is about of age. I think* we have a right to judge for ourselves. Let us always do right, and put the consequences behind us. But, sir, I do not wish to detain the Senate upon this point, or to prolong the discussion. I have a word or two to say in reply to the remarks of the senator from Delaware upon so much of my speech as related to the pledge in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, never to annex any portion of that country. I objected to that clause in the treaty, upon the ground that I was unwilling to enter into a treaty stipulation with any European power in respect to this continent, that we would not do in the future, whatever our duty, interest, honor, and safety, might require in the course of events. The senator infers that I desire to annex Central America because I was unwilling to give a pledge that we never would do it. He reminded me that there was a clause in the treaty with Mexico containing the stipula- tion, that in certain contingencies we would never annex any portion of that country. Sir, it was unnecessary that he should remind me of that provision. He has not forgotten how hard I struggled to get that clause out of the treaty where it was retained in opposition to my vote. Had the senator given me his aid then to defeat that pro- vision in the Mexican treaty, I would be better satisfied now with his excuse for having inserted a still stronger pledge in his treaty. But having advocated that pledge then, he should not attempt to avoid the responsibility of his OW T U act by citing it as a precedent. I was unwilling to bind ourselves by treaty for all time to come never to annex any more territory. I am content for the present with the territory we have. I do not wish to annex any portion of Mexico now. I did not wish to annex any part of Central America then, nor do I at this time. But I cannot close my eyes to the history of this country for the last half century. Fifty years ago the question was being debated in this Senate whether it was wise or not to acquire any territory on the west bank of the Mississippi, and it was then contended that we could never with safety extend beyond that river. It was at that time seriously considered whether the Alleghany Mountains should not be the barrier beyond which we should never pass. At a sub- sequent date, after we had acquired Louisiana and Florida, more liberal views began to prevail, and it was thought that perhaps we might venture to establish one tier of States west of the Mississippi ; but in order to prevent the sad calamity of an undue expansion of our territory, the policy was adopted of establishing an Indian Ter- ritory, with titles in perpetuity, all along the western borders of those States, so that no more new States could possibly be created STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. M in that direction. That barrier could not arrest the onward progress of our people. They burst through it, and passed the Rocky Moun- tains, and were only arrested by the waters of the Pacific. "Who then is prepared to say that in the progress of events, having met with the barrier of the ocean in our western course, we may not be compelled to turn to the north and to the south for an outlet. How long is it since the gentleman from Delaware himself thought that the time would never arrive when we would want California? I am aware that he was of that opinion at the time we ratified the treaty, and annexed it. ME. CLAYTON. How? ME. DOUGLAS. By his voting for Mr. Crittenden's resolutions de- claring that we did not want any portion of Mexican territory. He will find his vote in this volume which I hold in my hand. I am aware that he belonged to that school of politicians who thought we had territory enough. I have not forgotten that a respectable por- tion of this body, but a few years ago, thought it would be prepos- terous to bring a country so far distant as California, and so little known, into the Union. But it has been done ; and now since Cali- fornia has become a member of the confederacy, with her immense commerce and inexhaustible resources, we are told that the time will never come when the territory lying half way between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions will be desirable. Central America is too far otf, because it is half way to California, and on the main, direct route on the very route upon which you pay your senators and representatives in Congress their mileage in coming to the capitol of the nation! The usual route of travel, the public highway, the half- way house from one portion of the country to the other, is so far dis- tant that the man who thinks the time will ever come when we will want it, is deemed a madman ! ME. CLAYTON. Does the senator apply those sentiments to me? I do not think so. ME. DOUGLAS. I simply say that such an opinion was indicated by the vote of the gentleman on the resolution of Mr. Crittenden. ME. CLAYTON. The senator is entirely mistaken on that point. ME. DOUGLAS In order to save time, I waive the point as to the senator's vote, although it is recorded in the volume before me, and lie can read it at his leisure. But I am not mistaken in saying that the senator on yesterday did ridicule the idea that we were ever to want any portion of Central America. He was utterly amazed, and in his amazement inquired where were these boundaries ever to cease. He wanted to know how far we were going, and if we expected to spread over the entire continent. I do not think we will do it in our flay, but I am not prepared to prescribe limits to the area over which Democratic principles may safely spread. I know not what our destiny may be. I try to keep up with the spirit of the age, to keep in view the history of the country, see what we have done, whither we are going, and with what velocity we are moving, in order to bo 18 52 THE L I t E AND SPEECHES OF prepared for those events which it is not in the power of man to thwart. You may make as many treaties as you please to fetter the limits of this giant republic, and she will burst them all from her, and her course will be onward to a limit which I will not venture to describe. "Why the necessity of pledging your faith that you will never annex any more of Mexico? Do you not know that you will be compelled to do it; that you caunot help it; that your treaty will not prevent it, and that the only effect it will have will be to enable European j-owers to accuse us of bad faith when the act is done, and associate American faith and Punic faith as synonymous terms ? What is the use of your guaranty that you will never erect any fortifications in Central America ; never annex, occupy, or colonize any portion of that country ? How do you know that you can avoid doing it? If you make the canal, I ask you if American citizens will not settle along its line; whether they will not build up towns at each termi- nus; whether they will not spread over that country, and convert it into an American State; whether American principles and American institutions will not be firmly planted there ? And I ask you how many years you think will pass away before you will find the same necessity to extend your laws over your own kindred that you found in the case of Texas? How long will it be before that day arrives? It may not occur in the senator's day nor mine. But so certain as this republic exists, so certain as we remain a united people, so cer- tain as the laws of progress which have raised us from a mere hand- ful to a mighty nation, shall continue to govern our action, just so certain are these events to be worked out, and you will be compelled to extend your protection in that direction. Sir, I am not desirous of hastening the day. I am not impatient of the time when it shall be realized. I do not wish to give any additional impulse to our progress. We are going fast enough. But I wish our public policy; our laws, our institutions, should keep up with the advance in science, in the mechanic arts, in agriculture, and in everything that tends to make us a great and powerful nation. Le*. us look the future in the face, and let us prepare to meet that which cannot be avoided. Hence I was unwilling to adopt that clause in the treaty guaranteeing that neither party would ever annex, oolonize, or occupy any portion of Central America. 1 was opposed to it for another reason. It was not reciprocal. Great Britain had possession of the island of Jamaica. Jamaica was the nearest armed and fortified point to the terminus of the canal. Jamaica at present commands the entrance of the canal; and all that Great Britain desired was, inasmuch as she had possession of the only place com- manding the canal, to procure a stipulation that no other power would ever erect a fortification nearer its terminus. That stipulation i equivalent to an agreement that England may fortify, but that we never shall. Sir, when you look at the whole history of that ques- tion you will see that England, with her far-seeing, sagacious policy, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 53 has attempted to circumscribe and restrict and restrain the freo action of this government. When was it that Great Britain seized the pos- session of the terminus of this canal ? Just six days after the signing of the treaty which secured to us California! The moment England saw, that by the pending negotiations with Mexico, California was to be acquired, she collected her fleets and made preparations for the seizure of the port of San Juan, in order that she might be gate- keeper on the public highway to our new possessions on the Pacific. Within six days from the time we signed the treaty, England seized by force and violence the very point now in controversy. Is not this fact indicative of her motives ? Is it not clear that her object was to obstruct our passage to our new possessions ? Hence I do not sympa- thize with that feeling which the senator expressed yesterday, that it was a pity to have a difference with a nation so friendly to us as England. Sir, I do not see the evidence of her friendship. It is not in the nature of things that she can be our friend. It is impossible she cun love us. I do not blame her for not loving us. Sir, we have wounded her vanity and humbled her pride. She can never forgive us. But for us, she would be the first power on the face of the earth. But for us, she would have the prospect of maintaining that proud position which she held for so long a period. We are in her way. She is jealous of us, and jealousy forbids the idea of friendship. Eng- land does not love us ; she cannot love us, and we do not love her either. We have some things in the past to remember that are not agreeable. She lias more in the present to humiliate her that she cannot forgive. I do not wish to administer to the feeling of jealousy and rivalry that exists between us and England. I wish to soften and allay it as much as possible ; but why close our eyes to the fact that friend- ship is impossible while jealousy exists. Hence England seizes every island in the sea and rock upon our coast where she can plant a gun to intimidate us or to annoy our commerce. Her policy has been to seize every military and naval station the world over. Why does she pay such enormous sums to keep her post at Gibraltar, except to hold it " in terrorem" over the commerce of the Mediterranean ? Why her enormous expense to maintain a garrison at the Cape of Good Hope, except to command the great passage on the way to the Indies ? Why is she at the expense to keep her position on the little barren islands, Bermuda and the miserable Bahamas, and all the other islands along our coast, except as sentinels upon our actions ? Does England hold Bermuda because of any profit it is to her ? Has she any other motive for retaining it except jealousy which stimulates hostility to us ? Is it not the case with all her possessions along our coast? Why, then, talk about the friendly bearing of England toward ua when she is extending that policy every day? New treaties of friendship, seizure of islands, and erection of new colonies in violation of her treaties, seem to be the order of the day. In view of this state of things, I am in favor of meeting England as we meet a rival ; meet her boldly, treat her justly and fairly, but make no 64 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF humiliating concession even for the sake of peace. She has as much reason to make concessions to ns as we have to make them to her. I would not willingly disturb the peace of the world ; but, sir, the Bay Island colony must be discontinued. It violates the treaty. Now, Mr. President, it is not my purpose to say another word upon our foreign relations. I have only occupied so much time as was necessary to put myself right in respect to the speech made by the senator from Delaware. He advocates one lino of policy in regard to our foreign relations, and I have deemed it my duty to advocate another. It has been my object to put the two systems by the side of each other that the public might judge between us. Mr. Mason having continued the debate on Monday, March 14th, Mr. Clayton occupied a portion of that and the succeed- ing days in a reply to Mr. Douglas to which, on Wednesday, the 17th of March, Mr. Douglas responded: MB. PBESIDENT : I had a right to expect that the senator from Delaware, in his reply, would have ventured upon an argument against the positions which I had assumed in my former speech, and which he had assailed. It will be observed, upon a close examination, that he has evaded nearly every point in controversy between us, under the cover of free indulgence in coarse personalities. I do not complain of this. He had a right to choose his own course of dis- cussion. Perhaps it was prudent in him to pursue the course which he adopted. I shall not follow his example, however. I may nv^ have the same inducements that may have prompted him. If I haft, been driven from nearly every position I had assumed in debate if nearly every material fact I had asserted had been negatived and disproved by official documents bearing my own signatures if I had bren convicted of giving one explanation of my conduct at one time, and at other times different and contradictory reasons, I might be prompted to seek refuge under personalities from the exposure that might be made. Sir, I pass that all by. The senator, as a last resort, attempted to get up unkind feelings between my political friends and myself in regard to this debate. He endeavored to show that my speech was an assault upon every sena- tor who took a different course. He went further, and charged that I, as a Presidential candidate, was pursuing this course in order to destroy and break down rivals in my own party. Sir, these insidious and disreputable assaults do not disturb my equanimity. The object is to onlist, from prejudice and unworthy motives, a sympathy in the course of discussion which he has attempted to maintain. But I appeal to the Senate if I assailed any senator upon this floor, either m regard to the Hise treaty or the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. I appeal to the Senate if I mentioned the name of any senator, or stated how any one man had voted. I did not disclose even how the vote STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 55 stood. No citizen in America would have known the vote of any senator on this floor from my speech, or from my participation in the recent discussion ; and I have yet to learn that a vindication of my own course involves an assault upon those who chose to differ with me. I have not understood the speeches of the senator from Michi- gan (Mr. Cass) and of the senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason) and of other senators, who have spoken on this question, in opposition to some of my views, as an attack on myself. It was their duty to vin- dicate their own course with the reasons which prompted them ; and it was my right and my duty to give the reasons which induced and compelled me to pursue the course that I did. I do not choose to occupy the time of the Senate in a matter that partakes so much of a personal character. But the senator cannot avail himself of that argument in vindication of his course in sup- pressing the Hise treaty. He is not supported by that array of names which he has produced for that act. No one of the senators ever did sustain him, so far as I know, in suppressing the Hise treaty. That treaty was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Se- nate were never permitted to examine it. The treaty, to this day, has been withheld from the Senate. You will have to go elsewhere than to the files of this body to find that treaty. How can it be said that senators have sustained him in his rejection of the Hise treaty, when he had deprived the Senate of an opportunity of showing whether they were for or against it ? Sir, he cannot have the benefit of those names which he has quoted to shelter him upon that point. Again, sir, he has quoted all the eminent names from General Jackson down to the present time, to support him in his refusal to accept of the exclusive control of the canal for his own country. Sir, he has no authority thus to quote them ; he has no authority for say- ing that any one of those eminent statesmen were opposed to such a privilege as the Hise treaty showed that we could have acquired. It is true that when Central America granted a privilege to a company in the Netherlands to make this canal, the administration of General Jackson, under that state of facts, were content with asserting our right to an equal participation. It is also true that when a French- man had procured a charter for a railroad across the isthmus ot Panama, and thus it had gone into the hands of foreigners, the ad- ministration of President Polk were content to assert our claim to an equal right. But it is not true that either of them ever refused to ac- cept an exclusive privilege for this country when voluntarily tendered. I am not going to occupy the attention of the Senate with an array of names for or against this proposition. I quoted no names in my first argument. I addressed myself to the merits of the question, and chose to decide it by arguments upon its merits, and not by the authority of great names. I would rather see the senator sustain his position now by arguments upon the merits of his own official action, and not by an appeal to the action of great men who lived at a different period, and whose acts were dependent upon entirely different circumstances. 56 1HE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF One word more, and I proceed to the main point at issue. Thi senator has accused me of having attempted to make this a party question. How did I attempt it? In my speech of February last, prmcij . _ that they were not sanctioned by either Whig or Democratic adminis trations upon some of the points. I did not invoke the aid of sympa thy of party. I was willing to stand upon the truth and the soundness of my own record, and leave the future to determine whether I wab right or wrong on the question. Sir, partisan politics have been introduced by the senator, and not by me. The senator, in his speech in reply to me, endeavored to show that Democratic administrations had done this, and Democratic administrations had done that, and appealed to partisan authority, to sustain himself. I admit his right to introduce party questions, and to appeal to party names as author- ity. I have not done it, and I deny his right to charge it upon me. Sir, I invoked the aid of no partisan feeling or party organization for the support of the position I maintained. But when the senator showed that a majority of my own party, on the ratification of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, had recorded their names in opposition to mine, he ought to have been content, without charging that I was making it a party question. It was not a very agreeable thing to me to be compelled to differ with three-fourths of the Senate, including a majority of my own political friends, and nothing but a sense of duty would have compelled me to take the responsibility of such a course. Now, let us go back to the real point. Why all these attempts to avoid the main issue ? In the first place the senator denied that he was responsible for not sending the Hise treaty to the Senate, inas- much as it had been rejected by Central America. Then, when I showed that the rejection of that treaty was procured by his own agent in obedience to his instructions, he denied the existence of the instructions. When I produced the instructions, and showed that the agent acted in obedience to what he believed to be their true meaning, the senator acknowledged his opposition to the treaty, and justified it upon the ground that it guaranteed the independence of Nicaragua. When I showed that he could not have objected to it on that ground, for the reason that at that very time he proposed a guaranty, in connection with Great Britain, of the independence of Nicaragua, he abandons that position, and is driven to the extremity of seeking refuge under what he chooses to consider obnoxious details. When I showed that his objections to the details could not avail him, because it was no reason for withholding the treaty according to the usages of the Senate, he then comes to the point that it was better to have a partnership privilege than an exclusive lhat brings us to the real question. Why could we not have come to it at once ? If he was right in his preference for a Europeap STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 57 partnership over an exclusive privilege to his own country, why did he not avow the fact at once and justify his conduct, instead of wast- ing the time of the Senate in requiring me to prove facts which ought to have been confessed, and which have been proven by his own written testimony, in opposition to his own denial? In his last speech the senator chose to persevere in representing me as the advocate of a canal to be made through Central America, with funds from the Treasury of the United States. I need not remind the senator that he had no authority, from anything I have said, to attribute to me such a purpose. I certainly did not assume any such position, while ray remarks were calculated to negative such an idea. My position was this : that while negotiating for the right of way for a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we should have accepted the offer to our own government of the exclusive right to control it, instead of a partnership with England and the other powers of the earth. The Hise treaty granted the privilege either to the United States or to an American company under our protec- tion, at our option. I insisted that we had the same right to take it to ourselves that we had to take it jointly with other powers. It requires no further exertion of constitutional power to execute and maintain and regulate an exclusive privilege to America than it did to execute and maintain a partnership privilege with European powers. Hence his objections upon that score must fall to the ground. The simple question was, whether it would have been wise to accept that privilege. Sir, I think it would have been. I am not going to repeat the argument I made the other day upon that point. If it had been given to us, we could have opened the canal to the world upon sucli terms as we deemed proper. We could have withdrawn the use of it whenever a nation failed to respect our rights. It would have been a bond of peace instead of being an apple of discord between us and other nations; because when you bring all the great Powers of the earth into partnership, constant disputes will arise as to the nature and extent of the rights of the respective parties. The history of these negotiations proves this fact. But, sir, let me ask the senator what he has gained by his rejec- tion of the Hise treaty? He has given the world to understand by his speeches that he has accomplished two great objects: the one to open a canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans the other to put a stop to British encroachments in Central America. Has he accomplished either of those objects? I ask what privilege he has gained to make a canal? He has not even secured the right of way for a canal, either jointly or separately. He is responsible for having defeated the project of a canal between the two oceans. He refused the grant of the right of way, because it gave the righ.t to control the work exclusively to his own country. The treaty which he caused to be made, failed to receive the sanction of the Senate. Thus we are left without any right of way without any charter, right, or privilege. Instead of accomplishing that object, he is responsible for 68 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP it* defeat. All that he has to boast of is, that he deprived his own country of an inestimable privilege, the necessity and importance of which are now conceded on all hands. What, then, have we gained by his diplomacy ? Why, sir, after having failed in getting the privilege of making the catial, either jointly or separately, he makes a treaty with Great Britain by which, if we hereafter secure it, the privilege is given to Great Britain as well as to ourselves. The Clayton and Bulwer treaty provides that any right of way or communication which may be secured at any future time, shall be open alike to England and the United States, and under the joint control and protection of the two powers. We have a treaty with England about a canal in Central America, but we have none with any of the Central American States. Let me ask, then, how much have we gained ? Has he expelled the British from Central America by his treaty? What inch of country have they given up. What right have they abandoned ? What functionary have they withdrawn? Where is the evidence that you have driven the British from Central America? Are they not still in the full enjoyment of their protectorate upon the Mosquito coast? Have-you driven them from the Balize? The senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass), and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations (Mr. Mason), in their speeches, have maintained that the Clayton and Bulwer treaty would fairly include the Balize as a part of Central America. But the senator from Dela- ware, while acting as the secretary of state, gave a construction to that treaty which excludes the Balize. The senator, therefore, is estopped from saying that he has expelled the British from the Balize. The fact shows that he has not driven the British p rotecto- rate from the coast. We find that instead of leaving Central America, the British have not only established a colony at the Bay Islands, but, if the newspaper information received by the last steamers can be credited, they have bombarded the towns upon the main land, and taken forcible possession of a part of the state of Honduras. Then I repeat the question to the senator, what has he gained ? I can tell him what has resulted from his negotiation. He has recognized the right of Great Britain and all European powers to interfere with the affairs of the American states. He has recognized that right by a treaty ; and he has guaranteed to England that we will use our good offices to enable them to enter into arrangements with these Central American states. He has excluded the idea that the question of tho Central American states is an American question, and by his nego- tiation has opened it as a European question. In other words, he has, by his treaty, abolished what is known as the Monroe doctrint, with reference to a large portion of the American continent. This brings me to the examination of another question. The sena- tor from Delaware chose to arraign me upon that portkti of my speech, in which I stated that I was unwilling to give a pledge never to annex any more ter-itory to the United States. He then went on STEP II EN A. DOUGLAS. 59 t* argue against annexation, said we were pledged, and that the pledge given was correct, and attempted to vindicate it. He ar- raigned me for having said that such a treaty could not be enforced through all time to come. I explained to him that my idea was that the growth of this country was so great and so rapid that the bar- riers of any treaty would be irresistibly broken through by natural causes, over which we had no control ; and hence that the treaty ought not. to have been made. He told me that the explanation made it worse, and that he would show that the doctrine involved moral turpitude : that he was amazed and grieved that any one here from this high place should proclaim such a sentiment. Sir, I will proceed to show my authority on that point, which I think he will be compelled to respect. In taking that position, I only reiterated the opinions expressed by the late secretary of state, and now senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett), in his letter to the Comte de Sarliges, a few months ago, in respect to the island of Cuha; and when the senator from Delaware arraigns me for utter- ing sentiments involving a want of respect for treaty stipulations, I will-turn him over to the senator from Massachusetts and to ex-Pre- si dent Fillmore, and allow them to settle that issue between them- selves. I wish to call the attention of the senator to the letter of Mr. Everett to the Oomte de Sartiges. In that letter you find the following passage in regard to a proposed convention stipulating that we would never annex Cuba ; " The convention would be of no value unless it were lasting ; according y its terms express a perpetuity of purpose and obligation. Now, it may well be doubted whether the Constitution of the United States would allow the treaty- making power to impose a permanent disability on the American government for all coming time, and prevent it, under any future change of circumstances, from doing what has been so often done in times past. In 1803 the United States purchased Louisiana of France, and in 1819 they purchased Florida of Spain. It is not within the competence of the treaty-making power in 1862 effectually to bind the government in all its branches; and for all coming time not to make a similar purchase of Cuba." The senator from Delaware will see that the late secretary of state, Mr. Everett, by the direction of President Fillmore, has pronounced such a guaranty to be a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and the exercise of an authority not conferred by that instru- ment. Sir, if the Constitution gave no authority to make a pledge by this government that we will never annex Cuba, I suppose it does not authorize a pledge never to annex Central America. The con- stitu'ional objection applies to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, in re- lation to Central America, with the same force that it did to the proposed convention in respect to Cuba. They take higher ground than I did. I was not willing to do that which would involve a breach of faith in the progress of events. But I did not go so far as to deny the constitutional power to make such a treaty. And, there- fore, I ask the senator why he did not arraign President Fillmore- 1 -' 60 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF why he did not arraign the late secretary of state, Mr. Everett, for uttering those monstrous sentiments, instead of hurling his anathe- mas upon my head, as if I had been the only man in America who ever ventured to proclaim such opinions? According to the opin- ions of President Fillmore, and his secretary of state, as promulgated in Mr. Everett's celebrated letter, and applauded by the almost una- nimous voice of the American people, the Clayton and Bulwer treaty was a palpable violation of the Constitution of the United States. But Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Everett were not content with denying the power of this government, under the Constitution, to enter into this treaty stipulation. They deny its propriety, its justice, its wis- dom, as well as the right to make it. I will read a passage upon this point : " There is another strong objection to the proposed agreement. Among the oldest traditions of the Federal Government is an aversion to political alliances with European powers. In his memorable Farewell Address, President Wash- ington says : ' The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political con- nection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.' President Jefferson, in his inaugural address, in 1801, warned the country against entangling alliances. This expression, now become proverbial, was unquestionably used by Mr. Jef- ferson in reference to the alliance with France of 1778, an alliance at the time of incalculable benefit to the United States, but which in less than twenty years came near involving us in the wars of the French Revolution, and laid the foun- dation of heavy claims upon Congress not extinguished to the present day. It is a significant coincidence that the particular provision of the alliance which occasioned these evils was that under which France called upon us to aid her in defending her West Indian possessions against England. Nothing less than the unbounded influence of Washington rescued the Union from the perils of that crisis and preserved our neutrality." As the senator from Delaware is fond of the authority of great names, I not only furnish him with the name of the late secretary of state, and that of the late President of the United States, upon the points to which I have referred, but I have the authority of these gentlemen for saying that his doctrine with regard to Central America is in violation of the solemn warnings of the Father of his Country, and in derogation of the protests of Mr. Jefferson, repeated ovei and over again during his eventful life. I find that the late secretary of state has again, in another passage, summed up the objections which I entertained to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, and 1 will call the attention of the Senate to it. It is this : " But the President has a graver objection to entering into the proposed con- vention. He has no wish to disguise the feeling, that the compact, although equal in its terms, would be very unequal in substance France and England, by entering into it, would disable themselves from obtaining possession of an island remote from their seats of government, belonging to another European power, whose natural right to possess it must always be as good as their own - -a distant island, in another hemisphere, and one which by no ordinary or peaceful course of things ould ever belong to either of them. If the present STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 61 barance of powei in Europe should be broken np ; if Spain should become tra- able to maintain the island in'hcr possession, and France and England should be engaged in a death-struggle with each other, Cuba might then be the prize of the victor. Till these events all take place, the President does not see how Cuba can belong to any European power but Spain. The United States, on the other hand, would, by the proposed convention, disable themselves from making an acquisition which might take place without any disturbance of ex- isting foreign relations, and in the natural order of things." If the prosposed guaranty never to annex Cuba was not reciprocal as between the United States and England, how is it that it can be said that a similar guaranty respecting Central America was reci- procal ? Every argument urged by the late secretary of state against reciprocity in one, applies with equal force to the other. It may be said that Cuba stands at the entrance of the Gulf of Mexico; but it can be said with equal truth that Central America is upon the public highway to our Pacific possessions. Both stand as gates to this pub- lic highway, and every argument urged in relation to the one is equally applicable to the other. Now 1 have to quote the late secretary of state and President Fillmore against the senator from Delaware on another point. "When I remarked that the history of this country showed that our growth and expansion could not be resisted, and would inevitably break through whatever barriers might be erected by the present genera- tion to restrain our future progress, the senator from Delaware as- sumed the right to rebuke me for uttering sentiments implying per- fidy and moral turpitude. He desired to know if sentiments of that kind were to be tolerated in the American Senate ? Let him hear his friend from Massachusetts on that point, in the same docu- ment : " That a convention such as is proposed would be a transitory arrangement, sure to be swept away by the irresistible tide of affairs in a new country, is. to the apprehension of the President, too obvious to require a labored argument. The project rests on principles applicable, if at all, to Europe, where interna- tional relations are in their basis of great antiquity, slowly modified for the most part in the progress of time and events ; and not applicable to America, which, but lately a waste, is filling up with intense rapidity, and adjusting, on natural principles, those territorial relations which on the first discovery of the continent were in a good degree fortuitous." .... " But whatever may be thought of these last suggestions, it would seem im- possible for any one who reflects upon the events glanced at in this note to mistake the law of American growth and progress, or think it can ultimately arrested by a convention like that proposed. In the judgment of the Presi- dent, it would be as easy to throw a dam from Cape Florida to Cuba, in the hope of stopping the flow of the Gulf Stream, as to attempt, by a compact like this, to fix the fortunes of Cuba, now and for hereafter, or, as expressed in the French text of the convention, ' pour le present comme pour 1'avenir,' that is for all coming time." There the senator is told that such a stipulation might be applica- ble to European politics, but would be unsuited and unfitted to Ame- rican affairs ; that he has mistaken entirely the system / policy, 62 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF which should be applied to our own country, that he has predicated his action upon those old, antiquated notions which belong to the stationary and retrograde movements of the Old World, and find no sympathy in the youthful, uprising aspirations of the American heart. I indorse fully the sentiment. I insist that there is a difference, a wide difference, between the system of policy which shouid be pursued in America and that which would be applicable to Europe. Europe is antiquated, decrepit, tottering on the verge of dissolution. When you visit her, the objects which enlist your highest admiration are the relics of past greatness ; the broken columns erected to departed power. It is one vast graveyard, where you find here a tomb indi- cating the burial of the arts ; there a monument marking the spot where liberty expired; another to the memory of a great man, whose place has never been filled. The choicest products of her classic soil consists in relics, which remain as sad memorials of de- parted glory and fallen greatness ! They bring up the memories of the dead, but inspire no hope for the living! Here everything is fresh, blooming, expanding, and advancing. We wish a wise, prac- tical policy adapted to our condition and position. Sir, the states- man who would shape the policy of America by European models, lias failed to perceive the antagonism which exists in the relative position, history, institutions in everything pertaining to the Old and the New World. The senator from Delaware seems always to have had his back turned upon his own country, and his eye intently fixed upon Europe as the polar star of all his observations. If it would not be deemed an indelicate interposition between the senator from Delaware and his friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett), I should be ; nclined to say that the criticism of the lare secretary of state, although not in- tended for the senator from Delaware, is strictly applicable to his diplomacy, and fully deserved. I shall not go into the discussion of that question, however. I deny the right of the senator from Dela- ware to come back at me on that point. I shall certainly turn him over to his friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett), because he will not dare to accuse him of political prejudices and partisan feelings. He has said severer things of the senator's diplomacy than I thought the rules of the Senate would authorize me to indulge in. The ex- President of the United States has sanctioned them, and now I think I am at liberty to refer to them, for if it were not within the rules of courtesy and diplomacy, they would not be sent here. But, sir, I may be permitted to add that the nation has sanctioned them too ; for I am not aware that a State paper was ever issued iu America that received a heartier response in most of its principles, than the letter of the late secretary of state to the Comte de Sartiges, to which I have referred. Sir, if he had done nothing else to render his administration of the State Department illustrious, his name would live in all coming time in that diplomatic letter, as one who could appreciate the spirit of the age, and perceive the destiny of the nation. No document has ever received such a universal sanction STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 63 of the American people as the one to which I have referred, con- demning and repudiating the diplomacy of the senator from Dela- ware in relation to the American continent. Mr. President, I have not much more to add. The senator has arraigned me also for having attempted to arouse unkind feelings be- tween the United States and England. I deny that the arraignment is just. I have attempted no such thing. I have never attempted to foster jealousies or unkind feelings between our own country and any other. I have attempted to plant our relations on amicable terms, by speaking the truth plainly as we and they know it to exist. The remarks that I have made about friendly relations between' the two countries, were drawn out by his statement that England was known to be so " friendly" to us. I said to him I did not think the friendly relations of England constituted any claim upon our gratitude. I have seen no evidence of that friendship. I said frankly I did not think that England loved us, and it was useless for us to pretend that we loved her. The history of the two countries proves it. The daily action of the two countries proves it. England is spending her millions to maintain her fortifications all along our coast ; at the Ber- mudas, the Bahamas, and at Jamaica, and on every rock and barren waste along the American coast. What does she keep them up for ? Does she make money out of them ? Why, you all know that they are a source of unbounded expenditure to her. Does it extend her com- merce ? Does it employ her shipping ? Not at all. Why does she keep them ? In order to point her guns at America. Well, if she is so friendly to us, and we are so friendly to her, what necessity is there for pointing her cannon all the time at us ? And if these are evidences of friendship, why do we not reciprocate it by sending over a few cannon and planting them on every little island and rock near her coast ? If we were to seize upon every military and naval position, and expend millions in keeping up fortifications all along her coast, would that be any evidence of friendly feeling on our part toward England ? I do not see it. Again : the moment it was discovered that we were to acquire California as a consequence of the Mexican war, England sent her armed ships and seized possession of the town of San Juan, and I have the authority of the senator from Delaware for saying there is reason to believe that the act was done out of hostility to the Amer- ican government. Why did she want the town of San Juan ? Sim- ply for the reason that by the Mexican treaty our possessions had been enlarged upon the Pacific coast, and it evidently became necessary, in order to preserve this Union and maintain our commerce, that we should have the line of intercommunication between the two oceans so as to connect the Atlantic and Pacific States together ; and there- fore, in order to cut off our right of way, in order to establish a toll gate upon our public highway, she seized possession of that point as Ihe one from which she could annoy us most. The senator will not pretend that he believes that act originated 64 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF in friendly feelings toward ns on the part of England. I have Lis authority in his public documents for saying that he believes it ori- ginated in motives of jealousy and hostility. The object was, not to advance her own interest, not to increase her own commerce, not to extend her own power, but to restrain, fetter, and cripple our ener- gies and our power. Are these acts evidence of friendship on her part toward us, and are we so constituted that we feel grateful for them ? Sir, let us not play the hypocrite upon this subject. Let us speak out the naked truth, plainly and boldly. We feel that this seizure of every rock and island upon our coast, and converting them into garrisoned fortresses, with guns to bear on American commerce and American interests, are no evidence of friendship. "We feel that these attempts to surround and fetter us, and hem us in, are evidences of hostility, which it is our duty plainly to see and boldly to resist. Sir, the way to establish friendly relations with England is, to let her know that we are not so stupid as not to understand her policy, nor so pusillanimous as to submit to her aggressions. The moment she understands that we mean what we say, and will carry out any principle we profess, she will be very careful not to create any point of difference between us. It is want of candor and frankness that keeps the two nations in conflict with each other. I say, that as long as this policy of hemming us in, and fettering us, and trying to re- strain our growth and curtail our power continues, we cannot feel friendly and kindly toward her ; and so long as she persists in that policy, we ought not to believe that she feels kindly toward us. If we tell her so, she will do one of two things ; either abandon her aggressive course, or avow her hostility ; and of all things let us know whether she is our friend or our enemy. Therefore, I will repeat very frankly, that it is useless to endeavor to conceal the fact that there are jealousies between us and England growing out of rival interests, and that her policy has for its aim to restrain our power rather than increasing her own. Our policy is, to enhance our own power and greatness, without attempting to restrain hers. Ours is generous, honorable, and justifiable.; hers is illiberal, unkind, unjust, and we ought to tell her so. I believe, Mr. President, I have said all I have to say upon this question. My object has been simply to reply to the points raised by the senator in his speeeh. I do not wish to travel over the ground again. There are many other points in the discussion into which I could have gone. There are many other positions that the docu- ments which have been lately published would furnish me ample material for prolonging the discussion, but I do not wish to occupy the time of the Senate. I only wish to show that the real points at issue are : first, that the senator preferred a partnership with Eng- land to an exclusive privilege to his own country for the great inter- oceanic canal. Secondly, that he believes in the policy of pledging this country never to annex any more territory in all time to come. I repudiate that policy. These are the main points between us, and STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 65 the last point, in the course of the discussion, seems to have become the material one. He is opposed to all further annexation, and wishes to make treaties now to restrain us in all time to come from extend- ing our possessions. I do not wish to annex any more territory now. But I avow freely that I foresee the day when you will be compelled to do it, and cannot help it, and when treaties cannot prevent the consumma- tion of the act. Hence my policy would be to hold the control of our own action, give no pledges upon the subject, but bide our time, and be at liberty to do whatever our interest, our honor, and duty may require when the time for action may come. An old, decrepit nation, tottering and ready to fall to pieces, may well seek for pledges and guaranties from a youthful, vigorous, growing power, to protect her old age. But a young nation, with all her freshness, vigor, and youth, desires no limits fixed to her greatness, no boundaries to her future growth. She desires to be left free to exercise her own powers, exert her own energies, according to her own sense of duty in all coming time. This, sir, is the main issue between us, and I am ready to submit it to the Senate and to the country. [Senator Butler, in continuation of the debate on the same day, having assailed some of the positions maintained by Senator Douglas, and pronounced a eulogy upon England and her literature, Senator Douglas replied :] MR. PRESIDENT : In reply to the senator from South Carolina, I wish to state to him, without going into the controversy as to which is the right policy for the President when a treaty contains objects desirable and details obnoxious, that he will find an example in point in the case of the Mexican treaty containing provisions which the President and Senate both regarded as unconstitutional, yet the President sent the treaty here, and pointed out the obnoxious parts. The senator and those acting with him modified it, perfected it, voted for it, and ratified it in opposition to my vote, and it became the law of the land. It is a case precisely in point, and I merely mention it, and leave that part of the question. MR. BUTLER. I think the Mexican treaty was sent as an entirety. We amended it no doubt, but it was sent as an entirety by President Polk, saying that Mr. Trist had usurped power which he did not possess. It was exactly one of those instances in which the treaty had been made, and he asked the Senate to adopt it, but he sent it in as an entire thing. MR. DOUGLAS. The President sent it in, stating that there were certain provisions in it which must be striken out before it could bf sanctioned by him. But now to another point : The gentleman com- mented upon a remark that I had made, and which also was con- tained in the letter of the late secretary of state (Mr. Everett), and seems to suppose that we were advocating the doctrine of not obr berving the faith of treaties. That did not put us before the country in the t) ue position which we have assumed. My position is this . 66 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF that we should never make a treaty which we cannot carry into full execution; that good faith requires us not to make a treaty unless we intend to execute it, nor make one which we probably cannot be able to execute. My argument, therefore, was an argument against the making of treaties improperly upon points that were unnecessary, and which could not be carried into effect, and not in favor of violat- ing any treaties that had been made. It was an argument in favor of the sanctity of treaties ; and those who make treaties profusely and recklessly, binding us for all time to come without reference to the ability in future to execute them, are the ones who ought to be arraigned, if anybody should be, for not being faithful to treaty stipulations. I wish, therefore, to make this explanation, in order that no misapprehension as to the position which I have assumed may be entertained in any quarter. - The senator referred to a remark of mine in regard to the decay and decline of European powers, and made it the excuse for a eulo- gium upon England as the source from which we have derived every- thing that is valuable in science and art ; in literature, law, and politics. When I am reminded of the greatness of England, as connected with her statesmen and orators, and the illustrious names of Hamp- den and Sydney are pointed to as examples, I cannot fail to remem- ber I can never forget that the same England which gave them birth, and should have felt a mother's pride and love in their virtues and services, persecuted her noble sons to the dungeon and the scaffold, and attempted to brand their names with infamy in all com- ing time, for the very causes which have endeared them to us and filled the republican world with their fame ! Nor am I unmindful of the debt of gratitude which the present generation owes to the brilliant galaxy of great names whose fortune it was to have been born and to have suffered in England, and whose labors and re- searches in political, legal, and physical science in literature, poetry, and art, have added so much lustre- on their native land. Borne pursued their labors under the protection and patronage of the Eng- lish government others in defiance of her tyranny and vengeance. I award all credit and praise to the authors of all the blessings and advantages we have inherited from that source. I cannot go as far as the senator from South Carolina. I cannot recognize England as our mother. If so, she is and ever has been a cruel and unnatural mother. I do not find the evidence of her affec- tion in her watchfulness over our infancy, nor in her joy and pride at our ever-blooming prosperity and swelling power, since we as- sumed an independent position. The proposition is not historically true. Our ancestry were not all of English origin. They were of Scotch, Irish, German, French, and of Norman descent as well as English. In short, we inherit from every branch of the Caucasian race. It has been our aim and policy to proiit by their example to reject their errors and follies and to retain, imitate, cultivate, perpetuate all that was valuable and desir- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 67 able. So far as any portion of the credit may be due t< England and Englishmen and much of it is let it be freely awarded and recorded in her ancient archives, which seem to have been long since forgotten by her, and the memory of which her present policy toward us is not well calculated to revive. But, that the senator from South Carolina, in view of our present position and of his location in this Confederacy, should indulge in glowing and eloquent eulogiums of England for the blessings and benefits she has conferred and is still lavishing upon us, and urge these considerations in palliation of the wrongs she is daily perpetrating, is to me amazing. He speaks in terms of delight and gratitude of the copious and refreshing streams which English literature and science are pouring into our country and diffusing throughout the land. Is he not aware that nearly every English book circulated and read in this country contains lurking* and insidious slanders and libels upon the character of our people and the institutions and policy of our government ? Does he not know that abolitionism, which has so seriously threatened the peace and safety of this republic, had its origin in England, and has been in- corporated into the policy of that government for the purpose of operating upon the peculiar institutions of some of the States of this confederacy, and thus render the Union itself insecure ? Does she not keep her missionaries perambulating this country, delivering lectures and scattering broadcast incendiary publications, designed to incite prejudices, hate, and strife between the different sections of this Union ? I had supposed that South Carolina and the other slaveholding States of this confederacy had been sufficiently refreshed and enlightened by a certain species of English literature, designed to stir up treason and insurrection around his own fireside, to have excused the senator from offering up praises and hosannas to our English mother ! (Applause in the galleries.) Is not the heart, in- tellect, and press of England this moment employed in flooding America with this species of " English literature ?" Even the wives and daughters of the nobility and the high officers of government have had the presumption to address the women of America, and in the name of philanthropy appeal to them to engage in the treasonable plot against the institutions and government of their own choice in their native land, while millions are being expended to distribute u Uncle Tom's Cabin" throughout the world, with the view of com- bining the fanaticism, ignorance, and hatred of all the nations of the earth in a common crusade against the peculiar institutions of the State and section of this Union represented by the senator from South Carolina ; and he unwittingly encourages it, by giving vent to his rapturous joy over these copious and refreshing streams with which England is irrigating the American intellect. (Renewed Mp- plause in the galleries.) THE PRESIDING OFFICER (MR. RUSK in the chair). There must be order in the galleries. If there is not, they will be ordered to b* cleared. 68 THE 1IFE AND SPEECHES OF MR. ADAMS. I desire to ask that the galleries may be cleared if such an outrage occurs again. MR. DOUGLAS. I hope it will be done. It is manifestly improper to have such proceedings in the galleries. THE PEESIDINQ OFFICER. It certainly will be done, if the same thing occurs again. MR. BUTLER. I have but one word to say in reply to the senator from Illinois. When I spoke of our gratitude to England, I did not allude to the sentimental kind of literature to which the senator re- fers. I thought I indicated the authors of the literature to which I referred ; and I do not thank the senator for going out of his way, and indicating impure streams, as if they had a connection with my remark, for there are impure streams flowing from other sources be- sides Great Britain ; and there are impure examples in other parts of the world besides Great Britain. When I spoke of it, I spoke in emphatic terms of those writers who have poured upon us what the senator himself will not deny to be refreshing streams ; what I hope he will regard as refreshing to him, and to the intelligence of the age. I named authors. Will he dissent from Burke ? Will he dis- went from Chatham ? Will he dissent from Shakspeare ? Will he dissent from the literature, and the eloquence, and the example, and the tone of feeling of Hampden and Sidney ? Sir, when I spoke in the spirit of a man judging the literature of England, I did not ex- pect to be diverted by this miserable allusion to "Uncle Tom's Cabin." (Laughter.) That may do for an ad captandum, but it is not a manly mode of meeting what I said in relation to the literature of England. MB. DOUGLAS. I spoke in terms of reverence and respect of the monuments and tombstones which were found in England, to the great men, to their patriotism, to their legal learning and science und poetry, and all that was great and noble and admirable. I spoke of them with respect as a matter of the past ; but, sir, I do not think it was a legitimate argument to go back two or three centuries past to justify English aggressions in the present upon this continent ; and when I heard the laudations and eulogiums upon past English' history in palliation of present English enormity, with commenda- tions upon the refreshing streams which she is now pouring into this country to enlighten our people, I thought it was right and proper to remind the senator himself of some of the present conduct of England, which should be borne in mind when he pronounced eulogies upon her conduct. I am talking of the present and its bearing upon the future. It is that to which I am directing .ny remarks, and not td the past. MR. BUTLER. I should like to know how England is to be re- gponsible for " Uncle Tom's Cabin." Is England the indorser of it? I have alluded to the masterly intellects of England, and not to the spurious, miserable, sickly sentimentality of the day. If such litera- ture as that to which he alludes is to be taken as a standard, England STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 69 fs not the only place in which it is found. She is no more responsi- ble for that miserable cant in relation to this subject than others. But with regard to England, in all our commercial relations, in all our connection with her as a civilized nation, I presume the honor- able senator would not be disposed to postpone her to any other any other nation. MR. DOUGLAS. I would neither postpone nor give her the prefer- ence. I have no eulogium to make upon her. I will treat her as our duty as a nation requires. MR. BUTLER. I have pronounced no other eulogium than history yields to her literature, commerce and civilization, and we are bound to maintain our relations with England if we intend to be a civil- ized nation ourselves. I made no allusion to the kind of literature which the senator has brought in debate. We can find this miserable sentimentality anywhere, and there are many other things which the senator might as well have brought in, which would have been as pertinent to the debate. He had better get up a discussion of the Maine liquor law. (Laughter.) I do not see why he could not. It has about as much connection with the question as the other. MR. DOUGLAS. I have introduced into this discussion none of these extraneous topics. I have contented myself with replying when others have brought them forward and thrust them upon me. My object has been to confine the debate to the points at issue be- tween the senator from Delaware and myself, and I have not de- parted from that line except when compelled to do so by the remarks of others. The discussion having been continued on subsequent days by Mr. Clayton and Mr. Everet*, Mr. Douglas closed the debate with the following remarks : MR. PRESIDENT : I do not intend to prolong the discussion ; but I think it due to myself and the occasion to make a word of comment upon one remark which fell from the eminent senator from Massa- chusetts. I understood him to concur in the opinion expressed by the senator from Delaware, that his letter in relation to Cuba, which proclaimed the principle that no pledge was to be made by this gov- ernment in regard to the future condition of that island, was not applicable to the Central American states. I cannot consent, even for the sake of harmonizing the political relations of those two sena- tors, to be placed in a false position. I am not willing, even by their concurrence, to be put in a position of having made a misapplication of that letter. The main point to which I referred in the letter of Mr. Everett to the Oomte de Sartiges was the denial of any consti- tutional power in this government to make the pledge, that in all coming time w would not acquire any territory which, in the course 70 THE LIFE A.ND SPEECHES OF of events, might become desirable and necessary. If it was not Com- petent under the Constitution to make such a stipulation in refeunce to the island of Cuba, where does he find the constitutional authv rity to make it in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty in respect to Cei tral America ? If there be a want of constitutional power in the one case, does not the same absence of authority exist in the other, ? grossly misrepresented, in which the action of the committee is grossly perverted, in which our motives are arraigned and our characters calumniated. And, sir, what is more, I find that there was a postscript added to the address, published that very morning, in which the principal amendment reported by the committee was set out, and then coarse epithets applied to me by name. Sir, had I known those facts at the time that I granted that act of indulgence, I should have responded to the request of those senators in such terms as their conduct deserved, so far as the rules of the Senate and a respect for my own character would have permitted me to do. In order to show the character of this document, of which I shall have much to say in the course of my argument, I will read certain pas- sages: " We arraign -this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge ; as a criminal Jtrayal of precious rights ; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude i-oma vast unoccupied region emigrants from the Old World, and free laborers from our own States and convert it into a dreary region of despotism .inhabited by masters and slavea." STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 73 A SENA.TOR. By whom is the address signed ? MR. DOUGLAS. It is signed " S. P. Chase, senator from Ohio , Charles Suraner, senator from Massschusetts ; J. K. Giddings and Edward Wade, representatives from Ohio ; G-errit Smith, represen- tative from New York; Alexander De Witt, representative from Massachusetts ;" including, as I understand, all the abolition party in Congress. Then, speaking of the Committee on Territories, these confederate? use this language : " The pretences, therefore, that the Territory, covered by the positive prohi- bition of 1820, sustains a similar relation to slavery with that acquired from Mexico, covered by no prohibition except that of disputed constitutional or Mexican law, and that the compromises of 1850 require the incorporation of the pro-slavery clauses of the Utah and New Mexico Bill in the Nebraska Act, are mere inventions, designed to cover up from public reprehension meditated bad faith." "Mere inventions to cover up bad faith." Again : " Servile demagogues may tell you that the Union can be maintained onl) by submitting to the demands of slavery." Then there is a postscript added, equally offensive to myself, in which I am mentioned by name. The address goes on to make an appeal to the legislatures of the different States, to public meetings, and to ministers of the Gospel in their pulpits, to interpose and arrest the vile proceeding which is about to be consummated by the senators who are thus denounced. That address, sir, bears date Sunday, January 22, 1854. Thus it appears that, on the holy Sab- bath, while other senators were engaged in divine worship, these abolition confederates were assembled in secret conclave, plotting by what means they should deceive the people of the United States, and prostrate the character of brother senators. This was done 'on the Sabbath day, and by a set of politicians, to advance their own po- litical and ambitious purposes, in the name of our holy religion. But this is not all. It was understood from newspapers that reso- lutions were pending before the legislature of Ohio proposing to express their opinions upon this subject. It was necessary for these confederates to get up some exposition of the question by which they might facilitate the passage of the resolutions through that legisla ture. Hence you find that, on the same morning that this documen* appears over the names of these confederates in the abolition organ of this city, the same document appears in the New York papers certainly in the "Tribune," "Times" and "Evening Post" in which it is stated, by authority, that it is " signed by the senators and a majority of the representatives from the State of Ohio " a statement which I have every reason to believe was utterly false, and known to be so at the time that these confederates appended it to the address. It was necessary, in order to carry o-it this work of 74 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF deception, and to hasten the action of the Ohio legislature, under a misapprehension of the real facts, to state that it was signed, not only by the abolition confederates, but by the whole Whig repre- sentation, and a portion of the Democratic representation m the other \>use from the State of Ohio. MB. CHASE. Mr. President ME DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I do not yield the floor. A senator who has violated all the rules of courtesy and propriety, who showed a consciousness of the character of the act he was doing by conceal- ing from me all knowledge of the fact who came to me with a smiling face, and the appearance of friendship, even after that docu- ment had been uttered wh* could get up in the Senate and appeal to my courtesy in order to get time to give the document a wider circulation before its infamy could be exposed; such a senator has no right to my courtesy upon this floor. MR. CHASE. Mr. President, the senator mistates the facts MB. