Yale University Library

39002002972280

iHu-i^'

¦ .n ¦ '41i

f:;^'^T
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

«*•¦-

/^^ /^L-pyi^ {/?r^>^

':^%^ o

,;;?7-r^'>;^

LIFE AND SPEECHES

OF

THOMAS CORWIN
ORATOR
LAWYER AND STATESMAN

EDITED BY
JOSIAH MORROW

CINCINNATI:
W. H. ANDERSON & CO.
1896.

Copyright, 1896, by W. H. Anderson & Co.

PUBLISHERS' NOTE.

THIS volume owes its origin to some warm admirers of
the character and genius of Thomas Corwin in the vil
lage which was his home. Before the erection of a monu
ment over the grave of Corwin in the cemetery at Lebanon
the suggestion was made that a publication of his speeches,
with a sketch of his life, would be a better and more enduring
monument to the memory of the great orator than a shaft of
marble or granite.
John P. Comly, a printer, whose last years were passed in
Lebanon, frequently urged the preparation and publication
of such a work. He had been one of the publishers of the
"Speeches of Thomas Corwin, with a sketch of his life, edited
by Isaac Strohm," printed at Dayton, Ohio, in 1859, a book
long out of print; and in 1882 he carried on an extensive
correspondence with Mr. Strohm, then at Washington, con
cerning a proposed revision and continuation of the memoir
in that work. Mr. Comly succeeded in getting some public-
spirited citizens of Lebanon interested in the proposed book.
A circular was issued, and in reply to it so many letters of
encouragement were received from eminent public men and
librarians throughout the nation that the publication of the
work was determined upon. While reading the first proofs
of some specimen pages, Mr. Comly, like the illustrious au
thor of the speeches, was striken with paralysis, and died in
a few hours. Not long after Mr. Strohm died at his home in
Greene county.
Chief among those at Lebanon who gave encouragement
and substantial aid to the projected volume was the lamented
Judge Walter S.Dilatush, of the common pleas bench. With
in

IV publishers' note.
out the generous assistance given by this young judge, who
was loved while he lived and is remembered with fond regret,
this volume would hardly have appeared. It was he who
induced the author of the biography here presented to under
take its preparation, and the publishers of the book to give
it to the public. He did not live to see the publication far
advanced. After reading the proofs of the completed biog
raphy he was seized with the malady which terminated his
earthly career before he had reached the prime of manhood.
The gentlemen who projected the volume selected Josiah
Morrow to write the life of Corwin. He was the last student
of law who entered the office of Corwin at Lebanon, and his
collection of manuscripts and printed papers relating to the
orator is probably the largest in existence. He had long been
a careful student of the history of Ohio and the Miami valley,
and the publishers believe that the story of the life and work
of Thomas Corwin will be found to be well told in the pages
prepared by him.
The volume is presented to the public in the confident be
lief that it will be found worthy of a place in the library of
every admirer of true eloquence and every student of the
political history of our country.
The Publishers.

PREFACE.

THE memoir of Corwin in this volume is the first one
given to the public sufi&ciently ample in its account of
his public and private life to entitle it to be called a biogra
phy. In its preparation the author has diligently sought all
sources of information both in manuscript and in print. He
has received courteous assistance from the family and rela
tives of the orator, as well as from lawyers at Lebanon and
public men who were intimate with him. Not much mate
rial for the biography was found ready at hand. Little as
sistance was derived from the brief sketches of Corwin pub
lished in his lifetime. They were either too much taken up
with indiscriminate panegyric, or were found to contain such
careless and inaccurate statements of fact as to preclude the
supposition that they had been submitted to the subject for
his approval. A. P. Russell's monograph does not purport
to be a biography. No published account of Corwin could
be accepted as a basis for the present work. Facts derived
from the writer's researches will be found in almost all the
chapters. Without going into detail, it may be said that the
account of Corwin 's first appearance in politics and his en
trance into public life are here correctly given for the first
time, as are the remarkable facts concerning his first election
to congress.
The volume is intended to contain all the speeches of
Corwin which were reported and revised in his lifetime for
publication. The earliest of his efforts which have been pre
served, a speech in the Ohio House of Representatives against
the whipping-post, is given. Throughout his long services
in both Houses of congress all his speeches reported and re-
V

VI PREFACE.
vised for the printer are given without abridgment. The
volume concludes with his last speech in congress on the
perilous condition of the nation in 1861, when he patriotic
ally sought for a way to save the Union without civil war.
Along with his speeches in legislative bodies will be found
such of his occasional addresses as have been preserved by
finding their way to the printing-office. In short, the work
is believed to contain all the public utterances of Thomas
Corwin which he would have been willing to have included
in a collection of his speeches. The fact that it has been
found possible to present in a single volume a complete col
lection of the speeches of an eminent orator and statesman
will make the book all the more welcome to the public and
private library.
Lebanon^ Ohio.

CONTENTS.

PAGE.
Chronological Record  ix
Life of Thomas Corwin.
The Corwin Name and Family  i
The Father  5
The Turtlecreek Valley and its Pioneers  9
The Wagon Boy, and his Education  12
The Lawyer  17
Beginnings in Politics  23
In Congress  29
Campaign of 1840  33
Governor and Ex-Governor — 1840-1844  39
In the Senate  46
In the Cabinet  53
Return to Congress  59
Minister to Mexico  67
The Last of Earth  72
His Most Eloquent Speech  78
Reminiscences  83
Speeches of Thomas Corwin
Inaugural Address as Governor of Ohio.
Delivered to the Legislature December 16, 1840 . . 99
Masonic Oration.
Delivered at Hamilton, Ohio, June 24, 1826 . . . .112
Address of Welcome to John Quincy Adams.
At Lebanon, Ohio, November 7, 1843  128
In defense of Judge McLean.
In the Senate January 23, 1849  130
On the Action of Ohio touching Fugitive Slaves.
In the Senate April 3, 1850  135
On the Bill for the Relief of WilUam Darby.
In the Senate April 23, 1850  137
VIZ

VIII • CONTENTS PAGE.
Against Corporal Punishment.
In the Legislature of Ohio December i8, 1822 . . . 139
On the Public Deposits.
In the House of Representatives of the United
States April 4, 1834 . . .  149
Memorials in Relation to the Public Deposits. \
In the House of Representatives April 7, 1834 . 189
On tlie Constitution of Michigan.
In the House of Representatives December 28, 1835 193
On the Surplus Revenue.
In the House of Representatives January 12, 1837 . 197
On the Cumberland Road.
In the House of Representatives April 20, 1S38 . 224
Reply to General Crary.
In the House of Representatives February 15, 1840 246
Bounty Lands to Soldiers in the Mexican W'ar.
In the Senate January 14, 1847  264
On the Mexican War.
In the Senate February II, 1847  277
Incidental Remarks on the "Three Million Bill."
In the Senate March i, 1847  315
The Territorial Government of Oregon.
In the Senate July 12, 1848  , . 317
The Clayton Compromise Bill.
In the Senate July 24, 1848  324
A Campaign Speech.
At Ironton, Ohio, August 19, 1859  359
On the Slavery Question.
Speech in the Speakership Contest of the House
of Representatives January 23 and 24, i860 . . . 385
On the Report of the Committee of Thirty-Three.
In the House of Representatives January 21, 1861 . 457

CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF CORWIN'S LIFE.

1794. Born in Bourbon county, Kentucky, July 29th.
1798. Migrated with his father to the North-west Territory.
1806. Attended a school in Lebanon taught by an English clergyman of
good education and attracted attention by his fine elocution in
school exhibitions.
1812. Drove a wagon loaded with supplies for Harrison's army through the
swamps of the St. Mary's country; from this came his sobriquet
of " the wagon boy."
1814. Entered the office of the clerk of court as assistant.
1815. Began the study of law in the office of Judge Joshua CoUett.
1817. Admitted to the bar in May, and opened a law-office in Lebanon.
1818. Appointed prosecuting attorney of Warren county, and served in that
capacity ten years.
1821. Elected a representative in the legislature, and re-elected the next
year.
1822. Married to Miss Sarah Ross at Lebanon, November 13th.
1824. Supported Clay for president, Jackson, Adams, Crawford and Clay
being candidates.
1827. Advocated the re-election of President J. Q. Adams and was one of
the secretaries of the Ohio state convention of the supporters of
Adams.
1829. Again elected a representative in the legislature.
1830. Delivered an address at the commencement of Miami University.
1830. First election to congress.

1831.1840

j- Representative in congress.

1834. First speech in congress, April 4th.
1840. Nominated as the Whig candidate for governor at Columbus, Febru
ary 22nd, and resigned his seat in congress to take effect in May.

x; CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD.
1842 I Governor of Ohio.
1842. Candidate for re-election as governor and defeated — his only defeat
at the polls.
1844. President of the Ohio Whig state convention ; unanimously tendered
the nomination for governor for the third time, which he declined.
1844. His name placed at the head of the Clay electoral ticket in Ohio.
1844. Elected United States senator, December 5th, for six years from
March 4th, 1845.

1845
1850

I United States senator.
1847. Speech in the senate against the Mexican war, February 11th.
1850. )
1853 ( Secretary of the treasury in the cabinet of President Fillmore.
1854. Established a law office at Cincinnati, retaining his residence at
Lebanon.
1858. Elected to congress by the Republicans.
1860. Re-elected to congress. Supported Lincoln for president.
1860. Chainnan of a select committee of the house, consisting of one from
each state to consider the national perils.
1861. }
1864 I United States minister to Mexico.
1864. Established a law-office in Washington.
1865. Died in Washington, December 18th.

LIFE OF THOMAS CORWIN.

THE GOEWIN NAME AND FAMILY.

The Corwin family is one of the oldest in America. Fourteen
years after the arrival of the Mayflower, Matthias Corwin, the origi
nal ancestor of the family in this country, is found settled at Ipswich, in
Massachusetts Bay Colony, whence he soon removed to Long Island.
Thomas was of the seventh generation descended from him. Efforts
have been made, it must be confessed without much success, to trace
the Corwins far back in the history of Hungary and to find the ori
gin of the name and family in the celebrated Hungarian king, Mat
thias Corvinus. The researches of the pains-taking author of the
Corwin Genealogy,* who carefully traced the history of the Ameri
can families of Corwin, Curwen and Corwine, failed to estabhsh a
connection of any of these names with any family of Hungary or of
the continent of Europe, but he found that the immigrant ancestors
of all the familes bearing these names probably came from England.
In reply to a letter of inquiry from the author of the Corwin
Genealogy, Thomas Corwin wrote in 1859 that he had received let
ters and communications written to show the connection of the
family with the Hungarian Corvinus, and that at the time he read
them their account seemed to him quite plausible, and added: "I could
never bring myself to feel interest enough in the subject to with
draw me from necessary labor long enough to make such researches
as to enable me to form even a plausible guess as to the persons who
might have been at work for ten centuries back in the laudable effort
to bring me, nolens volens, into this breathing world on the 29th of
'¦¦¦'The Corwin Genealogy (Curwin, Curwen, Corwine) in the United States b^
Edward Tanjore Corwin, New York: 1872.

^ LIFE OF THOMAS OOEWIN.
July ( a most uncomfortable time of the year ), in the year of
grace, 1794."
The Hungarian origin of the family and name which may have
been at first only a surmise came to be regarded as probable and has
been published as an established fact. It was probably first sug
gested by the similarity of the surnames Corwin and Corvinus.
Even the christian name of the Hungarian king frequently recurs in
the Corwin genealogy, three Matthias Corwins being found ih the
direct line of the American ancestors of Thomas. The swarthy
complexion of the great orator could be readily explained by the
blood of the Huns in his veins by those who were disposed to
accept the conjecture of a royal descent. Unfortunately there is no
documentary or historical evidence that the family came from Hun
gary, and the conjecture of such an origin is even without the cor
roboratory support of a family tradition handed down through many
generations. The fact, however, that the most eminent man of the
name at one time regarded this theory of the derivation of his family
and name as plausible, when he read it hastily amid the cares of a
busy life, forbids our laying it aside as unworthy of consideration
and will lend interest to a glance at the history of the surname Cor
vinus. The good king Matthias Hunyady, whose name is more familiar
as Matthias Corvinus, ascended the throne of Hungary at the age of
eighteen in 1458, and after a prosperous reign of thirty-two years died
in 1490. He was not only an able and warlike monarch, who subdued
rebellious nobles and restored order, law and prosperity, but he gave
encouragement to learning and governed his people with such
impartiality that his name long survived in the popular adage, "King
Matthias is dead, justice is gone." His father was John Hunyady,
also called Corvinus, who from a humble origin rose to the com
mand of the Hungarian army and was elected supreme captain and
governor. Gibbon tells us that John was the son of a Wallachian
father and a Greek mother, and that his surname, Corvinus, was
derived from his native village. This village is on the Danube, in
Wallachia. Corvinus is a Latin adjective or epithet derived from
corvus, a crow or raven, and as a surname was borne by a single
branch of the Valerian family at Rome. The legendary origin of the
surname is that it was given to Valerius, a tribune of the soldiers,
B. C. 349, who when he was engaged in a conflict with a Gaul of

THE CORWIN NAME AND FAMILY. 6
powerful strength and stature, was assisted by a crow which attacked
the eyes of his enemy.
There have been family traditions which refer the Corwins to a
Welch, and others to a German origin. There is a town named
Corwen in the parish of Corwen, in Merionetshire, Wales, but no
family bearing this name has been found in that vicinity. The town
is supposed to have received its name from the Welch words caer
wen, meaning white stone, descriptive of the white rocks at the back
of the village. Historical characters named Corvinus and Corvin
have appeared at various times in Germany. The Curwens were an
ancient family of Cumberland, England, who have written their sur
name Curwen since the fifteenth century, before which it was Culwen.
In Ireland Corin and Curran are common orthographies of what may
have been originally the same name. In the United States Corwine
is sometimes met with. In the family of Thomas Corwin the name
was sometimes pronounced Curwen and Curran even after the emi
gration to Ohio.
Turning from the legendary and mythical to the more authentic
family history in America, the reader most fond of genealogical re
search must rest content with a descent traced through six genera
tions on American soil. The ancestors of the great orator in this
country were for the most part plain and respectable people, gen
erally tillers of the soil and none of them distinguished for genius,
wit or learning. Among them no one has other claim to our atten
tion than as the progenitor of a distinguished man except the father
of Thomas, who was a man of note in the community in which
he lived. Matthias Corwin, the first of the name in America, was among
the earliest immigrants of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and is
found at Ipswich in .1634. It is believed that he came from England
and had arrived in the colony a few years before, probably about
1630. About 1640 he removed to Southhold, Long Island, and
was one of the leading men in the first settlement of that place.
Here he lived for the last eighteen years of his life, and here he died
in 1658. His last will and testament was recorded in the Southhold
records September I5th, 1658, and is yet preserved, and in it his
name appears as Mathias Curwen. The name of his immediate
descendants in the same records is written Corwin. The early pro
nunciation of the name on Long Island is said to have been Currin.

4 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
The descendants of the immigrant ancestor resided for several
generations on Long Island. John, his oldest son, died at South-
hold September 25th, 1702, leaving three sons, the second of whom,
Matthias, was the father of Jesse, the great grandfather of Thomas.
His son, Jesse, the grandfather of Thomas, was the first to emigrate
to the west. He was born on Long Island in 17.36, moved from
his native place to Morris county. New Jersey, thence, in 1776, to
Fayette county, in western Pennsylvania, and thence, in 1785, to
Bourbon county, Kentucky, where he died in 1791. Before leaving
Long Island he married Kezia Case, who, after having been a resi
dent of five states, died in Ohio in 1816, aged seventy-nine years,
and the tombstone of Kezia Corwin, grandmother of Thomas Cor
win, is still to be seen in an old grave-yard at Lebanon. Jesse and
Kezia Corwin were the ancestors of the numerous Corwins of War
ren county, Ohio, all of their eight children, except one daughter,
becoming residents of that county.

THE FATHER.

The name of the father of Thomas Corwin occupies a conspic
uous place in the history of the county, in which the greater portion
of his adult life was passed. Matthias Corwin was born in Morris
county. New Jersey, February 19th, 1761, and was the eldest of
the eight children of Jesse Corwin, and his wife Kezia Case. His
parents had been married on Long Island, and moved to New Jersey
soon after. Near the commencement of the revolutionary war the
family removed to Fayette county, in western Pennsylvania, and
here on April 8th, 1782, Matthias married Patience Halleck, who
was born in the same year as himself. The mother of Thomas Cor
win belonged to an intellectual family, and from her it has been
claimed the orator inherited much of his genius. Her married life
continued thirty-six years, and until her death at Lebanon, Ohio, in
the fifty-seventh year of her age. She was the mother of nine
children, and was the companion of her husband in the establish
ment of three homes in the forest, two in Kentucky and one in
Ohio. She should be remembered as one of the pioneer women
of the Ohio valley who patiently endured the privations and hard
ships of a life in the wilderness.
In 1785 the Corwin family removed to Kentucky. Matthias
first settled in Mason county, but afterwards in Bourbon county,
where his distinguished son was born on the 29th of July, 1794.
At this time many of the settlers in Kentucky were discouraged on
account of defects in the titles to their lands, and large numbers of
them crossed the Ohio to find homes in the Northwest Territory.
In 1798 Matthias Corwin, with his family of six children, his wid
owed mother and most of his brothers and sisters, moved again and
established himself in the Miami valley, near where Lebanon now
stands. He was a widely trusted man of affairs, and after the forma
tion of a state government and the people were permitted to elect
(5)

b LIFE OF THOMAS COKWIN.
their own officers, was repeatedly chosen to important public posi
tions. He was elected one of the first justices of the peace in War
ren county, a member of the first board of county commissioners,
and representative in the legislature by annual elections for ten years.
He was speaker of the House of Representatives in 1815 and 1824,
and an associate judge of the court of common pleas from 1816 to
1823. To this last position he was chosen by the legislature. He
was also appointed by the governor one of the appraisers of dam
ages resulting from the construction of the Miami canal, and a trus
tee of Miami University. These public stations, with which he was
honored without his own seeking, show that he had the confidence
and respect of his neighbors and acquaintances. The following facts,
illustrative of his character, are derived chiefly from Dunlevy's His
tory of the Miami Baptist Association:
Judge Corwin was a man of sound common sense, and his judg
ment in the common affairs of life was frequently sought by the
pioneers among whom Ijis life was passed. He had only an ordi
nary English education, and made no pretensions to a knowledge of
literature or science, but he possessesed a discriminating mind that
enabled him to distinguish pretended from real science. For an
ostentatious display of learning or false pretense to superior knowl
edge he had an instinctive contempt.
He was through life distinguished for his probity. He carried
his notions of honesty much further than men generally do, con
demning every shade of concealment or act calculated to deceive, as
no better than direct fraud. All speculation, in the common accep
tation of the term, was in his view wrong. He lived as a matter of
choice on a farm, and took great pleasure in making it a pleas
ant home. In his habits he was industrious, regular and abstemious,
and did not permit any under his control to spend time idly.
He was always a peacemaker, and often selected as an arbiter
to settle disputes between neighbors. All had the fullest confidence
in his integrity. The office of justice of the peace he restored to
its original intention of settling disputes, as well as constraining
peace, and sometimes to effect this object he resorted to measures,
which, if not strictly legal, were always really just. It is told of
him that a suit once being brought before him by a man who had
been grossly defrauded in a trade of watches, he required both of
the watches to be placed on the table before him as the evidence was
given, and, the fraud being palpable, as he gave his decision he took

THE FATHER. /
Up the two watches, declared the contract of exchange void on
account of fraud, and then restored to each his original watch.
Judge Corwin was a member of the Baptist church at Lebanon
for a period of thirty years. During most of that time he was the
principal and most active deacon of that church. When at home he
was always at his post, and so constant was he in attendance at the
meetings that if he was at any time missed when at home it was
known that something unusual had detained him. He was frequently
one of the messengers of the church in the association, often a mes
senger of the association to some corresponding body. In the min
utes of the Miami Association, the name of no layman occurs so
frequently as that of Matthias Corwin. As in society, so in the
church of which he was so long a member, the greatest confidence
was placed in him and much deference was yielded to his opinions.
He possessed that firmness and independence of mind which led him
to investigate all opinions for himself before he adopted them. He
was, therefore, slow to receive any new dogma on any subject.
He is described as above the medium height, very stout, with
dark skin, black hair and black eyes. He died of bilious fever
September 4th, 1829, in the sixty-ninth year of his age. The fol
lowing is an extract from an obituary notice of Matthias Corwin,
which is believed to have been written by his intimate personal
friend. Judge Francis Dunlevy:
"Judge Corwin, no doubt, partook of the frailties belonging to human
ity, but we think we have never known one within the range of our knowl
edge who had fewer faults. If we should search for them we know not
where we would find one. He was not great nor learned, nor possessed of
any dazzling talents to attract the admiration of the world ; but he had quali
ties much more enviable and enduring. Such was the candor, the mildness,
the uniformity of his conduct and so unexceptionable his walk and conversa
tion, that even amidst party strife and sectarian controversy, he never knew
an enemy. By all his name was respected, by those who knew him best and
longest, we might say, venerated."
After the death of his wife. Patience, Matthias Corwin married
Mrs. Elizabeth Corbly, January 2nd, 1820, by whom there were no
children. Below are given the names and the dates of the births of
his nine children, some of whom were born in Pennsylvania, some in
Kentucky and some in Ohio.
Elizabeth, born January Z7th, 1783.
Benjamin, born October 28th, 1785.

8 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
Matthias, born September 29th, 1789.
Mary, born December 4th, 1791.
Thomas, born July 29th, 1794.
Jesse, born June 30th, 1797.
Rhoda, born November 4th, 1799.
Phebe, born August gth, 1802.
Amelia, born March 9th, 1804.
Three of the sons of Matthias Corwin became lawyers. Mat
thias, after his admission to the bar, became clerk of the court of
common pleas; he was also a captain in the war of 1812; he died in
1822, aged thirty-three years. Jesse was a lawyer at Hamilton, and
served as representative in the legislature of Ohio from Butler
county in 1831.

THE TURTLECREEK VALLEY AND ITS PIONEERS.

The Corwins were among the earliest pioneers on the Turtle-
creek, a stream which empties into the Little Miami after winding
for a dozen miles through a valley unsurpassed in richness and
natural beauty. At the confluence of two branches of this stream
is Lebanon, the seat of justice of Warren county, around which
to-day finely cultivated farms, comfortable farm houses, good grav
eled roads and beautiful scenery attest the foresight of the men who
selected this valley for their homes when it was covered with the
primeval forest.
Judge John Cleves Symmes, of New Jersey, contracted with
the Colonial Congress for the purchase of all the lands between the
Miamis at 66f cents per acre, and when his lands were surveyed the
Turtlecreek valley fell in the third range of townships, called the
Military Range because it was to be paid for by military land war
rants granted for services in the revolutionary war. In this range
are Hamilton, Monroe, the lands of the Shakers of Union Village,
Lebanon and South Lebanon. The fertility of this range was dis
covered by Judge Symmes in an early exploration, and described by
him in a letter to General Jonathan Dayton, his associate in his
great land speculation. No part of Symmes's extensive purchase
became more famous for the natural excellence of its soil than the
valley of the Turtlecreek.
Ichabod Corwin, uncle of Thomas, was the first white man to
settle with his family where Lebanon now stands. He had first seen
and admired this region while serving in a military expedition from
Kentucky against the Indians, and he purchased a tract on the north
branch of Turtlecreek for his future home before the Indian wars had
ended. After the treaty of peace at Ft. Greenville he erected his
cabin, and in March, 1796, brought his family to their home in the
wilderness. In 1798 Matthias Corwin, father of Thomas, came from
Kentucky and settled one-half mile from his brother, his widowed (9)

10 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
mother, brothers and sisters accompanying him. Thomas was at
this time four years of age. It is told that when the pioneers from
miles around assembled to raise the cabin of the newly arrived
immigrants, Matthias took his gun and going but a short distance in
the woods killed a supply of wild turkeys for the bounteous dinner
always prepared on such occasions. The wild deer were common.
The next spring a band of Indians encamped on the hill side not far
from the Corwin home, and the red men were not infrequently seen in
the vicinity for several succeeding years. They respected the treaty
of peace so far as to refrain from murder, but they often stole
horses. In the summer of 1796 Ichabod Corwin had all his horses
stolen by the Indians. His first crop of corn was cultivated with
oxen, and though it grew amid the roots and stumps of a new clear
ing, such was the fertility of the soil that it yielded one hundred
bushels to the acre.
The father of Thomas Corwin was a poor man. He had con^
tracted for his farm when land could be bought for less than a dollar
an acre and on easy payments, yet he purchased only one quarter of
a section, when many of the settlers bought an entire section, and it
seems that he did not complete his payments for two years after his
removal to his new home. The date of his deed is July 1st, 1800.
His land was sold to him by Major Benjamin Stites, the explorer of
the lands between the Miamis, who gave Symmes much information
concerning them and who became the owner of several thousand
acres on the Little Miami. In this deed, which was recorded in Cin
cinnati, Benjamin Stites, of Hamilton county in the Territory North
west of the river Ohio, conveyed to Matthias Corwin, of the same
county and territory, in consideration of one hundred dollars, one
hundred and sixty acres. The land thus conveyed is situated about
one half mile north east of Lebanon and was the boyhood home of
Thomas Corwin.
At the time of the removal of the father of Thomas Corwin to
his new home, it was known that the treaty of Ft. Greenville had
secured permanent peace, and the tide of immigration so long de
layed by savage hostility flowed in and before the close of the
eighteenth century the pioneer's ax rang out in every part of the
Turtlecreek valley. In September, 1802, one month before the
election of delegates to the convention to form a state constitution,
the town of Lebanon was plotted, Ichabod Corwin being one of the
four original proprietors of the first one hundred lots. In order to

THE TURTLECREEK VALLEY AND ITS PIONEERS. II
secure the seat of justice the owners of the land upon which the
town was laid out donated the proceeds of the sale of one half the
lots to aid in the erection of a court house and jail.
The settlers in the forest among whom Thomas Corwin grew
up belonged for the most part to the middle class and were men of
more than average intelligence and worth. He learned to respect
the pioneers of the west and in the halls of Congress paid more
than one eloquent tribute to their sturdy virtues. His boyhood home
was in a wild country. The rich and exuberant garb which nature
gave it, while attesting the fertility of the soil, greatly augmented
the labor of the settler. The noble trees of the primitive forests
stood as enemies against which a war of extermination was to be
waged. An undergrowth of spice bushes was spread over all the
richer parts, almost as thick and impenetrable as the canebrake of
Kentucky, and, like the cane, it disappeared with the advance of
civilization. The gathering of brush into heaps for burning was
among the earliest of the outdoor labors of the settler's boy, and his
hands and cheeks were often smutted with the smoke and coal of
the clearing. To form a path for his children to the school-house the pioneer
on Turtlecreek sometimes harnessed a horse to a log and drove
through the tall weeds and bushes. Smooth foot-paths winding
through the deep woods led from one cabin door to another. When
a settler was sick his neighbors aided him with their gratuitous labor,
planting his corn, tilling or gathering it for him, and in winter sup
plying his family with firewood. Cincinnati, thirty miles distant,
was the nearest point at which merchandise could be purchased ; it
was also the seat of justice until the organization of a state govern
ment and the post-office for all the Turtlecreek valley until 1804.
All the houses on Turtlecreek in the early boyhood of Thomas Cor
win were of logs. The first brick residence in Lebanon was not
built until 1806, when he was twelve years old. The first school-
house he attended was of round logs put up by the neighbors in a
single day, with no tool but the ax, and stood a mile from his
home. The first churches in the valley were more pretentious and
made of logs hewed inside and out, and were comfortable places of
worship, warm in winter and cool in summer.

THE WAGON BOY AND HIS EDUCATION.

The most interesting chapter in the biography of a distinguished
man is the story of his boyhood and education. Especially is this
true of one who rose to eminence without a liberal education.
The three American statesmen who, without the aid of the academy
or college, became most distinguished for popular eloquence were
Patrick Henry, Henry Clay and Thomas Corwin. Of these three
orators we have the fullest and most trustworthy account of the
boyhood, youth and education of Corwin, and for its fullness and trust
worthiness we are indebted chiefly to Anthony Howard Dunlevy, of
Lebanon, who was the author of a newspaper sketch of Corwin,
published in 1840, and of various sketches of pioneer history in
which mention is made of the Corwin family; he also read at a meet
ing of the bar at Lebanon after the death of Corwin a paper giving
in some detail the early life and the literary and legal education of
his departed friend. Dunlevy and Corwin were the sons of neigh
bors; their families were intimate and attended the same church ;
they were nearly of the same age; they attended the same primary
school, and as young men were members of the same debating clubs
and literary societies, studied law at the same time and in the same
office, were admitted to the bar on the same day, began to practice
in the same courts and were hfe-long and intimate friends.
In his fifth year Thomas Corwin attended his first school in the
first school-house erected on Turtlecreek. It was taught then and
for a short time only by Francis Dunlevy, afterwards common pleas
judge. For some years afterward, young Thomas had the advan
tage of only occasional schools, taught by self-appointed teachers, for
the most part in the winter months, in a log school-house erected
not by taxation or subscription but by the labor of the settlers, its
ample fire place occupying the greater portion of one end of the
structure. In 180G, Rev. Jacob Grigg, a Baptist clergyman, who

THE WAGON BOY AND HIS EDUCATION. 13
had received a good education in England, opened a school which
afforded better instruction for the youth of Lebanon, the town then
numbering some forty families. Thomas was at this time about
twelve years old and in the two years this school was continued
attended in the winter only, his services being required at home
during all the busy seasons of farm labor. In these two winters he
received the greater portion of all the education he ever acquired
at school. This teacher encouraged school exhibitions, in which recitations
and dialogues were given, exercises in which both pupils and parents
became interested. For the want of a hall a sort of bower was
erected in front of the little school-house to serve as a stage for the
young performers. In these exercises, according to Dunlevy, who
was a pupil in the school, was first noticed Thomas's talent for pub
lic speaking, his fine elocution attracting attention. In a dialogue
found in the school books entitled "Dr. Neverout and Dr. Doubty,"
taking the part of the former and his brother, Matthias, the latter,
he gained universal applause. From the time of his attendance at
this school he had a strong desire for a liberal education, but his
father had already determined to give an elder son, Matthias, an
education to fit him for a learned profession, and he felt that he
could make a scholar of but one son. Thomas was, therefore, kept
at home to work while Matthias was sent to school. This was a
severe trial for Thomas, but he submitted and labored faithfully on
the farm. The elder brother received a good education. An almanac for
the year I8I2, printed at Lebanon, contains on the title page the
name of Matthias Corwin, jun., as the author of the astronomical
calculations. The books with which Matthias was supplied while at
school served Thomas a useful purpose in his self education, and he
made diligent use of them in his leisure hours. He also early
formed a taste for reading good literature.
Besides his labor on the farm, he was often engaged in wagon
ing the produce of the farm to Cincinnati, and on the return trip
goods for the Lebanon merchants. He drove his two or four horse
team with skill over the bridgeless and ungraveled roads, which in
the wet season often became almost impassable. Five or six
wagons would often travel together, and when a team was stalled in
the mud young Corwin's skill would be called into requisition. The
drivers would camp out over night, and the wit and humor of the

14 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
dark-complexioned wagon boy enlivened the early hours of the night
around the camp fire. His nickname, "the wagon boy," which was
supposed in a political campaign to win for him popular favor even
more than "the mill-boy of the slashes" did for Henry Clay, was
obtained chiefly from his services as the driver of a wagon load of
provisions for the army in the war of 1812.
When the second war was declared against England he was
nearly eighteen years of age, and was a witness of stirring times at
his home in its opening scenes. Lebanon was the rendezvous for
troops raised from the counties of Hamilton, Butler, Warren and
Clermont. Four companies of riflemen, one of artillery and one of
light infantry were assembled in the town in the month of August,
1812, whence they took up the line of march for the Indian frontier
at Urbana. Matthias Corwin, jun., commanded the company of
light infantry. Scarcely had the troops left the little village when
news was spread over the country of Hull's surrender at Detroit and
that the whole frontier of Ohio was exposed to the attack of the
combined British and Indian forces. This intelligence produced con
sternation throughout the Miami valley, but it animated the whole
population with a military spirit. In a few days a large and undis
ciplined multitude assembled on the frontier and General Harrison
took command. Farmers were appealed to for wagon loads of pro
visions for this large and hastily gathered military force. Thomas
Corwin hastened with his father's wagon and team, and reached the
army when encamped on the waters of the St. Mary's which empties
into the Maumee.
This wagon driving incident in the youth of Corwin was fre
quently alluded to in his political career. In the campaign of 1840
the Whig orators of Ohio were able to touch the sympathies of a
grateful people by allusions to the humble but useful and patriotic
service of the boy who drove his wagon load of supplies to relieve
the army which protected the northern and western frontier from the
ravages of a savage foe, and the happy coincidence that the wagon
boy was a candidate for governor and the commander of the army a
candidate for president. At the great mass convention held in
Columbus February 22nd, 1840, which nominated Corwin for gov
ernor. Gen. Charles Anthony, of Springfield, an effective orator,
aroused much enthusiasm by the following passage in his speech :
"When the brave Harrison and his gallant army were exposed to the
dangers and hardships of the northwestern frontier — separated from the

THE WAGON BOY AND HIS EDUCATION. 15
interior, on which they were dependent for their supplies, by the brush wood
and swamps of the St. Mary's country, through which there was no road —
where each wagoner had to make his way wherever he could find a passa
ble place, leaving traces and routes, which are still visible for a space of
several days' journey in length — there was one team which was managed by
a little, dark-complexioned, hardy looking lad, apparently about fifteen or
sixteen years old, who was familiarly called Tom Corwin. Through all of
that service he proved himself a good 'whip' and an excellent ' reinsman.'
And in the situation in which we are about to place him, he will be found
equally skillful."
Thomas continued his labors on his father's farm for some two
years after his return from the frontier. An injury to his knee
received while driving a team rendered him incapable of physical
labor for a long time, during which he had recourse to his books,
and to them he devoted with close application the months which
would otherwise have been tedious. Before attaining his majority
he acquired some knowledge of Latin and other branches of academ
ical learning, and this was doubtless attained from the use at home
of his brother's text books. He early had a thirst for general
knowledge, and, according to Dunlevy, "he was always engaged in
studying some book or subject, whether at school or not, when not
employed in other business. This continued to be his habit through
early life, and he never lost more time in amusement or company
than necessary courtesy required."
His surroundings were not unfavorable to his mental growth.
Only a mile from his home was the court-house, where he could
sometimes hear able lawyers. The Lebanon library society, char
tered in I8II, with John McLean (afterwards Justice McLean) as
one of its directors, had a small but valuable collection of books.
The village debating society kept up intellectual activity. The elder
Corwin was at this period almost constantly a member of the legis
lature, and sometimes speaker of the House, and doubtless encour
aged his children in the pursuit of knowledge.
About the time he attained his majority he determined to be
come a lawyer and entered the office of the clerk of court, then
under the charge of his brother, Matthias, and soon after com
menced the regular study of the law under the direction of Joshua
Collett. His fellow student, Dunlevy, bears testimony to the faith
fulness with which he pursued his study of the prescribed course in
law, and continued his reading of history and the English classics in

16 LIFE OF THOMAS CORWIN.
prose and poetry. He seldom permitted the social gatherings of the
young to win him away from his studies. Almost the only recrea
tion of the law student was found in attendance, on winter evenings,
at the debating societies. Such societies existed in almost every
neighborhood at that time, and in Lebanon all men of talent and lit
erary taste were members of one or more of them. Lawyers,
judges, ministers, physicians, farmers and mechanics participated in
the debates. In these societies young Corwin "gained for himself
a high reputation for youthful eloquence." He was admitted to the
bar at Lebanon by the supreme court, which held a term once
each year in every county. A. H. Dunlevy says:
"He confined himself to his studies with an ardor and industry unus
ual even in that day. By this persevering industry he not only read the
usual course of law prescribed at that time, and which was more extensive
than has been required in later years, but he made himself master of
English history, and, in a good degree, of the English prose and poetic
classics. At the May term of the supreme court in 1817, we applied for
admission to the bar. It was then the practice of the court to examine appli
cants themselves, though they frequently called on members of the bar to
take part in asking questions. For this purpose we were taken into a large
room of the principal hotel of the place in the evening after the adjournment
of the court, and, there to my surprise, I found quite a gathering of ladies
and gentlemen who had come to witness the examination. Mr. Corwin's
reputation had brought them there. Under the circumstances the examina
tion was a thorough one and we were subjected to a severe ordeal. But Mr.
Corwin at least passed it in triumph. His first speech before the court was
made soon after and was a pledge of his future distinction at the bar."

THE LAWYER.

At the time of his admission to the bar Corwin was nearly
twenty-three. He was doubtless well prepared for his profession,
not only by industrious and thorough work as a law student and
his services in the office of the clerk of court, but by his extended
course of reading, which made him a well and even a liberally edu
cated man. Lawyers at that time, even in the v/estern woods,
were fond of illustrations from history and polite literature, of
repeating Latin maxims to the court and adorning their speeches to
the jury with quotations from classic authors; and in the popular
address and oration sometimes expected of them they aimed at a
style of rhetorical finish, not often attempted by their modern suc
cessors. Mr. Corwin had already made a reputation as a fine public
speaker in the debating society and he at once took a high position
as an advocate and soon became well known in all the courts he
attended as a brilliant and able lawyer. He had traveled over a
hard and toilsome road in preparing himself for the law, but he was
spared the trying ordeal of patient waiting and slow climbing
upward after his admission.
The court of common pleas under the first constitution of Ohio
was composed of a president judge in each circuit, and three associ
ate judges in each county, all chosen by the legislature. The associate
judges were farmers or other laymen, appointed on the theory that
the bench should have upon it one member of the legal profession to
decide questions of law and three others not lawyers to furnish com
mon sense. It may be here stated, however, that Francis Dunlevy,
the president judge first elected by the legislature for the circuit
embracing the southwestern third of the state, and who had pre
sided in the courts at Lebanon until about the time of Mr. Corwin's
admission to the bar, was not a regularly educated lawyer, and was
admitted to practice after his retirement from the bench ; he was,
3 (17)

18 LIFE OF THOMAS CORWIN.
however, a man of liberal education and had served in the territorial
legislature and in the convention which formed the state constitution.
When Mr. Corwin commenced practice his preceptor in the law,
Joshua Collett, was president judge, his father one of the associate
judges and his brother clerk of court.
In less than a year after his admission to the bar Mr. Corwin
was appointed by the court prosecuting attorney of his county, and
he continued to serve in that capacity for ten years. The compensa
tion allowed by the court for prosecuting pleas in behalf of the state
was meager, but the office brought him into contact with the members
of a grand jury each term and thus served to give him a wide
acquaintance with the leading men in all parts of the county. He
also learned much of men of a different character. In his speech
against corporal punishment, delivered in the legislature in 1822, he
said: "In the prosecution and sometimes in the defense of criminals
I have had opportunities of viewing and considering the occult and
secret sources of crime more distinctly than I possibly could had I
been an unconcerned observer. I will venture to assert that there is
not in the whole circle of society a situation so favorable to the dis
covery of the true nature and causes of crime as a practice at the bar
of a court of criminal jurisdiction."
Mr. Corwin rode the circuit of the courts of his judicial district,
embracing five or six counties, as was the uniform custom of the
lawyers of his time, whether they were old in the profession and
had an established practice or were young, briefless and penniless
members in search of business. They traveled on horse-back,
sometimes several of them together, with their saddle-bags under
them, an overcoat and umbrella strapped behind the saddle, and
leggings, often well spattered with mud, tied with strings above
and below the knees. Riding the circuit became less common in the
decade between 1830 and 1840 and finally ceased. Subsequent to
1840 it was continued only by the older lawyers who had an estab
lished practice in the different counties of the circuit which made
the toilsome journeyings away from their homes and families remu
nerative. The legal business at each seat of justice came to
be conducted chiefly by resident lawyers, but as late as 1843, the
year succeeding Mr. Corwin's retirement from the office of governor,
he was an attorney in twelve cases, all pending at the same time in
the courts of Butler county. E. D. Mansfield, in his "Personal
Memories," narrates the following:

THE LAWYER. 19
" In the summer of 1825 I took a short journey through the Miami
country on horseback. I was riding alone in a piece of woods between
Hamilton and Lebanon when I overtook a young man also on horseback.
There was something in his appearance which struck my attention. He was
very dark in complexion and hair, with a sort of swarthy look, more like an
Indian than the whites. He was full-fleshed, with a quick, piercing eye and
a pleasant expression. We made ourselves known, and I found he was Cor
win, afterwards known as Tom Corwin, the wagon boy. He got this sobri
quet from the fact that he had driven wagons in his youth. He was now at
the bar and was returning from the court at Hamilton to his home at
Lebanon." On November 13th, 1822, Mr. Corwin was married at Lebanon
to Miss Sarah Ross, a sister of Thomas R. Ross, then a member of
congress. His position at the bar enabled him to support a family
in comfort, to obtain for his office the works of the best legal
writers of his time and to build up gradually a fine library of miscel
laneous books, but he did not accumulate much of worldly goods.
In the management of his own affairs he was not selfish or even
prudent and he did not have the skill and thrift with which to make
his professional earnings grow into an ample fortune. He never
became a man of wealth.
In the earlier years of Mr. Corwin's practice lawyers' fees were
low in Ohio. A charge of a hundred dollars for an attorney's ser
vices in a single case was rare; one of a thousand dollars almost
unheard of. Ejectment suits which most frequently arose from
disputed boundaries in the Virginia military district east of the
Little Miami, were perhaps the most lucrative part of his early practice.
It may be safely assumed that at that time seven hundred and fifty
dollars was above rather than below the average annual income of
the lawyers practicing at Lebanon. The salary of the president
judge, a position coveted by able lawyers in full practice, was $750
from the organization of the state government until 1 816 when it
was increased to $1,000.
In 1830 attorneys and physicians were subject to a tax of five
mills on each dollar of their annual income. The records of the
county commissioners contain a list of the attorneys practicing in
Warren county that year. At that time John McLean was a justice
of the supreme court of the United States; Joshua Collett, judge of
the supreme court of Ohio; and George J. Smith, president judge
of the court of common pleas. The following is the list of practic-

20 LIFE OF THOMAS CORWIN.
ing attorneys : Thomas R. Ross, Phineas Ross, Benjamin Collett,
Thomas Corwin, Francis Dunlevy, A. H. Dunlevy, William McLean
and Jacoby Hallack. The sum of $750 is placed opposite each
name as the income from the practice of law for the year, excepting
those of Thomas Corwin and Jacoby Hallack, the income for the
former being placed at 1 1,000, and that of the latter at $500. As
the figures were merely estimates by the commissioners, and not
returns made by the attorneys themselves, they lose much of their
value as evidences of the real profits of the profession at that time.
For about a dozen years Mr. Corwin devoted himself to his
profession without much mixture of politics with law. Though twice
in this period chosen to the legislature, he was elected not as a party
candidate, and the duties of the office required only a stay at the
state capital during two brief sessions of the general assembly.
After his election to congress, in 1830, he was more of a public man
than a lawyer, although he continued to practice law until his death,
except while a member of the cabinet and minister to Mexico.
With all his brilliant abilities he never took a position among the
truly great lawyers of the nation. What would have been his rank
in his profession had he not been immersed in politics is only a
matter of speculation. It is certain that in a dozen years his fame
as an advocate was wide spread over his state. A merely profes
sional reputation is ephemeral. The fame of a great lawyer who
has given an undivided allegiance to his profession scarcely survives
one generation, and the name of Corwin would hardly live even in
tradition had he not become a great political orator and been hon
ored with high public stations.
Mr. Corwin's distinction at the bar was perhaps chiefly due to
his remarkable gifts of eloquence, wit and humor; but he was also
distinguished for a native keenness of discrimination wliich prevented
him from using any authority not strictly in point, or any evidence
that could be turned against him. It is not improbable that his
readiness in speaking, his natural brightness of intellect, the fascina
tion of his manner and his infinite humor, all tended to give him the
reputation of a brilliant rather than an able'and learned lawyer; but
on great occasions he could bring forth in his arguments to the court
and jury a wealth of legal and miscellaneous learning which was the
result of laborious study.
In his demeanor at the bar he did not forget the dignity becom
ing a court of justice. Though he was always called Tom Corwin,

THE LAWYER. 21
had been reared among pioneers who wore rough homespun or
buckskin and was familiar with the boisterous hilarity of the tavern,
he was always a gentleman. He learned to be careful about his
apparel and at least after he acquired distinction was generally the
best dressed man in the court. His coat was of rich, plain black ;
his waistcoat frequently of fine black velvet and his shirt-front
ruffled in the latest style of the times. His hair was carefully
brushed and he shaved himself every day. In conducting a trial he
was invariably the perfect gentleman. He was respectful to the
court, courteous to the jury and kind and considerate to his adver
saries and the witnesses. There is abundance of evidence that his
uniform urbanity in the court-room was noteworthy. Judge George
J. Smith, of Lebanon, who was his first law student, as a lawyer
tried scores of cases with him, and as a judge presided in the courts
in which he practiced, wrote after Corwin's death :
" When I came to the bar in 1820 Mr. Corwin was in the full tide of
professional success. His character as an able advocate and as an eloquent
forensic orator was already well established. For nearly nine years we
attended the same courts, and our friendship became warm and lasting. In
1829 the young man whose legal education he had superintended was ele
vated to the bench, and for seven years, except when absent on public busi
ness, he regularly practiced in the courts over which I presided. With his
professional brethren, his deportment was always genial, kind and gentle
manly. On no occasion, so far as my recollection now serves me, have I
seen him engaged in the petty squabbles — crimination and recrimination —
from which the bar, unfortunately, is at times not wholly exempt. His
weapon was satire, brilliant, incisive and effective, but with so keen an edge
that it left no sting behind it. His deportment to the court was uniformly
courteous, deferential and respectful."
He did not often accept invitations to make public speeches.
At the fourth of July celebrations in his own town he delivered the
oration in 1822, and read the Declaration of Independence in 1825.
He made a Masonic address at Hamilton on St. John's day, 1826,
and addressed the Union literary society of Miami University at the
annual commencement exercises September 28th, 1830. His speech
in the legislature against the bill for the reinstatement of public
whipping as a penalty for petit larceny is the earhest of his efforts
which have been preserved. It was made at a time when a large
portion of the people of Ohio who had come from states which re
tained whipping as a punishment for steaHng looked upon it as the nat-

22 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
ural and obvious penalty for this offense ; in their minds it was insep
arable from petit larceny. The economy of the whipping post,
which would relieve the tax-payers from the cost of maintaining cul
prits in prison, was also urged. The remarks of the young legisla
tor show the repugnance of refined sensibilities to this barbarous
punishment, as well as a philosophical insight into the nature and
objects of criminal laws. The bill was defeated.
As he rode the circuit he not only earned a reputation for tal
ents, but unconsciously he was all the while gaining a wonderful
popularity. He was one of whom it may be said that he was born
to be popular, and he could not help attracting the love and regard
of the people. He was liked by judges, lawyers, farmers and inn
keepers. His striking and intelligent countenance was pleasing and
winning ; he was always polite and affable ; his social qualities were
of the highest order; the finest talker of his time, a wonder
ful story teller, his humor inimitable, his genius often shining
to better advantage in conversation than in the public address, he
was a delightful companion. At the time of his election to the office
of governor he was the most popular man in Ohio. The qualities
which in the young lawyer attracted regard and admiration in the
social circle were never lost, and, on the last night of his life, drew
around his chair to hear his conversation the most distinguished men
in the national capital.

BEGINNINGS IN POLITICS.

In 1 821, four years after he commenced the practice of law,
Mr. Corwin consented for the first time to be a candidate at the
polls. Nominations by the caucus or convention method had not
yet been introduced in Ohio and any person could become a candi
date for an elective office by the simple announcement of his name.
Mr. Corwin was first announced with his consent as a candidate for
representative in the legislature on July 23rd, 1821, in the Western
Star, the only newspaper printed in his county. The vote he
received on the second Tuesday of October was a proof of his popu
larity at home. There were six candidates for the two seats in the
lower branch of the legislature to which the county was entitled, and
Corwin was probably the youngest of them, and at least three of the
candidates had already served in the legislature and were among the
best known public men of the county. Corwin received the second
highest number of votes and the next year he and his co-representa
tive were re-elected without opposition.*
Mr. Corwin's course as a legislator seems to have been entirely
satisfactory to his constituents and he could without doubt have
continued in the office had he desired to do so. After two elections
he declined further service. The erroneous statement in the article
on Corwin in the American Cyclopedia that he was first elected to
the legislature in 1822 and served seven years has been taken as
accurate by several writers. He was a member of the general
assembly three times only, viz: in I82I, 1822 and 1829, and each
time he was one of two members from his county in the lower
house. The files of the Lebanon newspaper show that he declined a
re-election in 1823 and that at no time was he a candidate for the
legislature and defeated.
* The vote for two representatives from ¦Warren county in the general assembly
was, in 1821 : John Bigger, 1042; Thomas Corwin, 971; Francis Dunlevy, 701; George
Kesling, 437; James 'W. Lanier, 219; ¦Warner M. Leeds, 155. In 1822 : Thomas Cor
win, 1 162; John Bigger, 1 147. (23)

24 LIFE OF THOMAS CORWIN.
At the time of his first two elections there were no questions of
party politics entering into the canvasses. Throughout his youth the
great mass of the voters and nearly all the leading men of his
county were of the Jeffersonian school and in that school he had
been reared. His father was a presidential elector on the Madison
ticket in 1812. The name Federalist had become a term of reproach.
A candidate was never announced as a member of a political party
or a supporter of this or that man for president. His success at the
polls depended more on his personal popularity and supposed fitness
for the office than on his views on national questions. This was true
even in elections for congress, and a biographer of Justice John
McLean makes the astonishing statement that when a lawyer of
Lebanon and a candidate for re-election to congress in 1814,
McLean received not only every vote cast for congressman in his
district, which included Cincinnati, but the vote of every voter who
went to the polls.
At the first two presidential elections after Mr. Corwin became a
voter, although an electoral ticket was put forward in Ohio in oppo
sition to the nominees of the RepubUcan congressional caucus, it
was without hope of election, and, the result being foreknown, but a
small proportion of the voters of the state went to the polls in the
November elections of 1816 and 1820. In the campaign of 1824
when the congressional caucus system received its death blow and
there were four candidates for president, all claiming to be Jef
fersonian Democrats, and three of them with electoral tickets in
Ohio, the leading men of Warren county who had been united in the
elections of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, were for the first time
divided in their choice for president. The name of Judge Francis
Dunlevy was placed on the electoral ticket for John Quincy Adams ;
that of John Bigger, an ex-speaker of the Ohio house of represen
tatives, on the ticket for Henry Clay ; Thomas R. Ross, then a mem
ber of congress, when the election went to the House, voted for
Crawford, while Jackson received a plurality of the popular vote of
the county. The friends of all the candidates for president united in
the support of Jeremiah Morrow for governor, who was this year a
candidate for re-election, and received nearly all of the votes of the
county. The total vote in the county for president was small, being
a thousand less than had been cast in October at the state election,
and stood: Jackson, 750; Adams, 502; Clay, 311. There was no

BEGINNINGS IN POLITICS. 25
electoral ticket in Ohio for Crawford. At this election young Cor
win supported Clay, who carried the state of Ohio.
Before the next presidential election the people of the county
began to be divided into two parties. The administration of John
Quincy Adams from the first day of its existence met with an oppo
sition more determined and virulent than had ever before assailed a
president. The charge of "bargain and corruption" between the
president and his secretary of state, Henry Clay, though shown to
be false, was an effective weapon against the administration, and the
cry "hurrah for Jackson" rang throughout the Miami valley. Mr.
Corwin's position was that of a firm but temperate and dignified sup
porter of the administration. He was a leading spirit in the first
mass convention in his county of the friends of the administration,
held in the court house at Lebanon November I7th, 1827. Ex-Gov
ernor Morrow presided, and on taking the chair addressed the meet
ing at length ; Judge Joshua Collett and John Bigger were the secre
taries, and Thomas Corwin chairman of the committee on resolu
tions, which reported an elaborate address favoring the re-election
of Mr. Adams. At the Ohio state Adams convention, held at
Columbus December 28th, 1827, the chairman was ex-Governor
Morrow; the secretaries, Thomas Corwin, of Warren, and William
Daugherty, of Franklin.
In 1828 caucus nominations for members of the legislature
were made for the first time in Warren county and a Jackson ticket
put in the field. The convention system of nomination was de
nounced by the anti-Jackson party as an undemocratic contrivance
which abridged the liberties of the people. At the elections this
year the voters of the county were nearly evenly divided between
the parties. In October the Jackson candidate for governor received
a majority of 62 votes and the Jackson candidates for the legislature
were elected by small majorities, but at the presidential election in
November, Adams received a majority of 37 over Jackson.
The result of the next election was in much doubt and in 1829
both parties induced their strongest men to become candidates for
the legislature. Thomas R. Ross, ex-member of congress, and
General Benjamin Baldwin were nominated by a caucus of the
Jackson party. Jeremiah Morrow and Thomas Corwin, both against
their personal inclination, consented to the use of their names in the
doubtful contest. They were not the nominees of any caucus but

26 LIFE OF THOMAS COKWIN.
were known to be opponents of the Jackson administration. They
were elected by decided majorities. *
Thus Mr. Corwin after an interval of six years became again a
representative in the legislature. The house to which he was elected
consisted of thirty-seven Jackson and thirty-five anti-Jackson men.
Thomas L. Hamer, the talented young Democratic lawyer of Brown
county, was elected speaker, and his course as a presiding officer
was characterized by fairness and impartiality rather than a narrow
partisan spirit. In appointing the fifteen standing committees he
appointed a majority of Jackson men on eight, and a majority of
anti-Jackson men on seven. He appointed Mr. Corwin chairman of
the judiciary committee and Mr. Morrow chairman of the finance
committee. None of Mr. Corwin's speeches at this session have
been preserved, the newspapers giving only meager reports of his
remarks on the matters upon which he was called to give his reasons
for his vote. In a debate participated in by several members on a
bill authorizing a survey for the extension of the Miami canal from
Dayton to Ft. Defiance, he made a speech which was highly com
mended by those who heard the discussion as an eloquent and mas
terly argument in favor of the measure, which became a law.
In 1830 Mr. Corwin was urged to become a candidate for con
gress. His district was composed of the counties of Butler and
Warren, and a large majority of its voters were favorable to Jack
son. In Butler county the Jackson men had outnumbered their
opponents more than two to one in the state and presidential elec
tions of 1828. Before the division of the people into political par
ties, when there was a better prospect of election, Mr. Corwin had
been earnestly solicited by his friends and admirers to run for con
gress, but he had from term to term declined in favor of some other
candidate for whose pohtical aspirations he entertained a tender
regard. His wife's brother, Thomas R. Ross, had been elected to
congress three times. In 1824 Mr. Ross was defeated in this district
by John Woods, of Hamilton, who served two terms. In 1828 Mr.
Woods, who opposed the election of Jackson to the presidency, was
defeated by James Shields, of Butler county, the Jackson candidate,
who received a large majority of the votes of the two counties.
Mr. Shields was a candidate for re-election, having been nominated
^- Vote in Warren county for two representatives in the legislature, October, 1829:
Jeremiah Morrow, (anti-Jackson) - - 1079. Thomas R. Ross, (Jackson) - - - 846.
Thomas Corwin, (anti-Jackson)- 1058. Benjamin Baldwin, (Jackson)- -815.

BEGINNINGS IN POLITICS. 27
in the summer of 1830 by a Jackson convention held at Monroe.
Mr. Corwin finally consented to the announcement of his can
didacy, perhaps with little hopes of his election, and was doubtless
as much surprised as his friends were gratified by the handsome
majority he received. The district remained Democratic and a ma
jority of the voters at the same election voted for the Jackson candi
date for governor.*
The canvass, so far as can now be learned, was conducted with
out public speaking on either side. The only speech known to have
been delivered by Mr. Corwin in the district in the canvass was a
literary address at the commencement of Miami University a few
weeks before the election, and the invitation for this address was
accepted before he became a candidate. The result of the election
was largely due to the personal popularity of the successful candi
date and no doubt in part to other causes which cannot now be
well ascertained. In the latter years of his life Mr. Corwin sometimes amused his
friends by teUing them of what he called "the night-shirt issue," on
which he was first elected to congress. The story as he told it was
that at the beginning of the campaign he had little or no hope of
election, but he learned that the serious charge was made against
his opponent of habitually sleeping in a night-shirt ; then he began
to have hopes of election, feeling confident that the Jacksonian democ
racy would not unite in support of a man who was too good to
sleep in the shirt he wore in the day time. No allusion to such a
charge in this canvass is to be found in the files of the Lebanon
newspaper which supported Mr. Corwin, but the story was doubtless
not entirely without foundation. In the campaign of 1828, when
Mr. Corwin's opponent was first nominated for congress, there were
published certificates that prominent men of the Jackson party had
declared that Mr. Shields was not fit for congress, and that when a
¦*Vote cast in the second Ohio congressional district, October, 1830 :
For Congressman —
Thomas Corwin, ( an ti- Jackson ) - -
James Shields, ( Jackson )
Corwin's majority.
For Governor —
Robert Lucas, (Jackson) - -
Duncan McArthur, (anti- Jackson) -
Lucas's majority, - • ¦ 381

UTLER.

WARREN.

TOTAL.

105 1

1 741

2792

1243

8i6

2059

- - •

- 733

1490

U28

2618

815

1422

2237

28 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
member of the legislature he was only fit to correct the bad gram
mar of a bill and to stand before a looking-glass and powder himself;
that he always made his appearance in the House with his hair
powdered and his cambric shirt on, but at night he exchanged his
cambric shirt for another, and that he himself had said that it was
his usual custom to powder himself in the morning, and that when
at home he powdered his hair before going out to plow. Doubtless
in 1830 something was heard about the candidate who kept a night
shirt and powdered his hair, but these were hardly the great issues
on which Corwin was first sent to congress.
The politics of the two counties of Butler and Warren which
formed the district from which Thomas Corwin was first sent to
congress presents a curious subject for the student of sociology.
These two counties were formed by the same act of the legislature ;
they were settled about the same time by the same class of hardy
pioneers ; they lie side by side and have the same fertile soil ; for
more than a quarter of a century their inhabitants were alike in
pohtics and gave similar majorities for the same state and national
tickets, but about 1830 they separated politically, and from that time
have never given majorities for the same national ticket. This fact
does not admit of an easy explanation. The war of 1812 in some
parts of the country produced a reorganization of parties, but in
these counties it did not change their names or principles ; both were
equally enthusiastic in the support of that war. Jackson had his
strongest following in the farming districts, but both these counties
were agricultural. Certain it is that in the days of General Jackson,
Butler became decidedly Democratic and Warren decidedly anti-
Democratic, and they have so continued ever since.

IN CONGRESS.

Corwin took his seat as a member of the house of representa
tives at the first session of the twenty-second congress, which was
commenced on December 5th, 1831, and was terminated on July
1 7th, 1832, a session, in the opinion of Benton, the most memorable
in the annals of our government, because it was the one at which the
great contest for the renewal of the charter of the bank of the
United States was brought on and decided. In the list of members
of both houses of this congress are found the names of many men,
of brilliant talents, some already illustrious and others who after
wards became so. In the senate were Webster, Clay, Benton,
Ewing, Clayton, Tyler and, presiding as vice-president, Calhoun ; in
the house, John Quincy Adams, Edward Everett, Rufus Choate,
Richard M. Johnson, John Bell and James K. Polk. Both branches
of congress as well as the executive department were controlled by
the Democrats. At this time Mr. Corwin was thirty-seven years old ; he had been
elected under circumstances that must have been gratifying; he had
already won distinction for oratory at the bar, in the legislature and
by occasional addresses; he could hardly have been unconscious of
his ability to hold the attention and to sway the minds of a legisla
tive body, yet he permitted both sessions of the term to which he
had been elected to pass without once taking the floor. The first
session of the second congress to which he was elected had nearly
ended when on April 4th, 1834, he rose to make his first speech in
the house, in the introduction to which he referred to " the silence I
have rigidly maintained for nearly three sessions of congress." On
this occasion he made an elaborate argument on the pubhc deposits,
a subject which had for three months engrossed the attention of
congress, and spoke for an hour on three different days. His
reported speeches number but six in the nine years of his continu
ous service as a member of the house. In his last speech in con-
(29)

30 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
gress before resigning to become a candidate for governor, he could
say with a good grace: "This house, Mr. Speaker, knows that I am
not given to much babbling here ; yes, sir, you all know that like
Balaam's ass, I never speak here until I am kicked into it. I may
claim credit, therefore for sincerity, when I declare that a strong
sense of justice alone could have called me into this debate."
From his first entrance in congress Mr. Corwin was, by his
votes, a supporter of the measures of the new political party, which
about this time took the name of National Republican, and not long
after. Whig. He voted for the recharter of the bank of the United
States at his first session, and throughout his terms of service favored
the protective system in levying duties and internal improvements
by the federal government. Mr. Corwin was elected a representative
for five successive terms, and in all that time there was a Democratic
president in the White House and a Democratic speaker sat in the
chair of the house of representatives at every term except the last
He would have been unable to increase his popularity at home
by securing federal appointments for his constituents had he desired
to do so.
After his first election he was placed in a new congressional dis
trict which gave decided majorities against Jackson and VanBuren,
and thenceforward he could become a candidate without much
doubt of his election. His name was uniformly placed before the
people as a candidate by the common consent of his party friends
and without the formality of a district convention. In important
political campaigns he made speeches in his district and at other
places in the state, and sometimes held joint discussions with his
competitor for congress or some other Democratic speaker ; but large
political meetings were not common in Ohio at this period. His dis
trict was composed of the counties of Warren, Clinton and High
land, and his opposing candidates in this district were, in 1832,
Nathaniel McLean, of Warren ; in 1834, Joseph J. McDowell, of
Highland, and in 1836, Samuel H. Hale, of Chnton. In 1838 he
was elected without opposition.
Rarely as Mr. Corwin appeared in debate he became known as
one of the best speakers in the house. One of his contemporaries
wrote in the American Review: "The announcement of his name
was an assurance of profound stillness in the house. That still
ness continued while he occupied the floor, except as it was some
times broken by demonstrations of excitement, such as wit, argument

IN CONGRESS. 31
and eloquence like his must occasionally produce. " Some of his
best speeches were delivered with little time for preparation. He
concluded his elaborate and able speech on the surplus revenue in
1837 with an apology for detaining the house too long, which he
found in the fact that he had not "the most distant thought of
addressing the house until the afternoon of the preceding day and
without further time for arrangement of topics, he could not hope to
preserve that order which is favorable to brevity as well as perspic
uity. " His great speech in favor of the continuation of the Cum
berland road through the western states is a fine illustration of the
truth that sohd arguments can be enlivened with wit and humor with
out losing their effectiveness.
The most famous of his speeches of this period is his reply to
General Crary, on February 15th, 1840. Isaac E. Crary was a
member from Michigan, who had taken the occasion of a discussion
on the Cumberland road to attack the military record of General
Harrison, who had already been nominated as the Whig candidate
for president. The defense of the hero of Tippecanoe, who lived
in Ohio, fell upon Mr. Corwin, and the next day he took the floor
and delivered the speech which was read throughout the nation and
has never been forgotten. It had already been determined that Cor
win should be the Whig candidate for governor of Ohio. The occa
sion was one that seldom comes in the life of a politician. Never
before were sarcasm and satire so effectively employed in the debates
of congress, and they were all the more effective because the speech
abounded in good humor and was without bitterness or any unkind
or unfriendly allusions to the gentleman to whom he replied. As
suming that the member from Michigan, who was a militia general,
had derived his knowledge of the art of war from services as a
militia officer in time of peace, he described the ridiculous features
of the old system of militia training which had already fallen into
general contempt. The speaker had himself often been a witness
of the scenes of intoxication and fighting at the general muster of
the militia, and there is a tradition that he had employed the same
weapons of satire and had used the same images and given much the
same description, in the court of a justice of the peace near his
home, while defending a militiaman charged with an assault and bat
tery committed upon an officer on muster day. It was then his pur
pose to overwhelm with ridicule the pompous militia officer who was
the prosecuting witness.

32 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
The reply to General Crary gave Thomas Corwin a national
reputation as a wit. Compliments were showered on the orator
from his associates in congress and newspaper writers at the capital.
John Bell, of Tennessee, speaking in the same debate said he had not
in the twelve years of his service in the house, heard a more elo
quent or effective speech. John Quincy Adams referred to the van
quished militia general as "the late Mr. Crary of Michigan." A
writer for a New York newspaper said that it was the general opin
ion that this was the most effective speech delivered for many years
in congress; Mr. Corwin, he wrote, "possesses all the quaUfications
of mind and manner to make him a perfect orator. He puts ' his
antagonist to death in a manner so courteous and refined, with so
much good nature and for so many good reasons that, like Hastings
before Burke, the opponent, guilty or not guilty, feels that he
deserves his condemnation." The following abridgment of an article
written at Washington after the delivery of this speech, and pub
lished in the New York Morning Herald, gives an estimate of Mr.
Corwin's rank as an orator and debater at this time :
" Mr. Corwin, of Ohio, followed in defense of General Harrison and
made one of those speeches which he alone is capable of making. Mr.
Corwin, permit me to say, is the ablest, most eloquent and successful speaker
in the American congress; his manner and his matter are purely original;
they hold no alliance or affinity with the eloquence of Webster or Clay and
Mr. Corwin in his career as a statesman or as an aspirant for parliamentary
fame, does not come in collision with either of these eminent men. He is
remarkably well read in the light and polite literature of the age; he is an
elegant scholar without being pedantic ; a happy and good natured sUain of
irony and satire plays throughout all his parliamentary efforts ; and he proba
bly more resembles Sheridan than any man that has flourished since the
palmy and bright days of the British house of commons. Mr. Corwin makes
up the larger part of his speeches with Attic salt and refined humor, but
when he suffers himself to soar to the higher regions of pathos he is
pathetic beyond conception ; and nothing can excel the majesty and beauty
of his bursts of passion or the severity of his chaste and withering invective.
He made his appearance in congress about ten years ago but never spoke till
the year 1834 to my knowledge; since that period he has spoken on four
occasions, and though he spoke on each occasion impromptu, he won by his
efforts a reputation that might well be envied. He is excessively modest and
notwithstanding he has been many years in congress he experiences great
embarrassment on first taking the floor and it is only after the most pressing
persuasion that his friends can get him to speak at all."

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1840.

Corwin was nominated as the Whig candidate for governor of
Ohio at a state convention held in Columbus on the 21st and 22nd
days of February, 1840. Harrison had been nominated for presi
dent at a convention held at Harrisburg, December 4th, 1839. The
Whigs of Ohio had but recently become reconciled to the convention
method of nominating candidates for state and county offices, but
their electoral tickets in preceding presidential campaigns had been
selected at state conventions. The Ohio Whig convention of 1840
was called to nominate an electoral ticket and a candidate for gov
ernor, the chief executive being the only state officer elected by the
people under the first constitution of Ohio. It was a large mass-
convention of voters from all parts of the state, and, although it was
winter time, its sessions were held in the open air. The whole of the
second day's proceedings, as well as the marching of the procession,
were in continuous torrents of rain.
The selection of a candidate for governor to be reported to the
convention was referred to a large committee consisting of ten
persons from each of the nineteen congressional districts. On the
first ballot of the committee Thomas Corwin received 120 out of the
190 votes. His name was then unanimously agreed upon by the
committee and he was unanimously nominated by the convention.
He accepted the nomination in a letter from Washington dated
March 1 8th, and tendered his resignation of the office of representa
tive in congress to take effect in May following. On the 4th day of
May Mr. Corwin attended a great Whig meeting at Bahimore, at
which some of the most eminent Whig members of congress were
present, among whom were Clay, Webster, Preston, Crittenden and
FiUmore. The campaign of 1840 was the most remarkable in the history
of our country, and nowhere was it more remarkable than in the state
in which Harrison and Corwin lived. The rising of the people in
4 (33)

34 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
behalf of the Whig candidates seemed to be spontaneous, and the
whole state teemed with monster mass-meetings and processions and
resounded with the noise of drums and fifes. Gray-haired soldiers
of the revolution marched in the processions. Farmers with their
wives, sons and daughters in jolting wagons left their homes at mid
night to hear Tom Corwin the next day. The larger meetings were
measured in acres. The largest meeting of the campaign in the
United States was at Dayton, Ohio, at which General Harrison spoke,
and it was reported that the multitude covered ten acres.
It has been said there was more enthusiasm and less thought in
this campaign than in any other. Many novel features made it
highly picturesque on the part of the Whigs, but some of them were
of a character to make the judicious grieve. The log-cabin, hard-
cider and coon-skin were used as symbols by the Whigs to show
their sympathy with the poorest and humblest classes. General
Harrison was said to live in a log-cabin, but his residence at North
Bend was rather a stately mansion, and though a part had been
constructed of logs, it was all covered with boards and painted
white. Log-cabins were placed on wheels and drawn to the meet
ings, and others were raised in the public places of large cities and
the people were invited to drink hard-cider in them out of gourds.
From the last two syllables of Tippecanoe the canoe became a famil
iar object in the processions, and immense frames fashioned after the
canoe were placed on wagons and drawn by six or more horses a
distance of many miles to political meetings.
The novel features of the campaign were devised soon after the
nomination of Harrison, and were seen at large political gatherings
even in the winter before the presidential election. At the conven
tion which nominated Corwin log-cabins and canoes were conspicu
ous in the procession. One of the canoes, drawn by eight horses,
was seventy feet long, held fifty-six persons, and had been made out
of the trunk of an immense sycamore tree. In the same proces
sion were large log-cabins, well built, roofed with clap-boards, hav
ing doors, windows and chimneys, some of them with fires burning
and smoke issuing from the chimneys. It was said that some of
these cabins had been brought on wheels a distance of from fifty to
one hundred miles. Cuyahoga county sent to the convention a full
rigged brig from the lake, a distance of one hundred and forty miles.
It had been delayed on its long journey by rain-storms ; it had been
wrecked ; the wheels on which it was placed sank up to their hubs in

CAMPAIGN OF EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY. 35
mud, but it arrived in the afternoon of the second day, and was
drawn in the procession by six white horses. A less common fea
ture was an immense ball, perhaps ten feet in diameter, on which
were inscribed catch phrases of the campaign and the names of the
states which had already given Whig majorities. It was propelled
by men at the ends of a pole which served as an axle. Such a ball
was seen on Broadway in Cincinnati and was said to have been rolled
from the eastern cities. As it was rolled a song was sung or
chanted. With heart and soul.
This ball we roll.
As rolls this ball. Farewell dear Van,
Van's reign does fall You're not our man ;
And he may look To guard the ship
To Kinderhook. AVe'U try old Tip.
Some one has said that Harrison was sung into the presidency.
Songs were written without number and sung at the Whig meetings.
The two songs of the campaign which became most famous through
out the land originated in Ohio. The first of these was the ' ' Buckeye
Cabin Song," written by Otway Curry, of Marysville, Ohio, and first
sung at the convention which nominated Corwin by a band of sing
ers in a cabin made of buckeye logs, taken to the convention
from Union county. The other was "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too,"
written by A. C. Ross, of Zanesville. Benton complained that
even steamboats and public places were crowded with parties singing
Whig doggerel ballads. Some verses are given as specimens.
Oh, where, tell me where, was your buckeye cabin made ?
Oh, where, tell me where, was your buckeye cabin made ?
'Twas built among the merry boys who wield the plow and spade,
Where the log-cabins stand in the bonnie buckeye shade.
Chorus: 'Twas built, etc.
Oh, why, tell me why, does your buckeye cabin go ?
Oh, why, tell me why, does your buckeye cabin go ?
It goes against the spoilsman — for well the builders know
It was Harrison that fought for the cabins long ago.
Chorus: It goes against the, etc.
Old Tip, he wears a homespun suit.
He has no ruffled shirt — wirt — wirt,
But Mat he has the golden plate
And he's a little squirt — wirt — wirt.

36 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
What has caused this great commotion — motion — motion
Our country through ?
It is the ball a rolling on
For Tippecanoe and Tyler too, Tippecanoe and Tyler too.
And with them we'll beat little Vart ;
Van, Van is a used up man.

Then let us cheer that wagon boy.
Who drove that noble team wo-hoy !
Among the songs sung in Ohio was one composed by John
W. VanCleve, of Dayton, and published in a campaign paper called
the Log-Cabin printed in that city, two stanzas of which are given :
Success to you, Tom Corwin,
Tom Corwin, our true hearts love you ;
Ohio has no nobler son.
In worth there's none above you.
And she will soon bestow
On you her highest honor.
And then our state will proudly show
Without a stain upon her.
Success to you, Tom Corwin,
AVe've seen with warm emotion
Your faithfulness to freedom's cause,
Your boldness, your devotion ;
And we will ne'er forget
That you our rights have guarded;
Our grateful hearts shall pay the debt.
And worth shall be rewarded.
For the methods resorted to in this campaign, so little compli
mentary to popular intelligence, the successful candidates should no
more be held responsible than should Lincoln for the carr}'ing of
fence rails in the political processions of 1860. Harrison and
Corwin would doubtless have preferred to be elected by arguments
addressed to the reason and judgment of the voters rather than by
appeals to their passions and prejudices. The campaign methods did
not please all in the Whig ranks. As early as April, 1840, a young
cadet at West Point, the adopted son of the distinguished Whig
statesman, Thomas Ewing, wrote: "You are no doubt certain that
General Harrison will be our next president. I do not think there
is the least hope of such a change, since his friends have thought
proper to envelop his name with log cabins, gingerbread, hard cider
and such humbugging, the sole object of which is plainly to deceive
and mislead his ignorant and prejudiced but honest fellow citizens.

CAMPAIGN OF EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY. 37
whilst his qualifications, his honesty, his merits and services are
merely alluded to." The name of this young cadet was William
Tecumseh Sherman.
The campaign opened early. The first of the large mass meet
ings attended by Corwin was in his own district on the 22nd of May.
It was a congressional district convention called to nominate a
candi_date to succeed Mr. Corwin in congress and was held at Wil
mington, the most central of the county seats of the district.
Efforts were made to have an immense assembly present and they
were successful. The Whig papers estimated the number present at
10,000. Large delegations came from all the counties. The people
came on foot, on horseback, in wagons, and carried banners, flags
and coon skins. From some of the wagons were dispensed corn
dodgers and hard cider. Log-cabins and immense canoes were a
prominent feature of the procession.
Nathaniel McLean, who had been the Jackson candidate for
congress against Corwin in 1832, was the president of the meeting.
The main business of the convention was transacted by the people
from the three counties separating into three meetings and each
meeting selecting fifty delegates to nominate a candidate for congress.
These delegates agreed upon the name of Jeremiah Morrow as the
candidate for the unexpired term of Mr. Corwin and also for the suc
ceeding term of two years. Their report was unanimously con
firmed in the mass convention. Thomas Corwin, the Whig candi
date for governor, was then presented and made what is believed to
have been his first speech in the campaign, and for the first time
spoke to one of those immense political meetings which he was so
frequently afterwards called upon to address. He spoke at consid
erable length and succeeded in arousing the listening thousands to a
high enthusiasm.
In July Mr. Corwin had a joint discussion at Columbus with
Thomas L. Hamer, the ablest and most popular speaker of Ohio on
the Democratic side. The next month he entered upon an extensive
tour of the state, speaking on August 1st at a large meeting at
Waynesville, in his own county. This was not only before the time
of railroads, but when there were but few turnpikes in Ohio, and he
traveled, often through mud and rain, and spoke in nearly every
county. It was in this campaign that he became widely known as
the finest stump speaker in America. While General Harrison, as
the candidate for president, drew the largest crowds, there was every-

38 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
where a desire to hear the witty wagon boy, and his meetings, even
in the newer portions of the state, often numbered thousands. The
Whigs were greatly encouraged by the results of the elections in
other states, some of which voted in the spring, some in August and
some in September. As state after state gave large majorities for
the Whigs they became more and more confident of victory in Ohio
and in the nation, and their singers believed the words of their bal
lad, "Van, Van, is a used up man."
But the Democrats did not give up the contest until the votes
were counted. Mr. Corwin's competitor was Wilson Shannon, a
lawyer of St. Clairsville, then governor of the state, and a strong
and popular man, who was subsequently minister to Mexico and
governor of the territory of Kansas. He made a vigorous canvass
and was assisted by such popular speakers as Senator William Allen,
ex-Congressman Hamer and Vice-President Richard M. Johnson,
who was a candidate for re-election. When the votes were counted
it was found that Corwin had a majority of over 16,000, nearly
twice as large as any candidate for governor or president had
received in the state since the division of the voters into two politi
cal parties.* The total vote of the state was much larger than had ever be
fore been cast at either a state or presidential election. Mr. Cor
win's congressional district gave him a majority of over 2, 000, and the
Connecticut Western Reserve nearly 10,000, every one of the eleven
counties in that extensive region, peopled by emigrants from New
England, casting a decided Whig majority. Cincinnati, a city of
50,000 inhabitants, gave a Whig majority of about 1,300, but the
country townships of Hamilton county were strongly Democratic and
that county gave Corwin a majority of only 21.
'^Vote for governor, October, 1840;
Thomas Corwin (Whig) . . . 145,442
Wilson Shannon (Democrat) . .... 129,312

Corwin's majority  16,130

GOVERNOR AND EX-GOVERNOR— 1840-1844.

Corwin was inaugurated governor and read his inaugural ad
dress to the two houses of the legislature on December 1 6th, 1840.
The office to which he had been triumphantly elected was one of
more honor and dignity than responsibility. The followers of
Jefferson who had formed the first constitution of Ohio had assigned
to the chief magistrate few duties. In no state constitution were
jealousy of executive power and fear of executive patronage more
strongly marked. The governor did not have the power to veto any
act of the general assembly and, in matters of legislation, he could
only make recommendations and give information of the state of the
government. There was not one important office that could be
filled by his appointment except in case of a vacancy occurring in
the recess of the legislature.
Although Corwin was chief magistrate of Ohio and commander-
in-chief of its army and militia, almost all that was expected of him
was to write an annual message, sign the commissions of the state
and act upon applications for reprieves and pardons. The salary of
the office was fifteen hundred dollars and the state did not furnish an
executive mansion. It had been the custom from the organization
of the state government for the governor to reside at his home and
to make such visits to the capital as his public duties required. The
majority of Corwin's predecessors had been farmers who found that
the duties of the office did not much interfere with their labors of
planting and harvesting. Not until 1844 did a governor make
Columbus his residence during his term of office.
During his term of two years Governor Corwin was much of the
time at his home in Lebanon and continued the practice of his pro
fession. The office did not afford much scope for his talents. He
is reported to have said that his principal duties were "to appoint
notaries public and to pardon convicts in the penitentiary." In the
exercise of his constitutional prerogative of granting reprieves and
(39)

40 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
pardons his course was such as to bring upon him the animadversion
of those who were actuated by a less humane spirit and held less
philosophical views of punishment. He had opposed when a young
member of the legislature the degrading punishment of public whip
ping, and when chief magistrate he did not approve of the stigma
of disfranchisement fastened upon those sentenced to the peniten
tiary. This disfranchisement under the law at that time rendered
' them forever incompetent to be electors, jurors or witnesses, or to
hold any office of honor or profit in the state, unless they received
from the governor a general pardon under his hand and seal. He
made it a special inquiry to ascertain the habits and deportment of
the prisoner during his term of imprisonment, and when there was
evidence of some reformation and a desire to lead a better life he
would sign a pardon to take effect a day or two before the expiration
of his term of service and would thus restore to the released convict
the rights and privileges of citizenship. This course, which now
seems eminently wise and laudable, was regarded by some as an
effort to defeat the ends of justice and was used by his political
opponents against him when he was a candidate for re-election.
Governor Corwin's two annual messages to the general assembly
are proofs of his ability to express himself with the pen in a per
spicuous style. They are principally but not exclusively devoted to
state matters, and while the policy of the general government is
sometimes freely commented upon, it is done courteously. Few of
the subjects discussed in these two papers, important as they may
have been to the people of Ohio at the time, would now be read
with interest. Both messages exhibit a deep interest in the educa
tion of the children of the state. The common school system of
Ohio had been established fifteen years, but had not yet outlived
opposition. Governor Vance had said that it had been met by
"the combined force of avarice, wealth and ignorance." The sys
tem added much to the rate of taxation. In the interest of retrench
ment the legislature had abolished the office of state superintendeht
of common schools and devolved the duties of the office upon the
secretary of state. Governor Corwin disapproved of this, and
recommended that the duties of the office be placed upon one whose
exclusive business it should be to discharge them. He also disap-.
proved of an act which reduced the school funds of the state by an
amount of fifty thousand dollars as, in appearance at least, a blow
aimed at the school system, and earnestly recommended that if

GOVERNOR. 41
the rates of taxation must be reduced the reduction should be made
to faU on other subjects, many of which, he said, would readily sug
gest themselves to the wisdom of the legislature, as interests which
could safely be postponed to that of general education. " It is by
educating poor children," he said, "that we place them to some
extent at least upon a footing of equality with the fortunate inheri
tors of rich estates."
"During the two years Mr. Corwin was governor," says A. P. Russell,
"he was proverbially in the best of humor. All the time he could get from
public duties was spent at his home in Lebanon. He seemed running over
with fun and anecdotes, and he never lacked appreciative hsteners when he
wished to talk. Very busy people avoided him as a dangerous temptation.
Young men especially gathered about him with big eyes of wonder. They
had no envies or jealousies to prevent them from admiring him. To them
he discoursed with the utmost freedom. With them, when his mind was full
est and freest, he indulged without limit in monologue. He was fond of
young men; especially those who were inclined to improve themselves and
who seemed to be promising."
Genial and amiable as was the governor, the winds of party strife
blew tempestuously over the state. After their stunning defeat in
1840 the Democrats of Ohio obtained, the next year, a small major
ity in both branches of the general assembly. An extra session of
the legislature, which met on July 25th, 1842, proved to be the
stormiest in the history of the state. It was convened for the pur
pose of re-districting the state 'for representatives in congress. The
passage of a law of congress to apportion representatives among the
states under the census of 1840 had been delayed so long that the
regular session of the Ohio legislature was ended before the appor
tionment was made. The two parties were almost equally balanced,
the Democrats having a shght ascendency in each house. In order
to prevent the majority from re-districting the state in a manner that
would have given them almost ah the members of congress, the
Whigs adopted the bold and unprecedented course of tendering their
resignations in a body, thus leaving both houses without a quorum
of two-thirds. This was long known in the history of Ohio politics
as "the Whig absquatulation. "
On the day after the resignations were tendered the speaker of
the senate issued his warrant to the sergeant-at-arms, commanding
him to bring into the senate the absent members. That officer
reported that he had read the warrant to the persons named therein.

42 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
and that they all refused to obey, declaring they were no longer sen
ators, and that he could not compel the attendance of the persons
named without an application to the governor for aid from the mili
tary forces. A similar warrant was issued in the house and a similar
report made. There being no quorum, the members dispersed with
out accomplishing the purpose for which they had met. Indefensi
ble and revolutionary as now seems the course of the Whigs at this
session, their leaders were all renominated and re-elected, and some
of them were afterwards chosen to high offices in the state and na
tion, among whom may be mentioned Benjamin F. Wade, Robert C.
Schenck and Seabury Ford. It was a year before this that Abraham
Lincoln, with two other Whigs in the Illinois legislature, jumped out
of the window to break a quorum, but he afterwards regretted that
he had entered into this arrangement as he deprecated everything
which savored of revolution .
The exciting scenes of the extra session increased party feeling
throughout the state, and the temporary triumph of the Whig
minority added bitterness to the campaign in which Governor Cor
win was a candidate for re-election. The stormy session terminated
two months before the state election in October Corwin's opponent
was again Wilson Shannon, and the contest was an animated one.
The Whigs lost the state. Both branches of the legislature became
strongly Democratic, and William Allen was re-elected United States
senator by a large majority on joint ballot. Corwin's opponent
received only a small plurality.*
At this election, for the first time in Ohio, the radical anti-slav
ery men or Abolitionists put forward a candidate for governor.
This candidate did' not receive any votes in some of the counties; in
Corwin's own county he had only seven, but in the Western Reserve
he had a considerable number. As the aggregate vote for the Abo
lition candidate exceeded the Democratic plurality and came chiefly
from strong Whig counties, the impression was general that the
Abolitionists by putting forward a candidate of their own who had
no prospect of an election had defeated Mr. Corwin. This impres
sion was probably erroneous, for if Corwin had received seven-
¦^' Vote,,for governor, October, 1S42:
Wilson Shannon (Democrat) 129,011
Thomas Corwin (Whig) 125,118
Leicester King (Liberty) 5,312
Shannon over Corwin, 3,893

GOVERNOR. 43
eighths of the Abolition vote and his opponent only one-eighth, he
would still have been defeated. It may also be noted that the
year 1842 was one of general defeat for the Whigs, the federal house
of representatives elected that year having a large Democratic major
ity. The behef, however, that three-fourths of the Abohtion voters
came from their own ranks caused the Whigs of Ohio to look with
much ill-wiU upon the earnest anti-slavery men who favored the
organization of a new political party. They regarded the Liberty
party as an aid to the Democrats, and while there were more anti-
slavery Whigs than anti-slavery Democrats, there v\ras more hatred
of the Abolitionists among the Whigs than among the Democrats.
Corwin took his defeat philosophically, and good-humoredly
attributed it to the Whig voters who staid at home on election day
to cut their buckwheat. It was his first and only defeat at the polls,
and it served to increase rather than lessen the esteem and affection
with which he was held by his party associates. When the next
Whig state convention was held he was still the leader and the most
popular man of his party in Ohio. No man was ever more highly
honored by a state convention than was ex-Governor Corwin at the
Ohio state Whig convention which met at Columbus in January,
1844. He was made president of the convention and was tendered
a unanimous re-nomination and urgently solicited to be a candidate
for the third time for governor. This he declined in a speech which
was not reported and preserved, but was pronounced one to be
remembered a life time by those who heard it. The convention
then placed his name at the head of the Ohio electoral ticket for
Clay and Frelinghuysen, next to the nomination for governor, the
highest honor the convention could bestow. Before the adjournment
the following highly complimentary resolution was offered by the
venerable ex-Governor Jeremiah Morrow, who had retired from offic
ial life, but was present as a delegate, and it was adopted with vocif
erous acclamation by the large assembly :
"Resolved, That in Thomas Corwin we recognize a patriot, a statesman,
an orator, a man of the people and a champion of their rights, — a man
whom Ohio is proud to call her own. We esteem him and we love him."
This resolution and the loud calls of the convention brought
another response from the orator who for an hour and a half, in the
language of a published report of the proceedings, enchained his
audience in breathless attention . or called from them shouts of
applause.

44 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
In the campaign of 1844 the ex-governor was a conspicuous
speaker and rendered effective service for the Whig state and
national tickets. He was now the most famous and popular political
orator in the country. The announcement of his name was suffi
cient to insure a large meeting. He addressed thousands day after
day. Never was he more eloquent. He pleaded for his cause with
his whole being. He believed the annexation of Texas would bring
the greatest perils to the nation. At times he would move a vast
multitude by the power of his pathos and their eyes would become
misty ; again, he would arouse them to loud laughter by his wit, but
none of his hearers would be left in doubt of his entire sincerity.
In this campaign it was the policy of the Whigs to represent
Polk as a political nonentity and although he had served fourteen
years in congress, had been twice speaker and once governor, as a
man entirely unknown to the nation. The Whig orators studied out
new methods of contrasting the illustrious Clay with the renownless
Polk. At a large meeting at Carthage near Cincinnati, the attend
ance was estimated at eight thousand and Corwin was the principal
speaker. After dwelling upon the abilities and distinguished pubhc
services of Henry Clay he came to the candidate of the Democrats,
and asked, "Whom have they nominated? One James K. Polk, of
Tennessee." Then after a pause and turning his head from one
side of the audience to the other he added, "After that, who is
safe?" The Whigs lost the presidency, but the electoral vote of Ohio
was cast for Clay. The Whigs of that state also elected their candi
date for governor and secured a decided majority in both branches of
the general assembly, insuring Corwin's election to the United
States senate.
Governor Corwin was called on by the citizens of his town to
deliver addresses of welcome to two ex-presidents of the United
States. In 1S42 Martin VanBuren made a journey to the western
states, and it was announced would arrive in Lebanon on the 4th
day of June. The citizens of the village, although most of them
¦were opposed to him politically, determined to receive him with the
respect due an ex-president. He was met outside of the village
by a brass band and escorted to his hotel, where a number of per
sons were assembled, and Governor Corwin, on behalf of the citi
zens of his town, delivered a brief address of welcome. The ex-

EX-GOVERNOR. 45
president replied briefly, speaking in so low a tone that his remarks
were only heard by those nearest him. It is related of one of the
Whig citizens who disapproved of any public demonstration of honors
and respect to the lately defeated candidate for president, that he
continued to work vigorously with his hoe in his garden by the road
side as the band and the ex-president passed by, studiously keeping
his back turned to the road.
The next year the venerable John Quincy Adams accepted the
invitation to deliver the address at the laying of the corner-stone of
the Cincinnati observatory. He made the long journey from his
home at Quincy by easy stages, and it was announced, would arrive
in Lebanon on November 7th, 1843. This was learned with much
satisfaction, and the citizens of the town made extensive preparations
for the reception of the honored statesman. Mr. Corwin was made
chairman of the reception committee and selected to deliver the
address of welcome. Mr. Adams reached Lebanon on the day
announced for his arrival, and was met a short distance from the
town by citizens in carriages and on horseback. The public recep
tion took place at the Baptist church. Mr. Corwin's address to the
ex-president was truly beautiful. His remarks have fortunately been
preserved and are found in the published collection of his speeches.
Mr. Adams was much touched by the address and the welcome of
the people. In his response he referred to the flattering manner in
which he had been received in Ohio from the time he had entered
the borders of the state at Cleveland a week before. In every city
and village through which he had passed he had been surrounded
by the people, and the uniform expression to him had been "Wel
come to Ohio." Referring to the address of Mr. Corwin he said
there ought to be a blush of shame upon his cheek after the unmer
ited panegyric bestowed upon him by his eloquent friend.
"I must confess," continued Mr. Adams, "that my friend's address has
deeply affected me. To that gentieman's voice in the halls of the national
legislature in past years I was accustomed ever to listen with pleasure, and
had been constrained to love and admire him not less for the qualities of his
heart than for the strength and vigor of his mind; and when he was called
from his seat in congress to the chief magistracy of this great state, I could
hardly determine which feeling was most prominent in my bosom, joy at his
elevation or regret for the loss of his eloquence in debate and wisdom in
counsel in our national assembly."

IN THE SENATE.

Three days after the legislature of Ohio convened, on December
2nd, 1844, with a Whig majority in both houses, Corwin was elected
a United States senator, for the full term of six years from March
4th, 1845.* Fourteen years had elapsed since a Whig of Ohio had
been elected to the senate, and eight years since the retirement of
Thomas Ewing, the last Whig senator of the state. Corwin was
elected to succeed Benjamin Tappan, a Democrat; his colleague
from Ohio was first William Allen, a Democrat, and afterwards Sal
mon P. Chase, elected by a combination of Democrats and Free
Sellers. In his term of service Clay, Webster and Calhoun, now
old men, were seen together in the senate for the last time. Among
the new senators who with Corwin took their seats for the first time
in the twenty-ninth congress, were Lewis Cass, John A. Dix, Daniel
S. Dickinson, Reverdy Johnson and General Sam Houston. The
United States senate never before or since presented a more brilliant
array of talent, and it was then without doubt the ablest legislative
body in the world.
Important events occurred in the year which elapsed between
Mr. Corwin's election as senator and the assembling of congress in
regular session in December, 1845. President Tyler and both houses
of congress assumed that the election of Polk was an approval by
the people of the annexation of Texas, and on March 1st, 1845,
only three days before Tyler's retirement from the presidency, the
joint resolution incorporating the republic of Texas with the United
States was adopted and immediately approved by the president As
Texas was at war with Mexico, the annexation practically established
a state of war between the United States and Mexico. Almonte,
the Mexican minister at Washington, demanded his passports and
*Vote on joint ballot in the Ohio general assembly for United States senator,
December 5th, 1844: Thomas Corwin (Whig), 60; David T. Disney (Democrat),
46; Ebenezer Lane (Whig), I.
(46)

IN THE SENATE. 47
left the country. It was only a question of time when hostilities
would begin. The Texans asked President Polk to send an army for
their protection, and General Zachary Taylor was ordered to concen
trate an efficient military force on the border between Texas and
Mexico. Corwin must have disappointed some of the admirers of his ora
tory who had assisted in elevating him to the senate if they expected
him to employ his abilities as a speaker from the beginning of his
career in that body and to appear frequently in the debates. As in
the house, so in the senate, he seldom obtruded his views upon his
fellow members. He allowed the whole of his first session to pass
without once extending his remarks upon any question to such a
length as to entitle them to be called a speech. How long a new
member of a legislative body should be a listener rather than an
instructor, an apprentice rather than a master, is a question of taste
which the new member must determine for himself. Mr. Corwin's
course as a new member of the house and afterwards of the senate
was in marked contrast with that of the great leader of his party,
Henry Clay, who when a young man made his entrance into congress
as a senator elected to fill an unexpired term, and on the fourth day
after taking his seat offered a resolution concerning the federal cir
cuit courts, and after brief intervals, others on various subjects, one
of which proposed an amendment to the constitution of the United
States, and throughout his first session participated freely in the de
bates with the oldest and ablest senators.
It was not until the Mexican war was in progress that Corwin
took a prominent part in the debates. His first remarks of any con
siderable length were made at the second session of his term on a
proposition to grant a warrant for a half section of land to each sol
dier of the war. The proposition met with objections from some
influential senators. Mr. Corwin spoke at length in favor of the
grant. The discussion arose while a bill for the increase of the army
was before the senate, and was continued from time to time during
the consideration of that bill, Mr. Corwin speaking on four days.
The debate was chiefly between Corwin and Benton. The remarks
of Corwin in favor of land bounties to the soldiers of the Mexican
war were made in the same session in which he delivered his great
speech against the further prosecution of that war. There was no
inconsistency in his course, for while he denounced the war as an
unrighteous one, at no time did he oppose a liberal payment of the

48 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
men who bore arms at the call of the nation's rulers. It should also
be remembered that his remarks in favor of soldiers' land bounties
were begun a month before the delivery of his famous Mexican war
speech. Had they been spoken afterwards he might have been sus
pected of a desire to quell the storm of adverse criticism which he
raised by his bold denunciation of the war.
His speech on the Mexican war, delivered February 11th,
1847, was the most important and memorable effort of his life. In
this speech he maintained that the war was an unjust and dishonor
able one ; that it had been declared and commenced not by congress
but by the president, and that the pretense of the advocates of the
war that the territory in dispute had belonged to Texas and not to
Mexico was an egregious, palpable misrepresentation and a bold falsi
fication of history ; and he again gave expression to solemn warnings
of the domestic commotions and national perils which must inevit
ably follow territorial aggrandizement. All this had been declared
again and again by the Whigs and was believed by many Democrats,
but he went a step further and announced his determination by his
vote to withhold supplies for the further prosecution of the unholy
war. This was a bold step. He knew the responsibility he assumed
and the denunciations which awaited him. He knew, too, that he
was separating himself from his party associates. In the speech is a
reference to the number he had found who were supposed to agree
with him on the question of voting supplies at the bidding of the
president. ' 'There were not five of us, but only three. And when
these votes were called and I was compelled to separate myself
from almost all around me, I could have cried as did the man of Uz
in his affliction in the elder time, ' What time my friends wax warm
they vanish, when it is hot they are consumed out of their places.' "
The "three of us" were Webster, Crittenden and Corwin, who had
held a conference, and as Corwin understood, had tacitly agreed not
to vote for appropriations for a war of conquest, but when the roll
was called Corwin's friends did not support him with their votes.
The orator was reproached by some of the more timid members
of his party for taking the right position at a wrong time. But why
was the speech ill-timed ? It was not made when the army was in a
stress. Victory after victory had followed the troops of the United
States. Mexico had been shown to be weak and helpless. The
speech was made on a bill appropriating three millions, a sum asked
by the president for the purpose of negotiating a change of the

IN THE SENATE. 49
boundaries, the result of which was explained to be territorial ces
sions from Mexico. Corwin had voted for supplies for the war from
the first ; even at the preceding session he had voted for a biU similar
to the one under consideration. This was before the army had pen
etrated far into Mexico and before the purpose of the war had been
announced by the supporters of the administration to be the acqui
sition of territory. He had hoped that with the appropriations asked
there might be obtained an honorable peace, and the shame and
crime of a cruel and aggressive war against a weak and defenseless
nation avoided.
The philippic against the Mexican war has taken its place among
the half dozen speeches delivered in congress which stand out singly
as the most memorable of American orators most distinguished for
consummate ability and parliamentary eloquence. It is of enduring
interest ; its theme is a disgraceful war of which the better portion
of the American people have always been ashamed, one for which
apologies may be sought, but from which no incentives to patriotism
can be derived. No speech in the English language contains a greater
number of passages of lofty eloquence. Its concluding portions
have often been quoted as among the finest specimens of Ameri
can oratory. The speech created a commotion not only in Ohio but
throughout the nation. No speech delivered in the United States
senate was ever more widely read, more generally talked about,
more frequently quoted, more warmly admired, more bitterly de
nounced. The author himself afterwards said, with some rhetorical
exaggeration, that it had caused him to be burned in effigy in every
village from Maine to Texas that had sent a soldier to fight against
Mexico. His political opponents seized upon some strong and
emphatic passages and pronounced them treasonable. The expres
sions which became most familiar were " bloody hands " and "hos
pitable graves." The exact language of the orator was : " If I were
a Mexican I would tell you: Have you not room in your own coun
try to bury your dead men ? If you come into mine we will greet
y.ou with bloody hands and welcome you to hospitable graves."
The denunciations of political opponents were more easily borne
than the reproaches of the more wary members of his own party,
who, while approving of his sentiments, condemned him for giving
them expression. But one of the elements of greatness in the
speech was the honest and brave assertion of truth regardless of its
unpopularity. 5

60 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
While Corwin was uttering his denunciations of the war for
territorial extension, Ulysses S. Grant was a soldier in that war. He
had gone into the battle of Palo Alto a second lieutenant under
Taylor ; and sixteen months later, after being in all the engagements
possible for one man, entered the city of Mexico under Scott.
After he had become the most illustrious general of the civil war
and had been twice president, he expressed his great regret that it
had ever been his duty as a soldier and a graduate of West Point to
fight in the Mexican war, and in his own memoirs deliberately wrote
that the whole occupation, separation and annexation of Texas were,
from the inception to the final completion, a conspiracy to acquire
territory out of which slave states might be formed ; that the south
ern rebellion was largely an outgrowth of the Mexican war, and the
American people got their punishment for their transgressions in the
most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.
The following letter, written by Henry Wilson, afterwards vice-
president, to Joshua R. Giddings, then a member of congress, shows
the extraordinary effect produced on the public mind by Corwin's
great speech. It will be observed that the date of the letter is thir
teen days after the delivery of the speech :
Natick, February 24, 1847.
Hon. J. R. Giddings:
Dear Sir. — I have received your favor of the 12th inst., and am
much obliged to you for the information communicated. There is a strong
feeling here in Massachusetts in favor of bold action, and the course of
yourself and others, especially the Whigs from your state, meets the appro
bation of the great mass of our people. We are much pleased with the
speeches of Hudson and Ashman, but the people are delighted with the
speech of Corwin. He has touched the popular heart, and the question
asked in the cars, streets, houses, and everywhere men assemble is: " Have
you read Tom Corwin's speech ? " Its boldness and high moral tone meet
the feeling here, and the people of New England will respond to it, and tens
of thousands want to hear more from him. Tell him to come out, though,
in favor of ^Vilmot proviso. We all hope and expect it of him. We can
give him every state in New England if he will take the right ground against
slavery. How I should like to vote for him and some good non-slaveholder
for vice-president in 1848  I suppose that Webster, Clayton, Mangum
and Crittenden will be against him, for his speech was a terrible rebuke to
to them and I am much mistaken if some of them very readily forget or
forgive him. Their position is a most disgraceful one, and I do not see how
they are to get out of it. I hope you will use every effort to bring our
friends right  Yours truly,
Henry Wilson.