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I decline to yield the floor. MB. CHASE. And I shall make my denial pertinent when the time comes. THE PBESIDENT. Order I MB. DOUGLAS. Sir, if the senator does interpose, in violation of the rules of the Senate, a denial of the fact, it may be that I shall be able to nail that denial, as I shall the statements in this address which are over his own signature, as a wicked fabrication, and prove It by the solemn legislation of this country. MB. CHASE. 1 call the senator to order. THE PBESIDENT. The senator from Illinois is certainly out of order. MB. DOUGLAS. Then I will only say that I shall confine myself to this document, and prove its statements to be false by the legisla- tion of the country. Certainly that is in order. MB. CHASE. You cannot do it. MB. DOUGLAS. The argument of this manifesto is predicated upon the assumption that the policy of the fathers of the republic was to prohibit slavery in all the territory ceded by the old States to the Union, and made United States territory, for the purpose of being organized into new States. I take issue upon that statement. Such was not the practice in the early history of the government. It is true that in the territory northwest of the Ohio River slavery was prohibited by the Ordinance of 1787 ; but it is also true that in the territory south of the Ohio River, slavery was permitted and pro- tected ; and it is also true that in the organization of the Territory of Mississippi, in 1798, the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787 were applied to it, with the exception of the sixth article, which prohibited slavery. Then, sir, you find upon the statute-books under Washing- ton and the early Presidents, provisions of law showing that in the southwestern territories the right to hold slaves was clearly implied or recognized, while in the northwest territories it was prohibited. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 75 The only conclusion that can be fairly and honestly drawn from that legislation is, that it was the policy of the fathers of the republic to prescribe a line of demarkation between free Territories and slave- holding Territories by a natural or a geographical line, being sure to make that line correspond, as near as might be, to the laws of cli- mate, of production, and all those other causes that would control the institutions and make it either desirable or undesirable to the people inhabiting the respective Territories. Sir, I wish you to bear in mind, too, that this geographical line, established by the founders of the republic between free Territories and slave Territories, extended as far westward as our territory then reached ; the object being to avoid all agitation upon the slavery question by settling that question forever, as far as our territory extended, which was then to the Mississippi River. When, in 1803, we acquired from France the territory known as I ouisiana, it became necessary to legislate for the protection of the inhabitants residing therein. It will be seen, by looking into the bill establishing the Territorial government in 1805 for the Territory of New Orleans, embracing the same country now known as the State of Louisiana, that the Ordinance of 1787 was expressly ex- tended to that Territory, except the sixth section, which prohibited slavery. That act implied that the Territory of New Orleans was to be a slaveholding Territory by making that exception in the law. But, sir, when they came to form what was then called the Territory of Louisiana, subsequently known as the Territory of Missouri, north of the thirty-third parallel, they used different language. They did not extend to it any of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787. They first provided that it should be governed by lawa made by the governor and the judges, and, when in 1812 Congress gave to that Territory, under the name of the Territory of Missouri, a Territorial government, the people were allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. Now what is the inference from that legisla- tion ? That slavery was, by implication, recognized south of the thirty- third parallel; and north of that the people were left to exer- cise their own judgment and do as they pleased upon the subject, without any implication for or against the existence of the institu- tion. This continued to be the condition of the country in the Missouri Territory up to 1820, when the celebrated act which is now called the Missouri Compromise was passed. Slavery did not exist in, nor was it excluded from, the country now known as Nebraska. There was no code of laws upon the subject of slavery either way : First, for the reason that slavery had never been introduced into Louisiana, and established by positive enactment. It had grown up there by a sort of common law, and been supported and protected. When a common law grows up, when an institution becomes established under a usage, it carries it so far as that usage actually goes, and no 70 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF further. If it had been established by direct enactment, it might have carried it so far as the political jurisdiction extended ; but, be that as it may, by the act of 1812, creating the Territory of Missouri, that Territory was allowed to legislate upon the subject of slavery as it saw proper, subject only to the limitations which I have stated ; and the country not inhabited or thrown open to settlement was set apart as Indian country, and rendered subject to Indian laws. Hence, the local legislation of the State of Missouri did not reach into that Indian country, but was excluded from it by the Indian code and Indian laws. The municipal regulations of Missouri could not go there until the Indian title had been extinguished, and the country thrown open to settlement. Such being the case, the only legislation in existence in Nebraska Territory at the time that the Missouri act passed, namely, the 6th of March, 1820, was a provision, in effect, that the people should be allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery. The Territory of Missouri having been left in that legal condition, positive opposition was made to the bill to organize a State govern- ment, with a view to its admission into the Union ; and a senator from my State, Mr. Jesse B. Thomas, introduced an amendment, known as the eighth section of the bill, in which it was provided that slavery should be prohibited north of 36 30' north latitude, in all the country which we had acquired from France. What was the object of the enactment of that eighth section ? Was it not to go back to the original policy of prescribing boundaries to the limitation of free institutions, and of slave institutions, by a geographical line, in order to avoid all controversy in Congress upon the subject? Hence they extended that geographical line through all the territory purchased from France, which was as far as our possessions then reached. It was not simply to settle the question on that piece of country, but it was to carry out a great principle, by extending that dividing line as far west as our territory went, and running it onward on each new acquisition of territory. True, the express enactment of the eighth section of the Missouri act, now called the Missouri Compro- mise, only covered the territory acquired from France; but the principles of the act, the objects of its adoption, the reasons in its support, required that it should be extended indefinitely westward, so far as our territory might go, whenever new purchases should be made. Thus stood the question up to 1845, when the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas passed. There was inserted in that joint re- solution a provision, suggested in the first instance and brought be- fore the House of Representatives by myself, extending the Missouri Compromise line indefinitely westward through the Territory of Texas. Why* did I bring forward that proposition? Why did the Congress of the United States adopt it ? Not because it was of the least practical importance, so far as the question of slavery within the limits of Texas was concerned ; for no man ever dreamed that it STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 77 had any practical effect there. Then why was it brought forward? It was for the purpose of preserving the principle, in order that it might be extended still further westward, even to the Pacific Ocean, whenever we should acquire the country that far. I will here read that clause. It is the third article, second section, and is in these words : " New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the con- sent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said Territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Com- promise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And, in such State or States as shall be formed out of said Territory north of said Missouri Compro- mise line , slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be pro- hibited." It will be seen that it contains a very remarkable provision, which is, that when States lying north of 36 30' apply for admission, slavery shall be prohibited in their constitutions. I presume no one pretends that Congress could have power thus to fetter a State ap- plying for admission into this Union ; but it was necessary to pre- serve the principle of the Missouri Compromise line, in order that it might afterward be extended ; and it was supposed that while Con- gress had no power to impose any such limitation, yet, as that was a compact with the State of Texas, that State could consent for her- self that, when any portion of her own Territory, subject to her own jurisdiction and control, applied for admission, her constitution should be in a particular form ; but that provision would not be binding on the new State one day after it was admitted into the Union. The other provision was that such States as should lie south of 36 30' should coine into the Union with or without slavery, as each should decide in its constitution. Then, by that act, the Missouri Compromise was extended indefinitely westward, so far as the State of Texas went, that is, to the Rio del Norte ; for our Gov- ernment at that time recognized the Rio del Norte as its boundary. "We recognized, in many ways, and among them by even paying Texas for it ten millions of dollars, in order that it might be in- cluded in and form a portion of the Territory of New Mexico. Then, sir, in 1848, we acquired from Mexico the country between the Rio del Norte and the Pacific Ocean. Immediately after that ac- quisition, the Senate, on my own motion, voted into a till a provi- sion to extend the Missouri Compromise indefinitely westward to the Pacific Ocean, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted. That provision passed this body by a decided majority, I think by ten at least, and went to tho House of Representatives, and was defeated there by northern votes. Now, sir, let us pause and consider for a moment. The first time 78 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF that the principles of the Missouri Compromise were ever abandoned, the first time they were ever rejected by Congress, was by the defeat of that provision in the House of Representatives in 1848. By whom was that defeat effected? By northern votes with Freesoil proclivities. It was the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that reopened the slavery agitation with all its fury. It was the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that created the tremendous struggle of 1850. It was the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that created the necessity for making a new compromise in 1850. ^ Had we been faithful to the principles of the Missouri Compromise in 1848, this question would not have arisen. Who was it that was faithless ? I undertake to say it was the very men who now insist that the Missouri Compromise was a solemn compact, and should never be violated or departed from. Every man who is now assail- ing the principle of the bill under consideration, so far as I am ad- vised, was opposed to the Missouri Compromise in 1848. The very men who now arraign me for a departure from the Missouri Com- promise are the men who successfully violated it, repudiated it, and caused it to be superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850. Sir, it is with rather bad grace that the men who proved faithless themselves, should charge upon me and others, who were ever faith- ful, the responsibilities and consequences of their own treachery. Then, sir, as I before remarked, the defeat of the Missouri Com- promise in 1848 having created the necessity for the establishment of a new one in 1850, let us see what that compromise was. The leading feature of the Compromise of 1850 was Congressional non-intervention as to slavery in the Territories; that the people of the Territories, and of all the States, were to be allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject only to the provi- sions of the Constitution of the United States. That, sir, was the leading feature of the Compromise measures of 1850. Those measures, therefore, abandoned the idea of a geogra- phical line as the boundary between free States and slave States ; abandoned it because compelled to do it from an inability to main- tain it ; and in lieu of that, substituted a great principle of self- government, which would allow the people to do as they thought proper. Now the question is, when that new compromise, resting upon that great fundamental principle of freedom, was established, was it not an abandonment of the old one the geographical line ? Was it not a supersedure of the old one within the very language of the substitute for the bill which is now under consideration ? I say it did supersede it, because it applied its provisions as well to the north as to the south of 36 30'. It established a principle which was equally applicable to the country north as well as south of the parallel of 36 30' a principle of universal application. The authors of this abolition manifesto attempted to refute this pre- sumption, and maintain that the Compromise of 1850 did not super- sede that of 1820, by quoting the proviso to the first section of the STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 79 act to establish the Texan boundary, and create the Territory of New Mexico. That proviso was added, by way of amendment, on motion of Mr. Mason, of Virginia. I repeat, that in order to rebut the presumption, as I before stated, that the Missouri Compromise was abandoned and super- seded by the principles of the Compromise of 1850, these confede- rates cite the following amendment, offered to the bill to establish the boundary of Texas and create the Territory of New Mexico in 1850: "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify anything contained in the third article of the second section of the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number of States that may hereafter be formed out of the States of Texas or otherwise." After quoting this proviso, they make the following statement, and attempt to gain credit for' its truth by suppressing material facts which appear upon the face of the same statute, and which, if pro- duced, would conclusively disprove the statement : "It is solemnly declared in the very compromise acts, ' that nof&tng- herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify the prohibition of slavery north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes ;' and yet, in the face of this declaration, that sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown. Can presumption further go?" I will now proceed to show that presumption could not go fur- ther than is exhibited in this declaration. They suppress the following material facts, which, if produced, would have disproved their statement. They first suppress the fact that the same section of the act cuts off from Texas, and cedes to the United States all that part of Texas which lies north of 36 30'. They then suppress the further fact that the same section of the law cuts off from Texas a large tract of country on the west, more than three degrees of longitude, and 'adds it to the territory of the United States. They then suppress the further fact that this terri- tory thus cut off from Texas, and to which the Missouri Compromise line applied, was incorporated into the Territory of New Mexico. And then what was done ? It was incorporated into that Territory with this clause : "That, when admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of th~ same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their con- stitution may prescribe at the time of its adoption." Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which they quote, cuts off all that part of Texas which was to be free by the Missouri Compro mise, together with some on the south side of the line, incorporates it into the Territory of New Mexico, and then says that the Twri- 80 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF tory, and every portion of the same, shall come into the Union with or without slavery, as it sees proper. What else does it do? The sixth section of the same act provides that the legislative power and authority of this said Territory of New Mexico shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation con- sistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of the act, not excepting slavery. Thus the New Mexican Bill, from which they make that quotation, contains the provision that New Mexico, including that part of Texas which was cut off, should come into the Union with or without slavery, as it saw proper ; and in the meantime that the Territorial legislature should have all the authority over the subject of slavery that they had over any other subject, restricted only by the limitation of the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of the act. Now, I ask those senators, do not those provisions repeal the Missouri Compromise, so far as it applied to the country cut off from Texas ? Do they not annul it ? Do they not supersede it ? If they do, then the address which has been put forth to the world by these confederates is an atrocious falsehood. If they do not, then what do they mean when they charge me with having, in the substitute first reported from the committee, repealed it, with having annulled it, with having violated it, when I only copied those precise words ? I copied the precise words into my bill, as reported from the committee, which were contained in the New Mexico Bill. They say my bill annuls the Missouri Compromise. If it does, it had already been done be- fore by the act of 1850 ; for these words were copied from th? act of 1850. MR. WADE. Why did you do it over again ? MR. DOUGLAS. I will come to that point presently. I am now dealing with the truth and veracity of a combination of men who have assembled in secret caucus upon the Sabbath day, to arraign my conduct and belie my motives. I say, therefore, that their manifesto is a slander either way ; for it says that the Missouri Compromise was not superseded by the measures of 1850, and then it says that the same words in my bill do repeal and annul it. Thyy must be adjudged guilty of one falsehood in order to sustain the other assertion. Now, sir, I propose to go a little further, and show what was the real meaning of the amendment of the senator from Virginia, out of which these gentlemen have manufactured so much capital in the newspaper press, and have succeeded by that misrepresentation m procuring an expression of opinion from the State of Rhode Island m opposition to this bill. 1 will state what its meaning is. Did it mean that the States north of 36 30' should have a clause .their constitutions prohibiting slavery? I have shown that it did not mean that, because the same act says that they might come n with slavery, if they saw proper. I say it could not mean that jr another reason : The same section containing that proviso cut STEPHEN A. POUGL4L8. 81 off all that part of Texas north of 36 30', and hence there wag nothing for it to operate upon. It did not, therefore, relate to the country cut off. What did it relate to ? Why, it meant simply this : By the joint resolution of 1845, Texas was annexed, with the right to form four additional States out of her territory ; and such States as were south of 36 30' were to come in with or without slavery, as they saw proper ; and in such State or States as were north of that line, slavery should be prohibited. When we had cut off all north of 36 30', and thus circumscribed the boundary and diminished the territory of Texas, the question arose, how many States will Texas be entitled to under this circumscribed boundary. Certainly not four, it will be argued. Why ? Because the original resolution of annexation provided that one of the States, if not more, should be north of 36 30'. It would leave it, then, doubtful whether Texas was entitled to two or three additional States under the circumscribed boundary. In order to put that matter to rest, in order to make a final set- tlement, in order to have it explicitly understood what was tho meaning of Congress, the senator from Virginia offered the amend- ment that nothing therein contained should impair that provision, either as to the number of States or otherwise, that is, that Texas should be entitled to the same number of States with her reduced boundaries as she would have been entitled to under her larger boundaries ; and those States shall come in with or without slavery, as they might prefer, being all south of 36 30', and nothing to im- pair that right shall be inferred from the passage of the act. Such, sir, was the meaning of that proposition. Any other construction of it would stultify the very character and purpose of its mover, the senator from Virginia. Such, then, was not only the intent of the mover, but such is the legal effect of the law ; and I say that no man, after reading the other sections of the bill, those to which I have referred, can doubt that such was both the intent and the legal effect of that law. Then I submit to the Senate if I have not convicted this mani- festo, issued by the abolition confederates, of being a gross falsified- tion of the laws of the land, and by that falsification that an erroneous and injurious impression has been created upon the pub- lic mind. I am sorry to be compelled to indulge in language of severity ; but there is no other language that is adequate to express the indignation with which I see this attempt, not only to mislead the public, but to malign my character by deliberate falsification of the public statutes and the public records. In order to give greater plausibility to the falsification of the terms of the Compromise measures of 1850, the confederates also declare in their manifesto that they (the Territorial bills for the or- ganization of Utah and New Mexico) "applied to the territory acquired from Mexico, and to that only. They were intended as a bettlement of the controversy growing out of that acquisition, aud 82 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES. OE of that controversy only. They must stand or jail by their own merits." I submit to the Senate if there is an intelligent man in America who does not know that that declaration is falsified by the statute from which they quoted. They say that the provisions of that bilJ was confined to the territory acquired from Mexico, when the very section of the law from which they quoted that proviso did pur chase a part of that very territory from the State of Texas. And the next section of the law included that territory in the Territory of New Mexico. It took a small portion aldo of the old Louisiana purchase, and added that to the Territory of New Mexico, and made up the rest out of the Mexican acquisitions. Then, sir, your statutes show, when applied to the map of the country, that the Territory of New Mexico was composed of country acquired from Mexico, and also of territory acquired from Texas, and of territory acquired from France ; and yet in defiance of that statute, and in falsification of its terms, we are told, in order to deceive the people, that the bills were confined to the purchase made from Mexico alone ; and in order to give it greater solemnity, they repeat it twice, fearing that it would not be believed the first time. What is more, the Territory of Utah was not confined to the country acquired from Mexico. That Territory, as is well known to every man who under- stands the geography of the country, includes a large tract of rich and fertile country, acquired from France in 1803, and to which the eighth section of the Missouri Act applied in 1820. If these con- federates do not know to what country I allude, I only reply that they should have known before they uttered the falsehood, and im- puted a crime to me. But I will tell you to what country I allude. By the treaty of 1819, by which we acquired Florida and a fixed boundary between the United States and Spain, the boundary was made of the Arkan- sas River to its source, and then the line ran due north of the source of the Arkansas to the 42d parallel, then along on the 42d parallel to the Pacific Ocean. That line, due north from the head of the Arkansas, leaves the whole middle part, described in such glowing terms by Colonel Fremont, to the east of the line, and hence a part of the Louisiana purchase. Yet, inasmuch as that middle part is drained by the waters flowing into the Colorado, when we formed the territorial limits of Utah, instead of running that air-line, we ran along the ridge of the mountains, and cut off that part from Nebraska, or from the Louisiana purchase, and included it within the limits of the Territory of Utah. Wh K did , we do it? Because we sought for a natural and conve- t boundary, and it was deemed better to take the mountains aa a boundary, than by an air-line to cut the valleys on one side of the mountains, and annex them to the country on the other side. And why did we take these natural boundaries, setting at defiance tha boundaries? The simple reason was that w long as * acted STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 83 upon the principle of settling the slave question by a get graphical line, so long we observed those boundaries strictly and rigidly ; but when that was abandoned, in consequence of the action of free- soilers and abolitionists when it was superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850, which rested upon a great universal principle there was no necessity for keeping in view the old and unnatural boundary. For that reason, in making the new Territories, wo formed natural boundaries, irrespective of the source whence our title was derived. In writing these bills I paid no attention to the tact whether the title was acquired from Louisiana, from France, or from Mexico ; for what difference did it make ? The principle which we had established in the bill would apply equally well to either. In fixing those boundaries, I paid no attention to the fact whether they included old territory or new territory whether the country was covered by the Missouri Compromise or not. Why ? Because the principles established in the bills superseded the Missouri Com- promise. For that reason we disregarded the old boundaries ; dis- regarded the territory to which it applied, and disregarded the source from whence the title was derived. I say, therefore, that a close examination of those acts clearly establishes the fact that it was the intent, as well as the legal effect of the Compromise mea- sures of 1850, to supersede the Missouri Compromise, and all geo- graphical and territorial lines. Sir, in order to avoid any misconstruction, I will state more distinctly what my precise idea is upon this point. So far as the Utah and New Mexico bills included the territory which had been subject to the Missouri Compromise provision, to that extent they absolutely annulled the Missouri Compromise. As to the unor- ganized territory not covered by those bills, it was superseded by the principles of the Compromise of 1850. We all know that the object of the Compromise measures of 1850 was to establish certain great principles, which would avoid the slavery agitation in all time to come. Was it our object simply to provide for a temporary evil? Was it our object to heal over an old sore, and leave it to break out again? Was it our object to adopt a mere miserable expedient to apply to that territory, and to that alone, and leave ourselves entirely at sea, without compass, when new territory was acquired, or new territorial organizations were to be made? Was that the object for which the eminent and venerable senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) came here and sacrificed even his last energies upon the altar of his country? Was that the object for which Webster, Clay, Cass, and all the patriots of that day, strug- gled so long and so strenuously ? Was it merely the application of a temporary expedient, in agreeing to stand by past and dead legis- lation, that the Baltimore platform pledged us to sustain the Com- promise of 1850 ? Was it the understanding of the Whig party, when they adopted the Compromise measures of 1850 as an article of political faith, that they were only agreeing to that which was 20 g4 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF past, and had no reference to the future ? If that was their mean- ing if that was their object, they palmed off an atrocious fraud upon the American people. Was it the meaning of the Democratic party when we pledged ourselves to stand by the Compromise of 1850 that we spoke only of the past, and had no reference to the future ? If so, it was a gross deception. When we pledged our President to stand by the Compromise measures, did we not under- stand that we pledged him as to his future action? Was it as to his past conduct ? If it had been iu relation to past conduct only, the pledge would have been untrue as to a very large portion of the Democratic party. Men went into that convention who had been opposed to the Compromise measures men who abhorred those measures when they were pending men who never would have voted affirmatively on them. But, inasmuch as those measures had been passed and the country had acquiesced in them, and it was im- portant to preserve the principle in order to avoid agitation in the future, these men said, we waive our past objections, and we will stand by you and with you in carrying out these principles in the future. Such I understand to be the meaning of the two great parties at Baltimore. Such I understand to have been the effect of their pledges. If they did not mean this, they meant merely to adopt resolutions which were never to be carried out, and which were designed to mislead and deceive the people for the mere purpose of carrying an election. I hold, then, that, as to the territory covered by the Utah and New Mexico bills, there was an express annulment of the Missouri Compromise ; and as to all the other unorganized territories, it was superseded by the principles of that legislation, and we are bound to apply those principles to the organization of all new territories, to all which we now own, or which we may hereafter acquire. If this construction be given, it makes that compromise a final adjustment. No other construction can possibly impart finality to it. By any other construction, the question is to be reopened the moment you ratify a new treaty acquiring an inch of country from Mexico. By any other construction, you reopen the issue every time you make a new Territorial government. But, sir, if you treat the Compro- mise measures of 1850 in the light of great principles, sufficient to remedy temporary evils, at the same time that they prescribe rules of action applicable everywhere in all time to come, then you avoid the agitation forever, if you observe good faith to the provisions of these enactments, and the principles established by them. Mr. President, I repeat that, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, there is nothing in the bill under consideration which does not carry out the principle of the Compromise measures of L850, by leaving the people to do as they please, subject only to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. If that princi- ple is wrong, the bill is vrong. If that principle is right, the bill is STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 85 right. It is unnecessary to quiblle about phraseology or words ; it is not the mere words, the mere phraseology, that our constituents wish to judge by. They wish to know the legal effect of our legis- lation. The legal eifect of this bill, if it be passed as reported by the Committee on Territories, is neither to legislate slavery into these Territories nor out of them, but to leave the people to do as they please, under the provisions and subject to the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. Why should not this principle prevail? Why should any man, North or South, object to it? I will especially address the argument to my own section of country, and ask why should any northern man object to this principle ? If you will review the history of the slavery question in the United States, you will see that all the great results in behalf of free insti- tutions which have been worked out, have been accomplished by the operation of this principle, and by it alone. When these States were colonies of Great Britain, every one of them was a slaveholding province. When the Constitution of the United States was formed, twelve out of the thirteen were slave- holding States. Since that time six of those States have become free. How has this been effected ? Was it by virtue of abolition agitation in Congress ? Was it in obedience to the dictates of tho Federal Government ? Not at all ; but they have become free States under the silent but sure and irresistible working of that great principle of self-government which teaches every people to do that which the interests of themselves and their posterity morally and pecuniarily may require. Under the operation of this principle, New Hampshire became free, while South Carolina continued to hold slaves ; Connecticut abolished slavery, while Georgia held on to it ; Rhode Island aban- doned the institution, while Maryland preserved it ; New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania abolished slavery, while Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky retained it. Did they do it at your bid- ding? Did they do it at the dictation of the Federal Government? Did they do it in obedience to any of your Wilmot Provisoes or Ordi- nances of '87 ? Not at all ; they did it by virtue of their rights as freemen under the Constitution of the United States, to establish and abolish such institutions as they thought their own good required. Let me ask you, where have you succeeded in excluding slavery by an act of Congress from one inch of the American soil? You may tell me that you did it in the Northwest Territory by the Ordi- nance of 1787. I will show you by the history of the country that you did not accomplish any such thing. You prohibited slavery there by law, but you did not exclude it in fact. Illinois was a part of the Northwest Territory. With the exception of a few French and white settlements, it was a vast wilderness, filled with hostile savages, when the Ordinance of 1787 was adopted. Yet, sir, when Illinois was organized into a Territorial government, it established 86 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF and protected slavery, and maintained it in spite of your Ordinance and in defiance of its express prohibition. It is a curious fact, that, so long as Congress said the Territory of Illinois should not have slavery, she actually had it ; and on the very day when you with- drew your Congressional prohibition the people of Illinois, of their own free will and accord, provided for a system of emancipation. Thus you did not succeed in Illinois Territory with your Ordinance or your Wilmot Proviso, because the people there regarded it as an in- vasion of their rights. They regarded it as a usurpation on the part of the Federal Government. They regarded it as violative of the great principles of self-government, and they determined that they would never submit even to have freedom so long as you forced it upon them. Nor must it be said that slavery was abolished in the constitution of Illinois in order to be admitted into the Union as a State, in com- pliance with the Ordinance of 1787 ; for they did no such thing. In the Constitution with which the people of Illinois were admitted into Union, they absolutely violated, disregarded, and repudiated your Ordinance. The Ordinance said that slavery should be forever pro- hibited in that country. The constitution with which you received them into the Union as a State provided that all slaves then in the State should remain slaves for life, and that all persons born of slave parents after a certain day should be free at a certain age, and that all persons born in the State after a certain other day, should be free from the time of their birth. Thus their State constitution, as well as their Territorial legislation, repudiated your Ordinance. Illinois, therefore, is a case in point to prove that whenever you have attempted to dictate institutions to any part of the United States, you have failed. The same is true, though not to the same extent, with reference to the Territory of Indiana, where there were many slaves during the time of its Territorial existence, and I believe also there were a few in the Territory of Ohio. But, sir, these abolition confederates, in their manifesto, have also referred to the wonderful results of their policy in the States of Iowa and the Territory of Minnesota. Here, again, they happen to be in fault as to the laws of the land. The act to organize the Territory of Iowa did not prohibit slavery, but the people of Iowa were allowed to do as they pleased under the Territorial government ; for the sixth section of that act provided that the legislative authority should extend to all rightful subjects of legislation except as to the disposition of the public lands, and taxes in certain cases, but not excepting slavery. It may, however, be said by some that slavery was prohibited in Iowa by virtue of that clause in the Iowa act which declared the laws of Wisconsin to be in force therein, in asmucn as the Ordinance of 1787 was one of the laws of Wisconsin. Jt, however, they say this, they defeat their object, because the very cause which transfers the laws of Wisconsin to Iowa, and makes them of force therein, also provides that those laws are subject to be altered, modified, or repealed by the Territorial legislature of Iowa. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 87 Iowa, therefore, was left to do as she pleased. Iowa, when ?he came to form a constitution and State government, preparatory to admission into the Union, considered the subject of free and siave institutions calmly, dispassionately, without any restraint or dicta- tion, and determined that it would be to the interest of her people in their climate, and with their productions, to prohibit slavery ; and hence Iowa became a free State by virtue of this great principle of allowing the people to do as they please, and not in obedience to any federal command. The abolitionists are also in the habit of referring to Oregon aa another instance of the triumph of their abolition policy. There again they have overlooked or misrepresented the history of the country. Sir, it is well known, or if it is not, it ought to be, that for about twelve years you forgot to give Oregon any government or any protection; and during that period the inhabitants of that country established a government of their own, and by virtue o'f their own laws, passed by their own representatives before you ex- tended your jurisdiction over them, prohibited slavery by a unani- mous vote. Slavery was prohibited there by the action of the people themselves, and not by virtue of any legislation of Congress. It is true that, in the midst of the tornado which swept over the country in 1848. 1849 and 1850, a provision was forced into the Ore- gon bill prohibiting slavery in that Territory ; but that only goes to show that the object of those who pressed it was not so much to establish free institutions as to gain a political advantage by giving an ascendency to their peculiar doctrines in the laws of the land ; for slavery having been already prohibited there, and no man pro- posing to establish it, what was the necessity for insulting the people of Oregon by saying in your law that they should not do that which they had unanimously said they did not wish to do ? That was the only effect of your legislation so far as the Territory of Oregon was concerned. How was it in regard .to California ? Every one of these abolition confederates, who have thus arraigned me and the Committee on Territories before the country, and have misrepresented our position, predicted that unless Congress interposed by law, and prohibited slavery in California, it would inevitably become a slaveholding State. Congress did not interfere; Congress did not prohibit slavery. There was no enactment upon the subject ; but the people formed a State constitution, and therein prohibited slavery. ME. WELLEE. The vote was unanimous in the convention of Cali- fornia for prohibition. ME. DOUGLAS. So it was in regard to Utah and New Mexico. In 1850, we who resisted any attempt to force institutions upon the people of those Territories, inconsistent with their wishes and their right to decide for themselves, were denounced as slavery propagan- dists. Every one of us who was in favor of the Compromise mea- sures of 1850 was arraigned for having advocated A prijcii>la 88 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ing to introduce slavery into those Territories, and the people were told, and made to believe, that, unless we prohibited it by act of Congress, slavery would necessarily and inevitably be introduced into these Territories. Well, sir, we did establish the Territorial governments of Utah and New Mexico without any prohibition. We gave to these abo- litionists a full opportunity of proving whether their predictions would prove true or false. Years have rolled round, and the result is before us. The people there have not passed any law recognizing, or establishing, or introducing, or protecting slavery in the Terri- I know of but one Territory of the United States where slavery does exist, and that one is where you have prohibited it by law ; and it is this very Nebraska country. In defiance of the eighth sec- tion of the act of 1820, in defiance of Congressional dictation, there have been, not many, but a few slaves introduced. I heard a minis- ter of the Gospel the other day conversing with a member of the Committee on Territories upon this subject. This preacher was from that country, and a member put this question to him : " Have you any negroes out there ?" He said there were a few held by the Indians. 1 asked him if there were not some held by white men ? He said there were a few under peculiar circumstances, and he gave an instance. An abolition missionary, a very good man, had gone there from Boston, and he took his wife with him. He got out into the country but could not get any help ; hence he, being a kind- hearted man, went down to Missouri and gave $1,000 for a negro, and took him up there as "help." (Laughter.) So, under peculiar circumstances, when these freesoil and abolition preachers and mis- sionaries go into the country, they can buy a negro for their own use, but they do not like to allow any one else to do the same thing. (Renewed laughter.) I suppose the fact of the matter is simply this: there the people can get no servants no "help," as they are called in the section of country were I was born and from the necessity of the case, they must do the best they can, and for this reason a few slaves have been taken there. I have no doubt that whether you organize the Territory of Nebraska or not, this will continue for S'unf. little time to come. It certainly does exist, and it will in- nv.-no as long as the Missouri Compromise applies to the Territory ; and 1 suppose it will continue for a little while during their Terri- torial condition, whether a prohibition is imposed or not. But when settlers rush in when labor becomes plenty, and therefore (heap, in that climate, with its productions it is worse than folly to think of its being a slaveholding country. I do not believe there is a man in Congress who thinks it could be permanently a slave- holding country. I have no idea that it could. All I have to say on that subject is, that, when you create them into a Territory, you thereby acknowledge that they ought to be considered a distinct political organization. And when you give them in addition a legis- BTEPHENA DOUGLAS. 89 jature> you thereby confess that they are competent to exercise the powers of legislation. If they wish slavery, they have a right to it. If they do not want it, they will not have it, and you should not attempt to force it upon them. I do not like, I never did like, the system of legislation on our part, by which a geographical line, in violation of the laws of nature, and climate and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to estab- lish institutions for a people contrary to their wishes ; yet, out of a regard for the peace and quiet of the country, out of respect for past pledges, and out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all compromises, I sustained the Missouri compromise so long as it was in force, and advocated its extension to the Pacific ocean. Now, when that has been abandoned, when it has been superseded, when a great princi- ple of self-government has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to that principle, and abide in good faith, not only by the letter, but by the spirit of the last compromise. Sir, I do not recognize the right of the abolitionists of this coun- try to arraign me for being false to sacred pledges, as they have done in their proclamations. Let them show when and where I have ever proposed to violate a compact. I have proved that I stood by the compact of 1820 and 1845, and proposed its continu- ance and observance in 1848. I have proved that the freesoilers and abolitionists were the guilty parties who violated that com- promise then. I should like to compare notes with the abolition confederates about adherence to compromises. When did they stand by or approve of any one that was ever made ? Did not every abolitionist and freesoiler in America denounce the Missouri Compromise in 1820? Did they not for years hunt dowu ravenously, for his blood, every man who assisted in making that compromise? Did they not in 1S45, when Texas was annexed, denounce all of us who went for the annexation of Texas, and for the continuation of the Missouri Compromise line through it ? Did they not, in 1848, denounce me as a slavery propagandist for stand- ing by the principles of the Missouri Compromise, and proposing to continue it to the Pacific Ocean ? Did they not themselves violate and repudiate it then ? Is not the charge of bad faith true as to every abolitionist in America, instead of being true as to me and the committee, and those who advocate this bill ? They talk about the bill being a violation of the Compromise mea- sure of 1850. Who can show me a man in either house of Congress who was in favor of those Compromise measures in 1850, and who is not now in favor of leaving the people of Nebraska and Kansas to do as they please upon the subject of slavery, according to the principle of my bill ? Is there one ? If so, I have not heard of him. This tornado has been raised by abolitionist, and abolitionists alone. They have made an impression upon the public mind, in the way in which I have men tioned, by a falsification of the law and the facts ; and this whole organization against the Compromise measures of 1850 is an abolition 90 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP movement. I presume they had some hope of getting a few tender- footed I>mocrats into their plot ; and, acting on what they supposed they might do, they sent forth publicly to the world the falsehood that their address was sighed by the senators and a majority of the representatives from the State of Ohio ; but when we come to examine signatures, we find no one Whig there, no one Democrat there ; none but pure, unmitigated, unadulterated abolitionists. Much effect, I know, has been produced by this circular, coming as it does with the imposing title of a representation of a majority of the Ohio delegation. What was the reason for its effect ? Be- cause the manner in which it was sent forth implied that all the Whig members from that State had joined in it ; that part of the Demoo-'ats had signed it ; and then that the two abolitionists had aigned it, and that made a majority of the delegation. By this means it frightened the Whig party and the Democracy in the State of Ohio, because they supposed their own representatives and friends had gone into this negro movement, when the fact turns out to be that it was not signed by a single Whig or Democratic member from Ohio. Now, I ask the friends and the opponents of this measure to look at it as it is. Is not the question involved the simple one, whether the people of the Territories shall be allowed to do as they please upon the question of slavery, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution ? That is all the bill provides ; and it does so in clear, explicit and unequivocal terms. I know there are some men, Whigs and Democrats, who, not willing to repudiate the Baltimore plat- form of their own party, would be willing to vote for this principle, provided they could do so in such equivocal terms that they could deny that it means what it was intended to mean in certain localities. I do not wish to deal in any equivocal language. If the principle is right, let it be avowed and maintained. If it is wrong, let it be repudiated. Let all this quibbling about the Missouri Compromise, about the territory acquired from France, about the act of 1820, be cast behind you; for the simple question is, will you allow the peo- ple to legislate for themselves upon the subject of slavery ? Why should you not ? When you propose to give them a Territorial government, do you not acknowledge that they ought to be erected into a political organi- zation ; and when you give them a legislature, do you not acknow- ledge that they are capable of self-government ? Having made that acknowledgment, why should you not allow them to exercise the rights of legislation ? Oh, these abolitionists say they are entirely willing to concede all this, with one exception. They say they are willing, to trust the Territorial legislature, under the limitations of the Constitution, to legislate upon the rights of inheritance, to legislate in regard to religion, education, and morals, to legislate in regard to the relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, of guardian and ward, upon everything pertaining to the dearest rights and interests STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. PI of white men, but they are not willing to trust them to legislate in regard to a few miserable negroes. That is their single exception. They acknowledge that the people of the Territories are capable of deciding for themselves concerning white men, but not in relation to negroes. The real gist of the matter is this : Does it require any higher degree of civilization, and intelligence, and learning, and sagacity, to legislate for negroes than for white men ? If it does, we Dught to adopt the abolition doctrine, and go with them against this bill. If it does not if we are willing to trust the people with the great, sacred, fundamental right of prescribing their own institutions, consistent with the Constitution of the country we must vote for this bill. That is the only question involved in the bill. I hope I have been able to strip it of all the misrepresentation, to wipe away all of that mist and obscurity with which it has been surrounded by this abolition address. [ have now said all I have to say upon the present occasion. For all, except the first ten minutes of these remarks, the abolition con- federates are responsible. My object, in the first place, was only to explain the provisions of the bill, so that they might be distinctly understood. I was willing to allow its assailants to attack it as much as they pleased, reserving to myself the right, when the time should approach for taking the vote, to answer in a concluding speech all the arguments which might be used against it. I still reserve what I believe common courtesy and parliamentary usage awards to the chairman of a committee and the author of a bill the right of sum- ming up after all shall have been said which has to be said against this measure. I hope the compact which was made on last Tuesday, at the sug- gestion of these abolitionists, when the bill was proposed to be taken up, will be observed. It was that the bill, when taken up to-day, should continue to be considered from day to day until finally dis- posed of. I hope they will not repudiate and violate that compact, as they have the Missouri Compromise and all others which have been entered into. I hope, therefore, that we may press the bill to a vote; but not by depriving persons of an opportunity of speaking. I am in favor of giving every enemy of the bill the most ample time. Let us hear them all patiently, and then take the vote and pass the bill. We who are in favor of it know that the principle on which it is based is right. Why, then, should we gratify the abolition party in their effort to get up another political tornado of fanaticism, and put the country again in peril, merely for the purpose of electing a few agitators to the Congress of the United States? We intend to stand by the principle of the Compromise measures 4 f 1850. 92 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. Delivered in the Senate, March 3, 1854. ME. PRESIDENT : before I proceed to the general argument upon the most important branch of thia question, I must say a few worda in reply to the senator from Tennessee (Mr. Bell), who has spoken upon the bill to-day. He approves of the principles of the bill ; he thinks they have great merit; but he does not see his way entirely clear to vote for the bill, because of the objections which he has stated, most of which relate to the Indians. Upon that point, I desire to say that it has never been the custom in territorial bills to make regulations concerning the Indians within the limits of the proposed Territories. All matters relating to them it has been thought wise to leave to subsequent legislation, to be brought forward by the Committee on Indian Affairs. I did venture originally in this bill to put in one or two provisions upon that sub- ject ; but, at the suggestion of many senators on both sides of the chamber, they were stricken out, in order to allow the appropriate committee of the Senate to take charge of that subject. I think, therefore, since we have stricken from the bill all those provisions which pertain to the Indians, and reserved the whole subject for the consideration and action of the appropriate committee, we have obviated every possible objection which could reasonably be urged upon that score. We have every reason to hope and trust that the (Joinmittee on Indian Affairs will propose such measures as will do entire justice to the Indians, without contravening the objects of Congress in organizing these Territories. But, sir, allusion has been made to certain Indian treaties, and it has been intimated, if not charged in direct terms, that we were vio- lating the stipulations of those treaties in respect to the rights and lands of the Indians. The senator from Texas (Mr. Houston), made a very long and interesting speech on that subject ; but it so hap- pened that most of the treaties to which he referred were with In- dians not included within the limits of this bill. We have been in- formed, in the course of the debate to-day, by the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs (Mr. Sebastian), that there is but one treaty in existence relating to lands or Indians within the limits of either of the proposed Territories, and that is the treaty with the Ottawa Indians, about two hundred persons in number, owning about thirty-four thousand acres of land. Thus it appears that the whole argument of injustice to the red man, which in the course of this debate has called forth so much sympathy and indignation, la confined to two hundred Indians, owning less than two townships of lund. No wr, sir, is it possible that a country, said to be five hun- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 9o dred thousand square miles in extent, and large enough to make twelve such States as Ohio, is to be consigned to perpetual barbarism merely on account of that small number of Indians, when the bill itself expressly provides that those Indians and their lands are not to be included within the limits of the proposed Territories, nor to be subject to their laws or jurisdiction? I would not ailow this measure to invade the rights of even one Indian, and hence I inserted in the first section of the bill that none of the tribes with whom we have treaty stipulations should be embraced within either of the Territories, unless such Indians shall voluntarily consent to be in- cluded therein by treaties hereafter to be made. If any senator can furnish me with language more explicit, or which would prove more effectual in securing the rights of the Indians, I will cheerfully adopt it. Well, sir, the senator from Tennessee, in a very kind spirit, here raises the objection for me to answer, that this bill includes Indians within the limits of these Territories with whom we have no trea- ties ; and he desires to know what we are to do with them. I will say to him, that that is not a matter of inquiry which necessarily or properly arises upon the passage of this bill ; that is not a proper inquiry to come before the Committee on Territories. You have in all your Territorial bills included Indians within the boundaries of the Territories. When you erected the Territory of Minnesota, you had not extinguished the Indian title to one foot of land in that Ter- ritory west of the Mississippi Elver, and to the major part of that Territory the Indian title remains unextinguished to this day. In addition to those wild tribes, you removed Indians from Wisconsin and located them within Minnesota since the Territory was organ- ized. It will be a question for the consideration of the Committee on Indian Affairs, and for the action of Congress, when, in settle- ment and civilization, it shall become necessary to change the present policy in respect to the Indians. When you erected the Territorial government of Oregon, a few years ago, you embraced within it all the Indians living in the Territory without their consent, and with- out any such reservations in their behalf as are contained in this 'bill. You had not at that time made a treaty with those Indians, nor ex- tinguished their title to an acre of land in that Territory, nor indeed have you done so to this day. So it is in the organization of Wash- ington Territory. You ran the lines around the country which you thought ought to be within the limits of the Territory, and you em- braced all the Indians within those lines ; but you made no provision in respect to their rights or lands ; you left that mattei to the Com- mittee on Indian Affairs, to the Indian laws, and to the proper de- partment, to be arranged afterward as the public interests might require. The same is true in reference to Utah and N ew Mexico. In fact, the policy provided for in this bill, in respect to the In- dians, is that which is now in force in every one of ft e Territories. Therefore, any senator who objects to this bill on tto\ score should 94: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF have objected to and voted against every Territorial bill which yon have now in existence. Yet my friend from Texas has taken occa- sion to remind the Senate several times that it was a matter of pride and it ought to be a matter of patriotic pride with him that he voted for every measure of the Compromise of 1850, including the Utah and New Mexico Territorial bills, embracing all the Indians within their limits. My friend from Tennessee, too, has been very liberal in voting for most of the Territorial bills ; and I therefore trust that the same patriotic and worthy motives which induced him to vote for the Territorial acts of 1850 will enable him to give hia support to the present bill, especially as he approves of the great principle of popular sovereignty upon which it rests. The senator from Tennessee remarked further, that the proposed limits of these, two Territories were too extensive; that they were large enough to be erected into eight different States ; and why, he asked, the necessity of including such a vast amount of country within the limits of these two Territories ? I must remind the sena- tor that it has always been the practice to include a large extent of country within one Territory, and then to subdivide it from time to time as the public interest might require. Such was the case with the old Northwest Territory. It was all originally included within one Territorial government. Afterward Ohio was cut off; and then Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin, were successively erected into separate Territorial governments, and subsequently admitted into the Union as States. At one period, it will be remembered, the Territory of Wisconsin included the country embraced within the limits of the States of Wisconsin and Iowa, and a part of the State of Michigan, and the Territory of Minnesota. There is country enough within the Terri- tory of Minnesota to make two or three States of the size of New 5Tork. Washington Territory embraces about the same area. Ore- gon is large enough to make three or four States as extensive as Pennsylvania; Utah two or three, and New Mexico four or five of like dimensions. Indeed, the whole country embraced within the proposed Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, together with the States of Arkansas, Missouri and Iowa, arid the larger part of Min- nesota, and the whole of the Indian country west of Arkansas, once constituted a Territorial government, under the name of the Mis- souri Territory. In view of this course of legislation upon the sub- ject of Territorial organization, commencing before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and coming down to the last session of Congress, it surely cannot be said that there is anything unusual or extraordinary in the size of the proposed Territory which should compel a senator to vote against the bill, while he approves of the principles involved in the measure. It has also been urged in debate that there is no necessity for these Territorial organizations; and I have been called upon to point out any publi i and national considerations which require action at thia STEP HEN A. DOUGLAS. 