IN THE SENATE. 51
After the delivery of the Mexican war speech large numbers of
Whig politicians and some newspapers advocated the nomination of
Corwin for president. Horace Greeley wrote to Giddings that Cor
win was his first choice for president and Seward for vice-pres
ident. Before the Whig national convention met in Philadelphia,
Taylor, Clay and Webster became the leading candidates. When
General Taylor was nominated Clay did not conceal his dissatisfac
tion and refused either to speak or write in support of the Whig na
tional ticket. Webster declared the nomination one not fit to be
made and only made a few speeches on the eve of the election.
Senator Corwin gave a hearty support to Taylor and spoke for the
Whigs throughout his state in the campaign. He earnestly urged
his Free Soil friends to vote with the Whigs, but the large vote for
Van Buren gave the electoral vote of Ohio to Lewis Cass.
After the conclusion of the war, the question of slavery in the
large region acquired from Mexico was one of contention in congress
and seemed to threaten the union of the states. The right of con
gress to prohibit slavery in the territories was boldly denied by south
ern members. In the senate Mr. Corwin endorsed the principle of
the Wilmot proviso and argued that congress possessed the power
and that it was its duty to prohibit slavery in the territories. In
July, 1848, he debated this question with the senators from South
Carohna, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Butler. In the same month he made
another speech on the same question, in which he discussed at length
and with profound ability the power of congress over slavery in the
territories. He declared that the original author of the Wilmot pro
viso was Thomas Jefferson, who had drafted the clause prohibiting
slavery in the ordinance of 1787. He stated his position in a man
ner that could not be misunderstood.
" I would guard," said Corwin, "against any doubt on this subject. I
would so act that there should be nothing left undone on my part to prevent
the admission of slaves, for I am free to declare that if you were to acquire
the country that lies under the line, the hottest to be found on the globe,
where the white man is supposed not to be able to work, I would not allow
you to take slaves there, if slavery did not exist there already. More than
that, I would abolish it if I could, if it did exist. These are my opinions and
they have always been the same."
While Mr. Corwin afterwards favored measures of compromise and
conciliation between the north and the south, he never receded from
this position on the question of slavery in the territories. There

52 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
were violent discussions between the pro-slavery and the anti-slavery
men in the last days of his service in the senate. The excitement
spread over the whole country, and there were threats of a dissolu
tion of the union. Clay re-appeared in the senate in December,
1849. He found the feeling for disunion stronger than he ex
pected. He believed the stability of the union seriously endan
gered, and on January 24th, 1850, unfolded in the senate his "com
prehensive scheme of adjustment," known as the compromise of
1850, the last and perhaps the most important of the measures to
save the union carried through congress by the great and patriotic
pacificator. The debate on Clay's "omnibus bill" was extremely
acrimonious. The Whigs were divided, some supporting, some op
posing it. President Taylor and his cabinet were against it. Web
ster supported the compromise in his famous 7th of March speech.
The anti-slavery Seward and Chase united with the extreme pro-slav
ery Calhoun and Jefferson Davis in opposing it. Corwin approved
of the general plan of adjustment in Clay's compromise, but he sup
ported Seward's amendment for the renewal of the Wilmot proviso
by declaring that slavery should never be allowed in either of the
territories of Utah or New Mexico, and on this amendment he
voted with Seward, Chase and Hale, and against Clay and Webster.
During the debate on the question of slavery in California and
the territories, which grew more and more violent, Vice-President
Fillmore presided over the senate with dignity and calmness. He
maintained his impartiality as a presiding officer, and no one knew
which side of the compromise measure he favored except the presi
dent, whom he privately informed that if he should be called on to
give a casting vote it would be in favor of Mr. Clay's bill. In the
midst of the angry contention President Taylor died, and the new
cabinet formed by his successor was composed of men who approved
of the compromise. Mr. Corwin was thus unexpectedly transferred
from the senate to the cabinet. The governor of Ohio appointed
Thomas Ewing, who had been a member of Taylor's cabinet, to fill
the unexpired term in the senate, and the legislature on assembling
in December elected Benjamin F. Wade, a Free Soil Whig, for the
succeeding term of six years from the 4th of March, 1851.

IN THE CABINET.

President Taylor died July 9th, 1850. He had attended the
celebration of the fourth of July, and the long exposure to the
intense heat on the warmest day of the season and his attention to
what he thought the decorum of his station required cost him his
life. On the fifth day following he died of a violent fever. On July
10th, Vice-President Fillmore was inaugurated president by the sim
ple official act of taking the oath of office in the presence of the two
houses of congress and without any inaugural address. All the
members of the cabinet immediately tendered their resignations, but
they were requested by the president to retain their places until
their successors could be appointed. On July 20th the senate re
ceived the nominations for the new cabinet. After their confirma
tion and the changes made necessary by two declinations, the heads
of departments of the administration of President Fillmore were as
follows :
Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts, secretary of state.
Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, secretary of the treasury.
Alexander H. H. Stuart, of Virginia, secretary of the interior.
Charles M. Conrad, of Louisiana, secretary of war.
William A. Graham, of North Carolina, secretary of the navy.
John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, attorney-general.
Nathan K. Hall, of New York, postmaster-general.
The date of the appointment of all the members was July 20th,
1850, except two. James A. Pearce, of Maryland, had first been
nominated for secretary of the interior ; he declined and T. M. T.
McKennan was substituted, but he held the office only two weeks,
being compelled to resign on account of ill health. Finally A. H.
H. Stuart, of Virginia, was appointed on September 12th. Edward
Bates, of Missouri, was nominated for secretary of war; he was
unable to serve, and Charles M. Conrad, a member of the house of
representatives from Louisiana, was appointed on August 15th.
(53)

54 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
The compromise of 1850 was of one of the first subjects for
the consideration of the new administration. Clay's " omnibus bill "
failed in the senate, but the measures comprised in it were passed as
separate bills and sent to the president for his approval. Mr. Fill
more was known to favor these measures and to have selected a cab
inet entertaining the same views. One of the compromise measures
was the bill providing for more efficient means for the return of
escaped slaves, known as the fugitive slave law of 1850. The presi
dent referred this bill to the attorney-general for his opinion whether
or not it was in conflict with the constitution in any of its provisions.
Mr. Crittenden prepared a written opinion sustaining its constitu
tionality. The president concurred in this view and signed it
together with all the other measures of the compromise.
Congress adjourned September 30th, after one of the longest
sessions on record. The triumph of Clay in securing the passage of
his scheme of adjustment was regarded as the crowning glory of his
long and eventful life. The great mass of the people both north
and south acquiesced in the compromise. The excitement in the
country abated ; all fears of a dissolution of the union were dis
pelled and the distracting controversy over slavery seemed to be at
an end. Both the Whig and Democratic parties at their national
conventions endorsed the compromise measures as the final settle
ment of a vexed question. But the fugitive slave law was bitterly
denounced by the anti-slavery men, and some of its features were
looked upon as harsh by many who were not strong opponents of
slavery. The execution of the law was successfully resisted by mobs
in various places in the north. Slaves were rescued from the cus
tody of United States marshals, and state after state enacted laws
intended to nullify the act of congress. It was the duty of the
president to execute the law and he issued a proclamation caOing
upon all officers to perform their duty in its execution. Thus Mr.
Corwin, after a course in the senate which endeared him to the anti-
slavery men of the nation, was part of an administration first charged
with the duty under the constitution of enforcing a law by the pro
visions of which the whole power of the government of the United
States was to be employed in rendering fugitive slaves back to bond
age, — a law which had much to do in arousing and intensifying
opposition to slavery throughout the free states and in alienating
from the Whig party much of its strength.
On taking charge of the treasury department Mr, Corwin ap-

IN THE CABINET. 55
pointed as his private secretary and confidential clerk the poet-editor
of Ohio, William D. Gallagher, who by his connection as editor with
various monthly magazines and reviews published at Cincinnati and
Columbus, had probably done more for the cause of western period
ical literature than any other man in his state. For ten years he
had been one of the editors of the Cincinnati Gazette, and his anti-
slavery sentiments were too pronounced for some of his associates.
He retained his position with Mr. Corwin until the close of the ad
ministration. W. H. Venable, in his valuable historical and bio
graphical work, "Beginnings of Literary Culture in the Ohio Val
ley," narrates the following:
"Soon after his going to Washington and entering upon the discharge of
his duties in the treasury department, the United States senate called upon
the secretary for a report upon the merchant marine, internal and coastwise.
Reliable materials for such a report were not at hand, and Gallagher, having
the reputation for ability to 'hold his tongue,' was directed to proceed to the
various interior customs districts of the United States and collect information
in regard to the revenue, and Edward D. Mansfield was appointed to proceed
upon similar business to the districts upon the Atlantic seacoast. All the ma
terials in, Gallagher drew up the report, which was much commended in the
department. "This over, he was immediately dispatched to the city of New York for
a million of dollars in gold, out of the sub-treasury, with which he was
instructed to proceed to New Orleans, by sea, and to deposit with the United
States treasury in that city. This was to be a secret removal of gold,
required in the settlement of Mexican claims. The specie was quietly con
veyed to the steamship Georgia, of the Howland and Aspinwall line, and
placed in a chest under the ladies' cabin before any passengers were received
on board. Besides Mr. Gallagher, the captain and the purser were the only
souls on the ship who were aware that it bore golden freight. The voyage
was in mid-winter; the weather proved stormy.
"Key West was reached without accident, but within an hour after the
voyage was resumed from that point the ship struck a rock. By skillful pilot
ing, the rock was cleared ; and, after a much longer than average trip, New
Orleans was finally reached on a Sunday morning. As soon as the passen
gers were ashore, the gold was loaded in a wagon and hauled to the office of
the assistant United States treasurer, where Gallagher had it securely placed
under lock. With the key in his pocket, he went to the St. Charles hotel
and got breakfast. That over, he proceeded to the telegraph office and sent
the following dispatch : 'Hon. Thomas Corwin, secretary of the treasury,
Washington. All right. W. D. Gallagher, New Orleans.' Returning to
Washington, Gallagher resumed his labors as private secretary.

56 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
"One day he found among the papers which it was his duty to examine a
letter signed by some of his old Cincinnati friends, suggesting that an extra
compensation of not less than 31,000 should be given him as an appropriate
acknowledgment of his general services to the Whig party and to the gov
ernment. He showed the letter to another ofiicer of the department, who
was pleased with it, saying : 'There is precedent enough for such extra
compensation for similar services, and it is right — but do you think the secre
tary will consent to it?' 'I don't think he will have an opportunity to con
sent to it,' Gallagher replied, and threw the letter into the grate and burned
it up. 'You ought not to have done that, Gallagher,' remarked Mr. H. — ,
'but — ' 'Perhaps not; but no personal friends of mine shall ever be tempted
by other personal friends to do anything for me like that proposed.' Within
an hour Mr. Corwin came back to the department from a visit to the presi
dent. Mr. H — , goodnaturedly, mentioned the matter to him, whereupon
he sent, by messenger, a request that Gallagher would step into his room.
When the latter presented himself, Corwin, with a very solemn expression
upon his face, said, not angrily, but with sternness in his tone, 'Gallagher,
are you in the habit, as my private secretary, of destroying such of my private
letters as you happen not to like?' 'Governor, you have no idea that I
could do anything of the sort. I destroyed one such letter a while ago,
which concerned me more than it did you, and which, though meant as an
act of friendship, ought not to have been written without my knowledge
and consent. But I suppose you know all about it.' The expression on
Corwin's face at once relaxed, as he continued, 'I wonder if  and 
really supposed I would use the pubhc money in that way. If they did,
they were most damnably mistaken."
In 1851 the administration received private information that led,
first to the suspicion and afterward to the belief, that a Dr. Gardiner
had presented a fraudulent claim for indemnity for the loss of silver
mines in Mexico, from which he alleged that he had been driven by
the Mexican government, and his claim had been sustained by per
jury and forgery and allowed, and upon it he had received nearly
1500,000. While Gardiner was in Europe, he was notified by the
government of the information in its possession and that the money
deposited by him in banks had been seized to await a judicial inves
tigation. On his return he was arrested and imprisoned, but sub
sequently gave bail ; he was tried, was convicted, and committed
suicide ; and a large portion of the money he had received was re
covered. Mr. Corwin, before his appointment to the cabinet, had
been employed as an attorney in behalf of Gardiner before the com
missioners appointed to adjudicate claims against Mexico, and he
took by assignment an interest in his claim. In the party contests

IN THE CABINET. 57
of 1852 there were charges of a corrupt connection of a Whig mem
ber of the cabinet with a gigantic fraud. A virulent attack on the
secretary of the treasury was made in the house of representatives
by a Democratic member from Ohio, and a committee of the house
was appointed to investigate all the facts concerning Mr. Corwin's
connection with the claim. A majority of the committee were
Democrats, but they did full justice to a political opponent, and re
ported that no testimony had been adduced before them proving or
tending to prove that Mr. Corwin had any knowledge that the claim
was fraudulent or that false testimony or forged papers had been or
were to be procured to sustain it. The testimony showed that he
had no interest in the claim after he entered the cabinet. Mr. How-
land, of Texas, a Democratic member of the committee, magnani
mously said: "I am free to say that the whole amount of the testi
mony shows conclusively that he did not know or believe that the
claim was fraudulent."
As the head of the treasury department, Mr. Corwin favored in
the main the line of policy which he had long advocated as a Whig
member of congress. The legislative branch of the government be
ing under the control of the party differing in its financial policy
from that of the executive branch, there was little hope that the recom
mendations of the secretary of the treasury would receive favorable
consideration in congress. It was not the desire of Mr. Corwin to
make sudden or radical changes in the tariff lav/ of 1846 then in
operation, or to return to a system of high protective duties. In
his first annual report to congress, presented December 1 7th, 1850,
he said :
"The primary object to be kept in view in levying duties upon imports,
is admitted to be revenue. It is equally well established, as the policy and
duty of the government, so to discriminate in the levying of duties as, with
out falling below the necessary amount of revenue, to give the greatest
encouragement possible to all the industrial pursuits of our people. One
feature of the law of 1846, in the opinion of this department, is opposed to
both the controlling principles just stated. I have reference to an equal
or higher rate of duty on the raw material than upon the manufactured arti
cle which is composed of it. Such provisions certainly take from the manu
facturer and artisan that encouragement which the present law doubtless, to
some extent, was intended to afford, and also check the importation of the
raw material to a degree detrimental to the revenue."
In the last eight months of President Fillmore's term of service

58 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
there were three changes in the cabinet, but none of them were on
account of dissensions or any differences in opinion. William A.
Graham, having been nominated as the Whig candidate for vice-pres
ident, resigned and was succeeded as secretary of the navy by John
P. Kennedy, of Maryland; Nathan K. Hall, who had studied law
with the president and had been his law partner at Buffalo, was
appointed United States judge for the northern district of New York,
and his place as postmaster-general was taken by Samuel D. Hub
bard, of Connecticut; and on the death of Daniel Webster, October
24th, 1852, Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, became secretary of
state. Mr. Corwin remained in the cabinet until the close of the ad
ministration. It was the last administration of the Whigs. Never
again did that party obtain control of any branch of the federal gov
ernment. It was an able, patriotic and successful administration. It
left the country in peace and prosperity and, excepting the troubles
growing out of the fugitive slave law, free from sectional bitterness.
The cabinet was composed of able men, devoted to the union, and
possessing in an eminent degree the confidence of the nation. It
was a harmonious cabinet and it is recorded that never once in any
of its meetings was heard a note of angry dissension ; and all its mem
bers on retiring from office united in a letter to the president ex
pressing their confidence in his abilities, integrity and devotion to
the public service.

RETURN TO CONGRESS.

On retiring from the treasury department in 1853, Mr. Corwin
was a private citizen after an almost uninterrupted public service of
a quarter of a century. He had continued the practice of law while
in public life until he became a member of the cabinet. He now
returned to his village home to enjoy a respite from the cares of
official station and the labors of his profession. Not long after his
return to his home he was induced to accept the presidency of a
company organized to construct one of the numerous railroads pro
jected in Ohio at this period. He cannot be said to have become a
railroad president, as the company of which he was the head did not
succeed in completing its contemplated work. The business of this
company required him to spend a portion of his time in Cin
cinnati. An unfortunate investment in the securities of another western
railroad enterprise resulted in the almost complete impoverishment
of himself and his family and compelled him to return to the active
practice of his profession. He formed a partnership for the practice
of law with John Probasco, an able lawyer of Lebanon, who had
recently retired from the bench. The office of the firm was at Cin
cinnati, but both members retained their residence at Lebanon. This
partnership was soon terminated by the death of Judge Probasco,
which occurred in 1857, before he had completed his forty-fourth
year. Mr. Corwin then entered into a partnership with his young
son-in-law, George R. Sage.
Though a private citizen, Mr. Corwin could not be an uncon
cerned observer of political events. If he had any desire to re-en
ter pubhc hfe there was little hope of official station either in his
state or in the nation for one who adhered so firmly to the old Whig
principles as did he. While he was in the cabinet his party had met
with the most disastrous of its many defeats in presidential elec
tions, and at the first state election after his return to his home the
(59)

60 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
Democrats of Ohio cast 61,000 more votes for governor than the
Whigs, and the Free Soil vote was now well up to that of the
Whigs. Mr. Corwin was probably slow in yielding assent to the
truth which became more and more evident that the political party
which had so highly honored him and of which he had been so
bright an ornament, and which when a middle-aged man he had as
sisted in organizing, was now to be huried before he was yet an old
man. The Free Sellers rejoiced in its demise, and their orators in
Ohio told the old line Whigs that their party was not only dead
"but by this time it stinketh. "
When the young and vigorous Republican party sprang into
existence it cordially invited the affiliation and co-operation of the
men of all parties, however differing in other respects, in carrying
out its one great purpose of resisting the aggressions of the slave
power. Some who had never been known as anti-slavery men or
even as opponents of the extension of slavery, seeing that the new
party would certainly control the free states, became its adherents and
were rewarded with office. Mr. Corwin's record in congress in op
position to the spread of slavery and his bold denunciation of a war
inaugurated by the slave power, combined with his fame as a politi
cal orator and his personal popularity, would have caused his acces
sion to its ranks to be hailed with joy. But he could not give up
the principles he had so long advocated. His party was dead, but
he was still a Whig. In the campaign of 1856 he was placed in the
unhappy position of not being in accord with the majority of those
who had been his warmest friends and supporters. The great mass
of the Whigs of Ohio were the supporters of Fremont. Mr. Cor
win had a high regard for Fillmore and desired his election, but it
was evident that the electoral vote of Ohio and of the free states gener
ally would be cast either for Fremont or Buchanan. On the eve of
the election he made a single speech from the steps of the Burnet
House, advising his friends in Ohio to vote for Fremont and south of
the Ohio river for Fillmore as the most effective course to prevent
the success of the party which had repealed the Missouri compro
mise and enacted the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
Mr. Corwin had no sympathy with that spirit of aggressive op
position to slavery which soon after made a hero of John Brown and
was ready, in resisting the fugitive slave law, to bring his own state
into armed conflict with the national authorities. He was devoted
to the union, and he earnestly urged a faithful observance of all the

RETURN TO CONGRESS. 61
requirements and compromises of the constitution of the United
States. The duty of maintaining the supremacy of the law became
a frequent topic of his serious conversation. This was becoming an
unpopular doctrine, and was heard with impatience by the believers
in "a law higher than the constitution." Mr. Corwin continued to
urge his views on all proper occasions without regard to their popu
larity, and exhibited much the same boldness in adhering to his con
victions of right that he manifested in his Mexican war speech.
In 1858 Mr. Corwin's friends urged that he return to public life,
and he expressed a willingness to serve again in congress if the peo
ple in his district desired it. The district consisted of the counties
of Warren, Clinton, Greene, Fayette and Madison, all of which
were Republican, and a nomination as the Republican candidate
insured an election. Mr. Corwin had no claims to the nomination
on account of party services, and as there were other aspirants in
the district for a seat in congress, it was by no means certain that
he could be nominated. He permitted his name to go before the
Republican convention of the district as a candidate for the nomina
tion, and before it assembled delivered an address in which he made
a full and frank statement of his views on the political questions at
issue. He spoke in a grove at Morrow in his own county; his
speech was reported and printed in the Cincinnati daily papers.
As his views were not on all points in unison with those of the
Republican leaders, his nomination was opposed by some influential
men of his district. Wm. H. P. Denny, the veteran editor of the
Western Star of Lebanon, who had for a score of years been a warm
supporter of Corwin, now opposed him, and in printing his speech
put in italics the passages which were supposed to be in conflict
with good Republican doctrine. The name of Tom Corwin and the
admiration and affection of the people for him gave him the nomina
tion, and he was of course triumphantly elected. It was thus his
happy lot to be chosen to the last congress in which he sat not
strictly as a party man, and he entered upon his important trust at a
time of national perils untrammeled by party ahegiance. His re-ap
pearance in public life was hailed with joy by large numbers in va
rious parts of the union, and it was hoped that his conservative
views, his ripe judgment and large political experience would make
him useful in allaying party virulence and sectional animosity.
On the question of prohibiting slavery in all the territories of
the United States Mr. Corwin was in perfect accord with the plat-

62 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
forms of the Republican party, but he could not endorse the position
taken by some leaders of that party that in no event should a new
state be admitted into the union with a constitution permitting slav
ery. In a speech at Byron, Greene county, he was reported to
have said :
' ' The right of congress to make all needful regulations for the territo
ries he considered indisputable, and he would attach some such rule as the
Wilmot proviso to every territory on its organization. He knew the advan
tages of it in the results of the ordinance of ' 87. Congress bore the same
relation to the territories as a guardian did to his ward. As a member of
congress, he would act as a faithful guardian, bring up the territories in the
way they should go, and counsel them never to depart from it. But when a
territory was emerging into a state, it was becoming of age. He could do no
more than point out the benefits of its early training, and if it chose to devi
ate from his teaching, he could only regret it. It was then, as the minor be
come of age, its own master. Congress having passed an enabling act, per
mitting it to make a constitution and set up for itself, could not, he thought,
consistently refuse it admission into the union on account of a clause in its
constitution, when we had in the union fifteen states with similar constitu
tions. If we had no power to turn out states on that account, we should not
keep them out. Here he read from the remarks of John Quincy Adams —
good .authority with the most ultra anti-slavery men — on the admission of
Arkansas, showing that in this view he only re-affirmed what that eminently
wise statesman uttered.''
After his nomination Mr. Corwin took part in the canvass and
thousands gathered to hear him again in the discussion of pohtical
questions and listened eagerly to the manly and independent expres
sion of his opinions. More than a year elapsed after his election
before the congress to which he had been chosen assembled, and in
this time he continued to mingle freely in the discussion of current
public questions and participate in political meetings. He was a
delegate to the Republican state convention of 1859 which nominated
William Dennison for governor and accompanied that gentleman
through a portion of the state in the canvass which terminated in his
election. In some of his addresses at the hustings the distinguished
orator would rise to sublime heights of eloquence and manifest an
earnestness and energy that produced a lasting impression upon the
minds of his hearers. He continued to urge upon the people of all
parties and creeds the sacred duty of maintaining the supremacy of
the constitution and abiding by the laws of the land ; and discounte
nanced any mode of redressing grievances other than that which can

RETURN TO CONGRESS. 63
be peacefully and legally apphed by the exercise of constitutional pow
ers. The sincerity of his motives no one could question. The tone
of his speeches throughout this period of his life was less calculated
to make his hearers strong partisans than patriotic and conscientious
voters. The newspaper reports of Corwin's addresses in political cam
paigns show one characteristic common to all of them. Sometimes
it was in the beginning ; sometimes at the close ; but he never failed
to exhort his hearers to a conscientious and unfailing exercise of the
right to vote, and to admonish the people that in this country they
had the right and the power to make and unmake their rulers. Some
times he would speak with scorn of those who felt themselves too
respectable and decent to interest themselves in elections ; sometimes
he would utter a solemn warning that a neglect or disregard of the
right of suffiage would end in its loss. In concluding a speech at
Dayton, Ohio, September 30th, 1858, he spoke with great effect on
this topic. The Dayton Journal thus reported this portion of his
speech: "The close of Governor Corwin's speech was one of the most thrilling
eloquence and power. He appealed to the people to exercise the reason and
conscience which God had given them to decide how to vote. The power
conferred upon the voters of this nation was a tremendous power. It was
one, for the faithful exercise of which or the failure to exercise which, they
would as he believed be called to answer at the great day. It was a power
all potent for good or evil; and as the Almighty, in His providence, had
given men brains to think and consciences to tell them the right from the
wrong, they could not hope to escape a fearful reckoning for negligence or
unfaithfulness. " He said that as he had traveled through the country, and beheld the
church-spires and school-houses, it seemed to him incomprehensible how,
with the advantages of education and of instruction from the pulpit, there
could be a generation of men who would disregard the lessons of experience
and the teachings of history so much as to fail in the giving of an intelligent
and patriotic vote.
" Governor Corwin proceeded, with a glowing eloquence of words and
a sublimity of thought, to draw from sacred history the most pointed exem
plifications of the duty made imperative by the divine command, to give
heed to the things which make for the peace and honor and glory of our
common country. The hand of the Almighty was as plainly to be seen in
the interposition in our behalf during the revolutionary struggle, as it was in
the rolling of the waves of the Red Sea over the hosts of Pharaoh as they

64 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
were pursuing the Israelites. We could not hope to escape the fate of the
' chosen people,' in whose history were so terribly fulfilled the words of proph
ecy, unless we appreciated our blessings, and struggled to preserve our birth
right; and yet the history of man seemed to be the same in all ages. Three
thousand years ago, when the Almighty, by a miraculous exercise of His
power, had brought the children of Israel out of their Egyptian captivity, we
found them, when it might have been supposed that the wonder of the mira
cle was still impressing them with its awful grandeur, worshiping the golden
calf! "The prophet, Isaiah, in denouncing the sins and the punishment of
Judah, had said : ' The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib ;
but Israel doth not know — my people doth not consider.' The people did
not ' consider ' — they did not think. Every man should break away from the
trammels of party — he should thi)ik — think for himself — and so discharge his
duty, as if knowing that upon him alone rested the responsibility of faithfully
and honestly acting for the welfare of the twenty-six millions of this nation —
as if he were the only man who had a vote — as if he were possessed of des
potic power, and his will was the law."
Mr. Corwin took his seat as a representative in the thirty-sixth
congress in December, 1859. A majority of the representatives
had been elected as opponents of the Buchanan administration but
no party had a clear majority and the house was unorganized for two
months. The contest for the speakership was a memorable one.
The minds of the southern members were inflamed by the John
Brown raid. John Sherman was the Republican candidate for
speaker and he was nominated for that position by Mr. Corwin.
Mr. Sherman and a large number of Republican members of the
last congress had signed a circular commending to the attention of
the public a book entitled "Helper's Impending Crisis," containing
strong anti-slavery sentiments. Week after week was spent in
heated debates on slavery, John Brown and Helper's book, with oc
casional ballots for speaker. In the seventh week of the contest
Mr. Corwin made the longest of his reported speeches. There was
a tone of sadness in his rambling remarks ; he felt, he said, as if he
were not in the congress of the United States and he wished it were
possible for the journal clerk to blot out their proceedings from the
beginning of the session that they might be known no more among
men. Yet he used his best efforts to amuse the members and to put
all sides in a good humor, in order to effect an organization ; and
after speaking two days, when he proposed to stop there were calls
to go on. He referred to his own reported declaration that "he

RETURN TO CONGRESS. 65
would vote for Mr. Sherman tiU the last trump would sound," and
said: "A better man than I am changed his mind. David, King
of Israel, repented of what he said when he remarked : ' I said in
my haste that all men are liars.' I concede that fact when I state
now that I am willing to vote for almost anyone who can be elected."
When the house was finally organized on February 1st, 1860,
by the election of ex-Governor William Pennington, of New Jersey,
as speaker, Mr. Corwin was appointed chairman of the committee
on foreign affairs. A second extended speech made by him at this
session was delivered at the time of the Democratic national conven
tion at Charleston, when the house met for debate only, many mem
bers being absent. In these debates, the political situation was the
general topic under consideration, and in the colloquies which natu
rally ensued, Mr. Corwin was drawn into controversy with many
members, and, with frequent interruptions, occupied the floor on
two days. His extended remarks were never revised for publication.
He was a delegate to the national Republican convention at
Chicago in I860, and in the ensuing campaign he supported Lincoln
for president. He was re-nominated and re-elected to congress the
same year. When the second session of the thirty-sixth congress
assembled Lincoln had been chosen president, but was not yet inau
gurated. The actual work of secession soon began. The sentiment
of disunion spread with alarming rapidity throughout the cotton-
growing states, and nearly all the senators and representatives from
those states resigned their seats and favored a southern confederacy.
Mr. Corwin was appointed by the speaker chairman of a grand com
mittee of one from each state on the disturbed condition of the
country. No man could with more propriety have been placed at
the head of a committee charged with the consideration of such
grave questions when the times were full of passion and bitterness.
His conservative views gave him influence with such members from
the south as were still attached to the union, while the most radical
members from the north, however much they differed with him,
could not but respect the sincere and patriotic motives which actu
ated him.
The celebrated "committee of thirty-three," of which Mr. Cor
win was chairman, after long consideration agreed upon a report
which embodied measures of conciliation intended to remove from
the minds of the southern people any just fears that their rights
under the constitution should not be fully protected. Mr. Corwin
6

66 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
spoke in support of the recommendations of the committee on Jan
uary 21st, 1861. There was an angry debate upon the report run
ning through several days. The first series of resolutions reported
by the committee was adopted by a vote of 136 ayes to 53 noes.
The most important part of the report was a proposed amendment
to the constitution which would forever make it impossible for con
gress to interfere with slavery in any of the states. This first failed
in the house to receive the requisite two-thirds vote, but there was a
subsequent re-consideration and the resolution was adopted by a vote
of — ayes, 133 ; noes, 65. In the senate the proposition received
precisely the required two-thirds, the vote being 24 to 12. The pro
posed amendment thus submitted to the states was in these words :
" Article XIII. No amendment shall be made to the constitution
which will authorize or give to congress the power to abolish or interfere,
within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of per
sons held to labor or service by the laws thereof."
A large number of strong anti-slavery men, both in the Republi
can and Democratic parties, some of them afterward illustrious for their
services to the country, aided Mr. Corwin in carrying the resolution
submitting this amendment through the two houses of congress.
Before many states could act upon it, the evidences of the fixed
determination of the slave states to secede had so increased that all
efforts at conciliation were seen to be vain. Ohio and Maryland
ratified the amendment. Had it been made a part of the constitu
tion at that time, it would not have averted the greatest war of mod
ern times, but it is not to be regretted that the name of Corwin is
conspicuous in this last effort to save the union without civil war.

MINISTER TO MEXICO.

On March I2th, 1861, President Lincoln sent to the senate the
nomination of Thomas Corwin as minister to Mexico, and the nomi
nation was promptly confirmed. This mission was at this time one
of the most important under our government. One month before
the appointment of Corwin, the government of the Confederate
States of America had been established and the boundary which
had been the cause of the war between the United States and Mex
ico was the boundary of the new confederacy. It was the earnest
desire of the administration of Lincoln that in the difficulties grow
ing out of the rebellion friendly relations between the United States
and Mexico should be continued, and that no encouragement to the
seceding states to hold out in their rebellion should come from the
Mexican government. The slave power which had instigated the
rebellion had brought about the war against Mexico for the acquisi
tion of territory out of which to form new slave states. The ap
pointment by Lincoln to the Mexican mission of the statesman who
had in the senate opposed the dismemberment of that republic was
a felicitous one.
Mr. Corwin's instructions from Secretary Seward were dated on
the 6th of April, and about the middle of that month, for the first
time, he left his country in the service of his government. The
diplomatic representative of Mexico at Washington requested the
governor of Vera Cruz to provide for him an escort to the Mexican
capital on account of banditti infesting a portion of the road, and as
a compliment to the representative of the United States government.
Mr. Corwin found no disposition on the part of the Mexican authori
ties to promote internal dissensions in the United States or to extend
sympathy and aid to the Confederate States. On the 29th of May,
1861, he wrote to his own government:
" The present government of Mexico is well disposed toward us in our
present difficulties, but for obvious reasons will be unwilling to enter into any
(67)

68 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
engagement which might produce war with the south unless protected by 5
promise of aid from the United States."
Mexico was soon in a condition calling for the sympathy of her
sister republic. Spain, England and France united in pressing
against her claims for losses to their subjects resident within her bor
ders. The allied powers occupied Vera Cruz in December, 1861.
England and Spain soon withdrew their troops, as their claims were
settled by negotiation, but the war was continued by Louis Napoleon
who desired to establish a monarchy on the ruins of the Mexican
repubhc. Mr. Corwin soon negotiated a treaty which, among other
stipulations, proposed a loan from the United States to Mexico, by
which it was hoped she would be enabled to resist the interference
of France. This treaty failed of ratification in the United States
senate. During most of the time Mr. Corwin was in Mexico, his posi
tion was one of difficulty and delicacy; the country he represented
was in the throes of a great civil war, the one to which he was ac
credited invaded by the armies of one of the great powers of
Europe ; but his eminence for talents, experience in public affairs,,
the democratic simplicity of his manners and the kindly interest he
took in the welfare of the Mexican people, combined with the fact
that he was the representative of the greatest of republics at a repub
lican court, gave him much influence with President Juarez and the
embassies from other nations.
Presuming, perhaps, too largely upon his urbanity, the Prussian
minister. Baron De Wagner, having obtained temporary leave of
absence, addressed him a request, stating that during his absence he
trusted the Prussian, Spanish and Belgian consular authorities would
be able to afford due protection to their respective countrymen, yet
he took the liberty of recommending them, in case of need, to the
kind and more effective protection of the United States legation,
confident as he was that Mr. Corwin would be pleased to grant them
as well as the French residents who might appeal to him such aid as
might be possible under such critical circumstances. To this request
Mr. Corwin replied:
" Were such request addressed to the cabinet at Washington and its.
object approved, and proper instructions given to die undersigned, he should
then, and only then, deem it proper for him, in obedience to such instruc
tions, to discharge to the best of his ability the duties they might impose.
The undersigned has not at this time and place the means of searching for

MINISTER TO MEXICO. 69
precedents, but his memory furnishes him with no instance where a minister
of the United States, under circumstances like the present, assumed to ex
tend diplomatic protection to foreign citizens resident within the territories of
the government to which he is accredited, without express instructions to do
SO from the president of the United States. In regard to the proposed pro
tection of the subjects of his imperial majesty, the emperor of the French,
there are reasons for the course the undersigned has adopted, which might
not apply with equal force to the other nationahties specified in your excel
lency's note. The French empire and Mexico are at war. Between these
two belligerent powers the government of the United States occupies a purely
neutral position. Should the government of the United States assume the
right and duty of protecting the subjects of one of the belligerent powers
against the supposed wrongs to be inflicted upon them by the government of
the other, it is easy to foresee that cases might' arise which would tend
strongly to disturb these peaceful relations with one or both of the belliger
ents, which it is the object of perfect neutrality to preserve inviolate."
After this declination to comply with his proposition the Prus
sian minister requested Mr. Corwin to inform the representatives
of other American republics then at the Mexican capital of the
"very pressing instances" he made to the diplomatic corps, and each
of its members in particular, to lend their assistance in favoring pro
tection to foreigners who might address them directly, or Mr. Cor
win "as their dean;" with which request Mr. Corwin complied by
forwarding to each of the representatives referred to, a copy of
Baron De Wagner's note, and inviting them to meet the members of
the diplomatic corps, then in that city, at his rooms to take into con
sideration Mr. Wagner's request. Sometime afterward, in reply
to a note received from Senor A. de la Fuenta, dated National Pal
ace, Mexico, February 24, 1863, Mr. Corwin wrote:
" I declined the protection of those subjects, when proposed to be
clothed with that power by Mr. Wagner, not, however, because I conceived
my assumption of such powers could give any just cause of complaint to the
supreme government of Mexico, but on the ground that in the present rela
tions of Mexico with European powers, and also with the government of the
United States, I deemed it proper that the subject should be first submitted
to the cabinet at Washington, and its instructions thereupon forwarded to
me  I deem it due to that candor which should characterize the
intercourse between the republics of Mexico and the United States to state
to your excellency the course I deem it my duty to pursue on this subject
until specific instructions shall be received by me from my government.
" If the action of the supreme government of Mexico should at any

70 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
time oe exerted upon any foreign subject or citizen to such an extent as to
place his life, liberty or property in danger, and where such action would,
with equal propriety, be applied, under like circumstances, to an American
citizen, I shall, if any such case unhappily arises, deem it my duty to offer to
the supreme government such expostulation as in my judgment the case may
seem to require. This I shall do with the most perfect respect for the just
powers of the supreme government of Mexico, and with a well-founded con
fidence in its upright motives, and its desire to do justice to all foreigners with
such moderation as may consist with self-respect and the dignity and safety of
the Mexican republic. In adopting this course, I am sure your excellency
will perceive that I am making no innovation upon the modem usage of civ
ilized nations, nor doing anything which should interrupt the friendly relations
which my government so earnestly desires with the Mexican repubhc."
The approbation by his government of the rule of action he
had adopted, is thus expressed in a note addressed to him by the
secretary of state, Mr. Seward, April 18th, 1863:
"Your proceedings with relation to the request of the late Prussian
minister at Mexico, that you would assume the protection of subjects of the
king of Prussia and of other European powers in that republic, during the
suspension of the several European legations there, are approved by the pres
ident. The first responsibility of a minister is to practice fidelity to the inter
ests of the state whose credentials he bears; the second is the exercise of
perfect good faith, respect and courtesy to the government of the country to
which he is accredited. A minister is not only at liberty, but he is morally
bound to render all the good offices he can to other powers and their subjects
consistently with the discharge of those principal responsibilities I have
described. But it belongs to the state where the minister resides to decide,
in every case, in what manner and in what degree such good offices shall be
rendered, and, indeed, whether they shall be tolerated at all. No abridg
ment of this sovereign right can be insisted upon, unless, indeed, the govern
ment of that state manifestly refuses to acknowledge or give effect to some of
the entirely admitted principles of morality recognized as constituting the basis
of the laws of nature and the law of nations. Not only has this government
no such complaint to make against Mexico, but, on the contrary, in all its
intercourse with that republic it has been impressed with the evidences of a
high degree of virtue and enlightenment. That government deservedly
enjoys not only the respect but the good wishes, and, so far as natural affec
tions are allowable, the sympathy of the United States in its present unhappy
embarrassments with foreign powers. The president therefore remits you for
your government in regard to the questions presented, to the rules you have
prescribed to yourself, so long as they shall be satisfactory to the government
of Mexico."

MINISTER TO MEXICO. 71
In a dispatch dated June 26th, 1863, Mr. Corwin informed his
government that the French army had entered and occupied the
Mexican capital, and the government to which he had been accred
ited had been compelled to retire to San Luis Potosi, and that he
had been invited by Juarez to leave Mexico and repair to that place,
but as the country was divided between two hostile governments he
had determined to decline leaving the ancient capital. Mr. Seward
informed Mr. Corwin that his course was approved by the president,
and that the most convenient and favorable position of the Ameri
can legation for the protection of American interests must depend
upon the contingencies of the war. He was informed, however,
that he was not expected under the existing circumstances to address
the new government at the capital.
The condition of the Mexican republic made Mr. Corwin's posi
tion an irksome and unhappy one. He longed to be at home in his
own country, and as the capital to which he had been sent as a min
ister of the United States was now under the control of a new and
provisional government with which he could have no communication,
he applied to the president for a leave of absence in order to visit
his home. In a letter to Mr. Corwin, dated August 8th, 1863, Mr.
Seward wrote :
" The president fully appreciates the great and unwearied labors you
have performed in your mission, and the circumstances which render a tem
porary relief from them desirable on your part. He has thought that proba
bly the present juncture, when things in regard to the future of Mexico are
depending on dispositions and events there, with which a minister of a for
eign and friendly power cannot lawfully interfere, may, perhaps, be the most
suitable one for the allowance of the indulgence you have asked. But he
desires to leave this point to your own better-informed discretion. You will,
therefore, have leave of absence, to begin at such time as you may think
proper after this communication reaches you, and may return to the United
States to confer with this department, and to await the further directions of
the president." Mr. Corwin returned to the United States early in the year
1864 and not long after resigned his position as minister. His son,
William Henry Corwin, remained in Mexico charge d'affaires until
1866.

THE LAST OF EARTH.

The return of Corwin to the United States and his resignation
soon after of the office of minister to Mexico closed his public Hfe,
and his earthly career terminated suddenly in the following year.
Though he held no official station his last days were not passed in
retirement. He was still under the necessity of work and he opened
a law-office in. Washington. No city in the United States offered the
lawyer of ability a more lucrative practice than did the national capi
tal at the close of the civil war, and Mr. Corwin's fame and abilities
would doubtless have made the last years of his professional career
eminently successful had he not been suddenly cut down before age
had impaired his vigorous and brilhant powers. He was stricken
with paralysis and died at Washington, December 18th, 1865.
He had been invited to a large party of Ohio people at the res
idence of the Ohio military agent. The assemblage was a notable
one, embracing several persons of national distinction and two young
members of the Ohio delegation in congress who were afterwards
elected to the presidency. The rooms were crowded and Corwin
was late in entering. When he came in there was heard the excla
mation of joy, "There is Tom Corwin," and soon men gathered
around him to hear him talk. The chairs had been removed and the
company was compelled to stand. Corwin had not been well and
General Hayes, knowing this, had taken possession of the only seat
in the room to reserve it for him. When he was offered the seat he
declined it, as there were older men present, but Hayes, getting in
front of him, gently forced him into it. Soon he began to talk and
a company gathered around him in a compact mass. Some got
down on their knees near him in order to let others see over their
heads ; others stood and peered over the shoulders of those in front
of them. The wonderful talker seemed to be in his happiest vein.
When the company was invited to the refreshment room, Corwin
was seated on a sofa. As many as could hear him continued to
listen and to laugh and sometimes to shout in boisterous merriment.
(7-)

THE LAST OP EARTH. 73
But the great humorist arose from his seat, stretched forth both
hands as if to illustrate a point in an anecdote, gasped and fell for
ward. Garfield caught him in his arms and he was carried into an
adjoining room. His whole right side was paralyzed. He spoke
once or twice, but soon became unconscious and thus lingered for
two days, when he breathed his last.
The accounts of the last conscious moments of Corwin, as given
by those present, differ somewhat in some of the details. Ex-Presi
dent Hayes, a short time before his death, gave a nev/spaper corres
pondent his recollection of the thrilling scene : ' ' When Corwin was
in the midst of his jesting. Wade, who had been listening intently,
suddenly asked: ' They say, Corwin, those Mexicans want to be an
nexed to the United States ; what do you think of that ?' Corwin's
face changed from gay to grave, his eyes became serious, and every
one bent forward to hear what he might say. He raised his hand
and attempted to speak. His lips moved, but no words came. His
hand still moved in gesture. Then it was seen that something was
the matter and we moved back to give him air. He raised himself
suddenly from his seat, reached forward his hands and fell into the
arms of his friends. We carried him into the next room and laid him
upon a bed, and he never spoke again." General Garfield in 1878,
by request, wrote his recollection: "A large party of Ohio people
had assembled at the house of Mr. Wetmore, the military agent of
Ohio, and Corwin was in his happiest vein of anecdote. He occu
pied a sofa, with a friend seated on each hand and as many seated in
front of him as could get within reach. They were listening to one
of his inimitable stories, in the course of which he arose to illustrate
some point of the anecdote, and while making a gesture with both
hands was stricken with paralysis and fell forward. I caught him in
my arms, and Whitelaw Reid, who stood beside me, aided in carry
ing him to a bed in an adjoining room. He spoke once or twice on
the way and as we laid him down, but never spoke again."
The sudden death of Corwin touched the heart of the nation.
The people everywhere felt that a great man, a true patriot and a
wonderful genius had departed. A meeting was held in the recep
tion room of the senate chamber, which was attended by senators,
representatives and distinguished citizens then at the capital, to tes
tify their deep sorrow at his death. Chief Justice Chase presided.
The customary expressions of sorrow on such occasions were
adopted. Representatives R. B. Hayes, Benjamin Eggleston,

74 LIFE, OF THOMAS COEWIN.
Samuel Shellabarger, James A. Garfield and Major Swain were
appointed a committee to accompany his remains to Ohio.
At this meeting eloquent and affectionate tributes to his genius
and worth were uttered by the chief justice. Representative Robert
C. Schenck, Senators Garrett Davis, Reverdy Johnson and John
Sherman and the secretary of state, William H. Seward. Justice
Chase remarked, on taking the chair, that the name of Thomas Cor
win "is itself a eulogy  Great were his titles to honor won
at the bar, in legislative halls and in executive councils ; but at this
moment they seem insignificant in comparison with the admiration,
love and veneration which gathered around him as a man. Let
others call him senator, secretary, minister; let us call him man, our
friend." General Schenck, who had studied law under Corwin and had
known him long and intimately, said: "I am still trying to realize
him dead, and my heart and mind are heavy and unsettled in the
attempt to accept that fact. You, Mr. Chief Justice, have spoken
feelingly, as well as fittingly, of the inexpressible loss we have sus
tained, of the great loss the country has sustained. I can add noth
ing now to what you have recalled of the great character and abili
ties of Mr. Corwin and of his brilliant career as a statesman and a
patriot. We all stand here with hearts full and oppressed with the
thought that — ' Never any more
Shall man look on him ; never any more,
In hall or senate, shall his eloquent voice
Give hope to a sick nation.'
But, sir, my soul is fuller still of other remembrances. I think of
the large heart that has been stilled in death, rather than of the
great brain that has ceased its busy working. His genius, his
humor, his eloquence, his extraordinary and varied powers and his
eminent success in so many lines of public service, are at this
moment but secondary in my mind to my recollection of his admira
ble qualities as a man."
Senator Davis said: " In his moral structure Mr. Corwin was
truly great and noble. Gentle, benevolent, genial, truthful, just and
conscientious, he was a patriot without sectionalism, a friend of uni
versal liberty and a philanthropist without fanaticism."
Secretary Seward delivered a beautiful and impressive address.
He said that the longer he lived the more profoundly he felt the

THE LAST OP EARTH. 75
utter valuelessness of oratory and genius and all accomplishments,
unless they were devoted to good and great ends. It was not what
a man said or how he said it, but what he had done. Had he
labored for his country? Had he worked for God and humanity?
Judging Mr. Corwin by this standard, said Mr. Seward, he had noth
ing to wish for; aU his powers were consecrated to his country and
to humanity. The next day, after appropriate ceremonies, in which the
Masonic fraternity participated, the body was placed on a train and
taken to his home in Ohio for interment. The burial was in the
Lebanon cemetery and was attended by a large concourse, embrac
ing many distinguished men of the state, but the large majority was
composed of old citizens of the town and county in which the
departed statesman had so long lived, many of whom had known,
loved and admired him for half a century.
The following graphic description of the extraordinary scene at
the death of Corwin was first published in the Ohio State Journal as
an anonymous letter. It was written by Samuel Shellabarger, then
a representative in congress: Washington, D. C, December 19, 1865.
Dear Sir : — It has never been deemed an invasion of the sanctuary of
private life to preserve for the world and history the last utterance and acts
of the men of history. That license which admits the treasuring up of the
' last things " of great and historic lives induces me to write down what I do
here. It was never my lot before to be thrilled by seeing brought together in
startling proximity life and death, mirth and mourning, fame and frailty, as I
saw them brought together in the circumstances attending the last conscious
moments of Thomas Corwin. How strange it seems to me now ! At a
collection of men of Ohio, in which were Chase, and Wade, and Sherman,
and Schenck, and Bingham, and Swayne, and fifty others of the public men
of the state. Governor Corwin was present. Upon his entering the room
he, of course, became, what he for forty years has been everywhere, where
his presence was, the center of interest and admiration. In ten minutes
after he entered the room I saw from a distance ( for I did not soon go to
him ) men collected and compacted around him in eager, excited, and, in
some cases, ridiculous attitudes. Chief justice and associate justices of the
supreme court of the United States, members of the cabinet, major-generals
of the armies of the United States, senators in congress and members of the
house of representatives were in the circle. Some were seated by him;
some stood erect about his chair ; some leaned and pressed eagerly forward

76 LIFE OF THOMAS CORWIN.
between the more inner circles of listeners, and pushed their ears forward to
liear the words and whispers which came from the center of the circle.
Some sat, some stood, some kneeled, and all leaned forward to listen
I watched occasionally the effect, upon this little company of men, of
what was drawing them to that center. The strange magician had taken up
once more, and the last time, his wand to try its spell upon a little company
of its subjects. It was the same one with which so often before, in the mere
wantonness and sport of his power, he had toyed and played with the storms
of human passions which it conjured up, controlled and allayed at will.
His youth, with its inimitable charms and graces, seemed for a moment
to have come to him again. There were once more the flow of humor, the
sparkle of merriment, the glow of enthusiasm, the flash of wit and the
charms of anecdote and illustration; and there the wondrous play of feature
which made him CORWIN. Men came repeatedly out from his presence at
that seat that night, exclaiming, "There is but one Corwin!" For a
moment men, who, a thousand times before, had bowed before the spell of
genius, or had been swept off by its irresistible force, and then when the
spell was gone, wondered at their frailty, here again became its victims.
When at last the press about him lessened, I sat down by his side.
What he happened first to say to me furnished one of those strange coinci
dences which help to invest our lives with a tinge of the mysterious and
awful, and which makes us superstitious. One of his first utterances to me
was a startling description of what Tom Corwin was to be in twenty-five min
utes after its utterance. It was this: He said, " You are more bald than
¦when I saw you last, the day before I sailed for Mexico." I said, "Yes."
He said, with the semi-solemn, semi-comical face which has become histori
cal, " But then, Julius C^sar was bald." I said, " But Casar had fits."
Then he assumed a more serious manner, and said : " Twenty years ago I
saw a man fall in apparently unconscious paralysis, when in the midst of
excited discourse. He was carried out by his friends in this condition and
his first act of consciousness was to utter the words you have just said: 'Czesar
had fits.' "
In twenty-five minutes after I assisted in carrying Corwin out in the
precise condition he had so strangely described. He then went into a more
general conversation with those about him ; asked after old friends of Ohio ;
alluded to his late law partner. Judge Johnston, of Cincinnati, in terms of
great kindness and as one of the most powerful advocates and best intellects
he ever knew . . . He told me how hard he worked. How hard it was
to go up the long stairway of the treasury building. How the stories of his
making large fees here were exaggerations. How he had lost a large fee
due him in Mississippi.
Then he was invited to repair to the refreshment room. He arose and
asked me to accompany him, which I did ; Senator Wade joining us at the

THE LAST OP EARTH. 77
foot of the stairs. I urged him to be seated on a sofa at the table, which he
expressed reluctance in taking, owing to the presence of ladies standing. On
this sofa his last words were uttered in a few moments after. The scene I
have alluded to as occurring below, was here speedily repeated. Eager
men again pressed about him and leaned forward, and held their breath to
catch his last utterance. Once or twice they shouted with laughter and
clapped their hands in boisterous merriment ; and every eye and ear in the
assemblage was directed to the seat where Tom Corwin was playing with
skilled fingers upon that mystic harp whose cords are human passion, sym
pathy and emotion, with all the wizard skill and power which was of old.
In a moment afterwards his voice suddenly sank to whispers, and then he
raised forward his hands, asked for fresh air and fell into the arms of sur
rounding friends, and I helped carry him, speechless, from the chamber
where his last auditory had just hung in love and admiration upon his lips,
and stooped forward to get his last whispers. And we carried him into the
death chamber whence a soul, more eloquent than Patrick Henry's, more
beautiful than Sheridan's, more graceful than Cicero's, went back to God whO'
made it.
When we laid him down he soon said to us, by a significant act, what
he could not say by speech, "one side of me is dead." This he did by
raising up one arm, grasping tightly his hand, and shaking his clenched fist.
This he did twice, looking, at the same time earnestly and rather wildly into
the face of immediate bystanders. When he did this with his left hand his
right one was lying dead at his side This act was instantly read by all as
saying to us, "one side is powerless, but the other is not." This was the
last communication to his fellow man ever made by him, unless subsequent
grasps of recognition may have indicated to a few that he knew them.
And there at night I parted with that stricken man ! He, who had
'touched with the sceptre of his imperial and God-like intellect States, Nations,
People, Courts and Senators, and made them all bow to the majesty of its
power, was now touched — in his turn — touched by the sceptre of his Lord,
and instantly bowed his head, and laid himself submissively down and died.
I, a sojourner here at the National Capital for a few days, and who hap
pened to witness " The Last of Earth" to Corwin, wrote down this. Let it
be preserved or thrown away as may be fit ; but whether preserved or thrown
away — "  our hearts, though young and brave.
Still like muffled drums are beating
Funeral marches to the grave."

HIS MOST ELOQUENT SPEECH.

The Mexican war speech in the senate has been often pro
nounced Corwin's greatest oratorical effort, but tradition and contem
porary written accounts concur in representing another of his
speeches, never reported and so lost, as excelling it. This was a
defense of his course in reference to the Mexican war delivered at
his home ; and there is evidence that it was the most truly eloquent,
most magnificent and overpowering effort of his life, and one which
produced an effect on his hearers probably never equalled in our
political oratory.
The two speeches on the Mexican war in 1847, the one in the
senate, the other at his home, mark the zenith of his parliamentary
and popular eloquence. The first, he certainly never excelled or
equalled in congress; the second, it is easy to believe from the
reported effect on his audience, he never excelled or equalled in a
popular address. As he was a greater orator before the people than
in the senate, we can concur in the verdict of those who heard his
Lebanon speech that it was the greatest of his life, if not the great
est piece of popular eloquence of an American orator. He was fif
ty-three years of age, in the ripe prime of his manhood and the full
.maturity of his intellect He had the intensity of conviction and
the courage to speak which together make eloquence one of the
great moral forces of the world. The time, the place, the subject
and the audience were all such as to bring out the highest powers of
the orator. It was six months after his denunciation of the war of conquest
and his vote against war supplies. He spoke in his own defense and
in defense of truths and principles which he held dearer than his life.
He was at his own home ; in the court-house where his voice had
been so often heard ; surrounded by his friends and neighbors who
had known him from boyhood. He was a senator, denounced by
truckling politicians and servient newspapers all over the land as a
(78)

HIS MOST ELOQUENT SPEECH. 79
traitor to his country. He did not speak as a politician explaining,
excusing and extenuating what he had said and done ; he reiterated
and reaffirmed the doctrines and declarations of his speech in the
senate and announced his fixed determination to abide by them.
The war was not yet over. It was popular in the south and
west ; our armies had been successful, and Scott was even then mak
ing his triumphant march to the Mexican capital. The Whigs of
Ohio did not boldly support Corwin. Would his neighbors and
friends at his own home desert him ? It was not a time for the exer
cise of powers of wit and mirth-making. The speech was solemn,
serious, pathetic, — one continuous torrent of invective, righteous
indignation and patriotic appeal; and it is not hard to believe the tra
dition that old men who had employed the orator when a young
lawyer, who had voted for him again and again, and who had seen
with increasing admiration the growth of his fame, stood around him
with streaming eyes, and when it was concluded pronounced the
speech the greatest they ever heard.
No effort to reproduce the words of the speaker was ever made,
but full reports of the meeting were given in the press, and intelli
gent men wrote and published their impressions of this wonderful
triumph of oratory, and described the effect it produced upon the
hearers. It was on Saturday, August 28th, 1847. A Whig meet
ing had been announced with Corwin, a senator, and Robert C.
Schenck, a representative in congress, as the speakers. There was
no exciting election approaching and the meeting was not so large
but that it could be held in the court-house. Most of the audience
were the personal friends of Corwin, gathered from the farms and
towns of his own county, but some were from neighboring counties.
Some distinguished men were present. Ex-Governor Morrow came
up from his farm and mill and presided. Wihiam Bebb, then gover
nor of the state, was one of the vice-presidents. The list of the
officers of the meeting is worthy of preservation :
President — Ex-Governor Jeremiah Morrow, of Warren.
Vice-Presidents — Governor Bebb, Hon. John Woods and John M.
Millikin, of Butier; John N. C. Schenck, of Warren, and John M. Galla
gher, of Clark.
Secretaries — W. H. P. Denny, of Warren, and William C. Howells,
of Butier. Committee on Resolutions — Lewis D. Campbell, of Buder; Hon.
David Fisher, of Chnton; Thomas B. Stevenson, of Cincinnati; William

80 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
Crosley, of Montgomery; and A. H. Dunlevy, J. J. Janney, Emmor Bailey,
Col. John Hopkins and Gideon D'Hart, of Warren.
There was a meeting in the forenoon at which a long series of
resolutions was adopted, one of which warmly endorsed Corwin's
course in the senate, and especially commended him for opposing
the Mexican war. Speeches were made by Campbell and Stevenson.
In the afternoon the two orators of the day were heard. Schenck
spoke first, occupying an hour and a half He had then served four
years in congress and had already exhibited something of that
remarkable ability as a speaker which led Blaine to write of him,
long afterward, that no man in congress during his generation rivaled
his marvelous power in the five minutes' discussion in the committee
of the whole. Corwin spoke next. In reference to his speech, we
quote first from the report of the meeting in the Lebanon Star,
probably written by Denny, the editor :
" Now what shall we say of the speech of our fellow-citizen, Thomas
Corwin ? We have no disposition to indulge , in fulsome flattery ; that is
unnecessary, but we must be permitted to record the unanimous sentiment of
all who heard it that it was the best speech Mr. Corwin ever made. And
that, in our estimation, is the highest praise which can be bestowed on the
effort. Its delivery occupied two hours and three quarters, and though the
day was warm and the audience for the most part unseated, not a sign ot
restlessness was exhibited. The people, Whigs and Democrats, were spell
bound, and we believe that if the speech had lasted three hours longer it
would have been listened to with unabated interest. As a specimen of elo
quence and argument we doubt if it has ever been surpassed. It was
directed to the judgment as well as the passions .... The great responsi
bility of the citizen in exercising the right of suffrage was dwelt on with
remarkable force. Voting right, conscientiously and intelligently, he
regarded as the only safeguard of the republic. The annexation of Texas,
the war and all the evils resulting from it, were legitimately chargeable to the
people, who might by the election of Mr. Clay, have avoided them, and
thus have preserved the peace, prosperity and honor of the country. Mr.
Corwin reaffirmed and reiterated in the strongest language the doctrines and
the policy embraced in his memorable speech last winter. They were right;
and he intended hereafter to enforce them, not only as a public man but as a
private citizen."
Thomas B. Stevenson, a Kentuckian then editing the Cincinnati
Atlas, wrote for his paper:
" Mr. Schenck delivered a powerful discourse on the origin and objects-
of the war, as well as the means of terminating it honorably, and embracing

HIS MOST ELOQUENT SPEECH. 81
besides a masterly, manly and conclusive defense of himself for his own
course in congress on that subject. He was listened to with deep attention
and frequently responded to from the audience by expressive bursts of appro
bation as period after period of iodignant attack or triumphant self-defense
rolled eloquently from his tongue.
" Mr. Corwin followed. We had never heard mm before. We have
heard some good speaking in our time, having grown up among a people
where oratory seems to be ' manor born,' but we must say ( for sober convic
tion extorts it ) that Mr. Corwin's speech at Lebanon last Saturday was the
noblest, whether considered with reference to its matter or manner, or both,
that we ever heard. It was directed to a defense of his vote against war
supplies ; to the maintenance of the fundamental principle of free govern
ment that the representatives of the people must judge of the propriety of
objects for the attainment of which they are called to furnish means — a prin
ciple for which he solemnly declared he was ready to lay down his life as did
our forefathers of the revolution ; and to the consideration of the practical
means of preserving the union from overthrow threatened by the acquisition
of new territory in the prosecution of the Mexican war. On this last point
he concurred with Mr. Schenck and the resolutions of the meeting, that no
safe plan of redemption remained but that of refusing to take any portion of
Mexican territory. On the blessings of the union and on the means of its
preservation, his eloquence seemed superhuman. Never before was assem
bled an audience so solemn, so rapt, so deeply moved ; and on the cheeks of
the old, the middle-aged and the young tears rolled down as the eloquent
and patriotic truths of the noble orator of the people fell from lips that
seemed almost inspired.
" But we feel how vain and presumptuous the attempt to describe such
a speech. Some idea of its eloquence and power and effect may be inferred,
though not realized, by the fact that every one who heard it declared it the
ablest speech the orator ever delivered ; and to say that Mr. Corwin surpassed
himself is the highest eulogium that can be pronounced upon this effort. It
certainly was superior in ability to his great speech in the senate; and it
would be worth more to this country than the expenses of the Mexican war,
could it be printed verbatim and given to every man, woman and child in the
land. It should be put into the hands of school boys for all time to come."
A. P. Russell, in his sketch of Corwin, says of this speech :
"There was not a humorous word in it; it was grave, sober, serious,
tragic. The struggles of the orator, at times, to express himself were pain
ful to witness. The great veins and muscles in his neck enlarged; his face
was distorted ; his arms wildly reached and his hands desperately clutched,
clutched in paroxysms of unutterable emotion. Men left their seats, and
gathered close around him, standing through most of the speech ; and many
7

82 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
of them unconsciously repeated with their lips, almost audibly every word
that he uttered — the tears streaming over their faces. Every man in the
audience was his personal friend. The speech was a long one, lasting two
or three hours  The audience dissolved of itself, swarming over the
streets and side-walks, nearly every auditor going his own way alone.
Schenck and Stevenson walked down the street together, but did not speak a
word for a block or two. All at once Schenck ejaculated : " What a
speech ! " " Yes," responded Stevenson, with Kentucky emphasis, " what a
speech ! I was born and bred in a land of orators ; have been accustomed
all my life to hear such giants as Clay and Menifee, Crittenden and Mar
shall; but blessed be God! I never heard a speech like that."

REMINISCENCES.

Thomas Corwin was rather above the usual size. He was about
five feet ten inches high, of large frame, and in the later years of his
life rather heavy. His head was finely shaped. There was some
thing in his appearance to attract a second look from a stranger. In
person, he was impressive and full of dignity, yet kindliness and
benevolence shone out from his eyes and face. His countenance
was pleasing rather than handsome. His hair and eyes were black ;
his complextion unusually dark, but the saying that he was "the
blackest white man in the United States" was an exaggeration.
When Corwin and Hamer were the greatest orators of the rival polit
ical parties of Ohio, the former was famous in popular story for his
dark face, and the latter for his red hair. When Corwin wa.s about
to begin a speech in the open air with the sun shining full upon the
platform, and friendly hands raised an umbrella to shield him from
the sun's rays, he said: "I do not think the sun will spoil my com
plexion." In public speaking he had the most remarkable facial expression
of any orator of his time. The movements of his features were
sometimes rather grotesque. He spoke with face and eyes as well
as with his tongue. His voice was not deep or powerful, but musi
cal and clear, and could be heard over a large open-air meeting. He
did not attempt to hold attention by noise and vehemence. Though
he was at times impassioned and on rare occasions even terrible in
his invective, his manner was usually self-possessed and the tones of
his voice rich and mellow, but earnest and persuasive. He had great
dramatic power, which was evidently natural. In his public speak
ing there was an entire absence of formality and the studied graces
of the schools. In his greatest efforts there was no striving after
learning, rhetoric or oratory. His greatest speeches would be de
livered with infinite ease. He spoke not merely as a great orator but
(83)

84 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
as a great man, who was the complete master of himself, and was
never lost in thoughts too high or too deep, or was overwhelmed
with the vastness of his theme.
In preparing a speech Corwin sometimes made a full brief, and
sometimes wrote a page or two which might serve as an exordium or
peroration ; but it is believed that none of his great speeches in con
gress or in political campaigns were written out before their delivery.
The Mexican war speech bears evidence, however, of careful prepar
ation. He disliked even the labor of writing out his speeches for
publication from the stenographer's notes ; they always disappointed
him. A volume in his library is still pointed out, containing selec
tions of great speeches of British orators, in which he was often
seen to read while meditating upon a public effort, doubtless for the
purpose of getting his mind into a proper mood, and imbibing
something of the style and diction of a master of the English
tongue. He would use the same illustrations, both for amusement
and for argument, again and again, especially in his campaign speak
ing. The humorous description of the militia parade, in his reply to
General Crary, is said to have been first given by him in a speech at
his home in a trial before a justice of the peace; and A. P. Russell
tells us that he heard the sublime passages in the Mexican war
speech on Napoleon and the burning of Moscow, given by Corwin
before a small audience at a debate in the Mechanics' Institute at
Lebanon before the delivery of the speech in the senate.
Judge George R. Sage relates the following in illustration of the
orator's method of preparing a public address: In 1859 Corwin
consented to deliver the oration at the celebration of the fourth of
July on the Tippecanoe battle grounds, and a large assembly was
expected. In the latter part of the night preceding the celebration,
Corwin called Mr. Sage, his son-in-law, to his room and said that he
was not well and was much discouraged about his address the next
day; he had been unable to sleep and in trying to think over his
speech, his memory seemed to have entirely failed him. Mr. Sage
advised him to dismiss from his mind all thoughts of his speech,
take no thought of the morrow and go to sleep. He said he would
try to do so. In the morning the orator was seriously indisposed
and declared that he could not speak at all. To lessen the disap
pointment of the people, the master of ceremonies at the celebra
tion asked if Governor Corwin could not ride out to the grounds in
a carriage and take a seat on the platform. He consented to do so

REMINISCENCES. 85
and at the proper time arose to explain his inability to speak. The
audience was estimated at forty thousand. After a few remarks he
struck upon the first sentence of a manuscript he had prepared;
then Mr. Sage whispered to the president of the day, "It is all
right ; he will speak ;" and the orator went on and dehvered a fine
address, two hours long, without referring to a note or memorandum.
The manuscript he had prepared was only about a page and a half
of legal cap, and was to serve as the beginning of the speech.
Perhaps no orator, not of the pulpit, ever drew more frequent
illustrations from the Bible. Like Fisher Ames, he is said to have
been a constant reader of the Bible, and to have greatly admired the
simplicity and purity of the language of the common English ver
sion. His mind was well stored with biblical history and deeply im
bued with the bold and tender imagery of Hebrew poetry. He
sometimes advised a law student to read the Bible as a first book in
his course of studies.
The renown of Corwin as an orator, especially in his own state,
was due more to his extempore speeches on the stump and at the
bar, never reported and now lost, than to those which have been pre
served. The talk of the people made him famous. It was the
recollection of the masses wherever he spoke, the popular reports of
political campaigns in which he excelled all other speakers, and of
law-suits in which he carried the jury with him by his wit and elo
quence, the thousand familiar anecdotes — many of them apocryphal
— with which his name was associated, to which is to be attributed the
strong hold his name had upon the popular heart. »Even to the
school-boys of Ohio for a generation the name of Tom Corwin was
more familiar than that of the president. W. H. Venable, the
teacher-poet, was a native of Mr. Corwin's county and a school-boy
when the orator was most famous. In some familiar reminiscences
of his boyhood, Venable writes :
" The air was saturated with anecdotes of Tom Corwin, and even the
small boys of Warren county could feel the force of that great orator's elo
quence and enjoy the ludicrous comicality of his grotesque faces. I heard
him speak more than once, both at the bar and on the stump, and, young as
I was, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. The universal talk caused by
his great speech against the Mexican war impressed even the children of that
period, for it was very violent talk. My father, being an abolitionist,
approved of the sentiments of the speech. When the war with Mexico
broke out I was going to school at Ridgeville, I remember, and some of the

86 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
boys stained their hands with poke-berry juice and then cried out: " If I
were a Mexican, as I am an American, I would welcome the American sol
diers with bloody hands to hospitable graves."
Only a few poetic quotations are found in Corwin's printed
speeches and none of more than three lines ; but he was a reader of
poetry and was able to repeat many poetic gems from memory. In
driving past his boyhood home, he pointed out to his daughter the
tree under which, when a boy, he first read Allan Ramsay's "Gentle
Shepherd." His friend, Dunlevy, relates that, when law students
together, he and Corwin would repeat to each other poems they
admired and had committed to memory. In a letter to the publish
ers of this work, Samuel Shellabarger relates an incident, told him
by Roscoe Conkling, illustrating Corwin's ability to repeat poetry.
When Corwin and Conkling were members of the thirty-sixth con
gress, they were riding together on a steamboat on the Ohio. The
weather was warm and they sat up on deck rather than go to bed,
and fell into a poetic contest, each striving to outdo the other in
reciting gems of poetry. At length Corwin proposed that each
should repeat the most beautiful poem relating to death at his com
mand. Conkling was somewhat taken aback by the proposal, but
he struck on some lines of one of Mrs. Barbauld's hymns, after
which Corwin repeated a passage from Walter Scott's "Rokeby,"
including the lines put into the mouth of the buccaneer about
to die: And now my race of terror run.
Mine be the eve of tropic sun.
No pale gradations quench his ray,
No twilight dews his wrath allay ;
With disk like battle-target red,
He rushes to his burning bed,
Dyes the wide wave with bloody light.
Then sinks at once — and all is night.
In the same conversation with Mr. Shellabarger, Mr. Conkling spoke
of the style and characteristics of Mr. Corwin's oratory, and main
tained that while his wit and imagination were unique and superb,
yet the most striking and in fact the characterizing quality of his
genius v^as grandeur combined with the awful; this, Mr. Conkling
insisted, marked pre-eminently his greatest productions, and in illus
tration he recited portions of the most brilliant passages of the
Mexican war speech.

REMINISCENCES. 87
Corwin, so far as is known to the writer, delivered only one
lyceum lecture. In 1859 he gave the first of a course of lectures in
his own town for the benefit of the Congregational society then
erecting a new house of worship; and this lecture he repeated in
Henry Ward Beecher's church, after leaving his home to take his
seat in the thirty-sixth congress. Beecher had made his church a
temple of free speech, but most of the lectures heard from its plat
form were from radical leaders of the anti-slavery agitation. Cor
win's lecture was patriotically intended as a corrective of the danger
ous tendencies of the Garrison school of agitators, and he must have
found his conservative views out of tune in Plymouth church. His
subject was "The Duties of the American Citizen," and in his lec
ture he argued the obligation of every citizen to obey the laws of his
country. This meant that the fugitive slave law should be obeyed
and not resisted. The time was one of unusual excitement. The
John Brown raid had occurred. There had just been a dangerous
crisis in Ohio. A mob had resisted the return of a slave. An
effort had been made to induce the supreme court of the state to
override the judgment of the federal courts, and to discharge from
jail a prisoner convicted by the United States district court of violat
ing the law for the return of fugitives from labor. Grave apprehen
sions were felt of an armed conflict between the state and the
national authorities ; and of the great battle between the free and
slave states being begun by a northern state resisting a law of
congress. The Ohio supreme court, by a majority of only one,
held that the state ought not to interfere with the action of the fed
eral courts within their constitutional hmits. Judge Swan, one of
the ablest jurists of the state, on account of his concurrerice in this
decision, was refused a renomination by the Ohio Republican state
convention. The "higher law" was preached in northern pulpits.
The Plymouth pastor, in denouncing the fugitive slave law, had
declared that "the law of God is above all laws, national or state,
constitutional or unconstitutional, and must first be obeyed. " Cor
win now preached from the greatest pulpit in the land the doctrine
that the law of God required obedience to the laws of the land.
We have divine authority to make laws, he said.
"Are you then," he asked, " under any moral obligation to obey the
laws when they are made ? I say you are. I say every clergyman is under
that obligation. Every man, every woman and every child when he
comes to years of accountability, have imposed upon them a moral obliga-

»» LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
tion, the discharge of which will be accounted an acceptable service at that
great tribunal, where we must all stand after our ignorance has gone, and
when we stand in the sunlight of eternity. How the pardoning power may
be exercised when poor ignorant man stands up, saying that it was conscience
that taught him it was right to disobey law, I have no knowledge  But
what then ? A gentleman rises up from prayer and says that a law is very
wrong ; that it commands a wicked thing ; he cannot obey it. There are two
alternatives for such a man, exile and the grave. Either of them is very
unpleasant to weak humanity."
A few evenings before the delivery of his lecture in Brooklyn,
Corwin sat on the platform of Beecher's church and heard for the
first time the most accomplished of the northern advocates of disun
ion, Wendell Phillips, in one of his radical lectures, "The Lesson of
the Hour." He was charmed with the manner and style of the
great orator; and he once said to the writer of these pages, that he
never heard a speaker use the English language with such terseness
and purity as Wendell Phillips. But no two men could differ more
in their views on great public questions. A newspaper writer
watched Corwin's countenance as the lecturer proceeded to eulogize
John Brown as the greatest of American heroes, and denounce the
constitution and the union. At times he was entranced with the
eloquence of the speaker, but when Webster and Clay were held
responsible for the Mexican war, Corwin shook his head, and when
the constitution of the United States was pronounced, in language
borrowed from Isaiah, "a covenant with death and an agreement
with hell," his dark face seemed darker than ever, and he looked like
"a god made wroth."
Corwin was a wonderful conversationist. In his later years
conversation came to be his chief amusement. His leisure hours in
youth were spent in reading, in after life in talking. He was not
like Dr. Johnson, "a tremendous companion," who talked for vic
tory and was vehement, dogmatic and irascible. He charmed and
delighted with his conversation. No man in the nation was more
welcome at a public reception in Washington when he could be
heard to talk. Ex-President Hayes, not long before his death, in
an interview, said: "Corwin was one of the most wonderful talk
ers I have ever met. He was the center of every company he
entered, and if he were with us to-day he would monopolize the con
versation and would talk for hours. We would be glad to listen to

REMINISCENCES. 89
him, and it was so everywhere, even to the day of his death. He
was the best story-teller I have ever known."
A striking figure in Corwin's county was Orson S. Murray, who
pubhshed on his fruit farm on the Little Miami, "The Regenerator,"
an anti-slavery and anti-religious journal. He had come from Ver
mont and Whittier described him as "a man terribly in earnest, with
a zeal that bordered on fanaticism and who was none the more genial
for the mob-violence to which he had been subjected." He disre
garded the conventional in his dress and mode of life as well as in
his beliefs ; he wore his beard unshaven and his long hair hung down
on his shoulders. He was once called as a witness in a law-suit at
Lebanon, but his testimony was objected to on the ground that he
did not believe in a God and a future state of rewards and punish
ments. Corwin argued in favor of receiving his testimony, but it
was under the old constitution of Ohio, and the court would not per
mit him to tell what he knew about the case, though no one ques
tioned his sincerity or truthfulness. As the philosopher was leaving
the court-room in just indignation, Corwin touched him on the shoul
der and said: "My old friend, go home, shave, shear, turn hypo
crite like the rest of us, then come back and your word will be as
good as ours." Only a few years later a new constitution was
adopted in Ohio which declared that no person should be incompetent
to be a witness on account of his religious belief
When Corwin was at his home in Lebanon, not long before his
death, a student of theology called upon him to pay his respects.
As the young man was taking his leave, Corwin said: "You are
preparing for the ministry; a noble profession. Serve God; obey
the king. Good-night."
He did not believe there was great danger of a young man
injuring his health by hard study. When his son was attending col
lege at Granville, Ohio, Mr. Corwin wrote to him: "I am informed
that you are seriously injuring your health by study. Very few
young men now-a-day» are likely to be injured in this way and if
you should kiU yourself by overstudy, it will give me great pleasure
to attend your funeral. "
Those who knew him best knew that he was a profoundly seri
ous man. He was, like Lincoln, a story-teller and a humorist, but at
heart a sad man. Even his fame as a wit sometimes made him feel
that his life had been a failure. General Garfield relates that "he
remarked very sadly one evening that it was the greatest mistake of

90 IFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
his life that he had ever cracked a joke or made a funny speech, for
people would never believe that a funny man could have any solid
abilities, and if he did not make a funny speech his audience would
be disappointed." To a young speaker Corwin gave the advice:
"Never make people laugh. If you would succeed in life, you
must be solemn, solemn as an ass. All the great monuments are
built over solemn asses." It is doubtless true that the mass of those
who assembled to hear him expected to be amused rather than
instructed, and the brilhance of his genius and the fascination of his
wit tended to make the world less appreciative of his real merits as
a profound thinker and a well-read statesman. But Corwin over
looked the truth that mirth-provoking humor may be of a high order
and exercised for noble ends, and a witticism may be immortal.
Of Corwin's kindness to young men, especially those who man
ifested a desire for literary culture, there is a concurrence of testi
mony. Andrew G. McBurney, a successful lawyer, member of the
state senate and lieutenant-governor of Ohio, was, at the time Cor
win was beginning to attract the attention of the nation, a poor boy
in Lebanon who had learned the trade of cabinet-making, but mani
fested a strong desire for reading and learning. Corwin noticed his
taste for books, and on one occasion, as McBurney related a quarter
of a century afterward, met him on the street and advised him to
join in the debates of the Mechanics' Institute, gave him advice as to
public speaking and tendered him the use of his private library, not
in a formal way, but in such a manner that the tender was accepted
by the young man, who never forgot the kindness. "He was ever
ready and anxious," wrote McBurney, "to assist the poor young
man who was striving to acquire an education or a profession ; often
inquiring as to his progress and course of study, and making timely
suggestions, giving wise and useful counsel, and offering the use of
his books." Addison P. Russell relates that when he was a printer at Leba
non, Governor Corwin one day came into the office of the Western
Star where he was at work, and picking up a volume belonging to
Russell which lay in the window asked for the use of it for a few
days. It was a translation of Dante. When the governor returned
the book a week or two later, he came at night into the room of the
young printer who was sitting alone by the fire. Corwin sat down
in a chair as if he had come to stay; he began talking first about

REMINISCENCES. 91
Dante whom he had not read for many years, but the Divine Comedy
had engrossed him for the day ; he gave something of an analysis of
the great poem, then launching away into a vasty deep, he talked in
a soliloquy or monologue on life and death, the present and the
future, reality and possibility. "Oh, how profoundly and subhmely
he talked. Every sentence was big with thought, experience and
emotion, and every one seemed bigger than the one which preceded
it." Thus the great man continued until midnight with no listener
but a silent printer boy, but one who he knew had a love of liter
ature and had already acquired the literary art. Russell closes his
little book, "Thomas Corwin, a Sketch," after telling the story of
this talk, with the declaration: "But for that memorable demon
stration of his genius, this monograph would never have been
written." Great as was Corwin's versatility he did not excel as a letter-
writer. His official papers show a felicitous style, but not much of
his private correspondence would be worthy of preservation. He
did not wield a facile pen and his handwriting was not good. He
disliked the labor of writing and most of his letters were short and
carelessly written. Two of his brief letters, never before printed,
are here given. Both were copied for this work from the originals
in his possession by Isaac Strohm, author of the sketch of the life of
Corwin prefixed to the volume of his speeches published in 1859.
The first is a rough draft of a letter found in a waste basket at
Washington soon after his retirement from the cabinet and was
intended to accompany a present to a friend whose name is not
given :
" I have long known your high appreciation of the literary as well as
personal character of Charles Lamb. 1 could worship him if it were only
for his almost divine affection to his sister, and the sacrifices made by him to
that holy sentiment; — sacrifices which only such as he are permitted by
Almighty God to make. And then, how many a ' carking care ' is con
sumed in the exquisite humor of Elia !
"As we shall soon be separated by half a thousand miles of space, I
felt a wish to leave with you some memento which, while it might keep alive
and fresh the memory of an absent friend, would associate him with pure
and agreeable thoughts. I could think of nothing better for these ends than
this humble Christmas present — the works of Charles Lamb. Long may you
live to admire the author, and revel in the varied and singular wealth of his

92 LIFE OF THOMAS CORWIN.
works. You cannot be very unhappy while you possess the genius and taste
requisite for either.
" With a fervent prayer that many and many a return of happy and
still happier Christmas days may be in store for you, I am and shall always
be Your sincere friend, i
Tho. Corwin."
The other was written in reply to a proposition to publish a
volume of his speeches with a sketch of his life. The letter making
the proposition was written soon after Mr. Corwin's election to the
thirty-sixth congress and opened with a congratulation on that event.
" Lebanon, 29th October, 1858
" Dear Sir:
" Congratulations on the happening of good luck, or on the achieve
ment of great enterprizes, or on any event which is agreeable, are always
acceptable. Now, I am not quite sure that my election is to be classed,
philosophically, with either of the before-mentioned circumstances. My past
public life has been replete with disappointments. I have fallen so far short
of accomplishing what I and others aimed to do, that I have little hope of
the future. But I have resolved to make another effort to right the ship, and
if we fail we will have the consolation to know that we did not stand on the
shore while the goodly vessel was swamped in the surf.
"As to the life and speeches which you propose to publish, 1 scarcely
know what to say. It is a very small matter to be uncertain about, and yet
it wears about it a certain dash of egotism. It seems like consenting to be
dressed up and exhibited as ' a show.' Does it not wear that look ?
And yet, others have done very much the same thing for the sake of
posterity ! ! ! ... The life, God help me, can be written in an hour. My
inner life, the world in which my whole soul has lived, has been and will for
ever be, even to my intimate friends, unknown. And yet this is all of me
that is worth knowing. But this I am prone to believe is true of all men
and women who are blest or cursed with natures which will not rest upon
attainments which seem to be the highest permitted to poor, short-sighted,
ruined humanity. But — amen — I must not preach now. Yours truly,
Tho. Corwin.''
Perhaps the gravest defect in the character of Corwin was a
carelessness in pecuniary matters. If this were a grievous fault,
grievously did he answer it. His life was almost a constant struggle
with financial embarrassments. Want of prudence in private affairs
is not to be excused in a public man even though it be, as in Cor
win, a failing which leans to virtue's side. It was the generosity of

REMINISCENCES. 93
his nature which led him to spend money too freely and to become
security for an embarrassed friend when he was unable to pay his
own debts. During much, if not most of his life, he was oppressed
with a heavy burden of debt. The same mail which brought letters
offering assistance to nominate him for president brought others from
pressing creditors he had not the heart to reply to. "I wonder,"
he is reported to have said, ' ' if any other man ever hid from the
constable to read letters proposing him for the presidency." His
intimate friend, Dunlevy, wrote of him in 1840:
" Mr. Corwin is in moderate circumstances. Had he been a money-
making man, he might have been independentiy rich. His practice at the
bar has been extensive and he is the first man known to the writer who
retained and attended to it after holding and faithfully filling a seat in con
gress. The amount he might have hoarded from his practice would have
been great had he been as exact about collecting fees as some other gentle
men of his profession. But he was careless of collecting fees and his purse-
strings were always too loosely held to retain what he did realize. He is dis
tinguished for his liberality and has bestowed a handsome estate, as the
writer well knows, in charity and in aiding such as required his assistance."
Corwin's want of foresight and prudence prevented him from
ever attaining what Gibbon calls, in his autobiography, ' ' the first of
earthly blessings, independence." He felt that he never was the
complete master of his own time and actions or had full opportunity
to follow his own tastes. There is an allusion to the chain of depen
dence and duty which bound him in a private letter to the author of
the "Corwin Genealogy," who before the publication of that work
sent him some of the results of his researches. The letter is dated
at Lebanon, September 5th, 1859, and concludes as follows:
"Your researches sent me, for which I thank you, are curious enough
and must have cost great labor and much time. But 1 have resolved not to
enter into that Battie of the Books. Nevertheless, had I the leisure, I dare
say I should take as much delight in such inquiries as yourself. But my
tastes have never had fair play. The actual affairs around me and upon me
have driven me, like a slave, through a very busy and very unprofitable life
thus far . . . .1 should like to know you personally. Can you tell me how
I can find you and when ? I am again in that turbid water, politics. If
you come to Washington next winter, you will find me amongst the monsters,,
big and litde, that swim in that sea of troubles. Truly yours,
Thomas Corwin.''
E. T. Corwin.

94 LIFE OF THOMAS CORWIN.
The residence of Corwin at Lebanon was on the bank of a
small stream which during most of his life was the western border of
the town. It was a large old-fashioned frame house without archi
tectural pretensions, built in Corwin's youth, and in it he was mar
ried. In few mansions of Ohio has there been dispensed a more
generous or genial hospitality. Distinguished statesmen, visiting
clergymen and the pleasure-seeking young were alike welcome.
Mrs. Corwin was a tall and stately woman of commanding presence,
and sensible, rather than brilliant. She was the daughter of Dr.
John Ross, a physician of the vicinity of Philadelphia, and on her
mother's side related to the Randolphs of Virginia. Her tastes
were domestic and she was never dazzled by the brilliance of public
life. Her married life was spent at her Lebanon home, except two
or three years in Washington, while her husband was secretary of
the treasury. She survived her husband thirteen years and died in
1878, aged eighty-three years.
Corwin was singularly affectionate in his family. His love for
his daughters was intense, and their marriage gave him pain. When
the first wedding of a daughter occurred, he manifested so much
feeling that the occasion partook more of the aspect of a funeral than
a wedding, and during the marriage service he shed tears. General
Garfield relates that after his return to Washington from the wedding
of his youngest daughter, Corwin told him he suffered the pangs of
jealousy in the thought that his daughter loved another man more
than she loved him. He was the father of five children, all of whom
survived him. His only son, William Henry, graduated at Gran
ville College, was secretary of legation to Mexico from 1861 to
1864, and charge d'affaires at the same capital from 1864 to 1866,
and after his return practiced medicine at Lebanon. He was
never married and died in 1880. Catherine, the eldest daughter,
died unmarried. Evelina became the wife of Geo. R. Sage, a Cin
cinnati lawyer, afterwards judge of the United States district court;
Louisa, the wife of Reverend E. B. Burrows, of the Congregational
church ; and Caroline, the wife of Dr. Charles Cropper, a physician
of Cincinnati. In early manhood he became an active and conspicuous mem
ber of the Masonic fraternity. The Masonic lodge at Lebanon was
chartered about the time he began the study of law, and in 1819,
two years after his admission to the bar, he was master of this lodge ;
he was grand orator of the grand lodge of Ohio in 1821 and in

REMINISCENCES. 95
1826, deputy grand master of Ohio in 1823 and 1827, and grand
master in 1828. He became a Knight Templar in 1818 at Worth-
ington, Ohia, in the first Templar organization west of the AUeghen-
ies; and in 1826 he organized and presided over the first Templar
encampment in Lebanon.
He was not a church-member. He was reared in a Baptist fam
ily and his wife and daughters were members of the Baptist church.
The bible, the pulpit and the Christian religion were always referred
to in his public addresses with respect and reverence. In his beau
tiful picture in congress of the smiling harvests of civilization spring
ing up in the region lately red with the blood of savage war, he
said: "That holy religion, which is at last the only sure basis of
permanent social or political improvement, has there its voices cry
ing in the wilderness."
The grave of Corwin in the Lebanon cemetery is marked by a
granite shaft, but he erected for himself a more enduring monument
in his speech against the Mexican war. In the early history of
Ohio, while Thomas Corwin was a school-boy, the land which sur
rounds his grave, then covered with the primeval forest, was tendered
by his uncle as a donation for the site of a college ; and the commis
sioners appointed by the legislature of Ohio to select a place for
Miami University, on August I6th, 1809, reported that after an ex
tended examination, they had chosen ' ' a site in the county of Warren
on the western side of the town of Lebanon, on the land of Ichabod
Corwin, at a white oak tree marked M. U." This white oak tree
stood but a few rods east of the grave of Corwin. The legislature
by a law afterward established that institution at Oxford, where it
has remained until the present time.
The career of Corwin as a public man is one in which the
American people can take pride. Though with self-depreciation in
his last years he was made sad with the reflection that he might be
remembered only as a joker, and though it is true that the recollec
tion of his humor has best preserved his name among the common
people, he wiU be remembered as more than a mere humorist. Of
our wits, he was the greatest statesman ; of our statesmen, he was
the greatest wit. The Whig party during its short life had for its
leaders the greatest men of the nation, and among them Corwin's
place is in the front rank. His name is recorded high up in the roll
of the greatest American orators; he made one of the most truly

96 LIFE OF THOMAS COEWIN.
eloquent speeches ever delivered in the United States senate, and it
was in behalf of justice, humanity and national honor. He hated
slavery and firmly and consistently resisted its extension; yet along
with Clay, Webster and Everett he went to the extremest verge of
conciliation to save the union and the constitution. He had a broad
love of country and a sublime devotion to the union. In the fore
front of his characteristics was his moral courage. His most mem
orable speech was the bravest ever heard in congress. He was free
from the taint of demagogism. As a public man he never gave up
a great principle for the sake of preferment, and as a private citizen
he freely gave expression on proper occasions to his convictions on
great public questions.

SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.

(97)

SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.

INAUGURAL ADDRESS AS GOVERNOR OE OHIO.
Delivered to the Legislature December l6, 1840.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives :
Having been properly advised of my election to the office of
Governor of the State, I am here, in obedience to the law, to enter
upon the discharge of those duties which the constitution and laws
of Ohio devolve upon that officer.
Few and comparatively unimportant as are the duties which
our constitution has assigned to the chief executive magistrate of the
State, still it is obvious that an upright and faithful discharge of
these is due to the interests as well as the just expectations of the
people. While I am fully impressed with that truth, so prominent in all
systems of representative government, that every public functionary
chosen by the people is but the instrument selected for the execution
of those principles of government which prompt the bestowment of
their suffrages upon him, yet I cannot omit the present as the most
proper occasion for expressing the deep sense I entertain of the
honor which, in this instance, that selection has conferred upon me.
The grateful recollection which I shall ever cherish of this distin
guished testimonial of its confidence, with the interest I cannot but
feel in common with every citizen, for the advancement of the last
ing prosperity and true glory of the State, will, I trust, furnish at all
times adequate motives to myself, and sure guarantees to the people,
for at least an honest and faithful effort in all things falling within the
constitutional hmits of executive duty. The narrow limits within
which the executive power is circumscribed by the constitution of
(99)

100 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
Ohio has been the subject of much curious speculation — of no little
censure by some, and of high encomium by others. Neither the
Constitution of the United States, nor those of few, if any, of the
States in the Union, furnish a parallel to this strongly-defined feature
in ours. With us the executive has no agency whatever in the
enactment of laws, except the very feeble and humble one, if agency
it may be called, of " recommending such measures as he may deem
expedient.'' The laws, when passed through both branches of the
Legislature, are not submitted for executive approval, nor has he, in
any contingency, that "veto power" which, by one class of political
philosophers, has been deemed essential to protect the people against
a supposed hasty, impolitic, or unconstitutional action of the legis
lative department. Except in one or two instances of very subordi
nate character, the power of appointment to office by the Governor is
limited to such vacancies as may occur in the recess of the Legisla
ture, and such appointments, when made, expire, by express limita
tion, at the close of the next succeeding session of that body. The
admirers of a strong executive have, in my judgment, most errone
ously supposed that a large patronage, resulting from the power of
appointment to office, was a necessary branch of executive power, in
order to give stability to the Government and secure a prompt and
faithful execution of the laws. The denial of this, as well as the
veto power, to the Executive by our constitution ( forming, as they
do, a striking peculiarity) can probably only be rationally accounted
for by reference to the history of the times which gave it birth.
The constitution of Ohio was formed in November, 1802, very
soon after a most animated struggle between two great political par
ties in the United States, which had resulted in the election of Mr.
Jefferson to the Presidency. Of the questions which divided the peo
ple of that day, that touching the powers and patronage of the Exec
utive was prominent. They who favored a restricted power, and
stinted executive patronage, prevailed, and of this school (then
denominated Republican) was the convention that framed our Con
stitution. A fearful jealousy of executive power, with a strong con
viction of the pernicious influence of executive patronage, all will
agree, are indelibly impressed upon their work, and our experience
of nearly forty years has given abundant proofs of the wisdom
which (in this respect at least) exerted its influence upon their
labors. Under this system, Ohio, it is believed, has advanced with
a pace equal to any of her sister States in the augmentation of her

INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 101
population and the development of her resources ; nor in those laws
and social institutions which advance the intellectual and moral con
dition of a people need she fear a comparison with much older com
munities, governed by different organic laws. Under this constitu
tion, the rights of person and property have been fully protected ;
all the great guarantees of civil liberty have been preserved, and, in
the vicissitudes of war and peace, the laws have, in general, been
promptly and vigorously enforced. If occasional and even flagrant
exceptions to this view of our history are to be found, it will be
readily seen that they were of short duration and had not their ori
gin in the want of executive power to prevent or control them.
After an interval of forty years the people of the United States
have again agitated the subject of a strong or restricted executive
action in the Federal Government, and again decided it as they did
in 1800 — furnishing to the citizen of Ohio another proud testimonial
of the excellence, in this particular, of the constitution under which
he lives. I advert to this subject now with no view to particular legisla
tion, but upon the supposition that a contingency may arise when it
may become the duty of the Legislature to express, in the usual
way, the opinions of the State upon it, in reference to some modi
fication of the executive power as defined in the Constitution of the
United States.
Under our complex system of government no subject has given
rise to greater difficulty, or variety of opinion, than that of the
true division of legislative power, under the Constitution, between
the General Government and the States.
On all subjects of this character, prudence and patriotism alike
demand that both parties should forbear, if possible, to enter the
field of conflict in pursuit of a questionable claim of jurisdiction.
That spirit of concession, so powerfully operative in the formation of
the Federal Constitution, should always be invoked by those whose
duty it may be, either as officers of the General or State authorities,
to fix its true interpretation. When we regard, however, the invari
able tendency of power to reach after still further and more extended
dominion, and when we consider the obvious advantage which the
National Government enjoys in a conflict with a single State of the
Union, arising from its greater wealth and patronage, and by conse
quence its superior influence over public opinion, it becomes the
obvious duty of the State Legislatures to watch with vigilance, and.

102 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
on all questions not within the province of the judiciary, to assert, in
a peaceful yet resolute tone, the claims and powers of the weaker
party. The present financial condition of our State, as well as the
intrinsic importance of the subject, will, I am sure, justify me in
bestowing, at this time, a passing notice on a claim often preferred
by Ohio, with many other States in the Union, the adjustment of
which, though at one time on the point of completion, still remains
a subject open for the consideration and final action of Congress.
Several years ago Congress, by very full majorities in both
branches, passed an act providing for distributing the moneys arising
from the sale of the public lands among the States. This act was
predicated upon the proposition that the public lands were held by
Congress in trust; that the objects of the trust were specified in the
deeds of cession comprehending these lands ; that these deeds of ces
sion were compacts ; that the parties to these compacts had agreed
that the lands so ceded should be sold by the General Government,
and the moneys arising from the sale should be appropriated to the
payment of the then national debt, and then the remainder should be
distributed among the several States of the Union in a specified pro
portion. At the time of the passage of this bill, the national debt
was entirely extinguished, and it was believed by Congress that the
contingency had occured upon which the distribution among the
States should commence. This argument, derived from the notion
of a compact embracing the subject-matter of the bill, did not com
prehend that portion of the public domain embraced within the pur
chase of Louisiana and Florida, ceded directly to the General Gov
ernment by France and Spain respectively.
The propriety of subjecting this last class to the principle of dis
tribution was founded on a variety of considerations. It was
believed by many, whose opinions are entitled to great considera
tion, that the public domain was not properly, nor ever should be,
considered a source of revenue to the national treasury. A belief
then prevailed, to such an extent as to amount to almost univer
sal admission, that under any properly-adjusted system of impost
duties on foreign goods, the moneys arising from that source
would be always equal to the wants of the General Government in
time of peace, while those wants should be limited by that strict
economy and republican simplicity which should always characterize
the institutions of a free people.

INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 103
It would seem that the justice and propriety of conceding this
claim to the States, should not now be a question. By the passage
of the act to which I refer. Congress, the proper trustees of the
fund, and the only legitimate guardians of the national treasury, has
acknowledged the right, and given its sanction to the expediency of
the measure The reason, and the only reason, why we are not
at this moment in the enjoyment of our proportion of this rich fund,
is to be found in the fact that the President, then in the executive
chair, refused his assent to the bill for that purpose, thus, by the will
of one man, nullifying the combined resolves of the representatives
of both the people and the States. It is a singular fact, and worthy
our attention, as illustrating the operation of the veto power of the
President, and the influence it gives to the opinion of one man over
the opinions of the many, that a majority of the sovereign States of
the Union have, at various times, insisted on the distribution of this
fund as a matter of policy, and many of them as a matter of positive
right, and Congress have in pursuance of this undoubted expression
of the wishes of the States and people, enacted a law, and yet,
by the simple interposition of the will of one other branch of the
Government, the will and power of the people and the States are
rendered of no effect.
. Neither duty nor inclination invite me to bring to your notice
all those subjects to which your attention has been called by my pred
ecessor in the proper discharge of his duties ; yet, in the present
condition of our affairs as a State, and in view of the onerous taxa
tion, which must continue for some time to press heavily on the peo
ple, I have thought it my imperative duty, at the earliest proper
moment, to solicit your attention to this subject.
It is scarcely possible to suggest an idea touching the proper
revenues of the State, or our prospects as a people, without associa
ting with these, in our thoughts, the condition of that currency
which is the measure of value to all property and labor, and which,
therefore, may be considered as one of the indispensable elements of
a social state of existence. Wherever society has advanced to the
point where there is such a division of labor, as that the products of
one become necessary to another, there some representative of the
value of such exchangeable commodities has been invented. As
any community advances in population, and multiplies the variety
and quantity of its productions, this representative of value also

104 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
increases in amount, so as to insure a ready and convenient transfer
of the labor of one portion to another, without the slow and, in
many instances, impracticable process of barter between the two.
Wherever a thriving and industrious community, with ample means
to apply its labor to future acquisitions, has been found, there the
proceeds of that labor in the future have supplied the place of this
medium of exchange, in the form of credit, and this last has, by
' experience, been found in general so safe that in governments where
a stable order of things prevail, and the rights of the citizens are
well protected, it has obtained universal prevalence. Among the
inventions of nations most commercial, and farthest advanced in civ
ilization, to supply this medium of trade, banks of circulation, as
modern institutions of that sort are called, have borne a conspicuous
part. After the experience of hundreds of years, since their first
appearance, they still survive, and may be said, at this time, to be
more prevalent than at any former period. So thoroughly have
these institutions been wrought into the texture of the affairs of the
world that they have, even in our country, been chartered and sus
tained by the common consent of those who differed widely on every
other great question of public policy. It is not now, therefore, a
question whether banks shall continue among us in Ohio, but only
under what modifications and restrictions they shall be permitted to
live. With three or four exceptions, the charters of all the banks
in Ohio will expire in two years from this time. They have, I
believe, at this time a debt due them, which, in the aggregate,
amounts to about ten millions of dollars. If their charters are not
to be renewed, then it is not merely the dictate of prudence, but the
command of necessity, that they should cease to make further issues,
and by every proper means endeavor to collect their debts, and close
finally their entire business. Should the great curtailment, almost
ruinous, which has taken place in the circulation of the banks of
this State, within the last eighteen months, be followed by the collec
tion of the debts due the banks, while their capital remains unem
ployed, it must produce a state of things in this country which has
never been paralleled by any of those contingencies in trade,
or unusual expansions and contractions in banking, which in former
times, we have had occasion to deplore. With the present Legisla
ture it remains to determine whether the permanent interests of the
State are to be promoted by encountering such a crisis.
As the establishment of some permanent system of banking in

INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 105
this State devolves on the Legislature, and as that responsibility and
labor must be encountered now, and as the subject is one of such
prevading and deep moment, I have thought that my duty would not
be discharged without adding my recommendation to the universal
expectation of the people that it should receive your early and most
anxious consideration. I am aware that the subject has been and is
considered one of great difficulty in theory, and hazardous in
practice. If we analyze all the objections to banks, as instruments for fur
nishing a currency, it wiU be found that they resolve themselves
mainly into two, which are said in practice to be the natural results
of the system.
In the first place, it is said that banks use the credit which their
charters give them to extend the circulation of their paper; that,
either from imprudent management or from fraudulent motives, they
at times refuse to pay gold or silver for their notes ; that this depre
ciates the value of their paper, and to the extent, more or less, of
such depreciation occasions a loss to the holders of their bills. That
instances have occurred in the past history of banks to warrant this
objection no one can deny. But it is not true that this has been
either an invariable or general consequence of our system of bank
ing. The occurrences upon which this objection is founded have
been occasional with chartered institutions, and not general. If we
compare the losses sustained by the community, from the partial and
total failures of incorporated banks to redeem their promises, with
the failures and bankruptcies of individuals engaged in trade, to the
same extent, we shall find the latter exceed those of the former class
by an almost incalculable sum.
If the community were deprived of that credit which is now
furnished by banks, any one conversant with the enterprising spirit
of our people will at once see that individuals and voluntary associa
tions would furnish that credit in other forms. It then becomes a
question which of these two is safest to the laboring and pro
ducing classes? If this be the true question, and our experience is
not utterly deceptive, its solution at once results in favor of incor
porated companies, guarded by every provision which the wisdom of
the Legislature may suggest.
The second objection to banks is, that they expand their circu
lation at one time to an unnatural extent, and thus raise the price of
labor and property, and by a sudden withdrawal of that circulation.