95 time. Senators seem to forget that our immense and valuable pos- sessions on the Pacific are separated from the States and organized Territories on this side of the Kocky Mountains by a vast wilder- ness, filled by hostile savages ; that nearly a hundred thousand emi- grants pass through this barbarous wilderness every year, on their way to California and Oregon ; that these emigrants are American citizens, our own constituents, who are entitled to the protection of law and government ; and that they are left to make their way, as best they may, without the protection or aid of law or government. The United States mails for New Mexico and Utah, and all official communications between this government and the authorities of those Territories, are required to be carried over these wild plains, and through the gorges of the mountains, where you have made no provision for roads, bridges, or ferries, to facilitate travel, or forts or other means of safety to protect life. As often as I have brought forward and urged the adoption of measures to remedy these evils, and afford security against the dangers to which our people are con- stantly exposed, they have been promptly voted down as not being of sufficient importance to command the favorable consideration of ( longress. Now, when I propose to organize the Territories, and tllow the people to do for themselves what you have so often re- fused to do for them, I am told that there are not white inhabitants enough permanently settled in the country to require and sustain a government. True, there is not a very large population there, for Che very good reason that your Indian code and intercourse laws ex- clude the settiers, and forbid their remaining there to cultivate the soil. You refuse to throw the country open to settlers, and then object to the organization of the Territories upon the ground that there is not a sufficient number of inhabitants. The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) has made a long argu- ment to prove that there are no inhabitants in the proposed Terri- tories, because nearly all of those who have gone and settled there have done so in violation of certain old acts of Congress which for- bid the people to take possession of and settle upon the public lands until after they should be surveyed and brought into market. I do not propose to discuss the question whether these settlers are technically legal inhabitants or not. It is enough for me that they are a part of our own people ; that they are settled on the public domain ; that the public interests would be promoted by throwing that public domain open to settlement ; and that there is no good reason why the protection of law and the blessings of government should not be extended to them. I must be permitted to remind the senator that the same objection existed in its full force to Minne- sota, to Oregon and to Washington, when each of those Territories were organized ; and that I have no recollection that he" deemed it his duty to call the attention of Congress to the objection, or con- sidered it of sufficient importance to justify him in recording his own vc-te against the organization of either of those Territories. 96 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mr. President, I do not feel called upon to make any reply to the argument which the senator from Connecticut has urged against the passage of this bill upon the score of expense in sustaining these Ter- ritorial governments, for the reason that, if the public interests re- quire the enactment of the law, it follows as a natural consequence that all the expenses necessary to carry it into effect are wise and proper. 1 will now proceed to the consideration of the great principle in- volved in the bill, without omitting, however, to notice some of those extraneous matters which have been brought into this discus- sion with the view of producing another anti-slavery agitation. We have been told by nearly every senator who has spoken in opposition to this bill, that at the time of its introduction the people were in a state of profound quiet and repose ; that the anti-slavery agitation had entirely ceased; and that the whole country was acquiescing cheerfully and cordially in the Compromise measures of 1850, as a final adjustment of this vexed question. Sir, it is truly refreshing to hear senators who contested every inch of ground in opposition to those measures when they were under discussion, who predicted all manner of evils and calamities from their adoption, and who raised the cry of repeal, and even resistance, to their execution, after they had become the laws of the land 1 say it is really refreshing to hear these same senators now bear their united testimony to the wisdom of those measures, and to the patriotic motives which induced us to pass them in defiance of their threats and resistance, and to their beneficial effects in restor- ing peace, harmony and fraternity to a distracted country. These are precious confessions from the lips of those who stand pledged never to assent to the propriety of those measures, and to make war upon them so long as they shall remain upon the statute-book. I well understand that these confessions are now made, noi with the view of yielding their assent to the propriety of carrying those enactments into faithful execution, but for the purpose of having a pretext for charging upon me, as the author of this bill, the responsi- bility of an agitation which they are striving to produce. They say that 1, and not they, have revived the agitation. What have 1 done to render me obnoxious to this charge ? They say I wrote and intro- duced this Nebraska Bill. That is true ; but I was not a volunteer in the transaction. The Senate, by a unanimous vote, appointed me jhairman of the Territorial Committee, and associated five intelligent and patriotic senators with me, and thus made it our duty to take charge of all Territorial business. In like manner, and with the concurrence of these complaining senators, the Senate referred to us adjunct proposition to organize this Nebraska Territory, and re- quired us tc report specifically upon the question. I repeat, then, we were not volunteers in this business. The duty was imposed upon us by the Senate. We were not unmindful of the delicacy and responsibility of the position. Wo were aware that from 1820 to STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 97 J8CO the abolition doctrine of Congressional interference with slavery in the Territories and new States had so far prevailed as to keep up an incessant slavery agitation in Congress and throughout the coun- try, whenever any new Territory was to be acquired or organized. We were also aware that, in 1850, the right of the people to decide this question for themselves, subject only to the Constitution, was substituted for the doctrine of Congressional intervention. The first question, therefore, which the committee were called upon to decide, and indeed the only question of any material importance, in framing this bill, was this : Shall we adhere to and carry out the principle recognized by the Compromise measures of 1850, or shall we go back to the old exploded doctrine of Congressional interference, as established in 1820 in a large portion of the country, and which it was the object of the Wilmot Proviso to give a universal applica- tion, not only to all the Territory which we then possessed, but all which we might hereafter acquire ? There were no other alterna- tives. We were compelled to frame the bill upon the one or the other of these two principles. The doctrine of 1820 or the doctrine of 1850 must prevail. In the discharge of the duty imposed upon us by the Senate, the committee could not hesitate upon this point, whether we consulted our individual opinions and principles, or those which were known to be entertained and boldly avowed by a large majority of the Senate. The two great political parties of the country stood solemnly pledged before the world to adhere to the Compromise measures of 1850, "in principle and substance." A large majority of the Senate, indeed every member of the body, I believe, except the two avowed abolitionists (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner), profess to belong to the one or the other of these parties, and hence was supposed to be under a high moral obligation to carry out the ''principle and substance" of those measures in all new Ter- ritorial organizations. The report of the committee was in accord- ance with this obligation. I am arraigned, therefore, for having endeavored to represent the opinions and principles of the Senate truly ; for having performed my duty in conformity with the parlia- mentary law ; for having been faithful to the trust reposed in me by the Senate. Let the vote this night determine whether I have thus faithfully represented your opinions. When a majority of the Senate shall have passed the bill ; when a majority of the States shall have indorsed it through their representatives upon this floor ; when a majority of the South and a majority of the North shall have sanc- tioned it ; when a majority of the Whig party and a majority of the Democratic party shall have voted for it ; when each of these pro- positions shall be demonstrated by the vote this night on the final passage of the bill, I shall be willing to submit the question to the country, whether, as the organ of the committee, I performed iny duty in the report and bill which have called down upon my head go mu >,h denunciation and abuse. Mr. President, the opponents of this measure have had much to 98 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF say about the mutatioDS and modifications \vhich this bill has under- gone since it was first introduced by myself, and about the alleged departure of the bill, in its present form, from the principle laid down in the original report of the committee as a rule of action in all future Territorial organizations. Fortunately there is no neces- sity, even if your patience would tolerate such a course of argument at this late hour of the night, for me to examine these speeches in detail, and to reply to each charge separately. Each speaker seems to have followed faithfully in the footsteps of his leader in the path marked out by the abolition confederates in their manifesto, which I exposed on a former occasion. You have seen them on their wind- ing way, meandering the narrow and crooked path in Indian file, each treading close upon the heels of the other, and neither ventur- ing to take a step to the right or left, or to occupy one inch of ground which did not bear the foot-print of the abolition champion. To answer one, therefore, is to answer the whole. The statement to which they seem to attach the most importance, and which they have repeated oftener perhaps than any other, is, that, pending the Compromise measures of 1850, no man in or out of Congress ever dreamed of abrogating the Missouri Compromise ; that from that period down to the present session, nobody supposed that its validity had been impaired, or anything done which rendered it obligatory upon us to make it inoperative hereafter ; that at the time of sub- mitting the report and bill to the Senate, on the 4th of January last, neither I nor any member of the committee ever thought of such a thing ; and that we could never be brought up to the point of abro- gating the eighth section of the Missouri act until after th'e senator from Kentucky introduced his amendment to my bill. Mr. President, before I proceed to expose the many misrepresenta- tions contained in this complicated charge, I must call the attention of the Senate to the false issue which these gentlemen are endeavor- ing to impose upon the country, for the purpose of diverting public attention from the real issue contained in the bill. They wish to have the people believe that the abrogation of what they call the Missouri Compromise was the main object and aim of the bill, and that the only question involved is, whether the prohibition of slavery north of 36 30' shall be repealed or not? That which is a mere incident, they choose to consider ihe principal. They make war on the means by which we propose to accomplish an object, instead of openly resisting the object itself. The principle which we propose to carry into effect by the bill is this : That Congress shall neither legislate slavery into any Territories or State, nor out of the same ; but the people shall be left free to regulate their domestic concerns in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. In order to carry this principle into practical operation, it becomes ssary to remove whatever legal obstacles might be found in the v ay of its free exercise. It is only for the purpose of carrying out STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 99 fchis great fundamental principle of self-government that the bill renders the eighth section of the Missouri act inoperative and void. Now, let me ask, will these senators who have arraigned me, or any one of them, have the assurance to rise in his place and declare that this great principle was never thought of or advocated as appli- cable to Territorial bills in 1850 ; that, from that session until the present, nobody ever thought of incorporating this principle in all new Territorial organizations; that the Committee on Territories did not recommend it in their report; and that it required the amendment of the senator from Kentucky to bring us up to that point ? Will any one of my accusers dare to make this issue> and let it be tried by the record ? I will begin with the compromises of 1850. Any senator who will take the trouble to examine our jour- nals will find that on the 25th of March of that year I reported from the Committee on Territories two bills including the following mea- sures: The admission of California, a Territorial government for Utah, a Territorial government for New Mexico, and the adjustment of the Texas boundary. These bills proposed to leave the people of Utah and New Mexico free to decide the slavery question for them- selves, in the precise language of the Nebraska Bill now under dis- cussion. A few weeks afterward, the Committee of Thirteen took those two bills and put a wafer between them, and reported them back to the Senate as one bill, with some slight amendments. One of those amendments was, that the Territorial legislatures should not legislate upon the subject of African slavery. I objected to that provision upon the ground that it subverted the great principle of self-government upon which the bill had been originally framed by the Territorial Committee. On the the first trial, the Senate refused to strike it out, but subsequently did so, after full debate, in order to establish that principle as the rule of action in Territorial organi- zations. Upon this point I trust I will be excused for reading one or two sentences from some remarks I made in the Senate on the 3d of June, 1850 : u The position that I have ever taken has been that this, the slavery question, and all other questions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic policy of the Territories, ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves, and that we ought to be content with whatever way they would decide the ques- tion because they have a much deeper interest in these matters than we have, and know much better what institutions will suit them, than we, who have never been there, can decide for them." Again, in the same debate, I said : " I do not see how those of us who have taken the position which we have taken, (that of non-interference,) and have argued in favor of the right of tht people to legislature for themselves on this question, can support such a pro- vision without abandoning all the arguments which we urged in the 1're wden 21 100 THE LIFE ANT SPEECHES OF tial campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set forth by the honorable senator from Michigan ia that letter which is known as the ' Nicholson letter.' We are required to abandon that platform ; we are required to abandon those principles, and to stultify ourselves, and to adopt the opposite doctrine ; and for what? In order to say that the people of the Territories shall not have such institutions as they shall deem adapted to their condition and their wants. I do not see, sir, how such a provision as that can be acceptable either to the people of the North or the South." Mr. President, I could go on and multiply extract after extract from my speeches in 1850, and prior to that date, to show that this doctrine of leaving the people to decide these questions for them- selves is not an " after-thought " with me, seized upon, this session, for the first time, as my calumniators have so frequently and boldly charged in their speeches during this debate, and in their manifesto to the public. I refused to support the celebrated Omnibus Bill in 1850 until the obnoxious provision was stricken out, and the principle of self-government restored, as it existed in my original bill. No sooner were the Compromise measures of 1850 passed, than the abolition confederates, who lead the opposition to this bill now, raised the cry of repeal in some sections of the country, and in others forcible resistance to the execution of the law. In order to arrest nd suppress the treasonable purposes of these abolition confederates, and avert the horrors of civil war, it became my duty, on the 23d of October, 1850, to address an excited and frenzied multitude at Chicago, in defence of each and all of the Compromise measures of that year. I will read one or two sentences from that speech, to show how those measures were then understood and explained by their advocates : " These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that every people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating their own internal, concerns and domestic institutions in their own way." Again : " These things are all confided by the Constitution to each State to decide for itself, and I KNOW OP NO BEASON WHY THE same principle should not be con- fided to the Territories.'' In this speech it will be seen that I lay down a general principle of universal application, and make no distinction between Terri- tories north or south of 30 30'. I am aware that some of the abolition confederates have perpe- trated a monstrous forgery on that speech, and are now circulating through the abolition newspapers the statement that I said that I would cling with the tenacity of life to the compromise of 1820." This statement, false as it is a deliberate act of forgery, as it is known to be by all who have ever seen or read the speech referred to constitutes the staple article out of which most of the abolition orators at the small anti-Nebraska meetings manufacture the greater part of their speeches. I now declare that there is not a sentence, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 101 a line, even a word in that speech, which imposes the slightest limi- tation on the application of the great principle embraced in this bill in all new Territorial organizations, without the least reference to the line of 36 30'. At the session of 1850-51, a few weeks after this speech was made at Chicago, and when it had been published in pamphlet form and circulated extensively over the States, the legislature of L Jnoie proceeded to revise its action upon the slavery question, and define its position on the compromise of 1850. After rescinding the reso- lutions adopted at a previous session, instructing my colleague and myself to vote for a proposition prohibiting slavery in the Territories, resolutions were adopted approving the Compromise measures of 1850. I will read one of the resolutions, which was adopted in the House of ^Representatives, by a vote of 61 yeas to 4 nays : "Resolved, That our liberty and independence are based upon the right of the people to form for themselves such a government as they may choose ; that this great privilege the birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, secured to us by the blood of our ancestors ought to be extended to future generations ; and no limitation ought to be applied to this power, in the organization of any Territory of the United States, of either a Territorial government or a State Constitution : Provided, The government so established shall be republican, and in conformity with the Constitution." Another series of resoulutions having passed the Senate almost unanimously, embracing the same principle in different language, they were concurred in by the House. Thus was the position of Illinois, upon the slavery question defined at the first session of the legislature after the adoption of the Compromise of 1850. Now, sir, what becomes of the declaration which has been made by nearly every opponent of this bill, that nobody in this whole Union ever dreamed that the principle of the Utah and New Mexican bill was to be incorporated into all future Territorial organizations ? I have shown that my own State so understood and declared it at the time in the most implicit and solemn manner. Illinois declared that our "liberty and independence" rest upon this "principle;" that the principle " ought to be extended to future generations ;" and that "NO LIMITATION OUGHT TO BE APPLIED TO THIS POWER IN THE ORGANIZATION OF ANT TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES." No exception is made in regard to Nebraska. No Missouri Compromise lines ; no reservations of the country north of 36 30'. The principle is declared to be be the " birthright of freemen :" the " gift of Hea- von, to bo applied without limitation," in Nebraska as well as Utah, north as well as south of 36 30'. It may not be out of place here to remark that the legislature ot Illinois, at its recent session, has passed resolutions approving the Nebraska Bill ; and among the resolutions is one in the precise janguage of the resolution of 1851, which I have just read to the ft&n&te. 102 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Thus I have shown, Mr. President, that the legislature and people of Illinois have always understood the Compromise measures of 1850 as establishing certain principles as rules of action in the organization of all new Territories, and that no limitation was to be made on either side of the geographical line of 36 30'. Neither my time nor your patience will allow me to take up the resolutions of the different States in detail, and show what has been the common understanding of the whole country upon this point. I am now vindicating myself and my own action against the assaults of my calumniators ; and, for that purpose, it is sufficient to show that, in the report and bill which I have presented to the Senate, 1 have only carried out the known principles and solemnly declared will of the State whose representative I am. I will now invite the attention of the Senate to the report of the committee, in order that it may be known how much, or rather how little, truth there is for the allegation which has been so often made and repeated on this floor, that the idea of allowing the people in Nebraska to decide the slavery question for themselves was a "sheer after-thought," con- ceived since the report was made, and not until the senator from Kentucky proposed his amendment to the bill. I read from that portion of the report in which the committee lay down the principle by which they propose to be governed : " In the judgment of your committee, those measures (Compromise of 1850) were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but in all time to come avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing *he. question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and committing it to the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in and alone responsible for its consequences. 1 ' After making a brief argument in defence of this principle, the report proceeds, as follows : "From these provisions, it is apparent that the Compromise measures of 1850 affirm and rest upon the following propositions: u First, that all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose." And in conclusion, the report proposes a substitute for the bill introduced by the senator from Iowa, and concludes as follows : u The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry vnese propositions and principles into practical operation, in the precise lan- guage of the Compromise measures of 1850." VIr. President, as there has been so much misrepresentation npop. STEPHEN A. DOLGLA8. 103 this point, I must be" permitted to repeat that the doctrine of the report of the committee, as has been conclusively proved by these extracts, is First, That the whole question of slavery should be withdrawn from the halls of Congress, and the political arena, and committed to the arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in am! alone responsible for its existence. Second, The applying this principle to the Territories and the new States to be formed therefrom, all questions pertaining to slavery were to be referred to the people residing therein. Third, That the committee proposed to carry these propositions and principles into effect in the precise language of the compromise measures of 1850. Are not these propositions identical with the principles and pro- visions of the bill on your table ? If there is a hair's breadth of dis- crepancy between the two, I ask any senator to rise in his place and point it out. Both rest upon the great principle, which forms the basis of all our institutions, that the people are to decide the question for themselves, subject only to the Constitution. But my accusers attempt to raise up a false issue, and thereby divert public attention from the real one, by the cry that the Mis- souri Compromise is to be repealed or violated by the passage of this bill. Well, if the eighth section of the Missouri Act, which attempted to fix the destinies of future generations in those Territories for all time to come, in utter disregard of the rights and wishes of the people when they should be received into the Union as States, be inconsistent with the great principle of self-government and the Constitution of the United States, it ought to be abrogated. The legislation of 1850 abrogated the Missouri Compromise, so far as the country embraced within the limits of Utah and New Mexico was covered by the slavery restriction. It is true, that those acts did not in terms and by name repeal the act of 1820, as originally adopted, or as extended by the resolutions annexing Texas in 1845, any more than the report of the Committee on Territories proposes to repeal the same acts this session. But the acts of 1850 did authorize the people of those Territories to exercise " all rightful powers of legis- lation consistent with the Constitution," not excepting the question of slavery ; and did provide that, when those Territories should be admitted into the Union, they should be received with or with -ut slavery as the people thereof might determine at the date of their admission. These provisions were in direct conflict with a clause in a former enactment, declaring that slavery should be forever pro- hibited in any portion of said Territories, and hence rendered such clause inoperative and void to the extent of such conflict. This was an inevitable consequence, resulting from the provisions in those acts which gave the people the right to decide the slavery question for themselves, in conformity with the Constitution. It was not necessary to go further and declare that certain previous enactments, 104 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF which were incompatible with the exercise of the powers conferred in the bills, kl are hereby repealed." The very act of granting those powers and rights have the legal effect of removing all obstructions to the exercise of them by the people, as prescribed in those Terri- torial bills. Following that example, the Committee on Territories did not consider it necessary to declare the eighth section of the Missouri act repealed. We were content to organize Nebraska in the precise language of the Utah and New Mexican bills. Our object was to leave the people entirely free to form and regulate their domestic institutions and internal concerns in their own way, under the constitution ; and we deemed it wise to accomplish that object in the exact terms in which the same thing had been done in Utah and New Mexico by the acts of 1850. This was the principle upon which the committee reported ; and our bill was supposed, and is now believed, to have been in accordance with it. When doubts were raised whether the bill did fully carry out the principle laid down in the report, amendments were made, from time to time, in order to avoid all misconstruction, and make the true intent of the act more explicit. The last of these amendments was adopted yes- terday, on the motion of the distinguished senator from North Carolina (Mr. Badger), in regard to the revival of any laws or regulations which may haye existed prior to 1820. That amendment was not intended to change the legal effect of the bill, its object was to repel the slander which had been propagated by the enemies of the measures in the North, that the southern supporters of the bill desired to legislate slavery into these Territories. The south denies the right of Congress either to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or out of any Territory or State. Non-interven- tion by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories is the doctrine of the bill, and all the amendments which have been agreed to have been made with the view of removing all doubts and cavil as to the true meaning and object of the measure. Mr. President, I think I have succeeded in vindicating myself and the action of the committee from the assaults which have been made upon us in consequence of these amendments. It seems to be the tactics of our opponents to direct their arguments against the unim- portant points and incidental questions which are to be affected by (MiTy'mg out the principle, with the hope of relieving themselves from the necessity of controverting the principle itself. The senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) led off gallantly in the charge that the com- mittee, in the report and bill first submitted, did not contemplate the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and could not be brought to that point until after the senator from Kentucky offered his amendment. The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) followed his lead, and repeated the same statement. Then came the other senator from Ohio (Mr. Ward), and the senator from 1 New York (Mr. Seward), and senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Simmer), all singing the same song, only v-aryiug the tune. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 105 Let me ask those senators what they mean by this statement ? Do they wish to be understood as saying that the report and first form of the bill did not provide for leaving the slavery question to the decision of the people in the terms of the Utah Bill ? Surely they will not dare to say that, for I have already shown that the two measures were identical in principle and enactment. Do they mean to say that the adoption of our first bill would not have had the legal effect to have rendered the eighth section of the Missouri Act "inoperative and void," to use the language of the present bill ? If this be not their meaning, will they rise in their places and inform the Senate what their meaning was? They must have had some object in giving so much prominence to this statement, and in repeat- ing it so often. I address the question to the senators from Ohio and Massachusetts (Mr. Chase and Mr. Surnner). I despair in extort- ing a resp9nse from them , for, no matter in what way they may answer upon this point, I have in my hand the evidence o^er their own signatures, to disprove the truth of their answer. I allude to their appeal or manifesto to the people of the United States, in which they arraign the bill and report, in coarse and savage terms, as a proposition to repeal the Missouri Compromise, to violate plighted faith, to abrogate a solemn compact, etc. etc. This document was signed by those two senators in their official capacity, and published to the world before any amendments had been offered to the bill. It was directed against the committee's first bill and report, and against them alone. If the statements in this document be true, that the first bill did repeal the eighth section of the Missouri Act, what are we to think of the statements in their speeches since, that such was not the intention of the committee, was not the recom- mendation of the report, and was not the legal effect of the bill ? On the contrary, if the statements in their subsequent speeches aro true, what apology do those senators propose to make to the Senate and country for having falsified the action of the committee in a document over their own signatures, and thus spread a false alarm among the people, and misled the public mind in respect to our pro- ceedings ? These senators cannot avoid the one or the other of these alternatives. .Let them seize upon either, and they stand condemned and self-convicted ; in the one case by their manifesto, and in the other by their speeches. In fact, it is clear that they have understood the bill to mean tho same thing, and to have the same legal effect in whatever phase it has been presented. When first introduced, they denounced it as a proposition to abrogate the Missouri restriction. "When amended, they repeated the same denunciation, and so on each successive amendment. They now object to the passage of the bill for the same reason, thus proving conclusively that they have not the least faith in the correctness of their own statements in respect to the mutations and changes in the bill. They seem very unwilling to meet the real issue. They do not 106 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF like to discuss the principle. There seems to be something which strikes them with terror when you invite their attention to this great fundamental principle of popular sovereignty. Hence you tind that, all the memorials they have presented are against repealing the Mis- souri Compromise, and in favor of the sanctity of compacts in favor of preserving plighted faith. The senator from Ohio is cautious to dedicate his speech with some such heading as " Maintain Plighted Faith." The object is to keep the attention of the people aa far as possible from this principle of self-government and constitutional Weil, sir. what is this Missouri Compromise, of which we have heard so much of late? It has been read so often that it is not necessary to occupy the time of the Senate in reading it again. It was an act of Congress, passed on the 6th of March, 1820, to author- ize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and a State govern- ment, preparatory to the admission of such State into the Union. The first section provided that Missouri should be received into the Union " on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever." The last and eighth section provided that slavery should be " for ever prohibited " in all the territory which had been acquired from France north of 36 30', and not included within the limits of the State of Missouri. There is nothing in the terms of the law that purports to be a compact, or indicates that it was anything more than an ordinary act of legislation. To prove that it was more than it purports to be on its face, gentlemen must produce other evidence, and prove that there was such an understanding as to create a moral obligation in the nature of a compact. Have they shown it? I have heard but one item of evidence produced during this whole debate, and that was a short paragraph from Niles's Register, pub- lished a few days after the passage of the act. But gentlemen aver that it was a solemn compact, which could not be violated or abro- gated without dishonor. According to their understanding, the con- tract was that, in consideration of the admission of Missouri into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever, slavery should be prohibited forever in the Territories north of 36 30'. Now, who were the parties to this alleged com- pact ? They tell us that it was a stipulation between the North and the South. Sir, I know of no such parties under the Constitution. I am unwilling that there shall be any such parties known in our legislation. If there is such a geographical line, it ought to be obli- terated for ever, and there should be no other parties than those provided for in the Constitution, viz. : the States of this Union. These are the only parties capable of contracting under the Consti- tution of the United States. Now, if this was a compact, let us see how it was entered into. The bill originated in the House of Representatives, and passed that body without a southern vote in its favor. It is proper to remark, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 107 However, that it did not at that time contain the eighth section, pro- hibiting slavery in the Territories ; but in lieu of it, contained a pro- vision prohibiting slavery in the proposed State of Missouri. In the Senate, the clause prohibiting slavery in the State was stricken out, and the eighth section added to the end of the bill, by the terms of which slavery was to be forever prohibited in the Territory not embraced in the State of Missouri north of 36 30'. The vote on adding this section stood, in the Senate, 34 in the affirmative, and 10 in the negative. Of the northern senators, 20 voted for it and 2 against it. On the question of ordering the bill to a third reading as amended, which was the test vote on its passage, the vote stood 24 yeas and 20 nays. Of the northern senators, 4 only voted in the affirmative, and 18 in the negative. Thus it will be seen that, if it was intended to be a compact, the North never agreed to it. The northern senators voted to insert the prohibition of slavery in the Territories ; and then, in the proportion of more than four to one voted against the passage of the bill. The North, therefore, never signed the compact, never consented to it, never agreed to be bound by it. This fact becomes very important in vindicating the character of the North for repudiating this alleged compromise a few months afterward. The act was approved and became a law on the 6th of March, 1820. In the summer of that year, the people of Missouri formed a constitution and State government, preparatory to admis- sion into the Union, in conformity with the act. At the next session of Congress the Senate passed a joint resolution, declaring Missouri to be one of the States of the Union, on an equal footing with the original States. This resolution was sent to the House of Eepresen- tatives, where it was rejected by northern votes, and thus Missouri was voted out of the Union, instead of being received into the Union under the act of the 6rh of March, 1820, now known as the Missouri Compromise. Now, sir, what becomes of our plighted faith, if the act of the 6th of March, 1820, was a solemn compact, as we are now told ? They have all rung the changes upon it, that it was a sacred and irrevocable compact, binding in honor, in conscience, and morals, which could not be violated or repudiated without perfidy and dis- honor ! The two senators from Ohio (Mr. Chase and Mr. Wade), the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), the senator from Con- necticut (Mr. Smith), the senator from New York (Mr. Seward), and perhaps others, have all assumed this position. MR. SEWARD. Whoever will refer to my antecedents will find that in the year 1850 I expressed opinions on the subject of legisla- tive compromises between the North and South, which, at that day were rejected and repudiated. MR. DOUGLAS. If the object of the senator is to go back, and go through all his opinions, I cannot yield the floor to him ; but if his object is now to show that the North did not violate the Missouri compromise, I will yield. ME. SEWARD. If the honorabk senator will allow me just one JOS THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF minute and a half, without dictating what I shall say within that minute and a half, I shall be satisfied. ME: DOUGLAS. Certainly, I will consent to that. ME. SEWAED. I find that the honorable senator from Illinois is standing upon the ground upon which I stood in 1850. I have nothing to say now in favor of that ground. On this occasion, I stand upon the ground, in regard to compromises, which has been adopted by the country. Then, when the senator tells me that the North did not altogether, willingly, and unanimously, consent to the compromise of 1820, 1 agree to it ; but I have been overborne in the country, on the ground that if one northern man carried with him a majority of Congress he bound the whole North. And so I hold in regard to the compromise of 1820, that it was carried by a vote which has been held by the South and by the honorable senator from Illinois to bind the North. The South having received their consideration and equivalent, I only hold him, upon his own doctrine and the doctrine of the South, bound to stand to it. That is all I have to say upon that point. A few words more will cover all that I have to say about what the honorable senator may say hereafter as to the North repudiating this contract. When I was absent, I understood the senator alluded to the fact that my name appeared upon a paper which was issued by the honorable senator from Ohio, and some other members of Congress, to the people, on the subject of this bill. Upon that point it has been my intention throughout to leave to the honorable senator from Illinois, and those who act with him, whatever there is of merit, and whatever there is of responsibility for the present measure, and for all the agitation and discussion upon it. Therefore, as soon as I found, when I returned to the Capitol, that my name was on that paper, I caused it to be made known and published, as fully and extensively as I could, that I had never been consulted in regard to it ; that I know nothing about it ; and that the merit of the measure, as well as the responsibility, belonged to the honorable senator from Ohio, and those who cooperated with him ; and tliat I had never seen the paper on which he commented ; nor have I in any way addressed the public upon the subject. ME. DOUGLAS. I wish to ask the senator from New York a question. If I understood his remarks when he spoke, and if I understand his speech as published, he averred that the Missouri Compromise was a compact between the North and the South ; that the North performed it on its part ; that it had done so faithfully for thirty years ; that the South had received all its benefits, and the moment these benefits had been fully realized, the South disavowed the obligations under which it had received them. Is not that his position ? ME. SEWAUD. I am not accustomed to answer questions put to me, unless they are entirely categorical, and placed in such a shape that I may know exactly, and have time to consider, their whole extent The honorable senator from Illinois has put a very broad question STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 109 What I mean to say, however, and that will answer his purpose, is, that his position, and that the position of the South is, that this was a compromise ; and I say that the North has never repudiated that compromise. Indeed, it has never had the power to do so. Missouri came into the Union, and Arkansas came into the Union, under that compromise ; and, whatever individuals may have said, whatever individuals, more or less humble than myself, may have contended, the practical eifect is, that the South has had all that she could get by that compromise, and that the North is now in the predicament of being obliged to defend what was left to her. I believe that, answers the question. MR. DOUGLAS. Now, Mr. President, I choose to bring men directly up to this point. The senator from New York has labored in his whole speech to make it appear that this was a compact ; that the North had been faithful ; and that the South acquiesced until she got all its advantages, and then disavowed and sought to annul it. Thi he pronounced to be bad faith ; and he made appeals about disorder. The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) did the same thing, and so did the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), and the senator from Ohio -(Mr. Chase). That is the point to which the whole aboli- tion party are now directing all their artillery in this battle. Now, I propose to bring them to the point. If this was a compact, and if what they have said is fair, or just, or true, who was it that repudi- ated the compact ? MB. SUMNEE. Mr. President, the senator from Illinois, I know, does not intend to misstate my position. That position, as announced in. the language of the speech which I addressed to the Senate, and. which I now hold in my hand, is, " this is an infraction of solemn obligations, assumed beyond recall by the South, on the admission of Missouri into the Union as a slave State;" which was one year after the act of 1820. ME. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I shall come to that ; and I wish to see whether this was an obligation which was assumed " beyond recall." If it was a compact between the two parties, one party has been faithful, it is beyond recall by the other. If, however, one party has been faithless, what shall we think of them, if, while faithless, they ask a performance ? ME. SEWAED. Show it. ME. DOUGLAS. That is what I am coming to. I have already stated that, at the next session of Congress, Missouri presented a constitution in conformity with the act of 1820 ; that the Senate passed a joint resolution to admit her ; and that the House refused to admit Missouri in conformity with the alleged compact, and, I think, 'on three distinct votes, rejected her. MB. SEWAED. I beg my honorable friend, for I desire to call him so, to answer me frankly whether he would rather I should say what I have to say in this desultory way, or whether he would prefer that I should answer him afterward ; because it is with me a rule in the be- nate never to interrupt a gentleman, except to help him in his argument, 110 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF MB. DOUGLAS. I would rather hear the senator now. MB. SEWABD. What I have to say now, and I acknowledge the magnanimity of the senator from Illinois in allowing me to say it, is, that the North stood by that compact until Missouri came in with a constitution, one article of which denied to colored citizens of other States the equality of privileges which were allowed to all other citizens of the United Sates, and thto the North insisted on the right of colored men to be regarded as citizens, and entitled to the privi- leges and immunities of citizens. Upon that a new compromise was necessary. I hope I am candid. MB. DOUGLAS. The senator is candid, I have no doubt, as he understands the facts ; but I undertake to maintain that the North objected to Missouri because she allowed slavery, and not because of the free-negro clause alone. MB. SEWABD. No sir. MB. DOUGLAS. Now I will proceed to prove that the North did not object, solely on account of the free-negro clause ; but that in House of Representatives at that time, the North objected as well because of slavery as in regard to free negroes. Here is the evidence. In the House of Representatives, on the 12th of February, 1821, Mr. Mallory, of Vermont, moved to amend the Senate joint resolution for the admission of Missouri, as follows : " To amend the said amendment, by striking out all thereof after the words respects, and inserting the following : ' Whenever people of the said State, by a convention, appointed according to the manner provided by the act to autho- rize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories, approved March 6, 1820, adopt a constitution conformably to the provisions of said act, and shall, IN ADDITION to said provisions, further provide, in and by said constitution, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever be allowed in said State of Missouri, unless inflicted as a punishment for crimes committed against the laws of said State, whereof the party accused shall be duly convicted : Pro- vided, That the civil condition of those persons who now are held to service in Missouri shall not be affected by this last provision.' " Here I show, then, that the proposition was made that Missouri should not come in unless, in addition to complying with the Mis- souri Compromise, so called, she would go further, and prohibit slavery within the limits of the State. MB. SEWABD. Now, then, for the vote. MB. DOUGLAS. The vote was taken by yeas and nays. I hold it in my hand. Sixty-one northern men voted for that amendment, and thirty-three against it. Thus the North, by a vote of nearly two to one, expressly repudiated a solemn compact upon the very matter tn controversy, to wit : that slavery should not be prohibited in the State of Missouri. MB. WELLEB. Let the senator from New York answer that. MB. DOUGLAS. I should like to hear his answer. MB. SEWABD. I desire, if I shall be obtrusive by speaking in thii way, that senators will at once signify, or that any senator will sig- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Ill mfy, that I am obtrusive. But I make these explanations in this way, for the reason that I desire to give the honorable senator from Illinois the privilege of hearing my answer to him as he goes along. It is simply this : That this doctrine of compromises is, as it has been held, that if so many northern men shall go with so many southern men as to fix the law, then it binds the North and South alike. I there- fore have but one answer to make : the vote for the restriction was less than the northern vote given against the compromise. ME. DOUGLAS. Well, now, we come to this point: We have been told, during this debate, that you must not judge of the North by the minority, but by the majority. You have been told, that the mi- nority, who stood by the Constitution and the rights of the South, were dough-faces. ME. SEWAED. I have not said so. I will not say so. ME. DOUGLAS. You have all said so in your speeches, and you have asked us to take the majority of the North. ME. SEWAED. I spoke of the practical fact. I never said anything about dough-faces. ME. DOUGLAS. You have asked us to take the majority instead of the minority. ME. SEWAED. The majority of the country. ME. DOUGLAS. I am talking of the majority of the northern vote. ME. SEWAED. No, sir. ME. DOUGLAS. I hope the senator will hear me. I wish to recall him to the issue. I stated that the North in the House of Bepresentatives voted against admitting Missouri into the Union under the act of 1820, and caused the defeat of that measure; and he said that they voted against it on the ground of the free-negro clause in her consti- tution, and not upon the ground of slavery. Now, I have shown by the evidence that it was upon the ground of slavery, as well as upon the other ground; and that a majority of the North required not only that Missouri should comply with the compact of 1820, so called, but that she should go further, and give up the whole consi- deration which the senator says the South received from the North for the Missouri Compromise. The compact, he says, was that, in consideration of slavery being permitted in Missouri, it should be prohibited in the Territories. After having procured the prohibition in the Territories, the North, by a majority of votes, refused to admit Missouri as a slaveholding State, and in violation of the alleged compact, required her to prohibit slavery as a further condition of her admission. This repudiation of the alleged compact by the North is recorded by yeas and nays, sixty-one to thirty-three, and entered upon the Journal, as an imperishable evidence of the fact. With this evidence before us, against whom should the charge of perfidy be preferred ? Sir, if this was a compact, what must be thought of those who violated it almost immediately after it was formed ? I say it was a calnmny upon the North to say that it was a compact : I should feel 1)2 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF a flush of shame upon my cheek, as a northern man, if I were to say that it was a compact, and that the section of the country to which I belong received the consideration, and then repudiated the obliga- tion in eleven months after it was entered into. I deny that it was a compact in any sense of the term. But if it was, the record proves that faith was not observed ; that the contract was never carried into effect ; that after the North had procured the passage of the act prohibiting slavery in the Territories, with a majority in the House large enough to prevent its repeal, Missouri was refused admis- sion into the Union as a slaveholding State, in conformity with the act of March 6, 1820. If the proposition be correct, as contended for by the opponents of this bill, that there was a solemn compact between the North and the South, that, in consideration of the pro- hibition of slavery in the Territories, Missouri was to be admitted into the Union in conformity with the act of 1820, that compact was repudiated by the North and rescinded by the joint action of the two parties within twelve months from its date. Missouri was never admitted under the act of the 6th of March, 1820. She was refused admission under that act. She was voted out of the Union by northern votes, notwithstanding the stipulation that she should bo received ; and, in consequence of these facts, a new compromise was rendered necessary, by the terms of which Missouri was to be ad- mitted into the Union conditionally admitted on a condition not embraced in the act of 1820, and, in addition, to full compliance with all the provisions of said act. If, then, the act of 1820, by the eighth section of which slavery was prohibited in the Territories. was a compact, it is clear to the comprehension of every fair-minded man tbat the refusal of the North to admit Missouri, in compli- ance with its stipulations, and without further conditions, imposes upon us a high moral obligation to remove the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, since it has been shown to have been procured upon a condition never performed. Mr. President, inasmuch as the senator from New York has taken great pains to impress Upon the public mind of the North the con- viction that the act of 1820 was a solemn compact, the violation or repudiation of which by either party involves perfidy and dishonor, I wish to call the attention of that senator (Mr. Seward) to the fact, that his own State was the first to repudiate the compact and to instruct her senators in Congress not to admit Missouri into the Union in compliance with it, nor unless slavery should be prohibited in the State of Missouri. MB. SEWAED. That is so. MR. DOUGLAS. I have the resolutions before me, in the printed Journal of the Senate. The senator from New York is familiar with the fact, and frankly admits it : "STATE OP NBW YORK, > IN ASSBMBLY, November 18, 1820. f "Whereas the legislature of this State, at the last session, did instruct theif STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 113 senators and request their representatives in Congress to oppose the admission, as a State, into the Union, of any territory not comprised within the original boundaries of the United States, without making the prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable condition of admission ; and whereas this legislature is impressed with the correctness of the sentiments so communicated to our senators and representatives : Therefore " Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur herein), That this legislature does approve of the principles contained in the resolutions of the last session ; and further, if the provisions contained in any proposed constitution of a new State deny to any citizens of the existing States the privileges and immunities of citizens of such new State, that such proposed constitution should not be accepted or confirmed ; the same, in the opinion of this legislature, being void by the Constitution of the United States. And that our senators be instructed, and our representatives in Congress be requested, to use their utmost exer- tions to prevent the acceptance and confirmation of any such constitution." It will be seen by these resolutions, that, at the previous session the New York legislature had " instructed " the senators from that State " to oppose the admission, as a State, into the Union of any territory not comprised within the original boundaries of the United States, without making the prohibition of slavery therein an indis- pensable condition of admission." Theses instructions are not confined to territory north of 36 30'. They apply, and were intended to apply, to the whole territory west of the Mississippi, and to all territory which might hereafter be acquired. They deny the right of Arkansas to admission as a slave- holding State, as well as Missouri. They lay down a general princi- ple to be applied and insisted upon everywhere, and in all cases, and under all circumstances. These resolutions were first adopted prior to the passage of the act of March 6, 1820, which the senator now chooses to call a compact. But they were renewed and repeated on the 13th of November, 1820, a little more than eight months after the Missouri Compromise, as instructions to the New York senators to resist the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding State, notwith- standing the stipulations in the alleged compact. Now, let me ask the senator from New York by what authority he declared and pub- lished in his speech that the act of 1820, was a compact which could not be violated or repudiated without a sacrifice of honor, justice arid good faith. Perhaps he will shelter himself behind the resolu- tions of his State, which he presented this session, branding this bill as a violation of plighted faith. Ms. SEWAED. Will the senator allow me a word of explanation ? ME. DOUGLAS. Certainly, with a great deal of pleasure. ME. SEWAED. I wish simply to say that the State of New York, for now thirty years, has refused to make any compact on any terms by which a concession should be made for the extension of slavery. But, by the practical action of the Congress of the United States, compromises have been made, which, it is held by the honorable senator from Illinois and by the South, bind her against her consent and approval. And, therefore, she stands throughout this whole matter upon the same ground always refusing to enter into a oora 114: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF promise, always insisting upon the prohibition of slavery within the Territories of the United States. But, on this occasion, we