106 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
either from necessity or choice, reduce the value of both, thus, by
reducing the value of the debtor's means of payment, in effect aug
menting the amount of the creditor's demand against him. That
this may be, and has been often done by banks, is certainly true ;
but that the same amount of credit in any other form, or a sudden
influx of the precious metals, and its sudden efflux, would produce
the same evils is equally true. Instances of the latter kind are num
erous, and too well known to justify me in recapitulating them here,
in which banks had not the remotest influence, happening in coun
tries, too, where a metaUic was the only currency.
In those instances, however, in which banks have produced
either of the evils complained of, it is worthy of consideration
whether the fault lay in the institutions themselves or originated in
an extraneous influence exerted upon them. In the notable instance
of suspension of specie payments by the banks of England, in 1797,
it is a well-known fact that an order of the King and Council given
to the bank, produced it, and that it was continued by acts of Parli-
ment, from time to time, till the year 1823, when, by the judicious
arangements of the bank, it resumed payments without producing
any derangement in the commerce of the country, or prejudice to
the finances of the kingdom. The large issues, and consequent sus
pension of the banks in our country, v/hich took place from 1812 to
1820, have been, with great justice, ascribed to the loans made by
the Government of the banks, which were the only means of prose
cuting the war; which, returning upon them at the close of the war,
with a foreign demand for specie, with the failure in business at that
time of many of their debtors, rendered suspension inevitable, and
in many instances were followed by an ultimate close of business.
Among the causes that produced the recent suspensions in 1837, the
influence of the Government, though by no means intended, is nev
ertheless distinctly perceivable. The whole revenues of the General
Government were deposited with them, under an injunction from the
Treasury department, to use them as banking capital. A confidence
in their strength, arising from this connection with the Government,
natural enough, though, as the event proved, delusive, contributed
greatly to those large issues prior to 1837, of which so much com
plaint has been made. The contractions, too, which have followed,
producing the most disastrous effects upon the country, although to
a great extent a necessary consequence of previous over-issues, were,
nevertheless, hastened and pushed too rapidly forward by well-meant

INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 107
endeavors on the part of the Legislature to improve the currency.
Surveying the past history of such institutions, and availing ourselves
of a dispassionate view of our own errors, as weU as theirs, we may
hope that a faithful effort, at this time to establish them on a firm and
secure basis will be attended by happy results. To this end I have
to suggest a brief outline of those plans which appear to embrace a
preventive of the two great evils I have noticed — insolvency of the
institutions and consequent loss to the community, and unnatural
expansions and contractions of the currency. The first is a State
Bank, with a convenient number of branches, at proper points in the
State, with a capital of such amount as the business of the country
would seem to require. Each branch to own its own stock as its
own separate property; but to receive its paper from a common
source, and be subject to the control of a parent board chosen by
the stockholders of all the branches. In this plan, the whole capital
employed in the State should be bound for the redemption of the
notes of every branch, the parent board having power, under proper
limitations, to control the business of all the branches. As the
whole capital is to be pledged for the liabilities of each separate
branch, a board representing the capital should have full power to
protect it against the mismanagement of those for whose conduct in
this scheme it is made ultimately responsible. In this plan, it is pro
posed to give the State a proportion of the stock, not exceeding
one-fifth of the whole, which should be represented by a correspond
ing vote in the election of officers. The books of all the institution
should be opened at all times to the inspection of the parent board,
and subject also to the inspection, at any and all times, of the Legisla
ture, in such mode as it should direct. The amount of circulation
at any and all of the branches to bear a proportion to their capital,
to be fixed by the Legislature in the charter. It is especially desir
able that the charter should specify the cases, if any, on which a for
feiture of the charter should foUow, and that the facts in such cases
should be found by a trial, in proper form, in the judicial courts of
the State. In this scheme, also, it would seem to be proper to make
the notes of each branch receivable in payment of debts at every
branch in the State. To withdraw from the directory all induce
ment to extravagant and injudicious issues, and to put an end to the
practice, said to avail to some extent, of adopting improper methods
to avoid the provision of law, which forbids the receipt of more
than six per cent, per annum on loans, it should be provided, that

108 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
the amount of dividends, when they exceed a given per cent, per
annum, should be paid in the State Treasury.
The second plan, which has been much the subject of discus
sion, and which would seem to be a great improvement on the exist
ing system, embraces the proposition of re-chartering so many of
the present banks of the State as shall be thought necessary, and
such of them only as on thorough examination shall be found to
be in a sound and healthy condition.
In this scheme it is proposed to compel all that shall receive
charters to unite in the election of a Board of Control, each bank to
be entitled to vote in proportion to its capital. This board, who
may or may not hold stock in any bank, as the Legislature shall
determine, to issue all paper, and to sign it by officers to be chosen
by it ; to receive reports from each bank at stated periods, embrac
ing all its transactions, verified by the oaths of its officers. It
is proposed, also, to vest the board with power to examine into
the affairs of all the banks at stated periods, to be fixed by law, and
oftener, if they deem it necessary, and to close the business of any
bank when, in its judgment, such bank had conducted its business in
such manner as to render it unsafe to permit its further continuance,
and in all such cases the assets of such bank should be transferred
to the board, for the purpose of liquidating all claims outstanding
against it.
In this plan it is also proposed to make the capital of each bank,
and all of them who shall accept of charters, liable for the debts of
every other bank, and to compel them to receive the notes of each
other at all times in the payment of debts, and to redeem each its
proper proportion of the notes of any other that may suspend specie
payment, or be closed by the Board of Control.
It would also be a salutary provision in this scheme to hmit the
dividends to stockholders, and bring into the State Treasury all the
profits arising from the operations of the banks above such limita
tion, and also to limit in the charter the amount of circulation as
compared with the capital of the several banks.
I have, as it must be obvious, only thought it necessary to
sketch an outline of some of the most prominent features of the
scheme proposed. I have been impelled at this, as to some it may
seem, unusual time to bring them to the view of the Legislature,
as the loud call of the people of the State summons it to immediate
action of some sort upon this all-important subject.

INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 109
In either of the plans which are here suggested it is believed
sufficient guards are provided against over-issues, leading to danger
ous expansions of the currency, while a capital varying from six to
ten millions of dollars, with all the property of the banks, are
pledged as a perpetual security to the holders of the paper of every
bank embraced in the scheme. It is undoubtedly proper that the
Legislature should reserve the power to inspect the books and exam
ine into the affairs of the banks, by such agents as they may from
time to time select, and that the Board of Control should make an
annual report to the Legislature, embracing a full statement of the
business and condition of the banks under its supervision. It is
important in this, as in every other charter, which creates a compact
between the State and its citizens, that those acts which should work
a forfeiture of the corporate powers granted, should be specifically
named, and the mode of judicating such forfeiture clearly pointed
out. It is believed that the establishment of the bankipg capital of
the State on a permanent and secure basis might be the means of
great occasional relief in the future prosecution of our public works.
The want of funds for this purpose, arising from the temporary
derangement of the money market abroad, could be supplied by the
banks of our own State, were they assured of the further continu
ance of their charters on proper principles.
The losses which have been sustained by contractors and labor
ers, at times occasioned by a failure of the State to make punctual
and frequent payments, might in such cases be avoided. They
might be made useful to the State in this way, in enabling it to ful
fill, as it always should with rigid precision, its compacts with both
its foreign and domestic creditors, an object which, it is hoped,
will never be lost sight of by any who may be charged with the pre
servation of the character and honor of the State. The high repu
tation which our stocks have maintained in the markets of the world
has been earned by a scrupulous fidelity in complying with our con
tracts. The public improvements of the State, those enduring mon
uments of her enterprise, are the fruits of that character. That
faith-keeping principle which shrinks with abhorrence from the idea
of a broken promise, is alike the offspring of the pure morality of a
Christian people, and that lofty pubhc honor which is a prominent
characteristic of our republican institutions. Whatever theoretical
speculators upon the nature of legislative compacts may argue, he

110 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
has been but a superficial observer of the people of Ohio who does
not know that their tax-payers would gladly incur taxes fifty fold
more burdensome than the present rather than endure for a day the
deep disgrace which attaches to broken promises and violated public
faith. Such an idea is the less tolerable in Western American,
because of its almost boundless resources, and the constantly
increasing energy and numbers of its people.
Our present position as a member of the Union, compared
with the past, cannot fail to awaken in the bosoms of our citizens
proud and gratifying reflections. Our state occupies a commanding
position in the great valley west of the Alleghany mountains ; a val
ley which, by the estimates of those well informed, contains a
greater quantity of productive soil than is to be found in one body
elsewhere on the surface of the globe. Though many parts of Ohio
present to the eye of a Western American what seems to him a
crowded population, yet it is certain that when compared with its
capacity to sustain and feed its people, no portion of our territory has
as yet been filled. If we glance our eyes over the statistics of other
parts of the world, not more fruitful in whatever contributes to the
sustenance of a dense population, and see to what extent the produc
tive powers of the earth may be carried, where population has long
pressed upon subsistence, we shall^find that any portion of Ohio
compared with such is as yet little better than an untenanted and
uncultivated waste. Looking forward to the time when the yet un
occupied agricultural and manufacturing powers of the State shall be
fully developed, and taking our past progress as a guide to the fut
ure, we may, without egotism, indulge proud hopes of the ultimate
destinies of the State. When we entered upon a State government in
the year 1802, our population numbered sixty thousand. Now,
after a lapse of thirty-eight years, we count a million and a half
within our borders. Then we were a few scattered settlements,
trembling in the presence of the lately subdued Indian tribes that
still hovered on our frontier, and were entitled to but one representa
tive in the popular branch of Congress ; now we rank third in num
bers among the twenty-six States of the Union, and have a larger
share of power in the Legislature of the Nation than many of the
oldest States, whose settlements began two hundred years before the
white man built his first cabin within the hmits of the State.
Through the valley lying between the Rocky Mountains on one
side, and the Alleghany range on the other, following the course of

INAUGURAL ADDRESS. Ill
the Mississippi, Ohio, and Alleghany rivers, we have an uninter
rupted steamboat navigation of twenty-four hundred miles in length.
This great channel of commerce on one side, and the lakes of the
north on the other, intersected by canals, roads, and rivers, with a
rich soil and healthful climate, while they account for our past
history, furnish certain and most cheering augury of our future
progress. The direction which shall be given to that future, under our
Constitution, mainly depends upon the legislative department. To
subject to useful purposes all the physical resources of the State, and
through these to insure the great ends of our existence, the moral
and intellectual improvement for all the people, to the highest at
tainable point ; these are the great objects of legislative regard. To
the Legislature belongs the lofty glories that await a wise exertion
of that power, and on it devolves, also, the fearful responsibilities
which its high position imposes.
Fully assured that your deliberations will all aim to advance the
interests, and secure the happiness of our common constituents, as it
has become my duty, so shall it be my greatest pleasure, within my
proper sphere, to extend a most hearty co-operation.

MASONIC ORATION.

DELIVERED AT HAMILTON, OHIO, JUNE 24, 1826.

FeLLOW-CITIZENS AND BRETHREN:
The pleasure which I should feel in having been distinguished
by your confidence on this interesting occasion, is much impaired by
the humiliating conviction that I shall not do justice to your hum
blest expectations. The particular cause of this painful embarrass
ment must be obvious to that portion of this numerous assembly,
which belongs to the Masonic family. The anniversary which has
called us together has been celebrated by us for many centuries
past with sacred and undisturbed punctuality. You will therefore at
once perceive, that all the topics which are naturally suggested by
the occasion have been essayed and exhausted by the highest order
of mind which a succession of ages could produce. The path pre
scribed to me is not only strewed with the fairest flowers of speech,
but it is cultivated and adorned on every side with the rich creations
of the most exalted intelligence. Thus situated, the conspicuous
position to which I have been called by the kind partiality of my
brethren would be appalling indeed were I in the presence of an
audience unacquainted with my pursuits in life, and my humble pre
tensions in public declamatory address. To these considerations I
feel it due myself to add that my professional engagements, for sev
eral months past, have been such as to preclude even the possibility
of presenting you with any production, however brief, characterized
by study and preparation. These remarks are not submitted from
any servile fear of your criticism, for I have not the vanity to believe
that the brief and undigested observations I shall make will be
deemed of sufficient importance to render them the subject of either
censure or applause ; but they are offered in justice to the fraternity
whose humble organ I am, that you may not form a hasty judgment
(112)

MASONIC ORATION. 113
of Freemasonry from what you may chance to hear from me under
circumstances so unfavorable to a fair development of her principles.
There are doubtless many present who would be gratified to know
the particular reasons which induce us to adhere with such rigid
exactitude to the celebration of this day as a Masonic festival.
This natural curiosity may be gratified by a few obvious considera
tions. We have assembled in accordance with a very ancient usage
among Masons, to offer our public homage to the memory of St.
John the Baptist. The propriety of perpetuating the memory of
striking events and illustrious men by anniversary celebrations, can
be inferred from the practice of every nation in every age of the
world. In the early stages of human association other means were
employed to insure this noble and beneficent purpose. A pyramid
of stone, a misshapen tomb, with traditional narratives transmitted
by hereditary piety from age to age, served to inform the unlettered
savage of the gratitude he owed to the hero of his tribe, or the law
giver of his nation, whose memory otherwise the ever-rolling current
of years had overwhelmed in oblivion. The Romans wisely pre
served in consecrated temples lasting memorials of the founder of
their empire, and the enlightened Greeks, availing themselves of the
art of sculpture, perpetuated in marble the sages and heroes of their
race. Thus did the early benefactors of nations live for centuries
beyond their natural existence, and continue to make salutary im
pressions upon succeeding times. Modern anniversaries, sacred to
the memory of those whose virtues have created eras in the history
of man, have this end in view, and subserve in a higher degree the
same valuable design.
For these reasons, as often as the wheels of time roll on the
nativity of John the Baptist, as Masons we are taught to separate
our thoughts from the cares that waylay all our paths through this
world, and consecrate our reflections upon the exalted qualities
which characterized this extraordinary man. He, our traditions
inform us, was an active and firm adherent to the grand tenets of
Masonry, and our Masonic injunctions require us to revere him in
the double character of an inspired servant of the most high God,
and a devoted supporter and patron of our ancient institution. By
this custom — consecrated by time, approved by reason, and sanc
tioned by the holiest aspirations of the heart — we hope to superin
duce in our lives and conduct a closer approximation to the virtues
9

114 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
which marked the character of our patron saint, in whose life we are
taught to believe the pristine beauties of brotherly love, relief, and
truth shone forth in effulgence unfading, without a cloud to shadow
their radiance from an admiring world. The most careless observer
will see at a glance the striking difference between this and almost
every other public festival known to the present age. We do not
assemble to immortalize the achievements of a conquering general,
or to rejoice at a fortunate victory over the contending foe. We
meet to commemorate the reign of peace, and cherish those retiring
virtues of the heart that shun the glare of public show, and extend
to the afflicted and obscure their unseen beneficence. Hence, in our
public exhibitions there is nothing to excite the strong emotions of
the soul. The wild tornado that levels whole cities with the ground,
and whelms your navies in the devouring seas, impresses the mind
with a horror that time can seldom efface ; while the common air that
keeps the mysterious machine of life in motion, and is everywhere
diffusing health abroad, scarcely excites a passing thought. The
lofty mountains, whose lone summit is robed in volcanic flame,
arrests the imagination with an intensity that no object, however
pleasing, can divert ; while the extended plain, whose humble shrubs
and flowers and fruits bring abundance and happiness to all around,
is seen without emotion, and passed by without a single reflection.
But in a much more important particular is this anniversary distin
guished from those of a political or purely national character. If
we assemble to commemorate the achievements of a general, who
by slaughter and conquest has contributed to national renown, the
cannon's roar and the victor's trophy necessarily associate with them
the memory of embattled fields and conflicting hosts. Is the ban
ner of victory displayed? Imagination sees in its train "famine,
sword and fire crouch for employment." Do we gaze with rapture
upon the laurel that encircles the conqueror's brow? The noble
ecstacy is repressed when fancy beholds it crimsoned over with the
blood of the slain, and grasping with its tendrils the cypress that
weeps over the vanquished, perhaps the generous foe. Even on our
own national festival, whose annual return reminds us of our happy
deliverance from a foreign yoke, the angry remembrance of a hated
and vindictive foe mingles in our most fervid gratitude to heaven,
and stains it with the black hue of revenge. Far different are the
feelings which the recollections of this day inspire. The emblems
displayed by us speak only of the peaceful triumphs of virtue over

MASONIC ORATION. 115
vice, and indicate a charity and good will as wide in their desires and
action as the globe itselfi Delineated on the clothing we wear is the
temple of Masonry. Behold its ample dimensions ! Its indestruct
ible foundations extend from the north to the south, and sweep from
the farthest east to the remotest west. It tells you that her
expanded portals are open to receive the just and upright in heart
of every tongue and chme ; that the arms of Masonic charity inclose
within their fostering embrace the entire family of man. Turn your
eye to that star — it is emblematical of that which guided the wise
men of the east to the birth-place of the Redeemer. Contemplate
for a moment those parallel lines — one of these represents St. John
the Baptist, the harbinger of the long-promised Messiah.
How richly instructive the reflections, and how sweetly accord
ant to the impulses of Christian piety are the emotions which these
exhibitions are calculated to wake up in the mind and heart ; the
obstreperous note of the battle-song is still, the shout of victory is
hushed, while the soul, attuned to harmony and peace, breaks forth
in the cherub strain that announced the advent of the Savior,
"Peace on earth and good-will toward men." Another striking char
acteristic of our symbols is the ancient date to which they evidently
refer. They remind us that Masonry existed in times long gone by.
That temple would indeed seem to assert the origin of Masonry to
be coeval at least with Solomon, its illustrious builder.
Upon this subject it may be observed that the time when Masonry
began to exist is a matter of small importance when compared with
its true tendency and design. Yet since this is a point upon which
there is much curious speculation among men, and about which
there is some contradiction and more conjecture among those distin
guished for their knowledge of ancient history, I will, in passing, sub
mit to your consideration some facts which bear upon this much con
tested point. In doing this, I shall unavoidably notice some things
which will show the moral character of Masonry, and the use which
a mysterious providence, in ancient times, has made of our order.
History is not silent in regard to the ancient existence of Masonry,
though from the very nature of this society, its identity could not
be distinctly traced along the track of time and made pubhc by his
torical record.
It has never been denied that Masons are to found in almost
every country which has been subjected to modern discovery.
Nations who have had no intercourse whatever with each other, dif-

116 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
fering in language, manners and laws, have seen their subjects meet
for the first time and recognize each other to be members of the
Masonic fraternity. In every quarter of the globe, however, the
grand features of Masonry are found to be the same. This is true
in regard to tribes and countries where letters and the arts are
extinct, and where commerce and modern improvement have as yet
made no impression upon the national character. This remarkable
coincidence, which, I believe, is admitted by all remains to be
accounted for. To this end let me direct your attention to the very
few facts which I am at liberty here to state. We are informed
by a writer whose intelligence and veracity has never been questioned
that most of the Tyrians who had been employed by Solomon in the
erection of the temple at Jerusalem, after the completion of the
building, returned to their native country. We learn from the same
source that about this time many of the Jews who had been engaged
in building the temple migrated to Phoenicia, a country of which
Tyre was at that time the principal city. This Jewish colony, for
some cause left unexplained by the historian, was oppressed by its
neighbors, and became weary of its possessions. In these difficul
ties they flew to their friends for relief The Tyrains who had
labored with them upon the temple at Jerusalem, mindful of their
sacred obligations, which seven years' mutual toil and the interchange
of all the kindly offices which their fraternal connection had induced,
furnished their Jewish brethren with ships and provision. They
took their departure for a foreign land. If they, as workmen at the
temple, had been invested with secrets not known to others, there
can be no doubt but they preserved and carried them wherever they
went. They left Tyre, passed the straits of Hercules and finally set
tled in Spain. They bade a final adieu, not only to their adopted
country, but doubtless they bade a last farewell to the land promised
as a heritage to them and their posterity forever. In this mournful
pilgrimage, if they possessed the secrets, there can be no doubt but
they carried with them the sacred symbols of Masonry, and in the
land of the Gentile erected the altar and lighted up the lights of the
Order. Strabo, whose g'eneral accuracy is surpassed by no author
of his time, informs us that about one hundred and ninety years
after the Trojan war, which would be about fifteen years after the
completion of the temple, a colony of Jews from Palestine made a
permanent settlement on the western coast of Africa. From these
three points we follow the march of Masonry throughout the world.

MASONIC ORATION. 117
In aU the countries settled by emigration from these, or connected
with them by alliance and commerce. Masonry is found, her signs
the same, her mystic word the same in all. The most rational con
clusion from these premises would seem to be this, that Masonry
had its origin from some common source far back in the annals of
the world, and from the ceremonies and emblems of the Order, that
source could be no other than Solomon, the king of Isreal. It is
also clear that Masonry began in the erection of the temple at Jeru
salem, that temple designed to preserve the unadulterated worship
of the only living and true God. These remarks can only apply to
the six first degrees of Masonry. Let us ascend to the seventh, and
see if there is nothing in the "Royal Arch" to show that this last
had its origin with those great and good men who built the second
temple upon Mount Moriah. There are a variety of facts derived
from sacred history all tending to show that from the death of Solo
mon to the completion of the second temple, the Pentateuch, or
five books of Moses, were very rare, and that at one time, at least,
they were believed to be entirely lost. Josiah, a prince remarkable
in history for having restored the true worship of God in Jerusalem,
reigned in Judea about fifty years before the Babylonish captivity.
During his reign it is stated as a remarkable fact, ' ' that the book of
the law was found by Hilkiah the Priest in the house of the Lord."
That this was the only copy then known to be extant is rendered
certain from the joy expressed by the King at the event. We are
told that when it was read to the good King, "he rent his gar
ments," such were his transports in knowing that the sacred legacy
of Moses was still in possession of his divided and afflicted people.
From this time until the days of Ezra, a period of about one hun
dred and seventy years, we hear nothing in sacred history of the
books of the laws. The ark, it is well known, with the law and the
covenant, always remained in the temple. As these were objects of
sacred regard and rehgious veneration with the Jews, so, doubtless,
they would have been most valued by Nebuchadnezzar, had they
fallen into his hands when Jerusalem was sacked and the temple
destroyed. Had they been captured by him and carried with the
consecrated vessels to Babylon, and there preserved, so important a
fact could not have been overlooked by the sacred historian. But,
from the silence of history, all doubtless supposed the law and the
testimony to be forever lost ; such, however, was not the design of

118 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
Heaven. Where, then, do we next hear (after a silence of one
hundred and seventy years) of this sacred deposit.
The learned and proverbially accurate Dr. Prideaux assures us,
that after the second temple was finished, there existed an associa
tion of men at Jerusalem who had certain secrets unknown to the
rest of the world ; that Ezra was the chief of this society, and that
he was, with his brethren, many years engaged in transcribing the
books of the law. Another historian, speaking of the same society,
tells us that the Hebrew name by which they were known signifies
tradition. These facts would seem to establish two important partic
ulars ; first, that there was then extant but one copy of the book of
the law, it being an object of such great importance to increase the
number ; and secondly, that Ezra and his brethren who were engaged
in this sacred duty, having secrets unknown to the world, and a
name corresponding with a grand feature of Masonry, "Tradition,"
were Royal Arch Masons and practiced the rights of the "sublime
degree." From these facts it would appear that Masonry, reviled
by ignorance and persecuted by prejudice, was at this time the hum
ble means employed by divine providence to preserve the only reve
lation as yet received from God.
The sacred temple had stood for four hundred years, the only
altar not contaminated with idolatrous sacrifice. There within the
"Holy of Holies" the law and testimony in the heaven-appointed
custody of the Levite had safely reposed ; but the conquering Chal
dean came, Jerusalem is laid waste, the lofty columns, the porticoes
and brazen pillars of the temple yield to the devouring flames, and
sink in undistinguished ruin ; the consecrated vessels are borne away
in triumph, and the house of Israel is carried captive to Babylon.
The law and the testimony are heard of no more, the feast and the
sacrifice, the priest and the alter, are alike forbidden and hateful to
the heathen oppressor ; the captive Jew hung his harp on the willows
and wept by the streams of Babylon. When they believed the ark
and the covenant between God and his chosen people were forever
lost, no wonder they mourned for the desolation of the city of David
and exclaimed: "When I forget thee, oh Jerusalem, may my right
hand forget her cunning ! " After his long captivity, when he again
returned to the land of his fathers, how did the soul of the pious
Jew glow with gratitude to those who had preserved the law and the
testimony from the devastation of war, and the ruin of time, and
again deposited the sacred book in the house of the Lord. When

MASONIC ORATION. 119
we take into consideration only the few meager facts, thus slightly
sketched, we should suppose the pious Christian would pause before
he denounces this unoffending Order, to which the best men have
adhered for many ages past ; surely the polite scholar and the learned
antiquarian should hesitate before they join a censorious and ill-judg
ing world in the assertion that Masonry is the offspring of a barbar
ous age, that it is calculated for no great attaintment, and has sub
served no valuable design.
If the ancient history of our Order is illustrious for having par
ticipated in great events, it will be found that its career in modern
times is not less so for having furnished a remedy for evils which
could find no redress in any other of the institutions of man. A
very brief retrospect of the history of our afflicted race will show
a necessity for the establishment of a society having a sublime and
pure morality for its ethics, and a scheme of benevolence toward
man, enforced by penalties distant from the comrtion obligations of
social or municipal law. The earliest records of man are replete
with the history of his cruelties and crimes. He was indeed created
upright in the image of his God, but alas, how brief is the season
of his continuance in his primitive state. Scarcely had the first
family taken its social form when the blood of Abel ascended to the
skies, a melancholy witness to the apostasy of man, and a sure
presage of his future career. Hence the faithful historian, from
Adam to the deluge, and from thence to our own times, speaks only
of tribe warring with tribe, power conflicting with power, till some
warlike butcher, more fortunate than his peers, has brought contend
ing communities and tribes within the grasp of his sole domination
and compressed them into one bloody mass, subdued and inert, upon
which he exerts his uncontrolled dominion. Religion, it is true,
held forth her persuasives to virtue, but in the estimation of thought
less men, her rewards were valueless, because they were postponed
beyond the term of his mortal career. Her dreadful penalties
appalled him not, because they were to fall on him hereafter, and he
hoped by amendment to avoid their infliction. The destines of the
world seemed to be committed to man, and he used his power only
for the purposes of destruction. War, cruel and relentless war, in
every age has deluged the peaceful earth with the blood of its inhab
itants, and imbittered it with their tears. Government and jurispru
dence, it is true, in modern times, have done much for suffering
humanity. But, so various are the characters of men, so complex

120 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
the structure of society, and so diversified the crimes with which it
is afflicted, that the wisest statesmen have given up the task as hope
less, and submit patiently to endure evils which their utmost sagacity
cannot prevent Treachery in friendship, hypocrisy and deceit, and
ingratitude that sin denounced by savage and civilized man, must
still go unpunished. In despite of all political regulation, power
will sometimes accumulate in the hands of the few, and the weak are
subjected to its hcentious sway. We still see oppression in some
shape pursuing its victim with the eye of the eagle and the vulture's
appetite. The philanthropist, with all his ardent desires for the hap
piness of his species, looks on in hopeless impotence. Here
Masonry interposes ; power, wealth, and all the advejititious aids of
fortune create no preference in her choice; she receives the sufferer
within her walls and throws the zegis of her protection around him.
If the purple of majesty, as has been the case, finds its way into the
lodge, the monarch sees and confesses that his regal diadem is of no
more value than the sordid rags of the beggar. Here all meet on
the level of perfect equality. The brow of power unbends its
haughty curve at the well-known sign, and the frown of anger gives
place to the smile of conciliation at the "mystic word." There all
are taught that stern perseverance in upright and virtuous life, can
only give pre-eminence to one man above another. Thus instructed
and qualified, the Mason goes forth from the lodge with new motives
and added obligations to rectitude of life. However humble and
unambitious his fortune or name, he goes forth with confidence. If
he is "just and true," that confidence is never deceived. The fidel
ity of Masonry is universal, he shall not be forsaken. To whatever
clime he wanders it is still the same, the language of Masonry is
universal, he shall be recognized as a brother. No matter how
adverse his fate, the charity of Masonry is universal, if worthy, he
shall be relieved. Shall I be told that these are the fanciful theories
of a creed that wastes itself in idle boast and empty show? Was
the immortal Warren, the fated martyr of Bunker Hill, the patron
of hypocritical profession ? Could the mighty soul of Washington
stoop to hypocrisy, or be delighted with idle pageantry? Could the
philosophic Franklin, who encountered the tempest and disarmed it
of its bolt, be pleased or satisfied with boastful pretentions and
ceremonious frivohty ? Surely there is no American so base as will
not answer no. Yet Washington, Franklin and Warren bore their
united testimony in our favor, by both profession and practice, while

MASONIC ORATION. 121
they lived. These three undying names, while they confer immortal
renown upon the American character, shed also a halo of glory
round the alter of Masonry, where they were often pleased as Grand
Masters to preside. These things I have thought it my duty to say
of a society of which many of your friends are members, not as a
formal defense, but that Masonry may be judged by what she truly
is, and not by ignorant assertion, or malicious conjecture.
Permit me now, my brethren, in a few words, to solicit your
attention to some of the important duties which our principles
teach, and our penalties enforce. You have come together for the
avowed purpose of offering your public testimonial to the virtues of
one whose life, in our Masonic instruction, is constantly held forth as
a model for every Mason's imitation. Temperance, that Masonic
virtue so often neglected, and so solemnly impressed upon us in our
lectures, was the most striking feature in the character of John the
Baptist. Seeing, with prophetic vision, the important station he
was to occupy in accomplishing the designs of his Master, he pos
sessed a moral courage that raised him to an elevation of soul equal
to the task. He appeared in the world among a people adverse in
their habits to the abstinent, self-denying life he lived. The long
and well-established reign of Polytheism brought the united religions
of Rome, and all her tributary states, to oppose the peculiar doc
trines he was commissioned to usher into the world. Rome herself,
at this period, was rapidly marching to the full maturity of national
sin. The laurels that bloomed round the tombs of her early heroes
were forgotten for the inhuman sports of gladiators and frivolous
public shows. Her triumphal arches began to droop, and the stern
integrity which characterized her early days had now expired in the
sensual delights of the bath. Yet, in the midst of these ahurements
to luxury, his food was locusts and wild honey. Surrounded with
obstinate bigotry, at the peril of his life, he marched with steady
and fearless step to the fulfillment of his master's will, and when the
arm of power was outstretched for his destruction, he boldly pro
claimed the wickedness of Herod, and foretold, in the startled ear of
the tyrant, the coming vengeance of God. Chains and imprison
ment had no terrors for him, for integrity of heart brought uncon
querable fortitude to his aid, and when his work was finished, dis
daining that sycophantic spirit that might suggest a compromise with
his oppressor, with dauntless confidence he met the blow, and, like
one of the Grand Masters of our Order, he sealed his fidelity with

122 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
his blood. Had I the tongue of angels, still in this mirror you shall
see more than words could possibly portray. Yet once more, my
brethren, in the pure spirit of brotherly love, let me solicit your atten
tion to that temperance so conspicuous in the character of this holy
man, that it is the first feature his biograper has sketched. No vice
within our observation has so much degraded the character of
Masonry, none has made such wide-spread ravage in the world, as
the odious sin of intemperance ; it carries its annual thousands to an
untimely grave, and an unprepared reckoning with their final Judge.
What renders it fearful beyond most evil habits, is the strange insen
sibility with which it invests its unhappy votary. The miserable vic
tim of confirmed intemperance is cursed with a fatuity unassailable
by reason or admonition. He deliberately prepares himself for the
sacrifice, binds himself to the altar, and himself applies the fatal
instrument of immolation. At this awful period every vice follows
in its train, reason is bewildered, conscience is benumbed, the heart
debased, and the noblest work of God sinks below the level of a
brute. This fatal habit is often, nay, it is usually, the offspring of
idleness and inattention to the business of our proper vocation, and
that too frequently in the season of youth. Strange, unaccountable
stupidity ! At that happy period when the intellectual powers are
expanding, and the entire character beginning to assume a permanent
form — in that delightful season of improvement, emulation and hope
— how many waste the precious years without one vigorous effort in
any useful or valuable pursuit. Such take their downward course in
life, barren of knowledge or virtuous habits, through a bleak and
comfortless region of care, decrepitude and sorrow. Thus a whole
lifetime is often passed over, thoughtful only of the present hour,
till the brink of the yawning gulf is seen ; but then it is too late to
retreat from the danger, and an age of careless, thoughtless inac
tivity is closed by a few hours of gloomy anxiety — of intense, inef
fable horror. This is not the fiction of imagination ; it has been
often realized and seen among us, where last of all it should be
looked for, within the circle of Masonry. Nothing, I repeat it, has
contributed so much to strengthen the common prejudice against
Masonry, and impair its usefulness in the world, as the disorderly
and vicious lives of some of its members. Wherever such are found
among us, it is our first duty to apply all the correctives our princi
ples afford ; to whisper wholesome counsel into the ear, and, by
every means in our power, impress truth upon the heart.

MASONIC ORATION. 123
If all these fail to revive the dying spark of virtue — to our
selves and the world we owe the solemn duty — they must be cast out
from among us. Such can only serve to create discord in the tem
ple, and impede the labors of the true and worthy Mason. When
we reflect on the many bland and beautiful persuasives to virtue
which our ceremonies exhibit, and which our lectures unceasingly
teach; when we superadd to these those guards which furnish resist
ance to every approach of vice, it may fairly be assumed that none
but a disposition fatally determined to wickedness could resist their
conjoined impressions. But if, in despite of all endeavor, a brother
continue incorrigible, "cut him down, why cumbereth he the
ground! "
When we shall have thus discharged our duty. Masonry shall
arise and put on her beautiful garment; her doors then shall be
thrown wide for the reception of the wise and faithful in heart of all
the tribes and kindred of the earth, and be closed against the
wicked, the faithless and the unworthy. Then may we confidently
expect our reward. We shall have the gratitude of the destitute,
whom we have cheered and fed; the prayers of the wayward, whom
we have reclaimed ; the benedictions of the good of all the world,
and the smiles of an approving conscience, that
"Which nothing earthly gives or can destroy,
The soul's calm sunshine and the heart-felt joy."
There are a few present whom I recognize as worthy Knights,
who have sat in council and convened in the Asylum. We should
never forget this truth ; as we ascend in the mysteries of the Order,
so in proportion are our obligations increased and the sphere of our
action enlarged. That unbounded hospitality that greets and cheers
the way-worn pilgrim of this world with pure benevolence, unsolic
ited and unbought; that courage and constancy which tread with
untiring step the rugged road of virtue, and subdue each rising
obstacle in their way ; that humility and patience which melt away
the natural asperities of our imperfect nature, and endure without a
murmur the "thousand ills of hfe;" that truth which is mighty
above all things, which shall flourish in immortal green, when the
heavens "shaU depart as a scroll," these are the God-like attributes
of your profession. The history of your Order though gloomy,
nevertheless presents a grand exhibition of human nature. The sen
sation we feel in tracing it to its origin, though elevated and delight
ful, will still at times be tinged with melancholy reflection, rendered

124 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
sublime, however, by the magnificence of the objects constantly in
view. The hardy spirits who founded your Order and lighted up the
sacred asylum in Palestine, were fired with zeal that no human effort
could resist. They had visited that land consecrated by the advent
of the Messiah. They stood upon the shores of Jordan that had
seen the descent of the Baptismal dove. They sat down and sor
rowed upon those hills of Judea that had trembled at the miracles of
a God. They saw with bitterness of heart the pious pilgrim spurned,
robbed, murdered by the ruthless Turk. They beheld the stupid
Mussulman exert a withering despotism over the inheritance of
Jacob. They saw the mosque and minaret tower in impious grand
eur over the tomb of Christ, and the chosen habitation of Israel
seemed to them cursed on account of the infidel possessor. The
burning sun and the barren fig tree of holy writ were still there ;
riven rocks and half-open sepulchers still announced the prodigies of
the crucifixion ; but dried up rivers, scorched and barren fields spoke
to them the course of heaven, and there the desert stretched out its
burning arms in mute desolation, as if it had not dared to break the
dead silence since the "Eternal uttered his voice."
It was amid these grand and gloomy scenes that the founders of
your Order called the council and assembled around the triangle.
Charity and hospitality were their objects — a charity that stooped to
the unfortunate, that sought after the miserable, that raised the
bowed down, that clothed and fed the naked, famishing pilgrim,
journeying under the fervid heat of a Syrian sun, to die at the
Redeemer's shrine, These were the original characteristics of
Knighthood, and though the scene of action is now changed, such
are still its high and holy professions. To this high-toned moral
feeling we are pledged by sacred obligations to conform our practice
among men and with each other. ' Tis for ourselves to determine
whether we shall profess principles which exalt and subhmate the
soul above the sordid selfishness of groveling mortality, and at the
same time cling to those vices that degrade, chill and brutalize all
the generous aspirings of the heart. Surely it will not, cannot be ;
honor, conscience and truth, "mighty above all things," forbid it
Lastly, my brethren, of every order and degree. If the duties
of Masonry are of universal obligation, if they admit of no excep
tion, if they are to be performed by the Mason of every country,
under circumstances however adverse, with what alacrity should we

MASONIC ORATION. 125
(who are cradled in liberty, and nursed in the lap of peace) go on
to fulfill its benignant commands. How enviable this day is the lot
of the American Mason, compared with the destiny of his brethren
in other regions of the earth ! Here the Masonic lodge rears its
humble columns in our cities, cottages and towns, fearless of danger
from without, or treachery within its walls. When we go abroad on
our festive days the unseen arm of our' happy government protects
us from insult or opposition. The "Star and stripe," the consecrated
banner of freedom, is proud to wave its protecting folds over the
lambskin of Masonry. But avert your eye for a moment from this
"green and sunny spot," throw your anxious glance over Russia,
Austria and Spain. Where is the humble Mason in these dreary
realms to-day? Roused by the natal morning of his patron saint,
does he repair with crowds of his brethren to the social lodge? No.
With fearful step he steals silently from the busy haunts of men, and
with a faithful few ascends the mountain-top, or retires to the darkest
recess of some sequestered vale. If the ever-vigilant eye of oppres
sion pursue him there, a lingering death, "pangs that longest rack
and latest kill," must be his fate; or exiled from home, he must seek
in other lands a refuge from the grave :
"Nor wife nor children more shall he behold.
Nor friends, nor sacred home."
How often have we hailed on these happy shores a Russian
brother from the far Borysthenes, or from the bank of Guadalquiver,
the Iberian exile, and heard them lisp in stranger accent the sad
story of their wrongs. From these we hear that Masonry, emphati
cally peaceful and unoffending, is proscribed by the half-civilized
"Autocrat of all the Russias." There a jealous tyrant exerts his
unceasing persecution, with every means which ingenuity, sharpened
by malice, can invent, and with cruelty limited only by absolute
power. In Spain, too, once the proud land of chivalry, the same
misguided policy haunts every step of the Order. The stupid Ferdi
nand (whose regal honors serve only to degrade the fame of the
once powerful Castilian house) dooms our temples to the flames,
and for inculcating "charity toward aU mankind," the Christian
Mason dies upon the rack. Fell tyrant ! insatiate monster ! gorge
thy ravening appetite with the harmless Mason's blood. Well hast
thou waged exterminating war upon the brethren of him whose arm
hurled the first fatal bolt at the throne of tyrants. It was the spirit

126 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
and example of our Washington that rolled the retributive fires of
revolution through thy affiighted dominions. But thy carnival shall
be brief The Architect of worlds has circumscribed the two Ameri
cas, and said, "here shall there be liberty and peace. " Six fair repub
lics, wrested from they ruthless dominion, announce that retributive
justice is nigh thee; the handwriting is seen upon thy walls; the
genius of desolation flaps her wing over thy palaces of pride, and
expects her prey.
Before I take leave of you, my brethren, let me again remind
you of the vast debt of gratutude you owe to the Almighty disposer
of human events for that you have been permitted to pass the jour
ney of life in this land and this age of the world. While the cloud
of despotism throws its dun and troubled midnight over three quar
ters of the world, here we repose under the tranquil bowers of
peace, while the blended beams of improved science, rational liberty
and pure religion throw their cheerful radiance around. May we
not justly exclaim with Israel of old, "the Lord hath brought us
forth out of Egypt, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm ;
he hath brought us unto this place, and hath given us this land?"
But, if we believe our Masonic instruction, we shall not indulge the
gloomy conviction that our happy destiny shall always remain exclu
sive. Masonry teaches us that man is capable of endless improve
ment in knowledge and all the arts that adorn and glorify human
existence. That progression is evidently quickening its pace
throughout the world with each revolving year. The signs of the
times cannot be misunderstood. The onward tread of science and
civil liberty cannot, will not, be stayed ; it is the progress of man to
that state designed and decreed by Heaven ; it is the march of mind
— what power shall withstand it?_ It may pause for awhile, in the
midst of some violent shock, but it will resume its progress with still
stronger and steadier step, till ignorance and subjection let go their
hold upon every slave, and the scepter fall powerless from the grasp
of the last tyrant upon the earth. Then shall that period arrive so
long expected and so ardently prayed for. It shall then no longer
be necessary to the existence of governments to consecrate the
names and vices of kings ; but human happiness shall be the basis of
all political association, and enlightened reason insure a cheerful
acquiescence in necessary municipal rule. Then shall the eastern
Indian cease to adore the sun ; the northern savage no longer shall
seek his deity in the genius of darkness and storm ; the Hindoo shall

MASONIC ORATION. 127
forget to bow before Juggernaut, and the Abyssinian no more shall
pour out his libation to the genius of the Nile, but the enlightened
devotions of a world shall ascend to the true God. Then shall the
"cap-stone" to the temple of human happiness "be brought forth
with shouting and praise."
In this great consummation human means must be employed;
ours, therefore, is not the part of inaction and sloth ; we are not to
be indulged in folded hands and quiet sleep. However humble the
effort, still that effort must be made — duty requires it, and her
injunctions will not be disobeyed with impunity. If but one stone
be prepared by each, it will contribute to the building, and rest
assured, the laborer shall receive his reward. Let us then grasp the
plumb in one hand and see that we stand erect before God and man,
while with the mystic trowel in the other, we spread everywhere the
cement of brotherly love. Then, when we shall all be leveled by
death, and tyled in the grand lodge of eternity; when the "pass
word" shall be demanded for the last time, we may approach with
some humble confidence and say, in language of the pious sacrifices
of the first fruits, ' ' I have brought away the hallowed things out of
mine house and have given them to the Levite and stranger, unto
the fatherless and the widow, according to all the commandments
which thou hast commanded me, I have not transgressed thy com
mandments, neither have I forgotten them."

ADDRESS OF WELCOME TO JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

AT LEBANON, OHIO, NOVEMBER 7, 1843.

In November, 1843, ex-President J. Q. Adams delivered the address at the laying
of the corner stone of the Cincinnati Observatory on a hill near the city which was
named in his honor, Mt. Adams. The citizens of Lebanon learned that the ex-Pres
ident on his journey to Cincinnati would reach their village at noon and remain over
night. They made elaborate preparations for his reception, and selected ex-Governor
Corwin to deliver the address of welcome. The exercises took place at the Baptist
Church. The following are the remarks of Mr. Corwin :
Mr. Adams: My neighbors, citizens of this town and the sur
rounding country, have devolved on me the very agreeable duty
of greeting your arrival amongst them ; of tendering to you their
admiration of your character, and the gratitude they owe you, for
the many deeds of eminent patriotism that have distinguished your
long, laborious and eventful life.
Although personally unknown to them, the history of your life
has been so interwoven with their interests and happiness as to ren
der your name familiar as a household word. Be assured, sir, that
your fame is cherished with as much sincerity in this small village
as it is at your home in Quincy. Your character as a scholar, an
orator, a statesman, and patriot, is regarded with as much veneration
in the Miami Valley as it is or can be on the banks of the Merrimac.
Whilst we here claim to share in common with our fellow-citi
zens of the Union our portion of that true glory which you have
bequeathed to the Republic, we feel that your present visit to the
West has created between yourself and us relations of a more inti
mate character.
At an advanced period of your life, in the midst of a public
career, and at an inclement season of the year, you have encoun
tered the toil and peril of a long journey for our benefit and at our
solicitation. It is this act, thus performed, which blends in the
bosoms of the multitudes, that now surround you, mingled feelings of
(1-8)

ADDRESS OF WELCOME TO JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 129
love for the man, gratitude to the philanthropist, lofty sentiments of
respect for those remarkable intellectual endowments that have justly
established your rank amongst the first minds of the nineteenth cen
tury. You come to us not to spread discord, but to inculcate har
mony. You come from your distant home in the East to plant
with your own hands the seeds of science and an improved philoso
phy in these Western ends of the earth. You come asking nothing
from us, bringing much to us ; like the sun in his course from east
to west, you bring warmth to animate and light to cheer and guide
us onward; you come to this great, new and comparatively unculti
vated "seed field," spread out from the Alleghany to the Rocky
mountains, to scatter abroad amongst us the gathered fruits of a long
life of painful study; to give us the benefit of that mature wisdom
derived from your varied experience amongst men, in all their
varieties of country and condition; you come to diffuse fight and
dispel darkness ; you come to point to us our pathway through the
heavens, and place in our hands the lights kindled by Kepler, and
Newton, and Bowditch, and La Place. For these imperishable gifts
we offer you all that you would receive, our thanks and our pray
ers, that health and happiness may attend you through life, and the
blessings of the good and the wise hallow your memory through
all future time.
It was a sad and venerable maxim of the ancient Greeks, "that
no man should be accounted happy till after death." However
true this may have been, in the stormy periods of these brilliant
Republics of old, or however true it may now be in general, you,
sir, must have seen enough, in your journey hither, to satisfy you
that yours will form at least one exception to that dark destiny
which has but too often fallen upon the great benefactors of man
kind. But, sir, this is not a time, nor an occasion, to recount the past,
or to anticipate that judgment which the future shaU pronounce
upon the present. My humble but welcome task is performed when,
on behalf of these my friends and neighbors, I bid you welcome to
the West — welcome to Ohio — welcome to this village — welcome to
these people — welcome to the best affections of their hearts.
10

IN DEFENSE OF JUDGE McLEAN.

Mr. FooTE, of Mississippi, at the conclusion of his remaks, by way of personal
explanation, in the United States Senate, on January 23, 1849, read an extract from
" Councils, Civil and Moral, of Sir Francis Bacon," which he commended to his honor
Justice McLean, who had the day before published a card in the National Intelligen
cer correcting a misrepresentation of certain of his letters written the preceding year.
This extract, Mr. FooTE remarked, contained " valuable hints " from which he hoped
Judge McLean would profit — among others the following: "Judges ought to be
more learned than witty, more reverend than plausible, and more advised than confi
dent; above all things, integrity is their portion and proper virtue."
Mr. Corwin's remarks sufficiently explain the nature and purpose of the accusa
tion against Judge McLean. Mr. Corwin said:
I do not rise, Mr. President, to interrupt further the ordinary
course of business by the prolongation of this interlude at all, but
only to acquit myself from a sort of imputation which the Senator
from Mississippi has pleased to cast upon me.
Here Mr. FooTE disclaimed any intention to cast an imputation upon him.
Mr. President, I dare say, from the apparent personal address
which the Senator from Mississippi made to me, as one who did not
choose to rise here in defense of Judge McLean upon the accusation
presented by that gentleman the other day, that he would have it
inferred — at least others might infer — that I, by my silence, was
yielding my acquiescence or agreement to the views taken by him of
those two fugitive letters, out of which this grave charge has been
manufactured. I did not think it worth while, the other day, when the Senator
from Mississipf)i, on a motion to amend a post-office bill, took this
view of the conduct of my friend. Judge McLean, to say one word
in his defense, for with the utmost deference in the world to the opin
ions then and now expressed by the Senator from Mississippi, I did
not perceive that, with the facts before the public, it was possible
for his remarks to cast in any mind, other than one very much like
his own on particular subjects, the slightest imputation whatever on
the purity of character or the judicial rectitude of Judge McLean.
(130)

DEFENSE OF JUDGE MCLEAN. 131
All that I could perceive in the matter brought forth by the Senator
from Mississippi was the expression of an opinion upon two sub
jects, about which everybody knows there has been a very great con
trariety of opinion in this country. Judge McLean, in a letter to
some friend, who had evidently written to him on the subject, wish
ing to know his opinions on that great political question — the origin
and conduct of the Mexican war — had expressed his views in rela
tion to the matter upon which he was interrogated. It may be pos
sible he may be mistaken. In the minds of that class of politicians
who agree with the Senator from Mississippi upon the subject. Judge
McLean may have been considered in error in regard to the origin
of the Mexican war, and the means which, in his judgment, should
be applied to bring it to a speedy and honorable termination. But
is it possible that the Senate of the United States is to be a court of
error upon the preferment of a charge by any one, either in a news
paper or here, to correct the political opinions of a judge of the
Supreme Court, who, on being interrogated by one of his fellow-cit
izens in a letter, ventures to express his views upon one of these
much agitated topics? I could not conceive that the Senate of the
United States or the people of the United States, could expect that
a man, because he happens to hold the highly-respectable and re
sponsible station of a judge of the Supreme Court of the United
States, can have no opinion in common with his fellow-men upon a
subject that has called forth the expression of feehng and opinions
from almost every citizen of the republic. I do not conceive that,
because the ermine to which the Senator has so emphatically alluded
is upon his shoulders, his tongue is therefore ever to be silent. He
is entitled to a vote, in common with every man in the Republic,
for a President, for a member of Congress, and of course he must
exercise his own judgment upon such subjects with other men, and
I had supposed that such exercise of his judgment, and expression
of it too, would be tolerated by his fellow-citizens.
Mr. President, Judge McLean has said in a letter to somebody
( and I really do not know to whom the letter was addressed, nor
did I apprehend exactly its purport when alluded to the other day
by the Senator from Mississippi ) that he supposes Slavery was not
considered as having an existence in any country until its existence
was established by a law. For that I understand the Senator from
Mississippi thinks that Judge McLean is in some degree culpable.
Well, now, it seems that the Supreme Court of the United States

132 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COKWIN.
have, in effect, so decided, and Judge McLean has referred to the
decision of the Supreme Court, which, in his judgment, establishes
this question of law. He has commented upon the decision of the
court which has thus adjudicated the question, and I ask if it can be
possibly manufactured into judicial impropriety for a judge of the
Supreme Court to repeat what are the acknowledged decisions of
that Court? I ask if it is likely that the people of this country,
who have very long and very properly reposed great confidence in
Judge McLean in various positions, political as well as judicial, can
be brought to believe him guilty of moral turpitude for such an act?
Mr. FooTE here interposed a suggestion that, the subject upon which Judge
McLean had expressed his opinion in the letter complained of is yet an open question,
and undecided in the aspect given to it, by any court. He alluded to the arguments
of distinguished jurists in the Senate, who co-operated in the Compromise Bill of the
previous session, to show that such were their views, and that the question had never
been adjudicated, and it was in the face of the fact that it would be likely to come
before Judge McLean for adjudication that the latter thought proper to pronounce his
opinion. This he challenged Mr. Corwin to "deny" or "vindicate" if he could.
I thought that question was settled before the date at which
this letter was written.
Mr. FooTE. — I stated the -other day that the bill, although defeated at the last
session, would probably be revived during this session and passed.
I do not remember whether that bill, to which the gentleman
from Mississippi has alluded, called the Compromise Bill, had gone
to its grave before this letter was written by Judge McLean or not,
nor do I think it material.
Judge McLean has only ventured to express, in relation to the
subject of Slavery, what is the prevailing professional opinion in that
circuit in which he resides. I am sure I am not mistaken in this,
and I dare say the Senator from Mississippi knows it also. I do not
intend, Mr. President, to enter into a controversy here in relation to
the correctness of that opinion. I will only add to the high author
ity of Judge McLean upon that subject one other — that of my own.
I dare say the Senator from Mississippi will consider that as settling
the question. That will be respected I hope. It is my opinion, and
I have not been able to gather from Blackstone's Commentaries any
thing to the contrary. I know that there are few, very few, high
authorities differing from Judge McLean and myself on that point.
But if that be the fact, does it necessarily follow, Mr. President,
when Judge McLean is merely so unfortunate as to differ from the
Senator from Mississippi, and other gentlemen of the highest profes-

DEFENSE OF JUDGE MCLEAN. 133
sional respectability in the country, that he is therefore unfit to pre
side in the circuit north-west of the Ohio river, or sit upon the bench
of the Supreme Court of the United States ? I ask the Senator from
Mississippi in all candor if it would, under such circumstances, be
quite fair to arraign in some sort as criminal the conduct of a man
for the mere expression of his opinion upon a mooted question of
law? Why, sir, if this were to be the rule by which we would try
the judges of the Supreme Court, we should have to expel two or
three of them from the bench at every term. They have their books
of reports full of dissenting opinions.
I know the Senator from Mississippi feels much upon this sub
ject. I dare say he is anxious to preserve the judicial purity of the
bench. But while he is guarding us on this vital point — and all
must give high commendation to the motive which governs him in
this — would it not be well for the grave Senators who sit here and
listen to these accusations, which can result in nothing but recrimi
nation, to remember that we, too, under certain circumstances, should
be enrobed in this sacred and inviolable purple, and that it would be
well for us not to prejudge any question which may possibly come
before us. If Judge McLean has done anything unworthy of his
judicial character, and worthy our notice at all, then I think he has
done that which ought to bring him before us on an impeachment.
How, then, would the Senator from Mississippi, with his judicial
gravity, backed by Bacon and Cicero, appear? I am afraid that
some here did not quite understand the gentleman's Latin, and I beg
the Senator to translate it for the benefit of country gentlemen like
myself. How should we look with the ermine on our shoulders, if
Judge McLean were here on trial? We should, doubtless, strut
through the scene with senatorial dignity, having prejudged the
cause at the instance of the Senator from Mississippi. I dare say
the Senator from Mississippi would sit and adjudicate too upon this
very question which he had himself already prejudged. I do not
mention this because I suppose it possible for any one to conceive
for a moment of the existence of an impeachment against this excel
lent gentleman for anything contained in his letters declining to
become a candidate for the Presidency, unless, indeed, you impeach
a man for the rarest of all qualities, modesty. I do not know but
the exhibition, or even possession of that quality, may be by some
gentlemen considered a crime, but I do not think there is anything

134 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
in Bacon or Cicero that would warrant us in taking off the head of
the judge for his exhibition of this amiable frailty.
I do not know, and I will not venture to state, further than on
the authority of Judge McLean himself — and I read his letter very
hastily — that the Supreme Court have decided this very question ;
but I think a fair interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Rhodes and Slaughter, referred to by Judge
McLean, would warrant him in saying that they had decided a prop
osition from which it is deducible that Slavery is a matter of munic
ipal legislation, and could not exist without it. But he is not infalli
ble — he may be mistaken. I wish he was infallible. I wish others,
Mr. President, that I will not name, were so too.
But I must say to the Senator from Mississippi, what I dare say
he may have known, or heard of, that if it is supposed that the pro
duction of these letters, or any possible inference that can be drawn
from them, will shake the confidence of those who have known
Judge McLean personally during his whole political and judicial life,
that all who indulge in this belief will find themselves (as mortal
men often are ) sadly mistaken. It will not be believed that a man
who has passed through the stations which he has filled, with so lit
tle exception ever taken to his public conduct, has, at this period of
his life, gone so far astray as to forfeit the good opinion of his fel
low-citizens in that place which he has occupied with so much honor
to himself, and, I will venture to say, with so much usefulness to the
country, which he has so faithfully served for twenty years.
Mr. President, let me again state that I do not rise to present
the slightest objection to the expression of the views the Senator
from Mississippi takes, knowing that they are honestly his own pecu
liar views. Nor do I object in the slightest degree to his promulga
ting his opinions of Judge McLean, or any other judge, at all times,
and on all occasions, anywhere and everywhere, but I felt myself
compelled, representing, as I do, in part, the State in which Judge
McLean has resided during the whole of his mature life, to say
thus much, lest my friends might suppose (as the Senator from Mis
sissippi, I suppose, did) that I silently acquiesced in the justness of
his remarks on this and a former occasion.

ON THE ACTION OF OHIO TOUCHING
FUGITIVE SLAVES.

Pending the discussion of the Slavery question in the United States Senate, April
3, 1850, upon the resolutions submitted by Mr. Bell, which Mr. Foote moved to be
referred to a committee of thirteen ( Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, having con
cluded), Mr. Corwin and Mr. Foote rose together, Mr. Corwin asked:
Will the Senator from Mississippi yield me the floor a few min
utes, for the purpose of explaining a point in the laws of Ohio,
referred to by the Senator from Kentucky?
Mr. Foote yielded the floor.
Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky has been pleased to
animadvert with some severity upon the legislation of Ohio touching
fugitive slaves. I am satisfied if my friend from Kentucky would
review carefully what has been done on this subject by the Legisla
ture of Ohio he would find reason to retract a portion of his
remarks, and certainly to abate much of that asperity of feeling
which his mistaken views have inspired. I only desire to occupy
the Senate a moment, while I correct what I deem a mistake as to
the constitutional character of the law, said by the Senator from
Kentucky to have been revived by the statute of 1843. This act of
1843 repealed the celebrated act passed, as we know, by the Ohio
Legislature, at the instance of commissioners, Messrs. Morehead and
Smith, appointed by the authorities of Kentucky. The law of 1839,
passed at the instance of the Kentucky commissioners, provided
against kidnapping among other things.
Sir, if the provisions of the act, which was revived by the law
of 1843, were just such as the gentleman has represented, I will not
pretend to say here, without examination, whether they were or
were not constitutional. The law of 1843 was, at that time, the
only law in Ohio providing against kidnapping. When that law was
repealed, it was necessary to re-enact the old or a similar law against
the very common offense of kidnapping. To this end a law which
(135)

136 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COKWIN.
had been very long in force, and which had been suspended by the
act of 1843, was revived. I have not this revived law before me,
but I believe it was simply an act making it penal to take by force
out of the State any free man, black or white. Such laws, I imagine,
or laws very similar, may be found on the statute books of many if
not all the States. Now, Mr. President, if the act revived does, as
the gentleman supposes, contain a provision forbidding the seizure of
any colored person, under any pretense, without warrant first
obtained, and was therefore unconstitutional, and an infraction of
the rights of slaveholders, then the celebrated act of 1839, passed
at the instance of Kentucky, by her commissioners. Smith and
Morehead, was also unconstitutional ; for I am very sure it contained
a provision making it a penitentiary offense for any person to seize a
colored man until he should first obtain process for that purpose
from a judicial officer.
Sir, we hear loud complaints of the revived Ohio law, such as
that it disturbed the fraternal relations of Ohio and Kentucky. It
was just what Kentucky herself had asked, and agreed to in the
celebrated act of 1839. By that law, if a Kentuckian laid his hand
on a black man in Ohio, to arrpst him as a slave, without first filing
an affidavit and obtaining a warrant, he must go to the Ohio peni
tentiary. These, sir, were the terms fixed by treaty between the
two States; these were the happy, peaceful, fraternal relations
of the two States as settled by themselves. Sir, it seems to me, if
the present law of Ohio against kidnapping be unconstitutional, she
(Kentucky) has no right to complain, since she herself asked for
and agreed to the same provision in the act of 1839.
Mr. President, this is a matter of small significance, it is true ;
but it is well to settle the matter of history aright before it finds
its way into Greeley's Almanac, so that posterity may not be
deceived. I will only add, sir, that whatever the letter of our laws
may have been, I have never known or heard of a case in Ohio
where any person was punished for arresting a slave under any cir
cumstances, where the person charged could prove that he was really
the owner, or agent of the owner, of such slave.

ON THE BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF WM. DARBY.

IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE APRIL 23, 1850.

This bill proposed to give the venerable author of "Darby's Gazetteer"
the sum of $1,500 for the use of a map prepared from materials collected by Mr. Darby
while acting in the capacity of a deputy surveyor for the Government. Mr. Darby
was then of very advanced age, in humble circumstances, subsisting upon the salary of
a clerkship of the lovpest grade in the Government. Mr. Corwin observed:
This application was referred to a select committee, of which I
happened to be chairman at the time, and the report from it, just
read, was prepared by myself Now I agree with the Senator [Mr.
Turner], who has just taken his seat, that there is no legal claim
presented here, but I cannot agree with him that there is not an equi
table claim, and just such an equitable claim, I imagine, as has been
repeatedly recognized by both branches of Congress. The map
mentioned, and upon which the memorial and claim are based, was
made upon the individual researches and labors of the memorialist
at a very early period of time and before, I believe, the cession of
Louisiana was ascertained, and it has since been, in every treaty
which the Government has chosen to make respecting our boundary
in that quarter, the basis upon which that treaty has proceeded.
Now, does it appear to the Senate that any other person has done
the same thing ? Does it appear to the Senate that these labors of
Mr. Darby have been of real value to the Government and people of
the United States, and that no other person's labor has furnished
those materials which this Government has availed itself of, from
time to time, in settling those questions that have been often the
subject of discussion, and of very deep interest, concerning our
boundaries, arising out of the treaty of the cession of Louisiana?
In these matters, as every one is aw^are, that has been the map upon
which every treaty has been regulated. The materials for it were
furnished at his own expense, and by labors which very few are will-
(137)

138 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
ing to encounter. It is true, the main object of them was the grati
fication of his own curiosity, if you please, for every one who
knows anything of the history of this man, knows that he has been
all his life engaged in these matters, and that he is a gentleman of
uncommon endowments. Of these qualities and labors of the man
the Government of the United States have availed themselves in the
way in which reference has been made. Suppose that Mr. Darby,
instead of ascertaining the boundaries of the territories in that quar
ter, and furnishing this information, had gone with a company of"
men, one of these pioneer expeditions of which we have heard, and
driven off the Indians, elevated the American flag, and established
the American power on his own responsibility and at his own ex
pense, in a country which at last should come into the possession of
the United States. Then, if Mr. Darby presented a memorial,
showing at what great expense he had marched through the country,
and established the flag of the United States where it had not before
been known, and carried the American eagle into lands where it had
never soared before, and killed several Indians, perhaps, all of which
the Government had availed itself of, how many sections of land
would you give him ? How many sections of land have you given
for such services ? How many propositions now lie on your table of
such a character ? Now, the country derives benefit from all this.
The one is the achievement of gunpower, and the other of science,
for your benefit, and not merely for your benefit, but for the benefit
of all men. Now, by these facts which he has collected, and by
these labors, of which you have availed yourself you have been
benefited, and yet you have never paid Mr. Darby for them. What
is equity, I beg to know, as contradistinguished for legal obligations ?
Here is work and labor done of which you have had the benefit, and
there (pointing to the bill) is the bill of particulars, sir, and why
not give him compensation therefor?
Senator Dawson here remarked, "We will pass it."
Very well, then, I have nothing more to say.

AGAINST CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
In the House of Representatives in the General Assembly of the State of Ohio,
December l8, 1822, upon the bill to introduce public whipping as a punishment for
petty larceny, Mr. Corwin addressed the Committee of the Whole as follows :
Mr. Chairman:I never rise to offer my opinions to this House without feeling
a powerful impression of the many embarrassments which I am
obliged to encounter. This, sir, does not originate from a servile
dread of your criticism, or the consequences of declaring thus pub
licly and to the world the honest convictions of my heart. No, sir,
it arises from a more natural and a more honorable cause ; it proceeds
from that deference which is due, and which we almost instinctively
pay to age and experience, and a consciousness that I am wasting
the time of this House in vain, when opposing my arguments and
judgment to the well-formed and authoritative opinions of my vener
able friends. Under these circumstances, I do assure this committee
I should have considered my duty discharged by a silent vote upon
this bill, had not my professional pursuits frequently compelled me
to give a careful and often painful examination to most of the sub
jects involved in its policy.
In the prosecution and sometimes in the defense of criminals, I
have had frequent opportunities of viewing and considering the oc
cult and secret sources of crime more distinctly than I possibly
could had I been an unconcerned observer. I will venture to assert
that there is not, in the whole circle of society, a situation so favor
able to the discovery of the true nature and causes of crime as a
practice at the bar of a court of criminal jurisdiction. There you
may behold, as from an eminence, the whole area over which we are
now about to pass. Here you see one class of mankind, whose orbit
seems to have been fixed and revolutions all performed within the
regions of vice. Others again, of more equivocal character, who,
without any settled system of action or determining force of dispo-
(139)

140 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COKWIN.
sition, have been impelled forward in a wild and eccentric direction,
and occasionally and accidentally passed within the hemisphere of
crime. With these advantages, I would hope not entirely unim
proved, I have formed an opinion on the subject opposed to the
principles of this bill, which all the very able and ingenious argu
ments of the gentlemen on the other side have not induced me to
relinquish. I shall not differ with the gentleman from Highland
[Mr. Collins] as to the great objects of criminal law. By impos
ing certain penalties upon the commission of specified offenses, it is
intended to reform the convicted culprit, and by the example of his
punishment to frighten others from the yet untrodden paths of in
iquity; and thus, by operating upon that principle common to all, an
aversion to pain and privation, excite in the mind a thorough abhor-
ence of the crime which is thus necessarily connected with misery.
All these point to the great and primal object of both divine and hu
man government — the preservation of right, and the promotion of
human happiness. The scourge, uplifted by the first section of the
bill, is brought forward as an auxiliary in this great and benevolent
work. About the ends to be accomplished there can be no differ
ence of opinion — the adaptation of this instrument to the accom
plishment of these ends is the only subject of dispute. But, sir,
when we consider the variety of considerations necessarily connected
with the subject of crime and its punishment, and that each of these
is to be carefully weighed in the balance of judgment, and the proper
weight and value assigned to each, before a correct result can be
had, it is not surprising there should exist an honest difterence of
opinion as to the means by which the grand object in view is most
likely to be insured.
I am satisfied, if the gentlemen who advocate this bill would ex
amine themselves closely, they would find that considerations very
remotely connected with the true principles of criminal jurispru
dence have contributed very powerfully to the establishment of
their present opinion. I am confirmed in this belief by the reiter
ated arguments of the friends of the bill, drawn from the expensive-
ness of the system at present in force. Your present mode of pun
ishment, say they, must be abolished ; the expense is intolerable,
and can no longer be borne by the counties. Let us examine then,
for a moment, this argument and see whether its intrinsic weight is
such as to give it the first rank among the reasons for abolishing the
old and adopting the new law now proposed. It will be admitted,

AGAINST CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. 141
that the first and main designs in adopting any system of criminal
law, are to reform the criminal, and by his punishment to deter
others from imitating his conduct and committing similar crimes.
This admission is sufficient of itself to show the comparative
weakness of all arguments which proceed from a calculation of costs.
It surely requires no argument to prove that the money expended
in procuring the punishment itself can have no effect in producing
those consequences, for the sake of which you are alone warranted
in passing any law upon the subject; that is, the reformation of the
culprit, and the security of your right by holding out the terror of
his example to others. For instance, would a post and whip, which
should cost five hundred dollars, have an effect upon the criminal or
society in any respect different from one equally strong and power
ful, used in the same manner, which should not cost the tenth part
of that sum? The punishment is alike severe in both cases; the
effect upon the criminal himself and upon those who witness his
punishment would be precisely the same in the former case, which
costs five hundred, as in the latter, which costs fifty dollars. If the
price at which the punishment can be procured is the first and most
important consideration, then the gentlemen, to be consistent, should
abandon the measure now proposed, for many systems of punish
ment may be devised, much cheaper than even the swift and sum
mary vengeance of the whipping-post and scourge. This view of
the subject may enable us to form something like a correct estimate
of the argument of expense so long and so frequently urged. Still,
sir, I would not be understood to argue that in the enactment of a
law of this kind, we should pay no regard to the expense which will
be incurred in carrying that law into effect; but I would show by
these remarks that this argument can only be made effectual, when
it is proved in support of it that the operation of the law is so ex
pensive as to bear no reasonable proportion to the good effects re
sulting from it.
There are some among us, I believe, who are in favor of the
bill upon the table, who are, nevertheless, of opinion that fine or im
prisonment is a punishment more appropriate to the crimes we are
enacting upon. They tell us they detest and abhor the vile and
bloody instruments with which they propose to arm our courts, and
that they do not expect their property will find a more efficient pro
tection from these agents than it has formerly experienced from fine
and imprisonment ; that they are willing to adopt a law which they

142 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
believe to be wrong and impolitic, with the hope of reducing the
taxes, and relieving the existing burdens of the people. Sir, the
people have required no such sacrifice at your hands ; they have not
petitioned you for relief; they have not prayed you to redeem them
from this grievous oppression — "this Egyptian yoke." Gentlemen
have mistaken the clamors of a few selfish individuals for the voice
of the State. If it were true, as has been represented, that the
cries of the State had resounded from one extremity of it to the
other, they would have been heard within these walls in the constitu
tional mode; your tables would have groaned beneath the weight
of their petitions. The people, sir, are not idle or inattentive to
their interest, nor are they so selfish or avaricious as to sacrifice the
general interest, honor and prosperity to such sordid and pecu
niary considerations. Ask yourselves the question, would you not
rather sacrifice the pitiful sum that would be drawn from your own
pockets to pay this item of expense in the administration of the law,
than to introduce these ornaments of the slave-driver into your tem
ples of justice?
The whipping-post and the lash are indeed beautiful appendages
to the public buildings of your counties, and when the traveler, at
tracted to your shores by the fame of your unexampled growth in
everything which marks the character of a great and enlightened
State, shall inquire of you the use of that post which occupies a sta
tion so commanding among the public buildings of Ohio, what an
swer will you give? You must tell him the truth; and you may
inform him that it is a deity that is worshiped by the seven hundred
thousand inhabitants of Ohio ; that his peculiar attributes and qual
ities are a love of money and a thirst insatiable for human blood ;
that his voracious stomach is regularly, three times a year, gorged
with his favorite drink, drawn from the veins of your citizens by the
application of whips and scourges. Complete the story if you can,
and tell him that for this he saves in your pocket from five to ten
cents a year. But, sir, I will dismiss this point, and proceed to con
sider what is in truth a much more important branch of the present
subject — the nature and effect of the punishment itself The dis
pute now is between the stripes on the bare back, as proposed in
this bill, and the fine and imprisonment of the old law. In the
view which I propose to take, in a few words, of these two modes
of punishment, it will be necessary to keep steadily in our sight the
nature and character of the person upon whom the punishment is to

AGAINST CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. 143
act, and the ends to be accomphshed by its infliction. Here I would
use the very instance produced by the gentleman from Highland in
support of the bill, guided by the unerring laws of human nature.
Let us test this example, and let experience decide whether the con
clusion I shall draw be true or false. Let then the person be an old
offender, hackneyed and trained in the ways of wickedness; by an
habitual communion with depravity his sense of shame is destroyed
and his love of reputation extinguished; his crimes shall have fixed
upon him the abhorrence of all who knew him, and broken every tie
which once held him in a state of social existence. Such a being, it
is argued, can only be punished by the infliction of stripes; the
blunted sensibilities of such a wretch, it is said, can only be roused
and acted upon by the tremendous apparatus of vengeance, furnished
forth in the first section of the bill. This, sir, is a conclusion which
I cannot admit ; my mind directs me to a result directly opposed to
the one at which my friend has arrived. I shall very readily admit,
sir, that persons may be found approximating very nearly at least
to the character described. Suppose him bound and fettered to the
whipping-post; imagine, if you please, all the playmates of his child
hood, the companions of his youth, and the graver acquaintances of
his riper years, to be present surrounding the place of his supposed
disgrace and punishment. What, sir, to such a being as we have im
agined would this be, or what effect would it have? Would he be
overwhelmed and dismayed at the frown and disdain of the multi
tude ? No, sir, aware of this, he would arm himself with triple insen
sibility. Lost to all 'sense of shame, he looks upon their scorn
and abhorrence with muscles unmoved, or a smile of contempt.
Bankrupt in character and with no desire to redeem a ruined reputa
tion, he looks forward to their future detestation as a thing with
which he has long been familiar, and about which he is utterly indif
ferent. The whip, then, as the gentlemen have argued, is the only
possible enemy with which he is to contend — he has nothing more to
arm himself against but the lash. The surrounding multitude, all the
parade and preparation of the scene, are. idle pageantry to him; and
if he can but harden his nerves, and fortify his flesh with the proper
degree of insensibihty, he can endure with equal stoicism and uncon
cern the severest corporal pain that human ingenuity can invent, or
human power inflict If it can be shown that man, when it is neces
sary, and when properly schooled for- the purpose, can endure with
comparative ease the severest corporal pain, then I think it is fair to

144 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
conclude that this would be the case in the instance before us. Be
assured, the old and well-practiced criminal has not been such a care
less observer of human events as not to have anticipated the proba
bility of punishment and prepared for its arrival, and when he sees
the bustling and eager crowd assembled for the very purpose of be
holding his humiliation and feasting upon his torment, you need not
be surprised if all the energies of his depraved and hardy nature
were called into action to disappoint the still more brutal expecta
tions and desires of the mob.
Hard as this triumph of our nature over pain, its natural enemy,
may seem, thousands of examples could be produced to prove it an
object of easy acquisition. Look to the history of the Indian tribes
of America, when the vanquished warrior unfortunately survives a
battle in which his tribe has been beaten and himself made prisoner.
The conquest is not complete until the victor chief has exerted his
system of torture upon the captive. The excellence of this scheme
of cruelty is made to exist in the length of time it will continue its
severity without destroying the sensibihty of the victim. Yet such
is the power of human nature, when fully exerted, that malice, when
she has exhausted all her invention, is often disappointed of her
wish, and obliged, at last, to behold the unconquered son of the des
ert standing amid his torments with as much ease as if he were re
posing upon his own native hills, breathing the fragrance of the wild
flowers of the desert, and surrounded with all that could soothe the
soul and gratify the sense.
So it will be with the old, the stern and obdurate malefactor.
It would be found impossible to inflict stripes upon him with such
severity as to produce any effect upon him at the time ; of course, as
to himself the effect, if any, must cease to operate the moment he is
discharged. But, sir, what impression will those receive who witness
this impotent attempt? The answer is obvious. The abhorrence of
his crime, and the terror of its punishment are all lost and forgotten
in the admiration created by the fortitude and indifference of the cul
prit under the influence of the scourge ; and the whole transaction
leaves no impression upon the mind of the beholder, except that he
had witnessed an unavailing attempt by an officer to inflict a severe
punishment upon a convicted villain, who obstinately and triumph
antly resisted all his power. Loose your criminal from the post, and
in an hour after all this has happened you shall find him celebrating
his victory in drunken revelry with his licentious companions.

AGAINST CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. 145
But, sir, it does by no means follow that there is no punishment
which can have the wished-for effect. Yes, there is a punishment by
which he may be made to suffer ; meet him, oppose him in the very
principle which prompts and urges him to the perpetration of crimes.
A love of abandoned company and an aversion to the labor and con
finement of honest pursuits have impelled him to seek a livelihood
in violation of your laws. Let him know, then, that in the pursuits
of his favorite enjoyments the moment he passes the prescribed lim
its of the law he shall forfeit the very boon he seeks. Show him
that he must exchange his wild and erratic independence for the
chains and bolts of a prison; that his favorite companions must be
forsaken for the deep solitude and ten-fold horrors of a dungeon.
Here he shall be deprived of the wild and spirit-stirring pleasures
which enabled him to avoid reflection upon his crime. If it be pos
sible, by human agency, to reform and punish a being such as I have
described, they are to be expected under circumstances like these ;
cut off from all his once loved pursuits, and deprived of all external
objects of reflection, he is compelled to commune with his own
mind. The sounding scourge and hissing snakes of his offended con
science drive him, in desperation, to that open sepulcher — the naked
human heart. Then, and then only, does the conscious mind be
come its own awful world, and the hardened wretch, that a short time
before bid defiance to all the terrors of penal justice, now, alone and
subdued, cowers and sinks under the weight of her retributive ven
geance. "In pangs that longest rack and latest kill."
Surely, if there be punishment against which our nature can op
pose no adaquate force; if there be terrors which can arrest the
hand of wickedness in the half executed crime, they are to be found
in the darkness and loneliness of solitary confinement — in the dun
geons of a jail.
Now, sir, let us turn for a moment to another and very differ
ent character, but one who may often be the subject of that punish
ment now proposed for our adoption. He shall be one who has
acted, not from a fixed and resolute disregard of moral obligation or
social duty, but rather from a thoughtless impetuosity of disposition,
which frequently hurries men, otherwise virtuous and honorable, to
the commission of crime. He may be one who has acted under a
strong and imperious necessity. I will suppose him to be a young
man. He may be the pride and only hope of his humble but re-
II

146 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
spectable parents; but in an ungarded moment, or under the influ
ence of strong and uncontrollable necessity, he has done a deed
which brings him to the whipping-post. Need I pursue this descrip
tion further? Need I ask the venerable gentlemen to place them
selves in the situation of such a father? Is there a man upon this
floor who could see the back of such a stripling bared to the inhu
man scourge ? No, there is not one ; the mover of this bill could not ;
its best friends could not endure such a sight. Where, then, is the
influence of an example which none can behold — which no father
would permit his children to see ; or what kind of law, I ask, is this
which in its operation violates and outrages the first, the original, the
best, the fairest attributes of our nature ? If the sheriff should do his
duty on such an occasion, he would bring down upon him the execra
tion of all who knew him ; if he fails in his duty, the law is a mock
ery and its administration a farce. What effect will this have upon
the offender himself? Will he be reformed by your punishment?
No, no one will pretend it; because it is a kind of punishment cal
culated to stimulate the angry and vindictive feelings of the soul,
and not to subdue the depravityof the heart. Loose your victim,
and, again driven out from among men, he goes forth a desperado,
a wretch, prepared "to war with men and forfeit heaven."
There are many other views which might be taken of this sub
ject against the policy of the law, but I fear I shall weary the pa
tience of the committee. There are, however, some further objec
tions to this bill, which, in justice to my own feelings, I cannot omit
All writers on the subject of criminal law agree, and the common
sense of every man will confirm the opinion, that the certainty of
punishment should be regarded more than any other consideration,
in the enactment of a criminal code. Will this grand primary object
be obtained by the passage of this bill ? I answer it will not If
you tell me this punishment is more severe than fine and imprison
ment and therefore preferable, I answer that in proportion as you
increase the severity of the punishment so in proportion do you di
minish the certainty of its infliction ; courts will be more scrupulous
and technical in motions to arrest judgments and to quash indict
ments; juries will not convict for an offense so readily where the
punishment is cruel, as when it is more lenient. Here again I must
appeal to the experience of every gendeman who has been at all con
versant with the courts of justice for the truth of this remark. But
sir, there is a better reason than this. I still believe that public

AGAINST CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. 147
opinion revolts at the idea of this species of punishment, and I will
defy any man, however strong and cogent the proof may be, to pro
duce a conviction, in five cases in ten, where the punishment conse
quent upon the verdict is odious and detestable to the jury. Your
offenders would here see the opinion and sympathies of the whole
community perpetually engaged in their behalf, and acquittals would
take place where guilt was manifest. Thus, sir, is the first great con
sideration ( a moral certainty that punishment must and will succeed
crime ) lost sight of in the bill. This is of the very last importance
— crime and punishment, in the administration of justice, should be
linked together like cause and effect. But they are disjoined far as
the poles from each other, and a conviction, with many juries, would
be almost beyond the limits of probabihty. But I am told there is
a saving alternative for these cases ; the court may whip, fine, or im
prison, or all, if they choose. I answer, juries will not trust their
verdict to the mercy of the court. They will argue thus: ' 'We may,
by finding the defendant guilty, be the means of carrying him to the
whipping-post ; we cannot tell what the court may do ; we will rather
acquit than risk the consequences which may follow a conviction."
This alternative, which the gentlemen resort to as the salvation of
the bill, is to my mind one of its most objectionable features. It is a
fact well known, that some counties in the State will never, under
any circumstances, resort to the whipping-post while they have any
alternative left; it is equally certain that in some circuits you would
seldom hear of fine and imprisonment, and all would be whipped.
In this way we should produce this strange phenomenon in jurispru
dence ; a general law made for the whole State alike, operating in one
part of the State in a way arid with tendencies widely different from
its operation in another part of the same State. If it be true as con
tended, that the whipping-post is to moralize, reform, and Christian
ize wherever it goes, and if it be true that the present system encour
ages vice, frauds, and pampers crimes, what kind of population shall
we have in Ohio ? Where whipping prevails, we shall behold a pious
race, strictly observant of all the niandates of the decalogue, and full
of the wisdom that "exalteth a nation." But where fine and impris
onment are the punishment, vice, unbridled and lawless, must riot
upon the peace of the country, cursed with all the crimes that are a
"reproach to any people." There will be in the circuit protected by
the whipping-post none but Israelties without guile ; pass but an ideal
boundary, and in the adjoining district now you have but devils in-

148 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
carnate. This motley and discordant population must be the result
of the operation of this law, if there be that wonderful difference in
the modes of punishment which is contended by the friends of the bill.
Permit me, sir, to ask one question more, and I have done.
Under the administration of the old law, have we not experienced all
the good order and social peace that can be expected in the best reg
ulated society; has there, since the adoption of that system, which is
I believe about six years, been an increase of crime beyond the in
crease of population ? There has not. Who can or will deny this ?
But, sir, if there had been, it might be accounted for upon principles
different from those which grow out of an insufficient law upon the
subject of crimes. Within the time I have named, a regular army
has been disbanded and let loose among us; all that was vicious,
depraved, and licentious in that army has been poured in upon us
and mingled its corruptions with the elements of society. Yet with
all this to contend with, your old law has struggled through the
conflict, faithful, efficient and adequate to the purposes of its crea
tion. Do not suppose that I am detracting from the merits of the
brave men who sustained their country's honor glorious and untar
nished throughout the struggle to which I have alluded. No, sir;
I believe they would have carried your eagle in triumph round the
globe had they been commanded to do so ; yet, sir, the melancholy
truth is still the same. The army is not a school of morality ; it is
not a place where the peaceful virtues are taught or practiced. Let
it not be forgotten, that this very kind of punishment has been dis
used and forbidden in the armies of a Bonaparte.
Yet this fugitive from the dominions of a military despotism is
to be naturalized and made a citizen of Ohio. I will present one case
for the consideration of the military gentlemen of the house. Sup
pose an old soldier, with whom you had fought and bled, should be
come the subject of this punishment ; unused to the arts and avoca
tions of peace, he has stolen a trifle, and is brought to the post.
While stripping for the sacrifice, should you behold upon his rough
and manly bosom the scars which speak of his bloody and heroic
deeds at Orleans, at Chippewa, or at the Thames, is there an Amer
ican arm that could be raised against him? If there be such a
wretch he must have a heart harder than adamant, lower than perdi
tion, blacker than despair. Sir, I must sit down. I ought, perhaps,
to pursue the subject further, but I must give place to those whose
years entitle them to a greater share of the indulgence of this House.

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS.

In the House of Representatives of the United States, Friday, April 4, 1834,
the order of the day, for the first hour, was the consideration of the Resolution of
Mr. Marsden, of Alabama, proposing that the public deposits should remain' in the
State Banks ; but that Congress should have the selection and regulation of the banks
in which they are to be placed. On this subject Mr. Corwin had the floor, and ad
dressed the House until the expiration of the hour. On Friday, April nth, the same
question coming up as the unfinished business of the first hour, he resumed and con
tinued to the expiration of the hour, and on the following morning he concluded his
remarks.Mr. Speaker: I feel sensibly the very awkward and embarrassing relations that
have subsisted between speakers and their audience in this House
during the last six weeks of this important and protracted discussion.
He who has at any time been so fortunate as to obtain the floor, sees
that he occupies a position which many others around him have
sought with unavailing effect. Those around him, on the other hand,
feel as if they had been deprived by another of a right which they
all possess in common with him, while the daily threat of the major
ity to silence debate by a call of the previous question, gives just
cause to fear that the right of themselves and those they represent to
be heard in this House on subjects affecting deeply their interests will
be finally denied them.
I cannot say, with the honorable gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Dickerson], that I have been instructed to speak on this sub
ject, yet I can assure the House that its manifest impatience of
further discussion would induce me still to observe a silence which I
have rigidly maintained for nearly three sessions of Congress, did I
not feel myself impelled to a different course by obligations which I
can no longer disregard. My judgment does not approve, nor do
my feelings participate in that anxiety which has been expressed to
bring this discussion to a close. It should not be matter of surprise
to any one that this subject has for three months engrossed the atten-
(149)

150 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
tion of Congress to the exclusion of almost every other. Its magni
tude should exclude all precipitation when it is approached, and ad
monish us to delay and ponder well before we decide. It involves
great principles, which all must see he deep in the foundations of our
political organization ; it ranges over a vast field of constitutional law ;
it comprehends many of the most interesting rights of the citizen —
rights which until now have always been supposed to be included
within the unquestioned legislative powers of Congress.
When we reflect that everything valuable to civil liberty, all
those maxims of good government which are so happily combined in
our written Constitutions, have been purchased at the expense of
blood and revolutionary strife, or wrought out into their present shape
through long ages of trial and painful experience, common prudence
should suggest great deliberation in any attempt to destroy or re-ad
just their established order. It should not be expected that the dear
est rights of the citizen, and the most important duties and powers
of the legislator, are to be discussed here with that sort of inconsid
erate haste which may be tolerated in matters of small or temporary
concernment, but which true wisdom never indulges when we are
dealing with those great interests which come to us by inheritance
from the past, which are the birthright of the present, and the best
hope of future generations.
I am sure I do not overrate the importance of this discussion.
The deep excitement felt here, in minds habitually cool, temperate,
and even phlegmatic, proves that I do not. The excitation of the
public mind proves to you that I do not magnify its importance. Do
we want proofs of this? Look abroad over this wide continent.
Three months ago it was seen agitating the surface like the tremu
lous premonitions of the coming earthquake; now it is rocking so
ciety to its foundations. The heavings of this fearful convulsion
have torn from their accustomed walks and natural positions, and pre
cipitated into one mass in a neighboring city forty thousand of our
citizens, each calling upon the other for counsel and co-operation.
From the populous cities on your Atlantic frontier, where the first
ripple of discontent was seen, the wave has swollen until it burst like
a deluge over the mountains, carrying discontent and alarm through
the peaceful valleys of the great west, inhabited by the most patient
temperate and quiet population anywhere to be found on the face of
the earth. Ominous as this excitement may appear to some, I can
not regret its existence. Though the storm that lowers upon our

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 151
hitherto unclouded horizon be dark, I feel an assured confidence that
its thunders, when they do burst, will roll to save, not to destroy.
It gives cheering proof that the spirit of our fathers, that "augured
misgovernment at a distance, and snuffed the approach of tyranny in
every tainted gale," is not extinguished in the bosoms of their sons.
In the notice I shall take of the causes that have produced such
striking and interesting effects, I do not intend to fatigue the patience
of gentlemen by any examination of the great elementary and con
stitutional principles which belong to this subject. These I shall con
sider as settled. Others, to whom I have listened with feelings of
pride and delight which I cannot soon forget, have left upon this part
of the canvass their own bright and indelible impressions of reason
and truth — impressions which any touch from my unpracticed hand
could not illustrate, but, on the contrary, would most certainly ob
scure, if not efface.
That which I propose to consider somewhat minutely relates to
a few simple propositions of law arising out of the provisions of the
act of I8I6. These are subjects in themselves of narrow dimensions,
and to most minds of dry and uninteresting character. Cold and re
pulsive, however, as the subjects may be, it is from them, and out of
them, that a public agent of Congress has endeavored to extract a
power so large and so pervading that its colossal form meets and
blocks up the way of Congress in whatever part of our allotted
sphere we attempt to move. This spectral image of despotism, let
it be remembered, rises from the tomb of the Bank of the United
States. The same scepter, with one blow of which he leveled the
bank in the dust, is at this moment stretched out to bar the ap
proaches of Congress, either to the grave of his late victim, or to the
treasury of the people, on which he has seized as his lawful prey.
The resolution on your table, which is the immediate subject of
discussion, proposes a total radical change, or rather subversion, of
our whole system of finance. That change, it will occur to all, can
not be effected unless Congress shall give its approval to the argu
ment of the Secretary of the Treasury, giving his reasons for taking
the first, and; as I fear, fatal step in this new and untried experiment.
That argument, it is contended, furnishes a legal justification to the
Secretary for proceeding, at the will and under the direction of the
President, to dismiss the Bank of the United States from our service
as an agent to collect and disburse the revenue, and to withhold from
t that revenue which, by law, was ordered to be deposited with the

152 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
bank for safe keeping. After a careful, and, as I believe, unbiased
attention to all that has been urged to sustain this proposition, I can
not yield to it the assent of my understanding.
A very cursory view of the groundwork of this discussion will
disclose the necessity, in the first place, of a careful examination of
the powers and duties of the Secretary of the Treasury under the
Constitution and general laws relating to that department. In set
tling the character, origin and responsibilities of that officer is devel
oped that radical difference of political faith and practice which di
vides the two parties in this House, and, in my judgment, consti
tutes the most striking feature of this discussion.
On one side are arrayed the friends of "executive power."
They contend that your Secretary of the Treasury is the mere off
spring of executive will, and is the agent and instrument of the
President ; that he sustains this character, not only in the general du
ties assigned to him by law, but that such is his character in the re
lations between him and the bank that the discretion vested in the
Secretary by the sixteenth section of the bank charter to withhold
from that institution "the public deposits, giving his reasons to Con
gress for so doing," is not his discretion, but that he must act in obe
dience to the discretion, will and judgment of the President in this
as well as every other duty assigned him by law; that he is responsi
ble to the President only, and not to Congress, for the faithful execu
tion of duties imposed on him by Congress. In short they invest
the President with all the attributes and powers of a superintending
providence over all the concerns of the Government. It is not sur
prising, after having found in our Constitution such a divinity, that
those who worship at his shrine should hold all inferior beings (as all
must be so) responsible to him, and him only, for their conduct
While they give to the President all the powers and attributes of a
god, they withhold both from the Secretary till they make him much
less than man. They admit the law has said that the deposits of the
public moneys shall be made in the Bank of the United States, "un
less the Secretary of the Treasury shall otherwise order and direct,''
in which last case he is to lay before Congress his reasons for such
order and direction. Yet, they contend that while it is the duty ot
the Secretary to do all these things, he can in none of them exercise
his own faculties ; he is to see through the President's eyes, reason
through and by the President's understanding, decide by the Presi
dent's will, and execute with the President's power. In other words.

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 153
he is to be responsible without discretion, to reason without judg
ment, decide without will, and execute without power.
On the other side of this question are to be found those who
contend for the "power of the people," through their representatives,
over the money of the people. We maintain that in all things per
taining to the collection, safe-keeping and disbursement of their
taxes, which Congress by the Constitution has the exclusive power
"to lay and collect," and which can only be paid out when collected
by act of Congress, the Secretary receives his power to act from
Congress, is the agent of Congress, and is responsible to Congress for
the faithful execution of those powers intrusted to him by Congress.
No one who has attended to the arguments in this House, and
read the volumes of reports and executive documents sent here to en
lighten us, can deny that I have stated truly the grounds assumed,
in and out of Congress, by the conflicting parties on this subject.
The very statement of the case is itself the best argument to show
that gentlemen on the other side cannot maintain the position they
have assumed. Unless there be some reason hidden below the sur
face as yet of all this discussion, which has, unperceived by all,
wrought a mysterious conviction on the minds of gentlemen, there
can be no difficulty in coming to a right decision of this question. I
am fortified in this belief by the contradictory propositions assumed
and defended in the report made to us by the Committee of Ways
and Means. That committee, selected by the Chair for its financial abilities,
and not by presumption, nor always in fact the ablest expounders of
the Constitution, has, with great care, presented the House with a
very elaborate view of the relative powers of Congress, and the Presi
dent, and the Secretary of the Treasury, under the Constitution.
It sets out with the assertion that the power to select the place
of deposit, and the person or persons who shall have the custody of
the public moneys, always did and does now belong to the head of
the Treasury, under the supervision and control of the Executive.
The process of the argument is this : It is alleged in the report al
luded to that this power, under the old confederation, was considered
an executive power, and as such was exerted by Congress; that,
when the confederation gave place to the Constitution, "all executive
power" (this being one) was transferred by the Constitution to the
President, where, under that instrument, it still remains. The com
mittee, with a degree of industry much more commendable than the

154 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
discrimination by which they seem to have been guided, in order to
show the usage of former times to be conformable to their doctrines,
have brought forward a variety of historical proofs and references.
Mr. Speaker, it is no necessary part of my duty or purpose to con
trovert this position. However strange it may appear, the com
mittee have either abandoned or completely refuted it themselves in
the same report, where with so much labor they asserted and en
deavored to establish it Neither am I bound to account for these
candid inconsistencies. Perhaps the committee may have thought it
a kind of incumbent duty to maintain the dignity and honor of the
Executive against the charge of usurpation. Having, however, dis
charged that duty to which they felt themselves forced by the violent
impulses of the occasion, with most amiable partiality for Constitu
tional truth and sound political philosophy, they abandoned this
ground, and now assert the power of Congress under the Constitu
tion to have been always (up to 1816) complete over the public
moneys, and acknowledge themselves at a loss to find any good reason
why the Congress of 1816 should then have transferred it to other
hands. I beg leave to refer gentlemen who have not looked critically
at this report to one or two paragraphs on the fifth page. From
these it will be seen I have quoted them truly, and given to their
language their own interpretation.
In giving construction to the sixteenth section of the bank char
ter, passed by Congress in 1816, the committee say: "The effect
of the sixteenth section of the bank charter is to take from Congress
entirely the power to control the public deposits, which that body
before possessed." Again, on the same page, they say: "Wheth
er the Congress acted wisely in thus divesting themselves of all con
trol over the places of public deposit of the public moneys for the
long period of twenty years is a question which it is unnecessary to
determine." These quotations prove (if language is any sign of
ideas) that the committee considered it undeniable truth that in
1816 -Congress, by the Constitution, did possess legislative power
over this subject, and that they divested themselves of that power by
the act of 1816. In the first pages of their report however, they
have bestowed much labor to prove that Congress never did possess
this power ; that, by the Constitution, it was confided to the Presi
dent as the head of the Executive department this being one of the
executive powers which, by the adoption of the Constitution, was
among others transferred to that officer.

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 155
Let us pause at this point for a moment while we examine the
consequences, I can not say absurdities, (for that word, though one
of "exceedingly good command" in our language, is not parliamen
tary) which flow from the various positions maintained, and most of
them in turn abandoned or refuted, in the committee's report.
First, it is asserted that the power over the deposits of the public
moneys by the Constitution, being an executive power, belongs to
the President, who is to exercise it through his agent, the Secretary
of the Treasury. It follows that this power, if given to the Presi
dent, could not be exercised or controlled by Congress, unless the
Constitution should be so changed as to give them such control, yet,
in the succeeding pages of this same report, the committee find Con
gress in lawful possession of this power, but, as they insist, taking it
away from themselves and giving it to the Secretary of the Treasury
in the year I8I6. If the first position be true, the second is certain
ly unfounded. Again, if the committee be right in the position that
Congress in I8I6 did possess complete control over the person who
should keep and the place where the public moneys should be kept,
and if this power was given them by the Constitution, could Con
gress, at its pleasure, change the Constitution and transfer that pow
er to another? The committee seem to think they could. When
the committee speak of Congress "divesting"' itself of a power held
under the Constitution, I can only understand them by supposing
they take it for granted that Congress, at its pleasure can, by law,
transfer power from one branch of the Federal Government to an
other. This doctrine, sir, is new to me ; nor do I believe it has, as
yet, obtained a very general credit with American statesmen.
To this family of incongruities permit me, before I take my
leave of them, to introduce a kindred fallacy of the Secretary of the
Treasury. It wiU be found in what he calls his "reasons" for with
holding the public moneys from the Bank of the United States. It
is this: He (the Secretary) asserts that the act of I8I6, creating
the bank, is unconstitutional. If so, it is inoperative and can confer
no rights upon the bank — no powers upon any one. It leaves every
subject it touches as though no law had been attempted to be enact
ed. Yet the Secretary himself and the committee, in their report,
claim that this same act gives power to the Secretary of the Treasury
to lay his hand upon the whole revenues of this nation and transfer
them to persons and deposit them in places not authorized or desig
nated by law. Reason and law would tell us that if, as the commit-

156 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
tee argue. Congress rightfully possessed this power in 1816, and if,
as the committee and Secretary both agree, the attempt to vest it
elsewhere resulted in passing an act unconstitutional, and therefore
void, then the power remained where it was — that is to say, in Con
gress and not in the Secretary or the President; and the question
may well be asked, by what law does the Secretary claim to possess
himself of this high and transcendent power? Mr. Speaker, when I
look at this ludicrous jumble of contradictions and remember that
they are the joint product of the well-known, talented and accom
plished mind of the Secretary of the Treasury and the not less rich
ly-endowed intellect of the honorable chairman of the "Ways and
Means," I see and acknowledge, in thankfulness of heart, the opera
tion of one of those laws which Infinite Wisdom has established for
the government of the mind of man. Reason is given by God to
man to guide him with certainty in the way of truth. That way is
always straight ; it is plain and bright with the lights that ever burn
around and along its borders. The path of error and sophistry is in
the wilderness. Their course is mazy, devious and shrouded in dark
ness. Whenever bias or passion, therefore, perverts the understand
ing from the uses to which it was ordained by Him who gave it, as a
penalty for its abuse, the wisdom of the wisest becomes folly, and,
that it may deceive no one, is involved in difficulties and contradic
tions and ends in discomfiture and defeat. We have before us a case
where this great moral truth is most strikingly exemplified. The
Secretary of the Treasury, aided by the labors of the Committee of
Ways and Means, with great toil and care erects a costly and mag
nificent and heathenish anti-republican temple. They cover its walls
all over with inscriptions of monarchical dogmas and barbaric phrases
alien to the dialects of democracy and not written in the republican
"books of the law" delivered to us by our fathers. With equal toil
and pains they then construct a monstrous Juggernaut and engrave
upon his frontlet the magic words, "Executive Power." Him they
enshrine with all the pomp of heathen idolatry. This done, they
point to their idol and command us to "fall down and worship."
Suddenly, however, the scene changes. While we stand wrapped in
amazement at the vast dimensions of the structure, the builders of it
themselves, impelled by a law of their nature, assault it with violence,
and in a twinkling all is gone. The gorgeous temple, huge divinity
and costly shrine are leveled together in the dust
I dismiss this topic. Its singular character has, I find, tempted

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 157
me to pursue it much further than I had intended. I take it for
granted, then, that we have established, by the admissions of the
devotees of executive power themselves, that all power over the
money of the people belongs to the people, through their represen
tatives in Congress; that it belongs immediately to Congress, who
alone have power to "lay and collect taxes."
It follows, as a necessary consequence, that whatever act the
Secretary of the Treasury may do touching those "taxes," he must
do it by virtue of some power derived from Congress. It follows
with equal certainty that, being the agent of Congress, he is respon
sible to Congress, from whom he receives his power, for its faithful
and intelligent execution.
Let us now turn to the commission given by Congress to the
Secretary touching the public moneys. It will be found in the 16th
section of the bank charter of 1816 in these words: "The deposits
of the moneys of the United States, in places in which the said bank
and branches thereof may be established, shall be made in the said
bank or branches thereof unless the Secretary of the Treasury shall
at any time otherwise order and direct in which case the Secretary
of the Treasury shall immediately lay before Congress, if in session,
and if not, immediately after the commencement of the next session,
the reasons of such order and direction." No one can doubt the
character or object of the power here given. It is, in its character,
a trust or discretionary power. Its objects were, first, the safety of
the public treasure ; secondly, it was intended to compel the bank to
a faithful performance of its promise, to transmit without charge the
moneys of the government to the places where they were required
to be disbursed. If the bank should fail in either of these stipula
tions. Congress intended that the Secretary should have the power to
find immediately other places of deposit and other disbursing agents.
To enable the Secretary to discharge the delicate trust thus reposed
in him. Congress provides in the same law "that the officer at the
head of the Treasury department of the United States shall be fur
nished from time to time, as often as he may require, not exceeding
once a week, with statements of the amount of the capital stock of
the said corporation and of the debts due to the same; of the
moneys deposited therein ; of the notes in circulation ; and of the
specie in hand ; and shall have a right to inspect such general ac
counts on the books of the bank as shall relate to the said statement,
provided, that this shall not be construed to imply a right of inspect-

158

SPEECHES OP THOMAS COKWIN.

ing the account of any private individual or individuals with the
bank. ' '
The last paragraph of this act contains an answer to every rea
son urged by the Secretary for removing the deposits from the Bank
of the United States. It shows to what objects Congress designed
to confine the power given to that officer over the public funds. All
that the Secretary can know, from what the bank is bound to disclose
to him in the weekly statement required to be furnished, relates to
the solvency of the bank. It was intended to furnish the Secretary
in this way with the means of executing the power given him to
protect the safety of the people's money. It will be observed that
the Secretary is, in express words, denied the right to look into the
"private accounts of individuals." With what pretense of plausibil
ity can it be contended, as it has been by the Secretary and President
too, that improper accounts between the bank and certain printers,
which can only be known by examining the "private accounts,"
form a reason or answer for the exercise of this power? The con
struction contended for by those who defend the Executive would
make the Congress of 1816 confer, by law, large powers on their
agent, and, in the same law, expressly deny him the power to ascer
tain those facts upon which alone he would be justified in using the
power conferred. That Congress never intended to extend the
power of the Secretary over the vast field of inquiry which, in the
all-grasping spirit of the executive government, he has appropriated,
is also evident from the powers over the bank reserved to Congress,
compared with those given and denied to the Secretary, to which last
I have just adverted. By the 23d section of the charter it is pro
vided ' ' that it shall at all times be lawful for a committee of either
House of Congress, appointed for that purpose, to inspect the books
and to examine into the proceedings of the corporation hereby cre
ated, and to report whether the provisions of this charter have been
by the same violated or not." It then goes on to provide (in the
event of a report by the committee of a violation of the charter)
that a scire facias shall issue from the Circuit Court of the United
States calling on the bank to show cause, etc. A jury of the coun
try, sworn and impaneled to try the cause, would then be the tribu
nal to which the subject would be referred for decision. But this
good old usage of our fathers did not comport with that scheme of
compendious confiscation which had been resolved on.
We have here on the face of the law the duties and powers re-

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 159
quired to be done and exercised by the Secretary, and the subjects
of inquiry which Congress reserved to itself and the courts and juries
of the country. But the Secretary, with this law before him, backed
or pushed forward by the President, takes all the powers of Congress
and the courts into his own hand and gravely tells Congress that, by
the law I have just quoted, he (whenever, in his opinion, "the pub
lic good or convenience required it,") could dismiss the bank as a de
pository of the public money and dissolve all connection of the Gov
ernment with that institution. In effect, he assumes, with a boldness
unparalleled in any officer in a country of laws, to exercise execu
tive, legislative and judicial power; to forfeit charters held under the
pledged faith of the nation ; to seize upon rights guaranteed by all
the solemnities of legislative enactment and fortified by all the
strength of legislative power.
Let us examine this modest assumption of the Secretary by an
other test. He insists that his power to dissolve all connection with
the United States Bank is unlimited, except "by his own discretion."
If then, in his opinion, the bank was dangerous as a monopoly (for
this is much insisted on); if it did not furnish a good currency; if
State banks would be, in his opinion, more safe or convenient depos
itories of the public moneys; if the tendencies of the institution, in
his or the President's opinion, would be unfriendly to the morals of
the people ; then, in either of these cases, the Secretary of the Treas
ury could of his own proper authority, under the act of 1816, as to
all public purposes, repeal the law itself Sir, is this to be tolerated?
Were the men who composed the Congress of 1816 such miserable
drivelers as this interpretation of their acts would make them?
What objects had they in view in erecting the United States Bank ?
Is any American citizen who can read so ignorant as not to know
them? The Government had lost by State banks about fourteen
hundred thousand dollars. It determined to create a bank as a place
of safe-keeping of the people's money, which it could examine into
and control in order to prevent future loss. The arguments for and
against this institution were heard for three years in this hall prior to
the final passage of the bank charter — its dangerous tendencies as a
moneyed monopoly; its power over the politics of the country; the
effect it would have on currency, trade and exchange, all were deba
ted with zeal and ability, which would have illustrated the history of
any deliberative body that ever yet assembled anywhere upon earth.
These various points of policy were all settled by Congress, the only

160 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
power in a representative government which can take cognizance of
such subjects. The act was passed ; it received the President's ap
proval ; it became a law for twenty years. Now the President and
Secretary assert that this same Congress, by a clause in this same act,
authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to sit down and examine
whether Congress had acted wisely or not; whether a bank was a
dangerous engine against liberty ; whether it would or would not be
likely to exert a beneficial and wholesome influence upon trade and
domestic or foreign exchange. If on reflection he should be of opin
ion that the public treasure could be more securely kept and trans
mitted from place to place by the State banks ; or if he in any of
these particulars, relating to public policy, should differ with both
branches of Congress and the President, he (the Secretary) should in
that case repeal the law. Yes, sir, repeal the law. For the whole
object of the bank charter was to make the bank created by it an
agent of the Government. To give the Secretary a power to de
stroy that agency for any reason of a moral or political character,
was, in substance, giving him a power to repeal and annul the whole
law. Courtesy forbids me the use of terms proper to convey my
ideas of such miserable inconsistency as this. This course of argu
ment makes the Congress of the United States, after years of anx
ious labor on a subject of vital interest to the nation, throw together
in the shape of law, not a well-ordered system of finance reaching,
as all systems worth anything must do, forward with certain and
steady operation into the future ; no, instead of this you make them
heap together a disjointed jumble of crude conceptions and self-evi
dent contradictions, and then, in impotent despair, call upon the wis
dom and virtue and skill of a Secretary of the Treasury to review
their policy and make or destroy their law at his pleasure. And this
is called republican doctrine. This is modern democracy ! This is
said to be the way of keeping power in the hands of the people,
"the many," and denying sovereign sway to the few, or to one.
Let us now turn to that view of the subject which regards the
various provisions of the bank charter in the light of a contract.
I am sure it needs no argument to prove to this House that a
law which confers upon one or more persons certain rights, and im
poses on them certain duties to be performed, on the faith of which
such persons invest their money, is, in its terms and nature, a com
pact. As such, for the term of its duration, all power given under it

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 161
is irrevocable; as a law, it is not capable of repeal; as a contract,
except in the mode pointed out by its provisions, it is indissoluble.
The bank charter of 1816 proposes to all who would subscribe
stock under its provisions, that they should possess the corporate
powers specified in that act for the full term of twenty years. The
stockholders, on their part, agree to pay to the United States a
bonus of one million and a half of dollars ; to receive and keep safe,
at their own risk, the revenues of the Government; to transmit at
their own risk, and without charge, the moneys of the Government
to any point required for disbursement. In consideration of these
arduous and responsible duties, and the payment of the bonus, the
Government agrees, on its part, that the stockholders shall have the
right to issue their notes, which shall be received in payment of all
public dues, unless Congress shall otherwise direct by law. The
bank shall have the benefit of the deposit of the public moneys du
ring the term of twenty years, unless the Secretary of the Treasury
shall otherwise order and direct, for reasons which shall be approved
(as I construe the law) by both branches of Congress. These are,
in substance, the mutual solemn engagements between the Govern
ment of the United States and the stockholders of the United States
Bank. I think it has been satisfactorily shown that the only reasons
upon which the Secretary could remove the public moneys from the
bank are, first, that they were unsafe in its custody; or, secondly,
that the bank had failed or refused to transmit and pay them over as
required by law. It is not pretended that our revenues are in dan
ger of being lost by the insolvency of the bank, nor am I aware that
it has been suggested in debate that the bank has been delinquent in
its engagements to transmit and pay them over at any point where
the Government has had occasion to disburse them. The withdrawal
from the bank of the deposits has, then, been made without any
cause such as was contemplated by the charter and, consequently, in
violation of the contract between the Government and the stockhold
ers of the bank. What is the position we occupy in the face of our
country and the world? We have pledged the faith and honor of
the nation, upon which pledge twenty-eight millions of money have
been invested in a bank in which we are parties. Without any rea
son applicable to our contract, we have wantonly violated one of its
vital and most essential stipulations. Fully sensible of the degrad
ing and loathsome character of the act we are considering, when
viewed as a violation of contract, the sensitive and generous mind of
12

162 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gilmer], as also that of his col
league [Mr. Schley] , have labored to rid the charter of all the at
tributes of a compact. They seem to suppose it absurd to imagine
that a contract could be made binding in this instance, because one
of the parties is a "corporation." Many of their remarks on this
part of the subject resolve themselves into those quaint definitions of
the qualities and faculties of a corporation in the old law books that
treat of these subjects. Among other things it is said that a corpor
ation has no soul. Sir, there is black-letter authority enough for
that. But the gentleman should have done justice to the ancient lu
minaries of the law, and told, further, that they only intended to say
that a corporation, as such, could not commit a crime, and in its cor
porate capacity could not be punished as a criminal. Will gentle
men contend from this that no binding contract can be made with
any number of persons who are thus incorporated? Does it follow
that the various individuals who compose this artificial person with
out a soul, can, in its corporate character, have no civil rights? This
course of argument would seem to affirm that a great nation, a
proud republic, could pledge its faith to the performance of certain
acts to a corporation which itself had created, and in good faith,
without tarnishing its honor, at any time refuse to redeem its pledge,
and allege as a justification, the ready plea, "you are a corporation —
you have no soul." Excellent jurisprudence! admirable ethics!
most amiable philosophy ! What a figure such a chapter would have
made in the profound and eloquent volumes of Hooker! what luster
it would have shed upon the morality of Paley ! It certainly never
occurred to the great teachers of law or ethics that, because a corpor
ation could not as such, commit murder, nor yet itself be subject to
that crime, therefore it followed, from reason irrefragable, that it was
lawful and right to rob it ; that as it could not in its corporate char
acter, commit a crime, and would, therefore, escape punishment in
the next world, reason, equity and the eternal fitness of things re
quired that it should be -visited with confiscation in this. Of a char
acter closely allied to this, in its moral tendency, is that class of ar
guments which treats the contract in the bank charter as a promise
liable to be performed or broken, according to the fluctuating opin
ions of those who might hold, for the time being, the political power
necessary to its faithful execution. Is this the light in which mod
ern morality and law have taught us to consider national obligations
and national honor? Does a change of power from one political

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 163
party to those of another political faith absolve the latter from all
obligations contracted by the former? Sir, within the last four years
the long-exiled Bourbon has paid us for spoliations committed on
our commerce by revolutionary France. The present King of Na
ples has remunerated our citizens for injuries sustained by them at
the hands of Joachim Murat Such, sir, is the universal law of good
faith which descends and attaches upon all who, in the process of
time, however remote, succeed to the political power of Government.
It is this faith-keeping principle in States and individuals that
holds together the moral elements of tlje world. It is superior to,
and controls, all human will. Its obligations are paramount to all
human control. It is a law of perpetual obligation, from which
neither States nor individuals can absolve themselves; it is felt in the
hearts of men; it does not derive its origin from society; it is the
parent and origin of all social existence; it is the principle of the
honest man, the honor of the gentleman, the chivalry of the brave
man, the piety of the good man, the glory of a nation.
Mr. Speaker, if this act of the Secretary is in itself wrong, be
ing founded in palpable injustice toward the bank, it is not less con-
demnable as being unwise and inexpedient as a measure of public
policy. Though I by no means admit that what the Secretary calls
"his reasons" are, in a single instance, such as to form even an
apology for his conduct, yet it is only respectful toward him to be
stow a passing notice upon some of them. He sets out with the
declaration that the people of the United States had declared that
the charter of the present bank should not be renewed. This is put
forward as the basis upon which he felt himself compelled to act.
In a matter effecting in the tenderest point the interest and business
and property of a nation, we should expect, from ordinary prudence,
great certainty in ascertaining facts necessary to be known, before
consequences so momentous were encountered. The evidence of the
existence of such facts should not be conjectural or equivocal, but
such as could leave no doubt — such as would extort conviction from
the mind. What then, was this proof think you, of a decision by
the people that the bank should cease to exist ? It was this : Gen
eral Jackson was re-elected to the presidency in November, 1832,
and he was not a friend of the bank ! Here is the direct, positive,
overwhelming evidence of the sense of a nation, as the Secretary
¦supposes, on a simple isolated question concerning the renewal of a
charter. What a compliment to the President I He is, by this view

164 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
of the election, represented as being chosen to preside over the re
public, not for his profound knowledge of civil polity in all its com
plex and multiform ramifications ; not for his acquaintance with our
diplomatic history ; not for his large and comprehensive views of the
rising and future destinies of this flourishing republic ; not for his
great renown in arts or arms; no, none of these. He was, accord
ing to the view of it, clothed with the highest honor mortal man can
confer, simply and only because he did not like a certain corporation
in the city of Philadelphia, of which one Nicholas Biddle was the
president. Sir, I can find a hundred men at work on the canal about
this city before sunset that have the same qualification for the high
office of chief magistrate of the republic, if opposition to a banking
corporation is to be the sole and exclusive test of merit. The peo
ple of this country will no longer be fit to be trusted with the elec
tion of their President, when they make that election turn upon a
single supposed opinion of their candidate touching one only of the
great variety of subjects upon which that officer is obliged to act.
For the reputation of the President, for the character of my coun
trymen, I trust this opinion expressed by the Secretary, and in an
other document asserted by the President himself, will be repudiated
by this House. I know it will be rejected with indignation by the
enlightened freemen of the country as a reflection upon their intelli
gence. But sir, I deny that the President ever expressed to the people
an uiiqiialiiied declaration against the renewal of the charter of the
United States Bank. I know that he refused his approval to the bill
for that purpose passed in 1832 ; but do we not all know that among
other things in his message to Congress on that subject, the Presi
dent distinctly asserts the power of Congress to create a bank, and
plainly intimates his willingness to aid them in doing so ? Let his
own language speak for him: "That a Bank of the United States,
competent to all the duties which may be required by the govern
ment, might be so organized as not to infringe on our own delegated
powers, or the reserved rights of the States, / do iiot aitertain a doubt.
Had the Executive been called upon to furnish the project of such
an institution, the duty would have been cheerfully performed. In
the absence of such a call it is obviously proper that he should con
fine himself to pointing out those prominent features in the act pre
sented, which, in his opinion, make it incompatible with the Consti
tution and sound policy." Here we have a distinct annunciation by

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 165
the President, that a bank might be created which would answer all
public purposes; of this he says he "does not entertain a doubt,"
and that if called upon, he would cheerfully furnish the project of
such an institution. This, sir, in that portion of the country within
the range of my immediate observation, was seized upon by the
President's friends at his last election to show that he would yet fur
nish to the country a bank. He, and he alone, it would seem, had
made the discovery of some project concerning currency and treas
ury agency, which the wisdom of the wisest for the last fifty years
had sought for in vain. The country has patiently waited the re
demption of this pledge for two years. Still some of his friends
cry, "Patience, it will yet be brought forth." Great mystery is af
fected and no one ventures to say precisely what it will resemble ;
yet still it will be, it is said, when it does come, just what all desire.
Deep in the recesses of executive wisdom they tell us this grand se
cret is hidden. That which escaped the anxious search of Washing
ton, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and all the Secretaries of the
Treasury for forty years, had been discovered by the present chief
magistrate, and surely it would not be withheld from the world. It
was suddenly to spring from the pregnant head of the Executive
like another Minerva from the head of Jove — the impersonation of
wisdom armed from head to foot, covered all over with the panoply
of the Constitution, graced with all the amiable facilities of bank
credit and sound currency, and endowed, in an especial manner,
with the energies and security of a proper treasury agent. This,
sir, is what was decided upon by the people in the election of the
President; this was what they were promised; they relied on that
promise. Sir, it had that quality which always commends itself to
our credence ; to say the least of it, it was modest.
Two years have elapsed, and the expecting world still waits in
hope of the grand development. Whether we are to die "without
the sight" is among those future events which the curtain of time
(perhaps fortunately for us) still conceals from mortal scrutiny. I
take it for granted that the rickety, misshapen imp, lately born of a
forbidden concubinage between executive assumption and State bank
prostitution, which we now see mewling and puking in the arms of
the Committee of Ways and Means, is not to be palmed upon us for
that "cava Deitm soboles, " tha.t "magnum Jovis irwrementum," which
the world has so long been promised.
Mr. Speaker, let us examine some other of our recollections of

166 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
subjects agitated, and, by presumption, supposed to have been de
cided by the people in the election of President Prior to the elec
tion of 1829, nothing, touching the opinions of the candidates,
formed a more decisive test in the Western States than the "tariff
and internal improvement.'' So anxious were the people of that sec
tion of the country to be well informed on this subject, that the Leg
islature of Indiana authorized their Governor to open a correspon
dence with General Jackson, then a candidate, in order to have rec
ord proof of his principles touching the measures to which I have
referred. What followed ? In a reply to the Governor, a letter ad
dressed to a gentleman in the South and votes given in the other
branch of Congress were referred to, but nothing explicit beyond
these could be learned. This, however, was received by the good-
natured people of Indiana as full proof of the General's friendship
to a protective system of duties and liberal expenditure of public
money upon roads and canals. Now, sir, if we can trust at all the
newspapers of that day, we know that this same letter and these
Senatorial votes were referred to in the South as furnishing very sat
isfactory evidence of the same gentleman's hostihty to both tariff
and internal improvement.
With these examples of the dubious character of any evidence
of public will, derived from the agitation of any subject in elections,
we should have expected the highly-cultivated legal mind of the Sec
retary to hesitate in receiving that sort of proof as satisfactory in
any manner involving deeply the public interest. Our astonishment
increases when we hear the President himself with all the facts to
which I have adverted fresh in his memory, make the declaration
that his election in 1832 is to be received as a decision of the people
that the bank is not to be re-chartered. Another reason, as it is'
called, much insisted on is equally without foundation in fact. It is
amusing, if not vexatious, to observe the freedom with which both
the Secretary and the Committee of Ways and Means draw upon the
credulity of Congress and the people. They propose to destroy the
United States Bank, and employ as treasury agents some hundreds
of State banks throughout the Union, for the purpose — ( mark the
object in view!) — for the purpose of " bringing back the currency
where the sages who formed the Constitution found and left it."
Where did the much-abused and misrepresented sages who formed
the Constitution find the currency? The mists of antiquity have not
yet settled down upon the period referred to so heavily as to obscure

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 167
from our vision the men and the deeds of that day. They fenind the
currency made up of "continental money" and "bills of credit" is
sued by the several States of the then confederacy. Is this, then,
the kind of currency which the patriots and philanthropists of the
present day intend to give us? Where, again I ask, did the sages
who formed the Constitution leave the currency? Let us look
somewhat minutely into this portion of our history. I shall be will
ing to go with gentlemen in any measure which will give us just
such a currency as the sages who formed the Constitution left us.
The convention that formed the Constitution was composed of thirty-
nine members, including General Washington, its presiding officer.
Of the thirty-eight members who signed the Constitution in 1787,
sixteen were members of Congress under the Constitution in the
year 1791, when the first United States Bank was chartered; twelve
of these sixteen voted for that bank, and four against it. Among
those who voted against it was Mr. Madison, who afterward, in
1816, yielded his objections and approved the charter of the present
bank. General Washington in I79I was President of the United
States, and approved the establishment of the bank. General Ham
ilton was then Secretary of the Treasury, and recommended it.
Here, then, we have the recorded opinions of eighteen of the thirty-
nine who signed the Constitution ; fifteen of these were in favor of the
Bank of the United States, and three against it. But, sir, this is not
all. We are informed by those still living, who knew well the opin
ions of those other sages who formed the Constitution, who were
not in the Congress of 1791, that seventeen of them were in favor
of the Bank of the United States, as then established. The opin
ions of those who formed the Constitution, as to currency, would
then stand thus: Thirty-two in favor of a Bank of the United
States, and seven against it. It was a currency, regulated, con
trolled and created by the Bank of the United States, which the
sages who formed the Constitution "left us." From the year 1791
to the present hour, more than forty years, excepting four years of
derangement, disaster and ruin, (from 1811 to 1816, when we had
no United States Bank,) we have had thai currency, and now -wse are
told, with apparent candor, too, that by abohshing the Bank of the
United States, and giving to one hundred State banks twenty mill
ions of pubhc money annually to issue bank-notes upon, we shall
bring back such a currency as the sages of 1791 gave us; that we
shall, in this way, restore the currency to the condition in which the

168 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
immortal authors of the Constitution left it. I have neither time
nor temper to animadvert further upon this attempt to bolster up the
miserable schemes and shifts of this day, dignified with the name of
plans, by authorities drawn from the earlier portion of our constitu
tional history. It can only succeed by mistaking the authority, or
by a gross misunderstanding of historical facts.
When we shall have broken up the present system of things,
what does the Secretary, what do the committee, propose to give us
in its stead? Shall we have a better circulating medium? They
propose to give us, instead of United States Bank bills, the notes of
State banks. More than four hundred of these now exist in the dif
ferent States. Their notes are selling at the brokers' offices in differ
ent parts of the Union, at a discount varying from two to ten per
cent, at this moment. Two years ago, when war was declared
against the present Bank of the United States, we were told that all
banks were to be put down. They were all then monopolies, dan
gerous to liberty, and the destruction of paper currency and the res
toration of coin were then begun. This was then the confident as
sertion of a portion of the party now in power. Let the history of
that party, in the Legislatures of the States since that time, speak
for itself In Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana, what has it done?
Why, sir, in order to banish bank paper and restore coin they com
menced a clamor for State banks, and in my own State have, since
1832, incorporated four millions of State bank capital. This has
been done by that very party who are to bring back gold and silver
currency by destroying banks. The same scene has been acted by
the same class of politicians in all the Western States. It is now a
well-known fact, that since the message of the President was promul
gated, putting his veto on the United States Bank charter of 1832,
more than forty millions of bank capital have been incorporated in
the different States in the Union. Such is the progress already
made toward restoring gold and silver currency. I venture now the
prediction that if the United States Bank, or some similar institu
tion, be not established, you will, before the lapse of five years, see
twice the number of State banks now in existence. Their notes \^ ill
be flying everywhere, thick as the leaves of the forest in an autum
nal hurricane, and about as valuable.
But suppose your league of Treasury banks should succeed in
establishing their credit so as to give general currency to their pa
per ; will not those banks in that way, by loans and exchanges, gain

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 169
the same power and control over the business and trade of the coun
try, which, you say, is now possessed by the United States Bank —
that dangerous power, for the possession of which, you say, it must be
abolished ? And what is gained by the exchanging one for the other ?
What will your condition be when your league banks shah be able to
crush, if they choose, the trade of the country? Can you strike
them out of existence ? No I over them or their charters you have
no control. The State Legislatures gave them life, and will, at their
pleasure, prolong their existence. Suppose their charters expire;
they are your Treasury agents ; they wih then be indispensable to
your system of finance. WiU they consent to expire? Will not
the stockholders in them be just as anxious for a renewal of their
charters as the owners of stock in the United States Bank now are
for a renewal of theirs ? Yes, sir, they will, and they will be just as
little scrupulous about the means employed to obtain their end.
This image with a hundred heads, which you are now erecting, will
be just as difficult to destroy as the monster you profess so much to
fear. The impure priesthood of Mammon will clamor just as loudly
for their hundred-headed idol god as do those now whom you pro
fess to regard with so much horror. You will find, when the discov
ery will be too late, that possessing stock in a State bank does not of
itself make a Cato, nor owning the same property in the United
States Bank convert a good citizen into a Cataline.
There is another view of the dangerous connection between the
Executive Government here and the banks of the States, which I
cannot pass without notice. If your scheme ever does succeed, if it
works well in your fiscal affairs at all, it will of course be desirable
to continue it in steady operation for a long time to come. But
there will be obstacles to this. The charters of some of your banks
will terminate. The Secretary of the Treasury will, of course, de
sire to have these charters renewed by the Legislatures of the States
in which they are situated. To effect this the influence of the bank
will be first exerted on the Treasury department here, by offering to
do your business on very advantageous terms ; the Secretary of the
Treasury, with the aid of the power, popularity and influence of the
President for the time being, will bear down upon your State Legis
latures ; one vote, or two, or three, may, perhaps, decide the fate of
your bank. Will not those votes be secured? Yes, the whole pat
ronage of the Federal Government in this scheme, from time to
time, wiU be tempted into the Legislative halls of the States. We

170 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
have heard much of consolidation ; much of the danger of merging
the independence of the States in the overwhelming power of the
Federal Government If the wit of man were tasked to invent a
cunning, insidious plan, by which this ruin might be wrought he
could not devise one more likely to effect his diabolical purpose than
that proposed in this treasury invention. Give the Executive the
power to confer favors on so many different companies of men, who
also stand closely connected with the State Governments, and you
have so many centripetal forces, drawing, by the resistless influence
of pecuniary interest the independence of the States into the vortex
of federal control. These twenty-four stars, that now shine with
such mild and pure luster, will be drawn from their spheres and their
lights quenched forever in the superior blaze of one great central sun.
If these consequences do not come upon us, it will be because
the States will not suffer themselves to be beguiled into your Treas
ury snare. Judging from what has already transpired, we may hope
the good sense and patriotism of the States in this, as in other in
stances, may yet preserve this great confederacy from the fatal ef
fects of a mad and ruinous policy. Three States have already re
fused to enter into this unholy alliance. Virginia, ever watchful of
the approaches of federal usurpation, permitted your Treasury to so
journ a few weeks with her citizens ; but, finding you had sent a foul
leprosy into her borders, although justly renowned for her hospital
ity, ordered her people to shut their doors upon you, and it was
done. Kentucky, not less famed for the generous confidence she
extends to strangers that come to her — Kentucky, who has a ready
welcome for every friend, and a grave for every foe — she, too, tried
your society for a brief space ; and, finding her health poisoned by
your pestiferous touch, drove you back into your own territories.
Pennsylvania, too, meek, temperate and forbearing as was the spirit
of her illustrious founder — she who receives the comfortless and dis
tressed of every kindred, caste and clime under heaven, who cher
ishes all that take refuge in the ever-expanded arms of her compre
hensive urbanity — good old Pennsylvania, who, like that divine char
ity spoken of by the apostle, "vaunteth not herself is not puffed
up, hopeth all things, believeth all things," she, too, finding only
bankruptcy, poverty and want in your society, yielded reluctantly to
stern necessity, and pronounced the doom of banishment upon you.
Happy experiment ! profound policy ! what admirable contrivance in
the plan ! what perfect order, harmony and success in its execution !

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 171
How proud is the condition of your Treasury under the influence of
this grand experiment I With a- certificate of good character in its
hand, signed by the chief magistrate of the nation, it is driven forth
from Virginia, banished from Kentucky, exiled from Pennsylvania.
It is, at this moment, a wandering mendicant, begging in vain for a
place whereon to rest the soles of its weary feet ; hke the hapless son
of Hagar, driven forth from the patriarchal roof, and if report be
true, his "bread" quite gone and his "bottle of water" weU nigh
expended. If you permit him to remain much longer upon the des
ert, like Ishmael, he will be compeUed to sustain a wandering and
precarious existence by rapine and plunder. He will "turn his
hand against every man," and "every honest man's hand will be
turned against him."
Is there an American bosom that is not pained, with mingled
shame and indignation, at the present degraded condition of our
country? What ultimate or present good is to result from what has
been done? None, no, none; but evil — only continual disaster.
What else can we expect? Perfidy in the Government will result, as
it ought, in poverty to the people. We have not even the common
motive of the felon ; we could not be said to have acted in this in
stance from the love of gain. In the mere wanton or malignant
consciousness of power, we have stained the national honor, violated
national faith ; we have taught the people to disobey the injunctions
of law by permitting an unchecked example of its violation by that
very power whose ordained duty it is to maintain and enforce it.
Let us not deceive ourselves. Let us not flatter each other with the
expectation that this will be a solitary instance of Executive en
croachment. No, history teaches us other lessons. That power
that can subvert ancient usages, break with impunity national com
pacts, efface at will written laws, uproot the firm foundations of the
Constitution, that power, if not suddenly arrested, will survive all
that it destroys, and maintain itself in absolute dominion, by those
very arts and instruments through which it required its first mo
mentum. " 'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom, and then — glory ; when that fails.
Wealth, vice, corruption — barbarism at last." *
* As if to verify this prediction, in a few days after these remarks were made in
the House, the President sent his celebrated protest to the Senate, claiming for himself
just enough power to carry into effect " his will," be that what it may.

172 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
When we review the history of the last few months, and see the
strange mixture of confusion and systematic effort, all tending to
bring upon the people lasting injury, and are told that all this must
be borne because "the people themselves willed it should be so," I
cannot but remind the Executive Government and gentlemen here of
instances in which they have disregarded that will, when it was fully
and fairly understood.
Prior to the presidential election in 1828 the present chief mag
istrate, then a Senator in Congress from Tennessee, in his letter of
resignation to the Tennessee Legislature, held the following excellent
doctrines. Speaking of a contemplated alteration of the Constitu
tion, he says: "I would impose a provision rendering any member
of Congress ineligible to office under the General Government dur
ing the term for which he was elected, and for two years thereafter.
But if this change in the Constitution shall not be made, and impor
tant appointments continue to devolve on the Representatives in
Congress, it requires no depth of thought to be convinced that cor
ruption will become the order of the day, and that, under the garb
of conscientious sacrifice to establish precedents for the pubhc good,
evils of serious importance to the freedom and prosperity of the
republic may arise." Do any of us forget the flame of enthusiasm
which these sentiments kindled in the ardent and confiding hearts
of the freemen of this country? In the election of General Jackson,
they looked forward to the establishment of all these excellent prin
ciples as cardinal maxims in his administration. The most extrava
gant anticipations of great benefits were confidently indulged. Could
such a man, with such pure principles, be placed in the executive
chair, a sun bright with millenial glory would, it was said, dawn upon
the republic never to go down. All grievances would be redressed ;
all tears would be wiped from ah eyes; his administration, com
pared with all others, would be
" An era of sweet peace 'midst bloody annals ;
A green spot in the desert of past centuries."
Were these fond and fanciful hopes realized? The election of
1828 ended in the success of the man who, by propagating those
doctrines, had made himself the idol of the people's hearts. How,
sir, was this generous confidence requited? No sooner was he
firmly seated on the throne of power, than, as if to show his scorn
for popular credulity, he boldly marched into the Senate and took its
members away to make his cabinet council. This House was liter-

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 173
ally emptied to fill places made vacant by removal ; not one, or two,
or three, but whole squadrons of members were marched off to be
made the subjects of reward, from foreign ministers of the highest
grade down to petty clerkships in the executive departments. Grat
itude for friends and revenge for foes; the maxims of Syha were
openly avowed as the doctrines upon which executive patronage was
to be dispensed. I shah not soon forget an instance of reward and
punishment which created, at the time, not merely astonishment, but
strong indignation, in Ohio. General Harrison was a native son of
Virginia. In his nineteenth year ( I believe being then a lieutenant
in the army) he was selected by General Wayne as one of his aids
in the memorable campaign of 1794, which terminated the war with
the Indian tribes of the northwest. At a very early age he was
chosen a delegate to Congress from the Northwestern Territory, and
subsequently made Governor of the Territory of Indiana. After
the disastrous campaign of Hull in 1812 he was selected by the
Government to command those noble Kentucky and Ohio volun
teers, who thronged in thousands to the tented field, to redeem the
sinking fortunes of war. My gallant friend from Kentucky [Colonel
Johnson] won those unfading laurels, to which time only adds fresh
verdure, fighting under the immediate eye and command of Harri
son at the ever-memorable battle of the Thames. At the close of
the war General Harrison resigned his commission, and, in the spirit
of the example of Cincinnatus, retired to his farm in Ohio. From
thence he was soon called by the legislature of that State to a seat in
the Senate. Such a citizen was thought by the administration then
in power a fit representative of this government at the capital of the
Colombian republic. He had not been friendly to the election of
General Jackson. In one month, I believe, after the inauguration of
the latter, and before General Harrison was known to have reached
Bogota, his place of destination, he was recalled, and a member
(then) of this House, a warm, active, industrious, powerful friend of
the new President appointed in his place. Thus the active, useful
friend was rewarded ; the opponent punished.
After all this forgetfulness of pledges given and public wiU ex
pressed, when the President, and his friends for him, allege that he
has taken the custody of the public money from a long-tried and
faithful agent, because it is the people's will, I must be pardoned
while I doubt Sir, if I had that faith which could remove moun-

174 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
tains, I should still hesitate to believe the sincerity of this declar
ation. Mr. Speaker, no opinion, no principle is in this country so uni
versally well received by the people as that which teaches public ser
vants the duty of redeeming, when in office, pledges given when
candidates for office. It is right, it is proper that it should be so.
It is the compact between the servant and his employer and should
be fulfilled by the former, at all times, with scrupulous fidelity. The
great importance of this operative principle, in a representative gov
ernment, will excuse me to the House for calling their attention to
another flagrant instance of its violation, by one who now professes
to make it the ground and cause of his late extraordinary movement
upon the bank and treasury of the United States.
When the present Executive first took his seat in the Presi
dential chair, he announced to the people, in his inaugural address,
his determimation to reform a great variety of existing evils in the
administration of public affairs. Among other things, high on the
list of these reformations, was inscribed "the duty of reforming
those abuses which had brought the patronage of the Federal Gov
ernment to bear on the freedom of elections."* The interpretation
of this was simple and well understood. It implied that officers
holding their places under the general government, had used their
influence and employed their time in the business of electioneering.
It avowed a determination to dismiss from service all such, and to
make it a rule in all future appointments that none should receive or
hold office. This was applauded and everywhere received as the
first bright gleam of that millenial glory that had been so confidently
foretold by the friends of the President during the canvass prior to
the election of 1828.
Passing by other examples of the operation of this reform, I
refer, with unaffected pain, to one which lately occurred in my own
State. On the 8th of January last a convention, under the general
denomination of the "friends of the present administration," assem
bled at Columbus, in the State of Ohio. Its object was to appoint
delegates to represent the "party" in a proposed national conven
tion, which was to be convened in May, 1835, to nominate a succes
sor to General Jackson. This convention of the "friends of the
present administration" was composed of one hundred and seventy-
*¦ See Inaugural ^Vddress of President Jackson, Appendix.

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 175
seven persons. Of these seventy-one were office-holders under the
Federal and State Governments. A gentleman holding the office of
district judge for the district of Ohio under appointment of the Pres
ident, not yet confirmed by the Senate, in his character of a "cen
tral committeeman," cahed a meeting (by advertisement in a public
newspaper) of the "friends of the administration" in a particular
county for the purpose of naming delegates to this convention at
Columbus. All these things are matters of public notoriety. The
convention, among other things, constituted a "central committee,"
with electioneering jurisdiction co-extensive with the territorial limits
of the State. Of this committee, composed (according to my recol
lection ) of seven persons, five are officers holding appointments
under the Executive : One district attorney ; two receivers of public
moneys; one surveyor of the Virginia military lands, and one post
master. The proceedings of this convention have been published in the
official journal in this city, and cannot have escaped the notice of
the President. Can a case be imagined more proper for the applica
tion of that reform power which the President at his installation into
office had promised the people to exert with such unsparing fidelity ?
Where slept the executive thunders while these iniquities were trans
piring? Has one of those federal officers been removed, or even
censured, for "bringing the patronage and influence of the Govern
ment to bear upon elections?" No. All is tranquil and placid.
The arm of executive vengeance is not lifted against the offender.
The brow of power is not even clouded by a frown of disapproba
tion. After such forgetfulness, not only of pledges given, but also
of the expressed will of the people derived from elections, in which
this subject of official influence upon popular elections was agitated
all over the Union, I cannot hear with patience the "people's will"
put forward as a reason for violating law; taking away chartered
rights ; deranging the currency ; destroying trade, and sinking in the
great "Serbonian bog" of "executive power" all the Constitutional
functions of Congress and the judicial courts.
Finding, after a fruitless search, no reason for the act of which
we complain, founded in law or expediency, or any dictate of public
necessity, but, on the contrary, finding, as the experiment has
evinced, every consideration of duty and patriotism opposed to it,
how shall we account for it? We are driven to the necessity of re-

176 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
sorting to reasons and motives for the act, which are not clearly set
forth in any official document
We know that the President has, for some two or three years,
felt and expressed a deep and settled hostility to the United States
Bank. We know that he and his friends believed that certain indi
viduals connected with the bank were not friendly to his election and
did not yield unqualified approbation to some of his public acts. A
resolution, we are told by Mr. Duane, was formed to crush this sup
posed opponent ; Congress, at its last session, had been appealed to
for this purpose, but, instead of adopting a course like that taken
since by the President, that body, composed of a large majority of
his political friends, by a vote of more than two to one, resolved
that the public moneys were safe in the Bank of the United States,
and ought to remain there. What was to be done ? The bank must be
crushed, and Congress had refused to become its executioner. Two
or three months prior to the meeting of this Congress, the Secretary
of the Treasury is required to remove the public moneys to the
State banks. He declined, and offered as his reasons the vote of
the last Congress and the near approach of the meeting of this ; that
the subject properly belonged to Congress, and to them it ought to
be submitted. What was the reply of the President? I will give it
upon the authority and in the words of Mr. Duane's letter: "If the
last Congress had remained a week longer in session, two-thirds
would have been secured to the bank by corrupt means, and that the
like result might be apprehended at the next Congress. That such
a State bank agency must be put into operation before the meeting
of Congress, as would show that the United States Bank was not
necessary ; and thus some members would have no excuse for voting
for it" I cannot here, sir, stoop to the consideration of these sug
gestions of corrupt influence upon the representatives of the people.
Let that people determine whether the servants of their own free
choice are capable of acting from the diabolical motives attributed to
them. I have mistaken the character of my countrymen, or they
will treat such imputations upon the emanations of their own en
lightened and free suffrage as the insane ravings of unchastened am
bition, or the equally idle suggestions of unbridled revenge. If this
history of the transactions of the last summer be true, what is the
conclusion ? The corruptibility of Congress is imagined as a reason
for transferring their powers and duties to the hands of the Execu
tive. Thus, purity of motive in the President would apologize for a

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 177
revolution of the Government. Sir, this is not the first instance in
which the fears and patriotic prejudices of the people have been as
sailed for the purpose of effecting this favorite measure — the destruc
tion of the bank.
There exists in the minds of the American people a watchful
jealousy of foreign influence in our political affairs. Two years ago
this jealousy was roused to a degree of fanaticism that became in its
height absolutely ridiculous. It was found that nearly eight mihions
of stock in the United States Bank were owned by foreigners. I
shall not soon forget the parade made in this hall and elsewhere of
the list of names of those foreign stockholders. Many of them, it
was found, were females. Nothing could exceed the patriotic rage
and horror depicted in the fierce gestures, distorted countenances
and fervid declamations of those who had all at once discovered that
the liberties of America were sold to the women of England! Had
they been only simple, plain gentlewomen, it seemed the danger
would not have been so appaUing; but there were countesses, mar
chionesses, and, it was suspected, even a duchess ! This was not to
be borne. A countess, it was clear, could at once put an end to
State rights ; and a duchess — a duchess could swallow the whole con
federacy at a meal ! All the foes of the bank, with the President
himself, trembled at the peril which impended over us. In the zeal
and fervid enthusiasm which the occasion inspired, these female
stockholders were depicted as a grizzly host of amazons, leagued and
armed for the destruction of the last hope of liberty ; ready, and just
now about to bear down upon and crush us at a blow ; not as their
renowned ancestress, Boadicea of old, made war upon the legions of
Claudius, with brand, and bill, and bow, and spear, and battle-ax,
but with weapons more sharp and deadly — with pounds, shillings
and pence. A host was marshaled to beat back this feminine inva
sion. From every quarter, but chiefly from New York, recruits
thronged in thousands and took the field, resolved to drive out this
foreign female invading foe, or, as became men, to die in the glori
ous attempt. The President, as usual, took the command. The
American eagle erected his head and spread his wings abroad, not
with that glorious motto, " E Pluribus Unum," which had floated
with him in triumph over many a red field of slaughter, but with
another, which suited better the character and objects of the war.
Just under his wing, and concealed from all but the keen eye of
rapacity, might be seen these memorable words — "Spoils of Vic-
13

178 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
tory." Thus bannered and equipped, with vetoes for weapons and
"British booty and British beauty" for their war-cry, they took the
field. Who could doubt the result ? As was expected, the she-aris
tocracy of England capitulated to the mailed chivalry of America
without risking a battle, and marched home without loss of baggage.
Have any of us forgotten the shout of triumph that pealed over the
continent? "A nation was redeemed from the iron yoke of foreign
oppression." Twelve millions of freemen, just ready to be sold for
eight millions of dollars — just about to be knocked off at $1.50 a
head — are now forever free ! But, alas ! who can fathom the depths
of the future ? Who could have foreseen the sad reverses that were
to befall this victorious host? In the agitations of this war upon for
eign capital, commerce furled up her sail ; the hand of industry was
paralyzed ; labor wanted employment, and public credit shivered on
the brink of bankruptcy. Now the scene changes ! Where now is
that American eagle so lately flying in triumph over the ranks of
war? His wing folded up, his eye glazed and sunk with hunger,
you send him abroad to peck and beg about the den of the British
lion, for a morsel that may fall from the jaws of the royal beast, to
keep him alive. Pennsylvania begs of the foreign banker, Roths
child, a few millions to pay her honest debts ; and New York, fore
most in the war against foreign capital and foreign influence, offers a
mortgage of her state to those very old women of England for six
millions of foreign gold to make safe her "safety fund." Sir, I
hope, nay, I doubt not, they will succeed. These fierce countesses
and fat duchesses will relent and yield them the desired boon. The
chivalry, so lately displayed by those who solicit it, must prevail, for
valor is ever potent to subdue the obduracy of the female heart To
this ridiculous issue have come the outcry and war waged against
foreign capital. It would be a tempting theme for pleasantry, were
it not associated with misfortune, disaster and ruin to a confiding
and deceived community. Strange as it may seem, those events in
human affairs which often excite laughter and ridicule, are intimately
associated with those that smite the spirits of rnen with grief and
dismay. ** Res omnes sunt humance, flebile ludibrium."
It is in no spirit of contest but with a sincere desire to bring
the judgment of the House to that which I conceive to be the only
point necessary to decide, that I design to offer as a substitute for
the resolution on the table the following:

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS.

179

"Resolved, That the reasons of the Secretary of the Treasury, for the removal
of the public deposits from the Bank of the United States, are insufficient, and that it
is inexpedient to enact any law authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to deposit the
public moneys in the State banks."
The Committee of Ways and Means have not thought proper
to present this question to the House. Instead of a decision of the
House upon this point, which it is clearly our duty to make under
the law, the committee have presented a variety of abstractions,
tending to no practical ends. Should the vote of the House disap
prove the reasons of the Secretary, his course cannot be mistaken.
He must restore to the United States Bank what he has taken from
it, or he must "put his house in order."
After all that has or can be said concerning a remedy for the
evil that is now preying upon the country, I have been unable to see
or think of anything which promises success but an immediate halt
in our march to destruction, and, as speedily as possible, a return to
the point from which we set out. When you find yourselves in a
course of ruin, does not wisdom require you to retrace your steps?
Sir, notwithstanding the confidence of the majority here in its
strength, I yet hope to see it take counsel of prudence. The eyes
of the people have been opened to the true cause of their sufferings.
Two months ago it was asserted by the supporters of the executive
measures that the war upon the bank, begun two years ago and con
summated last October, had brought no ill consequences to the peo
ple. The loud and incessant cry from all quarters, that has been
pouring in upon us since the session began, can now no longer be
misunderstood. In this dilemma, the distress of the country being
admitted, we are told it is all chargeable to the oppressive conduct
of the bank.
I must beg the attention of gentlemen who assume this position
to a report of the bank which came to us yesterday; it contains a
statement of facts, denied by no one, which must put at rest forever
all further accusation against that abused institution. It shows that,
instead of curtailing its accommodations below the amount withdrawn
from its resources, it has, within the last six months, increased those
accommodations by nearly three millions of dollars, in proportion to
its means. To be accurate, the account stands thus :
Public and private deposits withdrawn between 1st October, 1833,
and 1st April, 1834,  17,788,403
Reduction of loans within the same period,  5,057,527
Difference,  $2,730,876

180 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
By this plain tale, the oft-refuted story of the tyranny of the
bank is at once "put down." The bank, during the whole of that
scene of confusion and bankruptcy which was begun by the Execu
tive in the recess of Congress, has been straining all her energies to
mitigate the force of the blow aimed at her, but which fell with fatal
effect upon the country.
By the same report gentlemen may learn why it is, at this mo
ment, so many of their favorite State banks are alive. During the
six months past, the State banks have been indebted to the United
States Bank in the average amount of three millions and a half of
dollars. They might have been called upon at any moment for this
sum. In mercy to them it has not been done. Yet it has been as
serted here, and the presses devoted to the administration have been
loud and constant in their assertions, that the United States Bank
was curtailing its loans to merchants, bringing, in this way, bank
ruptcy upon its debtors ; that it was laboring to crush the State
banks by the same means ; all in order to extort from Congress a re
newal of its charter.
The country is beginning to look to the origin of the evils that
afflict it. It sees that those who have been exerting power ( if the
conduct of the Executive deserves so mild a designation) are the
real authors of the universally prevalent distress of which they com
plain. The country now knows that the bank, instead of causing or
increasing this distress, has been endeavoring to mitigate its severity.
All that has happened from the ruinous pohcy of the executive
was foretold and the advisors of this fatal measure were warned
against it. They were warned by the opinion of practical honest
men everywhere, who dared to speak truth, even to the unwilling
ear of power. The President, however, and his Secretary heeded
not their advice, but gave their ears and understandings to the keep
ing of visionary empirics who knew not nor, it seems, cared what
ills their pernicious counsels might bring upon the country. While
merchants, boards of trade and chambers of commerce all foresaw
and foretold the consequences to our trade and currency, likely to
flow from the act of the Secretary of the Treasury, long before it
had been consummated, some financial quack was at work with his
arithmetical quantities and algebraic equations, showing the Presi
dent by "demonstration," that "the removal of five millions from
bank A to bank B could result in nothing but simply a change of
locality."

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 181
This problem was the beginning and end of the cabinet lucubra
tion on this subject. It is humiliating to compare the unpardonable
ignorance of those in power, of the practical business concerns of
the country, with the clear foresight on the same subjects possessed
by men in very humble stations, to be found all over this Union.
It reminds me forcibly of an observation, upon a kindred subject, by
¦one of the profoundest political philosophers of the last age. * He
observed that he had often known merchants with the sentiments
and abilities of great statesmen, and had seen persons in the rank of
statesmen with the conceptions and characters of peddlers ; that he
had found nothing in any habits of life or education which tended
wholly to disqualify men for the functions of Government, but that
by which the power of exercising these functions is often acquired.
"I mean," says he, "a mean spirit, and habits of low cabal and in
trigue, which I have never seen, in one instance, united with a ca
pacity for sound and manly policy." Let the people, who feel the
unhappy results of a single error of the Executive, determine where
the statesmen and where the peddlers of this nation are to be found.
I have heard gentlemen from various quarters of the Union de
scribe the blighting effects of the policy lately adopted upon their
respective vicinities. I am fully persuaded that no portion of the
¦country can feel this blight more intensely than the young States of
the West. The simplest principles ot political economy will satisfy
gentlemen that I am not mistaken in this opinion. I wish, sir, that
every man entitled to a vote, west ot the Alleghenies, had a copy of
the speech of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Wilde]. That
clear and powerful analysis of the laws of currency, with those large
and comprehensive views of our present condition, which do equal
honor to the head and heart of my honorable friend, cannot fail to
be read and studied with advantage, and by the philosopher not less
than the peasant.
, Trade cannot be carried on without capital ; capital is the grad
ual accumulation of labor and enterprise. Old countries, where
labor is unfettered, will, therefore, abound in surplus capital, while
in new countries it cannot exist to any extent, since time has not
been there given for its accumulation. Throughout the great valley,
stretching from the sources of the Ohio to the Missouri, now fihed
with a hardy and laborious population, you have a soil teeming with
* Edmund Burke.

182 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
production. What avail the labor of the husbandman and the fer
tility of the earth, if capital is wanting to buy and transport to mar
ket the annual products of both? The labor of all that population,
up to this time, has been expended in paying for the land it tills,
and, by culture and improvement, increasing its production. The
Bank of the United States has furnished the West with a capital
which it wanted, for which it languished, and which it must again
want, if that bank be compelled soon to close its business and with
draw its capital.
Two years ago we were told, in the President's veto message,
that the West must become bankrupt by paying six per cent, inter
est on the debt it owed the United States Bank. How was that
debt created? By a loan from the bank, of its money, at six per
cent, per annum. This money was employed in trade; in buying
and transporting to market the products of the country. I speak
from actual knowledge when I say that I have known large amounts
of money borrowed from individuals at ten per cent, interest and
employed in purchasing, for speculation, the agricultural productions
of the Miami valley. I know that money thus loaned has been prof
itably expended in this trade; that borrowers have often realized
handsome profits on capital thus loaned and thus employed. The
difference between six and ten per cent., which is paid for the use of
the money thus employed, is lost, not by the purchaser, but by the
farmer who sells the property thus purchased.
Again: The effect of the withdrawal of the United States
Bank from the West will be to open the office and re-instate the bus
iness of the broker. The money in circulation there will, as even
now, within the last month, it does, rate at a discount of from two
to ten per cent, in the Eastern cities.
This will be the currency received by the farmer and mechanic
for the products of their farms and workshops.
The merchant, who sells his goods to them, must pay for those
goods in the Atlantic cities, in a currency at par there. He, of
course, makes his customers, the farmers and mechanics, pay him,
in the increased price of his goods, the two or ten per cent, which
he will have to give on the money he receives, in order to procure
such funds as will pay his debt to the merchants in Philadelphia or
New York. The withdrawal, then, of the capital of the bank which
has been constantly employed in facilitating domestic exchanges,
will, by diminishing competition, increase the profits of the broker.

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS.

183

Those profits, made by large capitalists, when they swell to an un
reasonable extent, are a clear loss to the laboring and producing
classes. The West will be a peculiar sufferer under this policy in another
and by no means the least deleterious of its consequences. All the
revenues of the Federal Government are derived from impost duties
on foreign goods and from the sales of public lands. The consumer
of the goods on which the impost is laid pays the duty. No por
tion of the population of the Union, in proportion to its numbers,
consumes more of those articles subject to duty than the people of
the West. They, therefore, contribute, from the earnings of their
labor, the full proportion of the common revenue derived from im
posts. The three millions annuahy paid for lands is received wholly
from the Western and Southwestern States. A proportion of this
revenue suited to the business of the country has been left hereto
fore in the United States Bank in the West to be employed as so
much capital by our own citizens. This office your State banks, as
the experiment has proved, can never perform for them. Their rev
enue will be poured into the laps of the Atlantic cities. How are
they to be expended by the Government? Internal improvement, it
was once hoped, might be the means of expending some portion of
it in the West; but that system, by the interposition of the Presi
dent's veto power, is destroyed. Your whole revenue (of which, as
I have shown, the West pays its full proportion) will be expended
in harbors, arsenals, fortifications and dock-yards on the seaboard,
and circulate there for the benefit of the Atlantic States alone. In
such a system there is no equity, no equality of burden and benefit.
If as I have shown, the States of the West are to suffer more
than any other great geographical divisions of the confederacy, Ohio
( my own State ), of all the West, will suffer most from the reduction
cf prices and stagnation of trade. She is one of those who, accord
ing to the President's opinion, "ought to break;" she has "traded
on borrowed capital." She has borrowed, and now owes, five mill
ions of dollars. With this money she has, with an enterprise unsur
passed in the ancient or modern history of any community, executed
a great work of internal improvement, which should have been done
long since at the expense of the whole Union. Her four hundred
miles of canal has poured the waters of the great lakes of the North
into the Gulf of Mexico. Ohio must look for a fund to pay the in
terest on this debt thus contracted to the tolls cohected on her canals.

184 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
The amount of those tolls must depend on the trade of the country.
If prices fall and trade languish (as we know they have and will yet
still more unless we stop short in our present experiment) the labor
ing people of Ohio will find their taxes increased. The interest on
their canal debt must be paid, and what the tolls do not pay must be
raised in taxes on the people. Thus, while your cruel policy dimin
ishes the price of every article produced by the farmer and mechanic,
and thus diminishes their ability to pay, it increases the tax and
swells the demands upon them. You starve the slave and yet
increase his labor ; you increase the burden of the people, and at
the same time reduce the strength required to bear it. What can
the people of the West see ( if this new system is to prevail ) in the
prospect before them ? Nothing but ruin to their trade, paralysis to
their industry, and, worst of all, that host of vice and crime which
will spring up everywhere when labor has no incentive, industry no
adequate reward.
Have the people of that portion of your country deserved this
at your hands? Instead of extending a parental regard to them,
you have abandoned them to premature orphanage and cold neglect.
Is there anything in their history that merits this? Less than fifty
years ago, urged on by enterprise or necessity, the first settlers
plunged into the western wilderness. For many years every cabin
was a fort — every cornfield a camp. Every night the husband and
father, with arms in his hands, guarded the slumbers of his wife and
children. At every sound that broke upon the stillness of the sur
rounding woods, the wakeful mother clasped her infant closer to her
breast and breathed a silent prayer for protection to "Him with
whom mercy sits at the right hand and judgment at the left." If
they assembled to worship God, it was in the woods, upon the hill
side, or in the deep valley. There, still, they were girt round with
peril and war. The song of praise was often interrupted by the yell
of the Indian warrior, rushing from his ambush to bathe the scalping-
knife and tomahawk in the white man's blood.
That savage foe has fled before their advancing enterprise, until
the receding echoes of his warwhoop are now borne upon the blast
that sweeps across the great prairies of the farthest West; a little
while and they will be drowned forever in the roar of the Pacific.
The people of the Western States are just beginning to realize
the fruits of years of privation and toil. They have not expected
the cup to be dashed from their lips. They understand, for they

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 185
have already felt, the consequences of the late movement of the
Executive on the currency and trade of the country.
' They have had, in their recent history, some knowledge of that
sort of currency which depends on and comes from State banks.
They will not be satisfied with your ingenious speculations as to
what will be — they have 'made a terrible experiment, exactly like
that you now propose to make, and they know what they have suf
fered and lost ; they are unwilling to surrender the wisdom learned
by experience to the theories of any one.
While we deplore the irreparable mischiefs that follow to the
interest of those we represent, from the unexpected change lately
wrought in our financial system, let me, in conclusion, beseech gen
tlemen to look to that power, hitherto unknown in our political his
tory, by which the President alone has effected that change.
How has that power revealed to us its tremendous energies
within the last six months? The President has obtained uncon
trolled possession of the public treasure in the recess of Congress, and,
by this bold maneuver, he has, with the aid of his veto power, placed
it beyond the power of Congress to reclaim their lost rights, unless a
majority of two-thirds of both branches shall unite in opposition to
him. When we see the rights of the Legislature thus invaded, it is
natural to inquire, what great good has been achieved ? What fear
ful evil impending over us has been averted by it? Has the Amer
ican dictator, like the Roman, ' ' taken care that no detriment should
come to the republic?" No; the exact reverse is the truth.
He has taken your whole treasure from the custody where, it is
admitted, it was perfectly secure, and placed it in the keeping of
State banks, where we are not sure it is safe for the passing hour.
In doing all this, he boasts that he crushed the United States Bank ;
that he has, in the hyperbolical language of his friends, ' ' strangled a
monster ! " In the true stlye of the mock-heroic, the fabulous ex
ploits of Hercules are put forward as parallel achievements. Mean
time, in destroying one bank, he has given life and perpetual exist
ence to one hundred other banks.
He crushes one serpent, and, at the same moment, he places in
the vitals of the State innumerable knots and endless involutions of
hungry tape-worms to gorge their ravening and insatiable maws upon
the very sources of life.
It was the idle vaunt of a renowned general, in the declining
period of the Roman republic, ' ' that he could call up armed legions

186 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
with the stamp of his foot." Sir, we have lived to see the acts of
one man produce phenomena more appalling than the reality of the
proud Roman's boast.
We have seen the "E.xecutive" ministerial officer of the most
limited Government on earth expand the mere emblem of authority
into the amplitude of kingly prerogative, and, of his own will, com
municate to it the strength and vigor of imperial sway. Thus
armed he grasps with his own hand the wealth and energies of a
nation's commerce ; and in a day they wither into imbecile bank
ruptcy in his clutch. With this same power he enters the humble
dwelling of the laboring poor man, or the neat mansion of the
industrious mechanic ; he sees there well-rewarded industry shedding
smiles, and plenty, and innocent contentment upon a cheerful, happy
family. At the wave of his hand this vision of happiness disap
pears, and in its place come want and poverty and squalid misery
and woe. Look back over the whole history of your government
Do you find in it any executive power approaching to this ? No ; to
find authority for this searching and overshadowing tyranny, you
must go to the groaning monarchies of Europe. English history,
and not your own, will furnish you with such examples of "execu
tive power." Consult the reigns of the crafty Plantagenets — the
obstinate and tyrannical Tudors ; read the bloody annals of the mis
guided Stuarts; there, and there only, will you find examples to
compare with the last six months of our history.
I entreat gentlemen to look out upon the country. You see
the poor and the rich thronging to the capital for relief They
repair to the President's mansion ; its doors are rudely closed against
them. A President elected by the people, refuses to see and confer
with them in the extremity of their distress — distress brought on
them by his own act. The voice of absolute power bids them "go
home ;" they are only permitted to approach the throne through the
cold and imperfect medium of written communication. Driven from
thence, they come here — here, to their own immediate servants.
How are they treated in this House? An inflexible and proud
majority denounces their assertions as falsehood — their opinions as
folly. A press, devoted to power all over the country, answers to
the universal wail of distress with grinning ribaldry and sneering
scorn. Sir, if the lessons of past ages are not fables and all history
a lie ; if the whole theory of your government be not based upon
fiction, we shall soon see the collected energies of an aggrieved.

ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 187
insulted people forcing their influence upon this haU. That influence
will be felt here, where every pulsation must answer to the throb of
public feeling. You wiU feel this, not in that might that slumbers
in a freeman's arm, but in that fierce indignation which sleeps not,
nor slumbers in the freeman's bosom so long as he feels the cold iron
of oppression entering into his soul. Mr. Speaker, I have done.
The proofs of our misguided policy thicken upon us every hour. A
blasted monument of it at this moment stands, with empty vaults
and closed doors, * in view from the windows of this hall. If all
these will not avail to change the stern resolves of the majority here,
then I warn that majority to take counsel of their selfish fears; let
them remember the admonition of Holy Writ: — "Pride goeth
before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

APPENDIX.
EXTRACT FROM GEN. JACKSON's INAUGURAL ADDRESS, MARCH 4, 1829.
"The recent demonstration of public sentiment inscribes on the list of executive
duties, in characters too legible to be overlooked, the task of reform, which will require
particularly the correction of those abuses that have brought the patronage of the Fed
eral Government into conflict with the freedom of elections, and the counteraction of
those causes which have disturbed the rightful course of appointment, and have placed
or continued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands."

EXTRACT FROM MR. JEFFERSON'S CIRCULAR, PUBLISHED AND ADDRESSED TO
THE VARIOUS OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT UNDER HIS ADMINISTRATION.
"The President of the United States has seen, with dissatisfaction, officers of the
General Government taking, on various occasions, active parts in the election of public
functionaries, whether of the General or State Governments. Freedom of elections be
ing essential to the mutual independence of Government, and of the different branches
of the same Government, so vitally cherished by most of our Constitutions, it is deemed
improper for officers depending on the Executive of the Union to attempt to control or
influence the free exercise of the elective right; and further, it is expected that he (the
officer) will not attempt to influence the votes of others, nor to take any part in the
business of electioneering, that being deemed inconsistent with the Constitution and
his duties to it."

The following is a statement of the amount of bank capital incorporated since
1832, derived from the best sources of information. It is doubtless, if incorrect at all,
below the true amount. It shows how rapidly we are going on to banish bank paper
* The Bank of Washington. Three other banks in the District stopped payment
in a few days afterward.

188 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
from our currency. There are now (including the following) about five hundred State
banks in operation. Yet we are gravely told that if we put down the United States
Bank, we shall at once restore gold and silver currency, and get rid of paper altogether ;
Maine,  I 100,000
Vermont,  600,000
Rhode Island,  1,000,000
Connecticut,   600,000
New Jersey,  100,000
New York,  4,000,000
Pennsylvania,  4,400,000
Maryland, . .  500,000
North Carolina, . . . •  2,800,000
South Carolina, . .  500,000
Mississippi, .... . .... . 700,000
Louisiana,  12,000,000
Tennessee, . . . .... 5,000,000
Kentucky,   5,000,000
Ohio,  4,000,000
Indiana,  1,000,000

142,900,000
Mr. Corwin, at the conclusion of his speech, moved to amend
the resolution by striking out all after "Resolved," and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
"That the reasons of the Secretary of the Treasury for the removal of the public
deposits from the Bank of the United States are insufficient, and that it is inexpedient
to enact a law requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to deposit the public moneys in
the State banks."

MEMORIALS IN RELATION TO THE
PUBLIC DEPOSITS.

In April, 1834, a period when a large portion of the people were deeply excited
in consequence of the removal of the Public Deposits by the Secretary of the Treasury,
(Mr. Taney) Mr. Corwin presented in Congress two memorials from citizens of War
ren and Clinton counties, Ohio, upon the financial embarrassments of the day.
Although his remarks on those several occasions are brief, they state the object of the
memorialists so fully, and contain such a well-expressed and well-deserved compliment
to that portion of his constituents, that it would not be just either to him or to
them, if they were omitted in this compilation.
Mr. Speaker: I am charged with the presentation to this House of a memor
ial, signed by about two thousand of the inhabitants of a single
county of the district I have the honor to represent. By reference
to the names and designations of occupations affixed to them it will
be seen that they are composed of farmers, merchants and a great
variety of those engaged in mechanical pursuits. They are emi
grants, or the descendants of emigrants, from every State in the
Union and present in many respects a faithful miniature picture of
the manners, habits, tastes and opinions of the whole American pop
ulation. They are generally in that condition for which a pious and
wise one of old so fervently prayed — they are neither rich nor poor,
but in that happy medium between the extremes of poverty and
wealth which philosophy had taught and all experience proved to be
most favorable to the cultivation of that only true dignity of charac
ter, a modest yet manly independence of thought and action. They
inhabit the most fertile portion of the Miami valley, a district of
country remarkable for its exuberant production of those heavy arti
cles of subsistence that are everywhere regarded as the necessaries of
life. For these, the only subjects of export trade in that country,
the memorialists have usually found markets through the Ohio and
Mississippi rivers in the South, and lately through the Ohio canals
and the lakes in the North — markets which have yielded an encour-
(189)

190 SPEECHES OE THOMAS CORWIN.
aging reward to their industry ; 1 say, sir, their industry, for in that
country almost every man engaged in agricultural pursuits wields his
own sickle and scythe and plows with alacrity his own fields. I may
say, without exaggeration, that they have a country and population
that (if need should be) could realize the boast of the better days
of the English commonwealth, when "every rood of ground main
tained its man." Many of these memorialists came to that country
while the wandering and marauding Indian tribes held there a
divided empire with the arts and enterprise of civilized life. They
have lived, in half the length of years allotted to the life of man, to
see the then unbroken forest disappear and rich plantations, covered
with luxuriant crops, rise up in its place. The Bank of the United
States has, for the last fifteen years, furnished a capital for their trade
and a currency which represented truly the exchangeable value of
their property. This currency, always as good as gold or silver
coin, is now rapidly disappearing, and the paper of State banks,
having an estimated value never equal to its nominal amount, as rap
idly taking its place. Experience, (that sure, but, in these times,
too much neglected teacher,) dearly bought, almost fatal, experience,
has taught them that this last cannot subsist without some power
stronger than charter stipulations to regulate and control it. In the
present state of affairs they look with fearful anticipations to that
ruinous condition in which the establishment of the United States
Bank found them, and from which the excellent administration of its
functions, as a regulator of currency, redeemed them. Without this
institution they expect to see again currencies of different values
in different parts of the Union, with a difference of exchange operat
ing, as it once did, as a tax, varying from two to ten per cent, on
every article they buy from the Atlantic cities. They expect to see
State banks all over the country sinking into hopeless insolvency,
leaving immense amounts of their paper worthless, in possession of
those who have earned it with the labor of their own hands. They
already feel the baneful influence of a deranged and vicious currency
in the depression of prices and general stagnation of trade. They
see in that paralysis which has benumbed the great mercantile cities
of the North and Southwest, the near and sure approach of ruin to
themselves — for they look to those great hearts of trade for the life-
blood which is to nourish the industry and enterprise of that rich
interior of which they are a part.
These memorialists believe that the evils, present and prospect-

MEMOKIALS ON THE PUBLIC DEPOSITS. 191
ive, of which they complain, are to be traced to the late act of the
Secretary of the Treasury in withholding the revenues of the coun
try, the money of the people, from the United States Bank, where
it had been heretofore safely kept and usefully employed. They
assert what is now conceded by all, that the money of the Govern
ment and people was safe in the custody of the United States Bank,
and fear that it is not so in the State banks that now have it. They
insist that as the safety of the public treasure in the United States
Bank is not denied, and as the bank has performed faithfully the
duties pertaining to its fiscal agency, that the withdrawal from it of
the public deposits is indefensible upon principles of national good
faith or sound policy. I have already informed you that this memor
ial comes from a county bearing the venerated name of Warren.
Having ever present to their minds the glorious associations con
nected with the name of ' ' the first great martyr to the cause of lib
erty," it is not to be expected that they should speak in "bated
breath and whispering humbleness" of power usurped or power
abused. In a strain of honest indignation they declare the late con
duct of the Secretary of the Treasury to be unwarranted by the
Constitution or laws of the land. They appeal to Congress as the
guardians of the law and their constituted agents for redress. They
ask you to vindicate their violated Constitution and broken laws, by
an immediate restoration of the public moneys to their former place
of deposit. They pray you to recharter the United States Bank.
These measures are respectfully demanded of us as the only means
by which lost confidence and quietude can be restored, and their
prosperity, now rapidly decHning, arrested in its downward career.
The above remarks were made April 7th, 1834. On the 28th Mr. Corwin pre
sented the Memorial from the citizens of Clinton county, and spoke as follows :
I am charged, Mr. Speaker, with the duty of presenting a
memorial to this House from one of the three counties composing
the district I have the honor to represent. This memorial comes
from Clinton county, in the State of Ohio. It is signed, as two
most respectable gentlemen of the county inform me, by thirteen
hundred and one citizens and qualified voters of that county. These
are composed of all the trades and professions common to the coun
try, but chiefly farmers — men who plow and sow and reap their own
fields. The facts they set forth and the opinions they hold are not
the offspring of a sudden excitement, produced by the agitations that

192 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
often prevail without cause in large and populous cities, but the
deliberate, well-considered judgment of each man's own unbiased
understanding. Gentlemen who have not looked closely into the habits and pur
suits of the people who inhabit the interior agricultural regions of
the West, can have but a faint idea of their true character. On a
footing of the most perfect equality in all their civil and political
rights ; independent in the fullest sense of the word ; their own labor
crowned with the common blessing of Providence, places them
beyond all dependence upon mortal man. Such, emphatically, are
those whose prayer I now present to this House. Their minds,
invigorated and purified by healthful, innocent labor, are not subject
to artificial and unnatural excitements ; nor can such a people be sub
ject to that most vulgar intemperance of a deranged heart — a dis
eased craving after notoriety, and the miserable indulgences of mere
worldly distinction. These memorialists assert that within the last
few months they have experienced great scarcity of money and
depression of prices of all the productions of their country. The
existence of those evils has been often denied here. I now offer to
prove them by thirteen hundred witnesses, as respectable as any
equal number to be found in America. These, sir, are not the asser
tions of a party. At a late election in that county for representa
tives to the State Legislature there were polled 1,410 votes — 1,301
voters of the same county sign this memorial. This exhibits a una
nimity not to be found where political party machinery is at work.
They pray you to restore the public moneys to the custody of the
United States Bank, and, believing a national bank to be a national
benefit, they ask a recharter of the old, or the establishment by law
of a similar institution. 1 need not add that, next to the approba
tion of my own conscience, it gives me pleasure to find that I am
sustained in the course I have pursued here on these great and excit
ing subjects, by so large and respectable a portion of my constitu
ents.

ON THE CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN.

The consideration of the President's Message transmitting to Congress the Con
stitution and other documents originating with a convention in the Territory of Michi
gan, with a view to the formation of a State Government, was resumed in the House of
Representatives December the 28th, 1835. The question of boundary between that
Territory and the adjoining States (which, at one time, threatened a collision between
Michigan and Ohio), incidentally came up during the debate ; and in reply to Messrs.
Williams, of North Carolina, and Mason, of Virginia, Mr. Corwin rose a-nd said :
It was not his intention, at the opening of this discussion, to
protract the debate a moment; but he was compelled, by a sense of
imperative duty, to ask the attention of the House, for a few
moments, to a view of this subject, presented by the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr, Mason], who had just taken his seat. He had also a
word to say (if he had rightly understood him) to the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Williams].
The gentlemen, said Mr. C, seemed both to consider the ques
tion of boundary between Ohio and the proposed State of Michigan
as a judicial question. It is very clear that, if this be a judicial
question purely, it will be difficult to establish the right of this
House to adjudge and determine it. It is of great importance, Mr.
Speaker, that we should understand well before we act, whether we
are acting within the scope of our acknowledged constitutional
powers. If there be a doubt, therefore, whether this question of
boundary, or any other which may belong to the main proposition,
(the admissiom of the new State), be a question proper to be
decided here, or referred to the judicial department, that doubt
should be sufficient to send the whole to the Judiciary Committee —
that committee being, both by the law of this House and its prac
tice, our legal and Constitutional advisers.
Gentlemen will see the propriety of bringing this subject, with
all its attendant topics, to the notice of that committee, when it is
once perceived that the question of boundary cannot be separated
from the question of admission of the new State into the Union. It
14 (193)

194 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
is incontrovertible that we have no power to alter, modify or amend
the Constitution of Michigan. This can only be done by a conven
tion of the people of that territory. They have sent us an entire
instrument, under which they proposed to become one ef the Amer
ican confederacy. We must therefore admit them with the constitu
tion of their choice as it is here presented, or we must reject them,
if there be anything in that constitution which compels us to that
course. If gentlemen will turn to the Constitution of Michigan it
will be seen that it ordains as well the boundaries of the proposed
State as the rights, civil and political, of its inhabitants. They pro
pose to become a portion of the Union, in the new character of a
sovereign State, with territorial limits which comprehend a large and
most interesting portion of two other sovereign States, to-wit:
Indiana and Ohio. This is determined by a glance at the maps of
the country. The committee, then, which shall be charged with the
investigation of this subject, must either leave that part of the Con
stitution of Michigan, which ordains the boundaries of the State,
out of view altogether and admit them to come into the Union,
claiming, if you please, to impose her form of government on all the
people and over all the territory of Ohio and Indiana, or they must
decide whether that portion of disputed territory, comprehended
within the limits of the new State, belongs in truth and by law to
Michigan, or to Ohio and Indiana, according to their known claims,
respectively. Will any committee, or will this House, admit a State into this
Union without ascertaining its territorial jurisdiction ? Or will they,
if it can be avoided, admit a State into this family of republics, with
a license to sue one or two of her sisters? When she comes and
knocks at your door asking permission to come into your house,
that she may thereby more easily fight for and dispossess two of its
old inmates of a portion of their property, will you take her by the
hand and spirit her on to litigation, or more probably to a contest of
force? Sir, I am very sure no such fatuity will ever possess this
House ; it is certain that no such necessity is imposed on us. What,
then, will your committee do? They will examine and determine
whether the Constitution of Michigan is consistent with the rights of
Indiana and Ohio.
I ask the gentlemen, not merely of the legal profession, but
those of every class in this House, to whom they would apply for
an opinion on such a subject, were they personally interested? Mich-

ON THE CONSTITUTION OP MICHIGAN. 195
igan claims to extend her constitution over the citizens of other
States as now constituted, by virtue of a supposed compact to that
effect, in the ordinance of 1787. How is the force of that claim to
be ascertained? Who shaU say whether a particular clause in that
ordinance rises above the changeable and repealable character of
ordinary legislation, and assumes the more sacred and inviolable
nature of a contract? No man, however elevated his general attain
ments, can be found vain enough to imagine himself competent to
give an intelligent and safe answer to the question here involved,
unless he be to some extent conversant with law as a science.
Again, sir: The ordinance under which Michigan claims is but a
law of Congress. Ohio and Indiana both claim under acts of Con
gress and compacts made with them as States. If these conflict,
who is competent to determine which is paramount to the other?
To what committee, in short, does this House refer questions of
law? The answer given in every other case to this question has
been uniform — "the standing committee on the Judiciary." Gentle
men who look only to the isolated fact of admission into the Union,
-will find that they can no more arrive at that point without first
meeting and deciding all the grave questions of law I have sug
gested than they could transfer themselves from this hah to the north-
¦ern lakes without passing over the intermediate space.
I hope gentlemen will not deem it beneath the dignity of this
House to consult in this matter a little the feelings and views of both
parties to this question of boundary. With them it has always been
viewed as mainly a question to be resolved by a right construction of
the acts and laws of Congress. It has thus been contested on both
sides. You are appealed to as a final arbiter. They will expect
you to call to your aid that committee to whom the nation looks for
correct opinions when construction of law is the question. Who
has ever heard, till now, of submitting a legal proposition to the
Committee on the Territories? Sir, I disclaim all idea of drawing
comparisons between the individuals composing either of these com
mittees. I only insist that the laws of the House have assigned to
•each their appropriate function, and the Speaker is presumed to have
arranged the talent of the House in reference to those laws. For
the people of my own State I only ask a fair trial, and in the usual
way. Give them these, and those fearful excitements, of which the
gentleman from Virginia has spoken, will be at once subdued into
acquiescence in the decision, whether friendly or adverse to their

196 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
claims. But should this House, to whom the appeal, in a generous
confidence, has been made, blunder in the dark upon a wrong and
unusual course and ultimately decide against them, we may then
look for agitations, accompanied with more frightful violence than
the gentleman has imagined.
1 flatter myself that it is apparent to all that now is the most
propitious time to settle this unhappy controversy. I imagine all
win agree that it is competent for this House to settle it. I entreat
gentlemen not to think of leaving the question open. I appeal to
the gentleman from Virginia, whether he could take pleasure in see
ing three sovereign States prostrate before the judicial tribunals, ask
ing of your courts to determine whether they were States ! or, if
States, whether they had any territory, and how much ! Sir,
unbounded as my confidence has been, and is, in the federal courts,
for their sakes, as well as the country, I do not wish to see questions
which agitate great political communities brought frequently before
them for decision. To avoid this, and to put forever beyond the
power of contest this cause of discord and disunion, I entreat the
House to send this subject to the only committee competent to ana
lyze and present in a connected view all the questions that cluster
round it ; and, with such a report, 1 do not permit myself to doubt
but the House will come to a conclusion as satisfactory to, as it will
be obligatory upon, all concerned.

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE.

The business first in order in the House of Representatives of the United States
Thursday, January I2th, 1837, was the bill reported by Mr. Cambreling, from the
Committee of Ways and Means, to reduce the revenue of the United States to the
wants of the Government. There being two motions pending — first, for commitment,
and secondly, for indefinite postponement — Mr. Corwin arose and addressed the
House as follows :
Mr. Speaker: I feel deeply sensible that I am about to occupy the time of the
House upon a subject which cannot possibly be matured into legisla
tion during the brief period that remains to us of the present session.
It is the conviction that the bill before you, ushered into this House
with a haste bordering upon rashness, contains within its provisions
principles too momentous and vitally affecting a large portion of the
country to be acted upon this session, that impels me to solicit the
attention of the House to my reasons for sustaining the motion of
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Lawrence] for the indefinite
postponement of the bih. Sir, I am not sure that my thorough con
viction of the necessity of tranquilizing the public agitation, which
the presence of this bill here will excite, by an immediate rejection
or postponement of it, would have overcome my habitual aversion
to addressing the House, had I not, in common with my friends from
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, felt that such a course could alone
insure the minority of the committee, with whom the bill originated,
against misunderstanding, as well here as among those whom we rep
resent. Had the motion to lay the bill and report on the table and
print them prevailed, a paper most elaborate in its structure and
voluminous in its dimensions, would have gone forth to the country,
bearing upon its face no intimation that the whole committee did not
concur in it. To prevent the possibility of such misconstruction, I
feel it a duty to those who have honored me with a seat here to pre
sent my protest, against both the bill and the report which accom-
(197)

198 speeches op thomas corwin.
panics it, at the earliest moment possible. This poor privilege, sir,
we had been denied yesterday, by the House, but for the timely sub
stitution by my friend from Massachusetts [ Mr. Lawrence ] of the
motion for "indefinite postponement" for that which was made by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cambreling]. The latter mo
tion, by the strict law of parliament, did not permit the minority of
the committee to utter even a syllable by way of dissent to the prin
ciples of the bill or the report. Courtesy, however, it seems, had
uniformly conceded to a minority thus situated what the rigid rule
denied ; but, in our case, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Mann]
pertinaciously insisted on the letter of the law. Courtesy became
inconvenient, and the "iron rule" of proscription was enforced.
Permit me here, Mr. Speaker, to offer my thanks to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Thomas] for his manly appeal to the House in
our behalf Such exhibitions of magnanimity are rare in these
times, and ought not to pass unnoticed. I did desire, sir, to see the
bill disposed of without entering into a debate on its merits ; but as
no explanation could be even hinted at without it, I am rejoiced that
the present motion was made, which opens the entire measure pro
posed to free and full discussion.
I shall have occasion to refer to the report, as that is the expo
sition presented of the principles and policy on which the bill is
based. In doing this, as 1 have only heard it read, and have not had
the advantage of a perusal of its contents, I cannot pretend to quote
its language, nor can I hope to be e.xact in giving even its substance.
I am happy to see the honorable Chairman of the Ways and Means
[Mr. Cambreling] in his seat, who will set me right should I at any
time unwittingly mistake or misrepresent the true import of his pro
duction. 1 am very sure the gentleman will discharge such a duty
to himself and to me with the utmost alacrity. As he, I doubt not,
regards this, the youngest of his financial progeny, as possessing
every combination of symmetry and grace, he will not sit by and see
its beauty marred without instant interposition in its behalf
The most obvious objection to the introduction of this bill
arises from a view of its intrinsic importance, and the difficult and
delicate questions which are inseparable from any proposition which
proposes a radical change in the existing tariff The whole of the
argument in the very voluminous report, which is nothing but the
bill on your table, with a few facts and inferences to prop and sus
tain it, may be condensed into one or two sentences of plain

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 199
English. It is stated (and I shall not now attempt to controvert any
fact to which I shah have occasion to refer) that the existing tariff
extends protection to labor employed in manufacturing, in this coun
try, the annual product of which is $300,000,000. It is assumed
(and, for the sake of the argument, I shall admit it) that the protec
tion afforded by our existing tariff" laws is necessary, and no more
than is necessary, to enable our own manufacturing establishments to
exist in competition with foreign establishments employed in the
same business. To sustain this proposition, the high price of labor
and capital with us, and the comparative cheapness of both abroad,
are asserted. The report further asserts that the duties collected on imports
by the rates estabhshed by the law of March, 1833, commonly called
the Compromise Act, will, with the proceeds of the sales of public
lands, bring into the Treasury, within the next eighteen months,
more revenue, by seven milhons of dollars, than the wants of the
Government require. Here I beg gentlemen to observe that this
last proposition is nothing more nor less than a combination of two
conjectures. The first of these is, that the importations from abroad
to this country, during the next five years, will reach a given amount.
Whether this conjecture shall be verified must depend upon the num
berless contingent events, the turn of which no human sagacity can
foresee, arising out of the present unsettled condition of trade, labor
and currency in Great Britain; the change that may be brought
about in the markets of England by the termination of the intestine
wars now raging in Spain and Portugal, and lastly, the very capa
bility of this country to consume and pay for foreign importations
must depend upon reducing to order and stability the currency of
this country, which, under the improving and sagacious guidance of
this administration, has been conducted to a state of wild and unman
ageable confusion. The next conjecture embodied in the proposi
tion I have last stated from the report is, that the public lands are to
be sold without any legislative or executive restraints as to pur
chasers or quantities. In other words, it supposes the famous
Treasury circular to be repealed. I beg the gentlemen of the far
West particularly to notice one feature of this report. It is based
upon the supposition that the bill now on your table, reported by
one of your standing committees, with that title so captivating to
patriot ears, "A bill to arrest monopolies of public lands, and to
prohibit the sales thereof, except to actual settlers, in limited quanti-

200 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
ties," is to be scouted, thrown out of doors, and its place to be sup
plied by this more recent and happy assault upon the popular ear,
bearing on its front the charmed phrase, "A bill to reduce the reve
nue of the United States to the wants of the Government."
The House will bear in mind that this bill proposes to remedy
an apprehended evil. It looks into the future, and imagines that, in
the next year and a half, the existing duties on imports will bring
'into the Treasury more money than is required for the uses of the
Government by seven millions of dollars. I have already intimated
that I object to the time selected for bringing into the House a
measure fraught with so many difficulties as belong to every subject
which proposes a radical change in our system of revenue.
Without adverting, therefore, for the present, to the merits of
the bill, I feel confident I do not appeal in vain to the House to say
that we cannot act upon it between this day and the 4th of March.
Let gentlemen look at the necessary business now before us, and
then calculate the number of days remaining for its final disposition.
It will be remembered that Monday in every week is devoted to the
reception of petitions; Friday and Saturday of each week, by
another standing rule, are set apart for private claims. From what
we have already seen during half the allotted term of the session, it
is not to be expected that a moment of time can be withdrawn from
that allotted to petitions, for the consideration of other business.
No gentleman, I am equally sure, dreams that we should deny jus
tice any longer than is unavoidable to the many hundreds of private
claims which have been favorably reported on by that committee
whose awards, with rare exceptions, are considered laws to the
House. There is a large body of claimants of a miscellaneous char
acter in one class, and the crippled soldiers and widows and orphans,
the representatives of those who have fallen in your late wars with
both civilized and savage foes, in another, and a not less meritorious
few of the surviving veterans of your revolutionary struggle in
another class, all pointing to the reports of your own committee
and showing claims upon your justice, some of them delayed for half
a century. I cannot entertain so poor an opinion of the moral sense
of an American Congress as to suppose it will turn aside from this
work of justice and benevolence, to enter into dreamy and heartless
disquisitions upon the balance of trade ; to ponder over tabular state
ments as incomprehensible as the Sybilline books ; to adjust with con
temptible accuracy, the ad valorem duty on a foreign penknife, and

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 201
this, too, for the purpose of preventing a few milhons more or less
from coming into that very Treasury, whose doors, in the meantime,
you close against those who demand of you the payment of your
honest debts, for the non-payment of which many of your creditors
are languishing in poverty and want.
You have then remaining for the dispatch of general legislation
three days in each week, giving about twenty-two days for the con
sideration of bills of a general nature, and all the appropriations for
the current year. I ask the majority of the Ways and Means, who
have pushed this new and perplexing subject on the House at this
time, if it is modest, to say the least of it, to suppose that the
House is to vote away twenty-four millions of dollars in appropria
tions, without inquiry, examination or debate, further than to ask
whether the Committee of Ways and Means desire it should be
done? I ask this House, whose constitutional and most important
function is to know and to approve the object to which every dollar
is to be applied, before it sanctions its appropriation, whether it is
willing, at the mere request of a committee, to give a draft on the
Treasury for nearly thirty millions of dollars, and thus become the
mere ministerial agent of the Treasury department? This base
abandonment of duty you must submit to, to this humiliation you
must come, if you turn aside from the necessary duties of the ses
sion to consider the bill now before you ; unless, indeed, you choose
to rush madly upon an untried scheme, full of danger, and sur
rounded with doubt, upon the very reasonable presumption of the
infallible wisdom of its authors.
But, Mr. Speaker, if we had all the time we could desire for the
adjustment of a new system of legislation to any real or supposed
change in our condition at home, or with other nations, is this an
auspicious period for the experiment? Turn for a moment to your
latest advices from England. Every painful pulsation in that great
heart of capital and trade is followed by a sympathetic throb on this
side of the Atlantic. What is the state of currency throughout
Great Britain now? The price of money rising, the banks stopping
payment, and her financiers unable to foretell the time or the man
ner when or how this agitation shall end. Nor is our situation free
from symptoms of coming misfortune. I shall not stop to inquire
into the causes of the present anomalous situation of our own cur
rency. My friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Lawrence], who ad
dressed you with so much force and clearness yesterday, has left

202 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
nothing to be said by any one on these topics. Sir, the results of
that gentleman's actual experience, the reflections of his sound un
derstanding, always aided by the promptings of a good heart, are
with me better authority, on such subjects, than a thousand quartos
filled with speculations of closeted economists. We all know that,
from some cause, trade and currency seem to be divorced from each
other ; domestic exchanges are no longer regulated by the course of
trade, and the very report on your table complains of a redundant
paper circulation. Who can tell when the causes which have pro
duced these affects shall cease to operate? Who can say in what
they will finally issue ? In this distracted state of things, what are
we asked to do ? We are required to enact a law that shall tear from
its very foundations, where they have rested for twenty years on the
faith of your laws, a capital and labor which produce property equal
to three hundred millions of dollars a year. Is this a time to force
such an amount of capital into new employment? Is this that
period of calm when so much labor can safely be driven, with sudden
violence, to abandon its safe and tried pursuits, and seek at once
other and unaccustomed channels ? No, surely this is not that time.
On the contrary, it would add another to many elements of confusion
already but too extensively and actively at work. Sir, it does seem
to me that the unsettled state of the internal commerce and currency
of this country is of itself an unanswerable objection to the present
enactment of a law that all must see will powerfully increase the
evils that already deeply afflict us. The natural instinct of brute
animals, in such a crisis, would suggest caution and prudence as the
course of wisdom, not rash adventure and wild experiment. If it
were bad policy to protect by imposts the industry of your own peo
ple, if it could be shown to be unpatriotic and un-American to cher
ish by duties manufacturing skill, so that in time of war you might
be able to furnish the commonest necessaries of life to your own
people, still, having done so, however unwisely at first, since by
doing it you have created an immense amount of property, it would
be madness, moon-struck madness, to crush that property at a blow.
Sir, by the laws now in force, if you but let them alone, in five
years, by your own showing, the evil of which you now complain
will cease to exist. Instead of this, we are now asked, in order to
get rid of seven millions of surplus revenue, to destroy an annual
production of three hundred millions; and are gravely told that this
will be a most salutary financial operation. Let gentlemen keep

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 203
constantly in mind that the bill and report go upon the admission;
(at least it is not otherwise asserted) that the duties now imposed
are barely sufficient to enable our own manufacturers to continue
their business. With the single exception of iron, the report on
your table will, I think, be found to be in substance as I have quoted
it. If, then, you diminish that protection by curtailing it in the
short space of eighteen months by seven millions, which by the law
now in force would not be done till the end of five years, it follows,
as a necessary conclusion, that you do abandon capital and labor,
to the amount I have stated, to instant and total destruction.
Mr. Speaker, I have only suggested so much of the merits of
the subject as I deem necessary to direct the attention of the House
to the importance and number of the questions which we are called
upon to decide, before we can safely vote for or against the bill. If,
then, reflection requires time ; if the exercise of reason is an agent
in our researches after truth; if knowledge is not intuitive, we poor
mortals, who are not gifted with those inspirations which seem to be
the peculiar attributes of the authors of this bill and report, must
beg a moment's pause before we decide. We must plod on in the
old beaten way ; we must proceed by painful and slow research ; we
must stop, look around us, and reflect much ; and after great toil and
a long journey, we may possibly reach those lofty heights of trans
cendental political wisdom which the authors of this bill have scaled.
with the speed of lightning at a single bound. Is it to be expected,
I again ask, that, in the twenty-two days that remain for general bus
iness, we can canvass, item by item, appropriation bills to the
amount of near twenty-seven millions, and have time left us to labor
through the difficulties that attend the bill under consideration?
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the objections to a considera
tion of this bill, arising from a want of time, I must remind its-
authors, and the pohtical majority of this House, of another subject,
which, in justice to themselves and to the nation, they are bound to
bring forward at the present session. I allude to an amendment of
the Constitution, so that the election of President and Vice-President
of the United States may, in no event, ever devolve on Congress.
We are now approaching the termination of those eight years during-
which General Jackson has occupied the presidential chair. I beheve
each annual message to Congress, during all that time, has adverted.
in strong and sometimes imploring appeals to the National Legisla
ture on this subject. I know that gentlemen have heretofore

204 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
excused their neglect of these suggestions of the President by say
ing that there was in the Senate a political majority opposed to them ;
and, therefore, the great reform, so much desired by the President
and his friends, must wait till that opposition was subdued. Sir,
whether fortunately or otherwise for the republic I will not say, but
the fact is, that favored time, so long prayed for, has at length
arrived. There is a now a clear majority, in both branches of Con
gress, friendly to the existing administration. Now, a time has at
length come when we may with confidence call upon the friends of
General Jackson to redeem his and their pledges, so often given, on
this vital subject. I call especially at this time for action, and not
promises and postponement. General Jackson, after this session,
will be no more here to admonish or advise us touching this interest
ing subject. It has made an imposing figure in that revolution
which has subverted all the maxims of polity and law, whensoever
and howsoever they were opposed to his suggestions. It has been a
theme on which honest patriots and designing demagogues have
•dwelt with equal skill and power. The President, for the last time
that his voice can ever be heard in public council, in language which
bespeaks deep and abiding solicitude, again beseeches you to act.
Hear what he says in his last message to Congress. Nearly at the
•close, and when he is about to bid a final adieu to you and the cares
of public life, he gives this subject to your especial charge, with all
the solemnity of a dying declaration. He says: "All my experi
ence and reflection confirm the conviction 1 have so often expressed
to Congress in favor of an amendment to the Constitution, which
will prevent, in any event, the election of President and Vice-Presi
dent of the United States devolving on the House of Representa
tives and the Senate ; and 1, therefore, beg leave again to solicit your
attention to the subject."
Is there, then, any reason now for not carrying this recommen
dation into effect, by the party having the power, in both House and
Senate, to do so? None. 1 call, then, upon the "Democratic
party,'' as you of the majority sometimes (as if in derision of the
name) call yourselves, to postpone this new experiment on finance;
dispose of it at once for this year, because it stands in the way of a
constitutional reform, on which, by your own admission, depends all
your hope of liberty. Do this, or take the consequences. If you
now refuse to act, when you have the undoubted power to redeem
)-our pledges, so often and solemnly given, the people of this coun-

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 205
try will believe that all your promises and professions were not the
promptings of patriotism, but rather the hollow and selfish artifices
of a shallow hypocrisy. However uncharitable some gentlemen
might deem such a conclusion to be, in my judgment it would be
most reasonable and just. Our conduct admits of no other explana
tion, if we consume the time allowed us in discussing the difference
between two systems of revenue, and pass by unnoticed another
subject, which, by our own declarations, repeated in every form,
touches our existence as a free people.
Sir, I might here content myself with thus expressing my
objections to the introduction of this bill, at this time, by the com
mittee of which I am a member. I have endeavored to satisfy the
House that the necessary bills, without the passage of which the
Government cannot execute its ordinary duties during the year, must
occupy us the entire remainder of the session, and if we should pos
sibly have any time not thus necessarily employed, that there are
other matters of high and paramount national importance, which
should take precedence of this. But there is another objection rest
ing with great weight on my mind, which I cannot forbear to press
upon the attention of gentlemen before I take my seat. I allude to
the Compromise Act, as it is familiarly called, of March, 1833. If
I am right in my conceptions of the true character of that law, we
are not only forbidden to legislate in the way now proposed at this
time, but that we cannot so legislate until after the 30th of June,
1842, without such sacrifice of honor and implied faith as would
make a bandit blush.
I shall not pretend that Congress has not the power to alter
essentially, or, if it will, abolish the law fixing the rates of duties on
a scale of gradual reduction from 1833 up to 1842 ; but I deny the
right of Congress to do so, unless impelled by some dire necessity,
over which it can exert no control. War, that greatest of all the ills
that can befall a well-governed people, might present a case of such
necessity. No such necessity is pretended. No gentleman here will
risk his character for sanity, by rising in his place and declaring that,
without a law like that on your table, the liberties or happiness of
the people are in danger. No man, here or elsewhere, can pretend
that the Compromise Act of the 2nd of March, 1833, contains any
principle which menaces the general welfare of the country, or that
its operation and effects threaten our national prosperity with immi
nent danger. On the contrary, sir, the echoes of that general note

206 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
of acclaim, which reverberated from one extremity of the Union to
the other, at the passage of that law, are at this moment scarcely
silenced. Our circumstances are not changed since the passage of
that law, in any way connected with its provisions or policy. Hence
I infer that, as that law, in its terms, fixes the measure of protection
which shall be extended to domestic manufactures up to the year
1842, and as it was considered in the light of an arrangement, per
manent up to that time, by the Congress who enacted it; and, fur
ther, as it was so regarded by both the friends and foes of the pro
tective system all over the country, and as those engaged in manu
facturing shaped their business, and disposed their capital, in con
formity to this general opinion, although you have the power, you
have no right now to annul your understood engagement, when by
so doing, a capital and labor so great as to produce three hundred
millions a year, which have been invested under the faith thus
pledged, must be at once destroyed. By altering essentially, as you
propose to do, the act of 1833, you bring upon this labor and capi
tal what is equal to destruction ; you sever them by violence from
their present business connections, and leave them to the mercy of
accident for future occupation. I beg gentlemen to turn to the law
of 1833, and see how all the features of a compact and permanent
engagement are carefully impressed upon it.
The first section, taking up the protected articles, or such as
paid a duty above twenty per centum ad valorem, subjects them to a
scale of gradual reduction from 1833, until all are brought down to a
duty of twenty per centum ad valorem in 1842. Why were the sev
eral periodical reductions adjusted so carefully through a period of
nine years, if the law was not expected to continue in force for that
length of time? Let any gentleman reflect on the history of that
law for a moment, and he can have no further difficulty in finding
the principles of a permanent compromise in it. Two great parties,
as we all know, existed in the country. These were known by the
designations of tariff and anti-tariff. The anti-tariff party, chiefly
comprised in the Southern and Southwestern sections of the Union,
demanded an abandonment of the protective principle, and a reduc
tion of duties to a revenue standard alone. They alleged, that as
they were consumers, and not producers of those articles which were
protected by law-, they paid to the producer (in the protective duty)
a bounty upon his labor, and insisted on the injustice of thus taxing
the planting States for the benefit of the Northern manufacturino-

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 207
States. Such was the argument on one side, whether correct or not
I shall not here pause to consider. On the other side, those friendly
to the protective system alleged that the policy of protection was
begun early in the history of the Government ; that especially since
I8I6 it had been pursued with such vigor and constancy as not only
to invite capital but actually to impel it into the business of domes
tic manufacture. They insisted, and with the most obvious reason,
that to withdraw suddenly that protection would result in ruin to the
capitalists, and wide-spread misery to the laboring classes. They
proposed a system of gradual reduction of duties, which would give
time for the acquisition of skill, so as to enable them to operate with
little or no protection, or, at the worst, ( if time were given ) a
gradual and comparatively harmless withdrawal of their capital and
labor from manufacturing pursuits could be effected. To this propo
sition the South acceded, and its substance will be found embodied
in the law of 1833. Thus gradual reduction, extending through a
series of years to 1842, saved the manufacturer, while the prospect
ive reduction of duties on all protected articles to one standard satis
fied the principles contended for by the South. When this was set
tled, to make it binding and irrevocable till 1842, the parties inserted
in the third section of the bill their solemn declaration to that effect.
The section referred to reads as follows: " And be it further enacted.
That until the 30th day of June, one thousand eight hundred and
forty-two, the duties imposed by existing laws, as modified by
this act, shall remain and continue to be collected." Could
your language furnish words more emphatically expressive of a
declaration by Congress that no change was to be made in this
branch of your revenue system till June, 1842? Did you then
expect your people to place no reliance on what you thus sol
emnly proclaimed as your determination? No; you did not ex
pect the American people to treat you as hollow-hearted knaves,
attempting to impose on their credulity. The sole object of pro-
•claiming to them the unalterable character of the law of 1833 was
to quiet the fearful agitation that then everywhere prevailed, and
give stability to that interest — the manufacturing interest — which
was most to be affected by your acts. What, sir, were the happy,
the glorious effects of that compromise? The day before that
law received the President's approval was overcast with the gath
ering cloud of civil war, deepening, spreading and blackening every
liour. The ground on which we stood seemed to heave and quake

208 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
with the first throes of a convulsion, that was to rend in fragments
the last republic on earth ; at this fearful moment an overruling Prov
idence revealed the instrument of its will in the person of one man,
whose virtues would have illustrated the brightest annals of recorded
time. He produced this great measure of concord, and the succeed
ing morning dawned upon the American horizon without a spot ; the
sun of that day looked down and beheld us a tranquil and united
people. Are we prepared now to break the bonds of peace and renew
the war ? 1 have said you have the power to do so, but 1 deny your
right. 1 do not measure that right by the standard of law in a
municipal court. I cannot conceive any idea more ridiculous or con
temptible than that which finds no standard of moral or political
duties and rights, for a Christian, a private gentleman, or a states
man, except that which is applicable to a contest before a justice's
court or a nisi prius jury. No, sir, I appeal to a law in the bosom of
man, prior and paramount to this. 1 appeal to the South, where I
know that law will be obeyed, and where I know I do not appeal in
vain. I invoke its characteristic chivalry. I call for that sentiment
of manly pride which is its offspring. I summon to my aid that
sensitive honor which feels "a stain like a wound," which abhors
deception and shudders at violated faith. Will that South, which I
am sure 1 have truly described, join in this odious infraction of its
own treaty, and unite in this miserable war upon the laboring thous
ands who have confided in its securities — a war not waged with
open force and strong hand — a war not waged to avenge insulted
honor, but to recover the difference between five and ten cents duty
upon a yard of cotton goods ? Your approach to this battle is not
heralded by the trumpet's voice ; no, you are to take the proposed
bill and go on a marauding expedition by way of reprisal. You are
to steal into the dwelling of the poor and boldly capture a mechan
ic's dinner ! You are to march into the cottage of the widow, and
fearlessly confiscate the breakfast of a factory girl, for the benefit of
the planting and grain-growing States of this mighty republic!
Such are the motives for this war, and such are to be the trophies of
its victories. How little do they who have presented such argu
ments as these, in this report, know of the character of the people
of the South and West ! They vainly imagine that the high-minded'
sons of the South have drank of the fatal cup of the sorceress, and^
like the companions of Ulysses,

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 209
"Lost their upright shape,
And downward fell into the groveling swine."
The great grain-growing States of the West are informed, in
this report, that they may reclaim a part of the tribute which, it is
told them, they have been paying without equivalent, if they will
agree to this bill. Let me tell the gentlemen that the West must
first be satisfied they are free in honor to obey this call. The hardy
race that has subdued the forests of the West, and in their green
youth have constructed monuments of their enterprise that shall sur
vive the pyramids, is not likely, from merely sordid motive, to join
in inflicting a great evil on any portion of our common country.
The fearless pioneers of the West, whose ears are as familiar with
the sharp crack of the Indian's rifle and his wild war-whoop at mid
night as are those of your city dandies with the dulcet notes of the
harp and piano, they, sir, are not the men to act upon selfish calcu
lations and sinister inducements. They hold their rights by law, and
they believe that compacts, expressed or implied, arising from indi
vidual engagements or public law, are to be kept and defended with
their lives, if need be — not to be broken at will, or regarded as the
proper sport of legislative or individual caprice.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard much of late that is new to us, if
not alarming, on this subject of legislative compact. From authori
ties of no mean consideration we have heard it boldly preached that
the validity of a compact arising out ot law is an exploded paradox.
It is represented as a relic of "old times," and we are told that it is
inconsistent with the liberties of the people. The liberties of
the people! It was to establish "the liberties of the people"
that Robespierre and his infamous associates preach the same doc
trine to the deluded and frantic populace of France. Is the
American government now to adopt this creed of political faith ?
How long is it since we were about to wage war with France
for refusing to fulfill a treaty which, in the language of our Con
stitution, was nothing more than "the supreme law of the land?"
For this we were ready to launch our thunders upon the seas, and
arm our whole population for the Contest on the land. We required
the proud monarch of the most warhke nation of modern times to
humble himself before the offended majesty of "public law." It
is for a supposed violation of "public law" that your armies have
been alternately hunting after, and flying before, the fierce Oceola,
for a whole year, through the lagoons and hommocks of Florida.
15