stand here with a contract which has stood for 30 years, notwithstanding our protest and dissent, and in which there is nothing left to be ful- filled except that part which is to be beneficial to us. All the rest has been fulfilled, and we stand here with our old opinions on the whole 'subject of compromises, demanding fulfillment on the part of the South, which the honorable senator from Illinois on the present occasion represents. MR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the senator undoubtedly speaks for himself very frankly and very candidly. MR. SEWARD. Certainly I do. MR. DOUGLAS. But I deny that on this point he speaks for the State of New York. MR. SEWARD. We shall see. MR. DOUGLAS. I will state the reason why I say so. He has pre- sented here resolutions of this State of New York which have been adopted this year, declaring the act of March 6, 1820, to be a " solemn compact." I read from the second resolution : " But at the same time duty to themselves and to the other States of the Union demands that when an effort is making to violate a solemn compact whereby the political power of the State and the privileges as well as the honest sentiments of its citizens will be jeoparded and invaded, they should raise their voice in protest against the threatened infraction of their rights, and declare that the negation or repeal by Congress of the Missouri Compro- mise will be regarded by them as a violation of right and of faith, and destruc- tive of that confidence and regard which should attach to the enactment of the federal legislature." Mr. President, I cannot let the senator off on the plea that I, for the sake of the argument, in reply to him and other opponents of this bill, have called it a compact ; or that the South have called it a compact ; or that other friends of Nebraska have called it a com- pact which has been violated and rendered invalid. He and his abolition confederates have arraigned me for a violation of a com- pact, which, they say, is binding in morals, in conscience and honor. I have shown that the legislature of New York, at its present session, has declared it to be " a solemn compact," and that its repudiation would " be regarded by them as a violation of right, and of faitlu, and destructive of confidence and regard." I have also shown, that if it be such a compact, the State of New York stands self-con- demned and self-convicted as the first to repudiate and violate it. But since the senator has chosen to make an issue with me iii respect to the action of New York, with the view of condemning my conduct here, I will invite the attention of the senator to another portion of these resolutions. Referring to the fourteenth section of the Nebraska Bill, the legislature of New York says : STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 115 " That the adoption of this provision would be in derogation of the truth, a gross violation of plighted faith, and an outrage and indignity upon the free States of the Union, whose assent has been yielded to the admission into the Union of Missouri and of Arkansas, with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful observance of the provision (now sought to be abrogated) known as the Mis- souri Compromise, whereby slavery was declared to be "forever prohibited in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 30' north latitude, not included within the limits of the State of Missouri." I have no comments to make npon the courtesy and propriety exhibited in this legislative declaration, that a provision in a bill, reported by a regular committee of the Senate of the United States, and known to be approved by three-fourths of the body, and which has since received the sanction of their votes, is "in derogation of truth, a gross violation of plighted faith, and an outrage and indig- nity," etc. The opponents of this measure claim a monopoly of all the courtesies and amenities, which should be observed among gen- tlemen, and especially in the performan.ee of official duties ; and I am free to say that this is one of the mildest and most respectful forms of expression in which they have indulged. But there is a declaration in this resolution to which I wish to invite the particular attention of the Senate and the country. It is the distinct allega- tion that "the free States of the Union," including New York, yield their " assent to the admission into the Union of Missouri and Arkansas, with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful observance of the provision known as the Missouri Compromise." Now, sir, since the legislature of New York has gone out of its way to arraign the State on matters of truth, I will demonstrate that this paragraph contains two material statements in direct " derogation of truth." I have already shown, beyond controversy, by the records of the legislature and by the journals of the Senate, that New York never did give her assent to the admission of Mis- souri with slavery.! Hence, I must be permitted to say, in the polite language of her own resolutions, that the statement that New York yielded her assent to the admission of Missouri with slavery is in "derogation of truth!" and, secondly, the statement that such assent was given " in reliance upon the faithful observance of the Missouri Compromise " is equally " in derogation of truth." New York never assented to the admission of Missouri as a slave State, never assented to what she now calls the Missouri Compromise, never observed its stipulations as a compact, never had been willing to carry it out ; but, on the contrary, has always resisted it, as I have demonstrated by her own records. Mr. President, I have before me other journals, records and in- structions, which prove that New York was not the only free State that repudiated the Missouri Compromise of 1820 within twelve months from its date. I will not occupy the time of the Senate at this late hour of the night by referring to them, unless some oppo- nent of the bi 1 renders it necessary. In that event, I may be able 22 116 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF to place other senators and their States in the same unenviable posi- tion in which the senator from New York has found himself and his State. I think I have shown, that to call the act of the 6th of March, 1820, a compact, binding in honor, is to charge the northern States of this Union with an act of perfidy unparalleled in the history of legislation or of civilization. I have already adverted to the tacts, that, in the summer of 1820 Missouri framed her constitution, in con- formity with the act of the 6th of March ; that it was presented to Congress at the next session; that the Senate passed a joint resolu- tion declaring her to be one of the States of the Union, on an equal footing with the original States ; and that the House of Representa- tives rejected it, and refused to allow her to come into the Union, because her constitution did not prohibit slavery. These facts created the necessity for a new compromise, the old one having failed of its object, which was, to bring Missouri into th^ Union. At. this period in the order of events in February, 1821, when the excitement was almost beyond restraint, and a great fun- damental principle, involving the right of the people of the new States to regulate their own domestic institutions, was dividing the Union into two great hostile parties Henry Clay, of Kentucky, came forward with a new compromise, which had the effect to change the issue, and make the result of the controversy turn upon a different point. He brought in a resolution for the admission of' Missouri into the Union, not in pursuance of the act of 1820, not in obedience to the understanding when it was adopted, and not with her constitution as it had been formed in conformity with that act, but he proposed to admit Missouri into the Union upon a "fun- damental condition," which condition was to be in the nature of a solemn compact between the United States on the one part and the State of Missouri on the other part, and to which " fundamental con- dition " the State of Missouri was required to declare her assent in the form of " a solemn public act." This joint resolution passed, and was approved March 2, 1821, and is known as Mr. Clay's Missouri Compromise, in contradistinction to that of 1820, which was intro- duced into the Senate by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois. In the month of June, 1821, the legislature of Missouri assembled and passed the " solemn public act," and furnished an authenticated copy thereof to the President of the United States, in compliance with Mr. Clay's compromise, or joint resolution. On August 10, 1821, James Mon- roe, President of the United States, issued his proclamation, in which, after reciting the fact that on the 2d of March, 1821, Congress had passed a joint resolution "providing for the admission of the State of Missouri into the Union, on a certain condition ;" and that the gene- r:il Mssembly of Missouri, on the 26th of June, having, "by a solemn public act, declared the assent of the said State of Missouri to the fundamei tal condition contained in said joint resolution," and having furnished him with an authentic copy thereof, he, u in pursuance oj STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 117 the resolution of Congress aforesaid," declared the admission of Mis- souri to be complete. I do not deem it necessary to discuss the question whether the conditions upon which Missouri was admitted were wise or unwise. It is sufficient for my present purpose to remark, that the " funda- mental condition " of her admission related to certain clauses in the constitution of Missouri in respect to the migration of free negroes into that State ; clauses similar to those now in force in the consti- tutions of Illinois and Indiana, and perhaps other States ; clauses similar to the provisions of law in force at that time in many of the old States of the Union ; and, I will add, clauses which, in my opin- ion, Missouri had a right to adopt under the Constitution of the United States. It is no answer to this position to say, that those clauses in the constitution of Missouri were in violation of the Con- stitution. ' If they did conflict with the Constitution of the United States, they were void ; if they were not in conflict, Missouri had a right to put them there, and to pass all laws necessary to carry them into effect. Whether such conflict did exist is a question which, by the Constitution, can only be determined authoritatively by the Supreme Court of the United States. Congress is not the appropri- ate and competent tribunal to adjudicate and determine questions of conflict between the constitution -of a State and that of the United States. Had Missouri been admitted without any condition or re- striction, she would have had an opportunity of vindicating her con- stitution and rights in the Supreme Court the tribunal created by the Constitution for that purpose. By the condition imposed on Missouri, Congress not only deprived that State of a right which she believed she possessed under the con- stitution of the United States, but denied her the privilege of vindi- cating that right in the appropriate and constitutional tribunal^ by compelling her, " by a solemn public act," to give an irrevocable pledge never to exercise or claim the right. Therefore Missouri came in under a humiliating condition a condition not imposed by the Constitution of the United States, and which destroys the prin- ciple of equality which should exist, and by the Constitution does not exist, between all the States of this Union. This inequality resulted from Mr. Clay's compromise of 1821, and is the principle upon which that compromise was constructed. I own that the act is couched in general terms and vague phrases, and therefore may possibly be so construed as not to deprive the State of any right she might pos- sess under the Constitution. Upon that point I wish only to say, that such a construction makes the u fundamental condition " void, while the opposite construction would demonstrate it to be uncon- stitutional. I have before me the "solemn public act" of Missouri to this fundamental condition, whoever will take the trouble to read it will find it the richest specimen of irony and sarcasm that haa ever been incorporated into a public act. Sir, in view of these facts I desire to call the attention of the ser 118 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ator from New York to a statement in his speech, upon which the greater part of his argument rested. His statement was, and it is now being published in every abolition paper, and repeated by the whole tribe of abolition orators and lecturers, that Missouri was admitted as a slaveholding State, under the act of 1820 ; while I have shown, by the President's proclamation of August 10, 1821, that she was admitted in pursuance of the resolution of March 2, 1821. Tims it is shown that the material point of his speech is contra- dicted by the highest evidence the record in the case. The same statement I believe was made by the senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith), and the senators from Ohio (Mr. Chase and Mr. Wade), and the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner). Each of these sena- tors made and repeated this statement, and upon the strength of this erroneous assertion called upon us to carry into effect the eighth sec- tion of the same act. The material fact upon which their arguments rested being overthrown, of course their conclusions are erroneous and deceptive. MR. SEWAKD. I hope the senator will yield for a moment, because I h.'ive never had so much respect for him as I have to nighfi. MR DOUGLAS. I see what course I have to pursue in order t com- m;ind the senator's respect. I know now how to get it. (Laughter.) MR. SEWARD. Any man who meets me boldly commands my res- pect. I say that Missouri would not not have been admittted at all into the Union by the United States except upon the compromise of 1820. When that point was settled about the restriction of sla- very it was settled in this way ; that she should come in with slavery and that all the rest of the Louisiana purchase, which is now known as Nebraska, should be forever free from slavery. Missouri adopted a constitution, which was thought by the northern States to infringe upon the right of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, which was a new point altogether ; and upon that point debate was held, and upon it, a new compromise was made, and Missouri came into the Union upon the agreement, that, in regard to that question, she submitted to the Constitution of the United States, and so she was admitted into the Union. MR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I must remind the senator again that I have already proven that he was in error in stating that the North objected to the admission of Missouri merely on account of the free-negro clause in her constitution. I have proven by the vote that the North objected to her admission because she tolerated sla- very; this objection was sustained by the North by a vote of nearly two to one. He cannot shelter himself, therefore, under the free- negro dodge, so long as there is a distinct vote of the North objecting to her admission; because, in addition to complying with the act of J", she did not also prohibit slavery, which was the only consider- ation that the South was to have for agreeing to the prohibition of Blavery in the Territories. Then, having deprived the senator, by conclusive evidence from the records, of that pretext, what do I dm* STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 119 him to ? I compel him to acknowledge that a new compromise was made. ME. SEWABD. Certainly there was. MB. DOUGLAS. Then, I ask, why was it made? Because the North would not carry out the first one. And the best evidence that the North did not carry out the first one is the senator's admis- sion that the South was compelled to submit to a new one. Then, if there was a new compromise made, did Missouri come in under the new one or the old one ? MB. SEWABD. Under both. MB. DOUGLAS. This is the first time, in this debate, it has been intimated that Missouri came in under two acts of Congress. The senator did not allude to the resolution of 1821 in his speech ; none of the opponents of this bill have said it. But it is now admitted that she did not come into the Union under the act of 1820 alone. She had been voted out under the first compromise, and this vote compelled her to make a new one, and she came in under the new one ; and yet the senator from New York, in his speech, declared to the world that she came in under the first one. This is not an imma- terial question. His whole speech rests upon that misapprehension or misstatement of the record. ME. SEWABD. You had better say misapprehension. MB. DOUGLAS. Very well. We will call it by that name. His whole argument depends upon that misapprehension. After stating that the act of 1820 was a compact, and that the North performed its part of it in good faith, he arraigns the friends of this bill for propos- ing to annul the eighth section of the act of 1820 without first turn- ing Missouri out of the Union, in order that slavery may be abo- lished therein by the act of Congress. He says to us, in substance : u Gentlemen, if you are going to rescind the compact, have respect for that great law of morals, of honesty, and of conscience which compels you first to surrender the consideration which you have received 'under the compact.'" I concur with him in regard to the obligation to restore the consideration when a contract is rescinded. And inasmuch as the prohibition in the Territories north of 36 30' was obtained, according to his own statement, by an agreement to admit Missouri as a slaveholding State on an equal footing with the original States, " in all respects whatsoever," as spe- cified in the first section of the act of 1820 ; and, inasmuch as Missouri was refused admission under said act, and was compelled to submit to a new compromise in 1821, and was then received into the Union on a fundamental condition of inequality, I call on him and his abolition confederates to restore the consideration which they have received, in the shape of a prohibition of slavery north of 36 80', under a compromise which they repudiated, and refused to carry into effect. I call on them to correct the erroneous statement in respect to the admission of Missouri, and to make a restitution of the consideration by voting for this bill. I repeat, that this is not 320 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF an immaterial statement. It is the point upon which the abolitionists rest their whole argument. They could not get up a show of pre- text against the great principle of self-government involved in this bill, if they could not repeat all the time, as the senator from New York did in his speech, that Missouri came into the Union with slavery, in conformity to the compact which was made hy the act of 1820, and that the South, having received the consideration, is now trying to cheat the North out of her part of the benefits. I have proven that, after abolitionism had gained its points so far as the eighth section of the act prohibited slavery in the Territory, Missouri was denied admission by northern votes until she entered into a compact by which she was understood to surrender an impor- tant right now exercised by several States of the Union. Mr. President, I did not wish to refer to these things. I did not understand them fully in all their bearings at the time I made my first speech on this subject ; and, so far as I was familiar with them, I made as little reference to them as was consistent with my duty ; because it was a mortifying reflection to me, as a northern man, that we had not been able, in consequence of the abolition excitement at the time, to avoid the appearance of bad faith in the obsenance of legislation, which has been denominated a compromise. There were a few men then, as there are now, who had the moral courage to perform their duty to the country and the Constitution, regardless of consequences personal to themselves. There were ten northern men who dared to perform their duty by voting to admit Llissouri into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and with 110 other restriction than that imposed by the Constitution. I am aware that they were abused and denounced as we are now ; that they were branded as dough-faces, traitors to freedom, and to the section of the country whence they come. MR. GEYER. They honored Mr. Lanman, of Connecticut, by burn- ing him in effigy. MK. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir; these abolitionists honored Mr. Lanman in Connecticut just as they are honoring ine in Boston, and other places, by burning me in effigy. MR. CABS. It will do you no harm. MR. DOUGLAS. Well, sir, I know it will not ; but why this burning in effigy! It is the legitimate consequences of the address which was sent forth to the world by certain senators, whom I denominated, on a former occasion, as the abolition confederates. The senator from Ohio presented here the other day a resolution he says unin- tentionally, and I take it so declaring that every senator who advo- ofeted this bill was a traitor to his country, to humanity, and to God ; and even he seemed to be shocked at the results of his own advice when it was exposed. Yet he did not seem to know that it was, in tnbstanoe, what lie had advised in his address, over his own signa- ture, when he called upon the people to assemble in public meetings and thunder forth their indignation at the criminal betrayal of pre- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 121 cious rights ; when he appealed to ministers of the Gospel tc. desecrate their holy calling, and attempted to inflame passions, and fanaticism, and prejudice against senators who would not consider themselves very highly complimented by being called his equals? And yet, when the natural consequences of his own action and advice came back upon him, and he presents them here, and is called to an account for the indecency of the act, he professes his profound regret and surprise that anything should have occurred which could possibly be deemed unkind or disrespectful to any member of this body ! ********* The senator's explanation does not help him at all. He says he did not state under what act Missouri came in ; but he did say, as I understood him, thattlie act of 1820 was a compact, and that, accord- ing to that compact, Missouri was to come in with slavery, provided slavery should be prohibited in certain Territories, and did come in in pursuance of the compact. He now uses the word " compact." To what compact does he allude ? Is it not to the act of 1820 ? If he did not, what becomes of Ids conclusion that the eighth section of that act is irrepealable? He will not venture to deny that his reference was to the act of 1820. Did he refer to the joint resolution of 1821, under which Missouri was admitted? If so, we do not propose to repeal it. We admit that it was a compact, and that its obligations are irrevocably fixed. But that joint resolution does not prohibit slavery in the Territories. The Nebraska Bill does not propose to repeal it, or impair its obligation in any way. Then, sir, why not take back your correction, and admit that you did mean the act of 1820, when you spoke of irrevocable obligations and compacts? Assuming then, that the senator meant what he is now unwilling either to admit or deny, even while professing to correct me, that Missouri came in under the act of 1820, I aver that I have proven that she did not come into the Union under that act. I have proven that she was refused admission under that alleged compact. I have, therefore, proven incontestably that the material statement upon which his argument rests is wholly without foundation, and unequi vocally contradicted by the record. Sir, I believe I may say the same of every speech which has been made against the bill, upon the ground that it impared the obligation of compacrs. There has not been an argument against the measure, every word of which in regard to the faith of compacts is not con- tradicted by the public records. What I complain of is this : The people may think that a senator, having the laws and journals before him, to which he could refer, would not make a statement in contra- diction of those records. They make the people believe these things, and cause them to do great injustice to others, under the delusion that they have been wronged, and their feelings outraged. Sir, this address did for a time mislead the whole country. It made the legis- lature of New York believe that the act of 1820 was a compact which it would be disgraceful Ko violate ; and, acting under that delusion, 129 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF they framed a series of resolutions, which, if true and just, convict that State 01 ?n act of perfidy and treachery unparalleled in the his- tory of free gorernments. You see, theiefore, the consequence of these inisstatements. You degrade your own State, and induce the people, under the impression that they have been injured, to get up a violent crusade against those whose fidelity and truthfulness will i n the end command their respect and admiration. In consequence of arousing passions and prejudices, I am now to be found in effigy, hanging by the neck, in all the towns where you have the influence to produce such a result. In all these excesses, the people are yield- ing to an honest impulse, under the impression that a grievous wrong has been perpetrated. You have had your day of triumph. You have succeeded in directing upon the heads of others a torrent of insult and calumny from which even you shrink with horror, when the fact is exposed that you have become the conduits for conveying it into this hall. In your State, sir (addressing himself to Mr. Chase) I find I am burnt in effigy in your abolition towns. All this is done because I have proposed, as it is said, to violate a compact! Now, what will those people think of you when they find out that you have stimulated them to these acts, which are disgraceful to your State, disgraceful to your party, and disgraceful to your cause, under a misrepresentation of the facts, which misrepresentation you ought to have been aware of, and should never have been made. MB. CHASE. Will the senator permit me to say a few words ? MR. DOUGLAS. Certainly. MB. CHASE. Mr. President, I certainly regret that anything has occurred in my State which should be otherwise than in accordance with the disposition which I trust I have ever manifested to treat the senator from Illinois with entire courtesy. I do not wish, how- ever, to be understood, here or elsewhere, as retracting any state- ment which I have made, or being unwilling to reassert that state- ment when it is directly impeached. I regard the admission of Mis- souri, and the facts of the transaction connected with it, as constitut- ing a compact between the two sections of the country ; a part of which was fulfilled in the admission of Missouri, another part in the admission of Arkansas, and other parts of which have been fulfilled in the admission of Iowa, and the organization of Minnesota, but which yet remains to be fulfilled in respect to the Territory of Nebraska, and which, in my judgment, will be vioalated by the repeal of the Missouri prohibition. That is my judgment. I have no quarrel with senators who diner with me ; but upon the whole facts of the trans- action, however, I have not changed my opinion at all, in conse- quence of what has been said by the honorable senator from Illinois. 1 say that the facts of the transaction, taken together, and as under- stood by the country for more than thirty years, constitute a cam- pact binding in moral force; though, as I have always said, being bodied m a legislative act, it may be repealed by Congress, if Con- gress see nt. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 123 MB. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I am sorry that the senator from lliio has repeated the statement that Missouri came in under the compact which he says was made by the act of 1820. Row many times have I to disprove the statement? Does not the vote to which I have referred show that such was not the case? Does not the fact that there was a necessity for a new compromise show it ? Have I not proved it three times over? and is it possible that the senator from Ohio will repeat it in the face of the record, with the vote star- mg him in the face, and with the evidence which I have produced ? Does he suppose that he can make his own people believe that his statement ought to be credited in opposition to the solemn record ? I am amazed that the senator should repeat the statement again unsustained by the fact, by the record, and by the evidence, and overwhelmed by the whole current and weight of the testimony which I have produced. The senator says, also, that he never intended to do me injustice, and he is sorry that the people of his State have acted in the manner to which I have referred. Sir, did he not say, in the same document to which I have already alluded, that I was engaged, with others, in u a criminal betrayal of precious rights," in an u atrocious plot?" Did he not say that I and others were guilty of " meditated bad faith ?" Are not these his exact words ? Did he not say that " ser- vile demagogues " might make the people believe certain things, or attempt to do so ? Did he not say everything calculated to produce and bring upon my head all the insults to which I have been sub- jected publicly and privately not even excepting the insulting let- ters which I have received from his constituents, rejoicing at my domestic bereavements, and praying that other and similar calami- ties may befall me? All these have resulted from that address. I expected such consequences when I first saw it. In it he called upon the preachers of the Gospel to prostitute the sacred desk in stimu- lating excesses ; and then, for fear that the people would not know who it was that was to be insulted and calumniated, he told them, in a postscript, that Mr. Douglas was the author of all this iniquity, and that they ought not to allow their rights to be made the hazard of a Presidential game ! After having used such language, he says meant no disrespect he meant nothing unkind ! He was amazed that I said in my opening speech that there was anything offensive in this address ; and he could not suffer himself to use harsh epithets, or to impugn a gentleman's motives! No! not he! After having deliberately written all these insults, impugning motive and charac- ter, and calling upon our holy religion to sanctify the calumny, he could not think of losing his dignity by bandying epithets, or using harsh and disrespectful terms ! Mr. President, 1 expected all that has occurred, and more than has come, as the legitimate result of that address. The things to which I referred are the natural consequences of it. The only re- venge I seek is to expose the authors, and leave them to bear, as best 124 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF they may, the just indignation of ar. honest community, -when the people discover how their sympathies and feelings have been out- raged, by making them the instruments in performing such desper- ate acts. Sir, even in Boston 1 have been hung in effigy. I may say that I expected it to occur even there, for the senator from Massachusetts lives there. He signed his name to that address ; and for fear the Boston abolitionists would not know that it was he, he signed it 44 Charles Sunnier, senator from Massachusetts." The first outrage was in Ohio, where the address was circulated under the signature of u Salmon P. Chase, senator from Ohio." The next came from Boston the same Boston, sir, which, under the dirt'Ction of the same leaders, closed Faneuil Hall to the immortal Webster in 1850, because of his support of the Compromise measures of that year, which all now confess have restored peace and harmony to a dis- tracted country. Yes, sir, even Boston, so glorious in her early his- tory Boston, around whose name so many historical associations cling, to gratify the heart and exalt the pride of every American could be led Astray by abolition misrepresentations so far as to deny a hearing to her own great man, who had shed so much glory upon Massachusetts and her metropolis! I know that Boston now feels humiliated and degraded by the act. And, sir (addressing himself to Mr. Suinncr), you will remember that when you came into the Sen- ate, and sought an opportunity to put forth your abolition incendi- arism, you appealed to our sense of justice by the sentiment, u Strike, but hear me first." But when Webster went back in 1850 to speak to his constituents in his own self-defence, to tell the truth, and to expose his slanderers, you would not hear him, but you xtruck firyt ! Again, sir, even Boston, with her Faneuil Hall consecrated to liberty, was so far led astray by abolitionism, that when one of her gallant sons gallant by his own glorious deeds, inheriting a heroic Revolutionary name, hud given his life to his country upon the bloody field of Buena Vista; and when his remains were brought home, even that Boston, under abolition guidance and abolition preaching, denied him a d-ecent burial, because he lost his life in vindicating his country's honor upon the southern frontier 1 Even the name of Lin- coln, and the deeds of Lincoln, could not secure for him a decent interment, because abolitionism follows a patriot beyond the grave. (Applause in the galleries.) TUB PRESIDING OFFICER (MR. MASON in the chair). Order must be preserved. MR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, with these facts before me, how could I hope to escape the fate which had followed these great and good men ? While I had no right to hope that I might be honored as they bad been, under abolition auspices, have I not a right to be proud ot the distinction and the association ? Mr. President, I regret these digressions. I have not been able to follow the line of argu- ment which I had marked out for myself, because of the many inter- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 125 ruptions. I do not complain of them. It is fair that gentlemen should make them, inasmuch as they have not the opportunity 01 replying; hence I have yielded the floor, and propose to do so cheer- fully whenever any senator intimates that justice to him or his posi- tion requires him to say anything in reply. Returning to the pomt from which I was diverted : I think I have shown that, if the act of 1826, called the Missouri Compromise, was a compact, it was violated and repudiated by a solemn vote of the House of Representatives in 1821, within eleven months after it was adopted. It was repudiated by the North by a majority vote, and that repudiation was so complete and successful as to compel Missouri to make a new compromise, arid she was brought into the Union under the new compromise of 1821, and not under the act of 1820. This reminds me of another point made in nearly all the speeches against this bill, and, if I recollect right, was alluded to in the abolition manifesto ; to which, I regret to say, I had occa- sion to refer so often. I refer to the significant hint that Mr. Clay was dead before any one dared to bring forward a proposition to undo the greatest work of his hands. The senator from New York (Mr. Seward) has seized upon this insinuation, and elaborated it, per- haps, more fully than his compeers; and now the abolition press suddenly, and as if by miraculous conversion, teems with eulogies upon Mr Clay and his Missouri Compromise of 1820. Now, Mr. President, does not each of these senators know that Mr. Clay was not the author of the act of 1820? Do they not know that he disclaimed it in 1850 in this body ? Do they not know that the Missouri restriction did not originate in the house of which he was a member? Do they not know that Mr. Clay never came into the Mis- souri controversy as a' compromiser until after the compromise of 1820 was repudiated, and it became necessary to make another? I dislike to be compelled to repeat what I have conclusively proven, that the compromise which Mr Clay effected was the act of 1821, un- der which Missouri came into the Union, and not the act of 1820. Mr. Clay made that compromise after you had repudiated the first one. How, then, dare you call upon the spirit of that great and gal- lant statesman to sanction your charge of bad faith against the South on this question ? ME. SEWARD. Will the senator allow me a moment? ME. DOUGLAS. Certainly. ME. SEWAED. In the year 1851 or 1852, 1 think 1851, a medal waa struck in honor of Henry Clay, of gold, which cost a large sum of money, which contained eleven acts of the life of Henry Clay. It was presented to him by a committee of citizens of New York, by whom it had been made. One of the eleven acts of his life which was celebrated on that medal, which he accepted, was the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This is my answer. MR. DOUGLAS. Are the words " of 1820 " upon it? MB. SEWARD. It commemorates the Missouri Compromise. 126 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. MR. DOUOLAS. Exactly. I have seen that medal ; and my recoi lection is that it does not contain the words " of 1820." One of the great acts of Mr. Clay was the Missouri Compromise, but what Mis- souri Compromise? Of course, the one which Henry Clay made, the one which he negotiated, the one which brought Missouri into the Union, and which settled the controversy. That was the act of 1821, and not the act of 1820. It tends to confirm the statement which I have made. History is misread and misquoted, and these statements have been circulated and disseminated broadcast through the country, concealing the truth. Does not the senator know that Henry Clay, when occupying that seat in 1850 (pointing to Mr. Clay's chair), in his speech of the 6th of February of that year, said that nothing had struck him with so much surprise as the fact that historical circum- stances soon passed out of recollection; and he instanced, as a casein point, the error of attributing to him the act of 1820. (Mr. Seward nodded assent.) The senator from New York says that he does remember that Mr. Clay did say so. If so, how is it, then, that he presumes now to rise and quote that medal as evidence that Henry Clay was the author of the act of 1820? ME. SKWAED. I answer the senator in this way : that Henry Clay, while lie said he did not disavow or disapprove of that compromise, transferred the merit of it to others who were more active in procur- ing it than he, while he had enjoyed the praise and the glory which were due from it. MR. DOUGLAS. To that I have only to say, that it cannot be the reason; for Henry Clay, in that same speech, did take to himself the merit of the compromise of 1821, arid hence it could not have been modesty which made him disavow the other. He said that he did not know whether he had voted for the act of 1820 or not; but he supposed that he had done so. He furthermore said that it did not originate in the house of which he was a member, and that he never did approve of its principles; but that he may have voted, and pro- bably did vote for it, under the pressure of the circumstances. Now, Mr. President, as I have been doing justice to Mr. Clay on this question, perhaps I may as well do justice to another great man, who was associated with him in carrying through the great measures of 1850, which mortified the senator from New York so much, because they defeated his purpose of carrying on the agitation. I allude to Mr. Webster. The authority of his grgat name has been quoted for the purpose of proving that he regarded the Missouri Act as a compact an irrepealable compact. Evidently the distinguished senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett) supposed that he was doing Mr. Webster entire justice when he quoted the passage which he read from Mr. Webster's speech of the 7th of March, 1850, when he said that he stood upon the position that every part of the American con- tinent was fixed for freedom or for slavery by irrepeal&ole law. The senator says that, by the expression " irrepealable law," Mr. Webster meant to include the compromise of 1820. Now, I wil! STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 127 /how that that was not Mr. Webster's meaning that he was never guilty of the mistake of saying that the Missouri Act of 1820 was an irrepealable law. Mr. Webster said in that speech, that every foot Df territory in the United States was fixed as to its character for free- dom or slavery by an irrepealable law. He then inquired if it was not so in regard to Texas? He went on to prove that it was ; be- cause, he said, there was a compact in express terms between Texas and the United States. He said the parties were capable of contract- Ing, and that there was a valuable consideration ; and hence, he con- tended, that in that case there was a contract binding in honor, and morals, and law ; and that it was irrepealable without a breach of faith. He went on to say : " Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded from those Territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in Texas I mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law of the formation of the earth." That was the irrepealable law which he said prohibited slavery in the Territories of Utah and New Mexico. He next went on to speak of the prohibition of slavery in Oregon, and he said it Was an "en- tirely useless, and, in that connection, senseless proviso." He went further, and said : " That the whole territory of the States in the United States, or in the newly-acquired territory of the United States, has a fixed and settled character, now fixed and settled by law, which cannot be repealed in the case of Texas without a violation of public faith, and cannot be repealed by any human power in regard to California or New Mexico ; that, under one or other of these laws, every foot of territory in the States, or in the Territories, has now received a fixed and decided character." What irrepealable laws? "One or the other " of those which he had stated. One was the Texas compact, the other the law of nature and physical geography ; and he contended that one or the other fixed the character of the whole American continent for freedom or for slavery. He never alluded to the Missouri Compromise, unless it was by the allusion to the Wilmot Proviso in the Oregon Bill, and there he said it was a useless, and, in that connection, senseless thing. Why was it a useless and a senseless thing ? Because it was re-enacting the law of Qod ; because slavery had already been pro- hibited by physical geography. Sir, that was the meaning of Mr. Webster's speech. My distinguished friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett), when he reads the speech again, will be utterly amazed to see how he fell into such an egregious error as to suppose that Mr. Webster 'had so far fallen from his high position as to say that the Missouri Act of 1820 was an irrepealable law. MR. EVEEETT. Will the gentleman give way for a moment? MB. DOUGLAS. With great pleasure. ME. EVEEETT. What I said on that subject was, that Mr. Webster 128 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF in my opinion, considered the Missouri Compromise as of the nature of a compact. It is- true, as the senator from Illinois has just stated, that Mr. Webster made no allusion, in express terms, to the subject of the Missouri restriction. But I thought then, and I think now. that he referred in general terms to that as a final settlement of the question, in the region to which it applied. It was not drawn in question then on either side of the House. Nobody suggested that it was at stake. Nobody intimated that there was a question before the Senate whether that restriction should be repealed or should remain in force. It was not distinctly, and in terms, alluded to, as the gentle- man correctly says, by Mr. Webster or anybody else. What he said in reference to Texas, applied to Texas alone. What he said in refer- ence to Utah and New Mexico, applied to them alone ; and what ho Baid with regard to Oregon, to that Territory alone. But he stated in general terms, and four or five times, in the speech of the Tth of March, 1850, that there was not a foot of land in the United States or its Territories, the character of which, for freedom of slavery, was not fixed by some irrepealable law; and I did think then, and I think now, that by the " irrepealable law," as far as concerned the territory north of 36 30' and included in the Louisiana purchase, Mr. Webster had reference to the Missouri restriction, as regarded as of the nature of a compact. That restriction was copied from one of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787, which are declared in that instrument itself to be articles of compact. The Missouri restriction is the article of the Ordinance of 1787 applied to the Louisiana purchase. That this is the correct interpretation of Mr. Webster's language, is confirmed by the fact that he said more than once, and over again, that all the North lost by the arrangement of 1859, was the non-imposition of the Wilmot Proviso upon Utah and New Mexico. If, m addition to that, the North had lost the Missouri restriction over the whole of the Louisiana purchase, could he have used language of that kind, and would he not have attempted, in some way or other, to reconcile such a momentous fact with his repeated statements that the measures of 1850 applied only to the territories newly acquired from Mexico ? MR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I will explain that matter very quickly. Mr. Webster's speech was made on the 7th of March, 1850, and the Territorial bills and the Texas boundary bill were first re- ported to the Senate by myself on the 25th of the same month. Mr. Webster's speech was made upon Mr. Clay's resolution, when there was no bill pending. Then the Omnibus Bill was formed about the 1st of May subsequently; and hence this explains the reason why 11 r. \Vebster did not refer to the principle involved in these acts, and to the necessary effect of carrying out the principle. MR. EVERETT. The expression of Mr. Webster, which I quoted in my remarks on the 8th of February, was from a speech of Mr. Soule's amendment, offered, I think, in June. In addition to this, I have before me an extract from a still later speech of Mr. Webster, made STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 129 qnite lato in the session, on the 17th of July, 1850, in which he reit- erated that statement. In it he said : " And now, sir, what do Massachusetts and the North, the anti-slavery States, lose by this adjustment ? What is it they lose ? I put that question to every gentleman here, and to every gentleman in the country. They lose the appli- cation of what is called the l Wilmot Proviso' to these Territories, and that ia all. There is nothing else, I suppose, that the whole North are not ready to do. They wish to get California into the Union ; they wish to quiet New Mexico ; they desire to terminate the dispute about the Texan boundary in any reason- able manner, cost what it reasonably may. They make no sacrifice in all that. What they do sacrifice is exactly this : The application of the ' Wilmot Proviso' to the Territory of New Mexico and the Territory of Utah, and that is all." Could Mr. Webster have used language like this if he had under- stood that, at the same time, the non-slaveholding States were losing the Missouri restriction, as applied to the whole vast territory in- cluded in the bills now before the Senate ? ME. DOTJGLAS. Of course that was all, and if he regarded the Mis- souri prohibition in the same light that he did the Oregon prohibi- tion, it was a useless, and, in that connection, a senseless proviso ; and hence the North lost nothing by not having that same senseless, useless proviso applied to Utah and New Mexico. Now, to show the senator that he must be mistaken as to Mr. Webster's authority, let me call his attention back to this passage in his 7th of March speech : " Under one or other of these laws, every foot of territory in the States or Territories has now received a fixed and decided character.'' What laws did he refer to when he spoke of " one or other of these laws?" He had named but two, the Texas compact and the law of nature, of climate, and physical geography, which excluded slavery. He had mentioned none other; and yet he says "one or other" pro- hibited slavery in all the States or Territories thus including Ne- braska, as well as Utah and New Mexico. ME. EVEEETT. That was not drawn in question at all. ME. DOUGLAS. Then if it was not drawn in question, the speech should not have been quoted in support of the Missouri Compromise. It is just what I complain of, that, if it was not thus drawn in ques- tion, that use ought not to have been made of it. Now, Mr. Presi- dent, it is well known that Mr. Webster supported the Compromise measures of 1850, and the principle involved in them, of leaving the people to do as they pleased upon this subject. I think, therefore, that I have shown that these gentlemen are not authorized to quote the name either of Mr. Webster or Mr. Clay in support of the posi- tion which they take, that this bill violates the faith of compacts. Sir, it was because Mr. Webster went for giving the people in the Territories the right to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, and because he was in favor of carrying out the Constitution in re- gard to fugitive slaves, that he was not allowed to speak in FaneuU Hall. 130 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF MR. EVERETT. That was not my fault. MR. DOUGLAS. I know it was not ; but I say it was bec.iuse he took that position ; it was because he did not go for a prohibitory policy ; it was because he advocated the same principles which I now advocate, because he went for the same provisions in the Utah Bill which I now sustain in this bill, that Boston abolitionists turned their backs upon him, just as they burnt me in effigy. Sir, if identity of principle, if identity of support as friends, if identity of enemies fix Mr. Webster's position, his authority is certainly with us, and not with the abolitionists. I have a right, therefore, to have the sympa- thies of his Boston friends with me, as I sympathized with him wher the same principle was involved. Mr. President, I am sorry that I have taken up so much time ; but I must notice one or two points more. So much has been said about the Missouri Compromise Act, and about a faithful compliance with it by the North, that I must follow that matter a little further. The senator from Ohio (Mr. Wade) has referred, to-night, to the fact that I went for carrying out the Missouri Compromise in the Texas reso- lutions of 1845, and in 1848, on several occasions ; and he actually proved that I never abandoned it until 1850. He need not have taken the pains to prove that fact ; for he got all his information on the subject from my opening speech upon this bill. I told you then that I was willing, as a northern man, in 1845, when the Texas ques- tion arose, to carry the Missouri Compromise line through that State, and in 1848 I offered it as an amendment to the Oregon Bill. Al- though I did not like the principle involved in that act, yet I was willing; for the sake of harmony, to extend to the Pacific, and abide by it in good faith, in order to avoid the slavery agitation. The Missouri Compromise was defeated then by the same class of politi- cians who are now combined in opposition to the Nebraska Bill. ' It was because we were unable to carry out that compromise, that a necessity existed for making a new one in 1850. And then we estab- lished this great principle of self-government which lies at the foun- dation of all our institutions. What does his charge amount to ? He charges it, as a matter of offence, that I struggled in 1845 and in 1848 to observe good faith; and he and his associates defeated my purpose, and deprived me of the ability to carry out what he now says is the plighted faith of the nation. ^ Sir, as I have said, the South were willing to agree to the Missouri Compromise in 1848. When it was proposed by me to the Oregon Ml, as an amendment, to extend that line to the Pacific, the South agreed to it. The Senate adopted that proposition, and the House voted it down. In 1850, after the Omnibus Bill had broken down, and wo proceeded to pass the Compromise measures separately I proposed, when the Utah Bill was under discussion, to make a slight variation of the boundary of that Territory, so as to include the Mor- mon settlements, and not with reference to any other question ; and it was suggested that we ahoule take the line of 86 30'. That would STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 131 have accomplished the local objects of the amendment very well. But when I proposed it, what did these freesoilers say ? What did the senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Hale), who was then their leader in this body, say ? Here are his words : " MR. HALE. I wish to say a word as a reason why I shall vote against the amendment. I shall vote against 36 30', because I think there is an implica- tion in it. (Laughter.) I will vote for 37 or 36 either, just as it is conve- nient ; but it is idle to shut our eyes to the fact that here is an attempt in this bill I will not say it is the intention of the mover to pledge this Senate and Congress to the imaginary line of 36 30', because there are some historical recollections connected with it in regard to this controversy about slavery. I will content myself with saying that I never will, by vote or speech, admit or submit to anything that may bind the action of our legislation here to make the parallel of 30 30' the boundary line between slave and free territory. And when I say that, I explain the reason why I go against the amendment." These remarks of Mr. Hale were not made on a proposition to ex- tend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, but on a proposition to fix 36 30' as the southern boundary line of Utah, for local rea- sons. He was against it because there might be, as he said, an impli- cation growing out of historical recollections in favor of the imaginary line between slavery and freedom. Does that look as if his object was to get an implication in favor of preserving sacred this line, in regard to which gentlemen now say there was a solemn compact ? That proposition may illustrate what I wish to say in this connection upon a point which has been made by the opponents of this bill, as to the effect of an amendment inserted on the motion of the senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason), into the Texas Boundary Bill. The oppo- nents of this measure rely upon that amendment to show that the Texas compact was preserved by the acts of 1850. I have already shown, in my former speech, that the object of the amendment was to guaranty to the State of Texas, with her circumscribed boundaries, the same number of States which she would have had under her larger boundaries, and with the same right to come in with or with- out slavery, as they please. We have been told over and over again that tfyere was no such thing intimated in debate as that the country cut off from Texas, was to be relieved from the stipulation of that compromise. This has been asserted boldly and unconditionally, as if there could be no doubt about it. The senator from Georgia (Mr. Toombs), in his speech, showed that, in his address to his constituents of that State, he had proclaimed to the world that the object was to establish a principle which would allow the people to decide the question of slavery for themselves, north as well as south of 36 30'. The line of 36 30' was voted down as the boundary of Utah, so that there should not be even an implication in favor of an imaginary line to divide freedom and slavery. Subsequently, when the Texas Boun- dary Bill was under consideration, on the next day after the amend- ment of the senator from Virginia had been adopted, the record 2,3 132 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF " MB. SEBASTIAN moved to add to the second article the following : 44 ' On the condition that the territory hereby ceded may be, at the proper time, formed into a State, and admitted into the Union, with a constitution with or without the prohibition of slavery therein, as the people of the said Territory may at the time determine.' " Then the senator from Arkansas did propose that the territory cut off should be relieved from that restriction in express terms, and allowed to come in according to the principles of this bill. What was done ? The debate continued : "MR. FOOTE. Will my friend allow me to appeal to him to move this amendment when the Territorial Bill for New Mexico shall be up for consider- ation ? It will certainly be a part of that bill, and I shall then vote for it with pleasure. Now it will only embarrass our action." Let it be remarked, that no one denied the propriety of the provi- sion. All seemed to acquiesce in the principle ; but it was thought better to insert it in the Territorial bills, as we are now doing, instead of adding it to the Te^xas Boundary Bill. The debate proceeded : " MB. SEBASTIAN My only object in offering the amendment is to secure the assertion of this principle beyond a doubt. The principle was acquiesced in without difficulty in regard to the Territorial government established for Utah, a part of this acquired territory, and it is proper, in my opinion, that it should be incorporated in this bill. U MESSBS. CASS, FOOTE, and others Oh, withdraw it. " MB. SEBASTIAN. I think this is the proper place for it. It is uncertain whether it will be incorporated in the other bill referred to, and the bill itself may not pass." It will be seen that the debate goes upon the supposition that the effect was to release the country north of 36 30' from the obligation of the prohibition; and the only question, was whether the declara- tion that it should be received into the Union " with or without slavery," should be inserted in the Texas Bill or the Territorial Bill. The debate was continued, and I will read one or two other pas- 44 MB. FOOTE. I wish to state to the senator a fact of which, I think, he ia not observant at this moment ; and that is, that the senator from Virginia has introduced an amendment, which is now a part of the bill, which recognizes the Texas compact of annexation in every respect. 44 MB. SEBASTIAN. I was aware of the effect of the amendment of the sena- tor from Virginia. It is in regard to the number of States to be formed out of Texas, and is referred to only in general terms." Thus it will be seen that the senator from Arkansas Chen explained the amendment of the senator from Virginia, which had been adopted, in precisely the same way in which I explained it in my opening speech. The senator from Arkansas continued : 44 If this amendment be the game as that offered by the senator from Vi*> ginia, there can certainly be no harm in reaffirming it in this bill, to whieh / think it properly belongs." STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 133 Thus it will be seen that nobody disputed that the restriction was to be removed; and the only question was, as to the bill in which that declaration would be put. It seems, from the record, that I took part in the debate, and said : "MR. DOUGLAS. This boundary as now fixed, would leave New Mexico bounded on the east by the 103 of longitude up to 38 30', and then east to 100 ; and it leaves a narrow neck of land between 36 30' and the old bound- ary of Texas, that would not naturally and properly go to New Mexico when ;t should become a State. This amendment would compel us to include it in New Mexico, or to form it into another State. When the principle shall come up in the bill for the orgamization of a Territorial government for New Mexico, no doubt the same vote which inserted it in the Omnibus Bill, and the Utah Bill, will insert it there. " Several senators. No doubt of it." Upon that debate the amendment of the senator from Arkansas was voted down, because it was avowed and distinctly understood that the amendment of the senator from Virginia, taken in connection with the remainder of the bill, did release the country ceded by Texas north of 36 30' from the restriction ; and it was agreed that if we did not put it into the Texas Boundary Bill it should go into the Territorial Bill. I stated, as a reason why it should not go into tiie Texas Boundary Bill, that if it did it would be a compact, and would compel us to put the whole ceded country into one State, when it might be more convenient and natural to make a different boundary. I pledged myself then that it should be put into the Territorial Bill ; and when we considered the Territorial bill for New Mexico, we put in the same clause, so far as the country ceded by Texas was embraced 'within that Territory, and it passed in that shape. When it went into the house, they united the two bills together, and thus this clause passed in the same bill, as the senator from Arkansas desired. Now, sir, have I not shown conclusively that it was the under- standing in that debate that the effect was to release the country north of 36 30', which formerly belonged to Texas, from the opera- tion of that restriction, and to provide that it should come into the Union with or without slavery, as its people should see proper? That being the case ; I ask the senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) if he ought not to have been cautious when he charged over and over again that there was not a word or a syllable uttered in debate to that effect? Should he not have been cautious when he said that it was a mere after-thought on my part? Should he not have been cautious when he said that I never even dreamed of it up to the 4th of January of this year? Whereas the record shows that I made a speech to that effect during the pendency of the bills of 1850. The same statement was repeated by nearly every senator who followed him in debate in opposition to this bill ; and it is now being circulated over the country, published in every abolition paper, and read on every stump by every abolition orator, in order to get up a prejudice 134 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF against rne and the measure I have introduced. Those gentlemen should not have dared to utter the statement without knowing whether it was correct or not. These records are troublesome things sometimes. It is not proper for a man to charge another with a mere after-thought because he did not know that he had advocated the same principles before. Because he did not know it he should not take it for granted that nobody else did. Let me tell the senators that it is a very unsafe rule for them to rely upon. They ought to have had sufficient respect for a brother senator to have believed, when he came forward with an important proposition, that he had investigated it. They ought to have had sufficient respect for a committee of this body to have assumed that they meant what they said. When I see such a system of misinterpretation and misrepresenta- tion of views, of laws, of records, of debates, all tending to mislead the public, to excite prejudice, and to propagate error, have I not a right to expose it in very plain terms, without being arraigned for violating the courtesies of the Senate ? . Mr. President; frequent reference has been made in debate to the admission of Arkansas as a slaveholding State, as furnishing evidence that the abolitionists and freesoilers, who have recently become so much enamored with the Missouri Compromise, hate always been faithful to its stipulations and implications. I will show that th reference is unfortunate for them. When Arkansas applied foi admission in 1836, objection was made in consequence of the provi- sions of her constitution in respect to slavery. When the abolition- ists and freesoilers of that day were arraigned for making that objection, upon the ground that Arkansas was south of 36 80', they replied that the act of 1820 was never a compromise, much less a compact, imposing any obligation upon the successors of those who passed the act to pay any more respect to its provisions than to any other enactment of ordinary legislation. I have the debates before me, but will occupy the attention of the Senate only to read one or two paragraphs. Mr. Hand of New York, in opposition to the admission of Arkansas as a slaveholding State, said : " I am aware, it will be, as it has already been contended, that by the Missouri Compromise, as it has been preposterously termed, Congress has parted with its right to prohibit the introduction of slavery into the territory south of 36 30' north latitude." He acknowledged that by the Missouri Compromise, as he said it was preposterously termed, the North was estopped from denying the right to hold slaves south of that line ; but, he added : " There are, to my mind, insuperable objections to the soundness of that proposition." Here they are : " In i he ? rst place ' there wa8 no compromise or compact whewby Congress umndered any power, or yielded any jurisdiction ; and, in the second place, STEPHEN A. D : [J G 1 A 8 . 