210 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
It is not to be supposed that a people, thus acting, can be brought
to disregard like obligations, whether contracted by express or im
plied compact, with its own citizens.
I hope, sir, I shall be pardoned for dweUing, it may be, some
what too long upon this topic. I must now call the attention of the
House for a few moments to what I deem a singular phenomenon in
our history, as set forth in the report on your table. It is said that
the planting and grain-growing States have, since 1789, paid to the
manufacturers of this country about three hundred and fifty millions
of dollars, for which they have received no equivalent. Sir, if this
be true, since the Israelites were required by the Egyptian tyrant to
make bricks without straw, there is no parallel to such monstrous
oppression. I have already stated that I will not pretend to quote the pre
cise language of the report. I am sure it is stated that duties on
imported articles to the amount of six hundred and eighty-two mill
ions of dollars, beside thirty millions for its collection, have been
paid since the year 1789. It is also stated in the report that more
than one-half of this aggregate had been levied on protected articles.
The whole scope of the report labors to prove that this duty on pro
tected articles is a grevious and oppressive tax on consumption, for
which no equivalent is received in return. Connected with these
positions, the author of the report endeavors to show that the plant
ing and grain-growing portions of the Union were, and are, the con
sumers, and the few Northern manufacturing States the producers,
of the protected articles ; that the former are the payers, and the
latter the receivers of the duties, which duties are represented as a
mere bounty to the labor of the North, for which the South and
West never have been, and, in the nature of things, never can be,
reimbursed. Sir, I shall not now trouble the House, nor my friends,
who put forward this fact as a truth proved by figures and tabular
statements, with any argument opposed to it, but I must be allowed
to advert to it as a Western man with feelings of pride. At the
same time, I must, in common with others, labor under some doubts
of the fact asserted, arising out of the known history of the last
twenty or thirty years.
If the West and Southwest have paid their due proportion of
this unjust and unremunerated tax of three hundred and fifty mill
ions within the last forty years, while, at the same time, they have,
as the world knows, conquered the savages who possessed the whole

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 211
Western and Southwestern territory, cleared the thick forests which
overshadowed it ; in short, if that portion of the United States has,
in less than half a century, as all admit, reached a point of improve
ment in wealth and arts which other times and people required ages
to achieve, then, I say, I may with pride and confidence challenge
the whole world, within the period of authentic history, to parallel
the wonderful people which I have the honor, in part, to represent.
But, Mr. Speaker, sober reality and stubborn facts compel me
to repress this exultation at our fancied superiority; modesty com
pels me to doubt whether truth places us so far above common mor-
ahty as this report has done. Facts, known facts, those unaccom
modating things that ruin so many beautiful inventions of fertile and
ingenious minds, are constantly thrusting themselves before, and in
the way of, the figures and philosophy of the gentleman who has
labored in this report to push by them, and drive over them, to
reach his favorite conclusions. You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that
we are told of the "treasuries other than those of the United
States," into which this enormous tribute of three hundred and fifty
mihions has been poured. In the same connection you hear of the
"princely establishments" that have been reared up and sustained
by it. The "princely establishments" are in the Northern manufact
uring States. The "princes" to whom the tribute is paid are the
people of this happy, favored region. Where, sir, are the poor
oppressed tributaries, according to this report? Why, sir, in that
sinking, ruined, wasted wilderness, the West.
The author of this report, under the influence of a too fervid
imagination, has spurned the shackles and broken through the em
barrassments arising from facts connected with the scheme of his
theory. He represents the Northern manufacturing States as
another imperial Rome, seated on her seven hills, rioting in the lux
uries of the despoiled and impoverished South, her treasuries burst
ing with the enormous wealth poured into them from the ravaged
and desolated provinces of the West. Manufacturing is pictured as
the finger of Midas, turning everything it touches into gold, while it
would seem that growing grain and planting cotton brought only
taxation without equivalent, poverty and unrequited toil. Sir, if all
this were true, what would follow? The people of this country,
however they may be excelled by other nations in the walks of let
ters and the polite arts, are known to be shrewd and weh-informed,
touching their own pecuniary interests. Such a people would be

212 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
found rushing into the manufacturing districts, to reap harvests of
wealth, and wallow in monopolies that drained every other portion
of the Union, to swell their accumulation. Such a people would
be found to shun, as a land of pestilence and death, the agricultural
region, where nothing awaited them but taxation and consequent
poverty. Sir, I regret that fact, and the truths of history compel
me to spoil the beautiful theories and exact calculations of this ad
mirable report ; but, sir, truth, however unwelcome, will be found,
at last, the safest guide in wandering through the labyrinths of spec
ulation and theory. What, sir, is the fact? Why, for thirty years
the tide of emigration has been from this very land of wealth, and
not to it. The exodus has been from the land of promise to the
house of bondage. The shrewd Yankees have been flying from
wealth, and ease, and monoply, in their own country, to this very
oppressed grain and cotton-raising region of the West, seeking tax
ation, oppression and want. For these last three years, as every
American (except the authors of this report) well knows, popula
tion from the Northern States has been plowing its way through the
ice of the northern lakes, and bursting over the mountains, till the
roads and rivers are literally choked with its masses. Where are
these colonists going? To the West to raise grain and be taxed!
To the Southwest, to grow cotton and become poor ! Such is the
reasoning of the report. Now, I beg to know whether it is not tax
ing our good nature quite too far to ask us to believe, and act upon,
ingenious theories and long columns of figures, standing, as they do,
opposed to facts, admitted, known and understood by every man in
this Union over twenty-one years of age. To come to the conclu
sion at which the report has arrived, we are required to admit that
man is blind to, and careless of his own personal advantage. Nay,
more ; the authors of this report require you to deny to our Ameri
can race the common instinct of all animal creation. The philoso
phy of this report teaches that man shuns ease, and desires toil ; that
he hates pleasure, and loves pain ; that he eschews wealth, and
courts poverty ; that he flies from power, and seeks subjection. All
this jumble of contradictions we are required to admit as self-evident
truths, simply to explain existing facts in a way not to contradict
this erudite treatise on trade and finance.
Mr. Speaker, I know it is impudent to obtrude our crude
notions upon those to whom, from their position, we are taught to
look for the lessons of wisdom ; but I hope I may be allowed to

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 213
inquire of the majority of the "Ways and Means," whether it had
not been better had they reviewed slightly their philosophical read
ing, before they sat down to the arduous task of writing the produc
tion now before us ? Had they turned to the pages of Bacon, with
which I am sure they must be familiar, they would have found a
maxim which, since the days of the great author of the "inductive
philosophy," has never been disregarded. I think, if my memory is
not at fault, it teaches that in all our researches after truth, we must
reason " ex prcEconcessis aut ex prcecognitis." For the benefit of my
unlettered Western friends, I am bound to render myself intelligible,
by giving it in their own mother tongue. I will not be responsible
for accuracy, but I am sure I shall not mistake the substance. The
rule simply requires us always to reason from facts previously
admitted, or previously known to exist.
Had this rule been observed, the authors of this report might
have remembered that the oppressive tax on the cotton grower, paid
in the shape of duties, was in some measure repaid him by a market
for 350,000 bales of his cotton in this country every year, which
market he could not have without the tax. It might have occurred
to them that the grower of grain, who paid his proportion of the
duty on protected articles, was not so badly off, since he found, in
those "princely establishments" spoken of, a market for his flour,
pork and beef, which, without these establishments furnishing a mar
ket, might have rotted on his hands. They might have thought the
immense emigration to, and vast improvements of the West were
facts worth attention, in ascertaining whether that West was op
pressed by the tariff^ in a way too grievous to be borne. Far be it
from me to assert, sir, that these facts would have puzzled the gen
tlemen ; I only mean to say, sir, that vulgar and coarse minds would
have been better satisfied with the report had -some notice been taken
of them. Before I take leave of the subject, I wish to notice a few other
difficulties which oppose the consideration of this bill at this time,
and which spring from a source that will not be disregarded by the
majority of this House. It will be seen that the bill proposes a
reduction of our income, within the next eighteen months, of seven
millions. A very considerable portion of this reduction falls on the
receipts of the present year. The question I ask here is this : Can
the Treasury bear this curtailment of its resources now? To answer
this, I appeal to an authority which, for these last two years, has

214 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
never been questioned or doubted by the gentlemen who present
this bill to the House. I allude to the annual report of the Secre
tary of the Treasury, made on the 6th of December last.
The receipts into the Treasury, from all sources, during 1837,
are estimated at $24,000,000. I quote the very language of the
report. Gentlemen will find I am right, by reference to Document
No. 2 of this session, page 4. After enumerating the various
sources (such as customs, public lands, etc.,) from which this
amount is derived, the Secretary proceeds to compute the amount of
expenditures for the present year. I shall give his own language,
from the same document, page 5 :
"The expenditures for all objects, ordinary and extraordinary,
in 1837, including the contingent of only $1,000,000 for usual
excesses in appropriations, beyond the estimates, are computed at
$66,755,831, provided the unexpended appropriation at the end of
this and the next year remain about equal."
Here gentlemen will see that, instead of reducing the revenue
down to the wants of the Government, our income, from all sources,
in 1837, falls short of our expenditures, as estimated, nearly
$3,000,000. If the Secretary is right, (and will the gentlemen of
the majority be so bold as to say he is wrong?) then the effort
should be to increase the taxes, to raise the revenue up to the actual
wants of the Government. And, sir, if it were not for the five mill
ions, which are kept in reserve for extraordinary demands on the
Treasury by the deposit bill of last year, according to the calcula
tions of Mr. Woodbury, we should be compelled now to increase
the duties on foreign merchandise during the present year, or borrow
money to meet the demands on the Treasury. Let us see what the
Secretary further says, on page 5 of the same report. I again quote
his own words:
"From these calculations, it will be seen that, if the outstand
ing appropriations, unexpended at the close of 1837, be as large as
at the close of 1836, and the other expenditures should agree with
the above estimates, they would exceed the computed revenue accru
ing from all sources nearly $3,000,000, or sufficient to absorb more
than half of that part of the present surplus which is not to be
deposited with the several States. But if these outstanding appro
priations, at the close of 1837, should be much less than those in
1836, as is probable, or should the accruing receipts be much less,
or the appropriations made for 1837 be much larger than the esti-

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 215
mates, a cah will become necessary for a portion of the surplus
deposited with the States, though it wiU not probably become neces
sary, except in one of those events."
In the extract I have read, the Secretary has quite distinctly
told us that the probability is we shall not only absord all the accru
ing revenue, and the five millions not deposited with the States, by
the expenditures of 1837, but that the States will be called on to
repay a portion of the money deposited with them, to meet the
wants of the Government during the present year. How, sir, does
the pohcy of reducing the revenue, as proposed in this bih, agree
with this state of things ? Pass the bill, sir, and in eighteen months,
it is said, you will save in the pockets of the people seven millions,
which would otherwise be drawn from them by the laws now in
force. And, in the same time, if you place any confidence in the
Secretary of the Treasury, you will be compelled to take from the
people of the States (who are to have the use of the money depos
ited with them ) an equal amount, if not more. What a miserable
piece of bungling jugglery would this be ! You simply take seven
milhons out of one pocket of the people and put it into the other,
and gravely tell them you have saved to them seven millions of
money by the process. Sir, the people of the States are not to be
thus deceived. Let them look to this measure and its sure results.
It is designed to bring about a state of things which will compel a
call on them for the surplus revenue deposited with them, and which
I am happy to see their legislatures are using to the general advan
tage of their constituents.
But it is possible the friends of the Secretary will tell me his
conjectures and calculations are not to be relied on. Shall I receive
that answer from the gentlemen composing the majority here?
Whose authority is it that is thus to be contemned? The very man
whose behests have been laws to the Committee of Ways and Means
ever since I have had the honor to be one of them. Sir, I have
observed that it has been thought by that committee not only
unwise, but even contumacious, factious, rebellious, to oppose any
demand or to doubt any view taken by the Secretary of the Treas
ury. Nay, sir, I have thought sometimes that his friends on that
committee considered it conclusive evidence of essential vulgarity;
it was proof with them that a man had not seen "good society," if
he presumed to question the propriety of any estimate or any req
uisition coming from that high and responsible source. So preval-

216 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
ent were these opinions, that I fear I have sometimes yielded my
assent to appropriations merely to preserve my character for "gen-
tihty" with the " haul ton" who compose the majority here, as they
do in the committee of which I am a member. How is it, then,
that we are now to dismiss all regard to the suggestions of this
officer? Has not the President certified to you that he has dis
charged his duty with great ability and great fidelity ? Do we not
hear his friends everywhere extolling him to the skies for a prodigy
of financial wisdom? Did not the President select him for his great
and comprehensive knowledge of that most perplexing of all scien
ces — political economy ; for his large and accurate acquaintance with
the channels of trade and the sources of national wealth? Surely
no one of the majority will doubt this. Now, sir, what respect is
paid to his opinions, his "official opinions," by the bill and report
on your table ? True, it cannot be denied, for the President has said
it is so, that he has discharged his duty with fidelity. Is it not un
kind, then, in his friends, his "ministering servants "of the Ways
and Means, to treat his labors with such cruel indifference? See him
day and night watching the various currents of trade that bring
wealth to the people and revenue to the Treasury ; sacrificing his
ease and health to those ' ' thoughts which waste the marrow and con
sume the brain ;" year after year denying himself, with stoical forti
tude, the gayeties of this most refined and fashionable city, brood
ing with ceaseless and anxious care over the Treasury, if not the
treasure, he sits like "sad Prometheus fastened to his rock." And
now, sir, as if they were determined that this Titan of the Treasury
should realize the fate of this prototype of old, his ancient friends,
it seems, by some magical change, turn tormentors, and are prepared
to thrust their vulture-beaks into his liver, and, with remorseless
voracity, devour his flesh, without ever terminating his pain. Sir,
to drop figure, and speak in plain prosaic English, this bill asks you
to treat every opinion of the present Secretary as stupid nonsense,
and take as infallible truth the conjectures of this report in their
stead. I ask the friends of the Secretary if they are prepared for
this ; if not, they will vote with me to postpone the bill.
Let it be remembered that the Secretary of the Treasury, whose
views are diametrically opposed to the passage of any law looking to
a reduction of the revenue, has given his opinions only a month ago.
Surely he has not changed all his notions respecting our probable
receipts in 1837 since he published his last report. I should be glad

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 217
if my colleague (Mr. Hamer), who told us the other day "he had
lately been behind the curtain," would inform us whether, among
other precious secrets, he had heard anything of a total change of
the Secretary's opinions on this subject, within the last few weeks.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentlemen who have brought forward this
measure have emancipated themselves from all respect for the opin
ions and recommendations of your chief of finance — a respect bor
dering heretofore on absolute submission to his will — a httle atten
tion to documents emanating from a quarter still more venerated,
will exhibit them in an attitude of still more exalted independence.
They are, however, (if I may be pardoned a conjecture so uncharit
able ) scarcely entitled to a position so enviable as that of self-relying
and self-resolved freedom of action. Something of the dross of sel
fishness, unhappily for poor humanity, mingles in the composition
of the purest motives, and stains the glory of the most sublime
achievements. The committee have, I fear, betrayed something too
much of a quality, or to speak phrenologically, an organ, of com-
bativeness. They have not only spurned all the trammels of prece
dent, and despised all the opinions of the Secretary of the Treasury,
but determined that paradox should, in themselves at least, have the
merit of originality. They have set at naught, nay, scorned, the
^solemn injunctions of the President himself Thus, they may be
said to stand "alone in their glory." Sir, we have heard much of
General Jackson's system of administration. If any meaning is to
be attached to this word "system," which can stand against the arbi
trary dictation of party, it will be admitted that it implies a plan
which comprehends an order of proceeding by principles extending
over the time, at least, of a presidential term. In this view, we can
-at once see how great principles are as true and applicable in practice
in 1837 as they were in 1836. This being admitted, let us see how
the bill and report now before us harmonize with the doctrines on
the same subject, expressed in strong and earnest advice to Congress,
in the President's message a year ago. I quote the entire passage
from the message of 1836:
"Should Congress make new appropriations, in conformity with
the estimates which will be submitted from the proper departments,
-amounting to about twenty-four millions, still the available surplus,
at the close of the next year, after deducting all unexpended appro
priations, will probably not be less than six millions. This sum can,
in my judgment, be now usefully apphed to proposed improvements

218 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
in our navy-yards, and to new national works, which are not enumer
ated in the present estimates, or to the more rapid completion of
those already begun. Either would be constitutional and useful,
and would render unnecessary any attempt, in our present peculiar
condition, to divide the surplus revenue, or to reduce it any faster
than will be effected by the existing laws. In any event, as the
annual report from the Secretary of the Treasury will enter into
details showing the probability of some decrease in the revenue dur
ing the next seven years, and a very considerable deduction in 1842,
it is not recommended that Congress should undertake to modify the
present tariff so as to disturb the principles on which the Compro
mise Act was passed. Taxation on some of the articles of general
consumption, which are not in competition with our own produc
tions may be, no doubt, so diminished as to lessen, to some extent,
the source of this revenue; and the same object can also be assisted
by more liberal provisions for the subjects of public defense, which,
in the present state of our prosperity and wealth, may be expected
to engage your attention. If, however, after satisfying all the
demands which can arise from these sources, the unexpended balance
in the Treasury should still continue to increase, it would be better
to bear with the evil until the great changes contemplated in our tar
iff laws have occurred, and shall enable us to revise the system with
that care and circumspection which are due to so delicate and impor
tant a subject."
Here gentlemen will perceive that the bill and report are at war
with the President's opinion, solemnly expressed, on the same sub
ject. Mark, however, the terms employed to designate the act of
1833; he calls it the "Compromise Act'' As he anticipates a con
siderable reduction in our revenue during the next seven years, and
especially in 1842, he warns us "not to disturb the principles on
which the Compromise Act of 1833 was passed." Spoken like a
man sensible of the obligations of legislative and public faith ! Sen
timents worthy the chief magistrate of a nation governed by law,
whose duty .it is to see the obligations of law faithfully observed !
He speaks familiarly of the "principles" upon which the Compro
mise Act was passed. What does he mean by the "principles" of
that act? Nothing else than these mutual stipulations by the great
contending parties to that compact, providing for a stable, fixed rate
of duties, which should remain, as the act itself expresses it, till
June, 1842. The bill disregards the principles, or rather violates

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 219
and destroys, the principles, on which the Compromise Act was
passed. The report, instead of anticipating a reduction of revenue
by the laws now in force, goes about facilitating that reduction by
legislating in a way contrary to the whole tenor of the President's
opinion which I have quoted. Sir, I caU on the Chairman of the
W^ys and Means to say when, before now, he has ventured on a
system of pohcy not approved by the "speech from the throne." I
ask him why he did not bring forward this bill last year, when every
possible expedient was resorted to to get rid of a surplus, which was
about to go to the States, as it did go, under a law so odious to the
Prince Regent, who is to mount the throne the 4th of the coming
March? A bill reducing the revenue then would have saved the
troubles and dangers of a deposit with the States. That was the time,
if ever, to have urged its passage. Since the surplus has gone to the
States, no reason exists for reduction. Do not gentlemen see that a
most uncharitable view may plausibly be taken of their course? It
will be said, that as the President had forbidden you to disturb the
Compromise, and at that time had a year of his reign remaining, in
which his power of reward and punishment could be exerted, you
then dare not incur his displeasure ; but now, when only six weeks of
that reign are left, to be spent in the languor of convalescence, or it
may be in the agony of pain, you may treat the opinions of your old
chief with contempt, relying on the sure protection of the Executive
elect. Of the Chairman of the Ways and Means, (whom, if I may
not number among my friends, I cannot call my foe,) I fear it may
be said that his eye has been so dazzled by the glitter of expected
coronets, under the new reign, that he has lost sight of all regard for
the principles and authority of that which is now almost numbered
with the past. "High-reaching Buckingham grows circumspect."
What a striking exhibition is here of the emptiness and vanity of
earthly renown and mere human power! But yesterday, and, like
the mighty first Caesar, "the word of Andrew Jackson might have
stood against the world," and now, "none so poor as to do him rev
erence." Deserted by all his old and faithful followers, abandoned
by those adoring crowds of self styled Democrats, I alone, an obscure
and derided aristocrat from the far West, as our nomenclature has it,
I alone stand by the desolate old man, vindicating his opinions, and
stemming, as I best can, that torrent of contempt poured out by his
own former friends, which is likely to pursue and overwhelm him in
his retreat from the scene of his glory.

220 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COKWIN.
How are we to account for this singular event ? Singular indeed
it is, apparently, but really what was to be looked for. Politicians
who belong to what 1 may denominate, for the sake of distinction,
the school of idolatry, do not worship the setting, but always the
rising sun. No sooner, therefore, do we see the level beams of the
retiring hero's setting orb begin to melt into the twilight, than, as
we might expect, the thick crowds turn wistfully to a dubious and
uncertain dawn in an opposite quarter of the heavens. With char
acteristic fitfulness it now shoots a gleam of faint light above the
horizon, and anon withdraws it from sight. At last, "half con
cealed, half disclosed," it rises on the world, and hither the multi
tudes repair to "worship and adore."
Thus, and thus only, can we account, sir, for those eccentric
movements and strange contradictions which crowd themselves into
the annals of the little and great aspirants after the perishable honors
of this world ; and this bill we are to receive as the first offering upon
the altars erected to our new divinity. It is in this way our new
sovereign will signalize the beginning of his reign. He will destroy,
in the first year, three hundred millions of property, all for the good
of his loving subjects ; and, with the blessing of God, which may be
most reasonably expected to attend so beneficent a work, proceeding
at this rate, he will succeed, in his reign of four years, in destroying
twelve hundred millions of the nation's property. Thus will our
excellent Democratic Government enable our people to feel the force
of that consoling declaration of Scripture, "blessed are the poor.''
Mr. Speaker, I should be happy to spare myself the pain which
it always gives me to recur to former transactions in a way likely to
excite unpleasant feelings ; but I have the misfortune to differ with
the majority of a committee of which I am a member; I am there
fore compelled, in self-defense, to give every reason in my power for
the course my conscience impels me to pursue.
The House are already apprized that the bill on the table pre
supposes a surplus of revenue as certain to accrue within the next
eighteen months. The existence of this surplus is the evil the bill is
intended to prevent. Whether this apprehended surplus will accrue
is matter of opinion. I wish, then, to present another, and only
one other, document, to show the reliance to be placed upon the
opinions of that very majority of the Ways and Means, who now
require us, on the faith of their opinion and conjecture merely, to
pass this bill. Many gentlemen will remember that various projects

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 221
for the disposition of the surplus revenue were referred to this same
committee, composed of the same persons last year which now com
pose it. On the 1st of July, 1836, just before the close of the last
session, and only about six months ago, a report was made from
which I propose to read an extract. It will be seen by this extract
what were the opinions of the committee then, as to any surplus
which might possibly come into the Treasury, and also their prog
nostics as to the probability of such an event happening at all.
After disposing of a variety of topics, and reviewing our past
history, as usual, complaining with becoming indignation of bad cur
rency in England and America, and deploring the existence of an
evil spirit of speculation, notwithstanding the late death of the
United States Bank, the report concludes as follows:
"Our revenue from customs and public lands, after 1837, is not
likely to exceed the expenditures of Government. It is, therefore,
important that, whatever surplus we may have in the meantime,
whether deposited with the local banks or in the State treasuries, as
is proposed after the 1st of January next, should be preserved, to be
applied to the extraordinary purposes we have been compelled to-
provide for during this session, and for similar expenditures, which,
in the present state of our Indian relations, may again become nec
essary. On the balance in the Treasury on the 1st of January next,
and the revenue which may be received in 1837, there wih be
charged, in addition to the current expenditures of that year, and all
extraordinary demands that may occur, probably near fifteen millions
for appropriations authorized at the present session, making the
claims upon the Treasury in the next year greater than in the pres
ent, while the revenue of 1837 will be considerably less than that of
1836, and leaving the surplus at the close of that year much dimin
ished. As our income will not probably then exceed our current
expenditures, we must rely entirely upon what surplus we may have
to defray all expenses which may become necessary in extinguishing
Indian titles to lands, removing the tribes beyond the Mississippi,
and for other subjects of expenditure of an extraordinary character. "
I beg the House to notice with what oracular gravity the proph
ets then uttered their predictions: "Our revenue from customs and
public lands, after 1837, is not likely to exceed the expenditures of
Government." We are then kindly, but still peremptorily, admon
ished to husband our surplus, if any, to meet those exigencies which
every wise and considerate man should always be prepared to expect

222 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
in human concerns. Again, at the close we are thus addressed:
"As our income will not probably then exceed our current expendi
tures, we must rely entirely upon what surplus we may have to
defray all the expenses which may become necessary in extinguish
ing Indian titles to land," etc. So spoke the prophets six months
since ; and now, up jumps the Chairman of the Ways and Means,
"modest as Morning when she eyes the youthful Phoebus," and full
of the same inspiration that burned in the bosom of the seer in July
last ; and, in the same solemn prophetic tones, he tells us our income
will exceed our expenditures. Now we are admonished not to hus
band any surplus we may have, but to reduce the revenue by seven
millions in the next year and a half, so that no surplus whatever shall
remain. Sir, when I see with what ruthless hand the committee has torn
to pieces every shred of character, for either abihty or fidelity, of
the Secretary of the Treasury, and how, with the same destructive
appetency, they have trampled down the authority of the President
himself; and, lastly, when I see with what ridiculous gravity these
two reports of the same committee, differing only six months in
their ages, contradict each other, I hope the gentlemen will pardon
the degrading analogy, but really I can think of nothing like them
but the celebrated "cats of Kilkenny;" they have at last literally
swallowed each other. Sir, I have done with this subject. I know
I have detained the House already too long ; for this I must find an
apology in the fact that I had not the most distant thought of
addressing the House on this subject till the afternoon of yesterday.
Without further time for arrangement of topics, I could not hope to
preserve that order which is so favorable to brevity as well as per
spicuity. Let me again implore the House to put this subject at
-once at rest. The worst evil that can come is a surplus of a few
millions ; and even this the highest officer in the Government con
nected with your financial system tells you is impossible. But if it
should occur, send it, as you have done before, to the States, where
it can be used as well as kept. If this surplus is an evil, in that way
you can rid yourselves of it as easily as the shipwrecked apostle
shook off the serpent that fastened upon his hand. At all events,
let your people rest one year from your miserable experiments. Let
your former blunders teach you some caution. In your attempt to
bring about a gold currency, you have flooded the land with bank
notes. In destroying the United State Bank monoply, you have

ON THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 223
raised up a greater monopoly in public lands. Now you are to try
the experiment of breaking down what are caUed, in this report, the
"princely establishments of the North." Sir, you will not, cannot,
at least now, effect this last and most cruel experiment. Let us then
put this bill quietly to sleep somewhere; let it rest in peace till 1842 ;
then, perhaps, it may re-appear among us under other auspices, and
with better claims to our regard.

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD.

In the House of Representatives of the United States, Friday, April 20, 1838,
the House having again resumed the consideration of the bill making appropriations
for the continuation of the Cumberland Road through Ohio, Indiana and Illinois,
Mr. Corwin addressed the House as follows :
Mr. Speaker:
I perceive the House is unusually impatient of this debate. I
am very reluctant, at any time, to lift up my voice in this Babel of
confused voices, but especially so now ; nor would I delay the final
vote for a moment, did I not remember that this bill has been
already once rejected but a day or two since, and from the tone of
discussion this morning, I have too much reason to fear it will meet
a similar fate by the vote now about to be taken. I may add, also,
that I feel unwilling to permit the remarks of the two gentlemen
from South Carolina ( Mr. Clowney and Mr. Pickens ) to pass to the
press, and from thence into the public mind, without an attempt, at
least, to correct the erroneous impressions in which, according to
my views, they abound.
The bill now under discussion, for the continuation of the Cum
berland Road, is nothing more nor less than the continuance of a
system of regular annual expenditure, begun in 1806, and continued,
with the exception of the short period of the war with Great Britain,
every year up the present time. The estimates for this appropria
tion are as regularly and habitually sent in by the Treasury depart
ment as are those for the salary of the President and other public
servants, or those for the support of the army. If a continued per
severance in the prosecution of any public measure for thirty years
cannot be looked to as settling the public utility of such measure,
or the fixed policy and duty of this Government, beyond the reach
of cavil or objection, then, indeed, may it be truly said that we are
a people without common forethought, a Government without any
established policy, a confederacy without any common end or
aim whatever. l~l)

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. 225
The construction of the road provided for in this bill, from the
waters of the Atlantic to the Mississippi river, was originated during
the administration of Mr. Jefferson. It has received the countenance
of every shade and complexion of political party in Congress, at
various periods since, and has been sanctioned by the approval of
every Executive from that time to the present. It has thus become
incorporated with your policy. It makes a part of the creed of all
parties, and, as it advances in its progress, is woven into the texture
of those systems of internal improvement going forward in each of
the six States through which it passes. A measure thus persever-
ingly continued so long, sustaining itself, through perpetual conflicts,
and every vicissitude of our history for the last thirty years, comes
recommended at once to the mind as something necessary — some
thing which has been found indispensable, and not merely convenient.
It stands in your policy like one of those truths in philosophy which
is not questioned because it has received the general assent of all rea
sonable men. Speaking of such a measure, this morning, the gentle
man from South Carolina (Mr. Pickens, richly imbued as his mind is
with philological learning) could find no terms whereby to character
ize this bill less odious than swindling and plunder. Then by a dex
trous evasion of the substance, and a strict observance of the letter of
the rules of courtesy in debate, the gentleman has been able, by fair
inference, to denounce the supporters of the bill as the prompters of
"swindling," the aiders and abettors of "plunder." [Here Mr.
Pickens rose and observed that he had not applied the terms stated
by Mr. Corwin to the bill, or those who supported it. He had
stated, in argument, the case of a general system of taxation, and
an appropriation to partial and local purposes, and denominated that
as swindling and plunder.] I understand the gentlemen as he ex
plains himself He has made a speech against this bill. He
has endeavored to illustrate, in various ways, its iniquity and impol
icy. He denounces this road as local in its character, and not of
general utility. He shows that the money appropriated is a part of
the common revenue raised from the whole Union. He then speaks
of general taxation, and local appropriations, and calls this last a,
system of swindling and plunder. It is but the difference between a
positive assertion and a conclusion from premises stated. Sir, I
desire, when thus arraigned, to submit my defense. If I am not
mistaken, the gentleman will find this system, and this road, have
been cherished and heartily supported by men, living and dead, to
16

226 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
whom even he would be wiUing to defer in such matters, and with
whose memories and character he would not associate the folly and
criminality which, in his over-wrought zeal, he fancies he has discov
ered in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to elaborate an essay upon this
road, but I must be permitted to notice, for a few moments, the very
summary method by which gentlemen with great apparent ease
acquit their consciences of all censure for voting down now and for
ever all further appropriations of the kind. Yesterday the gentle
man from South Carolina [ Mr. Rhett ] spoke of the supposed im
portance of the road west of Wheeling for military purposes, as an
idea too ridiculous to merit a moment's serious thought. It seemed
to him perfectly idle to imagine that ordnance or military stores
would ever be transported by land westward while the Ohio river
remained, and so, with undoubting confidence and the utmost self
complacency, he assures us that a "fool's cap and bells" should be
bestowed upon any one who entertains a contrary opinion. Sir, I
hope I may be allowed, with great humility, not indeed to deny to
the conclusions of the gentleman the greatest certainty possible in
matters of this kind, but merely to suggest a fact or two which it
may be well to consider a moment before we swear to the infallibil
ity of his judgment on this millitary question. In the first place,
the road and river, though both running from' east to west, from
Wheeling to ¦ the Mississippi, are distanced from each other, from
north to south, from ninety to one hundred and fifty miles at various
points. I think it possible in the chances of war that it might be
come necessery to march a military force directly from Wheeling to
Columbus, in Ohio, or to the capitals of Indiana or Illinois, and to
take along with such force a train of artillery. Would the Ohio
river, think you, be so obliging as to leave its ancient bed and bear
your cannon on its waves across the country from Wheeling to
Columbus, in Ohio, and from thence by Indianapolis to Springfield,
in Illinois? If we could suspend the laws of the physical world, or
if a miracle could be wrought at our command, then the confident
opinion of the gentleman, that this road is, in no sense, of military
importance, would, in my poor judgment, appear somewhat plausible.
But the gentleman seems also to forget that the waters of the Ohio,
in spite of our wishes to the contrary, will freeze into hard ice. For
three months in the winter it is not at all times navigable. On
account of shoals it is not navigable at a time of low water in sum-

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. 227
mer. And hence it would follow, that your military movements in
that quarter, if ever necessary, would have to wait for the floods of
summer and the thaws of winter. But I will not venture to oppose
any speculative notions of mine to an opinion so confidently enter
tained by several gentlemen from the South who have spoken in this
debate. I will fortify myself by an authority which I am sure will
command, as I know it should, infinitely more regard than any opin
ion or argument of mine.
It will be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that this Government, soon
after the late war with Great Britain, admonished by the experience
of that war, determined on prosecuting a general system of military
defense. To this end. General Bernard was brought from France,
and placed at the head of the engineer corps. In the year 1824 it
became the duty of this officer, under the direction of Mr. John C.
Calhoun, then Secretary of War, to survey and report to Congress
such rivers to be improved, and canals and roads to be constructed
all over our territory, as were conceived to be of national importance
for commercial or military purposes. On the 3rd of December,
1824, Mr. Calhoun submitted to the President, and through him to
¦Congress, the result of the labors of this corps, accompanied with
his own reflections and recommendations. It will be found, on
•examining that document, that this very Cumberland road is classed
with other great works of internal improvement, which, in the opin
ion of Mr. Calhoun, were necessary to the defense of the country in
war, and that the road now under the consideration of the House is
there pronounced to be of "national importance." This was the
¦opinion of Mr. Calhoun in 1824. The construction of the Cumber
land road, as a work of commercial importance, as well as a sure
means of binding in union the Eastern and Western portions of our
country, had been urged upon Congress by Mr. Gallatin, as Secre
tary of the Treasury, as early as 1803, and by Mr. Giles and Mr.
John Randolph, of Virginia, in reports which they respectively sub
mitted to Congress about the same time. Before the navigation of
the rivers of the West by steam, no one could cast his eye upon the
map of the Western States, and not perceive at once the incalculable
value of this road to the commerce of both East and West. If the
application of steam to navigation has diminished the importance of
the road, this was known and considered by Mr. Calhoun, when he
made the report to which I have referred. In 1824 the steamboats
were flying on their wings of fire from Pittsburg to New Orleans, as

228 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
they are now; yet Mr. Calhoun pronounced the Cumberland road
tlien a work of "national importance." I beg the gentleman from
South Carolina, who spoke this morning [Mr. Pickens], to peruse
that report of his friend, Mr. Calhoun. I beg him to ponder well
the magnificent and expensive works of internal improvement there
commended to the favorable regard of this Government. The
waters of the Chesapeake and Ohio were to flow together. From
the Ohio the chain was to be stretched across that State to the north
ern lakes, and thus the North and South are to be bound up
together, one in their internal interests, as they are one and identical
in their national and extra territorial relations. But I need not par
ticularize ; what I have specified comprehends not the twentieth
part of those works in magnitude and expense then recommended
by Mr. Calhoun as proper to be constructed by the Federal Govern
ment, at the expense of the common Treasury of the nation.
The Cumberland road, as 1 have said, is one among the rest
there recommended as of "national importance." Mr. Speaker, I
must beg the indulgence of the House to read a single paragraph
from the document referred to. After speaking of the great advan
tages to the whole Union of one of the great Western works to
which I have already adverted, the Secretary proceeds:
"The advantages, in fact, from the completion of this single
work, as proposed, would be so extended and ramified throughout
these great divisions of our country, already containing so large a
portion of our population and destined in a few generations to out
number the most populous States of Europe, as to leave in that
quarter no other work for the execution of the General Government,
excepting only tlw extension of tlu Cumberland road from WJieeling to St.
Louis, which is also conceived to be of national importance."
Now, Mr. Speaker, if in the bill under discussion, there be any
feature akin to "swindling and plunder," I ask the gentlemen from
the South to return to that gigantic project of kindred works pro
jected by their own justly favorite son, and tell me in what vocabu
lary among the "tongues of men" they can find epithets odious
enough to shadow forth the diabolical tendencies of Ms plan. Sir, if
this bill be swindling, his scheme is robbery. If this bill be petty
plunder, his plan was wholesale desolation. But, good or bad,
whichever it be, we have his authority for it. Well do I remember,
sir, in what high esteem the Secretary of War [Mr. Calhoun] was
held throughout the West in the year 1824. The sober affections of

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. 229
the aged, and the ardent hearts of the young, all, all were attracted
to him. His altars blazed everywhere throughout the broad valleys
of the West. Right loyally and prodigally did we pour out our
incense upon our shrine ; and lo ! what now do we see ? While the
smoke of our sacrifice yet ascends in gathering clouds; while the
distended nostrils of our deity inhale its grateful odors almost to suf
focation; he, in whom our affections were all enshrined; he, the
author of this our faith; he, the chosen object, it may be, of our
very profane and heathenish, but sincere idolatry; he, with the
selected high-priests still of his faith, suddenly rush upon us from
the South, overturn their own altars, and scourge us, their mis
guided, but still honest, devotees, from the temple themselves had
erected. Not content with this, but determined, it seems, to con
sign both the authors and the followers of the creed to hopeless
infamy, they have compared their own system of policy to a system
of plunder, and themselves and us to a combination of swindlers.
Let not the gentlemen from the South suppose that I quote the
authority of Giles, and Randolph, and Gallatin, in 1802 and 1803,
and Mr. Calhoun as late as 1824, to fix upon Southern gentlemen
the sin of inconsistency, or sinister motives, for change of principle.
No, this is not my motive. I wish to convince, and not to taunt the
gentlemen. I wish them to pause upon their own present opinions,
and to compare them with the views of those, living and dead, to
whom I have referred, in the hope that in the light of those great
minds — that light that has been to them "a pillar of fire by night,"
in all their political wanderings heretofore — might, haply, now serve
to keep them in the right way. I beg the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Rhett], who so readily voted "cap and bells" to the
heads of such as entertained particular notions, which he condemned
of the utility of this road, to take back his gifts a moment, and see
whether he may not possibly be found unawares placing these
badges of imbecility and folly on the graves of Randolph and Giles ;
and whether, if he is to be impartial and just in the distribution of
such honors, he may not be compelled to pass over into the chamber
of the Senate, and bestow one set of them upon the illustrious Sena
tor from his own State. Mr. Speaker, I venture to suggest to the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Rhett], in a spirit of sincere
respect, that there is a posterity for him as well as those great and
good men whose opinions he sets at naught. I hope I may without
offense, suppose it possible that in some distant day, when this very

230 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
road, paved from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, shall be crowded
with commerce, and groan beneath its load of travel ; when, by the
speed with which your armies can pass over it, from the center to
the remote border of your country, some fearful rebellion is happily
quelled, or, for the same reasons, some insolent foreign foe is speed
ily repulsed, the age that then is may possibly remove the "cap and
bells " from the last resting-place of Giles and Randolph, where he
has hung them, and look for the tomb of another, as better deserv
ing the honor of these significant emblems. Sir, when I glance at
the history of this road ; when I remember that it was begun in the
administration of Jefferson, and approved by him ; when I group
together the other illustrious names who have for thirty years also
given it their sanction, I am prone to believe, my own judgment
concurring, that I am right in carrying on what has been thus begun.
I cannot reverse the settled and long unquestioned decisions of the
fathers and founders of the Republic, upon the faith of the last
night's dream. I cannot so readily believe that the sages of past
times violated the Constitution to make a road. I cannot see why,
if that were so, it has not been discovered in the lapse of thirty
years. Sir, I know much is said, and truly, at this day, of that
advance of the human mind. I know, sir, it was written thus long
ago, "Men shall go to and fro, and knowledge shall increase." All
this I know, and yet I cannot quite believe that us young gentlemen
here, in this year of grace, 1838, have now, this morning, descended
to the bottom of the well where truth lies, as is said, and for the first
time brought up and exposed her precious secrets to the long-an.x-
ious eyes of the inquiring world. Just as slow am I, Mr. Speaker,
to believe that the great men who gave us a country forty years ago,
did not understand what its true interests were. They who pro
jected this great work were not men to rush into hasty and ill-con
sidered measures. They had been accustomed to settle the founda
tions of society, and they did their work, in all things, under the
habitual reflection and responsibility which their immortal labors
inspired. Sir, let us beware, in the midst of our party conflicts,
how we hastily question their calm resolves. Let us take care, in
this day's work, with the hoarse clamor of party resounding ever in
our ears, that we are not deaf to the voice of wisdom, which ca^s
out to us from the past.
Mr. Speaker, I have thus far considered the bill upon your
table as providing for one work, itself a part of a system of "inter-

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. 231
nal improvement." I have referred so far to the opinions of men
whom we are accustomed to regard as good authority, to show that
the road in question has been regarded as one of national import
ance, and as such, is within the acknowledged powers of Congress.
But, sir, this bill rests its claims to our support upon a basis far less
liable to those assaults which consider it only in the isolated view of
expediency. It is, in truth, a bill for the fulfillment of a contract.
It proposes to carry into affect a compact, to the performance of
which the faith of this Government is pledged to three sovereign
States of this Union. I know, sir, that many gentlemen here are
familiar with this view of the subject, but I feel equally certain that
there are others who are not.
The gentleman from Kentucky [ Mr. Pope J the other day dis
cussed this branch of the subject with great ability, but I am im
pressed with the necessity of presenting it more at length, even at
the risk of being tedious. I shall endeavor, by a reference to acts
of Congress and public documents, to show that we are bound to
construct this road as far as the Mississippi river; that we have con
tracted to do so ; that we have received the consideration for this
contract from the States of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. If I can es
tablish these as facts, it will follow that to stop the road short of the
Mississippi would be a gross neglect of duty, and a flagrant breach
of national faith.
In the year 1787, "the territory northwest of the Ohio," com
prehended what are now the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michi
gan and Wisconsin territory. The celebrated ordinance of 1787,
among other things, provided that there should be three States at
least out of this territory, which should be bounded by the Ohio
river on the south, the Mississippi on the west, and a specified line
on the north. This last line, many gentlemen here will recollect,
was finally estabhshed as the northern boundary of Ohio, Indiana
and Illinois, very lately, on the admission of Michigan into the
Union. Early in the year 1802 the eastern division of this territory peti
tioned Congress to provide for its admission into the Union, under
the ordinance of 1787, which provided that certain portions of the
territory, having 60,000 inhabitants, should be entitled to come into
the Union as sovereign States. This application, with a census
showing the number of inhabitants then within what are the present
limits of Ohio, was referred to a committee in the House of Repre-

232 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
sentatives, of which William B. Giles, of Virginia, was the chairman.
On the 4th of March, 1802, Mr. Giles made a favorable report
on this petition, and, among other things, referring to certain mat
ters of compact, in the ordinance of 1787, the report concludes in
these words:
"The committee, taking into consideration these stipulations,
viewing the lands of the United States within the said territory as an
important source of revenue ; deeming it also of the highest import
ance to the stability and permanence of the union of the Eastern and
Western parts of the United States, that the intercourse should, as
far as possible, be facilitated, and their interests be liberally and mu
tually consulted and promoted — are of opinion that the provisions of
the aforesaid articles may be varied for the reciprocal advantage of
the United States and the State of  , when formed, and the
people thereof; they have therefore deemed it proper, in lieu of said
provisions, to offer the following propositions to the convention of
the Eastern State of said territory, when formed, for their free
acceptance or rejection, without any condition or restraint whatever,
which if accepted by ilie convention, shall be obligatory o?i tlie United
States." The report then sets forth three propositions to be submitted to
the Ohio convention ; the third proposition being the one appHcable
to th's subject, is in these words:
"That one-tenth part of the net proceeds of the lands lying
in the said States, hereafter sold by Congress, after deducting all
expenses incident to the same, shall be applied to the laying out and
making turnpike or other roads leading from the navigable waters
emptying into the Atlantic to the Ohio, and continued afterward
through the State of  , such roads to be laid out under the author
ity of Congress, with the consent of the several States through which
the road shall pass, provided that the convention of said State shall
on its part assent that every and each tract of land sold by Congress
shall be and remain exempt from any tax laid by order or under
authority of the States, whether for State, county, or township, or
any other purpose whatever, for the term of ten years from and after
the completion of the payment of the purchase money on such tract
to the United States."
Attached to this report is an official letter addressed by Mr.
Gallatin, then Secretary of the Treasury, to Mr. Giles, dated Wash
ington, 13th February, 1802. Mr. Gallatin, deeply impressed with

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. 233
the advantage to the Government of this contract with the new
State, urges it upon Congress as a means of increasing the value of
the pubhc lands owned by the Government, and then pledged for
the payment of the national debt. After stating a variety of argu
ments to that effect, he says :
' ' It follows that, if it be in a high degree, as I believe it is, the
interest of tJu United States to obtain some further security against an
injurious sale, under the Territorial or State laws, of lands sold by
them to individuals, justice, not less than policy, requires that it
should be obtained by common consent, and it is not to be expected
that the new State Legislatures should assent to any alterations in
their system of taxation which may effect the revenues of the State,
unless an equivalent is offered."
He then goes on to insist that
"Suck conditions, instead of diminishing, would greatly hurease the value of
the lands, and, therefore, of the pledge to the public creditors."
The last paragraph in this document urges another argument in
favor of this road, which I hope will not be overlooked by gentle
men who consider it a boon merely to the young States of the West.
Mr. Gallatin thought this road would be highly advantageous to the
old States, and he addresses their cupidity accordingly, in these
words :
"The roads will be as beneficial to the parts of the Atlantic
States through which they are to pass, and nearly as much so to a con
siderable portion of tlie Union, as the Northwestern Territory itself"
On the 30th of April, 1802, an act was passed authorizing the
people of the eastern division of the Northwestern Territory to form
a Constitution and State Government. In that law the proposition,
somewhat modified, is inserted and by Congress proposed to the
Convention which was to assemble the next summer. In the act just
quoted, five per cent, of the proceeds of the lands within the State
are proposed as a fund to make a road "from the Atlantic waters to
and through the State, and the condition of the grant is, that the State
shall abstain from taxing the lands sold by the United States for fve
years from and after the day of their sale."
In the month of November, 1802, the Convention of Ohio
assented to the proposition contained in the act of April, 1802, with
this modification : That three-fifths of the five per cent, fund should
be appropriated to laying out and making roads within the State, and
under its direction and authority, leaving two per cent, on all the

234 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
sales of land within the State to be appropriated to a road leading
from the Atlantic waters to and through tlu State of Ohio. To this
Congress expressly assented at its next session, upon the recommen
dation of a committee, of which John Randolph, of Virginia, was
the chairman, and thus the compact was closed. Here let it be
observed that compacts, of the same kind and in the same words,
have been concluded between the States of Indiana and Illinois, and
this Government, at the times when these States were respectively
admitted into the Union. In this way, following up the project
begun in 1802, of constructing a road "from the Atlantic waters to
the Mississippi river,'' passing from the Ohio the whole distance to
the Mississippi, through your own public lands, it was carried out by
compact with each State, as soon as it became capable of entering
into such engagements, by assuming the powers and dignity of a
sovereign State of the Union.
I have said, Mr. Speaker, that you had contracted to construct a
road from the Atlantic waters, through the new States of the \\'est,
to the Mississippi river. I have shown, by reference to public docu
ments, that the motives to this contract were, first, to increase the
value of the public domain, to and through which this road was to
pass, and thus put money into the national purse, to pay the national
debt ; secondly, to bind together in union of interest the East and
West, by creating a quick and constant intercourse between the
Western and Atlantic divisions of your common country. Now the
first main object, the increase in value of the public lands, never
could be effected, unless you carried the road, not merely ' ' to and
though" Ohio, where, in 1802, your public lands for sale chiefly lay,
but would only be fairly realized by carrying the road "to and
through " each of the other Western States, as your lands, by the
extinguishment of the Indian title in these States, should come into
market. These were the views upon which you set out, in your
propositions of compact, at first. These were your "inducements"
held out to Ohio, and repeated in each of your engagements to
make the Cumberland road with Indiana and Illinois. With these
determinations, asserted through your public and authorized agents,
you ask of the Western States, in consideration of inducements thus
held out, to do what? To grant you a trifling sum of money to aid
you in your effort to improve the value of your own lands? No.
To allow you to pass through their territory in such way as you
choose? No. No such inconsiderable demands as these were on

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. 235
your lips. You demanded of them to surrender up for your ben
efit the tax on nearly all the property in these States for five years.
In other words, you asked, and you received, too, into the public
Treasury of the Union, a direct tax for five years on all, or nearly
all, the lands in three large and populous States. You said to the
purchaser of your lands, buy of us, and your property thus acquired
shall be free from taxation for five years ; and thus you got an
increase of price paid to you, what otherwise would have gone, in
the shape of taxes, into the coffers of the States. This is true in
regard to almost all the lands in the three States of Ohio, Indiana
and Illinois. Each of these States was admitted into the Union
with barely sixty thousand inhabitants. The quantity of lands then
sold was so inconsiderable as to make no sort of change in the esti
mated value of the right we surrendered. Take Ohio, for example :
She gave up to you her right to tax all lands then unsold for five
years after they should be sold. She had then sixty thousand inhab
itants, she has now probably one million and a half of population,
and there are yet public lands unsold in that State. Thus you can
see that we have released to you our right to tax lands in the hands
of nineteen-twentieths of our people for five successive years. This,
too, was done at a time when there was scarcely any other subject of
taxation but lands, and when, in the infancy of our several State
governments, the first movements of political and social machinery
require heavy expense from those least able to bear it. Let us see
what it was in money that we gave. It will be found, on examina
tion, that the three States interested cover an area, according to the
best authorities, of something over one hundred and twenty millions
of acres of land. Deducting something for reservations made before
the compact, we may safely estimate the lands then to be sold in the
three Western States at one hundred and twenty millions of acres.
We gave up the right to tax these for five years from the day of sale.
What has been the usual rate of taxation upon lands in these States ?
I think I may fairly affirm that the rate of taxation on lands in the
three States interested has been one dollar on every hundred acres.
This, levied on one hundred and twenty millions of acres, would
give one milhon two hundred thousand dollars per annum, which, in
five years, the time for which the tax was surrendered by the States,
would give the sum of six millions of dollars. This sum have we
paid into your Treasury for your promise to complete the road in
question. In addition to this, we surrendered our sovereign right

236 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
of taxation within our own limits — a right itself so dear to States
that, as matter of pride, just pride, its surrender could only have been
extorted by the strongest hope of advantage — the hope of some
great and striking improvement in our whole country, such as this
great work will be when you complete it, as you have promised.
Mr. Speaker, I have shown that the three Western States have
given into the National Treasury, in effect six millions of dollars, for
the promise to construct this road. Let us now advert for a moment
to the cost of the work as estimated at the time of the contract, and
we shall find that the Government then understood that this sum
would construct the road from the Atlantic waters to the Mississippi ;
nay, that in all probability there would be a surplus remaining in the
Treasury after the road was finished. The kind of road, its location,
and the time of its completion, were all left with this Government to
be adjusted, under a fair interpretation of the compact. After
proper examination, it was determined to commence at Cumberland,
and strike the Ohio line at Wheeling, in Virginia.
On the 3rd of March, 1808, Mr. Gallatin, then Secretary of the
Treasury, reports to Congress that the road had been located from
Cumberland toward Wheeling, a distance of seventy miles, and adds
the expense of completing that part of the road is estimated at
$400,000. This estimate shows that the average estimated cost of
the road, over by far the most expensive part of it, was a trifle less
than six thousand dollars per mile. The whole length of the road,
from Cumberland to the Mississippi, as surveyed, is six hundred and
fifty miles ; it may be a mile or two more or less. Now, take the
estimated cost per mile, as reported by Mr. Gallatin, which was for
the mountain region entirely, and remember that one half less, it
was supposed, would suffice to make the road across the level plains
of the West, and we shall see at once how reasonable it is that the
Congress of that day, after receiving what was equivalent to si.x
millions of dollars, should make an unconditional promise to con
struct the road to the Mississippi river.
The contract, as then understood from the estimate, was simply
as follows :
Value of the tax released in favor of the Federal Government
by the three Western States, . . . . § 6,000,000
Cost of the road 650 miles, at $G,000 per mile, according to
Mr. Gallatin's estimate for the first 70 miles, . . 3,900,000

% 2,100,000

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. 237
Leaving two millions in the Treasury, after making the road as then
estimated. Upon this view, founded on facts and representations of
public men, cotemporaneous with this compact, it is clearly shown
that the States paid the Federal Government what the parties then
believed a fuU consideration for completing the road the entire dis
tance proposed. From this, what follows? Why, surely, that the
Government promised to do what in conscience it ought, that is, to
do the act which they were paid for doing — to make the road com
plete according to the contract.
But here, Mr. Speaker, I am told that whatever may have been
the reasonable expectations of the parties, as to the completion of
this work, when the contract was made, the Government only bound
itself to appropriate two per cent, of the net proceeds of the public
lands, and that this has been done, and no moneys remain of this
fund applicable to the purposes of the contract. To this I reply,
that such is not the contract, and I think I have shown this from the
proofs already adduced. I grant you that two per cent, of the net
proceeds of the public lands are pledged for the performance of
your promise to make the road; but this pledge does in no sense
limit the contract for which it is only a mere security. Let it be
remembered that, when this contract was made, the public lands
were pledged for the payment of a large national debt. To increase
the value of these lands was one motive to make the road, and the
States aided you in this, paid you for it, by relinquishing the taxes
on them for five years after sale ; it was, therefore, only fair, as the
Government was deeply in debt, that the States should have some
security for the performance of your contract. This security was
given by pledging the two per cent, named in the contract. But it
was not the contract, it was only a security given to the States for
its faithful performance. This interpretation is fortified by other
stipulations in the contract. The time, manner and location of the
road are aU left to the General Government. Why was this?
Because you had bound yourselves, in general terms, to make a
road. And it was, therefore, only reasonable that you should have
control over a work which you bound yourselves to finish. Had you
bound yourselves only to pay, for the purposes of the work, a spec
ified sum, such as the two per cent, mentioned, is it possible to sup
pose the States would have left you to appropriate tlieir money, for
which they paid you, myour own way, and according to your own
discretion? Such a contract, on the part of the States, would have

238 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
been absolute insanity. It involves an absurdity too gross for
serious consideration. This itself shows that the two per cent, fund
was only a pledge, a security, and not, as some have supposed, the
contract itself Thus you have always construed the contract.
According to your own admission, you have gone on to make the
road without regard to the two per cent. fund. You say vastly more
than this has been expended. Why did you do this, if only two
per cent, on the sales of lands were to be given to the road? No
rational answer can be given to this question, but one. The two per
cent, did not limit the contract, it only secured its performance ; and
this has been your own uniform construction of it, as evinced by all
your conduct up to this day, throughout a lapse of more than thirty
years. Let me suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the two per cent, fund was
all you promised, which, however, I by no means admit. You say
it was to be expended by you ; you are the trustee of the fund, and
the agent for its appropriation. Be it so, then, for the sake of the
argument. What was this fund committed to your charge? Two
per cent, upon the sales of one hundred and twenty millions of acres
of land. This you were bound to sell for §2 per acre, for this was the
price fixed by law at the time of the contract. This would produce
$240,000,000. Two per cent, upon this would be §4,800,000.
You had estimated the road to cost $3,900,000. Thus you see that,
by every calculation based upon the state of things as existing at
the date of the contract, the States and yourselves had a right to
suppose that, happen what might, if you acted up to your engage
ments, the road would be made. But $2 per acre was then the min
imum price of the land, and we, being interested in the fund, had,
and now have, a right to demand of you that you, as trustee, shall get
as much more as possible, by selling all the land at auction in the
way fixed by law as it then stood. Now let us see how you have com
plied with the law and reason of this contract in the management of
this fund given in trust for its execution. In the first place you
sank the value of the fund nearly one-half by reducing the price of
the land from $2 to .?1,25 per acre. In the second place, you have
given away immense amounts of this fund in bounty lands to sol
diers, which you can never sell, and for which you can render no
account. Thirdly, you have given to individuals, for purposes
unconnected with this contract, a very large amount which never has
or can be accounted for upon the principles of your solemn engage-

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. 239
ments with us. Fourthly, you have given very large amounts to the
States to make canals, exacting from them as an equivalent the right
to carry your mails, arms, armies and munitions of war on them free
of tolls forever. Fifthly, you have given away many millions of
acres in preemption claims, at the minimum price, without any
attempt to sell, and account (as you were bound to do) for the pro
ceeds. Thus you, our agent to manage a fund destined to make our
road, have so wasted it, and used it for your own purposes, that you
never can tell whether it would have produced the expected amount
or not. What is the consequence in law, in reason, in justice?
What follows? Why, sir, any justice of the peace can tell you.
You, the agent, must answer for this by replacing, out of your own
funds, what you have wrongfully taken from us. But as you have
so disposed of the trust fund that you never can tell what, if sold at
auction, it would have produced, and so cannot, by any certain rule,
therefore, ascertain the amount you have taken wrongfully from us,
you must suffer the inconvenience; you must take from your own
funds, and do what, when you contracted with us, you affirmed this
wasted fund would do, that is, complete the road in question from
Cumberland to the banks of the Mississippi river.
Is not this equitable, fair, honorable, just? Why then stick in
the bark? as the lawyers say. Why these pettifogging quibbles,
these dilatory pleas? Does such conduct become a great nation?
Sir, it has been said that honor is the vital principle of monarchy.
You say you represent sovereigns — the sovereign people. Act then
as becomes the dignity of your royal constituents. Leave no room
to doubt your probity. Observe fully and entirely the faith of your
promise whenever made. No such thing, says the gentleman from
South Carolina, [Mr. Clowney] this morning. If you have made a
contract, no matter, you had no constitutional power to do so, there
fore cease your efforts to fulfill your engagements. And there the
gentleman would stop ; he goes no further. What a beautiful exam
ple of political morality would you then exhibit ! Some years ago
you entered into a contract, a treaty, with three sovereign States.
You have received from them all they agreed to give you. You
have tlieir money in your pockets. Now you turn to these States,
with all seeming honesty, and say, true, I promised, but I had no
right to promise, my conscience is affected, I have sinned, I repent, I
will do so no more, but I wih keep your money. I cannot violate
my conscience by doing as I agreed. Oh, no, that is too wicked ; I

240 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
pray you do not ask it ; but still I shall keep the money you paid me.
Yesterday my friend from Kentucky [Mr. Calhoun], with a power
of argument and generosity of sentiment equally honorable to his
head and heart, spoke in favor of this bill ; he adverted to certain
objections made by his colleagues [Messrs. Graves and Underwood].
They had opposed the bill as partial in its operation, as giving to the
three States through which the road passes a disbursement of money
which Kentucky was not permitted to enjoy. He said the disburse
ments in Indiana would flow into Louisville, in Kentucky, where
goods and even liquors would be bought, with which the labor on
the road would be paid. Upon this another gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Pickens] takes fire. "This," said he, "shows the
demoralizing tendency of the system ! This is the motive to vote
appropriations, that money be raised to buy whisky for the poor
laborer to drink !" Sir, I have no objection to the gentleman's moral
lectures, but do not see the necessity of throwing his moral sensibili
ties into convulsions at the sight of a glass of punch, while he can
look with a sanctimonious composure at broken promises and vio
lated national faith.
Mr. Speaker, I have one word to say, before I sit down, to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Underwood]. He spoke the other
day in opposition to this bill. He did not deny that the Cumber
land road might be useful ; but, as he could obtain no money here to
enable his people to build dams and make slack-water navigation on
Green river, he would not help us to make a road on the northern
side of the Ohio. And then the gentleman proceeded in a grave
disquisition upon our constitutional powers to make roads and im
prove rivers. What says the Constitution? "Congress shall have
power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among tlie several
States, and with the Indian tribes?" What is the gentleman's com
mentary? "You have," says he, "a clear and undoubted right to
improve rivers, but not so of roads." And why, Mr. Speaker,
why? Do you, sir, remember the reason for this distinction? It
was this: "Providence," says the gentleman, "has marked out riv
ers as the proper channels and avenues of commerce." What a
beautiful and exalted piety is here shedding its clear light upon the
dark mysteries of constitutional law ! And then how logical the con
clusion ! Thus runs the argument: "Since it is not the will of God
that commerce should be carried on on dry land, but only on the
water, the powers over commerce, given in the Constitution by our

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. 241
pious ancestors, must be understood as limited by the Divine com
mands; and therefore," says he, "you have power to remove sand
bars and islands, and blow up rocks out of rivers and creeks, to
make a channel which Providence has begun and left unfinished ; but
beware," he would say, "how you cut down a tree, or remove a
rock, on the dry land, to complete what Providence has begun there.
You have no power by law to do this last ; beside, it is impious, it is
not the will of God."
Mr. Speaker, I know of no parallel to this charming philosphy,
unless it be found in the sayings of Mause Hedrigg, an elderly Scotch
lady, who figures in one of Sir Walter Scott's novels. In one of
her evangelical moods, she rebuked her son Cuddie for using a fan,
or any work of art, to clean his barley. She said it was an awsome
denial o' Providence not to wait his own time, when he would surely
send wind to winnow the chaff out of the grain. In the same spirit
of enlightened philosophy does the gentleman exhort us in Ohio,
Indiana and Illinois to cease our impious road-making, and wait the
good time of Providence, who will, as he seems to think, surely send
a river to run from Cumberland over the Alleghanies, across the
Ohio, and so on, in its heaven-directed course, to St. Louis. Mr.
Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky is not the author of this
theory. Our Atlantic brethren, especially of the South, have long
held the same doctrine. They have long since discovered that our
glorious Constitution was nothing more at last than a fish ! made for
the water, and which can only live in the water. According to their
views, he is a goodly fish, of marvelous proper uses and functions
while you keep him in the water ; but the moment he touches dry
land, lo ! he suffocates and dies. The only difference between this
school of constitutional lawyers and the gentleman from Kentucky is
this : he believes your Constitution is a fish that thrives in all waters,
and especially in Green river slack-water; whereas, his brethren of
the South insist that he can only live in salt water. With them the
doctrine is, wherever the tide ceases to flow he dies. He can live
and thrive in a little tide creek, which a thirsty mosquito would drink
dry in a hot day ; but place him on or under the majestic wave of
the Mississippi, and in an instant he expires. Mr. Speaker, who
can limit the range of science? What hand can stay the march of
mind? Heretofore we have studied the science of law to help us in
our understanding of the Constitution. Some have brought meta
physical learning to this aid. But now, in the middle of the nine-
17

242 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
teenth century, these labors are all ended. Ichthyology, sir, is the
key to open all the doors that have hitherto barred our approaches
to truth. According to this new school of philosophy, if you just
teach coming generations the "nature of fish," those great problems
in constitutional law that vexed and worried the giant intellects of
Hamilton, Madison and Marshall, are at once revealed and made plain
to the dullest peasant in the land. Sir, if I appear to trifle with
this grave subject, the fault is not mine; it arises from the singular
nature and contrarient character of those arguments which I am most
unwillingly compelled to combat.
The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Underwood] has inquired,
with a very significant look, what has become of the three per cent
fund, given to the States for improvements within their respective
limits. He says he has inquired of the Secretary of the Treasury,
and he can give him no account of the disposition the Western
States may have made of this fund, and hence the gentleman seemed
to infer that no one could tell him anything satisfactory on the sub
ject Sir, if your Secretary of the Treasury is the only source of
information, then are the fountains of knowledge scanty indeed, and
nearly dried up with us. If everything is unknown which he does
not know, if we can see nothing which has not been revealed to him,
why, then, the Lord help us; the lights of the age burn dimly
enough, and must be well-nigh extinct. Sir, if the gentleman,
instead of consulting the "Penny Magazine" of the Treasury, had
gone to the libraries of this city, and looked into the statistics of
these States, he would have found that this fund had been faithfully,
to the last dollar, expended in making roads "to and through" the
public lands in the States ; thus increasing the value and hastening
the sale of your national property. The gentleman reproaches the
three States on the right bank of the Ohio for having obtained from
the national domain large grants for making roads and canals. Does
not the gentleman know that in every instance you have received an
equivalent for these lands, by obtaining from the States or companies
the right to carry your mails, arms, troops and munitions of war,
over such roads or canals, at all times free of charge? If you
gave the alternate sections of land for a road or canal, you held up
the remaining section at double your minimum price, and have
always realized it, and thus made money for yourselves out of the
capital and labor of the States, while you boast the transaction as a
benevolence to others.

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. 243
But, sir, Kentucky should be the last State in the Union to
raise an argument of this kind against her sisters of the West.
How came she by the whole of that very Green river country which
now comprises one-fourth of that State ? Virginia had reserved that
territory to satisfy her Revolutionary debt to her troops. When she
ceded the Northwestern territory to the United States, she reserved
the land between the Little Miami and Scioto rivers ( now in Ohio )
as a residuary fund for the satisfaction of her Revolutionary land
warrants ; if the lands reserved for that purpose in Kentucky should
prove insufficient. Well, sir, what happened? Soon after this,
Kentucky seized upon the whole Green river country, and refused to
the war-worn veteran of the Revolution the right to locate his war
rants there. The consequence was, the whole country reserved in
Ohio was exhausted, and the Virginia claims, to the amount of
many millions, have been lately paid of the Treasury of the Union
in the shape of land scrip. Sir, I have said this domain, thus seized
by Kentucky, was equal to one-fourth part of the State. Now, sup
pose you had given to Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, what Kentucky
received — one-fourth part of all the lands within their respective
limits — sir, it would have constructed this road through their terri
tories ten times over. And yet, with these facts all before him, the
gentleman sits weeping over the dams and slack-water of Green river
like a froward child, spoiled by too much indulgence, complaining of
its mother's partiality to the reahy much less favored members of
our common family. Sir, this is unlike Kentucky; it is unlike the
uniform justice and generosity of both the gentlemen [Messrs.
Graves and Underwood], who have so vehemently opposed this bill.
I beseech them to desist. Cease to drive this Jew's bargain with
your sister States. Relax the miser's grip you have laid upon your
neighbor's rights. Throw away the knife of Shylock, clothe your
selves in the robes of justice and generosity. Stand out in your
true characters, and in the proper costume of your noble State.
Look upon this bill with the eye of the American statesman. The
interests of the whole valley we inhabit in common are the same.
You cannot separate them by lines or rivers. Sir, the same cloud
that dispenses its fertilizing showers upon Kentucky, drops fatness
upon the States of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The same sun that
warms vegetation into early and vigorous life on the rich plantations
of Kentucky, also mellows the fruit and ripens the harvests that
cover the vast plains outstretched upon the right bank of the Ohio.

244 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
The God of Nature has decreed us a common lot, and it is vain and
impious to interpose our feeble opposition to His will.
Mr. Speaker, some gentlemen have complained that one section
of land out of every thirty-six has been given to the Western States
for the use of common schools. Do gentlemen recollect to whom
this benefit results ? Who are they that inhabit the great valleys of
the West? Emigrants surely from the old States of the South and
East The children to be educated there are your children. Sir, we
heard (some at least) an English gentleman [Mr. Buckingham], in
one of his interesting lectures lately delivered in this city, say, when
speaking of British emigration to America, that he was sorry they
had not sent to this country better specimens of their population.
Sir, I can say to my friends on this side of the mountains, with equal
sincerity, as to some of those you sent out, " I am sorry you did not
send us better specimens." But the truth is, we get in the West the
very best and the very worst of your population. The poor come
there for bread, and the enterprising and industrious come to find a
field which gives ample scope to their energies and rewards to their
labor. This fund, then, is for the education of the poor, and the rich,
too, if any such there be, which you send in masses every year to the
West. And I can assure gentlemen it has been faithfully applied in
Ohio. It has been added to by heavy taxation upon our people.
Some gentlemen (I speak it in no spirit of pride or vain boasting),
some gentlemen from the old States might learn something new to
them in the history of civilization, would they but visit that Western
world, of which they often seem to me to know very little. They
might see there, in the very spot where but yesterday the wild beasts
of the wilderness seized their prey by night, and made their covert
lair by day, on that same spot to-day stands the common school-
house, filled alike with the children of the rich and poor — those chil
dren who are to be the future voters, officers and statesmen of the
Republic. Over that vast region, so lately red with the blood of
savage war, the seed-fields of knowledge are planted, and a smiling
harvest of civilization springs up. And there, too, may be seen
what a Christian statesman might well admire. The school-master is
not alone. That holy religion, which is at last the only sure basis of
permanent social or political improvement, has there its voices crying
in the wilderness. Upon the almost burning embers of the war-fire,
round which some barbarous chief but yesterday recounted to his
listening tribe, with horrid exultation, his deeds of savage heroism.

ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. 245
to-day is built a temple dedicated to that religion which announces
"peace on earth and good will toward men." Yes, sir, all over that
land, side by side with the humble school-house, stand those
" Steeple-towers,
And spires whose silent finger points to Heaven."
Is it, sir, can it be in the heart of an American statesman, to
check in its progress, or crush in its infancy, a social and political
system which has tendencies and fruits like this? But, sir, I find
myself tempted, by themes so full of hope, to wander, as some may
think, into subjects having a bearing upon the immediate question,
too remote to justify their discussion here. I beg to remind this
House that the bill now before it is a part, small, indeed, but stiU a
part of a system of policy which long ago you established for the
Western country, which hitherto you have cherished, and which,
aided by the patient, persevering labor of your people there, has
produced the happy results which I have so hastily and imperfectly
laid before you. I feel an assured confidence that I do not plead in
vain to an American Congress in such a cause. Still, should I unhap
pily be mistaken in this, conscious of the rectitude of my own
motives, I shall cheerfully submit to whatever decision it shall please
the House to make.

REPLY TO GENERAL CRARY.

On the 14th of February, 1840, the Hon. Isaac E. Crary, of Michigan, having
in the course of his remarks in Committee of the Whole — on referring the memorial of
the National Road Convention, held at Terre Haute, Indiana, to the Committee of
Ways and Means, animadverted upon the Military conduct of Gen. Harrison, Mr. Cor
win, on the next day, addressed the House as follows :
Mr. Speaker: I am admonished, by the eager solicitations of gentlemen
around me to give way for a motion to adjourn, of that practice of
the House which accords us more of leisure on this day than is al
lowed us on any other day of the week. The servants of other good
masters are, I believe, indulged in a sort of saturnalium in the after
noon on Saturday ; and we have supposed that our kind masters, the
people, might be willing to grant us, their most faithful slaves, a sim
ilar respite from toil. It is now past three o'clock in the afternoon,
and I should be very willing to pause in discussion, were I not urged
by those menacing cries of "Go on," from various parts of the
House. In this state of things, I cannot hope to summon to any
thing like attention the unquiet minds of many, or the jaded and
worn-down faculties of a still larger portion of the House. I hope,
however, the House will not withhold from me a boon which I have
often seen granted to others, that is, the privilege of speaking with
out being oppressed by a crowded audience, which is accompanied
by this additional advantage, that the orator, thus situated, can at
least listen to and hear himself
If you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House, have
given that attention to the speech of the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Crary], made yesterday, which some of us here thought it our
duty to bestow, I am sure the novelty of the scene, to say nothing
more of it, must have arrested your curiosity, if, indeed, it did not
give rise to profound reflection.
I need not remind the House that it is a rule here Cas I suppose

REPLY TO GENERAL CRARY. 247
it is everywhere else where men dispute by any rule at all ) that what
is said in debate should be relevant and pertinent to the subject
under discussion. The question before us is a proposition to instruct
the Committee of Ways and Means to report a bill granting four
hundred and fifty thousand dollars to continue the construction of
the Cumberland road in the States of Ohio, Indiana and lUinois.
The objections to the measure are, either that this Government is in
no sense bound by compact to make the road, or that it is not a
work of any national concern, but merely of local interest, or that
the present exhausted state of the Treasury will not warrant the
appropriation, admitting the object of it to be fairly within the con
stitutional province of Congress.
If the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Pickens], and the
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Parris], who consider the Cumberland
road a " work of mere sectional advantage to a very small portion of
the people, have attended to the sage disquisitions of the gentleman
from Michigan on the art of war, they must now either come to the
conclusion that almost the whole of the gentleman's speech is what
old-fashioned people would call a "no7i sequitur," or else that this
road connects itself with not merely the military defenses of the
Union, but is interwoven most intimately with the progress of sci
ence, and especially that most difficult of all sciences, the proper
application of strategy to the exigencies of barbarian warfare. It
will be seen that the far-seeing sagacity and long-reaching understand
ing of the gentleman from Michigan has discovered that, before we
can vote with a clear conscience on the instructions proposed, we
must be well informed as to the number of Indians who fought at
the battle of Tippecanoe in 1811 ; how these savages were painted,
whether red, black or blue, or whether all were blended on their bar
barian faces. Further, according to his views of the subject, before
we vote money to make a road, we must know and approve of what
General Harrison thought, said and did at the battle of Tippecanoe.
Again, upon this process of reasoning, we must inquire where
a general should be when a battle begins, especially in the night,
and what his position during the fight, and where he should be found
when it is over ; and particularly how a Kentuckian behaves himself
when he hears an Indian warwhoop in day or night. And, after set
tling all these puzzling propositions, still we must fully understand
how and by whom the battle of the Thames was fought, and in what
manner it then and there became our troops, regular and militia, to

248 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
conduct themselves. Sir, it must be obvious that if these topics are
germain to the subject, then does the Cumberland road encompass
all the interests and all the subjects that touch the rights, duties and
destinies of the civilized world ; and I hope we shall hear no more
from Southern gentlemen of the narrow, sectional or unconstitutional
character of the proposed measure. That branch of the subject is,
I hope, forever quieted, perhaps unintentionally, by the gentleman
from Michigan. His military criticism, if it has not answered the
purposes intended, has at least, in this way, done some service to
the Cumberland road. And if my poor halting comprehension has
not blundered in pursuing the soaring upward flight of my friend
from Michigan, he has in this discussion written a new chapter in the
"regulce philosopliandi," and made not ourselves only, but the whole
world his debtors in gratitude, by overturning the old worn-out prin
ciples of the "inductive system."
Mr. Speaker, there have been many and ponderous volumes
written, and various unctuous discourses delivered, on the doctrines
of "association." Dugald Stewart, a Scotch gentlemen of no
mean pretensions in his day, thought much and wrote much con
cerning that principle in mental philosophy ; and Brown, another of
the same school, but of later date, has also written and said much
on the subject. This latter gentleman, I think, calls it "sugges
tion ;" but never, I venture to say, did any metaphysician, pushing
his researches furthest and deepest into that occult science, dream
that would come to pass which we have discovered and clearly devel
oped — that is, that two subjects so unlike as an appropriation to a
road in 1840, and the tactics proper in Indian war in 1811, were not
merely akin, but actually, identically, the same.
Mr. Speaker, this discussion, I should think, if not absolutely
absurd and utterly ridiculous, which my respect for the gentleman
from Michigan and the American Congress will not allow me to sup
pose, has elicted another trait in the American character which has
been the subject of great admiration with intelligent travelers from
the old world. Foreigners have admired the ease with which we
Yankees, as they call us, can turn our hands to any business or pur
suit, public or private, and this has been brought forward by our
own people as a proof that man, in this great and free republic,
is a being very far superior to the same animal in other parts of the
globe less favored than ours. A proof of the most convincing char
acter of this truth, so flattering to our national pride, is exhibited

REPLY TO GENERAL CRARY. 249
before our eyes in the gentleman from Michigan delivering to the
world a grave lecture on the campaigns of General Harrison, includ
ing a variety of very interesting military events in the years I8II,
I8I2 and I8I3. In all other countries, and in all former times,
before now, a gentleman who would either speak or be listened to,
on the subject of war, involving subtile criticisms on strategy, and
careful reviews of marches, sieges, battles, regular and casual, and
irregular onslaughts, would be required to show, first, that he had
studied much, investigated fully, and digested well, the science and
history of his subject. But here, sir, no such painful preparation is
required ; witness the gentleman from Michigan. He has announced
to the House that he is a militia general on the peace establishment !
That he is a lawyer we know, tolerable well read in Tidd's Practice
and Espinasse's Nisi Prius. These studies, so happily adapted to the
subject of war, with an appointment in the militia in time of peace,
furnish him at once with all the knowledge necessary to discourse to
us, as from high authority, upon all the mysteries in the "trade of
death." Again, Mr. Speaker, it must occur to every one that we,
to whom these questions are submitted and these criticisms are
addressed, being all colonels at least, and most of us like the gentle
man himself, brigadiers, are, of all conceivable tribunals, best quali
fied to decide any nice point connected with military science. I
hope the House will not be alarmed by an impression that I am
about to discuss one or the other of the millitary questions now
before us at length, but I wish to submit a remark or two, by way of
preparing us for a proper appreciation of the merits of the dis
course we have heard. I trust, as we are all brother officers, that
the gentleman from Michigan and the two hundred and forty
colonels or generals of this honorable House, will receive what I
have to say, as coming from an old brother in arms, and addressed
to them in a spirit of candor,
" Such as becomes comrades free.
Reposing after victory."
Sir, we all know the military studies of the gentleman from
Michigan before he was promoted. I take it to be beyond a reason
able doubt that he had perused with great care the title-page of
"Baron Steuben." Nay, I go further; as the gentleman has inciden
tally assured us he is prone to look into musty and neglected vol
umes, I venture to assert, without vouching the fact from personal
knowledge, that he has prosecuted his researches so far, as to be able

250 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
to know that the rear rank stands right behind the front. This, I
think, is fairly inferable from what I understand him to say of the
two lines of encampment at Tippecanoe. Thus, we see, Mr.
Speaker, that the gentleman from Michigan, so far as study can give
us knowledge of a subject, comes before us with claims to great pro
fundity. But this is a subject which, of aU others, requires the aid
of actual experience to make us wise. Now the gentleman from
Michigan, being a militia general, as he has told us, his brother offi
cers, in that simple statement has revealed the glorious history of
toils, privations, sacrifices and bloody scenes, through which we
know, from experience and observation, a militia officer in time of
peace is sure to pass. We all, in fancy, now see the gentleman from
Michigan in that most dangerous and glorious event in the life of a
militia general on the peace establishment — a parade-day! The day
for which all the other days of his life seem to have been made.
We can see the troops in motion ; umbrellas, hoe and ax-handles and
other like deadly implements of war overshadowing all the field,
when lo ! the leader of the host approaches,
*' Far off his coming shines ;"
his plume, white, after the fashion of the great Bourbon, is of ample
length, and reads its doleful history in the bereaved necks and bos
oms of forty neighboring hen-roosts! Like the great Suwaroft] he
seems somewhat careless in forms and points of dress, hence his
epaulettes may be on his shoulders, back or sides, but still gleaming,
gloriously gleaming in the sun. Mounted he is, too, let it not be for
gotten. Need I describe to the colonels and generals of this honor
able House the steed which heroes bestride on such occasions ? No,
I see the memory of other days is with you. You see before you
the gentleman from Michigan mounted on his crop-eared, bushy-
tailed mare, the singular obliquities of whose hinder limbs is de
scribed by that most expressive phrase, "sickle hams" — her height
just fourteen hands, "all told;" yes, sir, there you see his "steed
that laughs at the shaking of the spear;'' that is, his "war-horse
whose neck is clothed with thunder." Mr. Speaker, we have glow
ing descriptions in history of Alexander the Great and his war-horse,
Bucephalus, at the head of the invincible Macedonian phalanx, but,
sir, such are the improvements of modern times, that every one
must see that our militia general, with his crop-eared mare, with
bushy tail and sickle ham, would literally frighten off a battle-field
a hundred Alexanders. But, sir, to the history of the parade-day.

REPLY TO GENERAL CRARY. 251
The general, thus mounted and equipped, is in the field and ready
for action. On the eve of some desperate enterprise, such as giving
order to shoulder arms, it may be, there occurs a crisis, one of the
accidents of war which no sagacity could foresee or prevent. A
cloud rises and passes over the sun ! Here an occasion occurs for
the display of that greatest of all traits in the character of a com
mander, that tact which enables him to seize upon and turn to good
account events unlooked for as they arise. Now for the caution
wherewith the Roman Fabius foiled the skill and courage of Hanni
bal. A retreat is ordered, and troops and general, in a twinkling,
are found safely bivouacked in a neighboring grocery ! But even
here the general still has room for the exhibition of heroic deeds.
Hot from the field, and chafed with the untoward events of the day,
your general unsheaths his trenchant blade, eighteen inches in length,
as you will well remember, and with an energy and remorseless fury
he slices the water-melons that lie in heaps around him, and shares
them with his surviving friends. Other of the sinews of war are not
wanting here. Whisky, Mr. Speaker, that great leveler of modern
times, is here also, and the shells of the water-melons are filled to
the brim. Here again, Mr. Speaker, is shown how the extremes of
barbarism and civilization meet. As the Scandinavian heroes of old,
after the fatigues of war, drank wine from the skulls of their slaugh
tered enemies in Odin's Halls, so now our militia general and his
forces, from the skulls of melons thus vanquished, in copious
draughts of whisky, assuage the heroic fire of their souls, after
the bloody scenes of a parade-day. But, alas for this short-lived
race of ours, all things will have an end, and so even is it with the
glorious achievements of our general. Time is on the wing, and
wiU not stay his flight; the sun, as if frightened at the mighty
events of the day, rides down the sky, and at the close of the day
when "the hamlet is still," the curtain of night drops upon the
scene ; " And glory, like the phoenix in its fires.
Exhales its odors, blazes and expires."
Such, sir, has been the experience in war of the gentleman
from Michigan. We know this from the simple annunciation that he
is and has been a brigadier of militia in time of peace ; and now,
having a full understanding of the qualifications of our learned gen
eral, both from study and practice, I hope the House will see that it
should give its profound reflection to his discourses on the art of

252 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
war. And this it will be more inclined to, when we take into view
that the gentleman has, in his review of General Harrison's cam
paigns, modestly imputed to the latter great mistakes, gross blun
ders, imbecility, and even worse than this, as I shall show hereafter.
The force, too, of the lecture of our learned and experienced friend
from Michigan is certainly greatly enhanced, when we consider
another admitted fact, which is, that the general whose imbecility
and errors he has discovered, has not, like the gentleman from Mich
igan, the great advantage of serving in water-melon campaigns, but
only fought fierce Indians in the dark forests of the West, under
such stupid fellows as Anthony Wayne, and was afterward appointed
to the command of large armies by the advice of such an inexperi
enced boy as Gov. Shelby, the hero of King's Mountain.
And now, Mr. Speaker, as I have the temerity to entertain
doubts, and with great deference to differ in my opinions on this mil
itary question with the gentleman from Michigan, I desire to state a
few historical facts concerning General Harrison, whom the general
from Michigan has pronounced incapable, imbecile, and, as I shall
notice hereafter, something worse even than these. General Harri
son was commissioned by General Washington an oiificer in the regu
lar army of the United States in the year 1791. He served as aid
to General Anthony Wayne in the campaign against the Indians,
which resulted in the battle of the Rapids of the Maumee, in the fall
of 1794. Thus, in his youth, he was selected by General Wayne as
one of his military family. And what did this youthful officer do in
that memorable battle of the Rapids? Here, Mr. Speaker, let me
summon a witness, merely to show how military men may differ.
The witness I call to controvert the opinion of the gentleman from
Michigan is General Anthony Wayne. In his letter to the Secretary
of War, giving an account of the battle of the Rapids, he says :
"My faithful and gallant Lieutenant Harrison rendered the most
essential services, by communicating my orders in every direction,
and by his conduct and bravery exciting the troops to press for
victory." Sir, this evidence was given by General Wayne in the year
1794, some time, I imagine, before the gentleman from Michigan
was born, and long before he became a militia general, and long,
very long, before he ever perused the title-page of Baron Steuben.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind the House, in passing, that this battle
and victory over the Indian forces of the Northwest, in which,

REPLY TO GENERAL CRARY. 253
according to the testimony of General Wayne, "Lieutenant Harri
son rendered the most essential services by his conduct and bravery,"
gave peace to an exposed hne of frontier, extending from Pittsburg
to the southern borders of Tennessee. It was, in truth, the close of
the war of the Revolution, for the Indians who took part with Great
Britain in our Revolutionary struggle never laid down their arms
until after they were vanquished by Wayne in 1794.
We now come to see something of the man, the general, whose
military history our able and experienced general from Michigan has
reviewed. We know that debates hke this have sometimes been had
in the British Parliament. There, I believe, the discussion was
usually conducted by those in the House, who have seen, and not
merely heard of service. We all know that Colonel Napier has, in
several volumes, reviewed the campaigns of Wellington, and criti
cised the movements and merits of Beresford, and Soult, and
Massena, and many others, quite, yes, I say quite as well known in
military history as any of us, not even excepting our general from
Michigan. We respect the opinions of Napier, because we know he
not only thought of war, but that he fought, too. We respect and
admire that combination of military skill, with profound statesman
like views, which we find in "Caesar's Commentaries," because we
know the "mighty Julius" was a soldier, trained in the field, and
inured to the accidents and dangers of war. But, sir, we generals of
Congress require no such painful discipline to give value to our opin
ions. We men of the nineteenth century know all things intuitively.
We understand perfectly the military art by nature. Yes, sir, the
notions of the gentleman from Michigan agree exactly with a sage
by the name of "Dogberry," who insisted that " reading and writ
ing come by nature. " Mr. Speaker, we have heard and read much
of the "advance of knowledge, the improvement of the species,
and the great march of mind," but never till now have we understood
the extent of meaning in these pregnant phrases. For instance, the
gentleman from Michigan asserts that General Harrison has none of
the qualities of a general because, at the battle of Tippecanoe, he
was found at one time at a distance from his tent, urging his men on
to battle. He exposed his person too much, it seems. He should
have staid at his tent, and waited for the officers to come to him for
orders. Well, sir, see now to what conclusion this leads us. Napo
leon seized a standard at Lodi and rushed in front of his columns
across a narrow bridge, which was swept by a whole park of Ger-

254 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
man artillery. Hence, Napoleon was no officer; he did not know
how to command an army. He, like Harrison, exposed his person
too much. Oh, Mr. Speaker, what a pity for poor Napoleon that he
had not studied Steuben, and slaughtered water-melons with us nat
ural-born generals of this great age of the world I Sir, it might have
altered the map of Europe ; nay, changed the destinies of the world !
Again: Alexander the Great spurred his horse foremost into
the river, and led his Macedonians across the Granicus to rout the
Persians who stood full opposed on the other side of the stream.
True, this youth conquered the world and made himself master of
what had constituted the Medean, Persian, Assyrian and Chaldean
empires. Still, according to the judgment of us warriors by nature,
the mighty Macedonian would have consulted good sense by coming
over here, if indeed, there were any here hereabouts in those days,
and studying, like my friend from Michigan, first Tidd's Practice and
Espinasse's Nisi Prius and a little snatch of Steuben, and serving as
a general of militia awhile. Sir, Alexander the Great might have
made a man of himself in the art of war, had he even been a mem
ber of our Congress, and heard us colonels discuss the subject of an
afternoon or two. Indeed, Alexander, or Satan, I doubt not, would
have improved greatly in strategy by observing, during this session,
the tactics of the Administration party on the New Jersey election
question. Mr. Speaker, this objection to a general, because he will
fight, is not original with my friend from Michigan. I remember a
great authority, in point, agreeing with the gentleman in this. In
the times of the Henrys, 4th and 5th, of England, there lived one
Captain Jack Falstafif. If Shakespeare may be trusted, his opinions
of the art military were exactly those of the gentleman from Michi
gan. He uniformly declared as his deliberate judgment on the sub
ject, that "discretion was the better part of valor;'' and this is an
authority for the gentleman. But who shall decide? Thus the
authority stands — Alexander, the mighty Greek, and Napoleon
Bonaparte and Harrison on one side, and Captain John Falstaff and
the General from Michigan on the other ! Sir, I must leave a ques
tion thus sustained by authorities, both ways, to posterity. Perhaps
the lights of another age may enable the world to decide it ; I con
fess my inability to say on which side the weight of authority lies.
I hope I may obtain the pardon of the American Congress for
adverting, in this discussion, to another matter, gravely put forward
by the gentleman from Michigan. Without the slightest feeling of

REPLY TO GENERAL CRARY. 255
disrespect to that gentleman, I must be allowed to say that his opin
ions, (hastily, I am sure,) obtruded on the House on this military
question, can only be considered as subjects of merriment.
But I come to notice, since I am compelled to it, one observa
tion of the gentleman, which I feel quite certain, on reflection, he
will regret himself. In a sort of parenthesis in his speech, he said
that a rumor prevailed at the time (alluding to the battle of Tippe
canoe) that Colonel Joseph H. Davies, of Kentucky, who com
manded a squadron of cavalry there, was, by some trick of General
Harrison, mounted, during the battle, on a white horse belonging to
the General, and that, being thus conspicuous in the fight, he was a
mark for the assailing Indians, and fell in a charge at the head of his
men. The gentleman says he does not vouch for the truth of this.
Sir, it is well that he does not vouch here for the truth of a long-ex
ploded slander. It requires a bold man, a man possessing a great
deal of moral courage, to make even an allusion to a charge such as
that, against one whose only possessions in this world are his char
acter for courage and conduct in war in his country's defense, and
his unstained integrity in the various civil offices it has been his duty
to occupy. Did not the gentleman know that this vile story was
known by every intelligent man west of the mountains to be totally
without foundation? The gentleman seemed to appeal to the gal
lant Kentuckians to prove the truth of this innuendo. He spoke of
the blood of their countrymen so profusely poured out at Tippe
canoe, as if they would give countenance to the idea that the gallant
Davies, who fell in that engagement, fell a victim to the artifice of
the commanding general, and their other gallant sons who fell there,
were wantonly sacrificed by the gross ignorance of General Harrison
in Indian warfare. Now, sir, before the gentleman made his appeal,
he should have remembered a few historical facts, which, if known
to him, as I should suppose they were to every other man twenty
years of age in Western America, would make the whole speech of
that gentleman little else than a most wanton insult to the under
standing of the people and Government of Kentucky. Let us
briefly notice the facts.
In November, I8II, the battle of Tippecanoe was fought.
There Colonel Davies and Colonel Owens, with other Kentuckians,
feU. These, says the gentleman, (at least he insinuates it) were sac
rificed by either the cowardly artifice or by the ignorance of General
Harrison. Now, Mr. Speaker, I abhor the habit of open flattery,

256 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
nay, I do not like to look in the face of a man, and speak of him in
warm terms of eulogium, however he may deserve it ; but, sir, on
this occasion I am obliged to say what history will attest of the peo
ple of Kentucky. If any community of people ever lived, from the
time of the dispersion on the plain of Shinar up to this day, who
were literally cradled in war, it is to be found in the State of Ken
tucky. From the first exploration of the country by Daniel Boone
up to the year 1794, they were engaged in one incessant battle with
the savages of the West. Trace the path of an Indian incursion
anywhere over the great valley of the West, and you will find it red
with Kentucky blood. Wander over any of the battle-fields of that
great theater of savage war, and you will find it white with the
bones of her children. In childhood they fought the Indians, with
their sisters and mothers, in their dwellings. In youth and ripe
manhood they fought them in ambuscades and open battle-fields.
Such were the men of Kentucky in 1811, when the battle of Tippe
canoe was fought. There, too, as we know, they were still found,
foremost where life was to be lost or glory won ; and there they were
commanded by General Harrison. Now, sir, if in that battle General
Harrison had not conducted as became a soldier and a general, would
not such men have seen and known it? Did Kentucky in 1811,
mourning as she then did the loss of one of her greatest and most
valued citizens, condemn (as the gentleman from Michigan has
attempted to) the conduct of the General who commanded in that
battle? Let us see how they testified.
In January, 1812, two months after the battle of Tippecanoe,
the Legislature of Kentucky was in session. On the 7th of January,
1812, the following resolution passed that body:
"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State
of Kentucky, That in the late campaign against the Indians upon the
Wabash, Governor William Henry Harrison has behaved like a hero,
a patriot and a general ; and that for his cool, deliberate, skillful and
gallant conduct in the battle of Tippecanoe, he well deserves the
warmest thanks of his country and his nation."
Mr. Speaker, the resolution I have just read was presented by
John J. Crittenden, now a Senator from the State of Kentucky,
whom to name is to call to the minds of all who know him, a man
whose urbanity and varied accomplishments present a model of an
American gentleman — whose wisdom, eloquence and integrity have
won for him the first rank among American statesmen. Such a man.

REPLY TO GENERAL CRARY. 257
with both branches of the Kentucky Legislature, has testified, two
months only after the event took place, that, in the campaign and
battle of Tippecanoe, General Harrison combined the skill and con
duct of an able commander with the valor of a soldier and the patri
otism of an American. Who rises up, twenty-eight years afterward,
to contradict this ? The young gentleman from Michigan 1 He who,
at the time referred to, was probably conning Webster's spelling-
book in some village school in Connecticut. But, Mr. Speaker, I
must call another witness upon the point in issue here. On the I2th
of November, I8II, the Territorial Legislature of Indiana was in
session. This is just five days after the battle. That Legislature,
through the Speaker of its House of Representatives, General
William Johnson, addressed General Harrison in the following terms :
"Sir: The House of Representatives of the Indiana Territory,
in their own name, and in behalf of their constituents, most cordially
reciprocate the congratulations of your Excellency on the glorious
result of the late sanguinary conflict with the Shawnee Prophet and
all the tribes of Indians confederated with him. When we see dis
played in behalf of our country not only the consummate abilities of
the general, but the heroism of the man ; and when we take into
view the benefits which must result to that country from those exer
tions, we cannot for a moment withhold our meed of applause."
Here, sir, we have two Legislatures of the States whose citizens
composed the militia force at Tippecanoe, grieved and smarting
under the loss of their fellow-citizenSj uniting in solemn council in
bearing their testimony to the skill and bravery displayed by General
Harrison in that battle, which the gentleman from Michigan, with a
self-complacency that might well pass for insanity, now says he has
discovered was marked by palpable incapacity in the commanding
General. But, Mr. Speaker, I must call yet another, nay, several
other witnesses, to confront the opinion of the Michigan General.
In August, I8I2, about nine months after the battle of Tippe
canoe, news of fearful import concerning the conduct of General
Hull reached Ohio and Kentucky. Our army had fallen back on
Detroit, and rumors of the surrender of that place to the British,
which did actually take place, were floating on every breeze. Three
regiments of militia were immediately raised in Kentucky. Before
these troops had taken the field, it was well known that our army
under Hull, with the whole Territory of Michigan, had been surren
dered to the combined British and Indian forces, commanded by
18

258 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
Brock and Tecumseh. Our whole frontier in the Northwest lay bare
and defenseless to the invasion not only of the British army, but the
more terrible incursion of a savage foe, hungry for plunder and
thirsting for blood, led on by the most bold and accomplished war
rior that the tribes of the red man had ever produced. In this state
of peril the gallant army of Kentucky looked round for a leader
equal to the imminent and momentous crisis. There was Scott, the
then Governor of Kentucky, who had fought through the Revolu
tionary war, and under the eye of Washington had risen to the rank
of brigadier in the regular service. There, too, was the veteran
Shelby, one of the heroes of King's Mountain, a name that shall
wake up the tones of enthusiasm in every American heart while
heroic courage is esteemed, or lofty integrity remains a virtue.
There, too, was Clay, whose trumpet tongue in this hall was worth a
thousand cannon in the field. These were convened in council.
This, let us not forget, was about nine months after the battle of
Tippecanoe. Whom, sir, 1 ask, did these men select to lead their
own friends and fellow-citizens on to this glorious enterprise ? Their
laws required that their militia should be commanded by one of their
own citizens ; yet passing by Scott and Shelby and thousands of their
own brave sons, this council called General Harrison, then Governor
of Indiana, — he who had commanded Kentuckians but nine months
before at Tippecanoe — he who, according to the gentleman from
Michigan, had shown no trait but imbecility, as an officer — he,
against the laws of Kentucky, was by such a council asked to resign
his station as Governor of Indiana, and take the rank and commis
sion of Major-General in the Kentucky militia, and lead on her
armies in that fearful hour, to redeem our national disgrace and
snatch from British domination and savage butchery the very coun
try now represented by the gentleman from Michigan. I have yet
one other witness to call against the gentleman from Michigan. Sir,
if the last rest of the illustrious dead is disturbed in this unnatural
war upon a living soldier's honor, and a living patriot's fame, the
fault is not mine. It will appear presently that the gentleman from
Michigan has — unwittingly, it may be — dishonored and insulted the
dead, and charged the pure and venerated Madison with hypocrisy
and falsehood. If General Harrison had been the weak, wicked or
imbecile thing the gentleman from Michigan would now pretend,
was not this known to Mr. Madison, then President of the United
States, who gave the orders under which General Harrison acted.

REPLY TO GENERAL CRARY. 259
and to whom the latter was responsible for his conduct ? Surely no
one can suppose that there were wanting those who, if they could
have done so with truth, would have made known any conduct of
General Harrison at the time referred to, which seemed in any degree
worthy of reprehension. With ah these means of information what
was the testimony of Mr. Madison respecting the battle of Tippeca
noe ? I will quote his own words from his own message to Congress
about a month after the event. The message is dated 1 8th Decem
ber, 1811, and reads as follows:
' ' While it is deeply lamented that so many valuable lives have
been lost in the action which took place on the 7th ultimo. Congress
will see with satisfaction the dauntless spirit of fortitude victoriously
displayed by every description of troops engaged, as well as the col
lected firmness which distinguished their commander on an occasion
requiring the utmost exertions of valor and discipline."
Mr. Speaker, I have no pleasure in thus recapitulating and pil
ing proof upon proof to repel an insinuation, which I think is now
apparent to all has been thrown out in the madness of party rage,
•without consideration, and founded only on a total perversion, or
rather flat contradiction, of every historical record having relation to
the subject. Something was said by the gentleman from Michigan about the
encampment at Tippecanoe. If I understood him rightly, he con
demned it as injudicious, because it had a river on one side and a
morass on another. Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall give no opinion on
the question thus stated; but it just now occurs to me that this very
subject, which I think in the military vocabulary is called castrameta-
tion, admits of some serious injury bearing upon the criticism under
•consideration. In almost all scientific research, we find that what is
now reduced to system, and arises to the dignity of science, was at
first the product of some casuality, which, falling under the notice
of some reflecting mind, gave rise to surprising results. The acci
dental falhng of an apple developed the great law of gravitation. I
am sure I have somewhere seen it stated that Pyrrhus, the celebrated
King of Epirus, who is allowed by aU authority to have been the
first general of his time, first learned to fortify his camp by having a
river , in his rear and a morass on his flank ; and this was first sug
gested to him by seeing a wild boar, when hunted to desperation,
back himself against a tree or rock, that he might fight his pursuers,
without danger of being assailed in his rear. Now, sir, if I compre-

260 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
hend the gentleman from Michigan, he has against him on this point
not only the celebrated king of Epirus, but also the wild boar, who,
it seems, was the tutor of Pyrrhus in the art of castrametation.
Here, then, are two approved authorities, one of whom nature
taught the art of war, as she kindly did us colonels, and the other
that renowned hero of Epirus, who gave the Romans so much
trouble in his time. These authorities are near two thousand years
old, and, as far as I know, unquestioned, till the gentleman from
Michigan attacked them yesterday. Here, again, I ask who shall
decide ? Pyrrhus and the boar on one side, and the gentleman from
Michigan on the other. Sir, I decline jurisdiction of the question,
and leave the two hundred and forty colonels of this House to settle
the contest, "rwn itostrum tanies eomponere Hies."
Mr. Speaker, I feel it quite impossible to withdraw from this
part of the debate, without some comment on another assertion, or
rather intimation, of the gentleman from Michigan, touching the
conduct of General Harrison at the battle of the Thames. All who
have made themselves acquainted with the history of that event,
know that the order, which the American army was to attack the
combined force of British and Indians at the Thames, was changed
at the very moment when the onset was about to be made. This
order of the General drew forth from Commodore Perry and others,
who were in the staff of the army and on the ground at the time,
the highest encomiums. The idea of this change in the plan of
attack, it is now intimated, was not original with General Harrison,
but was, as the gentleman seems to intimate, suggested to him by
another, who, it is said, was on the ground at the time. Who that
other person is, or was, the gentleman has not said, but seemed to
intimate he was now in the other end of the Capitol, and thus we
are led to suppose that the gentleman intends to say that Colonel
Johnson, the Vice-President, is the gentleman alluded to. Sir, I
regret very much that the gentleman should treat historical facts in
this way. If there be any foundation for giving Colonel Johnson
the honor of having suggested to General Harrison a movement for
which the latter has received great praise, why not speak out and
say so? Why insinuate? Why hint or suppose on a subject sus
ceptible of easy and positive proof? Does not the gentleman know
that he is thus trifling with the character of a soldier, playing with
reputation dearer than property or life to its possessor? Sir, I wish
to know if Colonel Johnson, the Vice-President of the United States

REPLY TO GENERAL CRARY. 261
has, by any word or act of his, given countenance to this insinua
tion? It would be well for ah who speak at random on this subject
to remember that there are living witnesses yet who can testify to
the point in question. It may not be amiss to remind some that
there is extant a journal of Colonel Wood, who afterward fell on the
Niagara frontier. For the benefit of such, I, too, will state what
can be proved in relation to the change made by General Harrison
in the order of attack at the Thames.
The position of the British and Indians had been reported to
General Harrison by volunteer officers — brave men, it is true, but
who, like many of us, were officers who had not seen a great deal of
hard fighting. On this report the order of attack first intended was
founded, but, before the troops were ordered on the attack. Colonel
Wood was sent to examine and report the extent of front occupied
by the British troops. Colonel Wood's military eye detected at
once what had escaped the unpracticed observation of the others —
that is, that the British regulars were drawn up in open order — and
it was on his report that, at the moment, the change was made by
General Harrison in the order of the attack — a movement which, in
the estimation of such men as Wood, and Perry, and Shelby, was
enough of itself to entitle General Harrison to the highest rank
among the military men of the age.
Mr. Speaker, when I review the historical testimony touching
this portion of General Harrison's history, I confess my amazement
at the Quixotic, (I pray my friend from Michigan to pardon me),
but I must call it the Quixotic exhibition which he has made of him
self. Sir, the gentleman had no need to tell us he was a general of
militia. His conduct in this discussion is proof of that — strong even
as is his own word for the fact. He has shown all that reckless brav
ery which has always characterized our noble militia, but he has also,
in this attack, shown that other quality of militia troops, which so
frequently impels them to rush blindly forward, and often to their
own destruction. I should like to hear many of the brave men
around me speak of General Harrison. Some there are now under
my eye who carry British bullets in their bodies, received while fight
ing under the command of General Harrison. I should be glad to
hear my whole-souled and generous-hearted friend from Kentucky
[Major Butler], who agrees with the gentleman from Michigan in
general politics, who has not merely heard of battle, but who has
mingled in war in all its forms, and fought his way from the ranks

262 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
up to the head of a battalion — I say I should be glad to hear his
opinions of the matters asserted, hinted at and insinuated by the
gentleman from Michigan.
Why, I ask, is this attempt to falsify the common history of
our country made now, and why is it made here ? Is it vainly imag
ined' that Congressional speeches are to contradict accredited, long-
known historical facts? Does the fierce madness of party indulge a
conception so wild?
Sir, I repeat that I feel only amazement at such an attempt. I
could not sit still and witness it in silence. Much as I desired to
speak to the House and the country on the question touching the
Cumberland road, I should have left it to others had I not been
impelled to get the floor to bear my testimony against the gross
injustice which I thought was about to be done to a citizen — an hon
ored, cherished citizen of my own State. This House, Mr. Speaker,
knows that I am not given to much babbling here. Yes, sir, you all
know that, like Balaam's ass, I never speak here till I am kicked into
it. I may claim credit, therefore, for sincerity, when I declare that
a strong sense of justice alone could have called me into this debate.
Let me now remind gentlemen, who may be tempted into a similar
course with my friend from Michigan, that all such efforts must
recoil with destructive effect upon those who make them. Sir, it has
been the fortune of General Harrison to be identified with the civil
and military history of this country for nearly half a century. What
is to be gained, even to party, by perverting that history? Nothing.
You may blot out a page of his biography here, and tear out a chap
ter of history there ; nay, you may, in the blindness of party rage,
rival the Vandal and the Turk, and burn up all your books, and
what then have you effected? Nothing but an insane exhibition of
impotent party violence. General Harrison's history would still
remain in the memory of his and your cotemporaries ; and coming
events, not long to be delayed, will show to the world that his his
tory, in both legislation and war, dwells not merely in the memories
of his countrymen, but is enshrined in their gratitude and engraven
upon their hearts.
Mr. Speaker, I come now to the discussion of what is really the
question before the House, and with the hope that I may be entitled
to the floor on Monday, I will, if it be the pleasure of the House,
give way for a motion to adjourn. If I can obtain the floor on
Monday, I promise the House that nothing shall tempt me to wau-

REPLY TO GENERAL CRARY. 263
der from the question touching the appropriation for the Cumberland
road, a work which, if it be not crushed by the wretched policy of
the Administration, will reflect as much glory upon your civil his
tory as the deeds of the great and patriotic citizen whose conduct I
have been compelled to notice, ever did upon your military annals.
At this point the House adjourned until the following Monday, when Mr. Cor
win resumed, but his remarks were never fully reported.

ON THE ARMY BILL— BOUNTY LANDS TO SOLDIERS.

Pending the discussion of the bill for the Increase of the Army, in the U. S. Sen
ate, January 14th, 1847, Mr. Cameron, of Pennsylvania, submitted an additional sec
tion, enacting — '* That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to issue a warrant for
a half section of land to every officer, non-commissioned officer, musician and private,
who shall serve in the Army of the United States during the present war with Mexico,
or shall volunteer and enlist to serve during the war, and shall be honorably discharged
before its termination ; the said land warrants to be located upon any land belonging to
the United States that may be subject to private entry.''
This section was, in substance, generally approved, but objected to by influential
Senators, as tending to retard the passage of the Army bill, or that it was, as they
alleged, imperfect in its provisions.
Mr. Corwin said he felt somewhat solicitous that this measure,
in some form or other, and at some time or other, should be passed
into a law, and he thought, if gentlemen would give it some atten
tion, they would find it not so very imperfect ; they would find that
it steered clear entirely of all those formidable objections, in regard
to the system of bounty lands, as developed in practice heretofore.
The reason why those particular sections of country where those
bounty lands were to be located had been overlooked, could not pos
sibly apply to the lands now proposed to be granted by the Senator
from Pennsylvania. The lands in those particular instances, and in
all the laws, he believed, which were passed for the enlistment of
soldiers in the war of 1812, were to be located in a particular place;
the result was, that no one who did not choose to make that place
his residence, would purchase them. The prices sank, therefore, to
about twenty dollars for each grant. This arose from the system of
location adopted by the Government. But this was not the case
here. These were to be located in any place where there were lands
subject to private entry, and that would comprehend a district large
enough to furnish a wide range for choice. The result of the pas
sage of this amendment, then, would be simply this : that every sol
dier who should be honorably discharged, or having served during
the war, or volunteered for twelve months, would, at the end of his
(l!(!4l

BOUNTY LANDS TO SOLDIERS. 265
term of service, be entitled to so much scrip as would purchase one
hundred and sixty acres of land.* It was a proposition to grant to
every soldier who actually served, and to the heirs of every soldier
who died in service, an amount equal to |200, which should pass
current in any land office for the purchase of land, instead of paying
them in advance ; it was paying him, at the end of his service, this
amount. He himself would have no hesitation in voting for such a
proposition. A soldier's service was the hardest that any patriot
could be called upon to perform, and he thought that they were
entitled to receive at the hands of the Government this much at
least. He did not like procrastinating this subject until this bill
should be passed. He saw no objection to its being incorporated in
it. Would the passage of that biU alone bring the men into the
field ? The army was not half full ; would that supply the deficiency ?
Why, if the thing were suggested in any other place, it would be
called a palpable absurdity ! If this bill were to pass, to what family
of legislation would it belong? It was the very bih to which such a
provision as that proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania prop
erly belonged.
On the 19th January, Mr. Benton reported from the Senate Committee on Mili
tary Affairs, to which the bill had been recommitted, with instructions to bring in an
amendment granting Bounty Lands, and which, having been lost by a tie vote after
some discussion, Mr. Corwin offered the following substitute :
" That each non-commissioned officer or private enlisted in the regular army, of
regularly mustered in any volunteer company, who has served, or may serve during the
pres,ent war with Mexico, and who shall at the end of his term of service, receive an
honorable discharge, shall be entitled to receive a certificate or warrant from the War
Department for one hundred and sixty acres of land, which may be located by the war
rantee, his heirs or legal representatives, at any land office in the United States, in one
body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, in such districts as are
then subject to private entry; Provided, That if the full term for which such person
shall have volunteered shall not exceed one year, then the warrant to be for eighty
acres. In case of death in service, or after his discharge, then the certificate to go— •
first, to the widow ; second, to the children ; third, his father ; fourth, his mother ; and
fifth, his brothers and sisters.''
Mr. Corwin said he merely desired to say to the Senate what
was the difference between his substitute and the report of the com
mittee. The object which already had been urged from various
quarters of the Senate, to grant lands to the soldiers, he should say
nothing about, because he conceived that the mind of every Senator
was made up on that subject. His principal objection to the bill
* Mr. Cameron's proposition had been modified when these remarks were made.

266 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
which had been reported from the Military Committee was, the
restraints which it imposes on alienations of the land after it had
been acquired by the soldier ; and he took that exception to it, in
view of the principle upon which he supposed the Senate was acting
in granting these donations at all. It was intended, as had been well
observed by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Webster], to
operate as an inducement to those whom we now solicit to enter the
military service of the country. Now, he thought, a very little
reflection on the character and pursuits of those who were likely to
enter the volunteer or regular service, would satisfy any man that
the grant of a quarter section of land to be received by them at the
end of their term of service, and to be inalienable by them, and,
consequently, useless to them for the term of seven years, was not
an inducement equivalent to that offered by the amendment which
he had proposed. He would not pretend to be very accurate in the
construction he had been able to put on the words employed in
order to impose these restraints on alienation, but he thought he was
not mistaken in this, that when the certificate for a quarter section of
land shall be issued, it does not endow the holder of it with a right
to dispose of it until the end of seven years, when a patent will be
issued; and it prohibits him from making any use of it whatever,
either by lien, collection of money by agreement for the occupation
of the land, or any means whatever. In short, it was perfectly use
less to him for seven years after his term of service, and also during
that time, if he had not misunderstood the bill, the land was subject
to taxation. No bond could be made, no agreement entered into by
him for leasing it, or for the occupation of it in any way. It was
simply saying to him that he should, within seven years from the
expiration of his term of service, have a quarter section of land,
and in the meantime he should pay taxes on it, without his being
able to make any conceivable use of it, except he would go and
reside upon it himself; for if he made any agreement, in any way,
to remunerate him for the taxes which he might pay on that land, it
could not be enforced.
Now, he presumed, no one would pretend to deny that a very
considerable proportion of those who were likely to enter the service,
either as volunteers or as regular soldiers, would be found to belong
to some of the trades or mechanical pursuits which were common to
the men of this country. He thought he was not mistaken when he
said one entire company raised in the State of Massachusetts, con-

BOUNTY LANDS TO SOLDIERS. 267
sisted altogether of mechanics — printers, tailors, shoemakers and
hatters. Now, what inducement did they propose to a man accus
tomed all his hfetime to work in mechanical pursuits, when they
offered him a certificate for a quarter section of land, on which he
would have to pay taxes for seven years, which he must then make
available to him, and not before ? Did they expect a shoemaker to
go into the Western forests with the chopping-ax, or any of the
other trades to engage in pursuits so uncongenial with those to which
they had been accustomed ? But according to this biU no man could
do it for him, for every agreement made for lien or transfer was void.
All these classes of society, then, would have no inducements at all ;
for, as the distinguished Senator from Missouri has said, it would
make twenty thousand men, after making war on the Mexicans,
march into the far West and make war on the forests. It was com
pulsory on them to do so, under the penalty of twenty thousand
quarter sections of land.
Now, Mr. C.'s object was to make the land alienable, and thus
hold out a proper and adequate inducement. He knew very well
that the Senator from Missouri had this object perhaps much more at
heart than he (Mr. C.) had. They all aimed at the same thing.
His amendment proposed to give a quarter section of land, or a war
rant which would be worth that, to all who served for twelve months,
at the expiration of his term of service. It might be located any
where. It was so much scrip which was receivable in payment for
public lands. That quarter section, instead of being taken up in
tracts of forty or fifty acres each, by his amendment was proposed
to be one tract ; and to those who had not served twelve months, to
meet the views of the Senator from Missouri, he gave eighty acres
of land, or a warrant for that quantity, which would be land scrip
equal to one hundred dollars, estimating the land at the present rate
of 11.25 per acre. This, then, would operate exactly as so much
money paid into the hands of the soldiers, or agreed to be paid.
Mr. C. appealed, as the Senator from Massachusetts had done,
to their experience in the war of 1812. He thought it would be
found, on a recurrence to the statute, that during that time three
hundred and twenty acres were received at one time ; but even three
hundred and twenty acres of bounty land were found not to produce
the desired result, and a bounty in money was found to be better,
for that alone succeeded in filling up the ranks. If, then, their
experience was worth anything, the proposition to give land to the

.268 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
extent proposed by the committee would be found to be insufficient.
But by converting it into money, or the equivalent of money, and
making it inalienable or untransferable until his term of service
expires, the soldier would get what they proposed he should realize,
and they would attain the great object desired by all.
After further discussion, Mr. Benton inquired of Mr. C, What is the meaning of
" legal representatives ?"
Mr. Corwin said it was a great while since he had been exam
ined for admission to the bar, when such a question might have been
proper. If the Senator from Missouri made the inquiry for his own
information, he (Mr. C.) would rather refer him to the library. But
if he simply inquired what my opinion is of the meaning of the
phrase "legal representatives," I will say to him that I mean those
persons who represent the estate of a dead man after he is dead.
Incidental remarks were here made by Senators, when Mr. Corwin continued.
He felt, when he offered this amendment, the full force of the
suggestions which had just been made by the Senator from Missouri,
and he would add that it had never been subject to the action of the
Senate, though he knew that its general principle had been before
the committee, and must necessarily have been discussed by them.
Mr. C. wished now to modify his amendment by striking out
those words which were objectionable to the Senator from Maryland
[Mr. R. Johnson]. When he drew up this paper he thought this
bounty of the Government ought to be confined to those who shall
perform service in this Mexican war. He would, however, now
modify his amendment, as had been suggested, leaving the bounty
to apply to all who enter the service and perform duty during the
Mexican war.
January 2oth, 1847, — same subject.
Mr. Corwin replied ( to Senators ) that the bill was intended to
meet every case. The gentleman would see that all who were hon
orably discharged were provided for, if they had been in the service
for three months.
He desired (after remarks by Senators Chalmers and Bagly) to
explain a difficulty which had been suggested by the Senator from
Indiana [Mr. Hannegan], and which had presented itself to his own
mind. In granting bounties he admitted that some respect should
be paid to the length of service, so that it should not appear to be a
mere gratuity to the troops, but that the bounty should bear some

^OUNTY LANDS TO SOLDIERS. 269
relation to the service rendered. In the further prosecution of the
war, it was not likely that any troops would be raised, whether regu
lar soldiers or volunteers, but for longer periods of service — the for
mer for five years, and the latter during the war. As the principal
object of this bill was therefore prospective, and the design to
recruit the army speedily, it did appear to him that there should not
be a greater bounty given to those who enter during the war now
pending, than to those who went into it without any other motive
than the laws furnished at the time they entered into the service.
Now, he supposed, that every one who was acquainted with the gen
erosity of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Hannegan], knew that if
he could do it from his own private purse, he would be willing to
bestow on the soldier any gratuity that might be necessary; but
when they were disposing of the money in the public treasury, it
appeared to him that they should be careful to give only in cases
where it was necessary to make some compensation to those who
were to receive it. And in making compensation, they must also
make a discrimination between those who have served but a limited
time, and those whose service has been longer.
Again, there was some misunderstanding on another point.
Now, he contended that his amendment did, in fact and in substance,
give to a soldier receiving a land-warrant a money-warrant — dollars
and cents — restricting it to this, that it was only receivable in pay
ment of public land. It was land-scrip as much as was that which
the Senator from Texas proposed.
January 29, 1847, after a speech in opposition from Mr. Benton, on the same
subject, in which he contended that it would " expunge the land of revenue for half a
dozen years;" that "all the John Smiths, John Joneses, Billy Williamses — all the
Blacks, Browns, Greys, Reds, Whites — all the Longs and Shorts — all the Youngs and
Olds — all that interminable nomenclature of common names — will become breeders of
warrants " — Mr. Corwin again spoke as follows :
He felt as much regret as it was possible for the Senator from
Missouri to feel, at the delay which has occurred under the present
exigencies in the passage of this army bill — a delay occasioned by
the various propositions to amend which had been presented by the
Senator from Missouri himself, and other Senators ; and he regretted,
also, that it was to be still further delayed by what the honorable
Senator from Missouri himself had very happily denominated "an
obstinate and persevering opposition " to the amendment now under
consideration, which, it would be recollected, had once passed by a
majority which he believed had not been accorded to any other fea-

270 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
ture of the bill. He had to regret, for one, that it was not in his
power, not being consistent with his sense of duty, to accede to the
request made by the honorable Senator from Missouri yesterday ; and
he was sure that honorable Senator was not inclined at all to deny
to him, or to any other Senator upon that floor, the same right to
form an opinion upon this important subject as he claimed for him
self As it was sincerely not his wish to procrastinate a vote which
it was desirable should be speedily taken upon this bill, he desired
merely to occupy a few moments in replying to what had been said
by the honorable Senator from Missouri. And first, he would pre
mise that although everything which had been presented to them this
morning by the Senator from Missouri, and everything that might be
legitimately urged in reply to the arguments of the Senator from
Missouri, had already been very fully presented, and he doubted not
very fully considered by every Senator upon that floor ; yet, having
been the means ( by what might almost be termed an accident, it was
true,) of presenting this amendment, and having heard the terms in
which it had been denounced, he supposed that it would be deemed
proper for him to occupy a few moments with some observations
before taking the final vote upon the question now to be determined.
There had been some things revealed in this incidental discussion in
reference to the war, and to the troops which had been so freely and
fully spoken of, and in very laudatory terms, on all sides of the
chamber, which it was very difficult to reconcile with what was
understood to be the opinion of gentlemen on all sides.
The arguments of the Senator from Missouri, as he understood
them, rested upon two grounds exclusively. The Senator con
tended, in the first place, that the bounty land offered to the soldier
was not necessary to procure the services of the soldier. This was
as clearly an objection to any bill that could be presented on this
subject as it was to this. The Senator contended, and presented it
to them as an argument against the passage of this amendment, that
it was now a matter of contention between the patriotic citizens of
this country, who wished to serve in this extraordinary war, as to
who among them should be accepted, without any reference what
ever to this bounty. If this was so, and if there was no justice in
voting the bounty, or necessity for voting it, then let the vote be
taken upon the question without any further controversy.
If the Senator from Missouri meant to say that men could be
enlisted into the service for their monthly pay alone; if he meant to

BOUNTY LANDS TO SOLDIERS. 271
declare — and he knew no man whose opinions upon this subject
were entitled to greater weight — if he meant to declare that it was
squandering the pubhc property to give them lands in return for the
lives of their soldiers, in return for the blood to be shed in this for
eign war, let the proposition be brought forward in a distinct and
separate form, and he would be as ready to vote upon it as he was
when attached to this bill. He had understood, whether the project
of giving bounty land originated with politicians or private individ
uals, that it was the intention of Congress — an intention which had
been expressed in both Houses — that the soldier who served in this
war should have bounty land as a part of his compensation for those
services which, it was admitted on all hands, eminently entitled him
to some compensation. If this was so, what became of the argu
ment of the Senator from Missouri, that it was giving away eight
millions of acres of the public lands, of the value of twelve millions
of dollars, at the minimum price of those lands, for nothing?
If it be true, continued Mr. Corwin, that the gallant men who
are willing to fight our battles in Mexico or elsewhere — for God
knows where that roving army of yours will stop — if it be true that
the whole population of this country capable of bearing arms are
ready to precipitate themselves into this war in the enemy's country,
and that without price, without reward, or the hope of reward,
where is the necessity for increasing their monthly pay, as is pro
posed by the bill now on your table? Sir, shall we drive a Jew's
bargain with our soldiers ? Shall we give a definite value for their
patriotism ? Shall we count every groan ? Shall we give value for
every drop of blood ? Shall we pay so much for a soldier's life ? So
much as a compensation to the women and children who have been
made widows and orphans by the war? Shall we give them an esti
mated sum as value for their loss ? But I do not suppose that any
argument such as this could very readily find a lodgment in the head
or the heart of any Senator here ; nor do I understand that the Senator
from Missouri wishes anything of this sort. Pie wishes the Senate
to pause, and lock the door against frauds, while granting a liberal
compensation to the soldier. Now, let us look at this argument a
little in detail. How will it be elaborated into a fact?
As he had understood the Senate to determine upon giving
these bounty lands in some form or other, and as he understood they
were for giving the eight millions in the form which he proposed in
his amendment, to be actually settled and held by the soldier who

272 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
performed the service, or by some representative of the soldier, he
would ask, in a pecuniary point of view to the Government itself, if
this land was to be considered revenue and property which the Gov
ernment had a right to use, by giving it either in the form of money
or in the form of bounties to soldiers entering the war, where was
the difference, as far as the Government was concerned, whether that
eight millions of acres was given in one form or in the other? The
argument, as far as it rested upon the fact of giving away these
lands, it seemed to him the Senator had not well considered. The
main part of the Senator's opposition rested upon his desire to pro
tect the soldier, in the first place, from the frauds which might be
perpetrated upon him, and, in the next place, to stay the march of
that moral pestilence, of those villainies which would be practiced
upon the soldier if this bill should pass. To this view of the ques
tion he was inclined to attach a considerable degree of importance.
He could see no difference between allowing the soldier who dis
charged his duty in the public service to be paid in land, or in allow
ing him to be paid in money. If it were considered that the valor
and courage of the soldier entitled him to a certain amount of com
pensation, it might be a proper subject to consider whether that
amount should be greater or less, but he could see no difference at all
between giving him land or money — none ; none to the Government,
unquestionably; none whatever in any scheme of finance which
might be presented for the prosecution of this war. If, therefore, it
were desirable that Congress should give to the soldier a certain
amount of compensation, it could just as well be given in the form
of monthly pay as in a grant of land. He could see no difference
between granting land, from which the resources of the Government
were partly to be derived, and creating a debt, which the Senator from
Missouri said must be paid by the next generation, and voting for a
loan of twenty-three millions, which must be redeemed at the time
specified. Gentlemen did not seem to have their financial apprehen
sions aroused at all when it was proposed to borrow twenty-three
miUions of dollars, for which, like every other sum borrowed which
they were unable to pay, they would have to give their note. There
was no tremulous apprehension about borrowing money. But these
were considerations which should have been thought of long before
they entered upon this unprofitable war. Borrowing money was one
of the curses attending upon all wars. Debt was one of the curses
which war necessarily involved — debt to be entailed upon posterity.

BOUNTY LANDS TO SOLDIERS. 273
if the present generation were not able to discharge it. It could not
have escaped the apprehensions of any gentleman who held a seat
upon that floor, on the day when their army passed the Nueces, or
on the day when it was said Congress sanctioned the passage of the
army beyond the boundary of the United States — it could not have
escaped their apprehension that not merely twelve mihions of dol
lars, but hundreds of millions would have to be expended upon the
war — a war to be carried on between this country and a sister repub
lic, which they had undertaken to subjugate by their arms. The
honorable Senator from Missouri, and every Senator, must be aware
that this would be the consequence of their conduct. He had been
somewhat surprised, he confessed, at the minute details given of the
schemes of fraud which the Senator from Missouri had asserted
would be practiced, and he doubted not such reports had reached his
ears; but he was pained to hear such schemes of peculation and
fraud connected with the names of certain officers of the Government.
That companies of scoundrels would be formed all over the coun
try, as the Senator said, to endeavor to despoil the soldier of his
hard-earned bounty, he had no doubt. It was one of the inevitable
consequences of all wars ; it was one of the curses which belonged
to a state of war. It had been the case, as the Senator from Mis
souri had said, and he read a statement of Mr. Jefferson to prove,
after the close of the Revolutionary war. It was a well-known fact,
that the men who had passed through the fires of the struggle, were
found endeavoring to defraud each other out of what they had re
ceived as a compensation for their services. It had ever been so, and
would be so to all time, as long as human nature was such as to
induce men to go to war at all. So long as men could find no better
mode of settling national controversies than by going to war; of
marching armies against each other in battle array, instead of follow
ing the dictates of humanity; instead of exercising the faculties
with which God had endowed them, in avoiding the necessity of
warfare, there would be scoundrels enough found to plunder and
cheat one another. So long as national controversies were to be set
tled in the old barbarous mode, so long would such a disposition be
found to exist. But he was surprised to hear from the Senator from
Missouri that the very officers of the Government, whose appoint
ments the Senate was called upon to sanction, and commissioned by
the President to carry on the war, which was emphatically his war,
he was surprised to hear that men in this position would be found
19

274 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
SO reckless, so lost to the dictates of honor and of conscience, as to
practice frauds of this description. Could this be true? Could it
be that those who were daily associated with the soldiers, witnessing
their sufferings and hearing the groans of the dying, would be guilty
of robbing the soldier of the bounty which his country had
bestowed? He asked the Senator, was this the condition in which
this Republic was now placed? Were such the official instrumental
ities to be sent abroad to execute their duties in the service of the
Government upon the field of battle? His knowledge of human
nature would hardly allow him to suppose it had been sunk to that
depth of degradation and of infamy. Such a supposition contem
plated the existence of a class of society more degraded than he was
willing to suppose any man who had received his commission from
the Government could be. They might, perhaps, find in the dens
and hells of cities men who would come out from their hiding-places,
when they knew that eight millions of acres of land had been put
into the market for the benefit of those who served, but he did not
think that men who accompanied the soldier at his last gasp would
deliberately plan such schemes of fraud. He said he did not beheve
it was competent for any intelligent man to frame a law, or devise a
plan which would not be subject to the objections which had been
raised by the Senator from Missouri. Men ever would be subject to
impositions, but he did not believe these men would be more subject
to impositions than any other class of men.
Mr. Corwin said the Senator from Pennsylvania had told them
that if they would pass this bill, there were five companies now
ready to volunteer, and to take the field from that State, and that
they consisted of some of the best men of that State. That was a
pretty good certificate of character; and were such men hkely to
give up all rights belonging to them to bodies of scoundrels? Did
the Senator from Missouri mean to say that the young men who vol
unteer to serve their country are the sort of men toward whom the
Government could exercise neither the functions of justice nor liber
ality without having the bounty of the Government abused? Were
they men of such dissolute habits that they were incapable of taking
care of the property they earned, and that the Government must
therefore assume toward the soldiers of our army the relation which
some of the States assumed under the laws toward confirmed drunk
ards, and appoint them guardians? What became of the training
and discipline of which they had heard so much as belonging to the

BOUNTY LANDS TO SOLDIERS. 275
service of the country? What became of the moral teachings of the
chaplains, for whose appointment they had heard so much? Was it
true, in short, that twenty thousand regular soldiers were to serve
during this war, and go through a moral training there, and that they
would come out of it nothing but examples of vileness, ignorance
and profligacy ? Was it true that the men who volunteer to fight
this iniquitous war were the men described by the Senator from Mis
souri, not able to exercise the necessary functions of freemen, and
men of full age? He would not undertake to put his opinion on
this subject against the opinion of the Senator from Missouri — he
would not lightly question the statement of the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. Butler], who said yesterday that none were fit to
fight in this war but those who were ready to sacrifice their own will
to the absolute mastery of others; but if these things were true, it
would become them to pause and consider whether it was not best
to put an end to this horrible war. If it were true that in enlisting
twenty thousand soldiers they made twenty thousand slaves out of
twenty thousand freemen, he thought it would be poor compensa
tion, both for the generation that now is and for that which is to
come after us, in the pompous phrase of the day, at such a cost to
vindicate the honor of the country and the glory of its flag. But he
could not think that the representations of the Senator from Mis
souri . were all true. He could not believe this nation would plunge
into a war which was to be so pernicious in its consequences.
The Senator from Missouri proposed to protect the soldier from
these frauds by making the bounty inalienable for seven years. This
was presuming that those who, as the Senator from Missouri elo
quently described it, escaped the embrace of the battle-storm, and
avoided a grave upon the tops of the Cordilleras, were not capable
of controlling the bounty which the Government bestowed upon
them, and that Congress must, therefore, constitute itself their guar
dian. He was of opinion, that if they put the matter upon this
footing, and said to the soldier, that at the end of the war he should
emigrate to the far West and settle upon his land, or else be
debarred from the enjoyment of his bounty for seven years, it would
have the effect of deterring men from entering the army. It would
hardly be necessary, he believed, to pass an act to prevent a Senator
from making a contract respecting his traveling allowance and per
diem, of placing any lien upon it for a certain length of time, lest
the money might faU into the hands of speculators, who were hover-

276 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
ing in clouds around the Capitol, darkening the air with their num
bers. That would be a strange law; but he thought it would be
quite as reasonable as the restriction proposed by the Senator to be
placed upon these bounty lands.
After some further remarks, Mr. Corwin concluded by saying,
that he thought it would not be very becoming in the Senate to hes
itate to grant, out of 800,000,000 acres of the public lands, the small
pittance of 8,000,000 to the soldiers as compensation for their ser
vices. They had already passed a bill giving 5,000,000 acres to
those who choose to peacefully settle in Oregon. If a Southern
gentleman, with his black servant, went to Oregon, that servant
would be entitled, by his mere residence there, to avail himself of
this bounty. While looking out across the broad Pacific, and con
templating the time when the descendants of Japhet should subju
gate the descendants of Shem, here was a man from a state of servi
tude becoming a free man, and claiming his half section of land,
which had been granted by the bounty of this Government. While
their maw was capacious enough to swallow these five millions in ref
erence to Oregon, they were gurgling and choking at eight millions
to be granted as a reward for the valor and the patriotism of those
who periled their lives in their country's service.

ON THE MEXICAN WAR.

In the Senate of the United States, February mh, 1847, the bill making further
appropriations to bring the existing war with Mexico to a speedy and honorable con
clusion, being under consideration, Mr. Corwin said :
Mr. President:I am not now about to perform the useless task of surveying
the whole field of debate occupied in this discussion. It has been
carefully reaped, and by vigilant and strong hands ; and yet, Mr.
President, there is a part of that field which promises to reward a
¦careful gleaner with a valuable sheaf or two, which deserves to be
bound up before the whole harvest is gathered. And still this so
tempting prospect could not have allured me into this debate, had that
motive not been strengthened by another, somewhat personal to my
self, and still more interesting to those I represent. Anxious as I
know all are to act, rather than debate, I am compelled, for the rea
sons I have assigned, to solicit the attention of the Senate. I do
this chiefly that I may. discharge the humble duty of giving to the
¦Senate, and through this medium to my constituents, the motives
and reasons which have impelled me to occupy a position always
undesirable, but, in times like the present, painfully embarrassing.
I have been compelled, from convictions of duty which I could
not disregard, to differ not merely with those on the other side of
the chamber, with whom I seldom agree, but also to separate, on
¦one or two important questions, from a majority of my friends on
this side — those who compose here that Whig party, of which, I
suppose, I may yet call myself a member.
Diversity of opinion, on most subjects affecting human affairs,
is to be expected. Unassisted mind, in its best estate, has not yet
.attained to uniformity, much less to absolute certainty, in matters
belonging to the dominion of speculative reason. This is peculiarly
and emphatically true where we endeavor to deduce from the pres-
¦ent, results, the accomplishment of which reach far into the future,
(277)

278 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
and will only clearly develop themselves in the progress of time.
From the present state of the human mind, this is a law of intellect
quite as strong as necessity ; and yet, after every reasonable allow
ance for the radical difference in intellectual structure, culture, habits
of thought and the application of thought to things, the singularly
opposite avowals made by the two Senators on the other side of the
chamber (I mean the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Calhoun,
and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Cass,) must have struck all who
heard them as a curious and mournful example of the truth of which
I have spoken. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass], in contem
plating the present aspects and probable future course of our pubhc
affairs, declared that he saw nothing to alarm the fears or depress the
hopes of the patriot. To his serene, and, as I fear, too apathetic
mind, all is calm; the sentinel might sleep securely on his watch-
tower. The ship of State seems to him to expand her sails under a
clear sky, and move on, with prosperous gales, upon a smooth sea.
He admonishes all not to anticipate evil to come, but to fold their
hands and close their eyes in quietude, ever mindful of the consola
tory text, "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" But the
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun], summoning from the
depths of his thoughtful and powerful mind all its energies, and
looking abroad on the present condition of the republic, is pained
with fearful apprehension, doubt, distrust and dismay. To his vis
ion, made strong by a long life of careful observation, made keen by
a comprehensive view of past history, the sky seems overcast with
impending storms, and the dark future is shrouded in impenetrable
gloom. When two such minds thus differ, those less familiar with
great subjects affecting the happiness of nations may well pause,
before they rush to a conclusion on this, a subject which, in all its
bearings, immediate and remote, affects certainly the present prosper
ity, and probably the liberty, of two republics, embracing together
nearly thirty millions of people. ' Mr. President, it is a fearful :
responsibility we have assumed ; engaged in flagrant, desolating war
with a neighboring republic, to us thirty millions of God's creatures
look up for that moderated wisdom which, if possible, may stay the
march of misery, and restore to them, if it may be so, mutual feel- ;
ings of good-will, with all the best blessings of peace. ~~"
I sincerely wish it were in my power to cherish those placid
convictions of security which have settled upon the mind of the Sen
ator from Michigan,, So far from this, I have been, in common with

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 279
the Senator from South Carolina/ oppressed with melancholy fore
bodings of evils to come, and not unfrequently by a conviction that
each step we take in this unjust war, may be the last in our career;
that each chapter we write in Mexican blood, may close the volume
of our history as a free people. !_Sir, I am the less inclined to listen
to the siren song the Senator from Michigan sings to his own soul,
because I have heard its notes before. I know the country is at
this moment suffering from the fatal apathy into which it was lulled
a few years ago. Every one must recall to his mind, with pleasing
regret, the happy condition of the country in 1843, when that other
question, the prelude to this, the annexation of Texas, was agitated
here; we remember how it attracted the attention of the whole
Union ; we remember that the two great leaders of the two great par
ties, agreeing in scarcely any other opinion, were agreed in that.
They both predicted that if Texas were annexed, war with Mexico
would be the probable result. We were told then by others, as now
by the Senator from Michigan, that all was well^-all was calm ; that
Mexico would not fight, or if she would, she was too weak to wage
the struggle with any effect upon us. The sentinel was then told to
sleep upon his watch-tower; "sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof," was sung to us then in notes as soft and sweet as now. Mr.
President, "the day" has come, and with it has come war, the most
direful curse wherewith it has pleased God to afflict a sinful world.
Such have been the fatal effects of lulling into apathy the pubhc
mind, on a subject which agitated it, as well it might, to its pro
foundest depths.
I repeat, sir, the day has come, as was then predicted, and the
evil predicted has come with it. We are here, sir, now, not as then,
at peace with all the world ; not now, as then, with laws that brought
into your treasury everything adequate to its wants ; not now, as
then, free from debt, and the apprehension of debt and taxation, its
necessary consequence. But we are here with a treasury that is beg
gared ; that lifts up its imploring hands to the monopolists and capi
talists of the country; that sends out its notes and "promises to
pay" into every mart and every market in the world, begging for a
pittance from every hand to help to swell the amount now necessary
to extricate us from a war, inevitable, as it now seems it was,, from
that very act which was adopted under such flattering promises two
years ago. Mr. President, it is no purpose of mine to arraign the
conduct -of the United States upon that occasion ; it is no purpose of

280 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
mine to treat this young and newly-adopted sister — the State of
Texas — as an alien or stranger in this family of republics. I allude
to this only to show how little reliance is to be placed upon those
favorable anticipations in which gentlemen indulge with regard to
consequences which may flow from measures to which they are
strongly wedded, either by feeling or party attachment.
Is there nothing else in our history of even the past year to jus
tify the Senator from South Carolina in the pregnant declaration,
that in the whole period of his public life, comprehending the most
eventful in the history of the Republic, there had never been a time
when so much danger was threatened to the interests, happiness and
liberties of the people. Sir, if any one could sit down, free from
the excitements and biases which belong to public affairs — could such
a one betake himself to those sequestered, solitudes, where thought
ful men extract the philosophy of history from its facts, I am quite
sure no song of "all's well" would be heard from his retired cell.
No, sir, looking at the events of the last twelve months, and forfn-
ing his judgment of these by the suggestions which history teaches,
and which she alone can teach, he would record another of those sad
lessons which, though often taught, are, I fear, forever to' be disre
garded. He would speak of a Republic, boasting that its rights
were secured, and the restricted powers of its functionaries bound
up in the chains of a written Constitution ; he would record on his
page, also, that such a people, in the wantonness of strength or the
fancied security of the moment, had torn that written Constitution
to pieces, scattered its fragments to the winds, and surrendered
themselves to the usurped authority of ONE MAN.
He would find written in that Constitution, Congress shall have
power to declare war ; he would find everywhere, in that old charter,
proofs clear and strong, that they who framed it intended that Con
gress, composed of two Houses, the representatives of the States,
and the people, should (if any were pre-eminent) be the controlling
power. He would find there a President designated ; whose general
and almost exclusive duty it is to execute, not to make the law. Turn
ing from this to the history of the last ten months, he would find
that the President alone, without the advice or consent of Congress,
had, by a bold usurpation, made war on a neighboring republic;
and what is quite as much to be deplored, that Congress, whose
high powers were thus set at naught and defied, had, with
ready and tame submission, yielded to the usurper the wealth and

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 281
power of the nation to execute his will, as if to swell his iniquitous
triumph over the very Constitution which he and they had alike
sworn to support.
If any one should inquire for the cause of a war in this coun
try, where should he resort for an answer ? Surely to the journals of
both Houses of Congress, since Congress alone has power to declare
war ; yet, although we have been engaged in war for the last ten
months, a war which has tasked all the fiscal resources of the coun
try to carry it forward, you shall search the records and the archives
of both Houses of Congress in vain for any detail of its causes, any
resolve of Congress that war shall be waged. How is it, then, that
a peaceful and peace-loving people, happy beyond the common lot
of man, busy in every laudable pursuit of life, have been forced to
turn suddenly from these and plunge into the misery, the vice and
crime which ever have been, and ever shall be, the attendant
scourges of war? The answer can only be, it was by the act and
will of the President alone, and not by the act or will of Congress,
the war-making department of the Government.
Mr. President, was it not due to ourselves, to the lofty charac
ter for peace as well as probity which we profess to be ours, and
which till recently we might justly claim — was it not due to the civ
ilization of the age, that we, the representatives of the States and
the people, should have set forth the causes which might impel us to
invoke the fatal arbitrament of war, before we madly rushed upon it ?
Even the Senator from South Carolina, attached as he has been by
party ties to the President, and therefore, as we may suppose,
acquainted with his motives for his war with Mexico, was compelled
to say the other day in debate, that, up to that hour, the causes of
this war were left to conjecture. The reason of this singular anom
aly, sir, is to be found in the fact that the President, and not Con
gress, declared and commenced this war. How is this, Mr. Presi
dent? How is it that we have so disappointed the intentions of oilr
fathers, and the hopes of all the friends of written Constitutions? j
'When the makers of that Constitution assigned to Congress alone,
the most delicate and important power — to declare war — a power
more intimately affecting the interests, immediate and remote, of the
people, than any which a government is ever called on to exert —
when they withheld this great prerogative from the Executive and
confided it to Congress alone, they but consulted in this, as in every
other work of their hands, the gathered wisdom of all preceding

282 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
times. Whether they looked to the stern despotisms of the ancient
Asiatic world, or the military yoke of imperial Rome, or the feudal
institutions of the middle ages, or the more modern monarchies of
Europe, in each and all of these, where the power to wage war was
held by one or by a few, it had been used to sacrifice, not to protect
the many. The caprice or ambition of the tyrant had always been
the cause of bloody and wasting war, while the subject millions had
been treated by their remorseless masters, only as "tools in the
hands of him who knew how to use them." They therefore declared
that this fearful power should be confided to those who represent the
people, and those who here in the Senate represent the sovereign
States of the Republic. After securing this power to Congress,
they thought it safe to give the command of the armies in peace and
war to the President. We shall see hereafter, how by an abuse of
his power as commander-in-chief, the President has drawn to himself
that of declaring war, or commencing hostilities with a people with
whom we were on terms of peace, which is substantially the same.
The men of former times took very good care that your stand
ing army should be exceedingly small, and they who had the most
lively apprehensions of investing in one man the power to command
the army, always inculcated upon the minds of the people the neces
sity of keeping that army within limits, just as small as the necessity
of the external relations of the country would possibly admit. It
has happened, Mr. President, that when a little disturbance on your
Indian frontier took place. Congress was invoked for an increase of
your military force. Gentlemen came here who had seen partial ser
vice in the armies of the United States. They tell you that the militia
of the country is not to be relied upon — that it is only in the regular
army of the United States that you are to find men competent to
fight the battles of the country, and from time to time when that
necessity has seemed to arise, forgetting this old doctrine, that a
large standing army in time of peace was always dangerous to human
liberty, we have increased that army from six thousand up to about
sixteen thousand men. Mr. President, the other day we gave ten
regiments more; and for not giving it within the quick time
demanded by our master, the commander-in-chief some minion, I
know not who, for I have not looked into this matter until this morn
ing, feeding upon the fly-blown remnants that fall from the Execu
tive shambles and lie putrefying there, has denounced us as Mexi
cans, and called the American Republic to take notice, that there

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 283
was in the Senate, a body of men chargeable with incivism — Mexi-
cansjn_heart — traitors to the United States. 
J I trust, Mr. President, that our master will be appeased by the
facility with which, immediately after that rebuke of his minion, the
Senate acted upon the bill and gave him the army which he required.
I trust that he will now forget that law which, as commander-in-chief
of the army of the United States and President of this great North
American Republic for the time being, he promulgated to us in the
message, and those commands which he was pleased to deliver at the
opening of this session to his faithful and humble servitors in both
branches of the American Congress, admonishing us that we would
be considered as giving "aid and comfort" to his enemy — not ours!
— his — if one word should be said unfavorable to the motives which
have brought the royal will to the conclusion that he would precipi
tate this Republic into a war with Mexico ! I trust His Majesty, in
consideration of our faithful services in augmenting the forces of the
Republic agreeably to the commands which we have received from
the throne, will be induced to relax a little when he comes to exe
cute that law of treason upon one at least so humble as myself! I
do remember, Mr. President, — you will remember, Mr. President, —
your recollection of history will furnish you with a case which will,
I think, operate in my favor in a question of that sort.
Some time in the history of the royal Tudors in England, when
a poor Englishman, for differing from His Majesty, or Her Majesty,
on some subject — it might be religious faith — was condemned to be
hanged and quartered and emboweled, out of special grace, in a par
ticular case where penitence was expressed, the hangman was admon
ished to give the culprit time to choke before he began to chop up
his limbs and take out his bowels !
Now, Mr. President, I have already stated that I do not intend
to occupy the Senate with a discussion of those varieties of topics
which naturally enforce themselves upon my attention in considering
this subject. It must have occurred to everybody how utterly impo
tent the Congress of the United States now is for any purpose what
ever, but that of yielding to the President every demand which he
makes for men and money, unless they assume that only position
which is left — that which, in the history of other countries, in times
favorable to human liberty, has been so often resorted to as a check
upon arbitrary power — withholding money, refusing to grant the ser-

284 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
vices of men when demanded for purposes which are not deemed to
be proper. When I review the doctrines of the majority here, and consider
their application to the existing war, I confess I am at a loss to
determine whether the world is to consider our conduct as a ridicu
lous farce, or be lost in amazement at such absurdity in a people
calling themselves free. The President, without asking the consent
of Congress, involves us in war, and the majority here, without ref
erence to the justice or necessity of the war, call upon us to grant
men and money at the pleasure of the President, who they say, is
charged with the duty of carrying on the war and responsible for its
result. If we grant the means thus demanded, the President can
carry forward this war for any end, or from any motive, without
limit of time or place.
With these doctrines for our guide, I will thank any Senator to
furnish me with any means of escaping from the prosecution of this
or any other war for a hundred years to come, if it pleased the
President who shall be, to continue it so long. Tell me, ye who
contend that being in war, duty demands of Congress for its prose
cution, all the money and every able-bodied man in America to carry
it on if need be, who also contend that it is the right of the Presi
dent, without the control of Congress, to march your embodied
hosts to Monterey, to Yucatan, to Mexico, to Panama, to China, and
that under penalty of death to the officer who disobeys him — tell
me, I demand it of you, teh me, teU the American people, tell the
nations of Christendom, what is the difference between your Ameri
can democracy and the most odious, most hateful despotism, that a
merciful God has ever allowed a nation to be afflicted with since gov
ernment on earth began ? [^You may caU this free government, but
it is such freedom, and no other, as of old was estabhshed at Baby
lon, at Susa, at Bactriana, or Persepolis. Its parallel is scarcely to
be found when thus falsely understood, in any even the worst forms
of civil polity in modern times. Sir, it is not so, such is not your
Constitution, it is something else, something other and better than
this. I have looked at this subject with a painful endeavor to come to
the conclusion, if possible, that it was my duty, as a Senator of the
United States, finding the country in war, to "fight it out," as we
say in the common and popular phrase of the times, to a just and
honorable peace I I could very easily concede that to be my duty if

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 285
I found my country engaged in a just war — in a war necessary even
to protect that fancied honor of which you talk so much. I then
should have some apology in the judgment of my country, in the
determination of my conscience, and in that appeal which you, and
I, and all of us must soon be required to make before a tribunal,
where this vaunted honor of the Repubhc, I fear me, will gain but
little credit as a defense to any act we may perform here in the Sen
ate of the United States.
But when I am asked to say whether I will prosecute a war, I
cannot answer that question, yea or nay, until I have determined
whether that was a necessary war; and I cannot determine whether it
was necessary until I know how it was that my country was involved
in it. And it is to that particular point, Mr. President, — without
reading documents, but referring to a few facts which I understand
not to be denied on either side of this chamber — that I wish to
direct the attention of the American Senate, and so far as may be,
that of any of the noble and honest-hearted constituents whom I
represent here. I know, Mr. President, the responsibility which I
assume in undertaking to determine that the President of the United
States has done a great wrong to the country, whose honor and
whose interest he was required to protect. I know the denuncia
tions which await every one who shall dare to put himself in opposi
tion to that high power — that idol god — which the people of this
country have made to themselves and called a President.
But it is my very humility which makes me bold. I know, sir,
that he who was told in former time how to govern a turbulent peo
ple, was advised to cut off the taUest heads. Mine will escape!
Still, holding a seat here, Mr. President, and finding it written in the
Constitution of my country that I had the power to grant to the
President at his bidding, or not, as I pleased, men and money, I did
conceive that it became my duty to ascertain whether the President's
request was a reasonable one — whether the President wanted these
men and this money for a proper and laudable purpose or not ; and
with these old-fashioned ideas — quite as unpopular, I fear, with some
on this side of the Chamber as we find them to be on the other — I
set myself to this painful investigation. I found not quite enough
along with me to have saved the unrighteous city of old.
There were not five of us, but only three ! And when these
votes were called, and I was compelled to separate myself from
almost aU around me, I could have cried as did the man of Uz in his

286 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
affliction in the elder time — "What time my friends wax warm they
vanish, when it is hot they are consumed out of their places I"
I could not leave the position in which it had pleased the State
of Ohio to place me, and I returned again and again to the original
and primary and important inquiry — how is it that my country is
involved in this war? I looked to the President's account of it, and
he tells me it was a war for the defense of the territory of the
United States. I found it written in that message, Mr. President,
that this war was not sought nor forced upon Mexico by the people of
the United States. I shall make no question of history or the truth
of history with my master, the commander-in-chief, upon that partic
ular proposition. _J3n the contrary, I could verify every word that
he thus utters, j Sir, I know that the people of the United States nei
ther sought nor forced Mexico into this war, and yet I know that the
President of the United States, with the command of your standing
army, did seek that war, and that he forced the war upon Mexico. I
am not about to afflict the Senate with a detail of testimony on that
point. I will simply state facts which few, I trust, will be found to
deny. One of the facts, Mr. President, is this : That in the year of
grace, 1836, the battle of San Jacinto was fought. Does anybody
deny that? No one here will doubt that fact. The result of that
battle was that a certain district of country, calling itself Texas,
declared itself a free and independent republic. I hope the Senate
will pardon me for uttering a thought or two, which strikes me just
now while I see the Senator from Texas, the leader of the men who
achieved that victory, before me. I wish to say a word or two
about the great glory, the historical renown, that is to come to the
people of the United States by the victories which we shall obtain
over the arms and forces of the Republic of Mexico. I suppose,
Mr. President, like all other boys, in my early youth, when I had an
opportunity of looking at a book called history, those which spoke
of bloody battles and desolating wars were most likely to attract my
attention ; and with very limited means of ascertaining that portion
of the history of the human race, it nevertheless has impressed
itself very vividly upon my mind that there have been great wars,
and, as the old maxim has it, "many brave men before Agamem
non." Sir, the world's annals show very many ferocious sieges, and
battles, and onslaughts before San Jacinto, Palo Alto or Monterey.

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 287
Generals of bloody renown have frightened the nations before the
revolt of Texas, or our invasion of Mexico; and I suppose we
Americans might properly claim some share in this martial reputa
tion, since it was won by our own kindred, men clearly descended
from Noah, the great "propositus" of our family, with whom we all
claim a very endearing relationship. But I confess, I have been
somewhat surprised of late, that men, read in the history of man,
who knew that war has been his trade for six thousand years
(prompted, I imagine, by those "noble instincts" spoken of by the
Senator from Michigan), who knew that the first man born of
woman was a hero of the first magnitude, that he met his shepherd
brother in deadly conflict, and most heroically beat out his brains
with a club — I say, sir, I am somewhat puzzled when I hear those
who knew all these things well, nevertheless shouting paeans of glory
to the American name, for the few deeds of death which our noble
little army in Mexico has as yet been able to achieve.
But, sir, let me recur again to the battle of San Jacinto. The
Senator from Texas [General Houston], now in his seat, com
manded there. His army consisted of about seven hundred and
fifty men. These were collected from all parts of the United States,
and from the population of Texas, then numbering about ten thou
sand souls. With this army, undisciplined, badly armed and indiffer
ently furnished in all respects, the Senator from Texas conquered a
Mexican army of about 3,500 men; took their commander, Santa
Anna, then President of Mexico, prisoner, with the whole of his
forces. Texas declared her independence, and alone maintained it
against the power of Mexico for seven years, and since that time has
been a State under the shield of our protection. It is against this
same Mexico that twenty mihions of Anglo-Saxon Americans send
forth their armies. The great North American Republic buckles on
her armor, and her mighty bosom heaves with the "gaudia certam-
inis," as she marches under her eagle banners to encounter a foe,
who, ten years ago, was whipped by an army of seven hundred and
fifty undisciplined militia, and bereft of a territory larger than the
empire of France, which her conqueror held in her despite for seven
years, and then quietly transferred her territory and power to you.
Sir, if the joint armies of the United States and Texas are to acquire
renown by vanquishing Mexico, what honors are too great to be
denied to Texas for her victory over this Mexico ten years ago ? If,
by vanquishing such a foe, you are to win renown in war, what lau-

288 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
rels should you not wreathe around the brows of those who fought
at San Jacinto, especially when history tells of the killed and
wounded in the latter fight, she records that just three were killed in
mortal combat, while two died of their wounds "when the battle
was done II!" Oh, Mr. President, does it indeed become this great
Republic to cherish the heroic wish to measure arms with the long
' since conquered, distracted, anarchic and miserable Mexico?
Mr. President, I trust we shall abandon the idea, the heathen,
barbarian notion, that our true national glory is to be won, or
retained, by military prowess or skill in the art of destroying life.
And, while I cannot but lament, for the permanent and lasting
renown of my country, that she should command the service of her
children in what I must consider wanton, unprovoked, unnecessaty,
and, therefore, unjust war, I can yield to the brave soldier, whose
trade is war, and whose duty is obedience, the highest meed of
praise for his courage, his enterprise and perpetual endurance of the
fatigues and horrors of war. I know the gallant men who are
engaged in fighting your battles possess personal bravery equal to
any troops, in any land, anywhere engaged in the business of war.
I do not believe we are less capable in the art of destruction than
others, or less willing, on the slightest pretext, to unsheath the
sword, and consider "revenge a virtue." I could wish, also, that
your brave soldiers, while they bleed and die on the battle-field,
might have (what in this war is impossible) the consolation to feel
and know that their blood flowed in defense of a great right — that
their lives were a meet sacrifice to an exalted principle.
But, sir, I return to our relations with Mexico. Texas, I have
shown, having won her independence, and torn from Mexico about
one-fourth part of her territory, comes to the United States, sinks
her national character into the less elevated, but more secure, posi
tion of one of the United States of America. The revolt of Texas,
her successful war with Mexico, and a consequent loss of a valuable
province, all inured to the ultimate benefit of our Government and
our country. While Mexico was weakened and humbled, we, in the
same proportion, were strengthened and elevated. All this was
done against the wish, the interest and the earnest remonstrance of
Mexico. Every one can feel, if he will examine himself for a moment,
what must have been the mingled emotions of pride, humiliation and
bitter indignation, which raged in the bosoms of the Mexican peo-

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 289
pie, when they saw one of their fairest provinces torn from them by
a revolution, moved by a foreign people ; and that province, by our
act and our consent, annexed to the already enormous expanse of
our territory. It is idle, Mr. President, to suppose that the Mexican
people would not feel as deeply for the dismemberment and disgrace
of their country as you would for the dismemberment of this Union
of ours. Sir, there is not a race, nor tribe, nor people on the earth,
who have an organized social or political existence, who have clung
with more obstinate affection to every inch of soil they could call
their own, than this very Spanish, this Mexican, this Indian race, in
that country. ; So strong and deep is this sentiment in the heart of
I that half-savage, half-civilized race, that it has become not merely an
opinion, a principle, but with them an unreasoning fanaticism. So
radically deep and strong has this idea rooted itself into the Mexican
mind, that I learn recently it has been made a part of the new funda
mental law, that not an inch of Mexican soil shall ever be alienated
to a foreign power; that her territory shall remain entire as long as
her republic endures; that, if one of her limbs be forcibly severed
from her, death shall ensue, unless that limb shall be re-united to the
parent trunk. With such a people, not like you, as you fondly, and
I fear, vainly boast yourselves, a highly-civilized, reasoning, and
philosophical race, but a people who upon the fierce barbarism of
the old age have ingrafted the holy sentiments of patriotism of a
later birth; with just such a people, the pride of independence and
the love of country combine to inflame and sublimate patriotic
attachment into a feeling dearer than life — stronger than death.
What were the sentiments of such a people toward us when
they learned that, at the battle of San Jacinto, there were only sev
enty-five men of their own country out of the seven hundred and
fifty who conquered them on that day, and that every other man of
that conquering army who fought that battle, and dismembered their
republic of one-fourth part of its territory, had but recently gone
there from this country, was fed by our people, and armed and
equipped in the United Stated to do that very deed.
I do not say that Mexico had a right to make war upon us be
cause our citizens chose to seek their fortunes in the fields of Texas.
I do not say she had a right to treat you as a bellgerent power be
cause you permitted your citizens to march in battalions and regiments
from your shores, for the avowed purpose of insurrectionary war in
Texas — but I was not alone at the time in expressing my astonish-
20

290 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
ment that all this did not work an open rupture between the two
Republics at that time. We all remember your proclamations of
neutrality — we know that in defiance of these, your citizens armed
themselves and engaged in the Texan revolt; and it is true that
without such aid Texas would this day have been, as she then was,
an integral portion of the Mexican republic. Sir, Mexicans knew
this then, they knew it when, seven years after, you coolly took '
this province under your protection and made it your own. Do you~
wonder, therefore, after all this, that when Texas did thus forcibly
pass away from them and come to us, that prejudice amounting to
hate, resentment implacable as revenge toward us, should seize and
possess and madden the entire population of a country thus weak
ened, humbled, contemned ?
Mr. President, how would the fire of indignation have burned
in every bosom here if the government of Canada, with the conniv
ance of the Crown of England, had permitted its people to arm
themselves, or it might be, had allowed its regiments of trained
mercenary troops stationed there to invade New York and excite her
to revolt, telling them that the Crown of England was the natural
and paternal ruler of any people desiring to be free and happy —
that your Government was weak, factious, oppressive — that man
withered under its baleful influence — that your stars and stripes were
only emblems of degradation and symbols of faction — that England's
lion, rampant on his field of gold, was the appropriate emblem of
power and symbol of national glory — and they succeeded in alienat
ing the weak or wicked of your people from you — should we not
then have waged exterminating war upon England, in every quar
ter of the globe, where her people were to be found?
If, sir, I say, old mother England had sent her children forward
to you with such a purpose and message as that, and had severed
the State of New York from you, and then, for some difficulty about
the boundary along between it and Pennsylvania and New Jersey,
running up some little tide creek here, and going off a little degree
or two there, should have said, "We have a dispute about this
boundary ; we have some forty thousand regular troops planted upon
the boundary, and I wish you to understand that I am very strong
— that I have not only thirty millions of people upon the soil of
Great Britain that own my sovereign sway, but away upon the other
side of the globe, right under you, there the lion of England com
mands the obedience of a hundred and twenty millions more. It

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 291
becomes you, straggling Democrats, here in this new world, to be a
little careful how you treat me. You are not Celts exactly — nor are
you quite Anglo Saxons ; but you are a degenerate, an alien, a sort
of bastard race. I have taken your New York ; I will have your
Massachusetts." And all this is submitted to the American Senate,
and we are gravely discussing what ought to be done. Would we
be likely to ratify a treaty between New York and the Crown of
England, permitting New York to become a part of the colonial
possessions of England?
I should like to hear my colleague [Mr. Allen] speak on such
a question as that. I should like to hear the voice of this Democrat
that you talk about, called upon to utter its tones on a question like
that. If he who last year was so pained lest an American citizen
away — God knows where! in some latitude beyond the Rocky
Mountains, should be obedient to British laws — if he whose patriotic
and Republican apprehension was so painfully excited lest the right
of habeas corpus and trial by jury, which every Englishman carries in
his pocket wherever he goes, should be made to bear upon an Amer
ican citizen — ^were called upon to speak upon such a proposition as
, that which I have supposed, I should certainly like to hear how he
/jwould treat it. j Yet, the question being reversed, that is precisely
the condition in which Mexico stood toward you after San Jacinto
was fought, and on the day Texas ,was annexed.
Your people did go to Texas. I remember it well. They
went to Texas to fight for their rights. They could not fight for
them in their own country. Well, they fought for their rights.
They conquered them! They "conquered a peace!" They were
your citizens — not Mexicans. They were recent emigrants to that
country. They went there for the very purpose of seizing on that
country and making it a free and independent republic, with a view,
as some of them said, of bringing it into the American Confederacy
in due time. Vis this poor Celtic brother of yours in Mexico — is the
Mexican man sunk so low that he cannot hear what fills the mouth
and ear of rumor all over this country ? He knows that this was the
settled purpose of some of your people. He knows that your ava
rice had fixed its eagle glance on these rich acres in Mexico, and that
your proud power counted the number that could be brought against
you, and that your avarice and your power together marched on to
the subjugation of the third or fourth part of the Republic of Mex
ico, and took it from her. We knew this, and knowing it, what

292 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
should have been the feeling and sentiment in the mind of the
President of the United States toward such a people — a people at
least in their own opinion so deeply injured by us as were these
Mexicans. The Republic of Texas comes under the Government of the
United States, and it happens that the minister resident at your court
—and it is a pretty respectable court, Mr. President, — we have
something of a king — not for life, it is true, but a quadrennial sort
of a monarch, who does very much as he pleases — the minister resi
dent at that court of yours stated at the time that this revolted
province of Texas was claimed by Mexico, and that if you received
it as one of the sovereign States of this Union, right or wrong, it
was impossible to reason with his people about it — they would con
sider it as an act of hostility. Did you consult the national feeling
of Mexico then?
The President has now to deal with a people thus humbled, thus
irritated. It was his duty to concede much to Mexico; everything
but his country's honor or her rights. Was this done? Not at all!
Mexico and her minister were alike spurned as weak and trivial
things, whose complaints you would not hear or heed ; and when she
humbly implored you not to take this province — declared that it
might disturb the peace subsisting between us — you were still inex
orable. During this time, she was forcing loans from her citizens to
pay the debt she owed yours, fulfilling her treaties with you by pain
ful exactions from her own people. She begged of you to let Texas
alone. If she were independent, let her enjoy her independence ; if
free, let her revel in her new-born liberty, in defiance of Mexico, as
she alleged she would and could. Your stern reply was. No ! we
will, at your expense, strengthen our own arm, by uniting to our
selves that which has been severed from you by our citizens ; we will
take Texas ; we will throw the shield of our Constitution over her
rights, and the sword of our power shall gleam hke that at Eden,
"turning every way," to guard her against further attack.
Her minister, his remonstrance failing, leaves you. He tells
you that he cannot remain, because you had created, by this act,
hostile relations with his government. At last you are informed that
Mexico will receive a commission to treat of this Texan boundary,
if you will condescend to negotiate. Instead of sending a commis
sioner to treat of that, the only difficult question between the two
Republics, you send a full minister, and require that he shall be

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 293
received as such. If he could not be styled Minister Plenipotentiary
and so accredited, why then we must fight, and not negotiate for a
boundary. The then Mexican president, the representative of some
faction then only, was tottering to his fall. His minister besought
Mr. Slidell not to press his reception then. He was told that the
excited feelings of the Mexican people were such that he must delay
for a time. To this petition what answer is returned? You shall
receive me now ; you shall receive me as minister, and not as com
missioner; you shall receive me as though the most pacific relations
existed between the two countries. Thus, and not otherwise, shall it
be. Such was the haughty, imperious tone of Mr. Slidell, and he
acted up only to the spirit of his instructions. Let any one peruse
the correspondence I have referred to, and he will see that I have
truly represented its spirit, be its letter what it may. This is done
under the instructions of a cabinet here, who represented themselves
in our public documents, as sighing, panting for peace; as desiring,
above all things, to treat these distracted, contemned Mexicans in
such a way, that not the shadow of a complaint against us shall be
seen. From this correspondence it is perfectly clear, that if Mr.
Slidell had been sent in th© less ostentatious character of commis
sioner, to treat of the Texan boundary, that treaties and not bullets
yw^ould have adjusted the question. \ But this was not agreeable to the
lofty conceptions of the President. He preferred a vigorous war to
the tame process of peaceful adjustment. He now throws down the
pen of the diplomat, and grasps the sword of the warrior. Your
army, with brave old "Rough and Ready" at its head, is ordered to
pass the Nueces, and advance to the east bank of the Rio Grande.
There, sir, between these two rivers, lies that slip of territory, that
chapparal thicket, interspersed with Mexican haciendas, out of which
this wasteful, desolating war arose. Was this territory beyond the
river Nueces in the State of Texas?
Now I have said, that I would not state any disputable fact. It
is known to every man who has looked into this subject, that a revo
lutionary government can claim no jurisdiction anywhere when it has
not defined and exercised its power with the sword. It was utterly
indifferent to Mexico and the world what legislative enactments
Texas made. She extended her revolutionary government and her
revolutionary dominion not one inch beyond the extent to which she
had carried the power of Texas in opposition to the power of
Mexico.

294 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
It is therefore a mere question of fact; and how will it be
pretended that that country, lying between the Nueces and the Del
Norte, to which your army was ordered, and of which it took pos
session, was subject to Texan law and not Mexican law? What did
your general find there ? What did he write home? Do you hear
of any trial by jury on the east bank of the Rio Grande — of Anglo
Saxons making cotton there with their gegroes ? No ! You hear of
Mexicans residing peacefully there, but fleeing from their cotton-
fields at the approach of your army — no slaves, for it had been a
decree of the Mexican government, years ago, that no slaves should
exist there. If there were a Texan population on the east bank of
the Rio Grande, why did not General Taylor hear something of
those Texans hailing the advent of the American army, coming to
protect them from the ravages of the Mexicans, and the more mur
derous onslaughts of the neighboring savages?
Do you hear anything of that ? No I On the contrary, the
population fled at the approach of your army. In God's name, I
wish to know if it has come to this, that when an American army
goes to protect American citizens on American territory, they flee
from it as if from the most barbarous enemy ? Yet such is the ridic
ulous assumption of those who pretend that, on the east bank of the
Rio Grande, where your arms took possession, there were Texan
population, Texan power, Texan laws, and American United States
power and law I No, Mr. President, when I see that stated in an
Executive document, written by the finger of a President of the
United States, and when you read in those documents, with which
your tables groan, the veracious account of that noble old General
Taylor, of his reception in that country, and of those men — to use
the language of one of his officers — fleeing before the invaders ;
when you compare these two documents together, is it not a biting
sarcasm upon the sincerity of public men — a bitter satire upon the
gra-inty of all public affairs ?
Can it be, Mr. President, that the honest, generous. Christian
people of the United States will give contenance to this egregious,
palpable misrepresentation of fact — this bold falsification of history?
Shall it be written down in your public annals, when the world look
ing on and you yourselves know, that Mexico, and not Texas, pos
sessed this territory to which your armies marched ? As Mexico
had never been dispossessed by Te.xan power, neither Texas nor
your Government had any more claim to it than you now have to

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 295
California, that other possession of Mexico over which your all-
grasping avarice has already extended its remorseless dominion.
^j Mr. President, there is absent to-day a Senator from the other
side of the House whose presence would afford me, as it always
does, but particularly on this occasion, a most singular gratification.
I allude to the Senator from Missouri who sits furthest from me
(Mr. Benton). I remember, Mr. President, he arose in this body
and performed a great act of justice to himself and to his country —
of justice to mankind, for all men are interested in the truths of his
tory — when he declared it to be his purpose, for the sake of the
truth of history, to set right some gentlemen, on the other side of
the House, in respect to the territory of Oregon, which then threat
ened to disturb the peace of this Republic with the kingdom of
Great Britain. I wish it had pleased him to have performed the
same good offices on this occasion.
I wish it had been so, if he could have found it consonant with
his duty to his country, that now, while engaged with an enemy
whom we have no reason to fear, as being ever able to check our
progress or disturb our internal peace, for the sake of justice, as
then he did for the sake of justice and the interest and peace of those
two countries, England and America, he had come forward to settle
the truth of history in respect to the territorial boundary of Texas,
which our President said was the Rio Bravo — the "Rio del Norte,"
as it is sometimes called. I express this wish for no purpose of
taunting the Senator from Missouri, or leading him to believe that I
would draw his name into the discussion for any other than the most
sacred purposes which can animate the human bosom — that of hav
ing truth established ; for I really believe that that is truth which the
Senator from Michigan stated yesterday, that the worst said in the
Senate is, that much might be said on both sides. I cannot view it
in that way. Much may be said, much talk may be had on both
sides on any question, but that this is a disputable matter about
which a man could apply his mind for an hour and still be in doubt,
is to me an inscrutable mystery.
I wish to invoke the authority of the Senator from Missouri.
When about to receive Texas into the United States he offered a
resolution to this efifect :
"That the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del Norte (Rio Grande) into
the American Union, by virtue of a treaty with Texas, comprehending, as the said in
corporation would do, a part of the Mexican departments of New Mexico, Chihuahua,

296 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COKWIN.
Coahuila and Tamaulipas, WOULD BE AN ACT OF DIRECT AGGRESSION ON
MEXICO, for all the consequences of which the United States would stand responsible.'*
I beg, Mr. President, to add to this another authority which I
am sure will not be contradicted by any calling themselves Democrats.
In the summer of 1844, Mr. Silas Wright, in an elaborate address
delivered at Watertown, N. Y., said:
*' There is another subject on which I feel bound to speak a word ; I allude to the
proposition to annex Texas to the territory of this republic. I felt it my duty to vote
as Senator, and did vote against the ratification of the treaty for the annexation. I
believed that the treaty, from the boundaries that must be implied from it, if Mexico
would not treat with us, embraced a country to which Texas had no claim — over which
she had never asserted jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede. On this point
I should give a brief explanation.
" The treaty ceded Texas by name without an effort to describe a boundary. The
Congress of Texas had passed an act declaring, by metes and bounds, what was Texas
within their power and jurisdiction. It appeared tome then, if Mexico should tell us,
* We don't know you, we have no treaty to make with you,' and we were left to take
possession by force, we must take the country as Texas had ceded it to us ; and in doing
that, or forfeiting our own honor, we must do injustice to Mexico, and take a large
portion of New Mexico, the people of which have never been under the jurisdiction of
Texas; this, tome, was an insurmountable barrier — I could not place the country in
that position.'' How did your officers consider this question? While in camp
opposite to Matamoras, being then on the left bank of the Rio
Grande, between the latter river and the Nueces, a most respectable
officer writes thus to his friend in New York :
"Camp opposite Matamoras, April 19, 1846.
"Our situation here is an extraordinary one. Right in the enemy's country,
actually occupying their corn and cotton-fields, the people of the soil leaving their
homes, and we, with a small handful of men, marching, with colors flying and drums
beating, right under the guns of one of their principal cities, displaying the star-
spangled banner, as if in defiance, under their very nose, and they, with an army twice
our size at least, sit quietly down, and make not the least resistance, not the first effort
to drive the invaders off. There is no parallel to it."
Sir, did this officer consider himself in Texas? Were they our
own Texan citizens, who, in the language of the letter, ''did not
make iJie first effort to drive the invaders offf If it had been Texas
there, would that State consider it z?ivasio7i, or her people fly froju
your standard? " The people of the soil leaimig tJieir Jwines P' Who
were those ''people of the soil?'' Sir, they were Mexicans, never con
quered by Texas, and never subject to her laws, and therefore never
transferred by annexation to your dominion ; and therefore, lastly,
your army, by order of the President, without the consent or advice

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 297
of Congress, made war on Mexico, by invading her territory, in
April, 1846.
Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri was right. ' ' The in
corporation of the left bank of the Rio Grande into the American
Union," was "an act of direct aggression on Mexico," as his resolu
tion most truthfully alleged. We, or at least the President, has at
tempted to incorporate the left bank of the Rio del Norte, or the Rio
Grande, into the Union, and the consequence, the legitimate conse
quence, war, has come upon us. The President, in his message, as
serts the boundary of Texas to be the Rio Grande. The Senator
from Missouri asserts the left bank of that river to be Mexican terri
tory. Sir, it is not for me, who stand here an humble man, who
pretend not to be one of those Pharisees who know all the law and
obey it, but who, like the poor publican, would stand afar off and
smite my breast, and say God be merciful to me, a poor Whig.
When the anointed high-priests in the Temple of Democracy differ on
a point of fact, it is not for me to decide between them. Is it for me
to say that the Senator from Missouri was ignorant and the President
omniscient? Is it for me to say that the President was right and the
Senator from Missouri wrong ? If it were true that Texan laws had
been, since 1836, as the President's action seems to declare, how
happened it that when General Taylor went to Point Isabel, the peo
ple set fire to their houses and fled the place ? And how did it hap
pen that there was a custom-house there, there, in Texas, as you now
allege? A Mexican custom-house in Texas, where, ever since 1836,
and for one whole year after the State of Texas became yours, a
Mexican officer collected taxes of all who traded there, and paid
these duties into the Mexican treasury ! Sir, is it credible that this
State of Texas allowed Mexican laws and Mexican power to exist
within her borders for seven years after her independence ? I should
think a people so prompt to fight for their rights might have burned
some powder for the expulsion of Mexican usurpers from Texan ter
ritory. Sir, the history of this country is full of anomalies and con
tradictions. What a patriotic, harmonious .people! When Taylor
comes to protect them they fire their dwellings and fly I When you
come in peace, bristling in arms for protection only — your eagle
spreading its wings to shield from harm all American citizens — what
then happens? Why, according to your own account, these Anglo-
Saxon republicans are so terrified at the sight of their country's flag,
that they abandon their homes, and retreat before your army, as if

298 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
some Nomad tribe had wandered thither to enslave their families and
plunder their estates I
All this mass of undeniable fact, known even to the careless
reader of the public prints, is so utterly at war with the studiously-
contrived statements in your cabinet documents, that I do not won
der at all that an amiable national pride, however misplaced here,
has prevented hitherto a thorough and fearless investigation of their
truth. Nor, sir, would I probe this feculent mass of misrepresenta
tion, had I not been compelled to it in defense of votes which I was
obliged to record here, within the last ten days. Sir, with my opin
ions as to facts connected with this subject, and my deductions, un
avoidable, from them, I should have been unworthy the high-souled
State I represent, had I voted men and money to prosecute further
a war commenced, as it now appears, in aggression, and carried on
by repetition only of the original wrong. Am I mistaken in this?
If I am, I shall hold him the dearest friend I can own, in any relation
of life, who shall show me my error. If I am wrong in this ques
tion of fact, show me how I err, and gladly will I retrace my steps ;
satisfy me that my country was in peaceful and rightful possession
between the Nueces and Rio Grande when General Taylor's army
was ordered there; show me that at Palo Alto and Resaca de las
Palmas blood was shed on American soil in American possession,
and then, for the defense of that possession, I will vote away the last
dollar that power can wring from the people, and send every man
able to bear a musket to the ranks of war. But until I shall be thus
convinced, duty to myself, to truth, to conscience, to public justice,
requires that I persist in every lawful opposition to this war.
While the American President can command the army, thank
Heaven I can command the purse. While the President, under the
penalty of death, can command your officers to proceed, I can tell
them to come back, or the President can supply them as he may.
He shall have no funds from me in the prosecution of a war which I
cannot approve. That I conceive to be the duty of a Senator. I
am not mistaken in that. If it be my duty to grant whatever the
President demands, for what am I here? Have I no will upon the
subject? Is it not placed at my discretion, understanding, judg
ment? Have an American Senate and House of Representatives
nothing to do but obey the bidding of the President, as the army he
commands is compelled to obey under penalty of death? No I The

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 299
representatives of the sovereign people and sovereign States were
never elected for such purposes as that.
Have Senators reflected on the great power which the command
of armies in war confers upon any one, but especially on him who is
at once the civil and military chief of the government? It is very
well that we should look back to see how the friends of popular
rights regarded this subject in former times. Prior to the revolution
of 1688, in England, all grants of money by Parliament were gen
eral. Specific appropriations before that period were unknown.
The king could, out of the general revenues, appropriate any or all
of them to any war or other object, as best suited his own unre
strained wishes. Hence, in the last struggle with the first Charles,
the Parliament insisted that he should yield up the command of the
army raised to quell the Irish rebellion to such person as Parliament
should choose. The men of that day saw that with the unrestricted
control of revenue, and the power to name the commander of the
army, the king was master of the liberties of the people. Where
fore Charles, after he had yielded up almost every other kingly pre
rogative, was (in order to secure Parliament and the people against
military rule ) required to give up the command of the forces. It was
his refusal to do this that brought his head to the block. "Give up
the command of the army !" was the last imperative demand of the
foes of arbitrary power then. What was the reply of that unhappy
representative of the doomed race of the Stuarts? "Not for an hour,
by God !" was the stern answer. Wentworth had always advised his
royal master never to yield up the right to command the army ; such,
too, was the counsel of the queen, whose notions of kingly power
were all fashioned after the most despotic models. This power over
the army by our Constitution is conceded to our king. Give him
money at his will, as we are told we must, and you have set up in
this Repubhc just such a tyrant as him against whom the friends of
English liberty were compelled to wage war. It was a hard neces
sity, but still it was demanded as the only security for any reasona
ble measure of public liberty. Such men as Holt and Somers had
not yet taught the people of England the secret of controlling arbi
trary power by specific appropriations of money, and withholding
these, when the king proclaimed his intention to use the grant for
any purpose not approved by the Commons, the true representatives
, of popular rights in England.
When, in 1688, this doctrine of specific appropriations became

300 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COKWIN.
a part of the British constitution, the King could safely be trusted
with the control of the army. If war is made there by the Crown,
and the Commons do not approve of it, refusal to grant supplies is
the easy remedy — one, too, which renders it impossible for a king of
England to carry forward any war which may be displeasing to the
English people. Yes, sir, in England, since 1688, it has not been
in the power of a British sovereign to do that, which in your boasted
Republic, an American president, under the auspices of what you
call Democracy, has done — make war, without consent of the legis
lative power. In England, supplies are at once refused, if Parlia
ment does not approve the objects of the war. Here, we are told,
we must not look to the objects of the war, being in the war — made
by the President — we must help him to fight it out, should it even
please him to carry it to the utter extermination of the Mexican
race. Sir, I believe it must proceed to this shocking extreme, if
you are, by war, to "conquer a peace." Here, then, is your condi
tion. The President involves you in war without your consent.
Being in such a war, it is demanded as a duty, that we grant men
and money to carry it on. The President tells us he shall prosecute
this war, till Mexico pays us, or agrees to pay us, all its expenses.
I am not willing to scourge Mexico thus ; and the only means left me
is to say to the commander-in-chief "Call home your army, I will
feed and clothe it no longer ; you have whipped Mexico into three
pitched battles, this is revenge enough; this is punishment enough."
The President has said he does not expect to hold Mexican ter
ritory by conquest. Why then conquer it? Why waste thousands
of Hves and miUions of money fortifying towns and creating govern
ments, if, at the end of the war, you retire from the graves of your
soldiers and the desolated country of your foes, only to get money
from Mexico for the expense of all your toil and sacrifice? Who
ever heard, since Christianity was propagated among men, of a
nation taxing its people, enlisting its young men and marching off
two thousand miles to fight a people merely to be paid for it in
money? What is this but hunting a market for blood, selling the
lives of your young men, marching them in regiments to be slaugh
tered and paid for, like oxen and brute beasts? Sir, this is, when
stripped naked, that atrocious idea first promulgated in the Presi
dent's message, and now advocated here, of fighting on till we can
get our indemnity for the past as well as the present slaughter. We
have chastised Mexico, and if it were worth while to do so, we have.

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 301
I dare say, satisfied the world that we can fight. What now? Why
the mothers of America are asked to send another of their sons to
blow out the brains of Mexicans because they refuse to pay the price
of the first who fell there, fighting for glory ! And what if the sec
ond fall, too? The Executive, the parental reply, is, "we shall haye
him paid for, we shall get full indemnity!" Sir, I have no patience
with this flagitious notion of fighting for indemnity, and this under
the equally absurd and hypocritical pretense of securing an honora
ble peace. An honorable peace ! If you have accomplished the
objects of the war (if indeed you had an object which you dare to
avow ), cease to fight, and you will have peace. < Conquer your
insane love of false glory, and you will " conquer a peace. " Sir, if
your commander-in-chief will not do this, I will endeavor to compel
him, and as I find no other means, I shall refuse supplies — without
the money of the people, he cannot go further. He asks me for
that money; I wish him to bring your armies home, to cease shed
ding blood for money ; if he refuses, I will refuse supplies, and then
I know he must, he will cease his further sale of the lives of my
countrymen. May we not, ought we not now to do this? I can
hear no reason why we should not, except this : It is said that we
are in war, wrongfully it may be, but, being in, the President is
responsible, and we must give him the means he requires! He
responsible ! Sir, we, we are responsible, if having the power to
stay this plague, we refuse to do so. When it shall be so — when
the American Senate and the American House of Representatives
can stoop from their high position, and yield a dumb compliance
with the behests of a president who is, for the time being, com
mander of your army; when they will open the treasury with one
hand, and the veins of all the soldiers in the land with the other,
merely because the President commands, then, sir, it matters little how
soon some Cromwell shall come into this Hall and say, "the Lord
hath no further need of you here." When we fail to do the work,
"whereunto we were sent," we shall be, we ought to be, removed,
and give place to others who will. The fate of the barren fig-tree
will be ours — Christ cursed it and it withered.
Mr. President, I digmiss this branch of the subject, and beg the
indulgence of the Senate to some reflections on the particular bill
now under consideration. I voted for a bill somewhat like the pres
ent at the last session — our army was then in the neighborhood of
our Hne. I then hoped that the President did sincerely desire a

302 SPEECHES OE THOMAS COEWIN.
peace. Our army had not then penetrated far into Mexico and I
did hope that with the two milhons then proposed, we might get
peace, and avoid the slaughter, the shame, the crime, of an aggress
ive, unprovoked war. But now you have overrun half of Mexico,
you have exasperated and irritated her people, you claim indemnity
for all expenses incurred in doing this mischief, and boldly ask her
to give up New Mexico and California ; and, as a bribe to her patriot
ism, seizing on her property, you offer three millions to pay the sol
diers she has called out to repel your invasion, on condition that she
will give up to you at least one-third of her whole territory. This is
the modest — I should say, the monstrous — proposition now before
us, as explained by the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations [Mr. Sevier], who reported the bill. I cannot now give
my assent to this.
But, sir, I do not believe you will succeed. I am not informed
of your prospects of success with this measure of peace. The
Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations tells us that he has
every reason to believe that peace can be obtained if we grant this
appropriation. What reason have you, Mr. Chairman, for that opin
ion? "Facts which I cannot disclose to you — correspondence which
it would be improper to name here — facts which I know, but which
you are not permitted to know, have satisfied the committee, that
peace may be purchased, if you will but grant these three millions
of dollars." Now, Mr. President, I wish to know if I am required
to act upon such opinions of the Chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, formed upon facts which he refuses to disclose to
me ? No I I must know the facts before I can form my judgment.
But I am to take it for granted that there must be some prospect of
an end to this dreadful war — for it is a dreadful war, being, as I
believe in my conscience it is, an unjust war. Is it possible that for
three millions you can purchase a peace with Mexico? How? By
the purchase of California? Mr. President, I know not what facts
the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs may have had
access to. I know not what secret agents have been whispering into
the ears of the authorities of Mexico ; but of one thing I am certain
that by a cession of California and New Mexico you never can pur
chase a peace with her.
You may wrest provinces from Mexico by ^^'ar — you may hold
them by the right of the strongest — you may rob her, but a treaty
of peace to that effect with the people of Mexico, legitimately and

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 303
freely made, you never will have ! I thank God that it is so, as well
for the sake of the Mexican people as ourselves, for, unhke the Sen
ator from Alabama [Mr. Bagby], I do not value the life of a citizen
of the United States above the lives of a hundred thousand Mexican
women and children — a rather cold sort of philanthropy, in my
judgment. For the sake of Mexico then, as well as our own coun
try, I rejoice that it is an impossibility, that you can obtain by treaty
from her those territories, under the existing state of things.
^ I am somewhat at a loss to know, on what plan of operations
gentlemen having charge of this war intend to proceed. We hear
much said of the terror of your arms. The affrighted Mexican, it is
said, when you shall have drenched his country in blood, will sue
for peace, and thus you will indeed "conquer peace." This is the
heroic and savage tone in which we have heretofore been lectured by
our friends on the other side of the chamber, especially by the Sena
tor from Michigan [General Cass]. But suddenly the Chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations comes to us with a smooth
phrase of diplomacy, made potent by the gentle suasion of gold.
The Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs calls for thirty
millions of money and ten thousand regular troops; these, we are
assured, shall "conquer peace," if the obstinate Celt refuses to treat
till we shall whip him in another field of blood. What a delightful
scene in the nineteenth century of the Christian era ? What an inter
esting sight to see these two representatives of war and peace mov
ing in grand procession through the halls of the Montezumas ! The
Senator from Michigan [General Cass], red with the blood of recent
slaughter, the gory spear of Achilles in his hand and the hoarse
clarion of war in his mouth, blowing a blast "so loud and deep"
that the sleeping echoes of the lofty Cordilleras start from their cav
erns and return the sound, till every ear from Panama to Santa Fe is
deafened with the roar. By his side, with "modest mien and down
cast look," comes the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Sevier], covered
from head to foot with a gorgeous robe, glittering and embossed
with three millions of shining gold, putting to shame ' ' the wealth of
Ormus or of Ind." The olive of Minerva graces his brow; in his
right hand is the delicate rebec, from which are breathed, in Lydian
measure, notes "that tell of naught but love and peace." I fear
very much you will scarcely be able to explain to the simple, savage
mind of the half-civilized Mexicans, the puzzling dualism of this
scene, at once gorgeous and grotesque. Sir I scarcely understand

304 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
the meaning of all this myself If we are to vindicate our
rights by battles — in bloody fields of war — let us do it. If that is
not the plan, why then let us call back our armies into our own terri
tory, and propose a treaty with Mexico, based upon the proposition
that money is better for her and land is better for us. Thus we can
treat Mexico hke an equal and do honor to ourselves. But what is
it you ask ? You have taken from Mexico one-fourth of her terri
tory, and you now propose to run a line comprehending about
another third, and for what? I ask, Mr. President, for what? What
has Mexico got from you, for parting with two-thirds of her domain ?
She has given you ample redress for every injury of which you have
complained. She has submitted to the award of your commissioners,
and up to the time of the rupture with Texas, faithfully paid it.
And for all that she has lost ( not through or by you, but which loss
has been your gain ), what requital do we, her strong, rich, robust
neighbor, make? Do we send our missionaries there "to point the
way to heaven?" Or do we send the schoolmasters to pour daylight
into her dark places, to aid her infant strength to conquer freedom
and reap the fruit of the independence herself alone had won? No,
no, none of this do we. But we send regiments, storm towns, and
our colonels prate of liberty in the midst of the solitudes their rav
ages have made. They proclaim the empty forms of social compact
to a people bleeding and maimed with wounds received in defending
their hearth-stones against the invasion of these very men who shoot
them down, and then exhort them to be free. Your chaplains of the
navy throw aside the New Testament and seize a bill of rights. The
Rev. Don Walter Colton, I see, abandons the Sermon on the Mount,
and betakes himself to Blackstone and Kent, and is elected a Justice
of the Peace I He takes military possession of some town in Cali
fornia, and instead of teaching the plan of the atonement and the
way of salvation to the poor, ignorant Celt, he presents Colt's pistol
to his ear, and calls on him to take "trial by jury and Jiabeas corpus,"
or nine bullets in his head. Oh ! Mr. President, are you not the
lights of the earth, if not its salt ? You, you are indeed opening the
eyes of the blind in Mexico, with a most emphatic and exoteric
power. Sir, if all this were not a sad, mournful truth, it would be
the very "ne plus ultra" of the ridiculous.
But, sir, let us see what, as the Chairman of the Committee of
Foreign Relations explains it, we are to get by the combined pro
cesses of conquest and treaty.

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 305
What is the territory, Mr. President, which you propose to
wrest from Mexico ? It is consecrated to the heart of the Mexican
by many a well-fought battle, with his old Castilian master. His
Bunker Hills, and Saratogas, and Yorktowns are there. The Mexi
can can say, ' ' There I bled for liberty I and shall I surrender that
consecrated home of my affections to the Anglo-Saxon invaders?
What do they want with it ? They have Texas already. They have
possessed themselves of the territory between the Nueces and the
Rio Grande. What else do they want? To what shall I point my
children as memorials of that independence which I bequeath to
them, when those battle-fields shall have passed from my posses
sion?" Sir, had one come and demanded Bunker Hill of the people of
Massachusetts, had England's lion ever showed himself there, is there
a man over thirteen, and under ninety who would not have been
ready to meet him — is there a river on this continent that would not
have run red with blood — is there a field but would have been piled
high with the unburied bones of slaughtered Americans before these
consecrated battle-fields of liberty should have been wrested
from us? But this same American goes into a sister republic, and
says to poor, weak Mexico, "Give up your territory — you are
unworthy to possess it — I have got one-half already — all I ask of
you is to give up the other !'^J England might as well, in the circum
stances I have described, have come and demanded of us, "Give up
the Atlantic slope — ^give up this trifling territory from the Alleghany
mountains to the sea ; it is only from Maine to St. Mary's — only
about one-third of your Republic, and the least interesting portion
of it." What would be the response? They would say, we must
give this up to John Bull. Why? "He wants room." The Sena-:
J.or from Michigan says he must have this. Why, my worthy Chris
tian brother, on what principle of justice? "I want room!"
Sir, look at this pretense of want of room. With twenty mill
ions of people, you have about one thousand millions of acres of land,
inviting settlement by every conceivable argument — bringing them
down to a quarter of a dollar an acre, and allowing every man to
squat where he pleases. But the Senator from Michigan says we will
be two hundred millions in a few years, and we want room. If I were
a Mexican I would tell you, "Have you not room in your own coun
try to bury your dead men? If you come into mine we will greet
you with bloody hands, and welcome you to hospitable graves."
21

306 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COKWIN.
Why, says the Chairman of this Committee of Foreign Rela
tions, it is the most reasonable thing in the world ! We ought to
have the Bay of San Francisco. Why? Because it is the best har
bor on the Pacific ! It has been my fortune, Mr. President, to have
practiced a good deal in criminal courts in the course of my hfe, but
I never yet heard a thief, arraigned for stealing a horse, plead that it
was the best horse that he could find in the country ! We want Cal
ifornia. What for ? Why, says the Senator from Michigan, we will :
have it ; and the Senator from South Carolina, with a very mistaken
view, I think, of policy, says, you can't keep our people from going
there. I don't desire to prevent them. Let them go and seek their
happiness in whatever country or clime it pleases them.
All I ask of them is, not to require this Government to protect
them with that banner consecrated to war waged for principles —
eternal, enduring truth. Sir, it is not meet that our old flag should
throw its protecting folds over expeditions for lucre or for land. But
you still say, you want room for your people. This has been the
plea of every robber-chief from Nimrod to the present hour. I dare
say, when Tamerlane descended from his throne built of seventy
thousand human skulls, and marched his ferocious battalions to fur
ther slaughter, I dare say he said, "I want room." Bajazet was
another gentleman of kindred tastes and wants with us Anglo-Sax
ons — he "wanted room." Alexander, too, the mighty "Macedon
ian madman," when he wandered with his Greeks to the plains of
India, and fought a bloody battle on the very ground where recently
England and the Sikhs engaged in strife for "room," was no doubt
in quest of some California there. Many a Monterey had he to
storm to get "room." Sir, he made quite as much of that sort of
history as you ever will. Mr. President, do you remember the last
chapter in that history? It is soon read. Oh! I wish we could but
understand its moral. Ammon's son (so was Alexander named),
after all his victories, died drunk in Babylon I The vast empire he
conquered to "get room" became the prey of the generals he had
trained ; it was disparted, torn to pieces, and so ended. Sir, there is
a very significant appendix; it is this: The descendants of the
Greeks — of Alexander's Greeks — are now governed by a descendant
of Attila! Mr. President, while we are fighting for room, let us
ponder deeply this appendix. I was somewhat amazed, the other
day, to hear the Senator from Michigan declare that Europe had
quite forgotten us till these battles waked them up. I suppose the

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 307
Senator feels grateful to the President for "waking up" Europe.
Does the President, who is, I hope, read in civic as well as military
lore, remember the saying of one who had pondered upon history
long — long, too, upon man, his nature and true destiny ? Montes
quieu did not think highly of this way of "waking up." "Happy,"
says he, "is that nation whose annals are tiresome."
The Senator from Michigan has a different view of this. He
thinks that a nation is not distinguished until it is distinguished in
war ; he fears that the slumbering faculties of Europe have not been
able to ascertain that there are twenty millions of Anglo-Saxons
here, making railroads and canals, and speeding all the arts of peace
to the utmost accomplishment of the most refined civilization. They
do not know it! And what is the wonderful expedient which this
democratic method of making history would adopt in order to make
us known? Storming cities, desolating peaceful, happy homes,
j shooting men — aye, sir, such is war — and shooting women, too !
Sir, I have read, in some account of your battle of Monterey,
of a lovely Mexican girl, who, with the benevolence of an angel in
her bosom, and the robust courage of a hero in her heart, was busily
engaged, during the bloody conflict, amid the crash of falling houses,
the groans of the dying, and the wild shriek of battle, in carrying
water to slake the burning thirst of the wounded of either host.
While bending over a wounded American soldier, a cannon-ball
struck her and blew her to atoms ! Sir, I do not charge my brave,
generous-hearted countrymen who fought that fight with this. No,
no ! We who send them — we who know that scenes like this, which
might send tears of sorrow "down Pluto's iron cheek," are the
invariable, inevitable attendants on war — we are accountable for thfs.
; And this — this is the way we are to be made known to Europe.
This — this is to be the undying renown of free, republican America!
"She has stormed a city — killed many of its inhabitants of both
sexes — she has room !" So it will read. Sir, if this were our only
history, then may God of His mercy grant that its volume may
speedily come to a close.
Why is it, sir, that we of the United States, a people of yes
terday compared with the older nations of the world, should be wag
ing war for territory — for "room?" Look at your country, extend
ing from the Alleghany Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, capable
itself of sustaining, in comfort, a larger population than will be in
the whole Union for one hundred years to come. Over this vast

308 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
expanse of territory your population is now so sparse that I believe
we provided, at the last session, a regiment of mounted men to
guard the mail, from the frontier of Missouri to the mouth of the
Columbia; and yet you persist in the ridiculous assertion, "I want
room." One would imagine, from the frequent reiteration of the
complaint, that you had a bursting, teeming population, whose
energy was paralyzed, whose enterprise was crushed, for want of
space. Why should we be so weak or wicked as to offer this idle
apology for ravaging a neighboring republic? It will impose on no
one at home or abroad.
Do we not know, Mr. President, that it is a law never to be
repealed, that falsehood shall be short lived ? Was it not ordained
of old that truth only shall abide forever? Whatever we may say
to-day, or whatever we may write in our books, the stern tribunal of
history will review it all, detect falsehood, and bring us to judgment
before that posterity which shall bless or curse us, as we may act
now, wisely or otherwise. We may hide in the grave (which awaits
us all ) in vain ; we may hope there, like the foolish bird that hides
its head in the sand, in the vain belief that its body is not seen, yet
even there this preposterous excuse of want of "room" shall be
laid bare, and the quick-coming future will decide that it was a hypo
critical pretense, under which we sought to conceal the avarice
which prompted us to covet and to seize by force that which was
not ours. Mr. President, this uneasy desire to augment our territory has
depraved the moral sense and blunted the otherwise keen sagacity of
our people. What has been the fate of all nations who have acted
upon the idea that they must advance ! Our young orators cherish
this notion with a fervid, but fatally mistaken zeal. They call it by
the mysterious name of "destiny." "Our destiny, " they say is
"onward," and hence they argue, with ready sophistry, the propri
ety of seizing upon any territory and any people that may lie in the
way of our "fated" advance. Recently these progressives have
grown classical; some assiduous student of antiquities has helped
them to a patron saint. They have wandered back into the deso
lated Pantheon, and there, among the Polytheistic relics of that
"pale mother of dead empires," they have found a god whom these
Romans, centuries gone by, baptized "Terminus."
Sir, I have heard much and read somewhat of this gentleman Ter
minus. Alexander, of whom I have spoken, was a devotee of this

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 309
divinity. We have seen the end of him and his empire. It was
said to be an attribute of this god that he must always advance, and
never recede. So both republican and imperial Rome beheved. It
was, as they said, their destiny. And for a while it did seem to be
even so. Roman Terminus did advance. Under the eagles of
Rome he was carried from his home on the Tiber to the furthest
East on the one hand, and to the far West, among the then bar
barous tribes of western Europe, on the other. But at length the
time came when retributive justice had become "a destiny." The
despised Gaul calls out the contemned Goth, and Attila, with his
Huns, answers back the battle shout to both. The "blue eyed na
tions of the North," in succession or united, pour forth their count
less hosts of warriors upon Rome and Rome's always-advancing
god Terminus. And now the battle-ax of the barbarian strikes
down the conquering eagle of Rome. Terminus at last recedes,
slowly at first, but finally he is driven to Rome, and from Rome to
Byzantium, j Whoever would know the further fate of this Roman
deity, so recently taken under the patronage of American Democ
racy, may find ample gratification of his curiosity in the luminous
pages of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall." Such will find that Rome
thought as you now think, that it was her destiny to conquer prov
inces and nations, and no doubt she sometimes said as you say, "I
will conquer a peace," and where now is she, the Mistress of the
World ? The spider weaves his web in her palaces, the owl sings his
watch-song in her towers. Teutonic power now lords it over the ser
vile remnant, the miserable memento of old and once omnipotent
Rome. Sad, very sad, are the lessons which time has written for us.
Through and in them all, I see nothing but the inflexible execution
of that old law, which ordains as -eternal, that cardinal rule, ' ' Thou
shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods, nor anything which is his. "
Since I have lately heard so much about the dismemberment of
Mexico, I have looked back to see how, in the course of events,
which some call "Providence," it has fared with other nations, who
engaged in this work of dismemberment. I see that in the latter
half of the eighteenth century, three powerful nations, Russia, Aus
tria and Prussia, united in the dismemberment of Poland. They
said, too, as you say, "it is our destiny." They "wanted room."
Doubtless each of these thought, with his share of Poland, his power
was too strong ever to fear invasion, or even insult. One had his
California, another his New Mexico and the third his Vera Cruz.