135 if it had done so, it was a mere legislative act, that could not bind their suc- cessors ; it would be subject to a repeal at the will of any succeeding Congress." I give these passages as specimens of the various speeches made in opposition to the admission of Arkansas by the same class of politi- cians who now oppose the Nebraska Bill upon the ground that it violates a solemn compact. So much for the speeches. Now for the vote. The journal which I hold in my hand, shows that forty- nine northern votes were recorded against the admission of Arkansas. Yet, sirs, in utter disregard and charity leads me to hope, in pro- found ignorance of all these facts, gentlemen are boasting that the North always observed the contract, never denied its validity, never wished to violate it ; and they have even referred to the cases of the admission of Missouri and Arkansas as instances of their good faith. Now, is it possible that gentlemen could suppose these things could be said and distributed in their speeches without exposure ? Did they presume that, inasmuch as their lives were devoted to slavery agitation, whatever they did not know about the history of that question did not exist? I am willing to believe, I hope it may be the fact, that they were profoundly ignorant of all these records, all these debates, all these facts, which overthrow every position they have assumed. I wish the senator from Maine (Mr. Fessenden), who delivered his maiden speech here to-night, and who made many sly stabs at me, had informed himself upon the subject before he re- peated all these groundless assertions. I can excuse him for the reason that he has been here but a few days, and having enlisted under the banner of the abolition confederates, was unwise and sim- ple enough to believe that what they had published could be relied upon as stubborn facts. He may be an innocent victim. I hope he can have the excuse of not having investigated the subject. I am willing to excuse him on the ground that he did not know what he was talking about, and it is the only excuse which I can make for him. I will say, however, that I do not think he was required by his loyalty to the abolitionists to repeat every disreputable insinua- tion which they made. "Why did he throw into his speech that foul innuendo about " a northern man with southern principles," and then quote the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) as his authority ? Ay, sir, I say that foul insinuation. Did not the senator from Mas- sachusetts, who first dragged it into this debate, wish to have the public understand that I was known as a northern man with southern principles? Was not that the allusion ? If it was, he availed himself of a cant phrase in the public mind, in violation of the truth of his- tory. I know of but one man in this country who ever made it a boast that he was "a northern man with southern principles," and he (turning to Mr. Sumner) was your candidate for the Presidency ia 1848. (Applause in the 'galleries.). THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. MASON). Order, order. ME. DOUGLAS. If his sarcasm was intended for Martin Van Bureu, 136 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF it involves a family quarrel, with which I have no disposition to interfere. I will only add that I have been able to discover nothing in the present position or recent history of that distinguished states- man, which would lead ni to covet the sobriquet by which he is known " a northern man with southern principles." Mr. President, the senators from Ohio and Massachusetts (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner), have taken the liberty to impeach my motives in bringing forward this measure. I desire to know by what right they arraign me, or by what authority they impute to me other and dif- ferent motives than those which I have assigned. I have shown from the record that I advocated and voted for the same principles and provisions in the compromise acts of 1850, which are embraced in this bill. I have proven that I put the same construction upon those measures immediately after their adoption that is given in the report which I submitted this session from the Committee on Territories. I have shown the legislature of Illinois at its first session, ^fter thoso measures were enacted, passed resolutions approving them, and de- claring that the same great principles of self-government should be incorporated into all Territorial organizations. Yet, sir, in the face of these facts, these senators have the hardihood to declare that this was all an " afterthought" on my part, conceived for the first time dur- ing the present session ; and that the measure is offered as a bid for Presidential votes ! Are they incapable of conceiving that an honest . man can do a right thing from worthy motives? I must be permitted to tell those senators that their experience in seeking political prefer- ment does not furnish a safe rule by which to judge the character and principles of other senators ! I must be permitted to tell the senator from Ohio that I did not obtain my seat in this body, either by a corrupt bargain or a dis- honorable coalition! I must be permitted to remind the senator from Massachusetts that I did not enter into any combinations or arrangements by which my character, my principles, and my honor, vrere set up at public auction or private sale in order to procure a seat in the Senate of the United States ! I did not come into the Senate by any such means. MR. WELLER. But there are some men whom I know that did. MR. CHASE (to Mr. Weller.) Do you say that 1 came here by a bargain ? Whoever says that I came here by a corrupt bargain states what is false. MR. DOUGLAS. It will not do for the senator from Ohio to return offensive expressions after what I have said and proven. Nor can I permit him to change the issue, and thereby divert public attention from the enormity of his offence, in charging me with unworthy motives; while performing a high public duty, in obedience to the expressed wish and known principles of my State. I choose to maintain my own position, and leave the puolic to ascertain, if they do not understand how and by what means he was elected to the Senate. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 137 ME. CHASE. If the senator will allow me, I will say, in reply to the remarks which the senator has just made, that I did not under- stand him as calling upon me for any explanation of the statement which he said was made in regard to a Presidential bid. The exact statement in the address was this it was a question addressed to the people: "Would they allow their dearest rights to be made the hazards of a Presidential game?" That was the exact expression. Now, sir, it is well known that all these great measures in the country are influenced, more or less, by reference to the great public canvasses which are going on from time to time. I certainly did not intend to impute to the senator from Illinois and I desire always to do justice in that any improper motive. I do not think it is an unworthy ambition to desire to be a President of the United States. I do not think that the bringing forward of a measure with refer- ence to that object would be an improper thing, if the measure be proper in itself. I differ from the senator in my judgment of the measure. I -do not think the measure is a right one. In that I express the judgment which I honestly entertain. I do not condemn his judgment, 1 do not make, and I do not desire to make, any perso- nal imputations upon him in reference to a great public question. ME. DOUGLAS. I wish to examine the explanation of the senator from Ohio, and see whether I ought to accept it as satisfactory. He has quoted the language of the address. It is undeniable that that language clearly imputed to me the design of bringing forward thia bill with a view of securing my own election to the Presidency. Then, by way of excusing himself for imputing to me such a pur- pose, the senator says that he does not consider it " an unworthy ambition ;" and hence he says that, in making the charge, he does not impugn my motives. I must remind him that, in addition to that insinuation, he only said, in the same address, that my bill was a u criminal betrayal of precious rights ;" he only said it was " an atrocious plot against freedom and humanity;" he only said that it w T as " meditated bad faith;" he only spoke significantly of "servile demagogues;" he only called upon the preachers of the Gospel and the people at their public meetings to denounce and resist such a monstrous iniquity. In saying all this, and much of the same sort, he now assures me in the presence of the Senate, that he did not mean the charge to imply an "unworthy ambition ;" that it was not intended as a " personal imputation " upon my motives or character ; and that he meant " no personal disrepect " to me as the author of the measure. In reply, I will content myself with the remark, that there is a very wide difference of opinion between the senator from Ohio and myself in respect to the meaning of words, and especially in regard to the line of conduct which, in a public man, does not constitute an unworthy ambition. ME. SUMNEE. Will the senator from Illinois yield the floor to me for a moment ? ME. DOUGLAS. As I presume it is on the same point, I will hefl/ the testimony. 138 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF MB. SUMNEB. Mr. President, I shrink always instinctively from any effort to repel a personal assault. I do not recognize the juris- diction of this body to try my election to the Senate ; but I do state, in reply to the senator from Illinois, that if he means to suggest that I came into the body by any waiver of principles ; by any abandon- ment of my principles of any kind ; by any effort or activity of my own, in any degree, he states that which cannot be sustained by the facts. I never sought, in any way, the office which I now hold ; nor was I a party, in any way, directly or indirectly, to those efforts which placed me here. MB. DOUGLAS. Sir, the senator from Massachusetts comes up with a very bold front, and denies the right of any man to put him on defence for the manner of his election. He says it is contrary to his principles to engage in personal assaults. If he expects to avail him- self of the benefit of such a plea, he should act in accordance with his professed principles, and refrain from assaulting the character and impugning the motives of better men than himself. Everybody knows that he came here by a coalition or combination between political parties holding opposite and hostile opinions. But it is not my purpose to go into the morality of the matters involved in his election. The public know the history of that notorious coalition, and have formed its judgment upon it. It will not do for the senator to say that he was not a party to it, for he thereby betrays a con- sciousness of the immorality of the transaction, without acquitting himself of the responsibilities which justly attach to him. As well might the receiver of stolen goods deny any responsibility for the larceny, while luxuriating in the proceeds of the crime, as the sena- tor to avoid the consequences resulting from the mode of his election, while he clings to the office. I must be permitted to remind him of what he certainly can never forget, that when he arrived here to take his seat for the first time, so firmly were senators impressed with the conviction that he had been elected by dishonorable and corrupt means, there were very few who, for a long time, conld deem it consistent with personal honor to hold private intercourse with him. So general was that impression, that for a long time ho was avoided and shunned as a person unworthy of the association of gentlemen. Gradually, howe r er, these injurious impressions were worn away by his bland manners and amiable deportment ; and I regret that the senator should now, by a violation of all the rules of courtesy and propriety, compel me to refresh his mind upon these un- welcome reminiscences. MR. CHASE. If the senator refers to me, he is stating a fact of which I have no knowledge at all. I came here MB. DOUGLAS. 1 was not speaking of the senator from Ohio, but of his confederate in slander, the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. cumner). 1 have a word now to say to the other senator from Ohio (Mr. Wade). On the day when 1 exposed this abolition address, so lull of slanders and calumnies, he arose and stated that, although his name was signed to it, he had never read it; and so willing was he STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 139 to indorse an abolition document, that he signed it in blank, with- out knowing what it contained. The senator from New York (Mr. Seward), when I was about to call him to account for this slanderous production, promptly denied that he ever signed the document. Now, I say, it has been circu- lated with his name attached to it ; then I want to know of the senators who sent out the document, who forged the name of the senator from New York ? MB. CHASE. I am glad that the senator has asked that question. I have only to say in reference to that matter, that I have not the slightest knowledge in regard to the manner in which various names were appended to that document. It was prepared to be signed, and was signed, by the gentlemen here who are known as Independent Democrats, and how any other names came to be added to it is more than I can tell. MR. DOUGLAS. It is not a satisfactory answer, for those who con- fess to the preparation and publication of a document filled with insult and calumny, with forged names attached to it for the purpose of imparting to it respectability, to interpose a technical denial that they committed the crime. Somebody did forge other people's names to that document. The senators from Ohio and Massachusetts (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner), plead guilty to the authorship and pub- lication ; upon them rests the responsibility of showing who com- mitted the forgery. Mr. President, I have done with these personal matters. I regret the necessity which compelled me to devote so much time to them. All I have done and said has been in the way of self-defence, as the Senate can bear me witness. Mr. President, I have also occupied a good deal of time in exposing the cant of these gentlemen about the sanctity of the Missouri Com- promise, and the dishonor attached to the violation of plighted faith. I have exposed these matters in order to show that the object of these men is to withdraw from public attention the real principle involved in the bill. They well know that the abrogation of tho Missouri Compromise is the incident and not the principal of the bill. They well understand that the report of the committee and the bill propose to establish the principle in all Territorial organizations, that the question of slavery shall be referred to the people to regulate for themselves, and that such legislation should be had as was necessary to remove all legal obstructions to the free exercise of this right by the people. The eighth section of the Missouri Act standing in the way of this great principle must be rendered inoperative and void whether ex- pressly repealed or not, in order to give the people the power of regu- lating their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. Now, sir, if these gentlemen have entire confidence in the correct- ness of their own position, why do they not meet the iss'ie boldly 140 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF and fairly and controvert the soundness of this great principle of popular sovereignty in obedience to the Constitution? They know full well that this was the principle upon which the colonies separa- ted from the crown of Great Britain, the principle upon which the battles of the Revolution were fought, and the principle upon which our republican system was founded. They cannot be ignorant of the fact that the Revolution grew out of the assertion of the right on the part of the imperial government to interfere with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of the colonies. In this connection I will invite attention to a few extracts from the instructions of the differ- ent colonies to their delegates in the Continental Congress, with ? view of forming such a union as would enable them to make success- ful resistance to the efforts of the crown to destroy the fundamental principle of all free government by interfering with the domestic affairs of the colonies. I will begin with Pennsylvania, whose devotion to the principles of human liberty, and the obligations of the Constitution, has acquired for her the proud title of the Key-stone in the arch of republican States. In her instructions is contained the following reservation : " Reserving to the people of this colony the sole and exclusive right of regu- lating the internal government and police of the same." And, in a subsequent instruction, in reference to suppressing the British authority in the colonies, Pennsylvania uses the following emphatic language : " Unanimously declare our willingiiess to concur in a vote of the Congress declaring the United Colonies free and independent States, provided the t'orm- fng the government and the regulation of the internal police of this colony be always reserved to the people of the said colony." Connecticut, in authorizing her delegates to vote for the Declara- tion of Independence, attached to it the following condition : " Saving that the administration of government, and the power of forming governments for, and the regulation of the internal concerns and police of each colony, ought to be left and remain to the respective colonial legisla- tures." New Hampshire annexed this proviso to her instructions to her delegates to vote for independence : " Provided the regulation of our internal police be under the direction of oar own assembly." New Jersey imposed the following condition : " Always observing that, whatever plan of confederacy you enter into, the regulating the interMal police of this province is to be reserved to the eoloniaJ teguluture." STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 141 Maryland gave her consent to the Declaration of Independence upon the condition contained in this proviso : "And that said colony will hold itself bound by the resolutions of a majority of the United Colonies in the premises, provided the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police of that colony be reserved to tue people thereof." Virginia annexed the following condition to her instructions to rote for the Declaration of Independence : " Provided that the power of forming government for, and the regulaiiona of the internal concerns 3f the colony, be left to respective colonial legisla- tures." I will not -weary the Senate in multiplying evidence upon tin's point. It is apparent that the Declaration of Independence had its origin in the violation of that .great fundamental principle which secured to the people of the colonies the right to regulate their own domestic affairs in their own way : and that the Revolution resulted in the triumph of that principle, and the recognition of the right as- serted by it. Abolitionism proposes to destroy the right, and extin- guish the principle for which our forefathers waged a seven years 7 bloody war, and upon which our whole system of free government is founded. They not only deny the application of this principle to the Territories, but insist upon fastening the prohibition upon all the States to be formed out of those Territories. Therefore, the doctrine of the abolitionists the doctrine of the opponents of the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, and of the advocates of the Missouri restriction demand Congressional interference with slavery, not only in the Ter- ritories, but in all the new States to be formed therefrom. It is the same doctrine when applied to the Territories and new States of this Union, which the British government attempted to enforce by the sword upon the American colonies. It is this fundamental principle of self-government which constitutes the distinguishing feature of the Nebraska Bill. The opponents of the principle are consistent in opposing the bill. I do not blame them for their opposition. I only ask them to meet the issue fairly and openly, by acknowledging that they are opposed to the principle which it is the object of the bill to carry into operation. It seems that there is no power on earth, no intellectual power, no mechanical power that can bring them to a fa.r discussion of the true issue. If they hope to delude the people, and escape detection for any considerable length of time under the catch-word u Missouri Compromise," and " faith of compacts," they will find that the people of this country have more penetration and intelligence than they have given them credit for. Mr. President, there is an important fact connected with this sla- very resolution, which should never be lost sight of. It has always *nen from one and the same cause. Whenever that cause has been 14:2 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF removed, the agitation has ceased ; and whenever the cause has been renewed, the agitation has sprung into existence. That cause is, and ever has been, the attempt on the part of Congress to interfere with the question of slavery in the Territories and new States formed therefrom. Is it not wise, then, to confine our action within the Bphere of our legitimate duties, and leave this vexed question so take care of itself in each State and Territory, according to the wishes of the people thereof, in conformity to the forms and in subjection to the provisions of the Constitution ? The opponents of the bill tell us that agitation is no part of their policy, that their great desire is peace and harmony ; and they com- plain bitterly that I should have disturbed the repose of the country by the introduction of this measure. Let me ask these professed friends of peace and avowed enemies of agitation, how the issue could have been avoided ? They tell me that I should have let the question alone that is, that I should have left Nebraska unorganized, the people unprotected, and the Indian barrier in existence, until the swelling tide of emigration should burst through, and accomplish by violence what it is the part of wisdom and statesmanship to direct and regulate by law. How long could you have po.-tponed action with safety? How long could you maintain that Indian barrier, and restrain the onward march of civilization. Christianity, and free government by a barbarian wall ? Do you suppose that you could keep that vast country a howling wilderness in all time to come, roamed over by hostile savages, cutting off all safe communication between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions? I tell you that the time for action has come, and cannot be postponed. It is a case in which the " let-alone " policy would precipitate a crisis which muse inevitably result in violence, anarchy, and strife. You cannot fix bounds to the onward inarch of this great and growing country. You cannot fetter the limbs of the young giant. He will burst all your chains. He will expand, and grow, and in- crease, and extend civilization, Christianity, and liberal principles. Then, sir, if you cannot check the growth of the country in that direction, is it not the part of wisdom to look the danger in the face, and provide for an event which you cannot avoid? I tell you, sir, you must provide for continuous lines of settlement from the Missis- sippi Valley to the Pacific Ocean. And in making this provision, you must decide upon what principles the Territories shall be or- ganized ; in other words, whether the people shall be allowed to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, according to the provisions of this bill, or whether the opposite doctrine of Con- gressional interference is to prevail. Postpone it, if you will; but whenever you do act, this question must be met and decided. The Missouri Compromise was interference ; the Compromise of 1850 was non-interference, leaving the people to exercise their rights nnder the Constitution. The Committee on Territories were com- pelled to act on thid subject. I, as their chairman, was bound to STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 143 meet tee question. I chose to take the responsibility, regardless of consequence personal to myself. I should have done the same thing last year, if there had been time : but we know, considering the late period at which the bill then reached us from the House, that there was not sufficient time to consider the question fully, and to prepare a report upon the subject. I was therefore persuaded by friends to allow the bill to be reported to the Senate, in order that such action might be taken as should be deemed wise and proper. The bill was never taken up for action, the last night of the ses- sion having been exhausted in debate on the motion to take up the bill. This session, the measure was introduced by my friend from Iowa (Mr. Dodge) and referred to the Territorial Committee during the first week of the session. We have abundance of time to con- Bider the subject; it was a matter of pressing necessity, and there was no excuse for not meeting it directly and fairly. We were com- pelled to take our position upon the doctrine either of intervention or non-intervention. We chose the latter, for two reasons ; first, because we believed that the principle was right ; and, second, be- cause it was the principle adopted in 1850, to which the two great political parties of the country were solemnly pledged. There is another reason why I desire to see this principle recog- nized as a rule of action in all time to come. It will have the effect to destroy all sectional parties and sectional agitations. If, in the language of the report of the committee, you withdraw the slavery question from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and com- mit it to the arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in and alone responsible for its consequences, there is nothing left out of which sectional parties can be organized. It never was done, ant never can be done on the bank, tariff, distribution, or any other par ty issue which has existed, or may exist, after this slavery question is withdrawn from politics. On every other political question these have always supporters and opponents in every portion of the Union in oach State, county, village, and neighborhood residing togeth- er in harmony and good-fellowship, and combating each other's opin- ions and correcting each other's errors in a spirit of kindness an,d friendship. These differences of opinion between neighbors and friends, and the discussions that grow out of them, .and the sympa- thy which each feels with the advocates of his own opinions in eve- ry other portion of this wide-spread republic, adds an overwhelming and irresistible moral weight to the strength of the confederacy. Affection for the Union can never be alienated or diminished b} any other party issues than those which are joined upon sectional or geographical lines. When the people of the North shall all be rallied under one banner, and the whole South marshalled under an- other banner, and each section excited to frenzy and madness by hostility to the institutions of the other, then the patriot may well tremble for the perpetuity of the Union. Withdraw the slavery question from the political arena, and remove it to tho States and 144 THE LIFE, AND SPEECHES OF Territories, each to decide for itself, such a catastrophe can never happen. Then you will never be able to tell, by any senator's vote for or against any measure, from what State or section of the Union he comes. Why, then, can we not withdraw this vexed question from poli- tics ? Why can we not adopt the principle of this bill as a rule of action in all new Territorial organizations ? Why can we not deprive these agitators of their vocation, and render it impossible for sena- tors to come here upon bargains on the slavery question? I believe that the peace, the harmony, and perpetuity of the Union require us to go back to the doctrines of the ^Revolution, to the principles of the Constitution the Compromise of 1850, and leave the people, under the Constitution, to do as they may see proper in respect to their own internal affairs. Mr. President, I have not brought this question forward as a nor- thern man or as a southern man. I am unwilling to recognize such divisions and distinctions. I have brought it forward as an Ameri- can senator, representing a State which is true to this principle, and which has approved of my action in respect to the Nebraska Bill. I iave brought it forward not as an act of justice to the South more than to the North. I have presented it especially as an act of justice to the people of those Territories, and of the States to be formed therefrom, now and in all time to come. I have nothing to say about northern rights or southern rights. I know of no such divisions or distinctions under the Constitution. The bill does equal and exact justice to the whole Union, and every part of it ; it violates the rights of no State or Territory, but places each on a perfect equality, and leaves the people thereof to the free enjoyment of all their rights under the Constitution. Now, sir, I wish to say to our southern friends, that if they desire to gee this great principle carried out, n DW is their time to rally around it, to cherish it, preserve it, make it the rule of action in all future time. If they fail to do it now, and thereby allow the doctrine of interference to prevail, upon their heads the consequence of that in- terference must rest. To our northern friend?, on the other hand, I desire to say, that from this day henceforward, they must rebuke the slander which has been uttered against the Sonth, that they desire to legislate slavery into the Territories. The South has vindicated her sincerity, her honor on that point, by bringing forward a provision, negativing, in express terms, any such effect as the result of this bill. I am rejoiced to know that, while the proposition to abrogate the eighth section of the Missouri Act comes from A free State, the pro- position to negative the conclusion that slavery is thereby introduced comes from a slaveholding State. Thus, both sides furnish conclu- sive evidence that they go for the principle, and the principle only, and desire to take no advantage of any possible miseonstrurtion. Mr. President, I feel that I owe an apology to the Senate for hav- ing occupied their attention so long, and a still greater apoiug} for STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 145 having discussed the question in such an incoherent and desultory manner. But I could not forbear to claim the right of closing this debate. I thought gentlemen would recognize its propriety when they saw the manner in which I was assailed and misrepresented in the course of this discussion, and especially by assaults still more disreputable, in some portions of the country. These assaults have had no other effect upon me than to give me courage and energy for a still more resolute discharge of duty. I say frankly that, in my opinion, this measure will be as popular at the North as at the South, when its provisions and principles shall have been fully developed and become well understood. The people at the North are attached to the principles of self-government ; and you cannot convince them that, that is self-government which deprives a people of the right of legislating for themselves, and compels them to receive laws which are forced upon them by a legislature in which they are not repre- sented. We are willing to stand upon this great principle of self- government everywhere; and it is to us a proud reflection that, in this whole discussion, no friend of the bill has urged an argument in its favor which could not be used with the same propriety in a free State as in a slave State, and vice versa. But no enemy of the bill has used an argument which would bear repetition one mile across Mason and Dixon's line. Our opponents have dealt entirely in sec- tional appeals. The friends of the bill have discussed a great prin- ciple of universal application, which can be sustained by the same reasons, and the same arguments, in every time and in every corner of the Union. 146 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ON BRITISH AGGRESSION. On the 7th of June, 1858, the subject of British Aggro* Bion being under consideration, Mr. Douglas said : I agree, Mr. President, with most that has been said by my friend from Georgia (Mr. Toombs), and especially that we ought to deter- mine what we are to do in reference to the outrages upon our flag in the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies before we decide the amount of money we shall vote for war purposes. If we are going to con- tent ourselves with simple resolutions that we will not submit to that which we have resolved for half a century should never be repeated, I see no use in additional appropriations for navy or for array ; if we are going to be contented with loud-sounding speeches, with defiance to the British lion, with resolutions of the Senate alone, not con- curred in by the other house, conferring no power on the Executive, merely capital for the country, giving no power to the Executive to avenge insults or prevent their repetition, what is the use of voting money? I find that patriotic gentlemen are ready to talk loud, re- solve strong; but are they willing to appropriate the money are they willing to confer on the Executive power to repel these insults, and to avenge them whenever they may be perpetrated? Let us know whether we are to submit and protest, or whether we are to authorize the President to resist and to prevent the repetition of these offences. If senators are prepared to vote for a law reviving the act of 1039, putting the array, the navy, volunteers, and money at the disposal of the President to prevent the repetition of these acts, and to punish them if repeated, then I am ready to give the ships and the money ; but I desire to know whether we are to sub- mit to these insults with a simple protest, or whether we are to re- pel them. Gentlemen ask us to vote ships and money, and they talk to us about the necessity of a ship in China, and about outrages in Tam- pico, and disturbances in South America, and Indian difficulties in Puget Sound. Every enemy that can be found on the face of the earth is defied, except the one that defies us. Bring in a proposi- tion here to invest the President with power to repel British aggres- sion on American ships, and what is the response? High-sounding resolutions, declaring in effect, if not in terms, that whereas Great intern bai perpetrated outrages on our flag and our shipping, which are intolerable and insufferable, and must not be repeated ; therefore, it ene does so again, we will whip Mexico, or we wiU pounce down upon Nicaragua, or we will get np a fight with Costa Rica, or we Will chastise New Granada, or we frill punish the Chinese, or we STEPHEN A. DOTJGLA.8. 14:7 will repel the Indians from Puget Sound (laughter) ; but not a word about Great Britain! What I desire to know, is whether we are to meet this issue with Great Britain ? I am told we shall do it when we are prepared. Sir, when will you be prepared to repel an insult unless when it is given ? .England has her ships of war, of various sizes, searching our ves sels, firing across their bows, firing into their rigging, subject ing them to search, not only in the Gulf of Mexico, but in the Carib bean sea and upon the Atlantic. It is not confined to one captain, or one vessel, or one locality, but the outrages are committed by various ships, by the Styx, on the coast of Cuba ; by the Forward, five hundred miles east of there ; by the Buzzard, a thousand miles from Cuba. Every arrival at our ports brings us information of the repetition of these offences, clearly demonstrating the fact that they are not accidental. They are not confined to one locality. They are not the acts of one ship or of one officer. They are the result of orders from Great Britain to execute this system of outrages on the American flag and American commerce. Are we to submit to it? If so, let us not say another word about it, pass no resolutions, make no speeches, vote no extra appropriations that we would not vote if these things had not occurred. If, on the contrary, we are not going to submit to them, why not act as we did on the northeastern boundary question in 1839 ? When the news arrived here on the 2d of March, 1839, that an American citizen had been taken prisoner on the dis- puted boundary of Maine, showing a disposition on the part of Great Britain to insist on her claim to the exclusive possession of that country, instantly the Senate, by a unanimous vote, passed a bill authorizing the President to repel any attempt on the part of Great Britain to enforce that claim, and, for that purpose, putting at hia disposal the army, the navy, the militia, fifty thousand volunteers, and ten millions of money, to enable him to execute the will of the nation in that respect. Now, sir, why not revive that act, striking out the disputed boun- dary and inserting " her claims to the right of visitation and search," and then every provision of that bill would be applicable to the pre- sent case. My friend from Missouri (Mr. Green) calls my attention to the vote of the House of Representatives on that occasion, ft stood 197 in the affirmative, and 6 in the negative. The vote in the Senate was forty-one in the affirmative, none in the negative. Your Clays, your Calhouns, your Websters, the great men of former times, were here then ; men differing in politics in times of high party strife, at a period when Mr. Van Buren was President, and Clay, Webster, and Calhoun led the opposition. Still, the moment this outrage was perpetrated by Great Britain upon our rights, all party dissensions were hushed; the opposition and the administration stood as one man when the honor of the nation was assaulted. They did not hesitate to confer upon Mr. Van Buren the power to resist the outrages committed by Great Britain, in case they should b persevered in. 24 148 T*E LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Why not row revive the s ime law which was then passed by a unanimous Totein the Senate, and with only six dissenting voices in the other house, and confer upon President Buchanan the same power and authority which was then conferred upon President Van Buren on the motion of Mr. Senator Buchanan ? Do that, and then I am prepared to vote the ships, the money, the men, anything, everything, necessary to indicate our firm resolve. Yes, sir, I wiD go further, I will vote the ships and the money even now, trusting that Congress, before it adjourns, will arm the President with the necessary power and authority to prevent a repetition of these aggres- sions. I am, however, extremely unwilling to bury up the outrages of Great Britain under all the talk and noise that is made about the injuries perpetrated by the South American republics. I know that in South America outrages have been perpetrated on our commerce, on our citizens and their property, which ought to have been punished on the spot. I know they are continuing, and will continue, from day to day, and year to year, until you clothe the Executive with the authority to punish them as promptly as the British government punish similar outrages on their commerce and their rights; but these things have been going on in South America for years. They are weak, feeble, unstable powers, entitled to our sympathy and our contempt mingled together. While I would clothe the Executive with power to punish them, I would o-nly do it after I had avenged the insults perpetrated by Great Britain, or I would in the same act authorize the President to avenge them. Sir, I tremble for the fame of America, for her honor, and for her character, when we shall be silent in regard to British outrages ; and avenge ourselves by punishing the weaker powers instead of grap- pling with the stronger. I never did fancy that policy, nor admire that chivalry which induced a man, when insulted by a strong man of his own size, to say that he would whip the first boy he found in the street, in order to vindicate _his honor; or, as is suggested by a gentleman behind me, that he would go home and whip his wife (laughter), in order to show his courage, inasmuch as he was afraid to tackle the full grown man who had committed the aggression. Sir, these outrages cannot be concealed, they cannot have the go oy; we must meet them face to face. Now is the time when England must give up her claim to search American vessels, or we must be silent in our protests and resolutions and valorous speeches against that claim. It will not do to raise a navy for the Chinese seas, nor for Puget Sound, nor for Mexico, nor for the South Ameri- can republics. It may be used for those purposes, but England must first be dealt with. Sir, we shall be looked upon as showing e white feather, if we strike a blow at any feeble power, until these English aggressions and insults are first punished, and security is obtained that they are not to be repeated. I shall vote for the amendment offered by my friend from Florida, nader the authority of Committee on Naval Affairs, providing for ten sloops-of-war. I shall also vote for the proposition of my friend STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 149 from North Carolina for the ten gun-boats. I wish he had increased the number to fifty, because I understand they can be constructed for about $100,000 apiece, and $5,000,000 would give you fifty gun- boats, vessels of a character more serviceable for coast defence than any other vessels you could have. They could enter every harbor, every creek, every bay, every nook where it is necessary to afford protection, and each one of them singly would be strong enough in time of war to capture an enemy's merchant vessel, and bring it into port or sink it, as easily as a seventy-four, or the largest class of ships of war. I would increase the number of gun-boats to fifty I would give the sloops asked for by the committee, but I would never permit this Congress to adjourn, after all the resolutions we have had reported and all the brave speeches we have made, until we give the President power, and thereby make it his duty, to repel in future every repetition of these British outrages on our flag ; and to use the army, the navy, the militia, and the treasury, to any extent which may be necessary for that purpose. I concur entirely with the senator from Virginia in the reasons he has given for the necessity of applying the provisions of the bill which he has reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations, as a substitute for one I introduced, to Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and New Granada ; but I do not perceive the necessity of limiting the application to those countries, and not extending it beyond them. If his objection be true that my proposition was to confer a war- making power upon the President, then, by applying the whole power of these provisions to Mexico, and the other three countries, he confers a war-making power to that extent. I suppose, if it is no violation of principle to give the President a war-making power as applied to one country, it is no more so to give it to him generally. The objection I had to his provision was this : I had introduced a bill to authorize the President, in cases of flagrant violations of the law of nations, under circumstances admitting of no delay, to repel and punish the aggression. The senator from Virginia takes the provisions of that bill and indorses them as to four feeble, crippled powers, and omits the very country that is now committing outrages upon our flag and our shipping. I had introduced a bill, general in its provisions, applicable to England, France, Spain, Mexico, Central America, South America everywhere where there were flagrant violation upon our flag, under circumstances admitting of no delay. It does not follow that for every belligerent act we shall declare war. The senator from Virginia, in his report, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, quoted Chief Justice Marshall to show that the practice of the right of search was a belligerent act. All belligerent acts do not necessarily produce war. You may repel them, you may grant letters of marque and reprisal there are various remedies short of war for repelling and redressing belligerent acts. It does not follow, by any means, when one nation perpe- trates a violation of right against another, which, of itself, is a bel- 150 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ligerent act, that war is the inevitable consequence, any more than it follows, when one gentleman says something offensive to another, that a peremptory challenge is a necessary result. A demand for explanation may be necessary. There are preludes to a declaration, fcjo it is between nations. There may be a belligerent act performed. It leads to negotiation, to remonstrance. When these means fail, then the question comes, whether our rights or our honor are involved to such an extent as to make it imperative to go to war as a final resort ? If this violation of the freedom of the seas were a new thing ; if the assertion of the right to search American vessels were now made for the first, or evea the second time, we might not, although treating it as a belligerent act, deem it necessary to go to war. But when the question has gone through half a century of dispute ; when it has reached such a point that we refuse to discuss the question of right any further ; when we have asserted that the argument is ex- hausted, and that the only thing left is to resort to resistance if it be persevered in any further ; it will not do for us, in the face of these outrages repeated each day, to be silent with regard to them, and proceed to legislate for the punishment of Mexico, Nicaragua, and other weak and feeble powers at a distance. The bill reported by the senator from Virginia would be right if it were brought for- ward at a time when the aggravation came from those countries, and not from England. I will vote for it. But to pass that by itself, and remain silent with regard to these British outrages, is to confess to the world that we are afraid of Great Britain, but we will maintain our courage by punishing some smaller, feebler, weaker power. I do not bring forward the proposition to revive the act of the 3d of March, 1839, as a substitute for the bill reported by the senator from Virginia, as he imagines. On the contrary, the two bills ought to go together. The one which I bring forward is applicable to England, and to her alone. It covers the present quar- rels between us and England ; not as a war measure, but as a peace measure. The only change that I make between that act, as I bring it forward now, and as it was in the shape in which it originally passed, is to strike out the words " territory in dispute," and insert "the claim of the right of search." Then the two cases are paral- lel, and the provision is as applicable to one as it is to the other. Sir, there was one member of this body, who, when the measure was brought in, in 1839, was disposed to treat it as an act of war, until the great minds of the Senate, the patriots of that day, came forward, and said : no, Great Britain is performing a belligerent act ; we must resist it at all hazards ; if she perseveres in the wrong, then the consequences be on her head, for having persevered in the wrong. Hence, you find that Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Buchanan, the leaders of the Senate of all parties of that day, united with itire ^unanimity in conferring upon President Van Buren the poww to resist it. One man only hesitated. A distinguished and v*> STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 151 spected senator from New Jersey made the very point that is now being made, as to its being an act of war ; but a distinguished sena- tor from Mississippi appealed to him, after a prelimin ary vote had been taken, and it was ascertained that the Senate were unanimous with one exception, not to persevere in his opposition, but allow the Senate to stand unanimous in the assertion of a principle upon which all agreed ; and Mr. Southard, in deference to the opinion of the remainder of the Senate, waived his objections, and allowed the bill to pass by a unanimous vote. Sir, did it turn out to be a measure of war then ? On the con- trary, it resulted in peace, and you were saved from a war with Great Britain on the northeastern boundary question, by the unani- mity of Congress, at that time, in preparing .to repel the assault. The vote in the Senate was unanimous, and in the House of Repre- sentatives it was 197 against 6. This unanimity among the American people, as manifested by their representatives, saved the two coun- tries from war, and preserved peace between England and the United States upon that question. If the Senate had been nearly equally divided in 1839 ; if there had been but half a dozen majority for the passage of that measure ; if the vote had been nearly divided in the House of Representatives, England would have taken courage from the divisions in our own councils ; she would have pressed her claim to a point that would have been utterly inadmissible, and incompatible with our honor, and war would have been the inevitable consequence. The true peace measure is that which resents the insult and re- dresses the wrong promptly upon the spot with a unanimity that shows the nation cannot be divided. Unanimity now, prompt action, and determined resistance to this claim of the right of search is the best peace measure, and the only peace measure to which you can resort. You have said that this nation will not submit to the right of search ; every department of this government has repeated it, all political parties unite in the sentiment ; there is one point on which the American people are united, and on which they have stood for half a century. It is violated now. The question is, whe- ther we shall present the same unanimity in resistance that we do in denying the right to commit the outrage. Unanimity on our part, unanimity in our councils, firm resolve, but kind and respectful words will preserve peace. Sir, I desire peace. I would lament a war with England, or with any other power, as much as any other man in the Senate. Nor do I think that my constituents desire war, but I believe that the true way to prevent it is to be prepared to resist aggression the moment it is made. What is the argument we hear used to-day ? The senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hammond), who knows that I have for him the highest respect, portrays to us our weak, feeble, and defenceless condition ; our thousands of mlea of coast ; our small navy ; our limited resources ; to show that we are not ready for a war now. Sir, let Great Britain believe tha picture, and she will be ready now for a war witk us. 152 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Onr vacillation, our hesitation, onr nervousness about the defence- Jess condition of our coasts and of our cities, are the sources of en- couragement to England. Sir, I repel the idea that the American coast is so defenceless as represented. I have passed round a great portion of the British coast, and I undertake to assert that the American coast is in a bet- ter condition of defence than that of Great Britain. New York is better defended than Liverpool or London to-day. It is easier for a fleet to enter the harbor of Liverpool or London than New York. There are not as many obstacles in the way in the British cities as in the American. It is possible that a steam fleet might run by the fortifications into either. It is not probable it would ever escape from there if it did ; but it is possible that it might effect its escape. But, sir, I do not believe that our coast is more exposed than hers, and I do not believe our commerce is more exposed than hers. I do not believe England is any better prepared for war with us than we are with her. If she has a larger navy, she has a more exposed interest to protect by that navy. She has her troubles in India ; she has them at the Cape ; she has them all over the world ; and her navy is divided, and her army divided to protect them in those detached places on every continent, and every island of the globe. Sir, the extent of her power spreading all around the globe is one of the greatest sources of her weakness ; and the other fact that she is a commercial nation, and we are an agricultural people shows that she may be ruined, and her citizens starved, while we, although at war abroad, are happy and prosperous at home. Her statesmen have more respect for us in this particular than we have for ourselves. They will never push this question to the point of war. They will look you in the eye, march to you steadily, as long as they find it is prudent. If you cast the eye down, she will rush upon you. If you look her in the eye steadily, she will shake hands with you as friends, and have respect for you. Suppose she should not, my friend from South Carolina asks me. If she does not, then we will appeal to the God of battles ; we will arouse the patriotism of the American nation < we will blot out all distinction of party ; and the voice of faction will be hushed ; the American people will be a unit ; none but the voice of patriotism will be heard ; and from the North and the South, from the East and the West, we will come up as a band of brothers, animated by a common spirit and a common patriotism, as were our fathers of the Revolution, to repel the foreign enemy, and afterward differ as we please, and discuss at our leisure, matters of domestic dispute. As to my proposition for fifty gun-boats instead of twenty, I have only to say that I prefer the larger number ; and with all the respect I have for the senator from Mississippi and his superior knowledge on all matters of military defence, I must be permitted to entertain doubts whether he is correct in this particular. As to the usefulness of those vessels called gun-boats, the experience of the last few STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 153 years shows that a gun-boat can wander from the Carolina coast, and can venture to sea. England constructed immense numbers of them expressly for the Black Sea and the Baltic during the Russian war; and she used them with great effect. She used them in the Gulf of Finland and at Sweaborg. They were built expressly for that service, and had to go three thousand miles to get to the Black Sea, and nearly two thousand to get into the Gulf of Finland. England has sent them to the West Indies ; and the very outrages of which we now complain are being perpetrated by gun-boats. The Forward, that seized our vessels five hundred miles east of the Island of Cuba, on the high seas, is a gun-boat. The Buzzard, that seized our vessels one thousand miles from Cuba, off in the Atlantic ocean, is a gun-boat. All the vessels England is using now, for the annoyance of our commerce, are gun-boats that very despised little craft which the senator from Mississippi thinks will never venture out from shore. I think that if a gun-boat is powerful enough to stop our merchantmen on the high seas, search them, and take them into port, or do what she pleases with them, such vessels will be efficient enough in time of war for us to annoy the enemy's commerce with. I think daily experience proves that these gun-boats are efficient not only in the defence of harbors, in running into the mouths of rivers and shallow bays, but in annoying the enemy's commerce, as they are being used by England for that very purpose at this time. It so happens that only one of the vessels of Great Britain that have been perpetrating these outrages on our commerce, which haa hovered around the coast of Cuba, is not a gun-boat, but small Hide- whoel steamer the Styx. 154 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP ON THE INVASION OF STATES, AND EEPLY TO ME. FE88ENDEN. Delivered in ike Senate of the United States, January 23, 1860. The hour having arrived for the consideration of the special order, the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted by Mr. Douglas on the 16th instant: " Resolved That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report a bill for the protection of each State and Territory of the Union against invasion by the authorities or inhabitants of any other State or Territory ; and for the sup- pression and punishment of conspiracies or combinations in any State or Territory with intent to invade, assail, or molest the government, inhabitants, property, or institutions of any other State or Territory of the Union." ME. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, the Governor of Virginia addressed an official communication to the President of the United States, in which he said : " I have information from various quarters, upon which I rely, that a con spiracy of formidable extent, in means and numbers, is formed in Ohio, Penn- sylvania, New York, and other States, to rescue John Brown and his associates, prisoners at Charlcstown, Virginia. The information is specific enough to be reliable " Places in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have been occupied as depots and rendezvous by these desperadoes, and unobstructed by guards or other- wise, to invade this State, and we are kept in continual apprehension of out- rage from fire and rapine. I apprise you of these facts in order that you may take steps to preserve peace between the States." To this communication, the President of the United States, on the 28th of November, returned a reply from which I read the following sentence : " I am at a loss to discover any provision in the Constitution or laws of the United States which would authorize me to ' take steps ' for this purpose." [That is, to preserve the peace between the States.] This announcement produced a profound impression upon the public mind and especially hi the slaveholding States.' It was generally received and regarded as an authoritative announcement that the Constitution of the United States confers no power upon the Federal Government to protect each of the States of this Union against invasion from the other States I shall not stop to inquire whether the President meant to declare that the existing laws confer no authority upon him, or that the Constitution empowers Congress STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 155 to enact iaws which would authorize the federal interposition to pro- tect the States from invasion ; my object is to raise the inquiry, and to ask the judgment of the Senate and of the House of Representa- tives on the question, whether it is not within the power of Con- gress, and the duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to enact all laws which may he necessary and proper for the protection of each and every State against invasion, either from foreign powers or from any portion of the United States. The denial of the existence of such a power in the Federal Govern- ment has induced an inquiry among conservative men men loyal to the Constitution and devoted to the Union as to what means they have of protection, if the Federal Government is not authorized to protect them against external violence. It must be conceded that no community is safe, no State can enjoy peace or prosperity, or domestic tranquillity, without security against external violence. Every State and nation of the world, outside of this Republic, is supposed to maintain armies and navies for this precise purpose. It is the only legitimate purpose for which armies and navies are maintained in time of peace. They may be kept up for ambitious purposes, for the purposes of aggression and foreign war ; but the legitimate purpose of a military force in time of peace is to insure domestic tranquillity against violence or aggression from with- out. The States of this Union would possess that power, were it not for the restraints imposed upon them by the federal Constitution. "When that Constitution was made, the States surrendered to the Federal Government the power to raise and support armies, and the power to provide and maintain navies, and not only thus surrendered the means of protection from invasion, but consented to a prohibition upon themselves which declares that no State shall keep troops or vessels of war in time of peace. The question now recurs, whether the States of this Union are in that helpless condition, with their hands tied by the Constitution, stripped of all means of repelling assaults and maintaining their existence, without a guaranty from the Federal Government, to pro- tect them against violence. If the people of this country shall settle down into the conviction that there is no power in the Federal Go- vernment under the Constitution to protect each and every State from violence, from aggression, from invasion, they will demand that the cord be severed, and that the weapons be restored to their hands with which they may defend themselves. This inquiry involves, the question of the perpetuity of the Union. The means of defence, the means of repelling assaults, the means of providing against invasion, must exist as a condition of the safety of the States and the existence of the Union. Now, sir, I hope to be able to demonstrate that there is no wrong in this Union for which the Constitution of the United Statey has not provided a remedy. I believe, and I hope I shall be able to maintain, that a remedy is furnished for every wrong which can be 156 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF perpetrated within the Union, if the Federal Government performs iti whole duty. I think it is clear, on a careful examination of the Constitution, that the power is conferred upon Congress, first, to rrovide for repelling invasion from foreign countries ; and, secondly, to protect each State of this Union against invasion from any other State, Territory, or place, within the jurisdiction of the United States. I will first turn your attention, sir, to the power conferred upon Congress to protect the United States including States, Territories, and the District of Columbia ; including every inch of ground within our limits and jurisdiction against foreign invasion. In the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, you find that Congress has power " To raise and support armies ; to provide and maintain a navy ; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces ; to pro- vide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." These various clauses confer upon Congress power to use the whole military fore of the country for the purpose specified in the Consti- tution. They shall provid'e for the execution of the laws of the Union; and, secondly, suppress insurrections. The insurrections there referred to are insurrections against the authority of the United States insurrections against a State authority being provided for in a subsequent section, in which the United States cannot interfere, except upon the application of the State authorities. The invasion which is to be repelled by this clause of the Constitution is an inva- sion of the United States. The language is, Congress shall have power to " repel invasions." That gives the authority to repel the invasion, no matter whether the enemy shall land within the limits of Virginia, within the District of Columbia, within the Territory of New Mexico, or anywhere else within the jurisdiction of the United States. The power to protect every portion of the country against invasion from foreign nations having thus been specifically conferred, the framers of the Constitution then proceeded to make guaranties for the protection of each of the States by federal authority. I will read the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution : " The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them ag&inst invasion ; and, on application of the legislature, or of the Executive, (when the legislature can- not be convened,) against domestic violence." This clause contains three distinct guaranties: first, the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government ; second, the United States shall protect each of them against invasion ; third, the United States shall, on application of tho legislature, or of the Executive, when the legislature cannot be con- vened, protect them against domestic violence. Now, sir, I submit to you whether it is not clear, from the very language of the Consti- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 157 tution, that this clause was inserted for the purpose of making it the duty of the Federal Government to protect each of the States against invasion from any other State, Territory, or place within the juris- diction of the United States? For what other purpose was the clause inserted ? The power and duty of protection as against foreign nations had already been provided for. This clause occurs among the guaranties from the United States to each State, for the benefit of each State, for the protection of each State, and necessarily from other States, inasmuch as the guaranty had been given previously as against foreign nations. If any further authority is necessary to show that such is the true construction of the Constitution, it way be found in the forty-third number of the " Federalist," written by James Madison. Mr. Madi- son quotes the clause of the Constitution which I have read, giving these three guaranties ; and, after discussing the one guaranteeing to each State a republican form of government, proceeds to consider the second, which makes it the duty of the United States to protect each of the States against invasion. Here is what Mr. Madison says upon that subject : " A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts compos- ing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enter- prises of its more powerful neighbors. The history both of ancient and modern confederacies proves that the weaker members of the Union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article." The number of the " Federalist," like all the others of that cele- brated work, was written after the Constitution was made, and before it was ratified by the States, and with a view to securing its ratifica- tion ; hence the people of the several States, when they ratified this instrument, knew that this clause was intended to bear the construc- tion which I now place upon it. It was intended to make it the dvity of every society to protect each of its parts; the duty of the Federal Government to protect each of the States ; and, he says, the smaller States ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article of the Constitution. Then, sir, if it be made the imperative duty of the Federal Govern- ment, by the express provision of the Constitution, to protect each of the States against invasion or violence from the other States, or from combinations of desperadoes within their limits, it necessarily follows that it is the duty of Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper to render that guaranty effectual. While Congress, in the early history of the government, did provide legislation, which is snpposed to be ample to protect the United States against invasion from foreign countries and the Indian tribes, they have failed, up to this time, to make any law for the protection of each of the States against invasion from within the limits of the Union. I am unable to account for this omission ; but I presume the reason is to be found 158 THE LIFE AHiy SPEECHES O JT in the fact that no Congress ever dreamed that such legislation would ever become necessary for the protection of one State of this Union against invasion and violence from her sister States. Who, until the Harper's Ferry outrage, ever conceived that American citizens could be so forgetful of their duties to themselves, to their country, to the Constitution, as to plan an invasion of another State, with a view of inciting servile insurrection, murder, treason, and every other crime that disgraces humanity ? While, therefore, no blame can justly bo attached to our predecessors in failing to provide the legislation necessary to render this guaranty of the Constitution effectual ; still, since the experience of last year, we cannot stand justified in omit- ting longer to perform this imperative duty. The question then remaining is. what legislation is necessary and proper to render this guaranty of the Constitution effectual ? I pre- sume there will be very little difference of opinion that it will be necessary to place the whole military power of the government at the disposal of the President, under proper guards and restrictions against abuse, to repel and suppress invasion when the hostile force shall be actually in the field. But, sir, that is not sufficient. Such legislation would not be a full compliance with this guaranty of the Constitu- tion. The frauiers of that instrument meant more when they gave the guaranty. Mark the difference in language between the provi- sion for protecting the United States against invasion and that for protecting the States. When it provided for protecting the United States, it said Congress shall have power to " repel invasion." When it came to make this guaranty to the States it changed the language and said the United States shall "protect " each of the States against invasion. In one instance, the duty of the government is to repel; in the other, the guaranty is that they will protect. In other words, the United States are not permitted to wait until the enemy shall be upon your borders; until the invading army shall have been organ- ized and drilled and placed in march with a view to the invasion ; but they must pass all laws necessary and proper to insure protection and domestic tranquillity to each State and Territory of this Union against invasion or hostilities from other States and Territories. Then,, sir, I hold that it is not only necessary to use the military power when the actual case of invasion shall occur, but to authorize the judicial department of the government to suppress all conspiracies and combinations in the several States with the intent to invade a State, or molest or disturb its government, its peace, its citizens, its property, or its institutions. You must punish the conspiracy, the combination with intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. There is no principle more familiar to the legal profes- sion than that wherever it is proper to declare an act to be a crime, it is proper to punish a conspiracy or combination with intent to perpe- trate the act. Look upon your statute books, and I presume you will find an enactment to punieh the counterfeiting of the coin of the United States ; and then another section to punish a man for having STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 159 'jountefeit coin in his possession with intent to pass it; and another section to punish him for having the molds, or dies, or instrument* ibr counterfeiting, with intent to use them. This is a familiar princi- ple in legislative and judicial proceedings. If the act of invasion is criminal, the conspiracy to invade should also be made criminal. If it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run off fugitive slaves, why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combina- tions in the several States with intent to do the act? We have been told that a notorious man who has recently suffered death for his crimes upon the gallows, boasted in Cleaveland, Ohio, in a public lecture, a year ago, that he. had then a body of men employed in running away horses from the slaveholders of Missouri, and pointed to a livery etable in Cleaveland which was full of the stolen horses at that time. I think it is within our competency, and consequently our duty, to pass a law making every conspiracy or combination in any State or Territory of this Union to invade another with intent to steal or run away property of any kind, whether it be negroes, or horses, or property of any other description, into another State, a crime, and punish the conspirators by indictment in the United States courts, and confinement in the prisons or penitentiaries of the State or Ter* ritory where the . conspiracy may be formed and quelled. Sir, I would carry these provisions of law as far as our constitutional power will reach. I would make it a crime to form conspiracies with a view of invading States or Territories to control elections, whether they be under the garb of Emigrant Aid Societies of New England, or Blue Lodges of Missouri. (Applause in the galleries.) In other words, this provision of the Constitution means more than the mere repelling of an invasion when the invading army shall reach the border of a State. The language is, it shall protect the State against invasion ; the meaning of which is, to use the lan- guage of the preamble to the Constitution, to insure to each State domestic tranquillity against external violence. There can be no peace, there can be no prosperity, there can be no safety in any community, unless it is secured against violence from abroad. Why, sir, it has been a question seriously mooted in Europe, whether it was not the duty of England, a power foreign to France, to pass laws to punish conspiracies in England against the lives of the princes of France. I shall not argue the question of comity between foreign States. I predicate my argument upon the Constitution by which we are governed, and which we have sworn to obey, and demand that the Constitution be executed in good faith so as to punish and suppress every combination, every conspiracy, either to invade a State or to molest its inhabitants, or to disturb its property, or to subvert its institutions and its government. I believe fchis can be effectually done by authorizing the United States courts in the several States to take jurisdiction of the offence, and punish the violation of the law with appropriate punishments. 160 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF It cannot be said that the time has not yet arrived for such legis- lation. It cannot be said with truth that the Harper's Ferry case will not be repeated, or is not in danger of repetition. It is only necessary to inquire into the causes which produced the Harper's Ferry outrage, and ascertain whether those causes are yet in active operation, and then you can determine whether there is any ground for apprehension that that invasion will be repeated. Sir, what were the causes which produced the Harper's Ferry outrage? Without stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm and deliberate conviction that the Harper's Ferry crime was the natural, logical, inevitable result of the doc- trines and teachings of the Kepublican party, as explained and enforced in their platform, their partisan presses, their pamphlets and books, and especially in the speeches of their leaders in and out of Congress. (Applause in the galleries.) I was remarking that I considered this outrage at Harper's Ferry as the logical, natural consequence of the teachings and doctrines of the Republican party. I am not making this statement for the purpose of crimination or partisan effect. I desire to call the atten- tion of members of that party to a reconsideration of the doctrines that they are in the habit of enforcing, with a view to a fair judg- ment whether they do not lead directly to those consequences, on the part of those deluded persons who think that all they say is meant, in real earnest, and ought to be carried out. The great principle that underlies the Republican party is violent, irreconcila- ble, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery, with the view of its ultimate extinction throughout the lard ; sectional war is to be waged until the cotton field of the South shall be culti- vated by free labor, or the rye fields of New 1 ork, and Massachu- setts shall be cultivated by slave labor. In furtherance of this article of their creed, you find their political organization not only sectional in its location, but one whose vitality consists in appeals to northern passion, northern prejudice, northern ambition against southern States, southern institutions, and southern people. I have had some experience in fighting this element within the last few years, and I find that the source of their power consists in exciting the prejudices and the passions of the northern section against those of the southern section. They not only attempt to excite the North against the South, but they invite the South to assail and abuse and traduce the North. Southern abuse, by violent men, of northern statesmen and northern people, is essential to the triumph of the Republican cause. Hence the course of argument which we have to meet is not only repelling the appeals to northern passion and preju- dice, but we have to encounter their appeals to southern men to assail us, in order that they may justify their assaults upon the plea of self-defence. Sir, when I returned home in 1858, f >r the purpose of canvassing Illinois, with a view to reelection, I had to meet this issue of the STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 161 " irrepressible conflict." It is true that the senator from New York had not then made his Rochester speech, and did not for four months afterward. It is true that he had not given the doctrine that precise name and form; but the principle was in existence, and had been proclaimed by the ablest and the most clear-headed men of the party. I will call your attention, sir, to a single passage from a speech, to show the language in which this doctrine was stated in Illinois before it received the name of the " irrepressible conflict.'* The Republican party assembled in State convention in June, 1858. in Illinois, and unanimously adopted Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for United States senator. Mr. Lincoln appeared before the convention, accepted the nomination, and made a speech which had been previously written and agreed to in caucus by most of the leaders .of the party. I will read a single extract from that speech : " In my opinion, it [the slavery agitation] will not cease nntil a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction ; or its advocates will push forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States old as well as new, North as well as South." Sir, the moment I landed upon the soil of Illinois, at a vast gather- ing of many thousands of my constituents to welcome me home, I read -that passage, and took direct issue with the doctrine contained in it as being revolutionary and treasonable, and inconsistent with the perpetuity of this Republic. ' That is not merely the individual opinion of Mr. Lincoln; nor is it the individual opinion merely of the senator from New York, who four months afterward asserted the same doctrine in different language ; but, so far as I know, it is the general opinion of the members of the Abolition or Republican party. They tell the people of the North that unless they rally as one man, under a sectional banner, and make war upon the South with a view to the ultimate extinction of slavery, slavery will overrun the whole North, and fasten itself upon all the free States. They then tell the South, unless you rally as one man, binding the whole southern peo- ple into a sectional party, and establish slavery all over the free States, the inevitable consequence will be that we shall abolish it in the slaveholding States. The same doctrine is held by the senator from New York in his Rochester speech. He tells us that the States must all become free, or all become slave ; that the South, in other words, must conquer and subdue the North, or the North must triumph over the South, and drive slavery from within its limits. Mr. President, in order to show that I have not misinterpreted the position of the senator from New York, in notifying the South that, 162 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF if they wish to maintain slavery within their limits, they must also fasten it upon the northern States, I will read an extract from his Kochester speech : " It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces ; and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cot- ton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisiana, will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men." Thus, sir, you perceive that the theory of the Eepublican party is, that there is a conflict between two different systems of institutions in the respective classes of States not a conflict in the same States, but an irrepressible conflict between the free States and the slave States ; and they argue that these two systems of State cannot per- manently exist in the same Union ; that the sectional warfare must continue to rage and increase with increasing fury until the free States shall surrender, or the slave States shall be subdued. Hence, while they appeal to the passions of our own section, their object is to alarm the people of the other section, and drive them to madness, with the hope that they will invade our rights as an excuse for some of our people to carry on aggressions upon their rights. I appeal tc the candor of senators, whether this is not a fair exposition of the tendency of the doctrines proclaimed by the Republican party. The creed of that party is founded upon the theory that, because slavery is not desirable in our States, it is not desirable anywhere ; because free labor is a good thing with us, it must be the best thing everywhere. In other words, the creed of their party rests upon the theory that there must be uniformity in the domestic institutions and internal polity of the several States of this Union. There, in my opinion, is the fundamental error upon which their whole system rests. In the Illinois canvass, I asserted, and now repeat, that uni- formity in the domestic institutions of the different States is neithei possible nor desirable. That is the very issue npon which I con- ducted the canvass at home, and it is the question which I desire to present to the Senate. I repeat, that uniformity in domestic institutions of the different States, is neither possible nor desirable. Was such the doctrine of the framers of the Constitution ? I wish the country to bear in mind that when the Constitution was adopted, the Union consisted of thirteen States, twelve of which were slave- holding States, and one a free State. Suppose this doctrine of uni- formity on the slavery question had prevailed in the Federal Con- vention, do the gentlemen on that side of the House think that free- dom would have triumphed over slavery? Do they imagine that the one free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 163 and thus have abolished slavery throughout the land by a Consti- tutional provision ? On the contrary, if the test tiad then been made, if this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery question had then been proclaimed and believed in, with the twelve slaveholding States against one free State, would it not have resulted in a constitutional provision fastening slavery irrevocably upon every inch of American eoil, North as well as South ? Was it quite fair in those days for the friends of free institutions to claim that the Federal Government must not touch the question, but must leave the people of each State to do as they pleased, until under the operation of that principle they secured the majority, and then wield that majority to abolish slavery in the other States of the Union ? Sir, if uniformity in respect to domestic institutions had been deemed desirable when the Constitution was adopted, there was another mode by which it could have been obtained. The natural mode of obtaining uniformity was to have blotted out the State governments, to have abolished the State Legislatures, to have con- ferred upon Congress legislative power over the municipal and domestic concerns of the people of all the States, as well as upon Federal questions affecting the whole Union ; and if this doctrine of uniformity had been entertained and favored by the framers of the Constitution, such would have been the result. But, sir, the trainers of that instrument knew at that day, as well as we now know, that in a country as broad as this, with so great a variety of climate, of Boil, and of production, there must necessarily be a corresponding diversity of institutions and domestic regulations, adapted to the wants and necessities of each locality. The framers of the Constitu- tion knew that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to the mountains and valleys of New England, were ill-suited to the rice plantations and the cotton-fields of the Carolinas. They knew that our liberties depended upon reserving the right to the people of each State to make their own laws and establish their own institutions, and control them at pleasure, without interference from the Federal Government, or from any other State or Territory, or any foreign country. The Constitution, therefore, was based, and the Union was founded, on the principle of dissimilarity in the domestic institutions and internal polity of the several States. The Union was founded on the theory that each State had peculiar interests, requiring peculiar legislation, and peculiar institutions, dif- ferent and distinct trom every other State. The Union rests on the theory that no two States would be precisely alike in their domestic policy and institutions. Hence, I assert that this doctrine of uniformity in the domestic institutions of the different States is repugnant to the Constitution, subversive of the principles upon which the Union was based, revo- lutionary in its character, and leading directly to despotism if it is ever established. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs in a coun- try of great extent is despotism always. Show me centralism pre- 25 164: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF scribing uniformity from the capital to all of its provinces in tnei-r local and domestic concerns, and I will show you a despotism aa odious and as insufferable as that of Austria or of Naples. Dissimi- larity is the principle upon which the Union rests. It is founded upon the idea that each State must necessarily require different regulations ; that no two States have precisely the same interests, and hence do not need precisely the same laws ; and you cannot account for this confederation of States upon any other principle. Then, sir, what becomes of this doctrine that slavery must be es- tablished in all the States or prohibited in all the States ? If we only conform to the principles upon which the Federal Uuion was lormed, there can be no conflict. It is only necessary to recognize the right of the people of every State to have just such institutions as they please, without consulting your wishes, your views, or your prejudices, and there can be no conflict. And, sir, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States con- fers upon Congress the power coupled with the duty of protecting each State against external aggression, and inasmuch as that includes the power of suppressing and punishing conspiracies in one State against the institutions, property, people, or government of every other State, I desire to carry out that power vigorously. Sir, give us such a law as the Constitution contemplates and authorizes, and I will show the senator from New York that there is a constitutional mode of repressing the "irrepressible conflict." I will open the prison door to allow conspirators against the peace of the Republic and the domestic tranquility of our States to select their cells wherein to drag out a miserable life, as a punishment for their crimes against the peace of society. Can any man say to us that although this outrage has been perpe- trated at Harper's Ferry, there is no danger of its recurrence ? Sir, is not the Republican party still embodied, organized, confident of success, and defiant in its pretensions ? , Does it not now hold and proclaim the same creed that it did before this invasion? It is true that most of its representatives here disavow the acts of John Brown at Harper's Ferry. I am glad that they do so ; I am rejoiced that they have gone thus far ; but I must be permitted to say to them that it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless they also repudi- ate and denounce the doctrines and teachings which produced the act. Those doctrines remain the same ; those teachings are being poured into the minds of men throughout the country by means of speeches and pamphlets and books and through partisan presses. The causes that produced the Harper's Ferry invasion are now in active operation. It is true that the people of all the border Stated are required by the Constitution to have their hands tied, without the power of self-defence, and remain patient under a threatened in- vasion in the day or in the night?' Can you expect people to be patient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night without first itatiouing sentinels around their houses to see if a ba) ^ of marauders STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 165 and murderers are not approaching with torch and pistol ? Sir, it requires more patience than freemen ever should cultivate, to submit to constant annoyance, irritation and apprehension. If we expect to preserve this Union, we must remedy, within the Union and in obe- dience to the Constitution, every evil for which disunion would fur- nish a remedy. If the Federal Government fails to act, either from choice or from an rpprehension of the want of power, it cannot bo expected that the States will be content to remain unprotected. Then, sir, I see no hope of peace, of fraternity, of good feeling, be- tween the different portions of the United States, except by briuging to bear the power of the Federal Government to the extent author- ized by the Constitution to protect the people of all the States against any .external violence or aggression. I repeat, that if the theory of the Constitution shall be carried out by conceding the right of the people of every State to have just such institutions as they choose, there cannot be a conflict, much less an "irrepressible con- flict," between the free and the slaveholding States. Mr. President, the mode of preserving peace is plain. This system of sectional warfare must cease. The Constitution has given the power, and all we ask of Congress is to give the means, and we, by indictments and convictions in the federal courts of our several States, will make such examples of the leaders of these conspiracies as will strike terror into the hearts of the others, and there will be an end of this crusade. Sir, you must check it by crushing out the conspiracy, the combination, and then there can be safety. Then we shaii be able to restore that spirit of fraternity which inspired 0111 revolutionary fathers upon every battle-field; which presided over the deliberations of the convention that framed the Constitution, and tilled the hearts of the people who ratified it. Then we shall be able to demonstrate to you that there is no evil unredressed in the Union for which disunion would furnish a remedy. Then, sir, let us exe- cute the Constitution in the spirit in which it was made. Let Con- gress pass ail the laws necessary and proper to give full and complete effect to every guaranty of the Constitution. Let them authorize the punishment of conspiracies and combinations in any State or Territory against the property, institutions, people or government of any other State or Territory, and there will be no excuse, no de- sire, for disunion. Then, sir, let us leave the people of every State perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. Let each of them retain slavery just as long as it pleases, and abolish it when it chooses. Let us act upon that good old golden principle which teaches all men to mind their own business and let their neighbors alone. Let this be done, and this Union can endure forever as our fathers made it, composed of free and slave States, just as the people of each. State may determine for .them- selves. Mr. Fessenden having replied at some length to Mr. Doug- las, he made the following rojoinder : 106 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF MR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I shall not follow the senator froia Maine through his entire speech, but simply notice such points as demand of me some reply. He does not know why I introduced my resolution ; he cannot conceive any good motive for it; he thinks there must be some other motive besides the one that has been avowed. There are some men, J know, who cannot conceive that a man can be governed by a patriotic or proper motive ; but it is not among that class of men that I look for those who are governed by motives of propriety. I have no impeachment to make of his mo- tives. 1 brought in this resolution because I thought the time had arrived when we should have a measure of practical legislation. I had seen expressions of opinion against the power from authorities so high that I felt it my duty to bring it to the attention of the Sen- ate. I had heard that the senator from Virginia had intimated some doubt on the question of power, as well as of policy. Other senators discussed the question here for weeks when I was confined to my sick bed. Was there anything unreasonable in my coming before the Senate at this time, expressing my own opinion, and confining myself to the practical legislation indicated in the resolution? Nor, sir. have I in my remarks gone outside of the legitimate argument pertaining to the necessity for this legislation. 1 first showed that there had been a great outrage ; I showed what I believed to be the causes that had produced the outrage, and that the causes which pro- duced it were still in operation ; and argued that, so long as thn party to which the gentlemen belong remains embodied in full force, those causes will still threaten the country. That was all. The senator from Maine thinks he will vote for the bill that will be proposed to carry out the objects referred to in my resolution. Sir, whenever that senator and his associates on the other side of the chamber will record their votes fur a bill of the character described in my resolution and speech, I shall congratulate the coun- try upon the progress they are making toward sound principles. Whenever he and his associates will make it a felony for two or more men to conspire to run off fugitive slaves, and punish the conspirators by confinement in the penitentiary, I shall consider that wonderful changes have taken place in this country. I tell the senacor that it is the general tone of sentiment in all those sections of the country where the Republican party predominate, so far as 1 know, not only not to deem it a crime to rescue a fugitive slave, but to raise mobs to aid in the rescue. He talks about slandering tlve Republican party when we intimate that they are making a warfare upon the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Sir, where, in the towns and cities with Republican majorities, can you execute the Fugitive Slave Law ? Is it in the town where the senator from New York resides? Do you not remember the Jerry rescuers ? Is it at Oherlin, where the mob was raised that made the rescue last year and produced the riot? Why not make it a crime to form conspiracies und combination STEPHEN A.. DOUGLAS. 167 to run off fugitive slaves, as well as to run off horses, or any other property ? I am talking about conspiracies which are so common in all our northern States, to invade and enter, through their agents, the slave States, and seduce away slaves and run them off by the underground railroad, in order to send them to Canada. It is these conspiracies to perpetrate crime with impunity, that keep up the irri- tation. John Brown could boast, in a public lecture in Cleveland, that he and his band had been engaged all the winter in stealing horses and running them off from the slaveholders in Missouri, and that the livery stables were then filled with stolen horses, and yet the conspiracy to do it could not be punished. Sir, I desire a law that will make it a crime, punishable by impri- sonment in the penitentiary, after conviction in the United States court, to make a conspiracy in one State, against the people, pro- perty, government, or institutions, of another. Then we shall get at the root of the evil. I have no doubt that gentlemen on the other side will vote fora law which pretends to comply with the guaranties of the Constitution, without carrying any force or efficiency in its provisions. I have heard men abu'se the Fugitive Slave Law, and. express their willingness to vote for amendments; but when you came to the amendments which they desired to adopt, you found they were such as would never return a fugitive to his master. They would go for any fugitive slave law that had a hole in it big enough to let the negro drop through and escape; but none that would comply with the obligations of the Constitution. So we shall find that side of the chamber voting for a law that will, in terms, disapprove of unlawful expeditions against neighboring State*, with- out being efficient in affording protection. But the senator says it is a part of the policy of ihe northern Democracy to represent the Republicans as being hostile to southern institutions. Sir, it is a part of the policy of the northern Demo- cracy, as well as their duty, to speak the truth on that subject. I did not suppose that any man would have the audacity to arraign a brother senator here for representing the Republican party as deal- ing in denunciation and insult of the institutions of the South. Look to your Philadelphia platform, where you assert the sovereign power of Congress over the Territories for their government, and demand that it shall be exerted against those twin relics of barbar- ism polygamy and slavery. Mr. President, for what purpose does the Republican party appeal to northern passions and northern prejudices against southern insti- tutions and the southern people, unless it is to operate upon those institutions ? They represent southern institutions as no better than polygamy ; the slaveholder as no better than the polygamist ; and complain tfhat we should intimate that they did not like to associate with the slaveholder any better than with the polygamist. 1 have always noticed that those men who were so far off from the slave States that they did not know anything about them, art 168 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF most anxious for the fate of the poor slave. Those men who are o far off that they do not know what a negro is, are distressed to death about the condition of the poor negro. (Laughter.) But, sir, go into the border States, where we associate across the line, where the civil- ities of society are constantly interchanged ; where we trade with ea"h other, and have social and commercial intercourse, and there you will find them standing by each other like a band of brothers. Take southern Illinois, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, and that part of Pennsylvania bordering on Maryland, and there you will find social intercourse ; commercial intercourse ; good feeling ; because those people know the condition of the slave on the oppo- site side of the line ; but just in proportion as you recede from the slave States, just in proportion as the people are ignorant of the facts, just in that proportion party leaders can impose on their sym- pathies and honest prejudices. Sir, I know it is the habit of the Republican party, as a party, wherever I have met them, to make the warfare in such a way as io try to rally the whole North on sectional grounds against the South. I know that it is to be the issue, and it is proven by the speech of the senator from New York, which I quoted before, and that of Mr. Lincoln, so far as they are authority. 1 happen to have those speeches before me. The senator from Maine has said that neither of these speeches justified the conclusion that they asserted, that the free States and the slave States cannot coexist permanently in the same republic. Let us see whether they do or riot. Mr. Lincoln says : " A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free." Then he goes on to say they must all be one thing or all the other, or else the Union cannot endure. What is the meaning of that language, unless it is that the Union cannot permanently exist, half slave and half tree that it must all become one thing or all become the other? That is the declaration. The declaration is that the North must combine as a sectional party, and carry on the agitation so fiercely, up to the very borders of the slaveholding States, that, the master dare not sleep at night for fear that the robbers, the John Browns, will come and set his house on fire, and murder the women and children, before morning, It is to surround the siuveholding States by a cordon of free States, to use the language of the senator; to hem them in, in order that you may smother them out. The senator avowed, in his speech to-day, their object to be to h<-m in tho slave States, in order that slavery may die out. How die out? Con- fine it to its present limits; let the ratio 'of increase go on by the hws of nature ; and ju-st in proportion as the lands in the slaveholding Slates wear out, the negroes increase, and you will swon reach that point where the soil will not produce enough to teed the slaves ; then Ueiu them in, arid let them starve out let them die out by starvation* STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 169 That is the policy hem them in, and starve them out. Do as the French did in Algeria, when the Arabs took to the caverns smoke them out, by making fires at the mouths of the caverns, and keep them burning until they die. The policy is, to keep up this agitation along the line ; make slave property insecure in the border States ; keep the master constantly in apprehension of assault, till he will consent to abandon his native country, leaving his slaves behind him, or to remove them further south. If you can force Kentucky thus to abolish slavery, you make Tennessee the border State, and'begiu the same operation upon her. But sir, let us see whether the senator from New York did not proclaim the doctrine that free States and slave States cannot perma- nently exist in the same republic. He said : " It ia an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces ; and it means that the United States must, and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation." The opposing conflict is between the States ; the Union cannot remain as it now is, part free and part slave. The conflict between free States and slave States must go on until there is not a slave State left, or until they are all slave States. That is the declaration of the senator from New York. The senator from Maine tried to make the Senate believe that I had misrepresented the senator from New York and Mr. Lincoln, of Illinois, in stating that they referred to a conflict between States. He said that all they meant was that it was a con- flict between free labor and slave labor in the same State. Now, sir, let me submit to that man's candor whether he will insist on that position. They both say the contest will go on until the States become all free or all slave. Then, when is the con- test going to end ? When they become all slave ? Will there not be the same conflict between free labor and slave labor, after every State has become a slave State, that there is now ? If that was the meaning, would the conflict between slave labor and free labor cease even when every State had become slavehoiding ? Have not all the slaveholding States a large number of free laborers within their limits ; and if there is an irrepressible conflict between free labor and slave labor, will you remove that conflict by making the States all slave ? Yet, the senator from New York says they must become all slave or all free before the conflict ceases. Sir, that shows that the senator from New York meant what I represented him as meaning. It shows that a man who knows the meaning of words, and has the heart to express them as they read, cannot fail to know that that was the moaning of those senators. The boldness with which a charge of misrepresentation may be made in this body will not give character to it when it is contradicted by the facts. I dislike to have to repel these charges of unfairness and misrepresentation ; yet the senator began with a series of innuendoes, with a series of com- 170 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF plaints of misrepresentation, showing that he was afraid to meet tie rt*l issues of his party, and wonld make up for that by personal assaults and innuendoes against the opposite party. He goes back to a speech of irine in opposition to the Lecompton constitution, in which I said that if you would send that constitu- .ion back and let the people of Kansas vote for or against it, if they foted for a free State or a slave State I would go for it without taring whether they voted slavery up or down. He thinks it is a jreat charge against me that I do not care whether the people vote it up or vote it down. The idea is taken from a speech in the Senate the first speech I made against the Lecompton constitution. It was quoted all over Illinois by Mr. Lincoln in the canvass, and I repeated the sentiment each time it was quoted against me, and repeated it in the South as well as the North. I say this : if the people of Kansas want a slave State, it is their business, not mine ; if they want a free State, they have a right to have it ; and hence, I do not care, so far as regards my action, whether they make it a free State or not ; it is none of my business. But the senator says h does care, he has a preference between freedom and slavery. How long would this preference last if he was a sugar planter in Louisiana, residing on his estate, instead of living in Maine ? Sir, I hold the doctrine that a wise statesman will adapt his laws to the wants, conditions and interests of the people to be governed by them. Slavery may be very essential in one climate and totally useless in another. If I were a citizen of Louisiana I would vote for retaining and maintaining slavery, be- cause I believe the good of that people would require it. As a citi- zen of Illinois I am utterly opposed to it, because our interests would not be promoted by it. 1 should like to see the Abolitionist who would go and live in a southern country that would not get over his scruples very soon and have a plantation as quickly as he could get the money to buy it. I have said and" repeat that this question of slavery is one of climate, of political economy, of self-interest, not a question of legis- lation. Wherever the climate, the soil, the health of the country are such that it cannot be cultivated by white labor, you will have African labor, and compulsory labor at that. Wherever white labor can be employed cheapest and most profitably, there African labor will retire and white labor will take its place. You cannot force slavery by all the acts of Congress you may take on one inch of territory against the will of the people, and you can- not by any law you can make keep it out from one inch of American territory where the people want it. You tried it in Illinois. By the Ordinance of 1787, slavery was prohibited, and yet our people, be- lieving that slavery would be profitable to them, established heredi- tary servitude in the Territory by territorial legislation, in defiance ot your federal ordinance. We maintained slavery there just so long M Congress said we should not have it, and we abolished it at jast STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. , 171 the moment you recognized us as a State, with the right to do as. we pleased. When we established it, it was on the supposition that it was our interest to do so. When we abolished it, we did so because experience proved that it was not our interest to have it. I hold that slavery is a question of political economy, to be determined by climate, by soil, by production, by self-interest, and hence the people to be affected by it are the most impartial jury to try the fact, whether their interest requires them to have it or not. But the senator thinks it is a great crime for me to say that I do not care whether they have it or not. I care just this far : I want every people to have that kind of government, that system of laws, that class of institutions, which will best promote their welfare, and I want them to decide for themselves ; and so that they decide it to suit themselves, I am satisfied, without stopping to inquire or caring which way they decide it. That is what I meant by that declara- tion, and I am ready to stand by it. The senator has made the discovery I suppose it is very new, for he would not repeat anything that was old. after calling me to ac- count for expressing an idea that had been heard of before that I re-opened the agitation by bringing in the Nebraska Bill in 1854; and he tries to put the responsibility of the crimes perpetrated by his political friends, and in violation of the law, upon the provisions of the law itself. We passed a bill to allow the people of Kansas to fornj and regulate their own institutions to suit themselves. No sooner had we placed that law on the statute-book, than his political friends formed conspiracies and combinations in the different New England States to import a set of desperadoes into Kansas to control the elections and the institutions of that country in fraud of the law of Congress. Sir, I desire to make the legislation broad enough to reach con- spiracies and combinations of that kind ; and I would also include combinations and conspiracies on the other side. My object is to establish firmly the doctrine that each State is to do its own votiug, establish its own institutions, make its own laws without interference, directly or indirectly, from any outside power. The gentleman says that is squatter sovereignty. Call it squatter sovereignty, cr.ll it popular sovereignty, call it what you please, it is the great principle of self-government on which this Union was formed, and by the pre- servation of which alone it can be maintained. It is the right of the people of every State to govern themselves and make their own laws, and be protected from outside violence or interference, directly or indirectly. Sir, I confess the object of the legislation I contemplate is to put down this outside interference ; it is to repress this " irre- pressible conflict;" it is to bring the government back to the true principles of the Constitution, and let each people in this Union rest secure in the enjoyment of domestic tranquillity without sion from neighboring States. 172 THE LIFE AND BPEEOHE* OF ON THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS UNDER THE WYAN- DOTT CONSTITUTION. IN EEPLY TO ME. SEWAED A1H> ME. TEUMBTJLL. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, February 29, I860. MB. PBESIDENT : I trust I shall be pardoned for a few remarks upon so much of the senator's speech as consists in an assault on the De- mocratic party, and especially with regard to the Kansas-Nebraska bill, of which I was the responsible author. It has become fashion- able now-a-days for each gentleman making a speech against the De- mocratic party to refer to the Kansas-Nebraska Act as the cause of all the disturbances that have since ensued. They talk about the repeal of a sacred compact that had been undisturbed for more than a quar- ter of a century, as if those who complained of violated faith had been faithful to the provisions of the Missouri Compromise. Sir, wherein consisted the necessity for the repeal or abrogation of that act, except it was that the majority in the northern States refused to carry out the Missouri Compromise in good faith ? I stood willing to extend it to the Pacific Ocean, and abide by it forever, and the entire South, without one exception in this body, was willing thus to abide by it ; but the freesoil element of the northern States was so strong as to defeat that measure, and thus open the slavery ques- tion anew. The men who now complain of the abrogation of that act were the very men who denounced it, and denounced all of ua who were willing to abide by it so long as it stood upon the statute- book. Sir, it was the defeat, in the House of Representatives, of the enactment of the bill to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific Ocean, after it had passed the Senate on my own motion, that opened the controversy of 1850, which was terminated by the adop- tion of the measures of that year. We carried those Compromise measures over the head of the sena- tor from New York and his present associates. We, in those mea- sure-, established a great principle, rebuking his doctrine of inter- vention by the Congress of the United States to prohibit slavery in the Territories. Both parties, in 1852, pledged themselves to abide by that principle, and thus stood pledged not to prohibit slavery in the Territories by act of Congress. The Whig party affirmed that pledge, and so did the Democracy. In 1854 we only carried out, in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the same principle that had been affirmed in the Compromise measures of 1850. I repeat that their resistance to carrying out in good faith the settlement of 1820, their defeat o* STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 173 the bill for extending it to the Pacific Ocean, was the sole cause of the agitation of 1850, and gave rise to the necessity of establishing the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories. Hence I am not willing to sit here and allow the senator from New York, with all the weight of authority he has with the powerful party of which he is the head, .to arraign me and the party to which 1 belong with the responsibility for that agitation which rests solely upon him and his associates. Sir, the Democratic party was willing te carry out the Compromise in good faith. Having been defeated in that for the want of numbers, and having established the principle of non-intervention in the Compromise measures of 1850, in lieu of it, the Democratic party from that day to this has been faithful to the new principle of adjustment. Whatever agitation has grown out of the question since, ha? been occasioned by the resistance of the party of which that senator is the head, to this great principle which has been ratified by the American people at two Presidential elections. If he was willing to acquiesce in the solemn and repeated judgment of that American people to which he appeals, there would be no agitation in this country now. But, sir, the whole argument of that senator goes far beyond the question of slavery, even in the Territories. His entire argument rests on the assumption that the negro and the white man were equal by Divine law, and hence that all laws and constitutions and govern- ments in violation of the principle of negro equality are in violation of the law of God. That is the basis upon which his speech rests. He qu>tes the Declaration of Independence to bhow that the fathers of the Revolution understood that the negro was placed on an equality with the white man, by quoting the clause. u we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 1 ' Sir, the doctrine of that senator and of his party is and I have had to meet it tor eight years that the Declaration of Independence intended to recognize the negro and the white man as equal under the Divine law, and hence that all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States which recognize slavery are in violation of the Divine law. In other words, it is an argument against the Constitution of the United States upon the ground that it is contrary to the law of God. The senator from New York has long held that doctrine. The senator from New York lias often proclaimed to the world that the Consti- tution of the United States was in violation of the Divine law, and that senator will not contradict the statement. I have an extract from one of his speeches now before me, in which that proposition is distinctly put forth. In a speech made in the State of Ohio, in 184.8, he said: ' Slavery is the sin of not some of the States only, bnt of them all ; of not one nationality, but of all nations. It perverted and corrupted the moral - THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF of mankind deeply and universally, and this perversion became a universal habit Habits of thought become fixed principles. No American State haa yet delivered itself entirely from these habits. We, in New York, are guilty of slavery still by withholding the right of suffrage from the race we have emancipated. You, in Ohio, are guilty in the same way by a system of black laws still more aristocratic and odious. It is written in the Constitution of the United States that five slaves shall count equal to three freemen as a basis of representation ; and it is written, also, IN VIOLATION OP DIVINE LAW, that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at our firesides from his relentless pursuer." There you find his doctrine clearly laid down, that the Constitution of the United States is "in violation of the Divine law," and there- fore, is not to be obeyed. You are told that the clause relating to fugitive slaves, being in violation of the Divine law, is not binding on n.'Uricind. This has been the doctrine of the senator from New York for years. I have not heard it in the Senate to-day for the first time/ I have met in my own State, for the last ten years, this same doctrine, that the Declaration of Independence recognized the negro and the white man as equal ; that the negro and white man are equals by Divine law, and that every provision of our Constitu- tion and laws which establishes inequality between the negro and the white man, is void, because contrary to the law of God. The senator from New York says, in the very speech from which I have quoted, that New York is yet a slave State. Why ? Not that she has a slave within her limits, but because the Constitution of New York does not allow a negro to vote on an equality with a white man. For that reason he says New York is still a slave State ; for that reason every other State that discriminates between the negro and the white man is a slave State, leaving but a very few States in the Union that are free from his objection. Yet, notwith- standing the senator is committed to these doctrines, notwithstanding the leading men of his party are committed to them, he argues that they have been accused of being in tavor of negro equality, and says the tendency of their doctrine is the equality of the white man. He introduces the objection, and fails to answer it. He states the proposition and dodges it, to leave the inference that he does not indorse it. Sir, I desire to see these gentlemen carry out their prin- ciples to their logical conclusion. If they will persist in the decla- ration that the negro is made the equal of the white man, and that any inequality is in violation of the Divine law, then let them carry it ont in their legislation by conferring on the negroes all the rights of citizenship the same as on white men. For one, I never held to any such doctrine. I hold that the Declaration of Independence wa< only referring to the white man to the governing race of this coun- try, who were in conflict with Great Britain, and had no reference tc the negro race at all, when it declared that all men were created qual. Sir, if the signers of that declaration had understood the instru- ment than M the senator from New York now construes it, were STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 175 they not bound on that day, at that very hour, to emancipate all their slaves ? If Mr. Jefferson had meant that his negro slaves were created by the Almighty his equals, was he not bound to emancipate the slaves on the very day that he signed his name to the Declaration of Independence ? Yet no one of the signers of that declaration emancipated his slaves. No one of the States on whose behalf the declaration was signed, emancipated its slaves until after the Revo- lution was over. Every one of the original colonies, every one of the thirteen original States, sanctioned and legalized slavery until after the Revolution was closed. These facts show conclusively that the Declaration of Independence was never intended to bear the construction placed upon it by the senator from New York, and by that enormous tribe of lecturers that go through the country deliver- ing lectures in country school-houses and basements of churches to abolitionists, in order to teach the children that the Almighty had put his seal of condemnation upon any inequality between the white man and the negro. Mr. President, I am free to say here what I have said over and over again at home that, in my opinion, this government was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and should be administered by white men, and by none other whatsoever. MB. DOOLITTLE. I will ask the honorable senator, then, why not give the Territories to white men? MB. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I am in favor of throwing the Ter- ritories open to all the white men, and all the negroes, too, that choose to go, and then allow the white men to govern the Territory. I would not let one of the negroes, free or slave, either vote or hold office anywhere, where I had the right, under the Constitution, to prevent it. I am in favor of each State and each Territory of this Union taking care of its own negroes, free or slave. If they want slavery, let them have it ; if they desire to prohibit slavery, let them do it ; it is their business, not mine. We in Illinois tried slavery while we were -a Territory, and found it was not profitable ; and hence we turned philanthropists and abolished it, just as our British friends across the ocean did. They established slavery in all their colonies, and when they found they could not make any more money out of it, abolished it. I hold that the question of slavery is one cf political economy, governed by the laws of climate, soil, productions, and self-interest, and not by mere statutory provision. 1 repudiate the doctrine, that because free institutions may be best in one climate they are, necessarily, the best everywhere ; or that because slavery may oe indispensable in one locality, therefore it is desirable every where. I hold that a wise statesman will always adapt his legislation to taw wants, interests, condition, and necessities of the people to be go verned by it. One people will bwr different institutions froiu another. One climate demands different institutions from another. 