310 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
Did they remain untouched and incapable of harm ? Alas ! No-
far, very far from it. Retributive justice must fulfill its destiny, too.
A very few years pass off, and we hear of a new man, a Corsican
lieutenant, the self-named "armed soldier of Democracy," Napoleon.
He ravages Austria, covers her land with blood, drives the Northern
Caesar from his capital, and sleeps in his palace. Austria may now
remember how her power trampled upon Poland. Did she not pay
dear, very dear, for her California?
But has Prussia no atonement to make? You see this same
Napoleon, the blind instrument of Providence, at work there. The
thunders of his cannon at Jena proclaim the work of retribution for
Poland's wrongs ; and the successors of the Great Frederick, the
drill-sergeant of Europe, are seen flying across the sandy plain that
surrounds their capital, right glad if they may escape captivity or
death. But how fares it with the Autocrat of Russia ? Is he secure
in his share of the spoils of Poland? No. Suddenly we see, sir,
six hundred thousand armed men marching to Moscow. Does his
Vera Cruz protect him now? Far from it. Blood, slaughter, deso
lation spread abroad over the land, and finally the conflagration of
the old commercial metropolis of Russia, closes the retribution she
must pay for her share in the dismemberment of her weak and impo
tent neighbor. Mr. President, a mind more prone to look for the
judgments of Heaven in the doings of men than mine, cannot fail in
this to see the providence of God. When Moscow burned, it
seemed as if the earth was lighted up, that the nations might behold
the scene. As that mighty sea of fire gathered and heaved and
rolled upward, and yet higher, till its flames licked the stars, and fired
the whole heavens, it did seem as though the God of the nations was
writing in characters of flame on the front of his throne, that doom
that shall fall upon the strong nation which tramples in scorn upon
the weak. And what fortune awaits him, the appointed executor of
this work, when it was all done ? He, too, conceived the notion that
his destiny pointed onward to universal dominion. France was too
small — Europe, he thought, should bow down before him. But as
soon as this idea took possession of his soul, he, too, becomes pow
erless. His Terminus must recede, too. Right there, while he wit
nessed the humiliation, and doubtless meditated the subjugation of
Russia, He who holds the winds in His fist gathered the snows of
the north and blew them upon his six hundred thousand men ; they
fled — they froze — they perished. And now the mighty Napoleon,

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 311
who had resolved on universal dominion, he, too, is summoned to
answer for the violation of that ancient law, "thou shalt not covet
anything which is thy neighbor's." How is the mighty fallen!
He, beneath whose proud footstep Europe trembled, he is now an
exile at Elba, and now finally a prisoner on the rock of St. Helena,
and there, on a barren island, in an unfrequented sea, in the crater of an
extinguished volcano, tJiere is the death-bed of the mighty conqueror.
All his annexations have come to that ! His last hour is now come,
and he, the man of destiny, he who had rocked the world as with the
throes of an earthquake, is now powerless, still — even as a beggar,
so he died. On the wings of a tempest that raged with unwonted
fury, up to the throne of the only Power that controlled him while
he lived, went the fiery soul of that wonderful warrior, another wit
ness to the existence of that eternal decree, that they who do not
rule in righteousness shall perish from the earth. He has found
"room" at last. And France, she, too, has found "room." Her
"eagles" now no longer scream along the banks of the Danube, the
Po and the Borysthenes. They have returned home, to their old
eyrie, between the Alps, the Rhine and the Pyrenees ; so shall it be
with yours. You may carry them to the loftiest peaks of the Cor
dilleras, they may wave with insolent triumph in the Halls of the
Montezumas, the armed men of Mexico may quail before them, but
the weakest hand in Mexico, uplifted in prayer to the God of Jus
tice, may call down against you a Power, in the presence of which,
, the iron hearts of your warriors shall be turned into ashes. ;
Mr. President, if the history of our race has established any
truth, it is but a confirmation of what is written, ' ' the way of the
transgressor is hard." Inordinate ambition, wantoning in power
and spurning the humble maxims of justice has — ever has — and ever
shall end in ruin. Strength cannot always trample upon weakness —
the humble shall be exalted, the bowed down will at length be lifted
up. It is by faith in the law of strict justice, and the practice of its
precepts, that nations alone can be saved. All the annals of the
human race, sacred and profane, are written over with this great
truth, in characters of living light. It is my fear, my fixed belief,
that in this invasion, this war with Mexico, we have forgotten this
vital truth. Why is it, that we have been drawn into this whirlpool
oir war? How clear and strong was the light that shone upon the
path of duty a year ago ! The last disturbing question with England
was settled — our power extended its peaceful sway from the Atlantic

312 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
to the Pacific; from the Alleghanies we looked out upon Europe,
and from the tops of the Stony Mountains we could descry the
shores of Asia; a rich commerce with all the nations of Europe
poured wealth and abundance into our lap on the Atlantic side,
while an unoccupied commerce of three hundred millions of Asiatics
waited on the Pacific for our enterprise to come and possess it. One
hundred millions of dollars will be wasted in this fruitless war. Had
this money of the people been expended in making a railroad from
your northern lakes to the Pacific, as one of your citizens has begged
of you in vain, you would have made a highway for the world be
tween Asia and Europe. Your Capital then would be within thirty or
forty days' travel of any and every point on the map of the civilized
world. Through this great artery of trade, you would have carried
through the heart of your own country, the teas of China and the
spices of India to the markets of England and France. Why, why,
Mr. President, did we abandon the enterprises of peace, and betake
ourselves to the barbarous achievements of war? Why did we "for
sake this fair and fertile field to batten on that moor."
But, Mr. President, if further acquisition of territory is to be
the result either of conquest or treaty, then I scarcely know which
should be preferred, eternal war with Mexico, or the hazards of
internal commotion at home, which last, I fear, may come if another
province is to be added to our territory. There is one topic con
nected with this subject which I tremble when I approach, and yet I
cannot forbear to notice it. It meets you in every step you take.
It threatens you which way soever you go in the prosecution of this
war. I allude to the question of Slavery. Opposition to its further
extension, it must be obvious to every one, is a deeply-rooted deter
mination with men of all parties in what we call the non-slaveholding
States. New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, three of the most pow
erful, have already sent their legislative instructions here — so it will
be, I doubt not, in all the rest. It is vain now to speculate about
the reasons for this. Gentlemen of the South may call it prejudice,
passion, hypocrisy, fanaticism. I shall not dispute with them now
on that point. The great fact that it is so, and not otherwise, is
what it concerns us to know. You nor I cannot alter or change this
opinion if we would. These people only say, we will not, cannot
consent that you shall carry slavery where it does not already exist.
They do not seek to disturb you in that institution, as it exists in
your States. Enjoy it if you will, and as you will. This is their

ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 313
language, this their determination. How is it in the South? Can it
be expected that they should expend in common, their blood and
their treasure, in the acquisition of immense territory, and then will
ingly forego the right to carry thither their slaves, and inhabit the
conquered country if they please to do so ? Sir, I know the feelings
and opinions of the South too well to calculate on this. Nay, I
believe they would even contend to any extremity for the mere
right, had they no wish to exert it. I believe ( and I confess I trem
ble when the conviction presses upon me ) that there is equal obsti
nacy on both sides of this fearful question. If then, we persist in
war, which if it terminate in anything short of a mere wanton waste
of blood as well as money, must end (as this bill proposes) in the
acquisition of territory, to which at once this controversy must
attach — this bill would seem to be nothing less than a bill to produce
internal commotion. Should we prosecute this war another moment
or expend one dollar in the purchase or conquest of a single acre of
Mexican land, the North and the South are brought into collison on
a point where neither will yield. Who can foresee or foretell the
result? Who so bold or reckless as to look such a conflict in the
face unmoved? I do not envy the heart of him who can realize the
possibility of such a conflict without emotions too painful to be
endured. Why then shall we, the representatives of the sovereign
States of this Union — the chosen guardians of this confederated
Republic, why should we precipitate this fearful struggle, by contin
uing a war, the results of which must be to force us at once upon it?
Sir, rightly considered, this is treason, treason to the Union, treason
to the dearest interests, the loftiest aspirations, the most chesished
hopes of our constituents. It is a crime to risk the possibility of
such a contest. \ It is a crime of such infernal hue, that every other
in the catalogue of iniquity, when compared with it, whitens into
virtue. Oh, Mr. President, it does seem to me, if hell itself could
yawn and vomit up the fiends that inhabit its penal abodes, commis
sioned to disturb the harmony of this world, and dash the fairest
prospect of happiness that ever allured the hopes of men, the first
step in the consummation of this diabolical purpose would be, to
light up the fires of internal war, and plunge the sister States of this
Union into the bottomless gulf of civil strife. We stand this day on
the crumbling brink of that gulf — we see its bloody eddies wheehng
and boiling before us — shall we not pause before it be too late?
How plain again is here the path, I may add the only way of duty,

314 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
of prudence, of true patriotism. Let us abandon all idea of acquir
ing further territory, and by consequence cease at once to prosecute
this war. Let us call home our armies, and bring them at once
within our own acknowledged limits. Show Mexico that you are
sincere when you say you desire nothing by conquest. She has
learned that she cannot encounter you in war, and if she had not,
she is too weak to disturb you here. Tender her peace, and my life
on it, she will then accept it. But whether she shall or not, you will
have peace without her consent. It is your invasion that has made
war, your retreat will restore peace. Let us then close forever the
approaches of internal feud, and so return to the ancient concord
and the old way of national prosperity and permanent glory. Let
us here, in this temple consecrated to the Union, perform a solemn
lustration ; let us wash Mexican blood from our hands, and on these
altars, in the presence of that image of the Father of his country
that looks down upon us, swear to preserve honorable peace with all
the world, and eternal brotherhood with each other.

INCIDENTAL REMARKS ON "THREE MILLION BILL.'

In United States Senate March 1st, 1847.
Mr. Corwin rose to explain the motives which influenced him in
giving his vote, on a former occasion, on a bill similar to the one
before the Senate, to which allusion had been made by the Senator
from Delaware [Mr. J. M. Clayton], in the course of his speech
to-day. The vote of the preceding session, he believed, was almost,
if not altogether, unanimous. It was the first of a series of bills
passed at that time, and passed speedily. He admitted that he voted
for that bill ; he voted for it under the circumstances in which it was
presented to the Senate. They were officially advised that our army
had been ordered by the President to march from the position it had
occupied on the Nueces to the Rio Grande. This order was given
by the President, the commander-in-chief, and the army was not at
liberty to disobey. They were also informed that hostilities had
been commenced between us and Mexico. At that time General
Taylor had under his command certainly not exceeding three thou
sand men — his impression was that General Taylor had not more
than two thousand five hundred men. They were informed at the
same time, in the same document, which came to them from the
President — if it were not so, he hoped he should be corrected — or
through other channels, that the Mexican force amounted to eight
thousand men — some statements made it a force of twelve thousand
men — which was hovering about our little army with the avowed
determination to exterminate them. Under these circumstances, the
President of the United States asked for men and money — not for
the prosecution of a war of invasion into the heart of Mexico — not
for the avowed purpose of taking possession of her towns — still less,
as he was reminded by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Berrien], to
dismember the Mexican repubhc, seizing a province here and another
there, and holding them by right of conquest, that they may serve
as security and indemnity for the almost boundless expense of this
war. He at that time voted for that bill, as he understood every
Senator on this side of the chamber did except two, not with a view
(315)

316 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COKWIN.
to make war on Mexico, but for the rescue of our little army from
its perilous position. The Senator from Delaware had this day
reminded him of that vote, and by implication reproached him with
apparent inconsistency.
Mr. Clayton remarked, "Not at all. The Senator has perfectly justified his
vote." Well, then, the Senator from Delaware had taken it unkind in
him that, to quote the Senator's own eloquent language, he had hung
his harp upon the willow that day when his own and the harp of his
friend from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden] were strung to such melliflu
ous tones. Mr. Corwin remembered well that he was silent on that
occasion, and he should have been silent up to this hour, if it had
not been that he was now placed in a different position, and he was
anxious to vindicate that position. Why should he have spoken?
Delighted as he was then, and on all occasions, to listen to the harp-
ings of his friends from Delaware and Kentucky, he knew his own
music would have fallen upon deaf ears. Those Senators had waked
up tones of deep supplication, and what followed? Why, after they
had strung their harps to notes of woe, they sat down to weep. Mr.
Corwin had not thought it necessary to tune his harp on that day,
and he did not now regret it. He, however, voted to give men and
money for the purposes he had expressed, and what were they now
told by the Executive message? That when the demand was made
on Congress for these supplies, it was for the purpose of making a
systematic invasion of Mexico, to dismember her territory, and hold
ing it by force until she would accept such terms as it pleases her
conqueror to prescribe. But those terms were not made known to
him. They were not advised what they will be, and the Mexicans
were to be left altogether to Executive mercy. Under these circum
stances, he thought an extreme case was presented — a case which he
found Senators on his side of the chamber willing to say may arise,
which might justify them in withholding the supplies. He had acted
upon his convictions of duty in the case, as it was presented to him ;
but it never entered into his heart or his head to cast censure on
those honorable Senators who differed from him. It was a long
time, and after painful reflection, that he brought himself to consent
to give a vote different from the vote of those respected Senators
around him, to whom he looked as his instructors and guides. He
had risen merely to set himself right, and having done so, he should
resume his seat.

ON THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF OREGON.

In the course of 'the protracted debate in the United States Senate, upon the bill
to establish the Territorial Government of Oregon, Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, on the
I2th July, 1848, moved that a committee of eight Senators — four from the Northern,
and four from the Southern sections of the Union — be appointed by ballot, to whom
the subject should be referred. This motion prevailed; and the Committee on Terri
tories was discharged from the further consideration of so much of the President's Mes
sage, as related to New Mexico and California, and the same referred to the said com
mittee of eight.
Pending the preliminary debate upon this motion, in reply to an inquiry of Mr.
Corwin's, the Senators of South Carolina [Mr. Butler and Mr. Calhoun] denounced
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the State of
Pennsylvania vs. Prigg, so far as the Court held that all State legislation of that char
acter, whether intended to retard or facilitate the owner in the apprehension of his fugi
tive slave, was unconstitutional. But the former of these Senators [Mr. Butler]
agreed with the Chief Justice and two of the associates upon that case, who, he said,
held that the non-slaveholding States " could pass no laws to prohibit the owner from
exercising his constitutional rights in reclaiming his runaway slave ; but that they
might make such laws as would facilitate the delivery, which the obligation of good
faith would demand at their hands." Mr. Corwin said :
I am perfectly satisfied that the Senator stated the decision as
recorded in our books. It is enough to say that a majority of the
bench have decided the question which I proposed.
Mr. Calhoun — I do not recognize the decision.
I will not undertake to say, from a very accurate criticism of
the case, whether the point now suggested was brought up directly
before the court ; but it was discussed before it, as one of the ques
tions necessary to arrive at the decisions on the main point ; and
being discussed by the counsel on both sides, the question was as
fully decided by the court as any other brought before . them. In
regard to the legislation of the States, I am not prepared to say
whether the gentleman from South Carolina is fully correct in the
statement of his views. But I think the gentlemen from the South
have allowed their sensibilities to be quite too much excited on this
subject With regard to the transactions referred to in Kentucky, (317)

318 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
there has been a great mistake as to the facts. Commissioners were
sent on behalf of the State of Kentucky to the State of Ohio, for
the purpose of negotiating a treaty of extradition, as the gentleman
from South Carolina calls it ; and I have only to say, that we did not
imprison them nor send them home. We allowed them to remain
at our court, where, with the help of the imperial parliament of
Ohio, a law was enacted perfecdy satisfactory to both sides, and
almost in terms the same as the law of Pennsylvania, which was
decided upon by the Supreme Court of the United States. That law
was repealed by the legislature of the State of Ohio, for the simple
reason that the highest judicial tribunal in the United States had
decided that they had no constitutional power to pass it. Now, if
these States lying within that district of country spoken of as
included in the ordinance of 1787, are denounced for not complying
as is supposed, with the terms of that ordinance, when it is shown
that they have legislated exactly according to the prescription of that
only tribunal who can interpret judicially the Constitution of the
United States, all I can say is, that the charge falls harmless at our
feet, and that all Christendom, in all time to come, will absolve
us of it.
Mr. Butler — I hope the gentleman will inform us whether that extraordinary
embassy from Kentucky to the "imperial court " of Ohio, was not occasioned by the
intolerable mischiefs which the people of Kentucky suffered from the escaping of their
slaves into Ohio, beyond the reach of reclamation ?
I will answer the Senator with great pleasure. The embassy
originated in the solicitude of our sister State of Kentucky to pre
serve amicable relations with us. The reason assigned by the em
bassy was, that our law did not furnish to them the means of
reclaiming their fugitive slaves. The people of the United States
had acted upon the subject in the law of 1793; but it seems that
they did not act with that degree of efficiency necessary, in the
judgment of the people of Kentucky, to secure to them their prop
erty. There was another reason which induced the State of Ohio to
entertain that negotiation, and to enact this law. The people of
Ohio were "just as solicitous as their fellow-citizens of Kentucky to
have a statute on that subject, or at least embracing many of the
cases supposed in Kentucky to fall within the law. There were, I
believe, a few felons in Kentucky — for there is, I believe, a peniten
tiary there — and occasionally it contained individuals supposed to
have committed crimes. Some of them, finding it inconvenient to

TEKRITOKIAL GOVERNMENT OP OREGON. 319
execute their purposes in Kentucky, were in the habit of coming
over to Ohio for the purpose of kidnapping negroes. Occasionally,
a gentleman would be killed in this amiable pursuit ; and the apology
was, that they had come to reclaim fugitive slaves. If this state
ment were false, no harm was done; if true, the man who shot him
was punished as a murderer, under the law of Ohio. It was, there
fore, very desirable on both sides, as well to protect Kentucky in
claiming her slaves as to prevent Kentuckians from coming over to
kidnap — a very common practice in all States bordering on slave
States, with which we were greatly troubled, the expense from peni
tentiaries being very considerably augmented from that very source
— that the question should be settled.
Mr. Calhoun — I cannot permit the Senator to escape even under a decision of
the Supreme Court. By express contract between the rest of the States and the people
inhabiting these territories, which are now States, the latter bound themselves to deliver
up our fugitive slaves. They are the parties to that contract, under the ordinance,
and it has not been superseded by the Constitution.
Have not the Supreme Court, to which reference has been
made, interpreted our rights, duties and powers, under that com
pact? Mr. Calhoun — Simply and only under the Constitution of the United States.
They could not put aside a contract. It stands upon higher principles. It stands
entirely on different ground from the case in Pennsylvania. The decision has not been
confirmed, and I trust never will be. I have always considered it as the most extraor
dinary decision ever made. But I put that aside, and present the positive contract
between these parties. There was no United States Government then to fulfill it. The
old Congress had no such power. There stands the contract, and will ever stand,
around which it is impossible to go.
I have only one remark in reply to the Senator's view of our
obligations under the Ordinance. When the Supreme Court decided
that, under the Constitution, made subsequently to that Ordinance,
these States had no power to pass such laws, unquestionably they
have given a judicial interpretation to their rights, power and duties
under the Ordinance as well as under the Constitution. The truth
is, that the Ordinance and the Constitution are in the very same
words. Whatever obligations there may be under the Ordinance of
1787 remain under the Constitution, and are re-imposed by that
instrument. Now, it must be seen, that the decision of the Supreme
Court comprehends every obligation under which the State of Ohio,
or any northwestern State, has been placed by virtue of that Ordi
nance. Surely if that compact, in the judgment of the Supreme
Court, had had an obligation above the Constitution and beyond it.

320 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
they would have said so. It is true that the case was one from
Pennsylvania, but much of the discussion, as every gentleman who
attended to it at that time knows, was upon this very Ordinance.
But that is immaterial. If the obligations under the Constitution of
the United States, which the State of Ohio, or any other State of
the Northwestern Territory, owes to the South, as it is called, exists
by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, they are not tol
erated in legislating upon the subject.
Mr. Calhoun — I cannot permit even that view of the case to pass. The Consti
tution expressly provides for the continuance of this contract between the United States
and the people that inhabited the Northwest Territory. The sixth article of the Con
stitution contains an express permission that " all debts contracted, and engagements
entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution as under the Confederation." Now, is it not manifest
that the Ordinance of 1787 looked to its fulfillment under the present Government, and
not the old Confederation, which had no machinery, no capacity to execute it ? If the
words of the Ordinance and those in the Constitution are precisely the same — and I
have not compared them — it is one of the strongest arguments to show that the decision
of the court was wrong, and that the words of the Constitution ought to have received
the interpretation of the prior words, instead of the prior words receiving the interpre
tation of the latter.
I do not intend to controvert the right of the gentleman to take
an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court, but I do not
know where he can find any revisory power at present.
Again, on the i8th, 19th and 22nd of July, the same subject was debated — on the
last named date Mr. Hale was about to address the Senate, but yielded to Mr. Cor
win, who said :
I wish to submit to any member of the committee one or two
questions to which it is very desirable to myself and I dare say to
many others, that a reply should be given before we are called upon
to vote on this bill. The bill, with what propriety I will not under
take to say, has been described by the honorable chairman of the
committee, as a Compromise Bill. It will be in the recollection of
every Senator, that during the discussion upon the Oregon bill,
which gave rise to the proposition that laws should be made for all
these Territories together, there was one point of law discussed by
several gentlemen on both sides of the Chamber. The honorable
Senator from South Carolina, if I did not misunderstand him, main
tained, that by the Constitution of the United States it was incom
petent for Congress to enact that Slavery should not exist in the Ter
ritories ; and that it was equally incompetent for any territorial gov
ernment of any sort that might be erected there to make such a law.

TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OP OREGON. 321
I understood my honorable friend from Georgia on my left [Mr.
Berrien] to maintain the same proposition, in the same identical
terms. Now, I supposed, that after that discussion, when the whole
question had been submitted to this committee, constituted chiefly
of gentlemen learned in the law, they must have revolved in their
minds and discussed in their retirement this fundamental proposition
lying at the bottom of all our action. I did expect — though per
haps I was wrong in entertaining that anticipation — that we should
have had a detailed report from that committee, resolving that radi
cal question for the benefit of Senators who might not be able, in
consequence of their not being learned in the law, to give to the
proposition that degree of attention which it deserved. If it be
true, as was maintained by my friend from Georgia — for whose legal
acquirements I entertain so much respect that I can scarcely trust
myself to differ from him — that Congress can make no such law,
why, then, I presume that the objection urged by the Senator from
Connecticut, on the other side of the Chamber, falls to the ground.
I rise, then, for the purpose of asking of the learned gentlemen who
were occupied so assiduously for some days in the examination of
this important question, and who must have known, before they
retired, that if this grand obstacle could be removed, we should have
no difficulty at all in passing such a bill, whether they made any
investigation on that point? and if so, whether they are at hberty to
disclose the result of it to the Senate ?
Again: I wish to be informed from these gentlemen learned in
the law — for I have not turned my attention to the particular statu
tory provisions on this point — ^how it is that an appeal and writ of
error shall lie from the superior judicial tribunal established in the
Territories to the Supreme Court of the United States ? The gentle
men of the committee having, as I supposed, very sedulously
directed their attention to the subject which divides us here — the
subject of Slavery — I wish to know whether, when this law comes to
be put in operation, the committee have found with certainty that
the question of Slavery, as it is usually brought up in courts, can be
brought by a writ of error before the Supreme Court of the United
States, without some specific legislation? For instance: I believe
that in the law which regulates writs of error and appeals from the
Circuit Courts of the United States to the Supreme Court, it is pro
vided that the value of the thing in controversy must be at least two
thousand dollars, exclusive of costs. I have been told, informally,
22

322 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
that the provision in this bill, allowing writs of error and appeal, was
made to satisfy any gentleman that it was the intention of the com
mittee to withdraw this controversy about the power of Congress to
make laws for the Territories from the Congress of the United States
— to withdraw this constitutional question, in other words, from Con
gress, and submit it to the judicial tribunals of the country. Now,
if that be so, and if that would be the effect of the bill in case it
were enacted, I wish to know, if a man go into one of these Terri
tories with a slave, whether the object of the bill is to raise the ques
tion whether that sort of property, without law, can be carried into
a Territory where there is no law, and if so, how it is to be carried
into effect? Under the existing law, I suppose the slave would ask
a writ of habeas corpus, and require his master to produce him in
court, and show the cause of his capture and detention before one
of these territorial judges. The territorial judge, according to this
bill, is to be appointed by the present Chief Magistrate of the
United States — a fact which I beg to mention for the information of
gentlemen north of Mason and Dixon's line. This judge will decide,
if he believe the constitutional law to be as the gentlemen from
South Carolina and Georgia maintain, that the master has a right to
the services of the slave, who will be accordingly remanded into the
service of his master. That is the way in which the case elaborates
itself into a judgment, and how it is proposed to bring it before the
Supreme Court of the United States, so that it may be decided by
the highest judicial tribunal in America. How is it to come here?
Is the property in controversy of the value of two thousand dollars?
What is the value of a slave? My learned friend from Georgia
smiles. Perhaps I may not be so famiUar as he is with the value of
that kind of property. But if he can listen to me with the gravity
which I think the subject demands 
Mr. Berrien, (in his seat) — The gentleman is entirely mistaken.
I withdraw the remark. How is the value of a slave to be
ascertained? We are told that there is no property in the man, but
simply a claim to his services. What, then, is the value of his ser
vices? It may be more or less, according to the judgment of men;
but very few slaves, I believe, sell for a thousand dollars. If, then,
the value of the slave do not reach two thousand dollars, his fate is
decided by this judge appointed by the President of the United
States, who sits in his court fifteen hundred miles from Washington
City. This is the final judgment.

TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OP OREGON.

323

I may be wrong in all this. But certainly, as the law now
stands, if such a case come within the category of the bill before us,
I have difficulty in perceiving how it can be brought here. I say
nothing now of the great advantages that will accrue to the slave
population which may be carried there, in consequence of their hav
ing such an easy and facile method of bringing their case before the
Supreme Court; nor of the perfect equality between them and their
master as respects the giving of the requisite security for costs; nor
of the ease with which they can attend the Supreme Court of the
United States, after a journey of fifteen hundred miles during the
winter, to hear the decision of that tribunal as to whether Cuffee or
his master is right in the matter ! But it does seem to me that there
is here an anomaly worth looking at about the noon of the nine
teenth century. I do not rise, however, to discuss the question, but
simply to ask the learned gentleman from Vermont, or any other
gentleman who has given attention to this legal question, to favor me
with a reply to those interrogatories which I have now respectfully
submitted. I should also be very happy to be informed as to the
amount of population in Upper California, and in that described in
this bill as New Mexico. I believe we have pretty accurate statistics
in relation to the population of Oregon. But I am somewhat at a
loss to know why a distinction has been made between Oregon and
the territories of California and New Mexico. I should be very
happy to know why the people of Oregon have been regarded as
capable of making their own laws, while . the people of California
and New Mexico have been deemed incapable.
Mr. Clayton — The committee thought, in view of all the facts, that the people
of California and New Mexico were not now in that state which fitted them to elect a
delegate to Congress, or a territorial legislature. The gentleman, as a northwestern
man, knows that many of our territories, in the first instance, had just such a form of
government extended over them as is proposed in this bill for California and New Mex
ico. The next stage of territorial organization we have given to Oregon, and I think
my friend from Ohio must admit that the character of the population of New Mexico
renders them utterly unfit for self-government.
Will the Senator from Delaware allow me to ask another ques
tion? Why does he consider the people of New Mexico unfit for
self-government ?
Mr. Clayton — They are entirely too ignorant, and the gentleman probably knows
that as well as I do.

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL.

On the 24th July, 1848, Mr, Corwin addressed the Senate at length upon the
Compromise Bill reported by Mr. Clayton from the Committee of Eight. Mr. Cor
win said:
Mr. President:I should scarcely undertake to assign to the Senate a reason for
prolonging this debate, especially after the very elaborate and lucid
exposition of the bill now before us, which has been given by the
Senator from Vermont ; I feel compelled, however, from various con
siderations, with which I will not trouble the Senate, to state, in very
few words, if that be possible, what my objections are to the passage
of the bill ; and it may be, to offer some few observations in reply to
such propositions as have been announced at various times during
this debate, by Senators on the other side of the Chamber. I have
listened with great eagerness, since the commencement of this dis
cussion, to everything that has been said, with the most sincere and
unfeigned desire to make myself acquainted with at least the pri
mary elements and principles which enter into the composition of
the bill. And, I think I may say, without exposing myself to the
charge of egotism, that I feel as little the influences which have been
spoken of by the Senator from Vermont as it is desirable that any
gentleman, acting in the capacity of a legislator, should feel. I do
not participate, however I may advertise gentlemen, in the belief
which has been so constantly expressed during this discussion, that
this is a subject which is likely to produce that terrible and momen
tous excitement that is spoken of I believe if this principle were
discussed solemnly, and, so to speak, abstractedly from those extrane
ous circumstances too frequently adverted to here, that we should be
much more likely to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion to ourselves,
and at more satisfactory results, I hope, to those who are to come
after us. I have no belief that the passage of a law, such as is now
before the Senate, will produce a disruption of the bonds that hold
(324)

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 325
this Union together. I have no belief that the passage of the law
so much deprecated by some gentlemen on this side, by the name,
if you please, of the "Wilmot Proviso," could, by any possibility
whatever, induce the Southern portion of the Union, which, we are
told, is so much excited on the subject, to tear themselves asunder
from the Constitutional compact by which we are all held together.
Sir, if I entertained an opinion of this kind, I should scarcely think
a seat on this floor worth possessing for a single day. I do not
think the technical term spoken of by the Senator from Vermont,
the "Wilmot Proviso," can of itself exercise that influence upon
statesmen of exalted intellect of the South, which has been inti
mated by gentlemen who have participated in this debate. What is
this terrible Wilmot Proviso, that has been erected here and else
where into such a raw-head and bloody-bones, to use a very express
ive phrase of the nursery? What is it? Why, sir, there are about
me Senators who know very well to whom the paternity of the
"Wilmot Proviso," as it has been recently baptized, belonged. They
know that the same gentleman who drafted the Declaration of Inde
pendence, which is hung up in our halls and placed in our libraries,
and regarded with the same reverence as our Bible — for it has
become a Gospel of Freedom all over the world as well as in this
country — drafted that which is called the "Wilmot Proviso," com
posing, as it did, a section of the Ordinance of 1787, and that the
hand that drafted both was Jefferson's. There have been some
strange misnomers in regard to acts, some strange confusion of
nomenclature in this country, as in this case, when a part of the
Ordinance of 1787 has come to bear the appellation of the "Wilmot
Proviso." Sir, much as I respect that gentleman for his position
upon this subject, which has connected his very name with the Ordi
nance of 1787, I deny to him the honor of originating it. It is a
piracy of the copyright. I do not see that there is any danger that
Southern gentlemen, after the lapse of so many years, and after the
founding of a young empire in the West, by virtue of that Ordi
nance, will so desecrate the memory of Jefferson and spit on his
grave, because we merely re-enact that Ordinance over a Territory
which has subsequently come into our possession. I have no idea
that such consequences will follow from the passage of such a law,
as gentlemen have predicted. There must have been a strange revo
lution wrought in the minds of Southern gentlemen between 1787
and 1847, if such consequences are to follow. And I could not help

326 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
observing while the Senator from Vermont was expressing these
noble sentiments, which everybody, even those who do not feel them
must admire, telling us we should act here independently of the
excitement without these walls, and that we should scorn those news
paper paragraphs in which we are vilified, written by those who know
little of the motives by which we are influenced, and who care less ; I
could not help observing that at last the Senator admonished us that
there was an excitement abroad which we must allay ; and to do that,
he agreed to this bill, although it was somewhat different from that
which he desired — so that the lion-hearted Senator from Vermont
has agreed to this Compromise, as it is called, because there is an
excitement which he wishes to allay by it. Sir, I desire to see gen
tlemen act and vote here as if there were no excitement on the sub
ject. I should be very sorry, at least to allow any influences to
operate upon my deliberate judgment, except those which belong to
the relation of representative and constituent. It is the farthest from
my intention of anything that can be conceived of to say anything
in regard to this bill which may wound the feelings of gentlemen
who have labored so hard to produce something that would satisfy
us all. The Senator from Vermont has acted as he should have
acted, has acted nobly in relation to this matter, and I know very
well that he will be willing to accord to me the same rule of action,
the same independence that he has used ; and I fear, when I come to
speak of the bill, I shall be under the necessity of availing myself of
what the gentleman has called a "special demurrer;" for I do not
think there is such pressing necessity for the passage of the bill, as
to oblige us to forego the statement of such objections as we may
entertain. Suppose you enact no law, what will happen ? Oregon
has for many years taken care of herself and I believe, on one or
two occasions, made better laws for herself than she is likely to get
at our hands. She has taken care of herself ever since she became
an integral portion of the Union, by the settlement of the dispute
between us and Great Britain. How the new provinces may fare,
what may happen to New Mexico and California in the intermediate
time which will elapse, if we should not be able to act upon this
matter at the present session, is not a matter of much concern or
apprehension with me, because I know they have been in your cus
tody for a year or two, and have not complained at all for the want
of legal enactments ; they have only complained that you have made
too free use of gunpowder. Rather than not act in the matter fully

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 327
and definitely, as I would if there were no emergency, I would allow
those provinces to take care of themselves for another twelve months
and come here at the beginning of a new session, ready to act upon
the subject as my judgment should dictate.
Now, sir, in the first place, I understand we have a message
from the President, although I beheve it has not been adverted to by
any one, calling upon us to designate the boundaries of these terri
tories of New Mexico and California; and another branch of the
Legislature has been anxiously looking to the geography of those
countries, and tracing their history, and are as yet incapable of deter
mining where Texas ends and New Mexico begins ; and they have
been under the necessity of applying to the Chief Magistrate to give
them a lesson in geography. What the substance of the information
they have received was I do not know, but I have been informed,
upon the floor of the Senate, that Texas extends to the banks of the
Rio Grande. If this be so, I must be permitted to look to the gentlemen of
the committee for information as to how much is left for New Mex
ico, what extent of territory, and what amount of population? Is
it worth while to establish a Territorial Government there, if it be
true that Texas extends to the Rio Grande? I think it will be found
that there wiU be but a fragrant of New Mexico left, so far as popu
lation is concerned. It will be very convenient, perhaps, to attach
it to the Government of California. If you send your Governors
and other officers there without establishing the boundaries, there
will be a conflict of territorial jurisdiction. Is it not expedient to
settle it now, when you are founding new Governments there, and
placing side by side institutions which may be very dissimilar? It is
perfectly certain that Texas will extend her laws to the Rio Grande ;
and if she does, she will comprehend within her jurisdiction a large
proportion of the population of what was formerly New Mexico.
Here, then, is my special demurrer. Under other circumstances, I
am sure the Senator from Vermont would agree with me that it is
indispensable to the Governments which we are about to establish
that the limits of their, jurisdiction should be defined, although I do
not know that this would be an insuperable objection with me, if the
other portions of the bill were such as I could give my assent to.
And now I intend, in a few words, to state why I object to this
Compromise Bill. Sir, there is no one — there can be no one — who
does not desire that every subject of legislation which comes before

328 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
the Senate should be settled harmoniously, and, if it might be so,
with the unanimous concurrence of every Senator. But, sir, in my
judgment, with this subject as it stands before us, it would be arro
gant presumption to undertake to vote upon this bill with a quesdon
before us which we undertake to transfer to the Judiciary Depart
ment of the country. How is this? Is it not a new thing in your
legislation, when a system of policy is proposed, and the constitu
tional propriety of that policy is questioned, to pass an act for the
purpose of getting a case before the Supreme Court, that that Court
may instruct the Senate of the United States as to constitutional
duty in the matter ? Sir, if we know certainly what that law will be,
need there be any hesitancy how we shall vote upon this bill? Can
any one suppose that the Senator from Georgia, or the Senator from
South Carolina, if they believed that the litigation that is proposed
by this bill to be brought into the Judicial tribunals of the country
would result contrary to their determination of what the law should
be, that they would be in favor of such a bill as this? Does any
one believe that if the Senator from Vermont could anticipate that
the Supreme Court of the United States might decide that Congress,
being silent upon the subject, had allowed Slavery to pass, at its
pleasure, into these newly-acquired territories, and to become part of
the municipal institutions of these territories, and to decide, also,
that if Congress had enacted a prohibitory law, it could not have
gone there, he would vote for this bill ? Certainly he \\'ould not. Is
there any necessity that there should be a prohibitory law passed, in
order that the question of Slavery should be presented with the aid
of Congressional legislation to the Supreme Court of the United
States ? I will not undertake to say that I differ with the Senator
from Vermont in a single legal proposition that he has laid down. I
regard Slavery as a local institution. I believe it rests on that basis,
as the only one that can give it a moment's security. I believe it
can not be carried, by the power of the master over his servant, one
inch beyond the territorial limits of the power that makes the law.
I believe that a slave carried by his master into the territorj' about
which we are talking, if Slavery be abolished there, will be free from
the moment he enters the territory, and any attempt to exercise
power over him as a slave will be nugatory. That is my judgment.
But I would guard against any doubt on this aubject. I would so
act that there should be nothing left undone on my part to prevent
the admission of slaves, for I am free to declare that if you were to

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 329
acquire the country that lies under the line, the hottest country to be
found on the globe, where the white man is supposed not to be able
to work, I would not allow you to take slaves there, if Slavery did
not exist there already. More than that, I would abolish it if I could,
if it did exist. These are my opinions, and they always have been
the same. I know they were the opinions of Washington up to the
hour of his death; and they were the opinions of Jefferson and of
others, who, in the infancy of the institution, saw and deplored its
evils, and deprecated it continuance, and would have taxed them
selves to the utmost to exterminate it then. I possess no opinion on
the subject that I have not derived from these sources.
I have only to say that these opinions have always received the
concurrence of my own understanding, and this after the most care
ful investigation I have been able to give the subject. I find the
institution of Slavery existing in several States of the Union — it is a
local, a State institution, existing under the guarantees of the Con-^
stitution. I find that, as a legislator of this National Government, I
am forbidden by the Constitution to act upon this or any other
merely State institution. I can not, therefore, interfere with Slavery
in the States as I can in a Territory, where, as yet, no State sov
ereignty exists, and as I will there, and would everywhere else on
the face of the earth, where I am not forbidden, and where my
power might extend. And here, sir, I ask, what has been your
practice as a Government on this subject? If at any time in your
progress, since 1789, you have acquired territory where slavery
existed in such form and consistenty as to make it now difficult to
overthrow it, it has been permitted, only permitted, to remain where
by law it did exist; as in the Northwestern Territory before 1789,
but had not taken deep root, it was expelled, and as in the Missouri
Compromise, excluding it in all territory north of latitude 36° 30',
after 1789.
When Louisiana was acquired, such was the tone of public
opinion then against Slavery that I am sure the men of that day would
have abohshed it there but for the supposed evil of displacing a sys
tem long-estabhshed, on which and by which the social and political
systems of the country were necessarily formed. Perhaps, also, the
terms of the treaty were with some an obstacle. The same men who
directed pubhc opinion in 1787 in a great measure controlled it in
1804. Jefferson, who was the author of the Ordinance of 1787,
was President in 1804, when Louisiana was acquired. By his influ-

330 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
ence, the ordinance of 1787 made five free States in the northwest, and
I doubt not Louisiana would have been also freed from slavery too
but for the reasons I have assigned. Such were the views of men
who directed public opinion then; would to God they, or such as
they, had more to do with public opinion now.
When the ample patrimony of Virginia was transferred to the
Confederacy, Jefferson, and those of his school, who made this noble
donation, at once declared that Slavery should not pollute the soil of
five rich and powerful new States. Such was Virginian, such was
American opinion then. I cannot suppose the opinions of these
men were so changed between 1787 and 1804, that Slavery, at the
latter period, would be spared by them, except for the reasons I
have assigned already. Liberty, perfect freedom to all men, of all
colors and nations, was the doctrine of Jefferson then, and I am told
he is now the authoritative expounder of free principles to the school
calling itself "Virginian" as well as "Democratic."
Why, there is scarcely a Virginian who ventures to have an
opinion contrary to the lightest thought that he ever expressed.
And is it so, that we are now to be required, for the sake of some
imaginary balance of power, to carry Slavery into a country where it
does not now exist? That, sir, is the question propounded by this
bill. The Senator from Vermont is satisfied that Slavery cannot be
extended to these Territories. I believe, if his confidence in the
judicial tribunals of the country were well founded, that Slavery
could not possibly go into these Territories, provided the Senate is
right both as to law and the facts. I ask every member of the Sen-
ate^perhaps I may be less informed than any— whether Slavery
does not exist, by some Mexican law, at this hour, in California.
Mr. Hannegan (in his seat). — It does exist. Peon Slavery exists there.
I would thank the Senator from Indiana if he will inform me
what Peon Slavery is ; and really I ask the question for the purpose
of obtaining information. I desire to know its conditions. Is it
transmissible by inheritance ? Does the marvelous doctrine of which
the honorable Senator from Virginia spoke, as being part and parcel
of the law adopted in Virginia — partus sequitur vcntrcm — prevail ? Is
that holy ordinance, that the offspring of the womb of her who is a
slave must necessarily be slaves also, there recognized ?
Mr. Hannegan. — As 1 understand, slavery exists in California and New Mexico, as
it does throughout the Republic of Mexico, and is termed Peon Slavery — slavery

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 331
for debt, by which the creditor has a right to hold the debtor, through all time, in a far
more absolute bondage than that by which any Southern planter holds his slaves here.
So it has been described to me. I have not seen the Mexican
laws upon the subject ; but the statement just made agrees with that
of many gentlemen who profess to know something on the subject,
and therefore I am inclined to think that it is so, and that these peo
ple are the subjects of that infernal law. The Senator from Dela
ware, the other day, informed us that the committee have not given
to the people of California and New Mexico the right of suffrage,
because they were incapable of exercising it — because a large por
tion of them were of the colored races. Now, supposing that to be
the case, and supposing the proposition to be submitted to the
Supreme Court of the United States — was Slavery an institution of
New Mexico? — what would be the answer? If the Senator from
Indiana were there to make response, he would reply in the affirma
tive ; he would say that the institution of Slavery was there ; that, to
be sure, it had its modifications and peculiarities, but that it was still
Slavery, though there might not have existed a law as strong as that
glorious principle of free government spoken of by the Senator from
Virginia — partus sequitur ventrerrz. If, sir, these three Latin words
can condemn to everlasting Slavery the posterity of a woman who is
a slave, may not that municipal regulation of which we are now
speaking in Cahfornia and New Mexico, with equal propriety, be
denominated Slavery ? I find, then. Slavery, as it is called, existing
here to a degree, and to all practical purposes, as lasting and inexor
able as in the State of Virginia; and, therefore, the whole of the
hypothesis of the gentleman from Vermont falls to the ground as a
matter of fact, inasmuch as the Supreme Court will decide that Slav
ery existed there, and that, therefore, the whole slave population of
the United States may be transferred to that country.
Mr. Phelps — The gentleman will excuse me — I spoke of African Slavery.
Of that I am aware. I speak now of the general proposition.
Now, this is a very curious spectacle presented this day and for
weeks past in the American Congress, and one cannot help pausing
at this point, and reflecting upon the events of the last few years.
On looking back at what has happened in that period, I am sure that
the magnanimous spirit of the Senator from South Carolina himself
will be obliged to concede to the Northern States at least some apol
ogy for the slight degree of excitement on this subject. His

332 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
hypothesis is, that to every portion of this newly-acquired territory
— California not excepted — every slaveholder in the United States
has a right to migrate to-morrow, and carry with him his slaves —
holding them there forever, subject only to the abolition of Slavery
when these Territories shall be made into States, and come into the
Union. What, then, would be those few chapters in our history?
We find ourselves now in the possession of Territories with a popu
lation of one hundred and fifty thousand souls, if I am correctly
informed, in California and New Mexico. The best authenticated
history of the social institutions of that population informs us that
there exists there, at this moment, a species of Slavery as absolute
and inexorable as exists anywhere on the face of the earth ; and that
about five in six of the population of that country are subjected to
the iron rule of this abominable institution there.
Now, I do not expect that any man will rise up and say, that
because an individual happens to be the debtor of another, he shall
have his own person sold into Slavery ; and not only that, but that
the curse shall extend — worse than that of the Hebrew, not to the
third and fourth generation, ,but to the remotest posterity of that
unfortunate man. Nobody will pretend to rise up in defense of such
a proposition as that. Now, then, I will give over the criticism.
Suppose there is a law in New Mexico which obliges a man to work
all the days of his life for another, because he happens to owe him
five dollars, by some means contrived by the creditor to keep him
always his debtor. Do you intend that that law shall exist there
for an hour? Well, you have made a law here, that your law
makers who are to go to New Mexico and California shall not touch
the subject of Slavery; and if that which is designated, in the popu
lar language of that country. Slavery, exists there, do you indeed
send abroad, as you promised to do, you missionary of liberty?
You went there with the sword, and made it red in the blood of
these people! What did you tell them? "We come to give you
freedom !" Instead of that, you enact in your code here — bloody as
that of Draco — that there shall be judges and law-givers over them,
but that they shall make no law touching that Slavery to which five
out of six of them are subjected.
Mr. President, this chapter in your history furnishes instructive
matter for our consideration. It is a strange act in the great drama
of what we call progress. I have looked upon it with some concern.
I was one of those who predicted that this, or something like this.

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 333
would be the result of your Mexican war. I always believed, not
withstanding your denials here, that you made war upon Mexico for
the purpose and with the intention of conquest. I ventured to pre
dict just what we now see, that acquisition of territory would follow
the war as its consequence, and its object was that and nothing else ;
and that this very question would arise, and arise here, to distract
your councils, disunite your people, and threaten, as we are now
told it does, that peace which you thought of so lightly when war
was so wantonly waged against Mexico. It now seems your preten
sions were all hypocritical from the beginning. You said your
armed men went forth to her in the spirit of love. You pretended
their mission was not conquest, but to set free the captive, to raise
up the prostrate Peon of that country — and now what follows? As
soon as your arms have subdued the country, the gentle note of the
dove is changed to the lion's roar. Instead of the proper blessing
of peace to your conquered subjects, you propose to leave the
chains of the Peon untouched, and now gravely contend that negro
Slavery shall be superadded to Slavery for debt. This is your
improvement, this your progress in Mexico. To exalt the miserable
Peon, you give him the enslaved negro for association and example.
Sir, this is indeed a spectacle worth noting, in this bright noon of
the nineteenth century.
We proclaimed to the world we would take nothing by con
quest. This was our solemn hypocritical declaration for two dark
years, while our progress was marked by blood, while the march of
your power was like another people of old, by clouds of smoke in
the day, and fire by night. City after city fell beneath the assaults
of your gallant army, and still you ceased not to declare you would
take nothing by conquest. Now you say this territory was con
quered, was acquired by the common blood of our common country.
You trace back the consideration which you have paid for this coun
try to the blood and the bones of the gallant men that you sent
there to be sacrificed; and pointing to the unburied corses of her
sons who have fallen there, the South exclaims — "These, these con
stitute my title to carry my slaves to that land ! It was purchased
by the blood of my sons." The aged parent, bereft of his children,
and the widow with the family that remains, desire to go there to
better their fortunes, if it may be, and pointing to the graves of
husband and children, exclaim, "There, there was the price paid for
our proportion of this territory!" Is that true? If that could be

334 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
made out — if you dare put that upon your record — if you can assert
that you hold the country by the strong hand, then you have a right
to go there with your slaves. If we of the North have united with
you of the South in an expedition of piracy, and robbery, and mur
der, that oldest law known among men — "Honesty among thieves"
— requires us to divide it with you equally.
If, indeed, Mr. President, we have no other right than that
which force gives us to these our new possessions ; if indeed, we
have slaughtered fifty thousand of God's creatures only to subject to
our power one hundred and fifty thousand of an alien, enslaved and
barbarous people, it is but a fitting finale to all this to rivet yet closer
the chain of personal slavery upon the Mexican Peon, and people
your possessions thus acquired by slaves. I repeat, that this right
of conquest applied to territory is the same — no other and no bet
ter than that by which originally one man could claim to hold
another in slavery. It is but the right, if right it may be called, of
the strongest — the law in both cases is simply the law of force.
You march over a country, wrest it by war from its owner, and say
to the vanquished possessor, this is now mine. I have seized your
property; I hold it by the law of force. And so originally the
slave-dealer seized the negro in his African home, slaughtered in
combat part of his family, bound the rest in chains, brought them
here and sold them. It is simply power, and not right, in both cases,
that makes the claim. I repeat, it seems indeed fitting and in char
acter, that the two should accompany each other.
As in the case of lands thus acquired, long possession and con
tinued acquiescence ( in the judgments of men ) ripen the claim into
legal right, so in the case of legal Slavery, the captive, originally held
only by force, in time, by the law of men, and by the judgment of
men, h&covazs property ! ! And we are told by the Senator from Vir
ginia [Mr. Mason] that the posterity of such become property
only through the magical influence of these words, Roman words:
"Partus sequitur venttcm" — "The child follows the condition of its
mother. " Admirable — philosophical — rational — Christian maxim ! ! !
If the mother be captured in war, it seems then the will of a just
God, "whose tender mercies are over all his works," that her off
spring to the remotest time shall be doomed to Slavery. What sub
lime morality ! what lovely justice combine to sanctify this article in
that new decalogue of freedom which we say it is our destiny to give
to the world, "Partus sequitur ventrcm !" Why, it is said to be

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 33-5
*Uommon law." Alas, Mr. President, it is but too "common," as we
see. This right of conquest over land is the same as that by which
a man may hold another in bondage. You may make it into a law
if you please ; you may enact that it may be so ; it may be conven
ient to do so ; after perpetrating the original sin, it may be well to
do so. But the case is not altered ; the source of the right remains
unchanged. What is the meaning of the old Roman word servusl
I profess no skill in philological learning, but I can very well con
ceive how somebody, looking into this thing, might understand what
was the law in those days. The man's life was saved when his
enemy conquered him in battle. He became servus — the man pre
served by his magnanimous foe; and perpetual Slavery was then
thought to be a boon preferable to death. That was the way in
which Slavery began. Has anybody found out on the face of the
earth a man fool enough to give himself up to another, and beg him
to make him a slave? I do not know of one such instance under
heaven. Yet it may be so. Still, I think that not one man of our
complexion, of the Caucasian race, could be found quite willing
to do that.
Thus far we have been brought after having fought for this
country and conquered it. The solemn appeal is made to us —
' ' Have we not mingled our blood with yours in acquiring this coun
try?" But did we mingle our blood with yours for the purpose of
wresting this country by force from this people? That is the ques
tion. You did not say so six months ago. You dare not say so
now ! You may say that it was purchased, as Louisiana or as Florida
was, with the common treasure of the country ; and then we come to
the discussion of another proposition : What right do you acquire to
establish Slavery there ? But I was about to ask of some gentlemen
— the Senator from South Carolina, for instance — whose eye at a
glance has comprehended the history of the world, what he supposes
will be the impression abroad of our Mexican war, and these our
Mexican acquisitions, if we should give to them the direction which
he desires? I do not speak of the propriety of slave labor being
carried anywhere. I will waive that question entirely. What is it
of which the Senator from Vermont has told us this morning, and of
which we have heard so much during the last three weeks? And
liow will our history read by the side of that? Every gale that floats
across the Atlantic comes freighted with the death-groans of a king;
every vessel that touches your shores bears with her tidings that the

336 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
captives of the Old World are at last becoming free — that they are
seeking, through blood and slaughter — blindly and madly, it may be
— but nevertheless resolutely — deliverance from the fetters that have
held them in bondage. Who are they? Almost the whole of
Europe. And it is only about a year ago, I believe, that the officer
of the Turkish empire who holds sway in Tunis — one of the old
slave markets of the world, whose prisons formerly received those of
our people taken upon the high seas and made slaves to their cap
tors — announced to the world that all should there be free. And, if
I am not mistaken, it will be found that this magic line which the
Senator from South Carolina believes has been drawn around the
globe which we inhabit, with the view of separating Freedom and
Slavery — 36° 30' — brings this very Tunis into that region in which
some suppose, by ordinance of nature, men are to be held in
bondage ! All over the world the air is vocal with the shouts of
men made free. What does it all mean ? It means that they have
been redeemed from political servitude ; and in God's name I ask, if
it be a boon to mankind to be free from political servitude, must it
not be accepted as a matter of some gratulation that they have been
relieved from personal servitude — absolute subjection to the arbitrary
power of others ? What do we say of them ? I am not speaking of
the propriety of this thing; it may be all wrong, and these poor
fellows in Paris, who have stout hands and willing hearts, anxious to
earn their bread, may be very unreasonable in fighting for it. It
may be all wrong to cut off the head of a king or send him across
the Channel. It may be highly improper and foolish in Austria to
send away Metternich, and say, "We will look into this business
ourselves." According to the doctrine preached in these halls —
in free America — instead of sending shouts of gratulation across
the water to these people, we should send to them groans and com
miseration for their folly, calling on them to be aware how they
take this business into their own hands — informing them that uni
versal liberty is a curse ; that as one man is born with a right to gov
ern an empire, he and his posterity must continue to exercise that
power, because in this case it is not exactly partus sequitur vcntrcm,
but partus sequitur patrem — that is all the difference. The crown fol
lows the father ! Under your law, the chain follows the mother !
Sir, we may, we ought to remember, that it was law in this
country in 1776, that kings had a right to rule us — did rule us.
George III. said then "partus sequitur patrem," my son inherits my

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 337
crown, "he follows the condition of the father," "he is born to be
your ruler;" your fathers said, this is not true, this shall be law no
longer. Let us look for a moment at the doings of that good old
time, 1776. Tlien, sir, our fathers, being oppressed, lifted up their
hands and appealed to the God of justice, the common Father of all
men, to deliver them and their posterity from that law, which pro
claimed that "kings were born to rule." They (the men of 1776)
did not believe that one man was born "booted and spurred" to ride
another. And if, as they said, no man was born to rule another, did
it not follow, that no man could rightfully be born to serve another?
Sir, in those days, Virginia and Virginia's sons, Washington and Jef
ferson, had as little respect for that maxim, partus sequitur veritrem,
as for that other cognate dogma, "Kings are born to rule." I infer
from our history, sir, that the men of that day were sincere men,
earnest, honest men, that they meant what they said. From their
declaration, "all men are born equally free," I infer that, in their
judgments, no man, by the law of his nature, was born to be a slave;
and, therefore, he ought not by any other law to be born a slave. I
think this maxim of kings being born to rule, and others being born
only to serve, are both of the same family, and ought to have gone
down to the same place whence I imagine they came, long ago,
together. I do not think that your partus sequitur ventrem had much
quarter shown it at Yorktown on a certain day you may remember.
I think that when the lion of England crawled in the dust, beneath
the talons of your eagles, and CornwalHs surrendered to George
Washington, that maxim, that a man is born to rule, went down, not
to be seen among us again forever ; and I think that partus sequitur
ventrem, in the estimation of all sensible men, should have disap
peared along with it. So the men of that day thought. And we
are thus brought to the proper interpretation of the language of
those men which has been criticised by the Senator from South
Carolina. Mr. President, it is worth while to inquire what were the pub
licly expressed opinions of the leading men and States, as to the
policy of Negro Slavery, from the year 1774 up to the year 1787,
and from thence up to the final adoption of the Constitution, in
1789. And, first, how was it in the old commonwealth, Virginia?
"June, 1774 — At a general meeting of the freeholders and inhabitants of Prince
George's county, Virginia, the following resolves were unanimously agreed to ( among
others) : 23

338 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COHWIN.
'* Resolved, That the African trade is injurious to this Colony; obstructs the pop
ulation of it by freemen, prevents manufacturers and other useful emigrants from
Europe from settling among us, and occasions an annual increase of the balance of trade
against this Colony." — {See American Archives, 4th series, vol, i, p. 493).
" At a meeting of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the county of Culpeper,
in Virginia, assembled on due notice, at the Court-House of the said county, on Thurs
day, the 7th of July, 1774, to consider of the most effectual method to preserve the
rights and liberties of America:
I "Resolved, That the importing of slaves and convict servants is injurious to this
Colony, as it obstructs the population of it with freemen and useful manufacturers;
and that we will not buy any such slave or convict servant hereafter to be imported."
— (American Archives, 4th series, vol. I, p. 523.)
*'At a general meeting of the freeholders and inhabitants of the county of Nanse-
mond, Virginia, on the nth day of July, 1774, the following resolutions were unani
mously agreed to;
"Resolved, That the African trade is injurious," etc., [same as the resolution of
Prince George's county.] — (American Archives, vol. 1, p. 530.)
"July 14, 1774, at a similar meeting in Caroline county, Virginian
*'Resolved, That the African trade is injurious to this Colony, etc.; and, there
fore, that the purchase of all imported slaves ought to be associated against. "-(lb, p. 541.)
"July 16, 1774, at a meeting of Surrey county, Virginia:
"5th, Resolved, That, as the population of this Colony with freemen and useful
manufacturers is greatly obstructed by the importations of slaves and convict servants,
we will not purchase any such slaves or servants hereafter to be imported." — (American
Archives, 4th series, vol. i, p. 593.
"At a general meeting of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the county of
Fairfax, Virginia, at the Court-House in the town of Alexandria, on Monday, the i8th
of July, 1774, George Washington, Esq., in the chair:
^'Resolved, That it is the opinion of this meeting, that, during our present diffi
culties and distress, no slaves ought to be imported into any of the British Colonies on
this continent ; and we take this opportunity of declaring our most earnest wishes to
see an entire stop forever put to such a wicked, cruel and unnatural trade.
"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this meeting that a solemn covenant and
association should be entered into by all the Colonies," etc., etc. — American Archives,
vol. 1, p. 600.
George Washington, Mr. President, was the presiding officer at
one of these meetings. Certain young men here may have Iieard
something of this George Washington ! He was then a farmer of
Fairfax. What he did after that meeting, shall be known, remem
bered and revered by a world thousands of years to come, long after
you and I, and all of us, have been food for worms.
Similar meetings were held, and similar resolutions passed, in
the following counties in Virginia: In Hanover, on the 20th July,
1774; in Princess Ann, in July of the same year. I extract from
the same volume of American Archives the following, which, from
Mr. Jefferson's connection with it, becomes important.
At a very full meeting of delegates from the different counties

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 339
in the Colony and Dominion of Virginia, begun ' ' in Williamsburg,
the 1st day of August, 1774, the following association was unani
mously agreed to;" I omit, Mr. President, all not bearing upon the
subject of Slavery, and quote only the following:
"We will not ourselves import, nor purchase any slave or slaves
imported by any other person, after the first day of November next,
either from Africa, the West Indies, or any other place."' It seems
Mr. Jefferson was a delegate to this Convention, but was prevented
by sickness from attending. He, however, addressed a letter to the
Convention, which I commend to the especial attention of gentlemen
from the South, who object so strongly to the expression of opinions
as to Slavery here. Mr. Jefferson, in one paragraph in his letter to
the Convention, writes thus, on the subject of Negro Slavery: "The
abolition of Slavery is tJie present object of desire in these Colonies,
where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state." Mark
these words, Mr. President. He complains that Slavery was intro
duced into our American Colonies in their "infant state." Would
Mr. Jefferson, were he here to-day, send Slavery to the infant colo
nies of Oregon, New Mexico and California? But Mr. Jefferson
goes on to say: "But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves
we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from
Africa ; but our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and
by imposing duties which might amount to prohibition, have hith
erto been defeated by His Majesty's negative, thus preferring the
immediate advantage of a few African corsairs to the lasting interest
of the American States, and to the rights of human nature, deeply
wounded by this infamous practice."
Here we see proofs undeniable that Mr. Jefferson, the leading
spirit then, confidently anticipated, not the continuance and further
extension ol Slavery, but its abolition ; and in order to the speedy
"enfranchisement" of the slaves then in Virginia, he desires to pre
vent their augmentation, by prohibiting their importation. He com
plains that Slavery was prejudicial to the "infant" Colony of Vir
ginia. Were he here, would he not vote to exclude Slavery from
the "infant" Colonies of Oregon, New Mexico and California? We
have seen that he drafted the clause against Slavery in the Ordinance
of 1787. We know he remained unchanged till his death.
How stood public opinion, Mr. President, in the year 1775, in
the State of Georgia ? From the proceedings of a patriotic associa-

340 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COKWIN.
tion in Georgia at that time, called the " Darien Committee," I take
the following: ** We, therefore, the Representatives of the extensive district of Darien, in the
Colony of Georgia, having now assembled in Congress, by authority and free choice of
the inhabitants of the said district, now freed from their fetters, do resolve:
*' 5. To show the world that we are not influenced by any contracted or interested
motives, but a general philanthrophy for all mankind, of whatever climate, language
or complexion, we hereby declare our disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural
practice of Slavery in America {however the uncultivated state of our country, or other
specious arguments may plead for), a practice founded in injustice and cruelty, and
highly dangerous to our liberties (as well as lives), debasing part of our fellow-crea
tures below men, and corrupting the virtue and morals of the rest ; and as laying the
basis of that liberty we contend for (and which we pray the Almighty to continue to
the latest posterity) upon a very wrong foundation. We, therefore, resolve at all times
to use our utmost endeavors for the manumission of our slaves in this Colony, upon the
most safe and equitable footing for the masters and themselves." — American Archives,
vol. I, p. 1136.
From these papers, as well as the general history of the times,
we can see what the fathers thought on this subject. May I not,
with profound respect, suggest that these papers, dated in 1774 and
1775, explain to us the meaning of the Declaration of Independ
ence, adopted in 1776. Surely the men who voted the foregoing
resolutions in 1775 might, very consistently, in 1776, declare as they
did — "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were
created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness." Well might these men, with their hearts purified
from selfishness by the dreadful conflict which then was seen to be
inevitable, feel that all men were equal before God, in whom alone
they could trust for aid in that dark hour, and that therefore all men
were or ought to be masters ot themselves, and answerable only to
the Creator for the use they should make of that liberty — well might
those brave, good old men, after such a declaration, look up calmly
and hopefully to the heavens and declare: "And for the support of
this declaration, with a -firm reliance on the protection of Divine Piovi-
dcnce, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and
our sacred honor."
Mr. President, these men, when they spoke of Sla\'ery and its
extension, did not get up some hybrid sort of "compromise," and
consult some supreme court. They declared Slavery an evil, a
wrong, a prejudice to free colonies, a social mischief and a political
evil; and if these were denied, they replied, "These truths are self-
evident." And for the judgment of men they appealed to no

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 341
earthly court; they took an appeal "to the Supreme Judge of the
world.'' When I am asked to extend to this new Empire of ours,
now in its infancy, an institution which they pronounced an evil to
all communities; when I refuse to agree with some here whose judg
ments I revere, and whose motives I know to be pure, I can only
say, I stand where our fathers stood of old, I am sustained in my
position by the men who founded the first system of rational liberty
on the earth. With them by my side, I can afford to differ with
those here whom I respect. With such authority for my conduct, I
-can cheerfully encounter the frowns of some, the scorn of all ; I can
turn to the fathers of such and be comforted. They knew what was
best for an infant people just struggling into existence. If their
opinions are worth anything — if the opinions of the venerated men
are to be considered as authority — I ask Southern gentlemen what
they mean when they ask me to extend Slavery to the distant shores
¦of the Pacific Ocean, and the slave trade between Maryland and Vir
ginia and that almost unknown country?
I am considering the propriety of doing this thing as if the
question were now for the first time presented to us. I ask any
Southern man, if there were not a slave on this continent, would you
send your ships to Africa and bring them here ? Suppose this Con
federation of ours had been formed before a slave existed in it, and
suppose here, in the year of grace 1848, you had acquired California
and New Mexico, and you were told that there existed a modified
system of Slavery there, and that they wanted laborers there, would
a Senator rise in his place and say, we will authorize the African slave
trade, in order to introduce laborers into our infant colonies ? If you
would not bring them from the shores of Africa — buying them with
some imagined "partus sequitur ventrem" branded on them some
where, how can you prove to me that it would be right to transfer
them from Maryland or Virginia, three thousand miles, to the shores
of the Pacific? If Slavery were a curse to you in the beginning,
but struck its roots so deep into your social and municipal system,
as was then said, that it could not be eradicated entirely, how is it
that you call upon me, as a matter of conscience and duty, to trans
fer this curse to an area of square miles greatly exceeding that of
the thirteen States, when the Confederation was formed? If it is so
that it is an evil — and so all you statesmen have pronounced it, and
:so all your eminent men, with the exception of a few in modern
times, have regarded it — how is it that you call upon me to extend

342 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COKWIN.
it to those vast dominions which you have recently acquired? Is it
true that I am obliged to receive into my family a man with the
small-pox or the leprosy, that they may be infected? I know you
do not consider it in that light now. But the gentleman from Virginia
has said that it must be done. Why? Because it is compassion to
the slave. He cannot be nurtured in Virginia; your lands are worn
out. Sir, that statement sounded ominous in my ears. It gave rise
to some reflection. Why are your lands worn out? Are the lands
of Pennsylvania worn out? Are those of Connecticut worn out?
Is not Massachusetts more productive to-day than when the foot of
the white man was first impressed upon her soil? Your lands are
worn out, because the slave has turned pale the land wherever he
has set down his black foot ! It is slavedabor that has done all this.
And must we then extend to these territories that which produces
sterility wherever it is found, till barren desolation shall cover the
whole land? If you can call upon me, as a matter of compassion,
to send the slave to California or Oregon, you can call upon me by
the same sacred obligation to receive him into Ohio as a slave ; and I
would be just as much bound, as a citizen of Ohio, to say that the
Constitution should be so construed as to admit slaves there, because
they have made the land in Virginia barren, and they and their mas
ters were perishing, till Ohio had also become a wilderness. That
reason will not do. Sensitive as Ohio may appear to the morbid
benevolence spoken of — with which I have no sympathy at all — ^we
can see through that — the citizens of Ohio cannot accept these men
upon such terms.
What is there in the way, then, of my giving an intelligent vote
on this subject? Nothing at all. I would take this bill in a mo
ment, if I had faith in the processes through which that law is to
, pass until it becomes a law in the Chamber below. But I have not
that faith, and I will tell the gentlemen why. It is a sad commen
tary upon the perfection of human reason, that with but a very few
exceptions, gentlemen coming from a slave State — and I think I have
one behind me who ought always to be before me— -[Mr. Badger}
with a very few exceptions, all eminent lawyers on this floor from
that section of the country, have argued that you have no right to
prohibit the introduction of Slavery into Oregon, California and New
Mexico ; while, on the other hand, there is not a man, with few
exceptions (and some highly respectable), in the free States, learned
or unlearned, clerical or lay, who has any pretentions to legal knowl-

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 343
edge, but believes in his conscience that you have a right to pro
hibit Slavery. Is not that a curious commentary upon that wonder
ful thing called human reason ?
Mr. Underwood. — It is regulated by a line.
Yes, by 36° 30', and what is black on one side of the line is
white on the other, turning to jet black again when restored to its
original locality. How is that? Can I have confidence in the
Supreme Court of the United States, when my confidence fails in
Senators around me here ? Do I expect that the members of that
body will be more careful than the Senators from Georgia and South
Carolina to form their opinions without any regard to selfish consid
erations ? Can I suppose that either of these gentlemen, or the gen
tleman from Georgia on the other side of the Chamber [Mr. John
son], or the learned Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Davis], who
thought it exceedingly wrong that we should attempt to restrain the
Almighty in the execution of his purposes, as revealed to us by
Noah — can I suppose that these Senators, with all the terrible
responsibilities which press upon us when engaged in legislating for
a whole empire, came to their conclusions without the most anxious
deliberation? And yet on one side of the line, in the slave States,
the Constitution reads Yea, while on the other, after the exercise of
an equal degree of intelligence, calmness and deliberation, in the free
States the Constitution is made to read Nay.
I admire the Supreme Court of the United States as a tribunal.
I admire the wisdom which contrived it. I rejoice in the good con
sequences to this Republic from the exercise of its functions. I also
revere the Senate of the United States. Here is the' most august
body in the world, they say, composed of men who have wasted the
midnight oil from year to year — men who in cloisters, in courts, in
legislative halls, have been reaping the fruits of ripe experience, and
suddenly their mighty intellects, able to scan everything, however
minute, and comprehend everything, however grand, utterly fail
them, and they kneel down in dumb insignificance, and implore the
Supreme Court to read the Constitution for them. I think the Sen
ator from South Carolina must have had some new light upon the
subject within the last few years, and that several of my Democratic
friends on all sides of the Chamber must have been smitten with new
love for the power and wisdom of the Supreme Court. Do you
remember the case adverted to by the Senator from New Jersey

344 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COKWIN.
to-day? I recollect very well when we did not stop to inquire how
the Supreme Court had decided or ordained. It had decided, with
John Marshall at its head — a man whose lightest conjectures upon
the subject of constitutional law have always had with me as much
weight as the well-considered opinion of almost any other man —
that Congress had power to establish just such a bank as you had ;
but with what definite scorn did Democratic gentlemen — Jackson
Democrats, as they chose to be called — curl their Hps when referred
to that decision of the Supreme Court. Then the cry was, "We
are judges for ourselves ; we make no law unless we have the power
to enact it." Now, however, the doctrine is, that here is one only
tribunal competent to put the matter at rest forever. We are to
thank God, that though all should fail, there is an infallible deposi
tory of truth, and it Hves once a year for three months, in a Httle
chamber below us ! We can go there. Now, I understand my duty
here to be to ascertain what constitutional power we have ; and when
I have ascertained that I act without reference to what the Supreme
Court may do — for they have yet furnished no guide on the subject
— we are to take it for granted that they will concur with us. I
agree with gentlemen who have been so lofty in their encomiums
upon that Court, that their decision, whether right or wrong, con
trols our action. But we have not hitherto endeavored to ascertain
what the Supreme Court would do. I wish ne.xt to ascertain in
what mode this wonderful response is to be obtained — not from the
Delphic Oracle, but from that infallible divinity, the Supreme Court.
How is it to be done? A gentleman starts from Baltimore, in
Maryland, with a dozen black men, who have been slaves ; he takes
them to California, three thousand miles off Now, 1 don't know
how it may be in other parts of the world, but I know that in the
State of Ohio we do not travel three thousand miles to get justice.
What, then, is the admirable contrivance in this bill by which we can
get at the meaning of the Constitution ? It seems the meaning of
the Constitution is to be forever hidden from us until light shall be
given by the Supreme Court. Sir, this bill seems to me a rich and
rare legislative curiosity. It does not enact "a law," which I had
supposed the usual function of legislation. No, sir ; it only enacts
"a law-suit." So we virtually enact that, when the Supreme Court
say we can make law, then we have made it !
But, sir, to have a fair trial of this question, so as to make it
effectual to keep slaves out of our Territory, all must admit this trial

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 345
should be had before slaves have become numerous there. If Slav
ery goes there and remains there for one year, according to all
experience, it is eternal. Let it but plant its roots there, and the
next thing you will hear will be earnest appeals about the rights of
property. It will be said : ' ' The Senate did not say we had no
tight to come here. The House of Representatives, a body of gentle
men elected from all parts of the country, on account of their sagac
ity and legal attainments, did not prohibit us from coming here. I
thought I had a right to come here ; the Senator from South Carolina
said I had a right to come ; the honorable Senator from Georgia said
I had a right to come here ; his colleague said it was a right secured
to me somewhere high up in the clouds, and not belonging to the
world ; the Senator from Mississippi said it was the ordinance from
Heaven, sanctified by decrees and revealed through prophecy — am I
not, then, to enjoy the privileges thus so fully secured to me? I
have property here ; several of my women have borne children, who
have partus sequitur ventrem born with them — they are my property."
Thus the appeal will be made to their fellow-citizens around them ;
and it will be asked whether you are prepared to strike down the
property which the settler in those Territories has thus acquired?
That will be the case, unless the negro from Baltimore, when he gets
there and sees Peons there — slaves not by hereditary taint, but by a
much better title, a verdict before a justice of the peace — should deter
mine to avail himself of the admirable facilities afforded him by this
bill for gaining his freedom. Suppose my friend from New Hamp
shire, when he goes home, gets up a meeting and collects a fund for
the purpose of sending a missionary after these men ; and when
the missionary arrives there, he proposes to hold a prayer-meeting ;
he gets up a meeting, as they used to do in Yankee times, "for the
improvement of gifts." He goes to the negro quarter of this gen
tleman from Baltimore, and says : ' ' Come, I want this brother ; it is
true he is a son of Ham, but I want to instruct him that he is free. "
I am very much inclined to think that the missionary would fare very
much as one did in South Carolina, at the hands of him from Balti
more. This bill supposes the negro is to start all at once into a free
Anglo-Saxon \fi California — the blood of Liberty flowing in every
vein, and its divine impulses throbbing in his heart. He is to say :
"I am free; I am a Calif ornian; I bring the right of habeas corp^is
with me." At last he is brought up on a writ of habeas corpus —
before whom ? Very likely one of those gentlemen who have been

346 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
proclaiming that Slavery has a right to go there ; for such are the
men that Mr. Polk is likely to appoint. He has prejudged the case.
On the faith of his opinion the slave has been brought there — what
can he do? There is his recorded judgment printed in your Con
gressional Report — what will he say? "You are a slave. Mr. Cal
houn was right. Judge Berrien, of Georgia, a profound lawyer,
whom I knew well, was right. I know these gentlemen well ; their
opinion is entitled to the highest authority ; and in the face of it, it
does not become me to say that you are free — so, boy, go to your
master; you belong to the class partus sequitur veritrem; you are not
quite enough of a Saxon!" What, then, is to be done by this bill?
Oh ! a writ of error or appeal can come to the Supreme Court of the
United States. How ? The negro, if he is to be treated like a white
man, taking out an appeal, must give bonds in double the value of
the subject matter in dispute. And what is that? If you consider
it the mercantile value of the negro, it may be perhaps §1,000 or
$2,000. But he cannot have the appeal according to this bill, unless
the value of the thing in controversy amounts to the value of
$2,000. But, then, there comes in this ideality of personal lib
erty. What is it worth? Nothing at all — says the Senator from
South Carolina — to this fellow, who is better without it. And under
this complexity of legal quibbling and litigation, it is expected that
the negro will stand there and contend with his master, and coming
on to Washington, will prosecute his appeal two years before the
Supreme Court, enjoying the opportunity of visiting his old friends
about Baltimore !
And now, Mr. President, if we have found upon the opinions of
wise ones of old, upon the observations of past and present time,
that involuntary Slavery is not useful, profitable, or beneficial to
either master or slave, that such institutions only become tolerable,
because, when long established, the evil is less than those conse
quences which would follow their sudden change, I think it will be
admitted that we should prohibit involuntary servitude in the terri
tories over which we have control.
Here, then, the question arises, have we this prohibitory power?
I have already said, that where the Supreme Court of the United
States has solemnly adjudged any power to belong to any branch of
this Government, such adjudication should, until overruled, have
great, if not controlling, weight with Congress. What, then, are
the adjudications of that court upon this point? I quote from the

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 347
case so often referred to, American Insurance Company vs. Carter
(1st Peters' Reports, page 511). On page 542 of that case, the
court says: "The Constitution confers absolutely on the Govern
ment of the Union the powers of making war, and of making treaties.
Consequently, that Government possesses the power of acquiring
territory, either by conquest or treaty." Again, on the same page,
the right to make law for a territory is thus spoken of: "Perhaps
the power of governing a territory of the United States, which has
not, by becoming a State, acquired the means of self-government,
may result necessarily from the fact that it is not within the jurisdic
tion of any particular State, and is within the power and jurisdic
tion of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevita
ble consequence of the right to acquire territory ; but which ever may
be the source whence the power is derived, the possession of it is
unquestioned." Nothing can be clearer or more satisfactory on this point.
While this doctrine conforms to the plain dictates of reason, it is sat
isfactory to know that the principle has been strengthened by the
uniform practice under the Constitution. The latter class of cases is
too numerous to permit even a reference to them all. They have
been frequently adverted to in this debate, and therefore I need not
again bring them to the attention of the Senate. I therefore find the
power of Congress to make law for a territory absolute and unlim
ited. I have only to consider whether a law prohibiting Slavery, in
a territory where Slavery does not already exist, is sound policy for
such territory.
Now, if we can make any law whatever, not contrary to the
express prohibitions of the Constitution, we can enact that a man
with $60, 000 worth of bank-notes of Maryland shall forfeit the whole
amount if he attempts to pass one of them in the Territory of Cali
fornia. We may say if a man carry a menagerie of wild beasts
there worth $500,000, and undertakes to exhibit them there, he shall
forfeit them. The man comes back with his menagerie, and says
that the law forbade him to exhibit his animals there ; it was thought
that, as an economical arrangement, such things should not be toler
ated there. That you may do : he of the lions and tigers goes back,
having lost his whole concern. But now you take a slave to Cali
fornia, and instantly your power fails; all the power of the sover
eignty of this country is impotent to stop him. That is a strange
sort of argument to me. It has always been considered that when a

348 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
State forms its constitution it can exclude Slavery. Why so?
Because it chances to consider it an evil. If it be a proper subject
of legislation in a State, and we have absolute legislative power
transferred to us by virtue of this bloody power of conquest, as
some say, or by purchase as others maintain, I ask — why may we
not act ? Again ; considering this as an abstract question, are there
not duties devolving upon us, for the performance of which we may
not be responsible to any earthly tribunal, but for which God who
has created us all will hold us accountable? What is your duty,
above all others, to a conquered people? You say it is your duty
to give them a Government — may you not, then, do everything for
them which you are not forbidden to do by some fundamental axio
matic truth at the foundation of your constitution? Show me, then,
how your action is precluded, and I submit. Though I believe it
ought to be otherwise, yet, if the Constitution of my country for
bids me, I yield. The constitutions of many States declare Slavery
to be an evil. Southern gentlemen have said that they would have
done away with it if possible, and they have apologized to the world
and to themselves for the existence of it in their States. These hon
est old men of another day never could have failed to strike off
the chains from every negro in the Colonies, if it had been possible
for them to do so without upturning the foundations of society.
I do not revive these things to wound the feelings of gentlemen.
I know some of them consider this institution as valuable ; but many
of them, I also know, regard it as an evil. But Slavery is not in
Oregon, it is not in California ; and when I find that you have tram
pled down the people in order to extend your dominion over them, I
feel it to be my duty, when you appeal to me to make laws for them
and the Supreme Court has said that I have the power to do so, to
avert from them this evil of Slavery, and establish free institutions,
under which no man can say that another is his property. I do not
doubt this power. 1 know that it has been considered of old, from
1787 till the present hour, to be vested in Congress. The judicial
tribunals in the West have considered it so, and the Supreme Court
of the United States have said in that decision, so often referred to,
that it was so. Have they found any restrictions upon us? No.
And what would you do if you were in Oregon to-day, and it were a
State? What would you do, and you, and you? Would any man
here, if he were acting in a legislative capacity, say, ' ' I feel myself
bound to admit this evil into this country, for the benefit of some of

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 349
the States who are overburdened with slaves." If this were true, it
would be the duty of the free States, in that fraternal spirit which
ought to prevail between the various States of the Union, to admit
slaves whenever the slave States became overburdened with them.
Do we so act in legislating for our States? No; we say, "enjoy
your slaves, or free them, as you will, but it is our wish that there
shall be no Slavery here." You may implore a State, if you will,
to take slaves into its bosom for your convenience, but they do not
feel themselves bound by any Government obligation to do it. Am
I not, then, bound to lay the foundations of that State for whose
future progress I am to be responsible, in the way which I think the
most likely to produce beneficial results to the people there? And
when I find myself possessed of this power, and clothed with com
mensurate responsibility, no threats of dissolution of the Union, no
heartburnings here or there, and, least of all — that which we have
heard much of out of doors — the coming Presidential election, shall
deter me from pursuing this course. I am for making a law, in the
language of the Ordinance of 1787; I would have it enacted that
Slavery shall never exist in that country. Then, when my black
man comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, as provided
in this bill, he comes with a positive law in his favor, that court must
overrule the decision of the case in Peters, or else such appeal must
be sustained. Then we will have acted upon the subject — we will
have forbidden Slavery. I observed that some gentlemen who han
dled this subject, were very careful to repeat, with emphasis, that
Slavery may go where it is not prohibited. That is the reason I pre
fer the Ordinance of 1787 to the so-called Compromise Bill. I have
no doubt that every Senator who assented to that bill convinced him
self that it was the best we could pass. I have no doubt that our
friends from the North thought it would be effective in preventing
Slavery in these territories. But I see that the Senator from South
Carolina does not think so. He supports the bill for the very reason
that it will admit Slavery ; the Senator from Vermont, for the reason
that Slavery is forbidden by it. Now, in this confusion of ideas, I
desire that Congress, if it have any opinion, express it.
If we have any power to legislate over these Territories, how
long would it take to write down the sixth article of the Ordinance
of 1787? Those of us who think that ought to be a fundamental
law in the organization of Territories, will vote for it; and those of
us who believe otherwise, will vote against it ; and whichever party

350 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
triumphs, will give law to Oregon and California, bearing the respon
sibility. But I must say that I do not like what appears to me — I
say it in no offensive sense — a shuffling off the responsibility which
is upon us now, and which we cannot avoid. The Supreme Court
may overrule our decision ; but if we think we have power to ordain
that Slavery shall not exist in that Territory, let us say so ; if not,
let us so decide. Let us not evade the question altogether.
That honorable Senators who reported this bill had its passage
very much at heart I have no doubt ; nor do I feel disposed to deny
that every man of them believed that it was just such a measure as
was calculated to give tranquillity to the agitated minds of the peo
ple of this country. Well, I do not care for, that agitation further
than that I will look to it as a motive to inquire carefully what my
powers and my duties are. I have heard much of this — I have been
myself a prophet of dissolution of this Union ; but I have seen the
Union of these States survive so many shocks that I am not afraid
of dissolution. Perhaps, indeed, when this cry ol wolf has been
long disregarded, he may come at last when not expected ; but I do
not believe that the people of the South are willing to sever them
selves from this Republic because we will not establish Slavery here
or there. If we have no power to pass the Ordinance of 1787, let
the people of the South go to the Supreme Court and have the ques
tion decided. It will only be a few months till the Court resumes its
session here, and the question can then be tried. If the decision be
against us, the gentlemen of the South can at once commence their
emigration to these Territories. Let us, then, make the law as we
think it ought to be made now.
I am the more confirmed in the course which I am determined
to pursue by some historical facts elicited in this very discussion. I
remember what was said by the Senator from Virginia the other day.
It is true, that when the Constitution of the United States was made.
South Carolina and Georgia refused to come into the Union unless
the slave trade should be continued for twenty years ; and the North
agreed that they would vote to continue the slave trade for twent}-
years ; yes, voted that this new Republic should engage in piracy
and murder at the will of two States ! So the history reads ; and
the condition of the agreement was, that those two States should
agree to some arrangement about navigation laws ! I do not blame
South Carolina and Georgia for this transaction any more than I do
those Northern States who shared in it. But suppose the question

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 351
were now presented here by any one, whether we should adopt the
foreign slave trade and continue it for twenty years, would not the
whole land turn pale with horror, that, in the middle of the nine
teenth century, a citizen of a free community, a Senator of the
United States, should dare to propose the adoption of a system that
has been denominated piracy and murder, and is by law punished by
death all over Christendom ? What did they do then ? They had the
power to prohibit it ; but, at the command of these two States, they
allowed that to be introduced into the Constitution, to which much
of Slavery now existing in our land is clearly to be traced. For who
can doubt that, but for that woful bargain. Slavery would by this
time have disappeared from all the States then in the Union, with one
or two exceptions? The number of slaves in the United States at
this period was about six hundred thousand ; it is now three mill
ions. And just as you extend the area of Slavery, so you multi
ply the difficulties which lie in the way of its extermination. It had
been infinitely better that day that South Carolina and Georgia had
remained out of the Union for a while, rather than that the Consti
tution should have been madf to sanction the slave trade for twenty
years. The dissolution of the old Confederation would have been
nothing in comparison with that recognition of piracy and murder.
I can conceive of nothing in the dark record of man's enormities,
from the death of Abel down to this hour, so horrible as that of
stealing people from their own home, and making them and their
posterity slaves forever. It is a crime which we know has been vis
ited with such signal punishment in the history of nations as to war
rant the belief that Heaven itself had interfered to avenge the wrongs
of earth. In thus characterizing this accursed traffic, I speak but the com
mon sentiment of all mankind. I could not, if I taxed my feeble
intellect to the utmost, denounce it in language as strong as that
uttered by Thomas Jefferson himself Nay, more — the spirit of that
great man descending to his grandson, in your Virginia Convention,
denounced the slave trade, as now carried on between the States, as
being no less infamous than that foreign slave trade carried on in
ships that went down into the sea. I speak of Thomas Jefferson
Randolph. If you would not go to Africa, and thence people Cali
fornia with slaves, may you not perpetuate equal enormities here ?
You take the child from its mother's bosom — you separate husband

352 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
and wife — and, you transport them three thousand miles off to the
shores of the Pacific Ocean.
I know that this is a peculiar institution ; and I doubt not that
in the hands of such gentlemen as talk about it here, it may be made
very attractive. It may be a very agreeable sight to behold a large
company of dependents, kindly treated by a benevolent master, and
to trace the manifestations of gratitude which they exhibit. But in
my eyes a much more grateful spectacle would be that of a patriarch
in the same neighborhood, with his dependents all around him,
invested with all the attributes of freedom bestowed upon them by
the common Father, in whose sight aU are aHke precious ! It is,
indeed, a "very peculiar" institution. According to the account of
the Senator from Mississippi [ Mr. Davis], this institution exhibits all
that is most amiable and beautiful in our nature. That Senator drew
a picture of an old, gray-headed negro woman exhausting the kind
ness of her heart upon the white child she had nursed. This is true,
and it shows the good master and the greatful servant. But, sir, all
are not such as these. The Senator concealed the other side of the
picture ; and it was only revealed to us.by the quick apprehension of
the Senator from Florida [Mr. Westcott], who wanted the power
to send a patrol all over the country to prevent the slaves from rising
to upturn the order of society? I had almost believed, after hearing
the beautiful, romantic, sentimental, narration of the Senator from
Mississippi, that God had, indeed, as he said, made this people in
Africa to come over here and wait upon us, till the Senator from
Florida waked me up to a recollection of the old doctrines of Wash
ington and Jefferson, by assuring us that wherever that patriarchal
institution existed, a rigid police should be maintained in order to
prevent the uprising of the slave. Sir, it is indeed a peculiar institu
tion. I know many good men, who, as masters, honor human
nature, by the kindness, equity and moderation of their rule and
government of their slaves; but put a bad man, as sometimes hap
pens, as often happens, in possession of uncontrolled dominion over
another, black or white, and tlien wrongs follow that make angels
weep. It is, sir, a troublesome institution ; it requires too much
law, too much force, to keep up social and domestic security ; there
fore, I do not wish to extend it to these new and as yet feeble
Territories. Is it pretended that slave labor could be profitable in Oregon or
California? Do we expect to grow cotton and sugar there? I do

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 353
not know that it may not be done there ; for as the gentleman from
New York has told us, just as you go west upon this continent the
line of latitude changes in temperature, so that you may have a
very different isothermal line as you approach the Pacific Ocean.
But I do not care so much about that. My objection is a radical
one to the institution everywhere. I do believe, if there is any
place upon the globe which we inhabit where a white man cannot
work, he has no business there. If that place is fit only for black
men to work, let black men alone work there. I do not know any
better law for man's good than that old one, which was announced
to man after the first transgression, that by the sweat of his brow
he should earn his bread. I don't know what business men have in
the world unless it is to work. If any man has no work of head or
hand to do in this world, let him get out of it soon. The hog is the
only gentleman who has nothing to do but eat and sleep. Him we
dispose of as soon as he is fat. Difficult as the settlement of this ques
tion seems to some, it is in my judgment only so because we will
not look at it and treat it as an original proposition, to be decided
by the influence its determination may have on the Territories them
selves. We are ever running away from this, and inquiring how it
will affect the "slave States" or the "free States." The only ques
tion mainly to be considered is, how will this policy affect the Terri
tories for which this law is intended ? Is Slavery a good thing, or is
it a bad thing for them? With my views of the subject, I must con
sider it bad policy to plant Slavery in any soil where I do not find it
already growing. I look upon it as an exotic that blights with its
shade the soil in which you plant it ; therefore, as I am satisfied of
our constitutional power to prohibit it, so I am equally certain it is
our duty to do so.
In the States where law and long usage have made the slave
property, as property I treat it. It is there, and while there it
should and will receive that protection which the Constitution and
the good neighborhood of the States afford and require at our hands.
But I should be false to my best convictions of duty, policy and
right, if by my vote I should extend it one acre beyond its present
limits. I may be mistaken in all this ; but of one thing I am satis
fied — of the honest conviction of my own judgment ; and no imag
inary interruption of the ties which bind the various sections of the
Confederacy shall induce me to shrink from these convictions, when
ever I am called upon to carry them out into law.
24

354 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
But we are told that when the Constitution was made, there
existed certain relative proportions between the power of the slave
and the power of the free States. I understood the Senator from
South Carolina, that we were under obligations to preserve forever
these relative proportions in the same way.
Mr. Calhoun — I said nothing of the kind.
I am very happy to be undeceived. I understood the Senator
to conceive that this is a question of power. It is not so. It is a
question of municipal law, of civil polity. The men who framed
the Constitution never dreamed that there was to be a conflict of
power between the slave and the free States. They never dreamed
that the South was to contend that they would always be equal in
representation in the Senate to the North. They had no idea of that
equilibrium of power of which we have heard so much. The cir
cumstances of that period forbade any such supposition. Looking
at all these circumstances, (and I have no doubt those far-seeing men
regarded them carefully) you would have had fourteen free States
and nine slave States. But every man who had much to do with the
formation of the Constitution expected and desired that Slavery
should be prohibited in the new States ; and they even expected to
have it abolished in many of the States where it existed. They had
no idea of conflict; and if the ultra fanatics, in the South, as well as
those in the North, would let the subject alone, we should have
much less difficulty in a proper settlement of the question.
While the extreme fanaticism of the North, it is said, would
burst the barriers of the Constitution and rush into the slave States
to enforce their abolition views, trampling on your laws and madly
overturning existing institutions there, the South vents its fiery indig
nation in tones of unmeasured reproach. But have Southern gentle
men considered their position before the world on this question?
You declare the opinion that Slavery does not exist either in Oregon,
California or New Mexico ; all these immense regions are now, and
for many years have been, free from Negro Slavery. And now
what do the ultra fanatics of the South ask? Sir, they avow their
determination to rush into these free territories, overturn the social
systems there existing, uproot all establishments founded in and
molded by an absence of Slavery, and having thus swept away the
former free systems, plant there forever, the system of involuntary
servitude. Sir, Southern gentlemen must say no more about the
fanatics of the North endeavoring to uproot your institutions, while

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 355
you imitate the example of those fanatics in your treatment of the
free soil of this Union. Sir, there is no difference between the two
cases. The fanatics of the South are but a counterpart of those of
the North. If there be any difference, it is only this : The fanatic
of the North has this apology — he proposes, at least in theory, to
enlarge and extend the boundaries of human rights. The fanatic of
the South, strangely inconsistent with the obvious tendencies of the
age, seeks to extend, at one sweep, human black Slavery over a coun
try, new and sparsely settled, larger in extent than most of the gov
ernments of the Old World. This does appear to my poor judg
ment, not merely at war with the spirit of the age, with the better
spirit, I would say, of men in all ages ; nay, more — I must be par
doned if I declare it wears the aspect of absurdity, arrogance and
temerity. Sir, I have spoken out my opinions freely, boldly, but in
no spirit of unkindness to any man or any section of our common
country. I know how widely different are the views of other gen
tlemen from mine. I know how habit, usage, time, color our
thoughts, and indeed form our principles often. But I must here
repeat my belief, that if we could set about this business in the
spirit of those who founded this Republic, we should have no diffi
culty in enacting the Ordinance of 1787. Sir, it is best to repeat
what they did. In 1787, they made the Constitution. In 1787,
they made that celebrated Ordinance for the northwest. Sir, this
doctrine of free territory is not new ; it is coeval with the Constitu
tion, born the same year, of the same parents, and baptized in the
same good old republican church. And now, when we are about to
establish these new republics, much larger than the old, why should
we not imitate their example, re-enact their laws, and thus secure to
this new Republic on the Pacific the glory, the prosperity, the
rational progress, which have shed such luster around that founded
upon the shore, of the Atlantic ?
A Senator who sits before me [Mr. Fitzgerald] has with great
propriety explained to the Senate the position in which he is placed
on this subject, as connected with his friend. General Cass, not now
a member of this body. The subject, as bearing on the opinions
and prospects of both General Cass and General Taylor, has been
often adverted to in this debate. While I am yet on my feet, I
desire to say a word or two on this aspect of the debate.
I speak of one absent from this chamber with every feehng of
respect, and with some reluctance. It is said, and I believe truly,

356 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
that General Cass has, within the last two years, entertained two
opinions on this subject, the one in direct conflict with the other. In
other words, he has changed his opinion respecting it ; whereas he
was at one time in favor of extending the Ordinance of 1787 over all
new territory ; now, he denies the power of Congress to do so. Thus
it follows that he would arrest all such legislation by interposing his
veto. His position at present is fixed. But, sir, this facility in form
ing and changing opinions in a gentleman at his time of life, gives
some hope that in the future he may not obstinately persevere in his
error. Sir, one who on such subjects can change in the two past
years his opinion, gives hopeful expectation that he may change back
in the two years to come. As Major Dugald Dalgetty would say,
"He wiU be amenable to reason." His opinion, it seems, is, that
the whole subject is to be given over to the unlimited discretion
of the Territorial Legislatures. As to General Taylor's position in
regard to this and all like subjects of domestic policy, I here declare
that if I did not consider him pledged by his published letter to Cap
tain Allison not to interpose his veto on such subjects of legislation,
he certainly could not get my vote, nor do I believe that of any
Northern State.
Mr. Hannegan — I would like to be informed by the Senator from Ohio, as he has
referred to General Cass's position, and as he is about to give his support to General
Taylor, if he can give us General Taylor's views on the subject, and what his opinion
will be, when expressed in a message to Congreas.
I cannot.
Mr. Hannegan — I understand the Senator from Ohio to say, that if General Tay
lor would interpose a veto upon the subject, he would not vote for him under any
circumstances. I would not, nor would any Whig in Ohio, unless indeed we
found him opposed to just such another man who had a great many'
bad qualities beside. [A laugh.] But, sir, I have to say that I do
not believe that General Taylor could get the electoral vote of a free
State in America, if it were not for the belief that prevails that upon
this subject, as well as upon any other of domestic policy, where
the power of Congress had been sanctioned by the various depart
ments of Government, and acquiesced in by the people, he would
not, through the veto power, interfere to crush the free will of the
people, as expressed through both branches of Congress.
I repeat, sir, that if Congress, having the power as defined by
the Supreme Court, acted on by Congress in various cases, as shown

ON THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE BILL. 357
by your legislation, sanctioned in so many ways, and till now cheer
fully acquiesced in by the people, should enact the Ordinance of 1787
over again, and extend it over the three Territories in question,
and the man in the White House should interpose his veto, and
again and again thrust his puny arm in the way of the legislative
power, and arrest for a long time the popular will, I will not say he
would be impeached, tried, and ( if the law were so ) have his head
brought to the block. Patience might in its exhaustion give way to
exasperation, and the forms of law and the majesty of judicial trial
all fall before the summary vengeance of an abused and insulted
people. I know very well that the Senate is weary of this debate. I
wish now only to state another fact, which will show what it is which
our brethren of the South now demands. If you take the area of
the free States and the slave States as they exist, and compare them,
you will find that the latter predominate. When the Constitution
was formed, and when all the territory which you then had was
brought into the Union, the free States had an excess of 100,000
square miles over the slave States; but when you had acquired
Louisiana, Florida and Texas and added them to the Union, and
when you have added the claim of the South, that they will carry
their slaves into Oregon, New Mexico and California, what will then
be the condition of the free States ? The slave States will have one-
third more power in the Senate of the United States than the free
States could ever have.
Sir, if this is to be viewed at all as a question of power, what
I have stated would be the exact result of yielding to the present
claim of the South ; and this will be the result, unless you prohibit
the introduction of Slavery into these Territories. Sir, I have seen
the working of this system. Plant thirty slaveholders among three
hundred inhabitants who are not slaveholders and they will maintain
their position against the thee hundred. Let one man out of fifty be a
slaveholder, and he will pursuade the forty-nine that it is better that
the institution should exist. It is capital and social position, opposed
to labor and poverty. How this war may wage in the future I will
not say ; but thus far the former have ever been an over-match for
the latter. But, sir, I do not like this view of such a subject. If it were
merely a comparison of strength or contest for relative power, I
could yield without a struggle. But I am called on to lay the foun-

358 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
dations of society over a vast extent of country. If this work is
done wisely now, ages unborn shall bless us, and we shall have done
in our day what experience approved and duty demanded. If this
work shall be carelessly or badly done, countless millions that shall
inherit that vast region will hereafter remember our folly as their
curse ; our names and deeds, instead of praises, shall only call forth
execration and reproach. In the conflict of present opinions, I have
listened patiently to all. Finding myself opposed to some with
whom I have rarely ever differed before, I have doubted myself,
re-examined my conclusions, reconsidered all the arguments on either
side, and I still am obliged to adhere to my first impressions, I may
say my long-cherished opinions. If I part company with some liere,
whom I habitually respect, I still find with me the men of \}a.t past,
whom the nations venerated. I stand upon the Ordinance of 1787.
There the path is marked by the blood of the Revolution. I stand
in company with the "men of '87," their locks wet with the mists of
the Jordan over which they passed ; their garments purple with the
waters of the Red Sea through which they led us of old to this land
of promise. With them to point the way, however dark the present,
Hope shines upon the future, and discerning their foot-prints in my
path, I shall tread it with unfaltering trust

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH.

DELIVERED AT IRONTON, OHIO, AUGUST 19, 1859.