176 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF I repeat, then, what I have often had occasion to say, that I dv iu>t think uniformity is either possible or desirable. I wish to see n, two States precisely alike in their domestic institutions in this Uaioii. Our system rests on the supposition that each State has something in her condition or climate, or her circumstances, requiring laws and institutions different from every other State of the Union. Hence I answer the question of the senator from Wisconsin, that I am willing hat a Territory settled by white men shall have negroes, free or slave, just as the white men shall determine, but not as the negroes shall prescribe. The senator from New York has coined a new definition of the States of the Union labor States and capital States. The capital States, I believe, are the slaveholding States ; the labor States are the non-slaveholding States. It has taken that senator a good many years to coin that phrase and bring it into use. I have heard him discuss these favorite theories of his for the last ten years, 1 think, and I never heard of capital States and labor States before. It strikes me that something has recently occurred up in New England that makes it politic to get up a question between capital and labor, and take the side of the numbers against the few. We have seen some accounts in the newspapers of combinations and strikes among the journeymen shoemakers in the towns there labor against capi- tal. The senator has a new word ready coined to suit their case, and make the laborers believe that he is on the side of the most numerous class of voters. What produced that strike among the journeymen shoemakers ? Why are the mechanics of New England, the laborers and the em- ployees, no\v reduced to the starvation point? Simply because, by your treason, by your sectional agitation, you have created a strife between the North and the South, have driven away your southern customers, and thus deprive the laborers of the means of support. This is the fruit of your Republican dogmas. It is another ster, fol- lowing John Brown, of the "irrepressible conflict." Therefore we now get this new coinage of " labor States " he is on the side of the shoemakers (laughter), and "capital States "he is against those that furnish the hides. (Laughter.) J think those shoemakers will understand this business. They know why it is that they do not get so many orders as they did a few months ago. It is not confined to the shoemakers ; it reaches every mechanic's shop and every factory. All the large laboring establishments of the North feel the pressure produced by the doctrine of the " irrepressible con- flict." This new coinage of words will cot save them from the just responsibility that follows the doctrines they have been inculcating. If they had abandoned the doctrine of the "irrepressible conflict," and proclaimed the true doctrine of the Constitution, that each State is entirely free to do just as it pleases, have slavery as long as i1 chooses, and abolish it when it wishes, there would be no conflict STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 177 the northern and southern States would be brethren ; there would be fraternity between us, and your shoemakers would not strike for higher prices. ******** Sir, the feeling among the masses of the South we find typified in the dress of the senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason) ; they are deter- mined to wear the homespun of their own productions rather than trade with the North. That is the feeling which has produced this Btate of distress in our manufacturing towns. The senator from New York has also referred to the recent action of the people of New Mexico, in establishing a code for the protection of property in slaves, and he congratulates the country upon the final success of the advocates of free institutions in Kansas. He could not fail, .however, to say, in order to preserve what he thought was a striking antithesis, that popular sovereignty in Kansas meant State sovereignty in Missouri. No, sir, popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken down by unholy combination in New England to ship men to Kansas rowdies and vagabonds with the Bible in one hand and Sharpe's rifle in the other, to shoot down the friends of self-government. Popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken down by the combinations in the northern States to carry elections under pretence of emigrant aid societies. In retaliation, Missouri formed aid societies too ; and she, following your example, sent men into Kansas, and then occurred the conflict. Now, you throw the blame upon Missouri merely because she followed your example, and attempted to resist its consequences. I condemn both ; but I con- demn a thousand-fold more those that set the example and struck the first blow, than those who thought they would act upon the principle of fighting the devil with his own weapons, and resorted to the same means that you had employed. But, sir, notwithstanding the efforts of emigrant aid societies, the people of Kansas have had their own way, and the people of New Mexico have had their own way. Kansas has adopted a free State; New Mexico has established a slave Territory. I am content with both. If the people of New Mexico want slavery, lei them have it, and I never will vote to repeal their slave code. If Kansas does not want slavery, I will not help anybody to force it on her. Let each do as it pleases. When Kansas comes to the conclu- sion that slavery will not suit her, and promote her interest better than the prohibition, let her pass her own slave code ; I will not pass it for her. Whenever New Mexico gets tired of her code, she must repeal it for herself ; I will not repeal it for her. Non-inter- vention by Congress with slavery in the Territories is the platform on which I stand. But I want to know why will not the senator from New York carry out his principles to their logical conclusions ? Why is there not a man in that whole party, in this body or the House of Repre- sentatives, bold enough to redeem the pledges which that party has ITS THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF made to the country ? I believe you said, in your Philadelphia olatforra, that Congress had sovereign power orer the Territories for their government, and that it was the duty of Congress, to pro- hibit, in all the Territories, those twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy. Why do you not carry out your pledges ? Why do you not introduce your bill? The senator from New York says they have no new measures to originate ; no new movement to make ; no new bill to bring forward. Then what confidence shall the Ameri- can people repose in your faith and sincerity, when, having the power in one House, you do not bring forward a bill to carry out your principles? The fact is, these principles are avowed to get votes in the North, but not to be carried into effect by acts of Con- gress. You are afraid of hurting your party if you bring in your bill to repeal the slave code of New Mexico ; afraid of driving off the conservative men ; you think it is wise to wait until after the election. I should be glad to have confidence enough in the sincerity of the other side of the chamber to suppose that they had sufficient courage to bring forward a law to carry out their principles to their logical conclusions. I find nothing of that. They wish to agitate, to excite the people of the North against the South to get votes for the Presidential election ; but they shrink from carrying out their measures lest they might throw off some conservative voters who do not like the Democratic party. But, sir, if the senator from New York, in the event that he is made President, intends to carry out his principles to their logical conclusions, let us see where they will lead him. In the same speech that I read from a few minutes ago, I find the following. Address- ing the people of Ohio, he said : " You blush not at these things, because they have become as familiar aa household words ; and your pretended free-soil allies claim peculiar merit for maintaining these miscalled guaranties of slavery, which they find in the na- tional compact. Does not all this prove that the Whig party have kept up with the spirit of the age; that it is as true and faithful to human freedom as the inert conscience of the American people will permit it to be ? What then, you say. can nothing be done for freedom, because the public conscience re- mains inert? Yes, much can be done, everything can be done. Slavery can be limited to its present bounds." That is the first thing that can be done slavery can b<* limited to its present bounds. What else ? " It can be ameliorated. It can and must be abolished, and you and I can and must do it." There you find are two propositions : first, slavery was to be limited to the States in which it was then situated. It did not -then -exist in any Territory. Slavery was confined to the States. The first pro- position was that slavery must be restricted, and confined to those States. The second was, that he, as a New Yorker, and they, the pCOffc of Ohio, must and would abolish it; that is to say, abolish it STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 179 ill the States. They could abolish it nowhere else. Every appeal they make to Northern prejudice and passion, is against the institution of slavery everywhere, and they would not be able to retain their abo- lition allies, the rank and file, unless they held out the hope that it was the mission of the Republican party, if successful, to abolish slavery in the States as well as in the Territories of the Union. And again in the same speech, the senator from New York advised the people to disregard constitutional obligations in these words : " But we must begin deeper and lowerthanthe composition and combination of factions or parties, wherein the strength and security of slavery lie. You answer that it lies in the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions and laws of slaveholding States. Not at all. It is in the erroneous sentinr.ent of the American people. Constitutions and laws can no more rise above the virtue of the people than the limpid stream can climb above its native spring. Inculcate the love of freedom and the equal rights of man under the paternal roof; gee to it that they are taught in the schools and in the churches ; reform your own code ; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal gods ; correct your own error, that slavery is a constitutional guaranty which may not be released, and ought not to be relinquished." I know they tell us that all this is to be done according to the Constitution; they would not violate the Constitution except so far as the Constitution violates tnelaw of God that is all and they are to be the judges of how far the Constitution does violate the law of God. They say that every clause of the Constitution that recognizes property in slaves, is in violation of the Divine law, and hence should not be obeyed ; and with that interpretation of the Constitution, they turn to the South and say, "We will give you all your rights under the Constitution, as we explain it." Then the senator devoted about a third of his speech to a very beautiful homily on the glories of our Union. All that he has said, all that any other man has ever ?aid, all that the most eloquent tongue can ever utter, in behalf of the blessings and the advantages of this glorious Union, 1 fully indorse. But still, sir, I am prepared to say, that the Union is glorious only when the Constitution is preserved inviolate. He eulogized the Union. 1, too, am for the Union ; I in- dorse the eulogies ; but still, what is the Union worth, unless the Con- stitution is preserved and maintained inviolate in all its provisions? Sir, I iiave no faith in the Union-loving sentiments of those who will not carry out the Constitution in good faith, a.s our fathers made it. Profusions of fidelity to the Union will be taken for naught, un- less they are accompanied by obedience to the Constitution upon which the Union rests. I have a right to insist that the Constitution shall be maintained inviolate in all its parts, notonly that which suits the temper of the North, but every clause of that Constitution, whe- ther you like it or uislike it. Your oath to support the Constitution binds you to every line, word, and syllable of the instrument. You hare no right to say that any given clause is in violation of the Divine 26 130 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF tew, and that, therefore, you will not observe it. The man who dis- obeys any one clause on the pretext that it violates the Divine law, or on any other pretext, violates his oath of office. But, sir, what a commentary is this pretext that the Constitution is a violation of the Divine law, upon those revolutionary fathers whose eulogies we have heard here to-day. Did the framers of that instrn nient make a Constitution in violation of the law of God? If so. how do your consciences allow you to take the oath of office? If the sena- tor* from New York still holds to his declaration that the clause in the Constitution relative to fugitive slaves is' a violation of the Divine law. lx>w dare he, as an honest man. take an oath to support the in- strument? Did he understand that he was defying the authority of HeHveii when he took the oath to support that instrument ? Thus, we see, the radical difference between the Republican party and the Democratic party is this: we stand by the Constitution as* our fathers made it, and by the decisions of the constituted authori- ties as they are pronounced in obedience to the Constitution. They repudiate the instrument, substitute their own will for that of the constituted authorities, annul such provisions as their fanaticism, or prejudice, or policy, may declare to be in violation of God's law, and then say : " We will protect all your rights under the Constitution as expounded by ourselves ; but not as expounded by the tribunal cre- ated for that purpose." Mr. President, 1 shall not occupy further time in the discussion of this question to-night. I did not intend to utter a word; and I should not have uttered a word upon the subject, if the senator from New York had not made a broad arraignment of the Democratic party, and especially of that portion of the action of the party for which I was most immediately responsible. Everybody knows that I brought forward and helped to carry through the Kansas-Nebraska act. and that I was active in support of the compromise measures o/ 1850. I have heard bad faith attached to the Democratic party fot that act too long to be willing to remain silent and seem to sanction it even by tacit acquiescence. MR. TRUMBUU, having replied, MR. DOUGLAS responded as follows : I have but a few words to say, in reply to my colleague; and first on the question, whether Illinois was a slave Territory or not, and whether we ever had slavery in the State. I dislike technical denials, conveying an idea contrary to the fact. My colleague well knows, and so do I, that, practically, we had slaves there while a Territory, and after we be- came a State. I have seen him dance to the music of a negro slavfe in Illinois many a time, and I have danced to the same music myself. i Laughter.] We have both had the same negro servants to black our boots and wait upon us, and they were held as slaves. We know, therefore, that slavery did exist in the State in fact, and slavery did exist in the Territory in fact ; and his denial relates exclusively i,o the question whether slavery was legal. Whether legal or not, it STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 181 existed in fact. The master exercteed his dominion over the slave, and those negroes were held as slaves until 1847, when we estab- lished the new Constitution. There are gentlemen around me here, who know the fact gentlemen who were nursed by slaves in Illinois. No man familiar with the history of Illinois will deny the tact. The quibble is, that the Territorial laws authorizing the intro- duction of slaves were void because the ordinance of 1787 said slavery was prohibited. Notwithstanding that ordinance, the old French inhabitants, who had slaves before the ordinance, paid no attention to it, and held slaves still. . Slaves were held there all the time that Illinois was a Territory ; and after it became a State they were held till they all died out, and their children became emancipated under the con- stitution. It is a fact; we all know it. That gentlemen have seen many of those old French slaves, who were held in defiance of the ordinance. Whether they were lawfully held or not, the Territorial authorities sustained the rights of the master. Not only were slaves held by the French before the ordinance, but the Territorial legisla- ture passed a law in substance to this effect : any citizen might go to Kentucky, or any other State or Territory, where slaves were held, and bring slaves into the Territory of Illinois, take them to a county court, arid in open court enter into an indenture by which the slave and his posterity were to serve him for ninety-nine years ; and in the event that the slave refused to enter into the indenture, the master should have a certain time to take him out of the Territory and sell him. The senator now says that law was not valid. Valid or not, it was executed ; slaves were introduced, and they were held ; they were used ; they were worked ; and they died slaves. That is the fact. I have had handed to me a book showing the number of slaves in Illinois at the taking of the various censuses, by which it appears that, when the census of 1810 was taken, there were in Illi- nois 168 slaves ; in 1820, 917 ; in 1830, 747 ; and in 1840, 331. In 1850 there were none, for the reason that, in 1847, we adopted a new constitution that prohibited slavery entirely, and by that time they had nearly all died. The census shows that at one time there were as many as nine hundred slaves, and at all times the dominion of the master was maintained. The fact is, that the people of the Territory of Illinois, when it was a Territory, were almost all from the southern States, particularly from Kentucky and Tennessee. The southern end of the State was the only part at first settled that part called Egypt because it is the land of letters and of plenty. Civilization and learning all origi- nated in Egypt. The northern part of the State, where the political friends of my colleague now preponderate, was then in the possession of the Indians, and so were northern Indiana and northern Ohio ; and a Yankee could not get to Illinois at all, unless he passed down through Virginia and over iuto Tennessee and through Kentucky. The consequence was, that ninety-nine out of. a hundred of the svt- 182 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF tiers were from the slave States. They carried the old family servants with them, and kept them. They were told, " Here is an ordinance of Congress passed against your holding them." They said, "What has Congress to do with our domestic institutions? Congress had better mind its own business, and let us alone; we know what we want better than Congress ;" and hence they passed this law to bring them in and make them indentured. Under that, they established slavery and held slaves as long as they wanted them. When they assembled to make the constitution of Illinois, in 1818, for admission into the Union, nearly every delegate to the convention brought his negro along with him to black his boots, play the fiddle, wait upon him, and take care of his room. They had a jolly time there ; they were dancing people, frolicksome people, people who enjoyed life ; they had the old French habits. Slaves were just as thick there as blackberries. But they said "Experience proves that it is not going to be profit- able in this climate." There were no scruples about it. Every one of them was nursed by it. His mother and his father held slaves. They had no scruples about its being right, but they said, '" We can- not make any money by it, and as our State runs way oft* north up to those eternal snows, perhaps we shall gain population faster if we stop slavery and invite in the northern population ;" and, as a matter of political policy, state policy, they prohibited slavery themselves. How did they prohibit it,? Not by emancipating, setting at liberty, the slaves ihen in the State, for 1 believe that has never been done by any legislative body in America, and 1 doubt whether any one will ever arrogate to itself the right to divest property already there; but they provided that all slaves then in the State should remain slaves for life; that all indentured persons should fulfill the terms of their indentures. Ninety-nine years was about long enough, I reckon, for grown persons at least. All persons of slave parents, after a certain time, were to be free at a ceriain at day that our people arrived at that condition that they could do as they pleased, to wit, when they became a State, they Adopted a system of gradual emancipation ; but still slavery continued in the Stale, as the census of 1820, the census of 1830, and the census of 1840, show, until the new constitution of 1847, when nearly nil those old slaves had died out, and probably there were not a half-dozen alive. That was the way slavery was introduced and expired in Illinois. Whatever quibbles there" may be about legal construction, legal right, theMj are the facts. Look into the Territorial legislation, and you will CIK* as rigorous a code for ',hy protection of slave property as in any State; a code prescribing the control of the master, providing that if a negro slave STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 183 liould leave his master's farm without leave, or in the night time, he should he punished by so many stripes, and if he committed such an offence he should receive so many stripes, ard so on; as rigorous a code as ever existed in any southern State of this Union. Not only that, hut after the State came into the Union, the State of Illinois reenaoted th^t code, and continued it up to the time that slavery died out under the operation of the State constitution. I dislike, sir, to have a controversy with my colleague about histo- rical tacts. I suppose ihe Senate of the United States has no parti- cular interest in the early history of Illinois, but it has become obligatory on me to vindicate my statement, to that extent. Now, sir, a word about the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. I have had occasion to refer to that before in the Senate, and 1 am sorry to have to refer t>o it again. My colleague arraigns me as chairman of the Committee on Terri- tories against myself as a member of the Senate in 1854. upon the Nebraska Bill. He says that, as chairman of the committee, I reported that we did not see proper to depart from the example of 1850 ; that as the Mexican laws were not then repealed in terms, we did not propose in terms to repeal the Missouri restriction, but there the senator stops, and there the essense of the report begins but, the report added, this committee proposes to carry out the prin- ciples embodied in the Compromise measures of 1850 in precise language, and then we go on to state what those principles were; and one was, that the people of a Territory should settle the question of slavery for themselves, and we reported a bill giving them that power. But inasmuch as the power to introduce slavery, notwithstanding the Mexican laws, was conferred on the Territorial legislatures under the compromise measures of 1850, the right to introduce it into Kansas, notwithstanding the Missouri restriction, was also proposed to be conferred without expressly repealing the restriction. The legal effect was precisely the same. Afterward some gentlemen said they would rather have the legal effect expressed in plain lan- guage. 1 said, " If you want a repealing act, have it : it does not alter the legal effect." I said so at the time, as the debates show ; and hence 1 put in the express provision that the Missouri act was thereby repealed. It did not change the legal effect of the bill; but that variation of language has been the staple of a great many stump speeches, a great many miserable quibbles of county court lawyers, a great many attempts to prove inconsistency by small politicians in the country. Be it so. The people understand that thing. The object I had in view was to allow the people to do as they pleased. The first bill accomplished that ; the amendment accomplished it. Whether that was the object of others or not, is another question. That was my object. The two bills, in my opinion, had the saina legal effect ; but I said if any one doubts it, I will make it plain. 184 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Some said, " we doubt whether that gives the right." Then 1 rnad it plain, and brought it in in express terras, and he calls a change of language without varying the legal effect, a change of policy. My colleague is welcome to make the most out of that. I have had that arraignment over and over again. The senator has some doubt as to whether I am in good standing in my own party ; whether 1 am a good represen- tative of northwestern Democracy. I have nothing to say about that. I will allow the people to speak in their conventions on that subject Whether I represent the Democracy of Illinois or not. I shall not say. The people understand all that. I can only say that J have been in the Democratic party all my life, and I know what our Democrats mean. My colleague indorsed and approved the compromise measures of 1 850. He was a Democrat a few years ago. Even in 1856, he declared, I believe, that he could not vote for me, if nominated, but he would vote for Mr. Buchanan ; but, after the nomination, Jie did not like the platform, and he went over. I have IK> objection to that ; it is all right enough. I never intended to taunt him with inconsistency ; but 1 do not think he is as safe and a? authoritative an expounder of the Republican party as the senator from New York. The senator from New York says that a State that does not allow a negro to vote on an equality with a white man is a slave State. I read his speech here to-day. I suppose the sena- tor from New York is a pretty good Republican. I thought he spoke with some authority for his party. 1 did not suppose those neo- phytes who had just come into the party were going to unsettle and unlior.se the leader and embodiment of the party so quickly, and prescribe a platform that would rule out the senator from New York. I must be permitted, therefore, to take the authority of the leaders of the partv in preference to those who are kept in the raiik and iile until they have served an apprenticeship. (Laughter.) The senator from New York says it is slavery not to allow the negro to vote. Well, sir, 1 hold that that is political slavery. If you disfranchise a man, you make him a political slave. Deprive a white man of a voice in his government, and, politically, he is a slave, llence the inequality you create is slavery to that extent. My colleague will not allow a negro to vote. He lives too far south in Illinois for that, decidedly. He has to expound the creed down in Egypt. They have other expositions up north. The creed is* pretty black in the north end of the State ; about the centre it is a pretty good mulatto, and it is almost white when you get down into Egypt. It assumes paler shades as you go south. The Democrats ot Illinois have one creed, and we can proclaim it everywhere alike. The senator, my colleague, complains that I represent his party to be in favor of negro equality. No such thing, says he: " 1 tell my colleague to his teeth it is not so." There is something very tearful in the manner in which he said it ! Senators know that' he is 8 dangerous man who gays things to a man's teeth, and I shjiU be very FTKPITKN A. DOUGLAS. 185 cautious how I reply. But lie says he does hold that by the law of God the negro and the white man are created equal ; that is, he says, in a state of nature ; and, therefore, he says he indorses that clause of the Declaration of Independence as including the negro as well as the white man. J do not think I misstate my colleague. He thinks that clause of the Declaration of Independence includes the negro as well as the white man. He declares, therefore, that the n.-gro and the white man were created equal. What does that Declaration also say : " We hold these truths to be self-evident ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable igkts, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." .1' the negro and the white man are created equal, and that equality :s an inalienable right, by what authority is my colleague and his party going to deprive the negro of that inalienable right which he got directly from God ? He says the Republican party is not in favor of according to the negro an inalienable right which he re- ceived directly from his Maker. Oh, no; he tells me to my teeth that they are not in favor of that; they will not obey the laws of God at all. Their creed is to to take away inalienable rights. Well, I have found that out before, arid that is just the reason 1 complain of them, that they are for taking away inalienable rights. If they will cling to the doctrine that the Declaration of Inde- pendence conferred certain inalienable rights, among which, we are told, is equality between the white man and the negro, they are bound to make the human laws they establish conform to those God- given rights which are inalienable. If they believe the first propo- sition, as honest men, they are bound to carry the principle to its logical conclusion, and give the negro his equality and voice in the government; let him vote at elections, hold office, serve on juries, make him judge, governor, j[ u senator/') No, they cannot make him a senator, because the Supreme Court has decided that he is not a citizen. The Dred Scott decision is in the way. Perhaps that is the reason of the objection to the Dred Scott decision, that a negro cannot be a senator. I say, if you hold that the Almighty created the negro the equal of the white man, and that equality be an in- alienable right, you are bound to confer the elective franchise and every other privilege of political equality on the negro. The senator from New York stands up to it like a man. His logic drove him there, and he had the honesty to avow the consequence of his own ductrine. That is to say, he did it before the Harper's Ferry raid. He did not say it quite as plainly to-day ; for I will do the senator from New York the justice to say, that, in his speech to-day, I think he made the most successful effort, considered as an attempt to con- ceal what he meant. (Laughter.) He dealt in vague generalities ; he dealt in disclaimers and general denials ; and he covered it all up with a verbiage that would allow anybody to infer just what he pleased, but not to commit the senator to anything ; and to let the 186 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Country know that there was no danger from tt e success of the Re- publican party ; that they did not mean any harm ; that if men, be- lieving in the truth of their doctrines, did go and commit invasions, murders, robberies, and treason, all they had to do was to disavow the men who were fools enough to believe them, and they are not responsible for the consequences of their own action ! Now, Mr. President, I wish my colleague were equally as frank as the senator from New York. That senator is in favor of the equal- ity of the negro with the white man, or else he would not say that the Almighty guaranteed to them an inalienable right of equality. My colleague dare not deny the inalienable rights of the negro, for if he did, the Abolitionists would quit him. He dare not avow it, lest the old line Whigs should quit him; hence he is riding double on this question. I have no desire to conceal my opinions ; and I repeat that I do not believe the negro race is any part of the govern- ing element in this country, except as an element of representation in the manner expressly provided in the Constitution. This is a white man's government, made by white men for the benefit c-f white men, to be administered by white men and nobody else ; am] I should regret the day that we ever allowed the negroes to have a hand in its administration. Not that the negro is not entitled to any privileges at all ; on the contrary, I hold that humanity require.? us to allow the unfortunate negro to enjoy all the rights and privi- leges that he may safely exercise consistent with the good of society. We may, with safety, give them some privileges in Illinois that would not be safe in Mississippi ; because we have but few, while that State has many. We will take care of our negroes, if Missis- sippi will take care of hers. Each has a right to decide for itself what shall be the relation of the negro to the white man within its own limits, and no other State has a right to interfere with its de- termination. On that principle there is no " irrepressible conflict ;" there is no conflict at all. If we will just take care of our own negroes, and mind our own business, we shall get along very well ; and we ask our southern friends to do the same, and they seem pretty well dis- posed to do it. Therefore, I arn in favor of just tiring a broadside into our Republican friends over there, who will keep interfering with other people's business. That is the complaint I have of them. They keep holding up the negro for us to worship, and when they get the power, they will not give him the rights they claim for him : they will not give him his inalienable rights. New York has not given the negro those inalienable rights of suffrage yet. The sena- tor from New York represents a slave State, according to his own speech ; because New York does not allow the negro to vote on an equality with a white man. It is true, in New York they do allow a negro to vote, if he owns $250 worth of property, but not with- out. They suppose $250 just compensates for the difference be- tween & rich negro and a poor white man. (Laughter.) They STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 187 allow the rich negro to vote, and do not allow the poor one; and the senator from New York thinks that is a system of slavery. It may be ; let New York decide that ; it is her business. I do not want to interfere with it. Just let us alone. We do not want negro suffrage. We say u non-interference ;" hands off. If yon like the association of the negroes at the polls, that is your business; if you want them to hold office, so that they do not come here, give offices to them, if you choose ; if you want them for magistrates, that is your business ; but you must not send them here ; because we do not allow anybody but citizens to hold seats on this floor ; and, thank God, the Dred Scott case has decided that a negro is not a citizen. 188 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. HIS LAST SPEECH IN CONGRESS. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, January 3, 1861. The Senate, having under consideration the following resolution reported by the select committee of thirteen, appointed to consider the agitated and distracted condition of the country, Retolved, That the committee have not been able to agree upon nny general plan of adjustment, and report that fact to the Senate together with the journal of the committee. Mr. DOUGLAS said : MR. PRESIDENT: No act of my public life has ever caused'me so much regret as the necessity of voting in the special committee of thirteen for the resolution reporting to the Senate our inability to agree upon a general plan of adjustment which would restore peace to the country and insure the integrity of the Union. If we wish to understand the real causes which have produced such wide- spread and deep-seated discontent in the slaveholding States, we must go back beyond the recent Presidential election, and trace the origin and history of the slavery agitation from the period when it first became an active element in Federal politics. Without fatiguing the Senate with tedious details, I may be permitted to assume, without the fear of successful contradiction, that whenever the Federal Government has attempted to decide and control the slavery question in the newly acquired Territories, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants, alienation of feeling, sectional strife, and discord have ensued; and whenever Congress has refrained from such interference, harmony and fraternal feeling have been restored. The whole volume of our nation's history may be con- iidrntly appealed to in support of this proposition. The most memorable instances are the fearful sectional controversies which l'r.ught the Union to the verge of disruption in 1820 and again in . l.SoO. It was the Territorial question in each case which presented the chief points of difficulty, because it involved the irritating question of the relative political power of the two sections. All the other questions, which entered into and served to increase the slavery agitation, were deemed of secondary importance, and dwin- dled into insignificance so soon as the Territorial question was definitely settled. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 189 P nmi the period of the organization of the Federal Government, under the Constitution in 1789, down to 1820, all the Territorial governments had been organized on the basis of non-interference by Congress with the domestic institutions of the people. During that period several new Territories were organized, including Ten- nessee, Louisiana, Missouri, and Alabama. In no one of the Terri- tories did Congress attempt to interfere with the question of slavery, either to introduce or exclude, protect or prohibit it. During all this period there was peace and good-will between the people of all parts of the Union, so far as the question of slavery was concerned. But the first time Congress ever attempted to interfere with and control that question, regardless of the wishes of the people in- terested in it, the Union was put in jeopardy, and was only saved from dissolution by the adoption of the compromise of 1820. In the famous Missouri coutroversy, the majority of the North de- manded that Congress should prohibit slavery forever in all the territory acquired from France, extending from the State of Louisiana to the British possessions on the north, and from the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains. The South, and the conser- vative minority of the North, on the contrary, stood firm upon the ground of non-intervention, denying the right of Congress to touch the subject. They did not ask Congress to interfere for protection, nor for any purpose ; while they opposed the right and justice of exclusion. Thus, each party, with their respective positions dis- tinctly defined the one for, the other against Congressional inter- vention maintained its position with desperate persistency, until disunion seemed inevitable, when a compromise was effected by an equitable partition of the territory between the two sections on the line of 36 30', prohibiting slavery on the one side and permit- ting it on the other. In the adoption of this compromise, each party yielded one half of its claim for the sake of the Union. It was designed to form the basis of perpetual peace on the slavery question, by establish- ing a rule in accordance with which all future controversy would be avoided. The line of partition was distinctly marked so far as our territory might extend, and by irresistible inference, the spirit of the compromise required the extension of the line on the same parallel whenever we should extend our territorial limits. The North and the South although each was dissatisfied with the terms of the settlement, each having surrendered one half of its claim by common consent agreed to acquiesce in it, and abide by it as a permanent basis of peace on the slavery question. It is true, that there were a few discontented spirits in both sections who attempted to renew the controversy from time to time ; but the deep Union feeling prevailed, and the masses of the people were disposed to stand by the settlement as the surest means of avert- ing future difficulties. 190 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP Peace was restored, fraternal feeling returned, and we were a happy and united people so long as we adhered to, and carried out in good faith, the Missouri compromise, according to its spirit as well as its letter. In 1845, when Texas was annexed to the Union, the policy of an equitable partition, on the line of 36 30', was adhered to, and carried into effect by the extension of the line so far westward as the new acquisition might reach. It is true, there was much diversity of opinion as to the propriety and wis- dom of annexing Texas. In the North the measure was opposed by large numbers upon the distinct ground that it was enlarging the area of slave territory within the Union ; and in the South it probably received much additional support for the same reason ; but, while it may have been opposed and supported, in some degree, north and south, from these considerations, no considerable number in either section objected to it upon the ground that it extended and carried out the policy of the Missouri compromise. The ob- jection was solely to the acquisition of the country, and not to the application of the Missouri compromise to it, if acquired. No fair-minded man could deny that every reason that induced the adoption of the line in 1820, demanded its extension through Texas, and everjr new acquisition, whenever we enlarged our ter- ritorial possessions in that direction. No man would have been deemed faithful to the obligations of the Missouri compromise at that day, who was opposed to its application to future acquisitions. The record shows that Texas was annexed to the Union upon the express condition that the Missouri compromise should be ex- tended, and made applicable to the country, so far as our new boundaries might reach. The history of that acquisition will show that I not only supported the annexation of Texas, but that I urged the necessity of applying the Missouri compromise to it, for the purpose of extending it through New Mexico and California to the Pacific ocean, whenever we should acquire those Territories, as a means of putting an end to the slavery agitation forever. The annexation of Texas drew after it the war with Mexico, and the treaty of peace left us in possession of California and New Mexico. This large acquisition of new territory was made the occasion for renewing the Missouri controversy. The agitation of 1849-50 was a second edition of that of 1819-20. It was stimu- lated by the same motives, aiming at the same ends, and enforced by the same arguments. The northern majority invoked the in- tervention of Congress to prohibit slavery everywhere in the ter- ritories of the United States both sides of the Missouri line- south as well as north of 36 30'. The South, together with a conservative minority in the North, stood firmly upon the ground of non-intervention, denying the right of Congress to interfere with the subject, but avowing a willingness, in the spirit of con- cession, for the sake of peace and the Union, to adhere to and carry out the policy of an equitable partition on the line of 36 30' STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 191 to the Pacific ocean, in the same sense in which it was adopted in 1820, and according to the understanding when Texas was annexed in 1.845. Every argument and reason, every consideration of patri- otisir and duty, which induced the adoption of the policy in 1820, and its application to Texas in 1845, demanded its application to California and New Mexico in 1848. The peace of the country, the fraternal feelings of all its parts, the safety of the Union, all were involved. Under these circumstances, as Chairman of the Committee on Territories, I introduced into the Senate the following proposition, which was . adopted by a vote of thirty-three to twenty-one in the Senate, but rejected in the House of Representatives. I read from the Journal, August 10, 1848, page 563 : "On motion by Mr. Douglas to amend the bill, section fourteen, line one, by inserting after the word 'enacted,' " That the line of 36 30' of north latitude, known as the Missouri com- promise line, as denned by the eighth section of an Act entitled an Act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Ter- ritories, approved March 6th, 1820, be, and the same is hereby declared to extend to the Pacific ocean ; and the said eighth section, together with the compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in full force and binding, for the future organization of the Territories of the United States, in the same sense, and with the same understanding, with which it was originally adopted. "It was determined in the affirmative yeas thirty-three, nays twenty-one. " On motion by Mr. Baldwin, the yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present, those who voted in the affirmative are : "Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Cameron, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Fitz- gerald, Foote, Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalfe, Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, and Underwood. " Those who voted in the negative are : " Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese, Clark, Corwin, Da- vis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Green, Hale, Hainlin, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Upham, Walker, and Webster. " So the proposed amendment was agreed to." The bill, as amended, was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, by a vote of thirty-three to twenty-two, and was read the third time, and passed on the same day. By the classification of the votes for my proposition to carry out the Missouri com- promise, it will be seen that all the southern Senators, twenty-six in number, including Mr. Calhoun, voted in the affirmative, and of the northern Senators, seven voted in the affirmative and twenty- one in the negative. The proposition was rejected in the House of Kepresentatives by almost a sectional vote, the whole South voting for it, and a large majority of the North against it. It was the rejection of that proposition the repudiation of tho 192 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF policy of an equitable partition of the teritory between the two sections, on the line of 36 30' which reopened the floodgates oi slavery agitation and deluged the whole country with sectional strife and bitterness, until the Union was again brought to the verge of disruption, before the swelling tide of bitter waters could be turned back, and passion and prejudice could be made to give place to reason and patriotism. Had the Senate's proposition been concurred in by the House of Representatives ; had the policy of an equitable partition been adhered to ; had the Missouri compromise been carried out in good faith through our newly-acquired territory to the Pacific ocean, there would have been an end to the slavery agitation forever. For, the line of partition between free and slave territory being once firmly established and distinctly defined, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, all new acquisitions, whether on the North or the South, would have conformed to the adjustment, without exciting the passions or wounding the sensibilities, or disturbing the har- mony of our people. I do not think it would have made any material difference in respect to the condition of the new States to be formed out of such territory, for I have always believed, and often said, that the existence or non-existence of African slavery depends more upon the necessities of climate, health, and produc- tions, than upon Congressional and Territorial enactments. It was in reference to this great truth, that Mr. Webster said that the con- dition of all the territory acquired from Mexico, so far as the question of slavery was concerned, was irrevocably fixed and settled by an irrepealable law the law of climate and of physical geogra- phy, and of the formation of the earth. You might as well attempt by act of Congress to compel cotton to grow upon the tops of the Rocky Mountains, and rice upon the summits of the Sierra Nevada, as to compel slavery to exist, by Congressional enactment, where neither climate, nor health, nor productions, will render it neces- sary and self-sustaining. Yet the desire, on the one hand, for the extrusion of slavery into regions where it is physically impossible to sustain it, and, on the other hand, to abolish and exclude it from those countries where the white man cannot endure the climate and cultivate the soil, threatens to keep the agitation of this ques- tion perpetually in Congress, until the passions of the people shall become so inflamed that civil war and disunion shall become in- evitable. It is the territorial question whether slavery shall exist in those vast regions in utter disregard of the wishes and necessi- ties of the people inhabiting them that is convulsing and dissolv- ing the republic ; a question in which we have no direct interest, about which we have very little knowledge, and which the people -)f those Territories must and will eventually decide for themselves and to suit themselves, no matter what Congress may do. But for this Territorial question there would be very little difficulty in set- tling the other matters in controversy. The Abolitionists could STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 193 never endanger the peace of the country or the existence of the Union by the agitation of the slavery question in the District cf Columbia by itself, or in the dockyards, forts and arsenals in the slaveholding States, or upon the fugitive slave law, or upon any minor issue, or upon them altogether, if the Territorial question could be finally and irrevocably settled. 1 repeat, it was the repudiation of the policy of the Missouri compromise, the refusal to apply it to the territory acquired from Mexico, when offered by me and supported by the whole South, in August, 1848, which reopened the agitation and revived the Mis- souri controversy. The compromise of 1820 once repudiated, the policy of an equitable partition of the territory abandoned, the proposition to extend it to the Pacific being rejected, and the original controversy being reopened with increased bitterness, each party threw itself back upon its original extreme position the one demanding its exclusion everywhere, and the other insisting upon its right to go everywhere in the Territories, regardless of the wishes of the people inhabiting them. All the arguments, pro and con, used in 1819-20 were repeated in 1849-50. The question was the same, and the relative position of the two sections the same. Such was the condition of things at the opening of the session of 1849-50, when Mr. Clay resumed his seat in this body. The purest patriots in the land had become alarmed for the safety of the republic. The immortal Clay, whose life had been devoted to the rights, interests and glory of his country, had re- tired to the shades of Ashland to prepare for another and better world. When, in his retirement, hearing the harsh and discordant notes of sectional strife and disunion, he consented, at the earnest solicitation of his countrymen, to resume his seat in the Senate, the theatre of his great deeds, to see if, by his experience, his wis- dom, the renown of his great name, and his strong hold upon the confidence and affections of the American people, he could not do something to restore peace to a distracted country. From the moment of his arrival among us, he became, by common consent arid as a matter of course, the leader .of the Union men. His first idea was to revive and extend to the Pacific ocean the Missouri compromise line, with the same understanding and legal effect in which it had been adopted in 1820, and continued through Texas in 1845. I was one of his humble followers and trusted friends in endeavoring to carry out that policy, and, in connection with others, at his special request, carefully canvassed both houses of Congress to ascertain whether it was possible to obtain a majority vole in each house for the measure. We found no difficulty with the southern Senators and Representatives, and could secure the co-operation of a minority from the North ; but not enough to give us a majority in both houses. Hence, 'the Missouri compromise was abandoned by its friends, NOT from choice, but from INABILITY to carry it into effect in good faith. It was^with extreme reluc- 194 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF tance that Mr. Clay, and those of us who acted with him and shared his confidence, were brought to the conclusion that we must aban- don, from inability to carry out, the line of policy which had saved the Union in 1820, and given peace to the country for many happy years. Finding ourselves unable to maintain that policy, we yielded to a stern necessity, and turned our attention to the discovery of some other plan by which the existing difficulties could be settled and future troubles avoided. I need not detail the circumstances under which Mr. Clay brought forward his plan of adjustment, which received the sanction of the two Houses of Congress and the approbation of the American people, and is familiarly known as the compromise measures of 1850. These measures were de- signed to accomplish the same results as the act of 1820, but in a different mode. The leading feature and chief merit of each, was to banish the slavery agitation from the halls of Congress and the arena of Federal politics. The act of 1820, was intended to attain this end by an equitable partition of the Territories between the contending sections. The acts of 1850 were designed to attain the same end, by remitting the whole question of slavery to the de- cision of the people of thu Territories, subject to the limitations of the Constitution, and let the Federal courts determine the validity and constitutionality of the Territorial enactments from time to time, as cases should arise and appeals should be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. The one, proposed to settle the question by a geographical line and equitable partition; and the other by the principles of popular sovereignty, in accordance with the Constitution. The object of both being the same, I sup- ported each in turn, as a means of attaining a desirable end. After the compromise measures of 1850 had become the law of the land, those who had opposed their enactment appealed to their constituents to sustain them in their opposition, and implored them not to acquiesce in the principles upon which they were founded, and never to cease to war upon them until they should be annulled and effaced from the statute-book. The contest before the people was fierce and bitter, accompanied sometimes with acts of violence and intimidation ; but, fortunately, Mr. Clay lived long enough to feel and know that his last great efforts for the peace of the country and the perpetuity of the Union the crowning acts of a brilliant and glorious career in the public service had met the approval and received the almost unanimous endorsement of his grateful countrymen. The repose which the country was per- mitted to enjoy for a brief period, proved to be a temporary truce in the sectional conflict, and not a permanent peace upon the slavery question. The purpose of re-opening the agitation for a Congressional prohibition of slavery in all the Territories whenever an opportunity or excuse could be had. seems never to have been abandoned by those who originated the scheme for partisan pur- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 195 poses in 1819, and were baffled in their designs by the adoption of the Missouri compromise in 1820 ; and who renewed the attempt in 1848, but were again doomed to suffer a mortifying defeat in the adoption of the compromise measures of 1850. The opportunity and pretext for renewing the agitation was discovered by those who had never abandoned the design, when it became necessary, in 1854, to pass the necessary laws for the organization of the Terri- tories of Kansas and Nebraska. The necessity for the organization of these Territories, in order to open and protect the routes of emigration and travel to California and Oregon, could not be de- nied. The measure could not be postponed longer without endan- gering the peace of the frontier settlements, and incurring the hazards of an Indian w r ar, growing out of the constant collisions between the emigrants and the Indian tribes through whose country they were compelled to pass. Early in December, 1853, Senator Dodge, of Iowa, introduced a bill for the organization of the Territory of Nebraska, which was referred to the committee on Territories of which I was chairman. The committee did not volunteer their services on the occasion. The bill was referred to us by the vote of the Senate, and our action was in discharge of a plain duty imposed upon us by an express command of that body. The first question which addressed itself to the calm and de- liberate consideration of the committee, was Upon what basis shall the organization of the Territory be formed ? whether upon the theory of a geographical line and an equitable partition of the Territory in accordance with the compromise of 1820, which had been abandoned by its supporters, not from choice, but from our inability to carry it out, or upon the principle of non intervention and popular sovereignty, according to the compromise measures of 1850, which had taken the place of the Missouri compromise ? The committee, upon mature deliberation, and with great una- nimity, decided that all future territorial organizations should be formed upon the principles and model of the compromise measures of 1850, inasmuch as in the recent Presidential election (1852) both of the great political parties of the country (Whig and Democratic) of which the Senate was composed, stood pledged to those measures as a substitute for the act of 1820 ; and the committee instructed me, as their organ, to prepare a report and draft a substitute for Mr. Dodge's bill in accordance with these views. I will now read from the record, at the hazard of being somewhat tedious, in order that the Senate and country may judge with what fidelity I per- formed this duty. "January 4th, 1854. Mr. Douglas made the following Report: 'The Committee on Territories, to which was referred a bill for an act to establish the Territory of Nebraska, have given the same that serious and deliberate consideration which its great importance demands, and beg leave to report it back to the Senate, with various amendments, in the form of a substitute for the bill. 27 196 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF "'The principal amendments which your committee deem it their duty to commend to the favorable action of the Senate, in a special report, are those in which the principles established by the compromise measures of 1850, so far as they are applicable to Territorial organizations, are proposed to be affirmed and carried into practical operation within the limits of the new Territory. " ' The wisdom of those measures is attested, not less by their salutary and beneficial effects in allaying sectional agitation and restoring peace and har- mony to an irritated and distracted people, than by the cordial and almost universal approbation with which they have been received and sanctioned by the whole country. In the judgment of your committee, those measures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican ter- ritory. THEY WERE DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN GREAT PRINCIPLES, WHICH WOULD NOT ONLY FURNISH ADEQUATE REMEDIES FOR EXISTING EVILS, BUT IN ALL TIME TO COME AVOID THE PERILS OF A SIMILAR AGITATION, BY WITH- DRAWING THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY FROM THE HALLS OF CONGRESS AND THE POLITICAL ARENA, AND COMMITTING IT TO THE ARBITRAMENT OF THOSE WHO WERE IMMEDIATELY INTERESTED IN AND ALONE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS CONSEQUENCES. With the view of conforming their action to what they regard the settled policy of the government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American people, your committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetu- ate in their Territorial bills the principles and spirit of those measures.'" After reviewing the provisions of the legislation of 1850, the committee conclude as follows : " From these provisions it is apparent that the compromise measures of 1350 affirm and rest upon the following propositions. " First, That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose. "Second, That 'all cases involving title to slaves' and 'questions of per- sonal freedom,' are referred to the adjudication of local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. " Third, That the provision of the Constitution of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in all ' the organized Territories,' the same as in the States. " The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry those proportions and principles into practical operation, IN THE PRECISE LAN- GUAGE OF THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850." No sooner was this report and bill printed and laid upon the tables of Senators, than an address was prepared and issued over the signatures of those party leaders who had always denounced " the Missouri compromise as a crime against freedom and a com- pact with infamy," in which this bill was " arraigned as a gross violation of a sacred pledge," " as a criminal betrayal of precious rights ;" and the report denounced as " a mere invention designed to cover up from public reprehension meditated bad faith." The Missouri compromise was " infamous" in their estimation, so long as it remained upon the statute book and was carried out in good faith as a means of preserving the peace of the country STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 19f and preventing the slavery agitation in Congress. But it suddenly became a " sacred pledge," a " solemn compact for the preservation of precious rights," the moment they had succeeded in preventing its faithful execution and in causing it to be abandoned when it ceased to be an impregnable barrier against slavery agitation and sectional strife. The bill against which the hue and cry was raised, and the crusade preached, did not contain a word about the Missouri compromise, nor in any manner refer to it. It simply allowed the people of the Territory to legislate for themselves on all rightful subjects of legislation, and left them free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. So far as the Missouri act, or any other statute, might be sup- posed to conflict with the right of self-government in the Territo- ries, it was, by inference, rendered null and void to that extent, and for no other purpose. Several weeks afterwards, when a doubt was suggested whether under the bill as it stood the people of the Territory would be authorized to exercise this right of self-govern- ment upon the slavery question during the existence of the Terri- torial government, an amendment was adopted, on my motion, for the sole and avowed purpose of removing that doubt and securing that right, in accordance with the compromise measures of 1850, as stated by me and reported in the debates at the time. The amendment will be found in the fourteenth section of the act, and is as follows : " That the Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Ter- ritory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act, preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6th, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non- intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, AS RECOG- NISED BY THE* LEGISLATION OP 1850, commonly called the compromise mea- sures, is hereby declared inoperative and void ; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." In my opinion this amendment did not change the legal effect of the bill as reported by the committee. Its object was to render its meaning certain, by removing all doubts in regard to the right of the people to exercise the privileges of self-government on the slavery question, as well as all others consistent with the Constitu- tion, during their Territorial condition, as well as when they should become a State. From that day to this, there has been a fierce and desperate struggle between the supporters and the opponents of the Territorial policy inaugurated under the auspices of Mr. Clay in 1850, and affirmed in the Kansas-Nebraska act in 1854 the one to maintain, and the other to overthrow the principle of non- intervention and popular sovereignty, as the settled policy of the 198 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF government in reference to the organization of Territories and the admission of new States. This sketch of the origin and progress of the slavery agitation as an element of political power and parti- san warfare, covers the entire period from the organization of the Federal government under the Constitution in 1789 to the present, and is naturally divided into three parts : FIRST. From 1789, when the Constitution went into operation, to 1819-20, when the Missouri controversy arose. The Territories were all organized upon the basis of non-intervention by Congress with the domestic affairs of the people, and especially upon the question of African slavery. During the whole of this period domestic tranquility and fraternal feeling prevailed. SECOND. From 1820, when the Missouri compromise was adopted, to 1848 and 1850, when it was repudiated and finally abandoned, all the Territories were organized with reference to the policy of an equitable partition between the two sections upon the line of 36 30'. During this period there was no serious difficulty upon the territorial question, so long as the Missouri compromise was adhered to and carried out in good faith. THIRD. From 1850, when the original doctrine of non-interven- tion, as it prevailed during the first thirty years, was re-established as the policy .of the government in the organization of Territories and the admission of new States, to the present time, there has been a constant struggle, except for a short interval, to overthrow and repudiate the policy and the principles of the compromise measures of 1850, for the purpose of returning to the old doctrine of Congressional intervention for the prohibition of slavery in all the Territories, south as well as north of the Missouri line, re- gardless of the wishes and condition of the people inhabiting the country. In view of these facts, I feel authorized to reaffirm the proposi- tion with which I commenced my remarks, that whenever the Federal government has attempted to control the slavery question in our newly-acquired Territories, alienation of feeling, discord, and sectional strife have ensued ; and whenever Congress has re- frained from such interference, peace, harmony, and good-will have returned. The conclusion I draw from these premises is, that the slavery question should be banished forever from the halls of Con- gress and the arena of Federal politics, by an irrepealable Consti- tutional provision. I have deemed this exposition of the origin and progress of the slavery agitation essential to a full comprehen- sion of the difficulties with which we are surrounded, and the remedies for the evils which threaten the disruption of the re- public. The immediate causes which have precipitated the south- ern country into revolution, although inseparably connected with, and flowing from, the slavery agitation whose history I have por- . trayed, are to be found in the result of the recent Presidential election. I hold that the election of any man, no matter who, by STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 199 the American people, according to the Constitution, furnishes no cause, no justification, for the dissolution of the Union. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the Southern people have received the result of that election as furnishing conclusive evi- dence that the dominant party of the North, which is soon to take possession of the Federal government under that election, are determined to invade and destroy their Constitutional rights. Believing that their domestic institutions, their hearthstones and their family altars are to be assailed, at least by indirect means, and that the Federal government is to be used for the inauguration of a line of policy which shall have for its object the ultimate ex- tinction of slavery in all the States, old as well as new, South as well as North, the southern people are prepared to rush wildly, madly, as I think, into revolution, disunion, war, and defy the con- sequences, whatever they may be, rather than to wait for the development of events, or submit tamely to what they think is' a fatal blow impending over them and over all they hold dear on earth. It matters not so far as we and the peace of the country and the fate of the Union are concerned, whether these apprehen- sions of the Southern people are real or imaginary, whether they are well founded or wholly without foundation, so long as they believe them and are determined to act upon them. The Senator from Ohio (Mr. Wade) whose speech was received with so much favor by his political friends the other day, referred to these serious apprehensions, and acknowledged his belief that the Southern people were laboring under the conviction that they were well founded. He was kind enough to add that he did not blame the Southern people much for what they were doing under this fatal misapprehension, but cast the whole blame upon the Northern Democracy ; and referred especially to his colleague and myself, for having misrepresented and falsified the purposes and policy of the Republican party, and for having made the Southern people believe our misrepresentations ! He does not blame the Southern people for acting on their honest convictions in resorting to revo- lution to avert an impending but imaginary calamity. No, he does not blame them, because they believe in the existence of the danger ; yet he will do no act to undeceive them ; will take no step to relieve their painful apprehensions ; and will furnish no guaran- tees, no security, against the dangers which they believe to exist, and the existence of which he denies. But, on the contrary, he demands unconditional submission, threatens war, and talks about armies, navies, and military force for the purpose of preserving the Union and enforcing the laws ! I submit whether this mode of treating the question is not calculated to confirm the worst appre- hensions of the Southern people and force them into the most extreme measures of resistance. I regret that the Senator from Ohio, or any other Senator, should have deemed it consistent with his duty, under present cir 200 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP cumstances, to introduce partisan politics, and attempt to manu- facture partisan capital out of a question involving the peace and safety of the country. I repeat what I have said on another occa- sion, that, if I know myself, my action will be influenced by no partisan considerations until we shall have rescued the country From the perils which environ it. But since the Senator has at- tempted to throw the whole responsibility of the present difficulties upon the northern Democracy, and has charged us with misrepre- senting and falsifying the purposes and policy of the Republican party, and thereby deceiving the Southern people, I feel called upon to repel the charge, and show that it is without a shadow of foundation. No man living would rejoice more than myself in the conviction, if I could only be convinced of the fact, that I have misunderstood and consequently misrepresented, the policy and designs of the Republican party. Produce the evidence and convince me of my error, and I will take more pleasure in making the correction and repairing the injustice, than I ever have taken in denouncing what I believed to be an unjust and ruinous policy. With the view of ascertaining whether I have misapprehended or misrepresented the policy and purposes of the Republican party, I will now enquire of the Senator, and yield the floor for an answer, whether it is not the policy of his party to confine slavery within its present limits by the action of the Federal government? Whether they do not intend to abolish and prohibit slavery oy act of Congress, notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court to the contrary, in all the Territories we now possess or may here- after acquire ? In short, I will give the Senator an opportunity now to say Mr. WADE. Mr. President Mr. DOUGLAS. One other question, and I will give way. Mr. WADE. Very well. Mr. DOUGLAS. I will give the Senator an opportunity of saying now whether it is not the policy of his party to exert all the powers of the Federal government under the Constitution, according to their interpretation of the instrument, to restrain and cripple the institution of slavery, with a view to its ultimate extinction in all the States, old as well as new, South as well as North ? Are not these the views and purposes of the party, as pro- claimed by their leaders, and understood by the people, in speeches, addresses, sermons, newspapers, and public meetings ? Now, I will hear his answer. Mr. WADE. Mr. President, all these .questions are most perti- nently answered in the speech the Senator is professing to answer. I have nothing to add to it. If he will read my speech, he will find my sentiments upon all these questions. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I did not expect an unequivocal answer. I know too well that the Senator will not deny that each STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 201 of these interrogatories do express his individual policy and the .policy of the Republican party as he understands it. I should not have propounded the interrogatories to him if he had not ac- cused me and the Northern Democracy of having misrepresented the policy of the Republican party, and with having deceived the Southern people by such misrepresentations. The most obnoxious sentiments I ever attributed to the Republican party, and that not in the South, but in Northern Illinois and in the strongholds of Abolitionism, was that they intended to exercise the powers of the Federal government with a view to the ultimate extinction of slavery in the Southern States. I have expressed my belief, and would be glad to be corrected if I am in error, that it is the policy of that party to exclude slavery from all the Territories we now possess or may acquire, with a view of surrounding the slave States with a cordon of abolition, States, and thus confine the institution within such narrow limits, that when the number increases beyond the capacity of the soil to raise food for their subsistence, the in- stitution must end in starvation, colonization, or servile insurrec- tion. I have often exposed the enormities of this policy, and appealed to the people of Illinois to know whether this mode of getting rid of the evils of slavery could be justified in the name of civilization, humanity, and Christianity ? I have often used these arguments in the strongest abolition portions of the North, but never in the South. The truth is, I have always been very mild and gentle upon the Republicans when addressing a Southern audience ; for it seemed ungenerous to say behind their backs, and where they dare not go to reply to me, those things which I was in the habit of saying to their faces and in the presence of their leaders where they were in the majority. But inasmuch as I do riot get a direct answer from the Senator who makes this charge against the northern Democracy, as to the purposes of that party to use the power of the Federal Govern- ment under their construction of the Constitution, with a view to the ultimate extinction of slavery in the States. I will turn to the record of their President elect, and see what he says on that subject. The Republicans have gone to the trouble to collect and publish in pamphlet form, under the sanction of Mr. Lincoln, the debates which took place between him and myself in the senatorial canvass of 1858. It may not be improper here to remark that this publication is unfair towards me, for the reason that Mr. Lincoln personally revised and corrected his own speeches, without fiving me on opportunity to correct the numerous errors in mine, nasmuch as the publication is made under the sanction of Mr. Lincoln himself, accompanied by a letter from him that he has revised the speeches by verbal corrections, and thereby approved them, it becomes important to show what his views are, since he is in the daily habit of referring to those speeches for his present opinions. 202 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP Mr. Lincoln was nominated for United States Senator by a Republican State Convention at Springfield in June, 1858. An- ticipating the nomination, he had carefully prepared a written speech, which he delivered on the occasion, and which, by order of the convention, was published among the proceedings as containing the platform of principles upon which the canvass was to be con- ducted. More importance is due to this speech than to those deliv- ered under the excitement of debate in joint discussions by the exigencies of the contest. The first few paragraphs which I will now read, may be taken as a fair statement of his opinions and feelings upon, the slavery question. Mr. Lincoln said : " Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, if we could first know where we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slave agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand ! I believe this Government cannot endure perma- nently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved I do not expect the house to fall but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponets of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall alike become lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South." There you are told by the President elect that this Union cannot permanently endure divided into free and slave States ; that these States must all become free or all slave, all become one thing or all the other ; that this agitation will never cease until the opponents of slavery have restrained its expansion, and have placed it where the public mind will be satisfied that it will be in the course of ultimate extinction. Mark the language : "Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it ?" We are now told that the object of the Republican party is to prevent the extension of slavery. What did Mr. Lincoln say ? That the opponents of slavery must first prevent the further spread of it. But that is not all. What else must they do ! " And place it where the public mind can rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction." The ultimate extinction of slavery, of which Mr. Lincoln was then speaking, related to the States of this Union. He had refer- ence to the Southern States of this Confederacy; for in the next sentence, he says that the States must all become one thing, or all the other" old as well as new, North as well as South "showing STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 203 that he meant that the policy of the Republican party was to keep up this agitation in the Federal Government until slavery in the States was placed in the process of ultimate extinction. Now, sir, when the Republican committee have published an edition of Mr. Lincoln's speeches containing sentiments like these, and circulating it as a campaign document, is it surprising that the people of the South should suppose that he was in earnest, and intended to carry out the policy which he had announced ? I regret the necessity which has made it my duty to reproduce these dangerous and revolutionary opinions of the President elect. No consideration could have induced me to have done so but the attempt of his friends to denounce the policy which Mr. Lincoln has boldly advocated, as gross calumnies upon the Republican party, and as base inventions by the northern Democracy, to excite rebellion to the southern country, I should like to find one Senator on that side of the Chamber, in the confidence of the President elect, who will have the hardihoood to deny that Mr. Lincoln stands pledged by his public speeches, to which he now refers constantly as containing his present opinions, to carry out the policy indicated in the speech from which I have read. I take great pleasure in saying, however, that I do not believe the rights of the South will materially suffer under the administration of Mr. Lincoln. I repeat what I have said on another occasion, that neither he nor his party will have the power to do any act preju- dicial to Southern rights and interests, if the Union shall be pre- served, and the Southern States shall retain a full delegation in both Houses of Congress. With a majority against them in this body, and in the House of Representatives, they can do no act, except to enforce the laws, without the consent of those to whom the South has confided her interests, and even his appointments for that purpose are subject to our advice and confirmation. Besides, I still indulge the hope that when Mr. Lincoln shall assume the high responsibilities which will soon devolve upon him, he will be fully impressed with the necessity of sinking the poli- tician in the statesmen, the partisan in the patriot, and regard the obligations which he owes to his country as paramount to those of his party. In view of these considerations, I had indulged the fond hope that the people of the Southern States would have been content to have remained in the Union and defend their rights under the Constitution, instead of rushing madly into revolution and dis- union, as a refuge from apprehended dangers which may not exist. But this apprehension has become wide spread and deep seated in the Southern people. It has taken possession of the Southern mind, sunk deep in the Southern heart, and filled them with the conviction that their firesides, their family altars, and their domes- tic institutions are to be ruthlessly assailed through the machinery of the Federal Government. The Senator from Ohio says he does not blame you Southern Senators, nor the southern people, for 204 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP believing those things ; and yet, instead of doing those acts which will relieve your apprehensions and render it impossible that your rights should be invaded by Federal power under any administra- tion, he threatens you with war, armies, military force, under pre- text of enforcing the laws, and preserving the Union. We are told that the authority of Government must be vindicated ; that the Union must be preserved ; that rebellion must be put down ; that insurrection must be suppressed, and the laws must be enforced. I agree to all this. I am in favor of doing all these things according to the Constitution and laws. No man shall go further than I to maintain the just authority of the Government, to preserve the Union, to put down rebellion, to suppress insurrec- tion, and enforce the laws. I would use all the powers conferred by the Constitution for this purpose. But, in the performance of these important and delicate duties, it must be borne in mind that those powers only must be used, and such measures employed, as are authorized by the Constitution and laws. Things should be called by their right names; and facts, whose existence can no longer be denied, should be acknowledged. Insurrections and rebellions, although unlawful and criminal, frequently become successful revolutions. The strongest govern- ments and proudest monarchs on earth, have often been reduced to the humiliating necessity of recognizing the existence of govern- ments de facto, although not de jure, in their revolted States and Provinces, when rebellion has ripened into successful revolution, and the national authorities have been expelled from their limits. In such cases the right to regain possession and exact obedience to the laws remains ; but the exercise of that right is war, and must be governed by the laws of war. Such was the relative position of Great Britain and the American colonies for seven years after the declaration of independence. The rebellion had progressed and matured into revolution, with a government de facto, and an army and navy to defend it. Great Britain, regarding the com- plaints of the colonies unfounded, refused to yield to their demands, and proceeded to reduce them to obedience not by the enforce- ment of the4aws, but by military force, armies and navies, accord- ing to the rules and laws of war. Captives taken in battle with arms in their hands fighting against Great Britain, were not exe- cuted as traitors, but held as prisoners of war, and exchanged according to the usages of civilized nations. The laws of nations, the principles of humanity, of civilization and Christianity, de- manded that the government de facto should be acknowledged and treated as such. While the right to prosecute war for the purpose of reducing the revolted provinces to obedience still remained ; yet it was a military remedy, and could only be exercised according to the established principles of war. It is said that after one of the earliest engagements the British general threatened to execute as traitors all the prisoners he had STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 205 taken in battle ; and that General Washington replied, that he too, had taken some prisoners, and would shoot two for one until the British general should respect the laws of war, and treat his prison- ers accordingly. May Divine Providence, in his infinite wisdom and mercy, save our country from the humiliation and calamities which now seem almost inevitable ! South Carolina has already declared her independence of the United States has expelled the Federal authorities from her limits, and established a government de facto, with a military force to sustain it. The revolution is complete, there being no man within her limits who denies the authority of .the government or acknowledges allegiance to that of the United States. There is every reason to believe that seven other States will soon follow her example ; and much ground to apprehend that the other slave-holding States will follow them. HOW T are we going to prevent an alliance between these seceding States, by which they may establish a Federal government, at least de facto, for themselves ? If they shall do so, and expel the au- thorities of the United States from their limits, as South Carolina has done, and others are about to do, so that there shall be no human being within their boundaries who acknowledge allegiance to the United States, how are we going to enforce the laws? Armies and navies can make war, but cannot enforce laws in this country. The laws can be enforced only by the civil authorities, assisted by the military as a posse comitatus when resisted in exe- cuting judicial process. Who is to issue the judicial process in a State where there is no judge, no court, no judicial functionary? Who is to perform the duties of marshal in executing the process where no man will or dare accept office ? Who are to serve on juries while every citizen is particeps criminis with the accused? How are you going to comply with the Constitution in respect to a jury-trial where there are no men qualified to serve on the jury ? I agree that the laws should be enforced. I hold that our govern- ment is clothed with the power and duty of using all the means necessary to the enforcement of the laws, according to the Consti- tution and laws. The President is sworn to the faithful perform- ance of this duty. I do not propose to inquire, at this time, how far and with what fidelity the President has performed that duty. His conduct and duty in this regard, including acts of commission and omission, while the rebellion was in its incipient stages, and when confined to a few individuals, present a very different ques- tion from that which we are now discussing, after the revolution has become complete, and the Federal authorities have been ex- pelled and the government de facto put into practical operation and in the unrestrained and unresisted exercise of all the powers, and functions of government, local and national. But we are told that secession is wrong, and that South Carolina had no right to secede. I agree that it is wrong, unlawful, un- constitutional, criminal. In my opinion, South Carolina had no 206 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP right to secede ; but she has done it. She has declared her inde- pendence of us, effaced the last vestige of our civil authority, established a foreign government, and is now engaged in the pre- liminary steps to open diplomatic intercourse with the great powers of the world. What next ? If her act was illegal, uncon- stitutional and wrong, have we no remedy ? Unquestionably we have the right to use all the power and force necessary to regain possession of that portion of the United States, in order that wo may again enforce our Constitution and laws upon the inhabitants We can enforce our laws in those States, Territories and places only which are within our possession. It often happens that the territorial rights of a country extend beyond the limits of their actual possessions. That is our case at present in respect to South Carolina. Our right of jurisdiction over that State for Federal purposes, according to the Constitution, has not been destroyed or impaired by the ordinance of secession, or any act of the conven- tion, or of the de facto government. The right remains ; hut the possession is lost for the time being. " How shall we regain the possession ?" is the pertinent inquiry. It may be done by arms, or by a peaceable adjustment of the matters in controversy. Are we prepared for War f I do not mean that kind of prepa- ration which consists of armies and navies, and supplies and mu- nitions of war ; but are we prepared IN OUR HEARTS for war with our own brethren and kindred ? I confess I am not. While I affirm that the Constitution is, and was intended to be, a bond of perpet- ual Union ; while I can do no act and utter no word that will ac- knowledge or countenance the right of secession; while I affirm the right and the duty of the Federal Government to use all legit- imate means to enforce the laws, put down rebellion, and suppress insurrection, I will not meditate war, nor tolerate the idea, until effort at peaceful adjustment shall have been exhausted, and the last ray of hope shall have deserted the patriot's heart. Then, and not till then, will I consider and determine what course my duty to my country may require me to pursue in such an emergency. In my opinion, war is disunion, certain, inevitable, irrevocable. I am for peace to save the Union. I have said that I cannot recognize nor countenance the right of secession. Illinois situated in the interior of the continent, can never acknowledge the right of the States bordering on the seas to withdraw from the Union at pleasure, and from alliances among themselves and with other countries, by which we shall be exclud- ed from all access to the ocean, from all intercourse or commerce with foreign nations. We can never consent to be shut up within the circle of a Chinese wall, erected and controlled by others with- out our permission ; or to any other system of isolation by which we shall be deprived of any communication with the rest of the civ- ilized world. Those States which are situated in the interior of the Continent can never assent to any such doctrine. Our rights, our STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 207 interests, our safety, our existence as a free people, forbid it ! The Northwestern States were ceded to the United States before the Constitution was made, on condition of perpetual union with the other States. The Territories were organized, settlers invited, lands purchased, and homes made, on the pledge of your plighted faith of perpetual Union. When there were but two hundred thousand inhabitants scatter- ed over that vast region, the navigation of the Mississippi was deemed by Mr. Jefferson so important and essential to their inter- ests and prosperity, that he did not hesitate to declare that if Spain or France insisted upon retaining possession of the mouth of that river, it would become the duty of the United States to take it by arms, if they failed to acquire it by treaty. If the pos- session of that river, with jurisdiction over its mouth and channel, was indispensable to the people of the Northwest when we had two hundred thousand inhabitants, is it reasonable to suppose that we will voluntarily surrender it now when we have ten millions of people ? Louisiana was not purchased for the exclusive benefit of the few Spanish and French residents in the territory, nor for those who might become residents. These considerations did not enter into the negotiations and found no inducements to the acquisition. Louisiana was purchased with the National treasure, for the common benefit of the whole Union in general, and for the safety, convenience, and prosperity of the Northwest in particular. We paid $15.000.000 for the territory. We have expended much more than that sum in the extinguishment of Indian titles, the removal of Indians, the survey of lands, the erection of custom houses, light houses, forts, and arsenals. We admitted the inhabitants into the Union on an equal footing with ourselves. Now we are called upon to acknowledge the moral and Constitutional right of those people to dissolve the Union without the consent of the other States ; to seize the forts, arsenals, and other public property, arid appropriate them to their own use ; to take possession of the Mis- sissippi river, and exercise jurisdiction over the same', and to re- annex herself to France, or remain an independent nation, or to form alliances with such other Powers as she, in the plenitude of her sovereign will and pleasure, may see fit. If this thing is to be done peaceably if you can, and forcibly if you must all I pro- pose to say at this time is, that you cannot expect us of the Northwest to yield our assent to it, nor to acknowledge your right to do it, or the propriety and justice of the act. The respectful attention with which my friend from Florida (Mr. Yulee) is listening to me, reminds me that his State furnishes an apt illustration of this modern doctrine of secession. We paid five million for the territory. We spent marvellous sums in subduing the Indians, extinguishing Indian titles, removal of Indians beyond her borders, surveying the lands, building light-houses, navy yards, forts and arsenals, with untold millions for the never-ending Florida 208 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP claims I assure my friend that I do not refer to these things in an offensive sense, for he knows how much respect I have for him, and has not forgotten my efforts in the House many years ago, to secure the admission of his State into the Union, in order that he might represent her, as he has since done with so much ability and fidelity in this body. But I will say that it never occurred to me at that time that the State whose admission into the Union I was advocating would be one of the first to join in a scheme to break up the Union. I submit it to him whether it is not an ex- traordinary spectacle to see that State which has cost us so much blood and treasure, turn her back on the Union which has fostered and protected her when she was too feeble to protect herself, and seize the light houses, navy yards, forts and arsenals, which although within her boundaries, were erected with National funds, for the benefit and defence of the whole Union. I do not think I can find a more striking illustration of this doc- trine of secession than was suggested to my mind when reading the President's last annual message. My attention was first ar- rested by the remarkable passage, that the Federal Government had no power to coerce a State back into the Union if she did secede ; and my admiration was unbounded when I found a few lines afterwards, a recommendation to appropriate money to purchase the island of Cuba. It occurred to me instantly, what a brilliant achievement it would be to pay Spain $300,000,000 for Cuba, and immediately admit the island into the Union as a State, and let her secede and re-annex herself to Spain the next day, when the Spanish Queen would be ready to sell the island again for half price, according to the gullibility of the purchaser ! (Laughter.) During my service in Congress it was one of my pleasant duties to take an active part in the annexation of Texas ; and at a subse- quent session to write and introduce the bill, which made Texas one of the States of the Union. Out of that annexation grew the war with Mexico, in which we expended $100,000,000 and were left to mourn the loss of about ten thousand as gallant men as ever died upon a battle field for the honor and glory of their Country ! We have since spent millions of money to protect Texas against her own indians, to establish forts and fortifications to protect her frontier settlements and to defend her against the assaults of all enemies until she became strong enough to protect herself. We are now called upon to acknowledge that Texas has a moral, just and constitutional right to rescind the act of admission into the Union ; repudiate her ratification of the resolutions of annexation ; seize the fort? and public buildings which were constructed with our money ; appropriate the same to her own use, and leave us to pay $100,000,000 and to mourn the death of the brave men who sacrificed their lives in defending the integrity of her soil. In the name of Hardin, and Bissell, and Harris, and the seven thousand gallant spirits from Illinois, who fought bravely upon every battle STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 209 field of Mexico, I protest against the right of Texas to separate herself from this Union without our consent. MR. HEMPHILL. Mr. President. If the Senator from Illinois will allow me, I will enquire whether there were no other causes assigned by the United States for the war with Mexico than simply the defence of Texas ? MR. DOUGLAS. I will answer the question. We undoubtedly did assign other acts as causes for war, which had existed for years, if we had chosen to treat them so ; but we did not go to war for any other cause than the annexation of Texas, as is shown in the act of Congress recognizing the existence of war with Mexico, in which it is declared that " war exists by the act of the Republic of Mexico." The sole cause of grievance which Mexico had against us, and for which she commenced the war, was our annex- ation of Texas. Hence, none can deny that the Mexican war was solely and exclusively the result of the annexation of Texas. MR. HEMPHILL. I will enquire further, whether the United States, paid anything to Texas for the annexation of her three hundred and seventy thousand square miles of territory ; whether the United States has not got $500,000,000 by the acquisition of California through that war with Mexico ? MR. DOUGLAS. Sir, we did not pay anything for bringing Texas into the Union ; for we did not get any of her lands, except that we purchased some poor lands from her afterwards, which she did not own, and paid her $10,000,000 for them. (Laughter.) But we did spend blood and treasure in the acquisition and subsequent de- fence of Texas. Now sir. I will answer his question in respect to California. The treaty of peace brought California and New Mexico into the Union. Our people moved there, took possession of the lands, settled up the country, and erected a State of which the United States have a right to be proud. We have expended millions upon millions for fortifications in California, and for navy-yards, and mints, and public buildings, and land surveys, and feeding the In- dians, and protecting her people. I believe the public land sales do not amount to more than one-tenth of the cost of surveys, ac- cording to the returns that have been made. It is true that the people of California have dug a large amount of gold (principally out of the lands belonging to the United States,) and sold it to as ; but I am not aware that we are under any more obligations to them for selling it to us, than they are to us for buying it of them. The people of Texas, during the same time, have probably made cotton and agricultural productions to a much larger value, and sold some of it to New England, and some to old England. I suppose the benefits of the, bargain were reciprocal, and the one was under just as much obligation as the other for the mutual benefits of the sale and purchase. The question remains, whether, after paying $15.000.000 for 210 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF California as the Senator from Texas has called my attention to that State and perhaps as much more in protecting and defend- ing her, she has any moral, or constitutional right to annul the com- pact between her and the Union, and form alliances with foreign Powers, and leave us to pay the cost and expenses ? I cannot rec- ognize any such doctrine. In my opinion the Constitution was in- tended to be a bond of perpetual Union. It begins with the dec- laration in the preamble, that it is made in order " to form a more perfect Union," and every section and paragraph in the instrument implies perpetuity. It was intended to last for ever, and was so understood when ratified by the people of the several States. New York and Virginia have been referred to as having ratified with the reserved right to withdraw or secede at pleasure. This is a mistake. The correspondence between General Hamilton and Mr. Madison at the time is conclusive on this point. After Vir- ginia had ratified the Constitution, General Hamilton, who was a member of the New York convention, wrote to Mr. Madison that New York would probably ratify the Constitution for a term of years, and reserve the right to withdraw after that time, if certain amendments were not sooner adopted; to which Mr. Madison re- plied that such a ratification would not make New York a member of the Union ; that the ratification must be unconditional, in toto and forever, or not at all ; that the same question was considered at Richmond and abandoned when Virginia ratified the Constitu- tion. Hence, the declaration of Virginia and New York, that they had not surrendered the right to resume the delegated powers, must be assumed as referring to the right of Revolution,. which nobody acknowledges more freely than I do, and not to the right of secession. The Constitution being made as a bond of perpetual Union ; its framers proceeded to provide against the necessity of revolution, by prescribing the mode in which it might be amended ; so that if, in the course of time, the condition of the country should so change as to require a different fundamental law, amendments might be made peaceably, in the manner prescribed in the instru- ment ; and thus avoid the necessity of ever resorting to revolu- tion. Having provided for a perpetual Union, and for amendments to the Constitution, they next inserted a clause for admitting new States, but no provision for the withdrawal of any of the other States. I will not argue the question of the right of secession any further than to enter my protest against the whole doctrine. I deny that there is any foundation for it in the Constitution, in the nature of the compact, in the principles of the Government, or in justice, or in good faith. Nor do I sympathize at all in the apprehensions and misgivings I hear expressed about coercion. We are told that inasmuch as our Government is founded on the will of the people, or the consent of the governed, therefore coercion is incompatible with republicanism. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 211 Sir, the word Government means coercion. There can be no Gov- ernment without coercion. Coercion is the vital principle upon which all Governments rest. Withdraw the right of coercion, and you dissolve your Government. If every man would do his duty and respect the rights of his neighbors voluntarily, there would be no necessity for any Government on earth. The neces- sity of Government is found to consist in the fact that some men will noc do right unless coerced to do so. The object of all Gov- ernment is to coerce and compel every man to do his duty, who would not otherwise perform it. Hence I do not subscribe at all to this doctrine that coercion is not to be used in a free Govern- ment. It must be used in all. Governments, no matter what their form or what their principles. But coercion must be always used in the mode prescribed in the Constitution and laws. I hold that the Federal Government is, and ought to be, clothed with the power and duty to use all the means necessary to coerce obedience to all laws made in pursu- ance of the Constitution. But the proposition to subvert the de facto Government of South Carolina, and to reduce the people of that State into subjection to our Federal authority, no longer in- volves the question of enforcing the laws in a country within our possession ; but it does involve the question whether we will make war on a State which has withdrawn her allegiance and expelled our authorities, with a view of subjecting her to our possession for the purpose of enforcing our laws within her limits. We are bound, by the usages of nations, by the laws of civiliza- tion, by the uniform practice of our own Government to acknowl- edge the existence of a Government de facto, so long as it main- tains its undivided authority. When Louis Philippe fled from the throne of France, Lamartine suddenly one morning found himself the head of a provisional Government ; I believe it was but three days until the American Minister recognized the Government de facto. Texas was a Government de facto, not recognized by Mexico, when we annexed her ; not recognized by Spain, when Texas revolted. The laws of nations recognize Governments de facto where they exercise and maintain undivided sway, leaving the question of their authority de jure to be determined by the people interested in the Government. Now, as a man who loves the Union, and desires to see it maintained forever, and to see the laws enforced, and rebellion put down, and insurrection repressed, and order maintained, I desire to know of my Union loving friends on the other side of the Chamber how they intend to enforce the laws in the seceding states, except by making war, conquering them first, and administering the laws in them afterwards. In my opinion, we have reached a point where disunion is inevi- table, unless some compromise, founded on neutral concession, can be made. I prefer compromise to war. I prefer concession to a dissolution of the Union. When I avowed myself in favor of 28 212 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF compromise, 1 do not mean that one side should give up all that it has claimed, nor that the other side should give up everything for which it has contended. Nor do I ask any man to come to my standard : but I simply say that I will meet any one half way who is willing to preserve the peace of the country, and save the Union from disruption upon principles of compromise and concession. In my judgement no system of compromise, can be effectual and permanent which does not banish the slavery question from the Halls of Congress and the arena of Federal politics, by irrepealable constitutional provision. We have tried compromise by law, com- promise by act of Congress, and now we are engaged in the small business of crimination and recrimination, as to who is responsible for not having lived up to them in good faith, and for having broken faith. I Want whatever compromise is agreed to, placed beyond the reach of party politics and partisan policy, by being made irrevocable in the Constitution itself, so that every man that holds office will be bound by his oath to support it. There are several modes in which this irritating question may be withdrawn from Congress, peace restored, the rights of States maintained, and the Union rendered secure. One of them one to which I can cordially consent has been presented by the vener- able Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Crittenden.) The journal of the committee of thirteen shows that I voted for it in committee. I am prepared to vote for it again. I shall not occupy time now in discussing the question whether my vote to make a partition between the two sections, instead of referring the question to the people, will be consistent with my previous record or not. The country has no very great interest in my consistency. The pres- ervation of this Union, the integrity of this Republic, is of more importance than party platforms, or individual records. Hence I have no hesitation in saying to Senators on all sides of this Cham- ber, that I am prepared to act on this question with reference to the present exigencies of the case, as if I had never given a vote, or uttered a word, or had an opinion upon the subject. Why cannot you Republicans accede to the re-establishment and extension of the Missouri Compromise line. You have sung peans enough in its praise, and uttered imprecations and curses enough upon my head for its repeal, one would think, to justify you now in claiming a triumph by its re-establishmant. If you are will- ing to give up your party feelings to sink the partisan in the patriot and help me to re-establish and extend that line, as a perpetual bond of peace between the North and the South, I will promise you never to remind you in future of your denunciations of the Missouri Compromise, so long as I was supporting it, and of your praises of the same measure when we removed it from the statute book, after you had caused it to be abandoned, by rendering it im- possible for us to carry it out. I seek no partisan advantage ; I desire no personal triumph. I am willing to let by-gones be by- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 213 gones with every man who in this exigency, will show by his vote that he loves his country more than his party. I presented to the committee of thirteen and also introduced into the Senate, another plan by which the slavery question may be taken out of Congress, and the peace of the country maintained. It is, that Congress shall make no law on the subject of slavery in the Territories, and that the existing Status of each Territory on that subject, as it now stands by law, shall remain unchanged until it has fifty thousand inhabitants, when it shall have the right of self Government as to its domestic policy; but with only a Delegate in each House of Congress until it has the population re- quired by the Federal ratio for a Representative in Congress, when it shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. I put the number of the inhabitants at fifty thou- sand before the people of the Territory shall change the Status in regard to slavery as a fair compromise between the conflicting opinions on this subject. The two extremes, North and South, unite in condemning the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the Ter- ritories upon the ground that the first few settlers ought not to be permitted to decide so important a question for those who are to come after them. I have never considered that objection well taken, for the reason that no Territory should be organized with the right to elect a Legislature and make its own laws upon all rightful subjects of legislation, until it contains a sufficient popula- tion to constitute a political community ; and whenever Congress should decide that there wero a sufficient population, capable of self government, by organizing the Territory, to govern them- selves upon all other subjects, I could never perceive any good reason why the same political community should not be permitted to decide the slavery question for themselves. But since we are now trying to compromise our difficulties upon the basis of mutual concessions, I propose to meet both extremes half way, by fixing the number at fifty thousand. This number, certainly, ought to be satisfactory to those States which have been admitted into the Union with less than fifty thousand inhabitants. Oregon, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, were each admitted into the Union I believe, with less than that number of inhabitants. Surely the Senators and Representatives from those States do not doubt that fifty thou- sand people were enough to constitute a political community, capable of deciding the slavery question for themselves. I now invite attention to the next proposition. In order to allay all apprehension, North or South, that Terri- tory would be acquired in the future for sectional or partisan pur- poses, by adding a large number of free States on the North, or slave States on the South, with the view of giving the one section or the other a dangerous political ascendency, I have inserted the provision that " no more territory shall be acquired by the United 214 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF States except by treaty on the concurrent vote of two thirds in each House of Congress." If this provision should be incorpora- ted into the Constitution, it would be impossible for either section to annex any territory without the concurrence of a large portion of the other section ; and hence there need be no apprehension that any territory would be hereafter acquired for any other than such National considerations as would commend the subject to the ap- probation of both sections. I have also inserted a provision confirming the right of suffrage and of holding office to white men, excluding the African race. I have also inserted a provision for the colonization of free negroes from such States as may desire to have them removed, to districts of country, to be acquired in Africa and South America. In addition to these I have adopted the various provisions contained in the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky, in reference to fugitive slaves, the abolition of slavery in the forts, arsenals, and dock- yards in the slave States and in the District of Columbia, and the ether provisions for the safety of the South. I believe this to be a fair basis of amicable adjustment. If you of the Republican side are not willing to accept this, nor the proposition of the Sena- tor from Kentucky, (MR. CRITTENDEN,) pray tell us what you are willing to do ? I address the enquiry to the Republicans alone, for the reason that in the committee of thirteen, a few days ago, every member from the South, including those from the Cotton States, (Messrs. TOOMBS and DAVIS,) expressed their readiness to accept the proposition of my venerable friend from .Kentucky, (Mr. Crit- tenden,) as a final settlement of the controversy, if tendered and sustained by the Republican members. Hence, the sole responsi- bility of our disagreement, and the only difficulty in the way of our amicable adjustment, is with the Republican party. At first I thought your reason for declining to adjust this ques- tion amicably, was that the Constitution, as it stands, was good enough, and that you would make no amendment to it. That proposition has already been waived. The great leader of the Republican party (Mr. Seward) by the unanimous concurrence of his friends, brought into the committee of thirteen a proposition to amend the Constitution. Inasmuch, therefore, as you are will- ing to amend the instrument, and to entertain propositions of ad- justment, why not go further and relieve the apprehensions of the Southern people on all points where you do not intend to operate aggressively ? You offer to amend the Constitution, by declaring that no future amendments shall be made which shall empower Congress to interfere with slavery in the States ? Now if you do not intend to do any other act prejudicial to their constitutional rights and safety, why not relieve their appre- hensions by inserting in your own proposed amendment to the < . institution, such further provisions as will, in like manner, render it impossible for you to do that which they apprehend you STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 215 intend to do. and which you have no purpose of doing, if it be true that you have no such purpose ? For the purpose of remov- ing the apprehensions of the Southern people, and for no other purpose, you propose to amend the Constitution, so as to render it impossible, in all future time, for Congress to interfere with slavery in the States where it may exist under the laws thereof. Why not insert a similar amendment in respect to slavery in the Dis- trict of Columbia, and in the navy-yards, forts, arsenals, and other places within the limits of the slaveholding States, over which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction ? Why not insert a similar pro- vision in -respect to the slave trade between the slaveholding States ? The Southern people have more serious apprehensions on these points than they have of your direct interference with slavery. If their apprehensions on these several points are groundless, is it not a duty you owe to God and your Country to relieve their anxiety and remove all causes of discontent? Is there not quite as much reason for relieving their apprehensions upon these points, in regard to which they are much more sensitive, as in respect to your direct interference in the States, where they know you ac- knowledge that you have no power to interfere as the Constitution now stands ? The fact that you propose to give the assurance on one point and peremptorily refuse to give it on the others, seems to authorize the presumption that you do intend to use the powers of the Federal Government for the purpose of direct interference with slavery and the slave trade everywhere else, with the view to its indirect effects upon slavery in the States ; or, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, with the view of its " ultimate extinction in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South." If you had exhausted your ingenuity in devising a plan for the express purpose of increasing the apprehensions and inflaming the passions of the Southern people, with the view of driving them into revolution and disunion, none could have been contrived better calculated to accomplish the object than the offering of that one amendment to the Constitution, and rejecting all others which are infinitely more important to the safety and tranquillity of the slaveholding States. In my opinion, we have now reached a point where this agita- tion must close, and all the matters in controversy be finally de- termined by Constitutional amendments, or civil war and the dis- ruption of the Union are inevitable. My friend from Oregon, (Mr. Baker,) who has addressed the Senate for the last two days, will fail in his avowed purpose to " evade " the question. He claims to be liberal and conservative ; and I must confess that he seems to be the most liberal of any gentlemen on that side of the Chamber, always excepting the noble and patriotic speech of the Senator from Con- necticut, (Mr. Dixon,) and the utmost extent to which the Senator 216 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP from Oregon would consent to go, was to devise a scheme by which the real question at issue could be evaded. I regret the determination to which I apprehend the Republican Senators have come, to make no adjustment, entertain no proposi- tion, and listen to no compromise of the matters in controversy. I fear, from all the indications, that they are disposed to treat the matter as a party question, to be determined in caucus with reference to its effects upon the prospects of their party, rather than upon the peace of the Country and the safety of the Union. I invoke their deliberate judgment whether it is not a dangerous ex- periment for any political party to demonstrate to the American people that the unity of their party is dearer to them than the Union of these States. The argument is, that the Chicago plat- form having been ratified by the people in a majority of the States must be maintained at all hazards, no matter what the consequen- ces to the Country. I insist that they are mistaken in the fact when they assert that this question was decided by the American people in the late election. The American people have not decided that they preferred the disruption of this Government and civil war with all its horrors and miseries, to surrendering one iota of the Chicago platform. If you believe that the people are with you on this issue, let the question be submitted to the people on the proposition offered by the Senator from Kentucky, or mine, or any other fair compromise, and I will venture the prediction, that your own people will ratify the proposed amendments to the Con- stitution, in order to take this slavery question out of Congress, and restore peace to the Country, and insure the perpetuity of the Union. Why not give the people a chance ! It is an important crisis. There is now a different issue presented from that in the Presiden- tial election. I have no doubt that the people of Massachusetts, by an overwhelming majority, are in favor of a prohibition of sla- very in the Territories by an act of Congress. An overwhelming majority of the same people were in favor of the instant prohibi- tion of the African slave trade, on moral and religious grounds, when the Constitution was made. When they found that the Con- stitution could not be adopted and the Union preserved, without surrendering their objections on the slavery question, they, in the spirit of patriotism and Christian feeling, preferred the lesser evil to the greater, and ratified the Constitution without their favorite provision in regard to slavery. Give them a chance to decide now between the ratification of these proposed amendments to the Con- stitution and the consequences which your policy will inevitably produce. Why not allow the people to pass on these questions ? All we have to do is to submit them to the States. If the people reject them, theirs will be the responsibility, and no harm will have been done by the reference. If they accept them, the Country will be safe, and at peace. The political party which shall refuse to allow the people STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 21t to determine for themselves at the ballot-box the issue between revolution and war on the one side, and obstinate adherence to party platform on the other, will assume a fearful responsibility. A war upon a political issue, waged by the people of eighteen States against the people and domestic institutions of fifteen sister States, is a fearful and revolting thought. The South will be a unit, and desperate, under the belief that your object in waging war is their destruction, and not the preservation of the Union ; that you meditate servile insurrection, and the abolition of slavery in the Southern States, by fire and sword, in the name and under pre- text of enforcing the laws and vindicating the authority of the Government. You know that such is the prevailing, and I may say, unanimous opinion at the South ; and that ten millions of people are preparing for the terrible conflict under that conviction. When there is such an irrepressible discontent pervading ten mil- lion people, penetrating the bosom of every man, woman, and child, and, in their estimation, involving everything that is valua- ble and dear on earth, is it not time to pause and reflect whether there is not some cause, real or imaginary for apprehension ? If there be a just cause for it, in God's name, in the name of human- ity and civilization, let it be removed. Will we not be guilty in the sight of Heaven and of posterity, if we do not remove all just cause before proceeding to extremes ? If, on the contrary, there be no real foundation for these apprehensions ; if it be all a mistake, and yet they, believing it to be a solemn reality, are determined to act on that belief, is it not equally our duty to remove the misap- prehension ? Hence the obligation to remove the causes of discon- tent, whether real or imaginary, is alike imperative upon us, if we wish to preserve the peace of the Country and the Union of the States. It matters not, so far as the peace of the country and the pres- ervation of the Union are concerned, whether the apprehensions of the Southern people are well founded or not, so long as they believe them, and are determined to act upon that belief. If war comes, it must have an end at some time ; and that termination, I apprehend, will be a final separation. Whether the war last one year, seven years, or thirty years, the result must be the same a cessation of hostilities when the parties become exhausted, and a treaty of peace recognizing the separate independence of each sec- tion. The history of the world does not furnish an instance, where war has raged for a series of years between two classes of States, divided by a geographical line under the same National Govern- ment, which has ended in reconciliation and reunion. Extermina- tion, subjugation, or separation, one of the three, must be the re- sult of war between the Northern and Southern States. Surely, you do not expect to exterminate or subjugate ten million people, the entire population of one section, as a means of preserving amicable relations between the two sections.? I repeat* then, my solemn conviction, that war means disunion, 218 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. final, irrevocable, eternal separation. I see no alternative, there- fore, but a fair compromise, founded on the basis of mutual con- cessions, alike honorable, just, and beneficial to all parties, or civil war and disunion. Is there anything humiliating in a fair com- promise of conflicting interests, opinions, and theories, for the sake of peace, Union and safety ? Read the debates of the Federal convention, which formed our glorious Constitution, and you will find noble examples, worthy of imitation ; instances where sages and patriots were willing to surrender cherished theories and prin- ciples of Government, believed to be essential to the best form of society, for the sake of peace and unity. I never understood that wise and good men ever regarded mu- tual concessions by such men as Washington, Madison, Franklin, and Hamilton, as evidences of weakness, cowardice, or want of pa- triotism. On the contrary, this spirit of conciliation and compro- mise, has ever been considered, and will in all time be regarded as the highest evidence which their great deeds and immortal services ever furnished of their patriotism, wisdom, foresight, and devotion to their Country and their race. Can we not afford to imitate their example in this momentuous crisis ? Are we to be told that we must not do our duty to our Country lest we injure the party ; that no compromise can be effected without violating the party platform upon which we were elected ? Better that all party plat- forms be scattered to the winds ; better that all political organiza- tions be broken up ; better that every public man and politician in America be consigned to political martyrdom, than that the Union be destroyed and the Country plunged into civil war. It seems that party platforms, pride of opinion, personal consis- tency, or fear of political martyrdom, are the only obstacles to a satis- factory adjustment. Have we nothing else to live for but political position ? Have we no other inducement, no other incentive to our efforts, our toils, and our sacrifices ? Most of us have children, the objects of our tenderest affections and deepest solicitude, whom we hope to leave behind us to enjoy the rewards of our labors in a happy, prosper ousifcid united Country, under the best Govern- ment the wisdom of man ever devised or the sun of Heaven ever shone upon. Can we make no concessions, no sacrifices, for the sake of our children, that they may have a country to live in, and a Government to protect them, when party platforms and political honors shall avail us nothing in the day of final reckoning ? In conclusion, I have only to renew the assurance that I am prepared to co-operate cordially with the friends of a fair, just, and honorable compromise, in securing such amendments to the Con- stitution as will expel the slavery agitation from Congress and the arena of Federal politics forever, and restore peace to the Country, and preserve our liberties and Union as the most precious legacf we can transmit to our posterity. THE END. THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL J9S3 MC 1 DEC 10 APR 2 4 MAY 2 I T964 ** 1 5 1865 '965 JAN 6 t366 RET.J&N5 LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DA^ BookSlip-10m-l,'63(D5^ / 2U9lli8 Flint, H.M. Life of Stephen A. Douglas. Wini Call Number: - D73 F62 1)73 249148