The following speech was delivered at a large political meeting in Lawrence
County, Ohio, in the Gubernatorial canvass of 1859. It was reported for and pub
lished in the Cincinnati Gazette, and is one of the few campaign speeches of Mr,
Corwin reported in full and revised for publication. Among the distinguished per
sons present at the meeting, and to whom" allusion is made in the speech, were Hon
William Dennison, the Republican candidate for Governor of Ohio, and Hon,
Laban T. Moore, member of Congress elect from the Ninth District, Kentucky.
My Fellow-Citizens :
If it were a part of my design, in visiting this portion of the
State, to exhibit myself as an orator, I should feel, as my venerable
friend* would feel for me after what you have heard. I have no
ambition in addressing my fellow-citizens, at all events, in popular
assemblies, to discharge any other duty to myself or them than that,
if it may be possible, of communicating some information which
shall be useful to them in the discharge of their duty as voters.
You who are intrusted with the exercise of that great office of
voting which you have so shamefully and so strangely neglected in all
your lifetime — you who come here to understand, it may be, your
duties from men who come from a distance of two or three hundred
miles, do well ; but to you who come to listen to smart speeches or
fine orations, allow me to say in candor, as one interested in the
manner in which this duty is to be discharged, that you had better
have staid at home ; if you have an honorable calling in the world,
or honest occupation in life, you should have attended to it to-day,
instead of coming to hear me.
You have heard, in the glowing language of my friend, in the
ardor and sincerity of his own spirit, that bead-roll of offenses, God
knowns it was a melancholy catalogue of crime which he exhibited
*The President of the meeting. (359)

360 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
against the public men of the State of Ohio and the United States.
Now, whenever any man in speaking of the affairs of your Republic
shall be able, with truth and in candor, to pronounce the officers of
the Government unworthy the trust reposed in them ; to have vio
lated their pledges, if it be so, or willfully neglected the duties of
the various posts to which they had been assigned ; if ever any man
can say that of your pubHc men, with truth, then he has pronounced
a condemnation upon the whole system of the American Repubhc,
for he has said that men entrusted with the duty of appointing offi
cers do not know how to go about the discharge of their duty, or do
not care in what manner they do discharge it. If there be any man
whose heart is filled with shame and anguish, when he hears these
things said — if there be any man who feels thus, I hold it is impos
sible, in the nature of things, that he will not, for the moment,
doubt the propriety of giving universal suffrage to any people.
Now, some of my Democratic brethren will go away and say
that I am a Federalist, on account of what I have said here to-day,
but I have felt it my duty to say thus much everywhere. I have no
doubt of the intelligence of the people. I have no doubt of the
general integrity and of the honesty of the hearts of the mass of all
the parties that ever existed in this Republic; but I assert that I
have doubts whether the people of this county do faithfully attend
to the election of their officers. Why do I say this? Because, if
you will believe what has been said by either of the great political
parties, for the last thirty years, the public men whom you have had
in office, have been unworthy of the places which they have filled.
Whose fault is it that your State of Ohio is inflicted with a heavy
loss of $750,000— money wrung from the pockets of the people by
direct taxation ? It is gone, and you know not where it is. It is
your fault. You elected the men to office.
Let me suppose that some monarch at Washington City was in
vested with the power of appointing the agents of States to office,
to do as he pleased with the government of the States, and that
monarch appointed servants as unfaithful to their duties as yours are
said to have been, what would you do with him ? My life upon it,
if there was one drop of the blood that coursed in the veins of your
forefathers left warm within you, there would be found some patri
otic man to drive the dagger to the heart of that despot. What,
then, is to be done with you, who vote for and elect all these men ?
I believe it is now conceded by very many of the Democratic

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 361
party that the present Chief Magistrate has lamentably disappointed
even those, who elected him. He has not disappointed those who
opposed his election, for they predicted that everything would go
wrong under his administration. There are very few Democratic
aspirants to ofifice in the North or West, who dare avow themselves
friends of the President. Thus it seems that this officer is now con
demned by many of those who voted for him. How came they to
elect such a man as that ? Had they not sense and sagacity enough
to know a man whose life had been before them on their public rec
ords for thirty or forty years? Were they so ineffably stupid, that
they did not investigate that man's life, to know him before they
appointed him to that high office ? They could have done it, but
did not do it. The great office of electing President and Governor
and Legislatures, State and Federal, the great office which you hold,
you sadly neglect. I assert that the duties of the Presidency have
been discharged with quite as much fidelity as has been shown by
many of the people of the United States in the exercise of their
great office — the elective franchise. This is not so because you are
not intelligent — nor because you are bad men, but because every
man has the same interest and power that you have, and you say,
"Let somebody else do it." "I will not interest myself in this, or
I will be called a politician — the brethren of my church won't like it ;
why should I disturb myself about this thing? I have my own
affairs to attend to, and I will attend to them, and as for this business
of regulating the affairs of the Republic, I will leave that to those
fellows who want office." That is the way you think about it; that
is the way you have acted with it. If you had not acted in that
way, I tell you that few of these calamities which you have now to
deplore would have occurred ; few of these great instances of blun
dering would have happened. Why have you not done this? I say,
you will not attend to this business ; if you did, if you had done so,
then I think it must follow, as a legitimate conclusion, that you don't
know how. So much for the consideration of my brethren in this
private little class-meeting of ours, of two or three thousand persons,
where we are considering the state of religion in the American
Church, and lighting up a candle and putting it into every man's
hand that he may search his own bosom.
Let those gentlenien who feel themselves quite too respectable
and decent to mingle in our elections, remember that God Almighty
will hold them responsible for the manner in which they discharge

362 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
their duty as voters. That right and privilege is not given to them
for their benefit, or to be used at their pleasure, but for my benefit,
for your benefit, and for the benefit of the thirty millions of people
in the United States. If one sees an unworthy man go to the polls
and take possession of the Government, and he wiU not prevent it,
if there be such a thing as future responsibility — as we all believe —
that man will have something to answer for upon that final day when
all of us must account for our acts.
Do you suppose that the old men who published that Declara
tion of Independence^ which gave birth to your national existence,
for the maintenance of which they appealed to the God of nations,
approve of this neglect? They felt their own weakness; they, acting
upon the commonly accepted principles of human reason, felt that
they would perish in the conflict into which they were then about to
enter ; and at last, as poor feeble man always does when he feels he
has nothing to lean upon but his own arm, he goes to the Almighty
for help in that hour of trouble. They appealed to Him, and He
answered well in the day of their trial ; and all the struggles they
endured, all the blood they shed, all the pains and privations they
suffered, were simply to end in just one thing — in communicating to
every rational free man equal power to govern the nation. That
office they communicated to you — the voting people of the country.
Did they suppose — could they have believed that the people of this
country, the respectable people of the land, would so scorn the great
and priceless estate which they left them, as that they would not
attend to appointing the agents to take care of it, but that some
mercenary spirit was to take care of them?
If each member of the community had an interest in a banking
institution, or in a joint stock manufacturing company, where his
reward was to be but a few paltry dollars per cent, on his capital — if
a meeting was called to appoint a president or an agent of that com
pany, he would attend this meeting, to elect this president and direc
tor of the paltry bank or joint stock concern ; but when the president
and directors are to be elected to take care of the liberties of the
whole country, oh, these men are too decent, too respectable, to
attend. It is not respectable to be a politician, they tell us, or the}'
are too careless, or they have half an acre of buckwheat which
might not be got in and saved, if they left home on the election-day.
That is the way you act with your privileges. Let us cease
complaining of the men you elect, and of the laws they make. One

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 363
thing we know to be perfectly certain, the stockholders do not attend
to the election of the president and directors, or if they do, they
don't know how to do their duty.
Don't let us blame our Presidents so much ! Don't let us anath
ematize the men we have elected to these offices of State, too much !
Let us abuse the people who elected them. They are to blame for
wrongs done, if any have been done. If you elect a judge, and he
does not attend at court, and if an innocent man is hung because he
was not there to try him, what do you with him ? You take him to
Columbus and impeach him. He is removed from ofifice, and the
brand of disgrace and ignominy is placed upon his brow. But you
can be absent from elections, and let unworthy men be elected to
ofifice. You don't like some party or other. The judge might say
he did not like his associate ; he did not like to sit near him — he had
not a very sweet breath. I tell you, sirs, that it is quite as valid as
many of the excuses that men make for staying away from elections.
What have you been doing now, to go no further back than the
last few years — sixteen or seventeen? All of you of mature age,
remember the year 1840 very well. What did all the people of the
United States do then? They rose up with mingled feelings of mer
riment and indignation — for it was difficult to tell which prevailed
that year, the events of the administration of Mr. Van Buren had
been so singularly out of the way, nowise conformable to anybody's
notion of things, it was difficult to say whether it was looked at with
indignation, contempt or merriment. Many of his officers were run
ning away with the people's money — you know how we used to show
up the leg-treasurers! Three-quarters of the people started up and
declared, we will have no more Democratic government ; we will have
Whig government. The principles upon which these two parties
were contending, then, for your suffrages, were diametrically opposed.
Upon due deliberation and solemn consideration (for I do hope you
sometimes consider these things), it was determined by an unexam
pled majority of the country that, henceforth, Whigs and their prin
ciples should be the rule of conduct in the United States. It was
so ! Your decree, when you make it, is always omnipotent.
Four years pass away — they go by — and what happens then?
You have again to appoint a President of this great joint-stock com
pany of ours. The people have two men presented to them. One
has been alluded to by my friend, Mr. Dennison — Mr. Clay, of Ken
tucky — a man who has been spoken of so much that it would be

364 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
idle to attempt to employ terms adequate to express the feelings
with which one who knew him as well as I did, regarded the great
loss we have sustained by his death ; a man of whom the nation was
proud, a man who had a European reputation, who was regarded as
the great champion of regulated liberty, by men of inteUigence, all
over the world ; in addition to this he had endowments which it has
pleased God very rearely to give to mortal man; an integrity as
pure as the highest integrity of the highest and best of the ancient
people who have descended to us as demi-gods. Nobody questioned
this in the election at all. It was named and repeated every hour.
He did not like the annexation of Texas to the United States ; not
because he himself had any personal objecdon to any accumuladon
of slave States in the country, but because he believed it would dis
turb the harmony of the Repubhc as it then existed. The harmony
and prosperity of this land were the idols of his heart. Another
man was also presented to the American people — a very ordinary
man. (I wish to speak of him in no terms of disparagement.)
You all know something of Mr. Polk. He never pretended to be
the equal of Mr. Clay. Mr. Polk differed from him with regard to
the annexation of Texas. He desired that that independent Repub
lic, living under the shadow of our wing, should be annexed to the
United States. He was a democrat of the Democrats. I knew him
well. You know that I speak truly of his history. As a poHtician
he was opposed to everything now proposed by the opposition in
the slave States, and by the Republican party in the free States, as
the proper system of government in this country. Well, Clay pro
posed to the country to continue the Whig government begun by
Mr. Harrison, and but partially carried out by his successor. You
had determined, four years before, that henceforward you would only
have Whig principles and Whig rulers. Four years passed by, and
with the mighty difference between the two men, you determined by
a very large majority you would have no more Whig government,
but would have Democratic government, even when you could have
the pleasure and the pride of voting for one of the greatest states
men the world ever knew. The stockholders changed their opinion
greatly in these four years, or else they did not vote their principles
at all. Well, as we know human nature is full of imperfection, and as
men are gaining light every day in the world, we fondly hoped by
the school-houses and churches which we had erected we would g-et

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 365
some intelligence. We began to suppose that we were mistaken in
1840, and that we had learned that the Democratic was the true rule
of government in the country.
Four years more rolled round, which brings us to 1848. The
country, in the meantime had been involved in a foreign war, and it
is very rare, when the ambition of our Republic is concerned, and
that ambition is put into conflict with another nation, that the men
of the nation do not take sides with him who wages the war. What
did we in 1848? With about the same unanimity as before we
declared that we would have no more Democratic government, we
will have a Whig government, even though we have to deposit this
great power of statesmanship in the hands of a man fresh from the
battle-field, who was never in the councils of his country. The
stockholders have changed back again.
Four years have rolled around, and 1852 comes upon us, and
finds us still increasing in light and knowledge. Mind, in 1848 we
jumped back just eight years. We found, I suppose, that the light
had been leading us astray — that we failed in 1844. Now we are at
the stand-point of 1840 again. Instead of keeping our resolution to
continue a Whig government, we have found out that we were mis
taken a second time, and we take not General Scott, who was by no
means an ordinary man. He was a Whig, and you put away that
illustrious general and that eminently qualified statesman and took a
man who was not quite his equal in peace or war. I wish to speak
in no way disrespectful of Mr. Pierce, but I say that you fell so
much in love with democratic government, that you threw away a
Whig who was eminently qualified as a statesman and renowned as a
warrior, and took a man not renowned in either way.
Now this, and all of this, is applicable to all of us. What
would you think of any man — to illustrate — of any farmer, who
would take one of those fine patent plows and plow down his barren
ground, and raise a good crop upon his land which he had thrown
aside as useless, gather his crop into his garner, reap the reward of
his labor, thank God for his fruitful harvest and pocket the money it
brings to him ; and then when he had another crop to raise, should
say, "By that plow I got a good crop, a better one than I expected,
but as I have the power to do as I please with my own land, I will
try the old 'go-devil' plow this year." You all know what a "go-
devil " is. You know it is a harrow with three prongs, a very good
thing in its way, but by no means a good thing to break up ground

366 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
with. Well, he takes his "go-devil" and he kicks his ground about,
and he gets no crop, and you all know well he can't get much of a
crop that way, anyhow. Now he gets in debt. He says: "Well,
I was a great fool to take that ' go-devil ;' I will get that patent plow
to work again." The third year he uses that plow again, and he gets
another good crop, and gets out of debt. He gets his money into
his pocket, and goes to his thanksgiving dinner, eats his turkey and
thanks God for His goodness. The fourth year, however, he says :
' ' Have I not a right to do as I please ? I will take that old ' go-
devil ' again ;" and he takes it, and the result again is quite devilish.
That is precisely what you, the people of the United States,
have done with your power of voting. That is exactly what you
have done. Do you wonder that those veteran old statesmen in
Europe, such as Metternich, or Walewski, and Palmerston and
Derby, who have read over and over again all that is said about pop
ular government and all that has been written, and have seen it
always remarked that especial care must be taken to guard against
the carelessness and vacillation of the people, do you wonder when
those old gentlemen see what you have done, how you have acted
with the exercise of this right of suffrage, as if you did not care
what became of your country, or did not know what ought to be
done, changing four times in four successive elections from Whig to
Democrat and from Democrat to Republican, that they should doubt
your discretion? It seems as if you did not know how to do this
work. Do you suppose that any man who acted with his plows as I
have stated to you, could ever make a will in the world? I tell you
no judge would allow such a man's will to go on record, because
such a man must be insane. If that man were to make a deed of a
house and lot, and his heirs were to prove this, it would be declared
null and void. If his heirs' should want to set aside such a man's
deed, let them send for me, and I wiU set it aside before any intelli
gent jury in your country, because the man must be insane.
Yet you have done the same thing with this right of voting.
You have acted in just that way, and now, when we lift up our hands
with indignation at the bad conduct of our rulers, don't let us blame
the "go-devil" because he did not go twelve inches into the ground,
because he can't. That is what we have done. Let us cast the
beam out of our own eye, and then we ^^'ill see clearly the mote that
is in the poor President's eye. I pray you, ponder these things.

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 367
Do they not, as we hear it said sometimes, "look to a man up a
tree" like truth?
Now, my fellow-citizens, it is because of these things, and
because I am, as a citizen, interested in this matter, that I have the
impudence at all to come and speak to you about it. We are to
elect a President and Directors soon again, and I am interested in
that election, just as you are, and if you are weak enough to listen
to me, I must speak what I beheve, and speak such behef plainly to
plain men.
We here have parties ! I am not one of those who believe that
political parties are natural necessities. I am not one who believes
that as men of sense and discretion, we have need to differ about this
thing at all. I admit that parties are made necessary by the present
imperfections of mankind. But while I would admit as much, I
would beg of you to put away the little, mean and trifling ambitions
and asperities of parties, and my life on it, if you would do that
there would not be so much party in the country as there is. You
should have a President who would summon the whole faculties of
his head and the better emotions of his heart, and concentrate them
upon the idea that he was the representative of the only free govern
ment on the face of the earth, and the one supposed to be the model
of all to come after us in all nations of the world, that want to
be free — if we could but get a man that would elevate himself so
high as to think that, 'and act upon it — newspaper paragraphs would
be somewhat changed. We have seen lately a statement in the
papers to this effect : Some postmaster, far away in the prairies of
Illinois, the gross receipts of whose ofifice might be equal to five dol
lars a year, had the impudence to poke his head out of the little log
•cabin in which his ofifice was held, and say that he thought Stephen
A. Douglas was a respectable man. He was overheard by some
poor man — not poor in property, but poor in soul, who had a little
starved and miserable soul in him, who wrote to this mighty repre
sentative of the only free country on the face of God's earth, taking
care of the liberty of thirty millions, that he did not like Mr. Doug
las, while the other man, the postmaster, did. He begged that the
President would send forth a mandate to that poor little fellow on
the prairies, who was collecting his five dollars per year (I dare say
about the fifth part of the expense of his fuel for one winter), to go
out of ofifice and let some man come in who did not like Mr.
Douglas.

368 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
That is a fact, so they say. Don't let me now be holding up
Mr. Buchanan as an exception. Such has been too much the case
with every President since this party spirit has been so much in
vogue. Whig and Democrat, etc., have been guilty of the same sin.
I know, when you are electing a man to make laws for you, you
must elect one whose notions agree with yours ; but I do not know
that when you have a clerk at Washington, and the Whig party
believe the penknife he uses ought to pay thirty per cent, ad
valorem duty, and that poor clerk has not been able to see that dis
tinctly, although he is a capital book-keeper and a faithful man, but
in his soul and conscience he thinks it would not be right to pay
so much duty as that, that you should turn him out of ofifice and say
that he is not fit for a book-keeper. It is not respectable. I know
that, because I have seen it tried. No man can feel like a gentle
man, if God has made him one, and do that thing. If that man
holds his tongue, we wiH not question him as to that ; but if he is to
go to Congress and make laws for us, to establish that duty on the
penknife, then we will ask him about it.
All of this we have done, and this has increased that party
asperity, and induced men to take sides with the party in power,
and, of course, the meanest men in the county wiU get the offices
on that principle, the little executive offices and the little ministerial
ofifices. That is what we have all done. Let us quit it. Let us see
if we cannot quit it. If you want a man to represent your republic
abroad, find a man who has some of the qualifications of a gentle
man — I mean a gentleman of God's making, not a fellow in fine
clothes, though, of course, he ought to be dressed decently when he
goes courting. Let him be a man of respectability. You have
enough of these men. Don't appoint a man who shall be spoken of
as a friend of mine told me one of our representatives was spoken
of My friend had been charge d'affaires at Brussels a great while —
four years ; while there, he became acquainted with a French diplo
mat, and that French diplomat had seen a man at a foreign court
who represented our Government as charge d'affaires. He was a
very stupid man ; he did not speak any language very well. Now,
said this French gentleman, "Why don't you send fine specimens,
good-looking men, who speak some language?" "Oh!" said my
friend, "don't they all speak some language ? " " No, " was the answer,
"I met a gentleman at Copenhagen who speaks no language at all.
He speaks some infernal /«^(72i which they call Ohio." Of course.

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 369
your representative was treated with contempt. The Frenchman
thought he was the best^man we had.
We should not be very particular about his politics either; for
our domestic politics have very little to do with our foreign missions.
The man who would select a Judge of the Supreme Court or Circuit
Court of the United States, to discharge the great duties of that sta
tion, because he was a Democrat or a Republican, without reference
to other qualifications, his head ought to roll upon a block. Judic
ial qualifications have nothing to do with Republican policy or Dem
ocratic policy. Judges decide matters of law, not measures of
policy. The opposition to the Administration on the other side of the
river has been chiefly concerned in a dispute as to what shall be
done with the slave property in the south. You have heard what
friend Dennison has said. He says, it is the doctrine and resolute
determination of the Republican party of Ohio, and he might have
added, of all of what is called the free States of the Union, to exert
the power which they hold belongs to them, under the Constitution
of the United States, by Congressional action to prohibit Slavery in
any territory where it does not already exist. My own impression
is that that ought to be done. That is my belief about it.
I am not so very particular about this, as a mere matter of doc
trine, because I think that there will be much more important duties
for us to perform when we get to Congress than to dispute about
this abstract proposition. Slavery exists, as you know, in certain
portions of the United States. The only territories that can ever
be subject to Slavery are those of Utah, New Mexico and Washing
ton; and into either of these it would be madness to take slaves
now. Kansas has settled the question for herself, after fighting a
pretty hard battle, under this doctrine of "squatter sovereignty."
But it is said Congress has no power over this subject of Slavery
in the Territories. It is said, you find, in the Constitution, the
phrase, "popular sovereignty," or "squatter sovereignty," or that
the ideas represented by such language, is there, or fairly implied
from language which is there. This is what we do read in the Con
stitution touching the power of Congress over Territories. "Con
gress shall have power to make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the Territory, or other property of the United States."
Now if the framers of the Constitution had intended that the then
Northwestern Territory and all Territories for all time to come should
25

370 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
have the right, without any control of Congress, to enact and execute
any law, which the inhabitants or squatters should please, would
they not, after what I have recited, have gone on to declare, that
"the inhabitants of any territory should have power to make all
needful rules and regulations for their internal and ' municipal gov
ernment?' " It is very clear that they would have done so had they
intended any such power as what is now called popular sovereignty
should be exerted by the people of a Territory. But they inserted
no clause to that effect, they left this power in Congress alone, and
the history of our legislative and judicial decisions and executive
acts, all show for more than half a century, that such was the mean
ing and intent of the Constitution.
The words used in the Constitution, which I have read to you,
have been criticised with a display of much philological learning.
Words in use in the every-day talk and transactions of life are often
used carelessly, and by different persons in very different senses;
words that have application to peculiar sciences or arts have, when
applied to such science or art, a well-defined and fixed meaning.
This is true of all words, in any language, which have reference to
the science of law. Now the words "rules and regulations," used
in the Constitution, have a fixed and well understood meaning. We
should bear in mind that the men who framed and wrote the Consti
tution were not only wise and good men, having large acquaintance
with the great principles of civil polity, but they were, many of
them, learned men and very learned lawyers. When they made use
of terms which have been well defined in books which treat of law,
they knew, and intended, that these words or phrases should carry
with them the same meaning which had been assigned them in the
books from whence they derived them. I dare say, most of our
advocates for popular sovereignty will allow that Gen. Hamilton, one
of the most influential members of the Convention, had read and
studied "Blackstone's Commentaries." Blackstone defines law to be
a "rule" of action prescribed by the Supreme Power commending
what is right, etc. When the Constitution ordained that Congress
should have power to make all needful "rules" concerning the Ter
ritory — and it simply provided that Congress should have power to
make all needful "laws" concerning the Territory — so the language
imports, and so more than fifty years of practice prove, did "the
Fathers " understand the words they had used.
We must never lose sight of this historical argument. On this

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 371
subject it is worth all the philology of all the schools. There is a
history pertaining to this question, as there is belonging to the Chris
tian Church and to most of the great points of theology and divin
ity, arising out of the Bible, which is the constitution for that
Church. Now, what do all preachers of the Christian religion do,
when a dispute arises touching the meaning of a text. If they can
be satisfied by any explanation given by its author, either by words
or acts, then the question is settled at once. By the plainest princi
ple of common sense, if the author of any writing whatever,
declares the meaning of his own words, that is to be taken as the
true meaning and intent of such author. If a question arises about
the proper interpretation of a passage in the writings of Paul, Mat
thew or John ; if it can be shown that either of them declared what
such text did mean, or, by his constant practice and conduct, showed
that the writer did understand it to mean this or that, then I pre
sume, the most hypercritical disputant would be obliged to agree to
such, as being the proper sense of the passage in dispute.
Now, the question I ask, in this, as in all other cases where the
true intent and meaning of the Constitution is in question, is, what
did "the Fathers" intend? Let their acts answer. I presume no
one of the modern school of patriots will assert that the Fathers
were rogues, and went straightway, after they made a Constitution,
to break it. I could here tire your patience, exemplary as it is, by
a long recital of their acts, showing that they understood the Consti
tution to give Congress full, and complete, and exclusive power, to
legislate, in all cases, and on all subjects, for the Territories. Let a
very few historical references on this point sufifice, for the present.
The Territory of Indiana, between the years 1803 and 1810,
petitioned Congress, I think as often as three times, to enact a law
which would authorize that Territory to hold slaves. Sometimes
they asked it for a limited time, sometimes to have it in a modified
form. Now what did Congress do with these petitions? Did they
refuse to refer them to a committee, on the ground that Congress
had no power to make any law (as now contended) for Territories?
No such thing. They referred all these petitions to committees,
from time to time, as they were presented. What did the commit
tees do in the premises? Did they report, that Congress had no
power over the subject, and ask to be dismissed and discharged from
its further consideration ? Not at all. On the contrary, they exam
ined the petitions, they deliberated, they reflected ; they considered

372 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
the territory and its people as their territory, and their proper con
stituents. They acted as guardians of Indiana Territory, as having
been so constituted by the Constitution, which had imposed this
duty upon Congress, from which duty they could not release them
selves. In one instance, I believe, one committee reported favora
bly to the prayer for Slavery, but that report was never sanctioned
by the vote of Congress, nor was it rejected. It lay on the table,
and was not acted upon by Congress at all. In another instance, the
justly celebrated John Randolph, of Roanoke, was chairman of the
committee to whom one of these petitions was referred. He was
then a Jeffersonian Republican. He was not one to assume power
not granted by the Constitution. Nor was he likely to be ignorant
of any of those arguments, now-a-days quite common, in favor of
the advantages of slave labor. He was a Virginian, a slaveholder,
and beyond any cavil or doubt, he was "of the first families." He,
I suppose, had not learned yet what his successors in Virginia, per
haps of the first, perhaps of the second families, have discovered,
that is, that by virtue of the Constitution, Slavery was in Indiana all
the time. Neither did the stupid people of Indiana, who begged
Congress for Slavery, know this great secret. Had some modern
lawyer but been "then and there" to pronounce "the magic word,"
"the response of the oracle ' as given now, "over all the Territories
the Constitution carries and sanctifies Slavery, ' suo proprio vigorc ' "
— had Randolph and Caesar A. Rodney "but known this much,"
what labor, what painful thought and anxious care would have been
spared to them I Alas for "the Fathers," they did not know what
their own Constitution meant — they did not understand the work of
their own hands ; they did not, it seems, comprehend the import of
their own thoughts, and, more to be deplored than even this, the
"old fogies" of Indiana had not heard of "popular sovereignty,''
or if they, by any lucky chance, had heard these pregnant and magic
words, they surely did not apprehend their meaning. But let us be
grave, for the subject certainly is one of the gravest importance.
You see, my fellow-citizens, that, in the early infancy of our Consti
tutional history, all men, all Congresses, clearly asserted the right of
Congress to prohibit Slavery in Territories. Randolph reported
against the prayer for Slavery, and said, in his reports, in substance,
that the Territory would find ample compensation for the temporary
want of labor, in more rapid emigration, and in being finally free
from the evil influences of Slavery; and so the committee and Con-

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 373
grass, in this way, asserted their power to make laws for Indiana Ter
ritory, and refused to permit Slavery there. Now we have found
out what the Fathers did under the Constitution which the Fathers
made, and so we have reached the main fact, that is, they said, by
their acts, "When we made the Constitution, we intended to give,
and did give. Congress power to enact laws for Territories." But ten
years pass away, and the year 1820 comes, freighted with its cares,
its wise men and their deeds — very weak men, these of 1820, accord
ing to our modern standard ; very foolish deeds theirs, according to
the judgment of unshaven, unbearded boys of 1859. But what was
the year of grace 1820? We old gentlemen who were of that day,
and by special providence have been permitted to see the great light
of this, can recah many of the events, aspects and feelings of 1820,
with pleasure to ourselves, and not, we hope, without profit, as fur
nishing a small contingent of that now much despised article, exper
ience, once deemed the true, and unfailing school of wisdom.
Our Republic, from its first emergence into the dignity of inde
pendent nationality, was never more truly national, or, if you please
American, than in this year 1820. We had then but recently come
out of the war of 1812, with Great Britain. At the close of that
war, "political parties " were all, all dead — one only remained, and
that was an United American party. We were united in heart, in
feeling, in principle, and in policy. Mr. Monroe was President at
this time. He was singularly free from party asperity in feeling,
and not at all troubled with hobbies or crotchets. Mr. Madison's
administration, which preceded, had been characterized by a happy
admixture of the best of the principles and policy of both of the
Federal and Republican parties, and Mr. Monroe walked in his foot
steps. The cabinet of Mr. Monroe was composed of men, each of
whom might be truly said to be "a man." John Quincy Adams
was Secretary of State; William H. Crawford, Secretary of the
Treasury; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War; Samuel L. Southard,
Secretary of the Navy; William Wirt, Attorney-General. John
McLean was Postmaster-General, but this officer was not then a
member of the cabinet. Each one and all of these eminent men
may be said to have been great and good men. Their history justi
fies me in this opinion. While these men composed the Executive
Department of the Government, Congress admitted Missouri into
the Union. The Northern boundary of Missouri was the line of
latitude 36° 30' ; north of this line there were no white inhabitants ;

374 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
all north of it was territory, the same now known as Kansas and
Nebraska. Missouri was admitted with Slavery, for good reasons,
which I will show you presently. But at the same time (1821) the
then Congress enacted a law which declared, that all the territory
comprehended in the Louisiana purchase lying north of latitude 36°
30' should be forever free territory. By this law Slavery was forever
forbidden in all the territory now organized as Kansas and Nebraska
Territories. The question was then settled by Congress again, as we
now contend it should have been, and is still, "that Congress had
the power to prohibit Slavery in Territories. " So far, we find the
legislative department of the Government agreeing, by an unbroken
series of decisions, that this power did exist, and, what we should
never forget, "that it was also expedient, and for the public good,
to prohibit Slavery in the Territories, wherever it did not exist
before such prohibition."
Now for the executive department. We have seen that Mr.
Monroe was President at this time, and we have already heard who and
what sort of men composed his cabinet. We now know that this
very question was submitted for decision to that cabinet, and that
every member of it, including Mr. Monroe, agreed that Congress
had power, under and by virtue of the Constitution, to enact that
law — that is, they decided that Congress had the power to prohibit
Slavery in Territories, and Mr. Monroe accordingly approved and
signed that bill. Now, I ask, where, then, was the Constitution,
with Slavery under its arm in all Territories, as they now say, bear
ing its blessed freight abroad, "suo proprio vigore?" Where was
"popular sovereignty" then? Where was the watchful eye of Mon
roe, the appointed keeper of the Constitution? Where was the pro
found learning of Adams? Where the calm wisdom and rigid con
struction of Crawford? Where slept the keen sagacity and analytic
powers of Calhoun? Where the law learning and deliberative mind
of Southard? And above all, what fatal opiate had drugged the all-
accomplished mind of Wirt into lethean forgetfulness ? My country
men, my friends, can you believe that President Pierce and his cabi
net, and a few such gentlemen as we all know, in Congress, in the
year of grace 1854, knew more of the true meaning of the blessed
Constitution of this country than the men of 1803, of 1804, of
1810, or those whom I have named, in 1820 and in 1821 ? It is not
necessary that I should draw the parallel, or compare, or contrast
the inteflect or the patriotism of these two classes of men. The

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 375
men of 1821 enacted the prohibition of Slavery in the territory
north of 36° 30'. The men of 1854 repealed that law. Compare
the two; let every man be his own Plutarch, I cannot now speak
their lives.
Let us now pass over the time between 1821 and 1848. In
the latter year Oregon Territory was organized. Pause here a
moment and consider how this became necessary. The anxious,
busy, sleepless, hardy Yankee had been whaling in the Pacific. He
had read of Grey and Kendricks' wanderings in that sea, of their
sailing up the Columbia river. He had, perhaps, anchored at the
mouth of that river with his "home returning freight" of oil. He
had, it may be, mixed a can of switchel there and looked out upon
the land. He comes home, and forthwith the logger in Maine pre
pares to migrate. The man in Connecticut and in Massachusetts
quits his cotton-mills, his cutleries, his comb-factories, and lo ! the
next tidings you hear of Jonathan, he is down on the Pacific, with
"shop up and shingle out" ready for business. From that moment
no whale or salmon shall have a "Christian burial" west of the
Stony Mountains. Minks, seals, otters and all fur-bearing creatures,
ye are hats and caps and no "living thing," from thenceforth forever-
more. It is clear that such a people should be "organized," and so
it was done in the year 1848. In that bill. Slavery in Oregon Terri
tory was prohibited, and Mr. Polk, then President, "approved" and
signed it. In the intermediate time between 1821 and 1848, very
many acts of Congress, enacting, or recognizing the same principle
(the power of Congress to make laws for Territories) were passed,
signed and approved. But still further, in all the organic laws made
for all territories, I think (perhaps there may be an exception or
two) where Congress authorize a territorial legislature to enact laws,
they go on to provide in substance that all laws enacted by such leg
islatures shall be reported to Congress, and if Congress shall disap
prove them, they shall be null and void. This you will find in the
acts of 1850, organizing Utah and New Mexico. The same provis
ion is in the organic law of Washington Territory, passed in 1852.
Does not that provision assert the omnipotent legislative power of
Congress over territories, in total forgetfulness of popular sover
eignty, or even constitutions, " suo proprio vigore" extending Slavery?
All such laws have been enacted by Congresses of every hue of pol
itics, various as these shades have been, and approved by Presidents
of all parties. Thus we have the legislative and executive depart-

376 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
ments from the adoption of the United States Constitution up to
1852, a period of over sixty years, affirming the Republican doctrine
held by us, my Republican brethren, this 19th day of July, 1859.
Now we see where the "Fathers' " foot-prints are, the road is plain,
well paved and straight. The milestones are red with Revolutionary
blood. We cannot be lost in it. With God's blessing, and I hum
bly trust with his approval, we will aver, this day, that neither Presi
dents nor President-makers, nor principalities nor powers, shall stop
us in our march onward in that road.
My fellow-citizens, I invoke your patience while we look for a
moment into the judicial department. If we can find our Repub
lican principles approved there, then authority, example, precedent,
can go no further.
In the year 1828 the case of "The American Insurance Com
pany and others against David Carter" came before the Supreme
Court of the United States — ^John Marshall being then Chief Justice.
This case will be found reported in 1st Peters' Reports, page 511.
This question of the power of Congress over Territories is spoken of
by Justice Marshall, in that case, in these terms. I will read his
words — for the words of such a man should never be repeated but
with care and reverence. Speaking of the treaty -by which we
acquired Florida from Spain, he says : ' ' The treaty is the law of
the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of
the privileges, rights and immunities of citizens of the United States.
It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition inde
pendent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in politi
cal power; they do not share in the Government till Florida shall
become a State." Now mark what follows: "In the meantime,
Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by
virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress
to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and
other property belonging to the United States. Perhaps the power
of governing the territories belonging to the United States, which
has not by becoming a State acquired the means of self-government,
may result necessarily from the facts that it is not within the jurisdic
tion of any particular State, and is within the power and jurisdiction
of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable
consequence of the right to acquire territory. Whatever may be the
source whence the power is derived, the possession of it is unques
tioned. " Now, whose opinions shall weigh against those of John

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 377
Marshall, and I believe every judge on the bench then agreed with
him? If it has pleased God ever to create a man with an intellect
incapable of deceiving itself or being deceived by others, if Divine
Wisdom ever endowed a human soul with the power of finding his
way to truth safely and certainly, through all the mists of prejudice
and all the artfully-contrived mazes of sophistry, such a mind was
given to Chief Justice Marshall. You have heard his opinions; they
are the doctrines on this subject of our Republican party this day.
The executive, legislative and judicial wisdom, all accordant for sixty
years, assure us of our faith, and call on us to persevere in our prac
tice. But what shall I say of the Dred Scott decision? Nothing.
The question I am considering was not before the Court in that case,
and therefore could not have been decided. " Obiter dicta" there
may be, — discussions relating to the subject, but no judicial, no
authoritative decision on this question was possible in that case.
I have spoken of the Act organizing Utah and New Mexico,
passed in 1850. You all remember the long and anxious debate
which preceded the passage of that law; the fearful forebodings of
some, the threats of dissolution of the Union by others — it was
indeed a sad spectacle, a dark day. It came upon us by our con
quest of Mexico. The treaty which terminated the Mexican war,
gave us New Mexico and California. The treaty, I say, gave us
these provinces, but I should have said, it gave them up after we,
by strong hand, had wrenched them from weak Mexico. The treaty
was the deed of conveyance, the right, if right it may be called, was
founded in the bloody victories of Buena Vista, Cerro Gordo,
Chepultepec and Molino del Rey. The evidences of our title, are
the graves of many thousands of our noble and heroic children.
There was one bearing a humble part in your national councils then,
who desired to put an end to that Mexican war before you had
obtained these provinces. I shall not name that man. He ventured
to prophesy that it would come to no good end ; that when you had
obtained this territory, whether by conquest or purchase, this very
question of the extension of Slavery into it would arise ; that it
would be a firebrand in our magazine ; it would excite a spirit of dis
cord, which, in its wild and ungovernable fury, might rend the fam
ily ties of the Union, and scatter us in disordered fragments away,
far and forever away, from the good old family home builded for us
by our fathers, in which we had so long and so happily dwelt. For
this that man was burned in effigy often, but yet not burned up.

378 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
This prediction was not very far from its fulfiHment in 1850, if all
the sinister aspects of that day may be trusted as giving "signs of
the times." It was, perhaps, proper that we should be visited with
troubles in managing such conquests. Retribution is with the God
of the nations. May we not forget where that power is lodged by a
certain Constitution enacted before time began, to be in full force
throughout all eternity to come.
I ask you, my fellow-citizens, is there ever to be an end of this
question? What does the Judge tell you when he decides a case?
He tells you, in the language of the law, that "it is expedient for
the country that there should be an end to the question." Your law
titles depend upon that. Would you not consider it strange, if,
twenty years after, another court should come and decide the con
trary ? A sensible court would say, this has been decided twenty
years ago, argued legally, and "it is expedient for the country that
there should be an end to the question." If you want to have a
written constitution that you can rely on at all, you must have an
interpretation put upon the words, and let it read that way until the
people choose to change it by altering the words, otherwise a written
constitution will be made to read this thing one year, and another
thing another year.
Now, I wish to read, for the special benefit of weak brethren, a
few words from a couple of the apostles of modern Democracy. On
the 4th day of March, 1850, John C. Calhoun (the Compromise Bill
of Mr. Clay being then under discussion in the Senate) spoke as fol
lows: "In claiming the right for the inhabitants, instead of Con
gress, to legislate for the territories in the executive proviso, it
assumes that the sovereignty over the Territories is vested in the for
mer, or to express it in the language used in a resolution offered by
one of the Senators from Texas (Gen. Houston), they have the same
inherent right of self-government as the people of the States. This
assumption is utterly unfounded, unconstitutional and contrary to
the entire practice of the Government from its commencement to the
present time." Mr. Calhoun then goes on with his comments upon
the subject, and says, "Nor is it less clear that the power of legislat
ing over the acquired territory is vested in Congress, and not, as is,
assumed, in the inhabitants of the Territories." Thus far Mr. Cal
houn in 1850.
On the 2nd day of June, 1850, this same subject being still
under discussion, Mr. Douglas thus delivers himself of his opinions.

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 379
Let it not be forgotten that Mr. D. must have reflected much and
long on this very subject, as he had long served as Chairman of the
Committee on Territories. I read from his reported speech, doubt
less carefully revised by himself: "But, sir, I do not hold the doc
trine, that to exclude any species of property by law, from any ter
ritory, is a violation of any right to property. Do you not exclude
banks from most of the Territories? Do you not exclude whisky
from being introduced into large portions of the territory of the
United States? Do you not exclude gambling-tables, which are
properly recognized as such, in the States where they are tolerated ?
And, has any one contended that the exclusion of ardent spirits was
a violation of any Constitutional privilege or right ? and yet it is the
case in a large portion of the territory of the United States; but
there is no outcry against that, because it is the prohibition of a spe
cific kind of property, and not a prohibition against any section of
the Union. Why, sir, our laws now prevent a tavern-keeper from
going into some of the Territories of the United States, and taking a
bar with him, and using and selling spirits there. The law also pro
hibits certain other descriptions of business from being carried on in
the Territories. I am not, therefore, prepared to say that, under the
Constitution we have not the power to pass laws excluding negro
slaves from Territories. It involves the same principle." — (Vol. 21
Cong. Globe, p. 1,115.)
Now what are we to conclude from this array of the history of
this question, and the uniform opinions of the greatest, the wisest,
and all men down to the least? Beginning from the first establish
ment of our present constitutional government, and ending in 1850,
or perhaps more properly in 1852, when Washington Territory was
organized, reserving ultimate legislative power over that territory in
Congress ? I ask my brother Democrats, whether of the Buchanan
or Douglas church, shall we not adhere to the opinions of the
"Fathers?" Have we the enormous egotism to suppose that we, we
of this latter day, have better knowledge of the meaning of our
political gospels than the fathers who wrote them? If you think
and believe this folly, why then you are past praying for, and I am
done with you.
We have now settled our constitutional rights as to the extent
and mode in which the Republicans propose to prevent the further
extension of Slavery. I wish here to say, that I think this prohibi
tory power should be exerted as to all territory now ours, and all

380 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
that shall become ours wherever Slavery is not established when such
territory is acquired, with this qualification, that it must be such cli
mate as a white man, and the white race generally, can live and work
in. I think it is a question not yet settled whether the white race,
our white race, can work and live in health, in very hot latitudes.
Let us look for a moment into our duties under the Constitution
toward the slaveholding States. Much excitement has existed in
Ohio and elsewhere about the "Fugitive Slave BiU" — so it is famil
iarly called. This subject has not yet been fairly and dispassionately
presented to the people. It may have been so presented to courts
and in courts, but not, as I beheve, in our popular meetings. The
act of 1850 has many objectionable provisions which are easily mis
understood, and which are altogether useless and of no avail in the
practical operation of the law. I should not have voted for that law
had I been in the Senate when it passed. I prefer the old law of
1793; it is free from most of the follies of the present law, and it is
just as easy to reclaim a fugitive under the first as under the law of
1850. 1 understand that some in Ohio, and it may be some on the
Kentucky side, have supposed that any man from Kentucky who
comes here in pursuit of a fugitive, a runaway negro, can command
a citizen of Ohio to aid him in catching him. This is said to be the
opinion in Kentucky. I should like to know if this be so. My
friend, Mr. Moore, now on the rostrum, recently, I am happy to
inform you, elected to Congress from the district in Kentucky oppo
site to us, can say whether this be so.
Here Mr. MoORE observed, "That is so."
Well, that may be your construction, but you, and all in Ohio,
who have (as I believe), to render this law odious, maintained this
construction, are all mistaken. The law requires no such thing; it
could not compel us here to do so, were a thousand laws made for
that purpose. I know the act of 1850 requires all citizens to aid the
master or his agent, or the officer having process to arrest a fugitive,
when such master, his agent, or the officer is resisted by a mob or
any force which cannot be repeUed without such aid.
Mr. Moore here remarked, " We say as you do, if we are resisted then you must
aid us." Exactly so, such is the law. Now this is precisely what is
enjoined by the laws of Ohio, and I suppose all the States, when the
execution of the laws is forcibly resisted. In such case, we do not

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 381
aid in reclaiming a slave, but we aid in suppressing a mob, we aid in
putting down forcible resistance to law, to our law, for all laws of
the United States are the laws made by the representatives of all the
people of the United States. But some of our people, some who
act with us, very few I think, say this law is not a binding law,
because it is contrary to the Constitution, and above all, they say it
is opposed to the "natural inherent rights of man." Now, I have
to say as to the first of these objections, the courts, both state and
federal, have decided that this law is not contrary to the United
States Constitution, and that Congress had power to enact that law.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has very recently, on solemn argument,
so decided. This is enough for me and all law-abiding men. We
must obey and not resist that law. If we do not think it a good
law, why go to the ballot-box, elect men who will alter or repeal it.
The cartridge-box is not to be resorted to in this country in such
matters ; that other more harmless box, the ballot-box, is our resort
in all such cases. If the majority is against us, why we miust sub
mit. There can be no government possible, if any and every indi
vidual may determine for himself what law he will obey and what
he will not obey. As to the inherent right of a slave to run away
from his master, why this inherent right ceases, if the Constitution
has said his master may follow him and reclaim him. I think, in
such a case, the master's constitutional rights will be likely to van
quish the slave's "inherent" right. We can have no inherent rights
in our Government which conflict with rights established by our
organic law, else in the case put by me now, we must be driven to
declare the United States Constitution itself to be unconstitutional.
This would be the grossest nonsense. But what says the Constitu
tion? In the fourth article and the last paragraph in section two,
you can read these words: "No person held to service or labor in
one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in con
sequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such
service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to
whom such service or labor may be due." Now, you see, my
Republican friends, that we are required by this clause of that sacred
instrument not to help away a fugitive or resist his capture, but it
requires of us that he "shall be delivered up on claim of the party to
whom his service or labor maybe due." This, in plain words, means
that a slave who runs away from Kentucky, shall be by us deliv
ered to his master when he, the master or his agent, comes here after

382 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
him. Now you, the Republican party, claim that your Congress
may prohibit Slavery in Territories. How came you by such right?
Only by virtue of this very United States Constitution can you claim
to do this. Is it not fair, then, that the right of your Southern
brother to reclaim his runaway slave, given to him in this same Con
stitution, should be conceded to him. WiH you take so much of the
Constitution as you like to-day, and abrogate what you don't like ?
Yet this is just the thing, this is the absurdity which some few peo
ple, well-meaning men, perhaps, seem to require of us. I proclaim
here to-day to all whom it may concern, that such is not the doc
trine of the Republican party of Ohio. If this were its doctrine it
would dwindle into a contemptible minority in one day after it
should be made known.
There is another question sometimes mooted in and out of Con
gress, dividing, it is said, the North and the South : Shall any more
slave States be admitted into the Union ? Now I wish to answer this
question for myself If you will conquer or purchase any state,
province or territory, wherein Slavery is an established institution,
and agree, as you did in the Louisiana treaty, to admit such province,
island or Territory into the Union, with such rights as belong to the
original States, then I say you must admit them with their Slavery.
Such treaty is the supreme law of the land. It is so declared by the
Constitution. To that supreme law you must submit, in the case I
have supposed. Let me here read an extract from a speech of John
Quincy Adams in Congress, on the admission of Arkansas into the
Union, in 1836:
" Mr. Chairman — I cannot, consistently with my sense of my obligations as a
citizen of the United States, and bound by oath to support their Constitution, I cannot
object to the admission of Arkansas into the Union as a slave State, as Louisiana, and
Mississippi, and Alabama, and Missouri have been admitted by virtue of that article in
the treaty for the acquisition of Louisiana, which secures to the inhabitants of the ceded
territories all the rights, privileges and immunities of the original citizens of the United
States, and stipulates for their admission, conformably to that principle, into the Union.
Louisiana was purchased as a country wherein Slavery was the established law of the
land. As Congress have not power in time of peace to abolish Slavery in the original
States of the Union, they are equally destitute of the power in those parts of the ter
ritory ceded by France to the United States, by the name of Louisiana, where Slavery
existed at the time of the acquisition. Slavery is in this Union the subject of internal
legislation in the States, and in peace is cognizable by Congress, only as it is tacitly
tolerated and protected where it exists by the Constitution of the United States, and as
It mingles in their intercourse with other nations. Arkansas therefore comes, and has
the right to come, into the Union with her slaves and with her slave laws. It is writ
ten in the bond, and, however I may lament that it ever was so written, I must faith
fully perform its obligations."

A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. 383
Mr. Adams was not the man to favor Slavery, but he was the
man to follow, with fearless intrepidity, the dictates of truth, justice
and honor. He well understood, if any man ever did, the powers
of the States and of the General Government, and he would not
flinch from the great paramount duty of an American statesman in
yielding to each that which belonged to each. My opinion is, and
always was, what he has so" happily expressed in the extract which I
have read. Let us suppose that you purchase the Island of Cuba,
which, by-the-way, you will not do soon — Cuba has a well and long-
established institution called Slavery — you will not, probably, (as
you did not in the case of California and New Mexico ) ask the con
sent of the people of Cuba to come into the Union or under your
government in any form. What is the great and universally ac
cepted dogma on which all your institutions rest? It is thus
expressed, "all rightful power of government is derived from the
consent of the people to be governed." When you buy from the
king or queen of Spain the right to govern the Island and people of
Cuba, will you provide that the purchase money shall not be paid
until the consent of the people to the transfer shall be given by a
vote of all the white male inhabitants of the Island? If you will,
then you will never get Cuba, unless you take her with Slavery.
The people will not consent to come under your yoke unless you
take Slavery as an established law also. If you provide for their
admission into the Union with equal rights with the other States,
then your former practice, and Mr. Adams's opinion, and mine,
and that of every other man who regards the sanctity of treaties,
will settle the question.
My friends, I must conclude. I have exhausted my strength,
and am sure I have overtaxed your patience. One word of advice
at parting. If you wish to silence, for our time and for a long time,
this disturbing and dangerous question of Slavery, you have nothing
to do but resolve that you will acquire no more territory for the
next twenty years. That which you now have will never raise the
question ; it is that which you expect to get which gives the ques
tion all its real importance. You already have about one-tenth part of
the globe, within your territorial limits. Be content with that —
cultivate well what you have ; raise up men, good men, honest men ;
improve the animal man, and be not too careful to extend your
power. This done, and the South and the North, and the East and
the West will rush into each other's arms, and cling closer to each

384

SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.

other on account of the former partial estrangement. Then we shall
be indeed citizens, fellow-citizens of one country, and that country
free, powerful and happy — all, all uniting in thankfulness to God for
the happy times in which we live, the great country we live in, and
the glorious institutions we live under. God bless you all, my
friends. I have given you much good advice to-day, much of which
I fear some will not follow. I charge you nothing for it, but believe
me and try it. I am sure if you will, it shall profit you quite as
much as counsel for which I ' dare say some of you have often paid
what you may have thought was a very large fee.

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

A SPEECH IN THE SPEAKERSHIP CONTEST IN THE HOUSE OF REP
RESENTATIVES, JANUARY 23 AND 24, i860.

The Thirty-Sixth Congress, to which Mr. CORWiN had been elected a Represent
ative, met on Monday, December 5th, 1859. There was an unprecedented delay in
the organization of the House. The Republican members supported Hon. John Sher
man, of Ohio, for Speaker, but no party had a clear majority. The Slavery question
was introduced after the first ballot for Speaker by Hon. John B. Clark, of Missouri,
who offered a resolution condemning a book entitled, " The Impending Crisis of the
South — How to Meet It," by Hinton R. Helper, and declaring that no member who
had recommended it was fit to be Speaker. Mr. Sherman and a large majority of the
Republican members of the last Congress had signed a circular commending the work
to general attention. Thus the House plunged into a discussion of Slavery and Slavery
agitation, John Brown and Helper's Impending Crisis, with occasional ballots for
Speaker, Mr. Sherman's vote rising to Ii2, when Ij6 were necessary to a choice. After
eight weeks had been thus spent Mr. Sherman withdrew and ex-Governor William
Pennington, of New Jersey, was elected. Before the close of this memorable contest,
on Monday, January 23rd, 1 860, Mr. CoRWiN rose and spoke as follows :
Mr. Clerk : I rise to inquire what is the subject under discus
sion at this time ? [Laughter].
The Clerk — The question before the House is the point of order raised
by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Curtis] on Thursday last.
Mr. Corwin — Then the speech of the gentleman from Missis
sippi [Mr. Barksdale], to which we have listened with a good deal
of interest, has been made, I understand, upon the point of order.
The gentleman from Mississippi wants to get rid of this cum
brous business, and I will say to him that the only way to accom
plish it is by voting ; and I say further to him, that if he should be
elected, I will pledge him that the State of Ohio will not dissolve the
Union on that account. Now, this is a very serious matter, though,
at the same time, it so happens that almost every good or grave sub
ject discussed by men will have something ludicrous about it. This
farce which we have been enacting for seven weeks, very much to
our amusement, is, as we hear it very frequently remarked, and
26 (385)

386 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
sometimes much to the disturbance of some gentlemen here, begin
ning to be, in the minds of the people of this country, a serious
matter. If every gentleman here who has a duty to discharge, and
who was sent here to do the business of this great Republic, would
put this matter to his conscience as he does other subjects which
involve questions of conscientious duty, surely we would begin to
think seriously what we have to do.
I know that there are some very plausible arguments — and to
me they are difficult to get over — in favor of electing a Speaker of
the House by the majority of votes of members. I was reminded
the other day by one of my friends, resident in this city, with whom
I have long had most agreeable and friendly intercourse — a gentle
man in good standing with the present Administration, and therefore
I do not wish to give his name, lest it might bring him into disre
pute [ laughter] — that there was something in the election of Speaker
more than I had supposed ; that in a certain event he might become
President of the United States. I confess that puzzled me a little.
It may be so ; but I do not think it important that we should incor
porate that idea into our purposes, as one of the contingencies that
may arise. It is hardly possible that any two gentlemen who are or
may be elected President and Vice-President will be amiable enough
to die for the benefit of the Speaker of this House. I do not know
what God in His providence may have in store for us. Such a con
tingency has never happened, and therefore I think we should not
give it a marked place in our consideration of the question of the
Speakership of this House. Something has been said by the gentle
man from Mississippi touching this very subject ; and I, reserving my
rights under such rules of order as we may hereafter establish, desire
to say something on the general propositions that have been so ably
presented to the House by the gentleman from Mississippi.
The gentleman read, as the bitterest drop in the cup, some par
agraphs from the Helper book, advising that the free laboring popu
lation of the South, not holding slaves, shall abstain from communi
cation with those who do own slaves. Now, I wish to ask gentle
men of the South what they suppose would be the result of placing
this book in the hands of the non-slaveholding people of the South ?
The question would simply be submitted by those non-slaveholding
men of the South to the whole State, whether Slavery should be
abolished or not ; and if it should be determined to abolish Slavery,
would anybody have a right to complain of a State for abolishing

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 387
Slavery, more than to complain of her for adopting it? Gentlemen
have greatly overrated the consequences of that little book. I know
that they say, or have said, that it shows the disposition of the
North to interfere with Slavery in the South. How does it show
that disposition? It was written, as everybody knows, by a man
who had his citizenship or habitation in North Carolina until he left
there to go to the city of New York. Who is to blame, then, if we
may trace back effect to cause? You say that Mr. Seward made a
speech in Rochester, some time in the year of grace 1858, and that
from that came the invasion of Virginia, by twenty-three men,
headed by John Brown.
Sir, if North Carolina had not brought up this man among her
own slave institutions, we never should have had the Helper book.
No Northern man has written such a book, and if he had written
such a book, is it possible that any institution existing in a Christian
and enlightened community like the South can be overthrown by a
pamphlet? In a congregation of children of the same family, I
should avoid a subject which might disturb our relations. I would
not like to throw into the face of my brother one of his evil habits ;
nor would you, my friends.
Mr. Clerk, history will show that Mr. Seward, if he be the great
leader of the Republican party — and I have almost given up all pre
tensions to their leadership since I have been loudly and positively
repudiated by one side of the House, and some on this side have
said pretty much the same thing — I say that Mr. Seward has never
uttered a sentiment, and that one cannot be cited in all the extracts
which have been quoted from his speeches or his arguments, more
offensive to the South than Thomas Jefferson, the apostle of Democ
racy, did utter. I know that my friends from the South are too well
acquainted with the history of that great man, not to know, as I
know, that neither Mr. Seward, nor any other Republican — I except
the Abohtionists, for they are not Republicans, but, on the contrary,
generally hold the Republican party in utter scorn — I say that in
Helper's book nothing is to be found, so far as I know, more offen
sive than utterances long since found in writings and speeches of the
elder men of the South. George Washington himself always said
while he lived that he should wish, if it were' possible, to see Slavery
abolished in the United States. I know that Mr. Seward, whose
election as President of the United States, it is said, will be the signal
for civil war in this great Confederacy, has never said anything more

388 ¦ SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
offensive to the South than has been said by your ambassador whom
you have lately commissioned to France, (Mr. Faulkner, of Virginia,)
taking it for granted that the extracts which I have seen quoted from
his speeches are true extracts.
The eloquent gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Barksdale] is
very much afraid of the establishment, by the gentleman from Mas
sachusetts [Mr. Burlingame], of an anti-Slavery Bible. Sir, that
Bible is a book without which, in my judgment, no society can very
well exist and hope to advance in morals or otherwise. And yet I
warn gentlemen. North and South, that it is a book which it will not
do for us to look to alone to guide us in the organization of political
society of the present day. We find, in the historical parts of that
book, brief sketches of the laws, usages and doings of the people
of the Old World, which, if not read and pondered more carefully
than such as we are apt to do, will lead to great errors in legislation
in this age and country. We find there enacted very much such
scenes, thousands and thousands of years ago, as we have been en
deavoring to enact in this little sphere of ours — about a tenth part,
I suppose, of this habitable globe — which, of itself, to the mind of
Isaac Newton, or Herschell, or La Place, if they had not been born
and lived here, would seem to be a very insignificant portion of the
universe. And yet, one would suppose, from the debates we have
had here, that we really believed the happiness of all worlds, and
certainly of untold generations, depended upon the election of A or
B, to stand up there in that chair, like a "woodpecker tapping a hol
low beech tree." [Great laughter]. That tapping, sir, has been to
us, so far, the only exhibition of power or influence belonging to
that office, about which we have been in angry contest for the last
six weeks. We become so accustomed to the sound, that we do not
think we are in order unless we hear that tapping. We do not think
we are in Congress, unless somebody is calling us to order, accom
panied, too, by that continuous ever-recurring tapping.
But, sir, I was referring to the allusion made by the gentleman
from Mississippi to the gentleman from Massachusetts, and an "anti-
Slavery Bible." How is this, sir? One wants an anti-Slavery Bible,
and he is sure he has it in our present version. Another wants a
pro-Slavery Bible, and he is equally certain he has it in the same
sacred book. Let each be content with his belief and not interfere
Ime with that of his brother ; let us not dissolve the Union upon con
flicting constructions of the Bible. I think it is certain that those

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 389
patriarchs held slaves, and that they transmitted them to their chil
dren ; but they did not make slaves of their own people ; and some
other things are very certain. This fugitive slave law that we hear
so much about ; I will not pretend to go into particulars, but I think
it will appear that it, or a rule something like it, had its construc
tions and repeals in the Bible time.
I think that when the bondwoman Hagar left Abraham, with
her master's consent, there being some disturbance in his domestic
relations, [ much laughter ] the boy Ishmael, not being the child of
promise, and being in the habit of making impertinent remarks
about the conduct of family affairs, [ laughter ] was sent off with his
mother into the wilderness, with a loaf of bread and a bottle of
water. We are told that Hagar, being exhausted and famished by
hunger, laid the boy down to die, and that the Angel of the Lord
came there. If I remember aright, it is so written in that book.
And what advice did he give to this bondwoman and her son ? The
Angel told this woman that she was in very bad circumstances, but
not to be discouraged; to pick up the boy and hold him in her
hands, for he would become a great filibuster. [Roars of laughter.]
That is the English of what the Angel said, when you use our pres
ent word for expressing the idea conveyed by the record of this
remarkable historical fact. His hand would be against every man,
and every man's hand would be against him. That declaration has
been literally fulfilled in the progeny of that boy up to this very
hour; and the only nation that has made any impression upon his
posterity has been the French in Algiers. The French killed off
these fihbusters, until they have got them into some very imperfect
kind of obedience. From the day that the Angel of God made that
prophecy in reference to this slave boy, his progeny have gone on
filibustering, fighting and robbing. This good quality they have
had, I believe, in all their history; if you broke their bread and
tasted their salt, they would die by you. I would that some of our
Southern friends would treat some of our Yankee gentlemen as well
when they go amongst them. [Laughter.] The Angel told this
mother that she had better go back into Slavery. If that Angel had
been an agent of the underground railway, then this mother would
have been advised to take herself and son off to Canada. [Laughter.]
So much for the historical fact. That very able man who was
the father of that boy had another family, and they, in a generation
or two after this, were sold into Slavery, and so they remained, we

390 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
are told, for four hundred and seventy years. At the end of that
time God abolished that servitude and repealed the fugitive slave
law, very much to the dismay and astonishment of the pursuing
masters, and greatly to the gratification of those owing labor and ser
vice to them. Then he allowed them to go home — to their Africa,
or, to speak without figure, to the home of their fathers. That re
peal of the Egyptian fugitive slave bill, on the shore of the Red Sea,
with all its incidents, is worthy of some notice now, and at all times.
We hear much said of women taking part in politics now-a-days.
Something very like it occurred on the occasion to which I refer.
Just as the bubbling death-groan of the Egyptian host had risen to
the surface of the sea, and was borne away upon the hot breath of
the winds, a woman, a notable woman, then and there broke forth in
a very remarkable triumphal song. Miriam, the sister of Aaron,
with all the dark-eyed daughters of the fugitive Hebrew slaves,
shouted out, "Sing ye to the Lord, for gloriously hath He triumphed ;
the horse and his rider hath He cast into the sea." That was their
"Hail Columbia." Sir, that song of the prophetess has rung in my
ears in day, and often in night time, too. In my dreams of the ulti
mate destiny of man, I have supposed it would ring in the ears and
agitate the souls of men till the words "kings and subjects, rulers
and ruled," should be lost in two words, "brothers — sisters."
Mr. Clerk, I warn my brethren from the North and my brethren
from the South, that they will scarcely agree as to what are the general
teachings of the Bible on this subject of Slavery as practiced in our
times. I think parts of that Book very clearly inculcate the doctrine
which in our republican form of government is held very sacred by
us, that the laws of the country, as they were established, should be
obeyed by all good citizens. Certainly, Christ and the Apostles
taught that they did not come to overturn Governments, but to
search into the wicked hearts of men, and subvert the kingdom of
Satan therein. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Burling
ame], I dare say, can find some authority satisfactory to him for his
doctrine, and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Barksdale] for
his ; but both should draw the true moral, as philosophical Christian
historians would do, and agree that that Book teaches us one lesson,
at least, which in substance is, that in a country like ours, where
every man has an agency in the making of the laws, all should ren
der to them obedience, until they shall be made better or be repealed.
For unless the laws shall be generally obeyed, we will have nothing

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 391
but anarchy organized, which cannot be a condition pleasing to Him
who is the common Father of all men. Hence the Republican doc
trine is, that the laws of the country ought to be obeyed. I assert
that our Republican leaders, generals, colonels, majors, captains,
corporals and privates, all of them, are conservative; and that the
Republican party is a law-abiding party ; and whosoever believes the
contrary, labors under great ignorance of that party and the men
who compose it.
Mr. Clerk, I wish to look for one moment at some other facts
found in the historical portion of the Bible, having a curious bearing,
at least, on this question of Negro Slavery. We are told in that
same Book that the people of the globe, except eight, were
destroyed in a deluge. Noah and his family only were preserved.
That old patriarch seems to have been remarkable for nothing, so far
as I can find out, except for his strong faith in the word of God, and
his remarkable nautical adventure. Noah had three sons, from whom
have sprung all the people now upon the face of this globe. We
are told by sacred, and I think pretty fully, too, by profane histor
ians, that Japhet is the father of our race. We, then, are all chil
dren of that man. We have, it is true, to go far back to get at it.
He is our original propositus. Shem is the father of the migratory,
wandering Asiatic family. Ham, it is said, was the father of the
negroes. This, I think it will be found, is shown by our accredited
historical books. Some have wondered how it happened that Japhet,
born of the same mother, son of the same father, should be a gentle
man with features and complexion hke you and myself; Shem, a yel
low fellow, with high cheek bones ; and Ham, a negro, with black face
and crisp, curled hair. This difficulty is surmounted by one class of
ethnologists by attributing the difference to climatic influences, in
which I think there is great plausibility. Be this as it may, the rela
tionship is the same. Japhet, it is agreed, had large acquisitiveness,
and hence his superiority ; and it may be said, with equal truth, that
his children are not deficient in this capital virtue, for such it is held
to be in our times by us in this model Republic. They also, it is
said, have quick and powerful faculties for numerals ; and regard in
theory, as well as practice, the multiplication tables as the acme of
human knowledge. But let us look at this family imbroglio. We
are the sons of Japhet, and the negro is the son of Ham ; we are the
sons, respectively, of these two brothers ; and consequently we, the
sons of Japhet, are cousins to Cuffee, he being the son of our Uncle

392 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
Ham. I have often thought if the negro, as seems from this account
of us to be probable, had really that relationship to us, that we cer
tainly had not treated our cousin like a gentleman. [Renewed
laughter]. So you see there are some curious reflections belonging to the
subject. But, short-sighted mortals as we are, all we can do now is
to look at the black man as he is, and the white man as he is. One
of your statesmen of the South, whom I have had the pleasure of
knowing for a good many years— I allude to Mr. Stephens, of Geor
gia — in a recent speech, said that he was in favor of Mr. Seward's
higher law, not exactly in its application, but he said, that if it be
not better for the white man as well as the black man, that one
should be master and the -other the slave, they had no business with
Slavery, and should surrender it. I give the substance, but perhaps
not the exact words. All who have read that gentleman's speech to
the people of Georgia will know that I quote him fairly. That, I
think, is the true philosophic ground upon which to put it. If it be
better that the negro should stand in the relation of slave, better for
all concerned, then Slavery is right. If the converse be true, then
Slavery is wrong, and of course, if it be possible, should be peace
ably abolished. Thus this vexed question is stated and submitted to
the "\\-orld by a living, leading Southern statesman. Let calm reason
and fair discussion by those whom it concerns ascertain the truth.
The path of duty is then made plain to all.
I am not now and here about to argue for either side of the
question thus generally propounded; but one thing I will say: It is
not a good thing for white or black men to hold negroes as slaves in
the State of Ohio, because we have tried it. We are sure it is
better that the black slave should not be where the white man has to
work by the side of him. It is better, we think, that the work of
our State should be done by its white men. We have concluded,
without any doubt, that wherever the white man can live and work,
there, at least, no system of forced labor should exist. It has been
ordained that man shall "earn his bread by the sweat of his brow."
There are but very few men living on the face of the earth, if they
live honestly, who are not compelled to do something, by head or
hand, or both, for their own subsistence. For instance: In the
whole fifteen Southern States there are only about four hundred thou
sand who own slaves.
Mr. Keitt, (in his seat) — Heads of families.

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 393
Mr. Corwin — I was speaking of the heads of families. That
may involve an interest of two millions of people. Let it be so. I
am not particular about it. There are eight million white people at
the South, are there not? I wish there were one hundred million,
for I want the South to be strong. A great majority of the South
ern people must labor at something, as I doubt not they do. They
who own slaves are the exceptions to this old rule. I am not about
to make any invidious or ungracious remarks on these two classes of
people. I am free to admit, and happy to say, with truth, that.
North and South, we are the most favored and the happiest people
that, ever lived in the tide of time, and I think the history of the
world will prove it. But we will not allow ourselves to think so ; we
are like Mr. Brown in the farce — we will allow ourselves to be
"excited!" As there is no hostile flag from any part of the globe
to disturb the repose of our thirty millions of free people, we, of
course — such is the frailty and unsatisfied nature of man — will find
causes for fearful conflict, at least among ourselves. And yet I
would under no circumstances vote to furnish men and means to
carry on war abroad, merely for the sake of avoiding internal strife.
I prefer what I am sure, if we are not a doomed people, is easy and
practicable, to put our passions and party animosities under recogni
zance to keep the peace where we are.
Now, as to the reason, so often demanded on the other side of
the House, why the people of the North would prohibit Slavery in the
Territories of the United States. I shall be prepared, I hope, to
discuss this subject without excitement, fully, whenever it properly
comes before us, after this House shall organize. But I cannot for
bear a hasty view of the subject, even now. It is called for by the
great misapprehension of gentlemen on the other side, and the
denunciations, founded on that misapprehension, to which we have,
up to this time, listened with a most exemplary patience. The
Repubhcan party does claim, and has always claimed, and the Demo
cratic party always claimed until about the year 1852, throughout all
the North, that Congress had plenary and unquestionable power,
under the Constitution of the United States, to prohibit Negro Slav-
ery- in Territories, and that it is the duty of Congress to exert that
power whenever Slavery did not exist in any Territory where the
white man could live and work. My Democratic friend from Ohio
[Mr. Vallandigham] stated here, a few days ago, that the Demo
cratic party had been wrong upon that subject — meaning that they

394 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
had heretofore conceded this power, and insisted on its exercise.
Now, it is certain, to look at it historically, that, in the progress of
your Government, the first founders of it did proceed upon that prin
ciple. The ordinance of 1787 was made under the old Confedera
tion ; it was made by very many of the men who sat in the Conven
tion which formed the present Constitution of the United States ; and
Virginia, by all her delegates, voted for that ordinance.
Mr. Millson — There is no doubt, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Corwin] has remarked, that the opinions which he has imputed to Washing
ton, Jefferson and other distinguished statesmen of the ante-Revolutionary
period, were entertained by them. But it should be remembered that it was
before the abolition of the African slave trade that those views were
expressed. It was while standing in the living presence of the victims of
that trafHc that their opinions were formed. It was natural, sir, and almost
unavoidable, that they should think on Slavery only as a part of that legal
ized system of rapine and plunder. They at least would regard it as the
motive prompting men to the perpetration of crime. They did not see Slav
ery as we see it. Indeed, sir, it was not then, as it is now, a social system
established between two classes of our own native population, intended to
promote the welfare and happiness of both ; an institution of society, estab
lishing a just and wise subordination and dependence between two races, liv
ing together in almost equal numbers, who socially never could be equal, and
whom, therefore, political equality would convert into fierce and implacable
enemies. Mr. Corwin — I thank the gentleman. That is what I was
going to say myself, but the gentleman has expressed it much better
than I should have done it. I was about to refer to that ordinance
of 1787, whence I deduce the conclusion that the men of that day
did believe that it was the best thing they could do with the five
States provided for in that ordinance, to prohibit Negro Slavery
there. Mr. Smith, of Virginia — Will the gendeman permit me to say a word
here? Mr. Madison expressly states that the object of that prohibition was
to take away the field left open for the importation of Africans
Mr. Corwin — I was about to speak of that opinion of Mr. Mad
ison. I know from conversations, which even so young a man as
myself has had with the men of that period, that Virginia had some
reasons for agreeing to the prohibition of Slavery in that part of the
Territory, altogether unconnected with the institution of Slavery.
But I shall insist that the main reasons were the objections to Slavery

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 395
itself. Virginia was then a great State, as she is now. "There were
giants in those days." She was afraid that the rich lands of the
Northwest, with Slavery tolerated there, would induce eminent men
whom she had at home, to go there ; and she did not wish to part
with those illustrious men. She wished to keep them where they
were. Virginia wanted then, as she wants now, and as every State
wants, to keep as much greatness and as much glory in their old
homes as possible. ' Something like that was in operation then. But
I can hardly suppose that that was the controlling motive with the
great men who did that great act. Their often-expressed abhorrence
of Slavery proves it was not. A great act it was for good, for last
ing good, as subsequent events have shown. It was provided that
all the States that were to come into the Federal Union under that
ordinance should prohibit Slavery; and it was under that provision
that Ohio, the first State that came in under it, excluded Slavery in
her State Constitution.
Now, what did the men of that day believe? They were wise
men, philosophic statesmen. The terrific storm of the Revolution
had blown over them ; and we all know that the minds of men, after
having been much agitated, and relieved from the causes of that agi
tation, then become so calm that in no period of their lives are they
so well situated for cool reason or calm reflection as immediately
after such an event. They were Americans. They were Republic
ans ; I do not use the terms in a party sense. They called them
selves Republicans. We call ourselves so now, and we do believe
we are following in our principles this day right after them. What
I beg anybody to convince me of is, that I am mistaken. When so
convinced, if that be possible, I shall surely acknowledge my mis
take, and abandon my present convictions. The great, the good as
well as great men of 1787 ordained by law that there never should be
any Slavery in that part of Virginia which had been ceded to the
United States by the deed of 1784. Would they have done so if
they had considered Slavery to be a good institution? I think not.
There was no overruling necessity for such a prohibition, arising out
of circumstances unconnected with Slavery. It was their belief that
the greatest blessing they could bestow upon these five new States
was the prohibition of Negro Slavery. They thought that an indus
trious, intelligent community of free white men, having no degraded
labor among them, was the best community that could be established.
I suppose they had read Montesquieu, and believed with him, that

396 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
without virtue, honesty and intelligence, a Republic is impossible.
I suppose that is a maxim on which everybody agrees. They be
lieved that sort of a system would be best promoted in a country
where white men can work, by saying that there should be no forced
labor there.
I am not considering now whether or not these great men were
mistaken. I only wish, at this point, to say, that this much abused
Republican party, so much misunderstood to-day, is acting exactly
as these men acted in 1787, who, whether under the Constitution or
under the Articles of Confederation, forbade Slavery in all the North
western country, and forbade it because they thought it, as all their
declarations at that time prove, a great evil. I mean to say — and I
hope all sides of this House will understand me to say — that if
the men of 1787 had believed that Slavery was not only a benign
institution, but one that was friendly to the white man in that cli
mate, they would not have prohibited it. They were not the kind of
men to do anything for party expediency. They were not contend
ing as to who should hammer this House to order. They were lay
ing deep the foundations of this mighty Empire ; and they acted
under the profound responsibility which such a condition of things
imposed. They spoke with sincerity, they acted with sincerity, in
the presence of that God who they believed, and I believe, had most
manifestly bared his right arm in every battle-field of the Revolution
in favor of our right of self-government and independence. They,
then, seeing that there was a territory not yet comprehended within
the limits of any State, having no power to do anything as a State,
prohibited the existence of Slavery therein. That is what they did ;
and such men must have done that act for the reason that they
believed it right, and thought, as we Republicans think, that Slavery
is a great evil, at least in any climate where white men and free labor
ers can live and work.
That territory of Virginia, which she claimed under a very old
charter, was no longer the territory of Virginia. It was regarded as
territory acquired by the common blood and treasure of the people
of the Confederacy, just as your territories won from Mexico ; and,
under these circumstances, they then declared: "We will, under
this Confederation, agree that there shall be no Slavery in this terri
tory, thus won by the common blood and treasure of us all." They
so ordained ; and they made it a matter of compact forever between
the existing Government and the States to be formed out of that

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 397
territory, that every such State should always exclude Slavery. I do
not say what effect that would have under our modern notions about
compacts. Perhaps, in modern times, we might believe that a State,
after it came into the Union, no matter what bargain it made to get
in, was such a mysterious and omnipotent sovereign, that all obliga
tions passed from it, and ceased to have binding effect. Be this as
it may, my purpose is now to show what were the views of those
men, the founders of our Government, respecting Slavery. That is
the fact I wish to show.
Now, then, suppose another Territory to be acquired by the
common blood and the common treasure of the United States, in a
latitude like that of the Northwestern Territory. The Republican
party say: "We will exclude Slavery from that Territory, as
the framers of the Constitution under the Confederation did
exclude it from just such territory as that." And if we do that, are
we to be charged with an attempt wilfully to subvert the institutions
of this country and to do wrong to the South? If those Old
Fathers of the Revolution — our Fathers, the Fathers of our Nation,
the authors of all that we boast of, and all that is around us — if they
acted in this way, may you not pardon us for doing just as they did?
Are we not, at least, excusable for entertaining the opinion that it
would be better to confine the institution to its present limits, or cer
tainly to exclude it from a new Territory, as they did ? If you think
they acted well and wisely upon this subject, it is your duty, under
like circumstances, to imitate their example, not calculating too curi
ously, as they did not, about a few dollars' worth of slave property,
which you may not be able to sell to, or carry with you into each
Territory ; but considering, as they did, and pondering, deeply and
profoundly, what is to be the effect upon the people who are to live
in the Territories, from generation to generation and from time to
time, during the whole period of man's history in the world. Weh,
you will say, they may have been wrong. Admit that irreverent,
preposterous supposition, and answer me, boastful, self-sufficient
Democracy, do you blame us for having an affectionate regard for
the memory of those old men, and a fixed belief that their acts were
wisely and weU done, and might be safely imitated by the Demo
cratic sages of 1860? I hope you will not say that I am out of
order, on either side of the House, when I declare, in the presence
of God that I do believe, that if we had twenty of these very men
in this House, this question would not even be mooted, and we

398 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
should have organized in one day. We do not work as they worked;
we do not talk like them ; and, worst of all, we do not think as they
thought. Why are we, I ask again, to be denounced as bad men for desir
ing to act as our fathers acted? We wish to do just what they did
under similar circumstances. We desire, if the country gives us the
power, to do all things rightly; and in doing so, we turn to the
bright examples of better days for our guide. Unhappily for us,
the North and the South have no confidence in each other, and mad
ness rules the hour. You think you have diverse and opposing
interests. This is all a mistake — a great mistake. Whatever pro
motes the interest of Alabama and Mississippi is, in a national point
of view, equally favorable to the interest of the State of Ohio. One
gentleman has spoken of Ohio as an Empire State. If she be such
a State, is not Alabama made stronger by her connection with a
strong rather than a weak State? In any national conflict, Alabama
has a powerful ally. In this view, it is too plain for argument that
every State is interested in the prosperity of every other, and each
in the prosperity and happiness of all. We are not rivals, we are
brothers. And here, I may ask, without egotism, why is young
Ohio so powerful ? Kentucky is older by many years ; whilst, with a
climate and soil unsurpassed by few, perhaps none, in the Union ;
with a people surpassed by no community for enterprise, for courage,
for constancy, for all the quaHties which give character and influence
and just pride to States, Ohio certainly, from some cause, has very
far exceeded her elder sister in developing wealth, population and all
that constitutes a strong and powerful State. Why is this so? The
cause, I think, will be found in facts which give Ohio no cause to
boast of herself, but in that very insdtution which forms the topic
of all this debate. Kentucky is my nadve State. I knew her well ;
I knew her great men, and love them and honor them ; but Ohio and
her, side by side, joined in heart as weU as neighborhood — look at
them and you will see the difference between them to which I refer.
There is history, that may be studied with profit, touching this
matter. My colleague [Mr. Cox] spoke of a meeting upon the western
reserve in Ohio. He is a young gentleman, a rising man, and, if he
does not get bad habits upon the Democradc side of the House, may
come to something some day hence. [Laughter] He 'amused him
self with the comic power he possesses in imitating the nasal twang

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 399
of the Yankees of that reserve. It sounded strange to you, as it did
to him, and so it did to the army of Prince Rupert at Marston Moor,
when the ancestors of these men rushed into battle against the
mailed chivalry and curled darlings of the court of Charles I. What
happened then ? Something worthy to be noted, and not forgotten.
Stout Cromwell and his unconquerable Ironsides, when the day was
well nigh lost, charged with resistless fury upon the proud columns
of that host of gentlemen, as they were boastfully denominated, and
lo! Prince Rupert and his host were no longer there. They were
scattered as the dried leaves of autumn are before the storm-blast of
the coming winter. That same nasal twang rang out, on that day,
their well-known war-cry, "the sword of the Lord and Gideon."
These Yankees are a peculiar people ; they are an industrious, thriv
ing, pains-taking race of men. The frailties of these men grow out
of their very virtues, those stern virtues which founded liberty in
England, and baptized it in their own blood upon Bunker Hill, in
Ainerica. They will do so again if there is a necessity for it. It is
a hard matter to deal with men who do verily believe that God
Almighty and His Angels encamp round about them. What do
they care for earthly things or earthly power? What do they care
for Kings, and Lords, and Presidents? They fully believe they are
heirs of the King of Kings. In the hour of battle, they seem to
themselves to stand, like the great Hebrew leader, in the cleft of the
rock; the glory of the most high God passes by them, and they
catch a gleam of its brightness. If you come in conflict with the
purposes of such men, they will regard duty as everything, life as
nothing. So it appeared in our war of the Revolution.
The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Barksdale] says that the
North got more Revolutionary pensions than the South. I do not
know how that is. How did it happen ? Gentlemen tell me they
would not have pensions in the South. I am glad if it be so. I
happen to know professionally something of Revolutionary claims
for lands. Virginia, when she ceded the Northwestern Territory to
the United States, reserved all the lands lying between the Little
Miami and Scioto rivers, to satisfy the claims of her troops in the
Virginia line on continental establishment. A large district in Ken
tucky had been taken up to satisfy the same class of claims. All the
reservation in Ohio has been absorbed, and still land warrants come,
and scrip has been granted ; and yet the Virginia line on continental
establishment is not yet satisfied. Sir, it has seemed to us that the

400 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
army of Xerxes might have all claimed and been satisfied before this
time. But this is all aside and apart from the proper subject before
us. I am not now, never have been, and never will be, one to so far
violate history and good taste as to draw invidious distinctions
between this or that State or colony, who, by their combined valor,
won the independence of all the States. While I must always ven
erate the men of New England of that day, I still turn with una
bated admiration to those of the South, especially to Virginia — ^glo
rious " Old Dominion," illustrious alike for her heroes in war and her
sages in peace ; and if it depend on vote or effort of mine, the last
land warrant of the last descendant of her Revolutionary heroes shall
be located on lands, if such can be found, rich as the delta of the
Nile ; in a climate, if it be possible, healthful as was Eden ere yet
sin had brought death into the home of the first family of man.
Mr. Clerk, it is my wish to show that the Republican party,
which proposes to prohibit Slavery in the Territories, is in that prin
ciple following the example of the men of the Revolutionary period,
both before and after the adoption of the Constitution. The ordi
nance of 1787, prior to, or rather cotemporary with, the Constitution,
shows that the men who, under the Confederation, enacted that ordi
nance, thought it most wise and beneficial toward slave and free
States both, to prohibit Slavery in the Northwestern Territory.
Now, if those men were wise men — if they were patriots — then
what is the Republican party ? It proposes to continue their policy ;
to imitate their example ; to follow in their footsteps ; and this is all
on the subject of Slavery which we propose to do. Were the men
of 1787 wrong, then indeed in this particular is the Republican party
wrong. If they were right in the policy which dictated the ordinance
of 1787, then is the Republican party right, and the Democratic
party wrong — totally, entirely wrong. But you say this ordinance
was not enacted under the Constitution, but prior to it; and that,
under and by virtue of the Constitution, we have no power to pro
hibit Slavery in Territories by acts of Congress. Let us now see
what the fathers said on that subject ; and, particularly, let us
observe what they did. I must insist on the point of examining
into what the elder men of the Republic did, for this reason : those
men made, pondered, studied, adopted, the Constitution. They had
great veneration for it ; and all of them who acted under it, whether
in legislative, executive, or judicial capacity, took a solemn oath to
support and not to violate it. If they were honest (and I think that

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 401
we will scarcely dispute it) then, if they did violate the Constitution,
they were ignorant men, and did not understand their own work as
well as we sages here assembled. I think the characteristic modesty
of this House will scarcely assert the latter proposition !
Passing by many facts in our political history which threw some
light on the subject before, let us pause a moment at the year 1820.
Not long before this time, we had passed through our second war
with Great Britain. At that time, I began to look out upon the
political affairs of the world with that interest which both novelty
and importance would inspire in all young minds. I read the argu
ments in the Missouri case with a great deal of care. Although the
sentiment of the country was generally against me, I then formed
the opinion that Missouri had a right to come into the Union with
Slavery. I thought that right was founded upon the treaty stipula
tions by which that Territory was acquired. The treaty, ratified as
it was by the Senate, two-thirds of that body concurring, became, in
the language of the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land."
What was Louisiana when we acquired her? Anybody who knows
the history of the times will know what she was. A little settle
ment, old, it is true, but so small in population that it would be
made by the Yankees of this day in a very few months. What was
the reason of that aquisition? AU who have looked into the cur
rent history of the West, from 1790 up to about 1803, know that
Western men, the ancestors of those who now boast so much of our
loyalty to the Union, were threatening to break off from those now
living east of the Alleghanies, and to make an independent confeder
ation west of it, and to force free trade to the sea through the mouth
of the Mississippi. Jefferson was alarmed, and the whole country
was alarmed, as you will see if you read the debates of 1802 and
1803, in and out of Congress, while this matter was going on.
Everybody West demanded that we should go into war with Spain,
because she would not let us trade through the mouth of the Missis
sippi ; and most eloquent and impressive speeches were made,
enforcing the idea that there was danger of a Western secession,
unless trade was made easy to the Gulf of Mexico through the Mis
sissippi river. Mr. Jefferson, without any constitutional authority
whatever, as he himself thought and openly avowed, authorized our
Ministers in France to negotiate for the purchase of Louisiana,
which had then but recently fallen into the hands of France. It
was to avoid war that it was done. That was the motive. It seems
27

402 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
by the subsequent purchases of Florida, and more recently of Cali
fornia and New Mexico, that there was authority for acquisition all
the while lurking in the treaty-making and war-making powers.
I doubt very much, Mr. Clerk, whether the First Consul, that
Little Corporal who was in command in France at that time, would
have ever signed a treaty which abrogated any right that the people
of the ceded territory then had. We know that when the treaty was
completed, it has been always said, and I believe it, that Napoleon
refused to put his signature to it, unless we agreed to admit the peo
ple of Louisiana into our confederacy of States, with all the rights
enjoyed by those who were already in the Union. He was in arms
for liberty then; he proclaimed himself then "the armed soldier of
freedom," and would not have given up that colony, as he called it,
for all you could have offered him, but that he had no navy to pro
tect it. He was at war with England, and he knew that England
with her navy would take his colonies from him. He was therefore
glad to get rid of them. That Territory would have been a point of
weakness to France then, just as Canada would be a point of weak
ness to England now, if she were in a war with us. That was Napo
leon's idea, and that article in the treaty which secured to Louisiana
the right to enter into the Confedercy, was inserted at the request of
Napoleon, and, no doubt, at that time, it showed his sincere admira
tion of our Government. He would not sign the treaty till that
was put in, in such terms as (treaties being the supreme law of the
land ) must prevail over any of our notions of Slavery. And Louis
iana and Missouri would not have been admitted at that day without
that cla,use in the treaty, although I think, without such treaty, they
would in time have been admitted without it. 1 do not say that it
was the policy or the wish of the founders of the Republic to dis
turb the relations of property that existed when they acquired any
territory. They left Louisiana just as it was ; so they did with Flor
ida, in 1819. Slaves were property there when we acquired that
territory, and they remained property; and Florida came into the
Union with Slavery. Arkansas was admitted in the same way.
But in that part of the country comprehended within the Louisiana
purchase lying north of latitude 36° 30', covered by what is called
the Missouri compromise line, there was no population — no white
men, no slaves, no property to be affected ; and therefore Slavery
could properly be prohibited there. That was the view which the
men of 1820 took of that subject. That has been caHed a compro-

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 403
mise; and the legislation of 1850 has been called a compromise.
Why I know not. I apprehend that none of the men of that day
voted for a law which they believed compromised away or violated
the Constitution of the United States. Certainly no Congress
should be lightly charged with such horrible infidelity to themselves
and their posterity. They never thought they were violating the
Constitution, and compromising it, when they passed the Missouri
restriction. They maintained their position of justice and fidelity to
compacts. The Constitution had declared that that Constitution, and
the treaties and laws made under it, should be the supreme law of
the land, overruling all other laws. That omnipotent treaty-making
power was not trusted to anything short of two-thirds of that great
constitutional body, the Senate of the United States. It was safe to
trust it to two-thirds of that body, representing all the sovereign
States of the Union.
I have attempted to explain, Mr. Clerk, that we acquired
territory, that Slavery existed in it as an institution, and that
there never was any exercise of the powers of the Government
to destroy that local institution, or, if you please, that right. The
whole of the Louisiana purchase, so far as Slavery was concerned,
was left just as it was acquired until 1821, when Slavery was prohib
ited north of 36° 30'. Whether any slaves were held in the country
to which the inhibition applied, is not material, at this day, to decide.
My impression is, there were none. However, the men of 1820-21
understood all about the early settlements in the "Louisiana pur
chase," and the character of those settlements also, much better than
we can be supposed to understand them after a lapse of forty years.
We know that the men of that day declared that the treaty by which
we acquired that territory contained provisions by which we were
bound, its obligations being paramount to all law and every other
obligation. They admitted Missouri, as I think she would have
been admitted if there had been no treaty; perhaps it might not
have been within a year or two, but eventually I believe she would
have been admitted without the aid of treaty stipulations.
Now, sir, who were they, disputing at the time about this ques
tion of the benefits of Slavery, the disadvantages of Slavery, the
evils of Slavery, looking at it in all its aspects, social, moral, politi
cal? They were the men of 1820; they were men who had just
emerged from that struggle with Great Britain, second in importance,
as they thought, only to that in which they conquered our independ-

404 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
ence ; they rejoiced that they had come out of it with reputation to
the country. Their hearts were American. Whether Democrats,
Republicans or Federalists, they were all Americans ; all party lines
had been obliterated. We know that the period to which I refer
was caUed the halcyon period of the Repubhc. God knows it was a
happy day in the public affairs, compared with the present. What
did they do? Just what we should do to-morrow, if we were like
them. They admitted a slave State because they were bound to do
it, either by treaty obligations or by those fraternal relations that
must exist between the States ; and they said that Slavery should
never exist in the territory north of Missouri.
You of the South insist that the inhibition of Slavery in the
territory north of the State of Missouri was unconstitutional. Is it to
be supposed that the men of those days did not understand their con
stitutional obligations? There were Mr. Monroe, and John Quincy
Adams, and William H. Crawford — my Georgia friends can under
stand who I mean when I speak of him — a man, in my memory,
quite as illustrious as any citizen that has ever lived in that great
State. He was Secretary of the Treasury in the Cabinet of Mr.
Monroe. There was Mr. Smith Thompson, afterwards Judge of the
Supreme Court — a man whom everybody who knew him will now
remember as one possessing great learning in matters of constitu
tional law, as well as in the common and civil law; a jurist, in the
best sense of the word; an old-fashioned man, in the best sense of
the word; a man of large and well-furnished head, and sound, patri
otic heart. He was Secretary of the Navy. Mr. McLean was not
at that time a member of the Cabinet. It remained for Gen. Jack
son to bring the Postmaster-General into the Cabinet, but he was in
familiar association with that Cabinet. But who was he, I ask you,
whose only function it was, at that time, to give constitutional law to
the Cabinet? Who the Attorney-General, who has nothing else to
do but that, or would have nothing else to do, if we had not
imposed extra-official duties upon him? William Wirt was the man,
a Virginian. I presume my honorable friend from Virginia, who sits
before me now [Mr. Bocock], would have had some doubt about the
propriety of his own opinion upon legal and constitutional points, if
Mr. Wirt had differed from him.
John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, was also a member of that
Cabinet. This very question, the power of Congress to prohibit
Slavery in the Territories, was submitted to that Cabinet. Was Mr.

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 405
Monroe an Abolitionist ? Doubtless, like others of his compeers of
that period, he did entertain the opinion, that wherever the white
man could labor with advantage, it would be better to prohibit Slavery ;
but that was not the question submitted to him — him of the Revolu
tionary era; him, an honored and influential patriot, from the time of
our independence up to the constitutional era; him, a cotemporary of
the Constitution itself, who knew all the motives and reasons, the
pros and cons, why this power was put in, and that was left out, of
that instrument — which, as was eloquently remarked the other day, is
so delicate a piece of machinery, that, if it be deranged in a single
spring, the whole falls into chaos. This man, a cotemporary of that
period, who had studied that complex and delicate work, knew the
object of the whole and the function of each of its parts — I ask, did
he not understand the uses and design of that work as well, nay,
much better, than we, his degenerate successors? That question, I
repeat, was submitted to his Cabinet, not a single member of which,
I believe, is now alive ; and the testimony of Mr. Adams is, that they
were unanimously of the opinion that the bill prohibiting Slavery in
the territory north of latitude 36° 30' was a constitutional law.
Mr. Keitt, (in his seat) — Mr. Calhoun denied the statement.
Mr. Corwin — I heard the gentleman from South Carolina make
that statement the other day. I was in the Senate when that was
mentioned. If my memory be correct, Mr. Calhoun said, at that
time, he did not remember that fact. But be that as it may, if Mr.
Calhoun at that time had entertained the opinion that it was not
within the constitutional competency of Congress to pass that act, is
it likely, from the earnest nature and character of the man, that he
would not have left on record his protest against the approval of
what he might have deemed an unconstitutional law ?
Mr. Keitt — I will quote a single word from Mr. Monroe's testimony.
It is not quite so strong as I thought it was, but it is just it should be quoted.
It is: "That the proposed restriction of Territories which are to be admitted
into the Union, if not in direct violation of the Constitution, is repugnant to
its principles." Mr. Corwin— I have not brought myself to the conclusion that
Mr. Monroe put his name to a bill that he believed unconstitutional.
From the history of the times to which I now refer, we should
all learn to tolerate difference of opinion. Mr. Jefferson thought a

406 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
great public necessity obliged him to acquire Louisiana, without any
warrant in the Constitution for that act. It is not necessary now to
recur to the historical facts of that day which formed in the mind of
Mr. Jefferson a justification of that act. Louisiana was thus
acquired, and all then supposed our territory complete. But after
the war of 1812 was ended, we found, or thought we found, another
necessity. Florida was a Spanish colony. She was our neighbor,
our too near neighbor. Our race, our rapacious race, will not sub
mit to a close proximity with any other race. Many apologies and
some reasons were soon found why we should own Florida. Indians
abounded there; slaves were property there. It was said, and I
believe with truth, that these Indians would sometimes steal or spirit
away the slaves of our adjoining States, or that slaves would run
away into Florida, and fugitive slave bills, as we knew, could not be
enforced there. Florida was purchased to adjust this difficulty.
Slavery was lawful there, and the Government received it, kept it,
and to this day does not pretend to disturb Slavery in Florida. It
may be remembered that the legislative power of Congress over Ter
ritories came before the Supreme Court of the United States as a
question directly or incidentally involved in a case which was brought
from that Territory, I think in the year 1828. The whole court then
agreed that Congress alone could legislate for Territories. It should
be borne in mind that this was the same court, but not the same
judges, which decided the famous case of Dred Scott. What did
Mexico say when she ceded territory to us ? She ceded it to the
United States ; not to South Carolina, or to Georgia, or Massachu
setts ; but to the United States. She said that the right to make
laws for this people is now transferred to the United States. The
local laws and regulations in all such cases remain in full force, except
where they conflict with the Constitution of the United States. The
deed of cession was made to the Government of the United States, and
that Government, by consequence, has, by virtue of treaty, the
power to control the territory. I have given you the opinion of
Chief Justice Marshall. There are other decisions of the Supreme
Court, which I may hereafter refer to, recognizing Congress as the
only legislative power which can rightfully make laws for a Territory,
until that Territory becomes a State.
Now, let me look a little to our opinions — the opinions of
learned gentlemen elected to represent the people. It was observed
by the gendeman from Mississippi, that, in the "compromise" of

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 407
1850, as he will continue to call it, the power to make laws for the
Territories was abandoned. Now, if any one will look into the laws
of 1850, organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah, they
will find that, while they organized a Legislative Council and a lower
House of Representatives, in each of those organic laws they pro
vide, "that the laws made by the Territorial Legislature should be
returned to Congress, and if disapproved by Congress, should be
null and void." So far from surrendering this great principle, now
become established by judicial decision as well as by the laws of
Congress, Congress expressly retained the power to annul the laws
of the Territory. Sir, I listened to the debates upon those measures
of 1850 for many months. Mr. Webster was, I think, very unjustly
condemned by a portion of the people of his own State, because,
they said, he surrendered this great right. I have lived too long to
be much amazed at anything; but I have been utterly astonished
that it should have been asserted by any one that either of the illus
trious men who figured in that discussion — Clay or Webster — ever
surrendered the power of Congress to prohibit Slavery in the Terri
tories of the United States. They declared, in their speeches, that
they believed they had that power; but that the territory coming
from Mexico was free, and that no power on earth, except Congress,
could take Slavery there, unless the law-making power of that terri
tory had planted it there before we acquired it. All the courts.
State and Federal, up to 1854, had determined that Slavery is the
creature of local law, or long local usage recognized as lawful, which
was but another formula for the expression of that principle.
[At this point, Mr. Corwin gave way for a motion to adjourn].
TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, i860.
Mr. Clerk: I ought to apologize to the House and to myself
for suffering myself to be beguiled into this debate without any
preparation whatever. I ought not to have been drawn into this
discussion without some preparation. When Sir Walter Scott was
inquired of, why he did not write the Life of Napoleon in one vol
ume instead of three, he replied, that he had not the time. If I had
known that I should have been brought to discuss the very questions
that have been in my mind since I took the floor yesterday, or that I
should have said anything to the House, except merely call its atten
tion to the necessity of electing a Speaker, I certainly^ would have

408 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
said in one hour what required two hours to accomplish yesterday.
I wish now, before I proceed, having collected myself somewhat
during the intervening time since the adjournment, to ask the gentle
man from Virginia [Mr. Garnett] whether I understood him yester
day to say that Mr. Jefferson, at some time in his life, had expressed
the opinion that the Missouri restriction was unconstitutional, or only
that it was inexpedient.
Mr. Garxett — Both.
Mr. Corwin — When I conceded that such was his opinion, I did
not mean to say that Mr. Jefferson had said at any time that the law
passed, restricting Slavery beyond a certain line of latitude, was
unconstitutional. I did know that he had somewhere expressed the
opinion that it was highly inexpedient. If such an opinion as that
suggested by the gentleman from Virginia was ever expressed by
Mr. Jefferson, I do not know it. That he declared the acquisition of
the Territory of Louisiana to be without warrant of Constitution, is
a matter of such public political history that none of us are ignorant
of it. But I do not mean to concede the point that Mr. Jefferson
had expressly declared the Missouri act unconstitutional.
Now, Mr. Clerk, let us recall what I intended to present to the
world — for we always speak to mankind when we speak in Congress,
and to all posterity, and to all time back of us, if it can be made to
hear. I have endeavored to apologize to my friends upon the other
side of the House for the very erroneous opinions, as they call them,
of the so-called Republican party. I only want to say to them now,
that we must be excused if we take the same ground with the
fathers of the Revolution and the fathers of the Constitution ; and that
whatever may be the opinions of the men on that side of the House,
we cannot find it in our consciences to accuse ourselves of treason
while we advocate the doctrines of Washington, of Jefferson, of
Madison, and of Monroe. We may be wrong upon the point of
law ; we may be wrong about the power of Congress ; but about the
policy of restricting Slavery, we being wrong, those great men were
wrong. If they were right, beyond peradventure the Democratic
party are wrong. That was the view which I wished to present to
my fellow-citizens assembled here — to my fellow-members — by way
of excusing us from listening hereafter to charges of treason, mur
der, robbery and arson, which have been charged upon the whole
Republican party. Why, the arguments of some of these gentle-

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 409
men on the other side would indicate that, in their opinion, as a matter
of criminal law, every one of the Republicans could be convicted of
being at Harper's Ferry, with a pike in his hand, pushing it into the
bosom of a Southern gentleman. [Laughter]. Sir, it made me feel
a little unhappy at first, until I found that all this was said in joke ;
yet the world, which is hstening to this debate, do not understand
this. Gentlemen tell us here that they mean nothing personal by
these remarks. "It is true," say these gentlemen, "that you do
commit treason, you do commit arson, murder, and all these crimes,
but you do it in the most honorable and'honest way." [Laughter].
That is satisfactory to me.
Sir, I endeavored to show yesterday, by reference to the general
history of the country, that Mr. Seward had said nothing, that
Helper had said nothing, more offensive than Washington. I do not
know what is in Helper's book, except by report. I was written to
by one of my constituents for a copy of that new book, about which
he had heard so much. I had been listening to this argument about
treason, and I said to my constituent that I had no copy, except
one, and that it would be dangerous for it to go through the post
office with my frank. I should be afraid that it would be brought
up as testimony against me, under an indictment by some court in
Virginia, for being an accessory after the fact, by sending Helper's book
nnder my frank to Greene county, Ohio. And that is not all.
There would be the evidence that I nominated my colleague [ Mr.
Sherman ] and voted for him. I hope gentlemen will see the deli
cacy of my situation. I have much feeling on this subject. I have
a wife and children, and they do not want me hung for voting for
my worthy colleague. [Laughter.] It would not be agreeable to
them. [Renewed laughter.]
I think it was shown yesterday, by the references which I made,
that nothing had been said by Mr. Seward which could be construed
as offensive to the South as these declarations of Jefferson, which are
known by heart throughout the length and breadth of the entire
Union. Now, I wish to address to gentlemen on the other side
of the House one or two suggestions upon a question of logic and
fair reason. They say that Mr. Seward, being the head and leader
of the Republican party — against my protestations, they constantly
deny me that honor [laughter] — had proclaimed at Rochester, in
general terms, that between forced labor and free labor there neces
sarily would be some colhsion ; that some conflict would go on between

410 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
them ; and that, in consequence of that doctrine, John Brown deter
mined to murder somebody at Harper's Ferry. Now, do they sup
pose that John Brown had not read Jefferson's "Notes on Virginia,"
and all other things which Jefferson had written about Slavery? Do
they suppose he had not seen the declaration of Washington,
that if there were any way by which Slavery could be abolished, he
would render to it his cordial co-operation ? Do you suppose he had
not seen that? Do you suppose he had not seen the debates in the
Convention, in which Slavery is denounced as an enormous evil lead
ing step by step, as certainly and as steadily as the step of time, to
a consummation as fatal as death ? Do you suppose John Brown
had not read all these things in his solitude among the mountains of
New York, where, twenty years ago, he says, he first conceived the
idea of invading one of the Southern States and carrying off its
slaves? Do you suppose he had not pondered upon these things,
and prayed over them — for he was a praying man, as all enthu
siasts are? He was a brave man, as all stern enthusiasts are; and it
was because he thought this enterprise, the offspring of his gloomy
imagination, was consecrated by the approbation of Jefferson and
Washington, that, as he sometimes said, he believed the arms of the
Almighty upheld him, he was encompassed about by the Angels of
the Lord. Is all this to be attributed to a declaration of Mr. Seward, in
reference to a conflict between slave and free labor? I appeal to
gentlemen, if they could trace back Brown's conduct at Harper's
Ferry to any source out of his own solitary meditations, whatever
others might have stated ot their opinions, whether it is not more
rational to trace the germ of that conduct to those writings, speeches
and letters of your own great men of the South ? They were great
men ; they were heroes. They were the great men of the United
States, and the great men of the world ; and, notwithstanding you
have changed your opinion on the subject of Slavery, and made it
contrary to theirs, yet their names and their fame, and their opin
ions, will be engraved upon the pages of history when those of us
of this date shall be buried in profound oblivion. [Applause upon
the floor and in the galleries.] It is wonderful that the talent, inge
nuity, and eloquence of this discussion should have come to such
conclusions. Shall our minds be fastened upon these flimsy pre
tences, when we know there was matter enough in the writings and

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 411
speeches of the foremost men of the world to stimulate a mind like
John Brown's into frantic fanaticism?
But it is said we are accessories after the fact. I ask gentlemen
if they have not attached too much importance to the Helper book ?
When Thomas Paine was indicted in England, Attorney General
McDonald, I beheve, well known in forensic history, gave him some
notice of the fact that he was to be tried for libel upon the British
Government in the publication of his pamphlet, "The Rights of
Man." A friend of Paine advised him to go over immediately and
make some compromise with the Government. "No," said he,
"that indictment is an advertisement, and one hundred thousand cop
ies of that pamphlet will be circulated in three weeks." And so it
happened. Those one hundred thousand copies would not have
seen the light, if it had not been for the indiscreet conduct of the
then Attorney General of the British Cabinet. So such matters
work out ; and so it must ever be in a country where principles are
free, and speech and press are free. While on this subject, let me
say what, I think, will be agreed to by every considerate man in the
House and out of it. Suppose all of the two hundred and thirty-
seven gentlemen here had met upon some concern of great interest
to us personally. Suppose that some man was proposed to dis
charge a certain duty for us, and it was known that this gentleman
had said or done something which might possibly be an objection to
him for the discharge of the duty to be assigned to him. Any man
who was a friend of his would have taken him aside (as the gentle
man from Missouri might have done), and said: "Now Mr. Sher
man, you have been nominated by a highly-respectable gentleman
from Ohio." [Laughter.] That is what I would have said. Then
he would have gone on: "I should have no doubts about voting
for you ; but I understand you have recommended a book which
teaches insurrection and rebellion in the slave States. How did you
come to do it?" Mr. Sherman would have taken that gentleman by
the hand and said : "Sir, a gentleman on this floor from New York
came to me, while I was hastily doing some business at my desk,
and told me it was desirable to collate certain parts of a book called
'Helper's Impending Crisis,' and to publish them in a cheap pamph
let, which pamphlet was to have a political effect" — that is, to illus
trate, I suppose, the doctrines of the Republican party. I suppose
that is what they all understood. "I asked him," Mr. Sherman
would say, "is it all proper, all right? Said my friend, 'certainly..

412 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
Then, without looking at the book, and knowing nothing about it, I
authorized him to put my name to a recommendation of a book yet
to be written. When I saw the work I did not endorse it. I am
sorry that I was thoughtlessly and unwittingly brought into this rec
ommendation of it. I never intended to endorse such a book. The
gentleman from New York told me it was all right."
Sir, I do think, under that explanation, the gentleman from
Missouri would have taken his seat, and said, "After all stated in
the New York Herald, there is nothing against Mr. Sherman, except
that he acted unadvisedly, for which he is now sorry." He would not,
if he had been his political friend, have risen and menaced him with
a criminal prosecution. Criminal conduct is always to be found in
the intention of men. I subscribe to a newspaper, to be printed for
six months or a year ; I put my name to the subscription and recom
mend it. It turns out that the editor is a rascal and a blackguard.
Am I to be held responsible for what is published in that paper? I
think the argununtum ad hominein might put some gentlemen on the
other side in a very odd position. The gentlemen from Ohio recom
mended the publication of a book — not a book which had been
printed, but a book to be made out of another, which he never saw
in his life until this resolution of the gentleman from Missouri was
offered. Well, gentlemen say there is nothing to stain Mr. Sher
man's honor; and yet, honored as he is, and unstained as he is in
that particular repect, if he should be elected as Speakei- of this
House, it would be a burning shame ; the Union might be dissolved,
and civil war take place.
, Mr. McClernand — Who said that?
Mr. Clark, of Missouri — I ask the gentleman this question : Do you
assert that I even said so ?
Mr. Corwin — I was arguing upon the general tenor of the
speeches on the other side of the House.
Mr. Clark, of Missouri — I understood the gendeman to say that I so
asserted. Mr. Corwin — No, sir, not at all. I do not think anybody
stated that, in terms.
Mr. Clark, of Missouri — Has anybody upon this floor said so ?
Mr. Corwin — No, sir. I said you argued that civil war must

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 413
come thus: the election of Mr. Sherman — that was the first step;
the next will be the election of Mr. Seward ; and then, war.
Mr. Clark, of Missouri — The gendeman never heard me assert that.
Mr. CoRviriN — No, sir ; it was said by other gentlemen on that
side. You may not have heard it.
Mr. Keitt (in his seat) — Plenty of them, often and again.
Mr. Corwin — I do not certainly misrepresent gentlemen in what
I have said. Now, what is to follow ? We, the Republican party,
if we can, shall certainly elect these men, or somebody just like
them. I wish to know what the casus belli is to be, before we set
out; but all you can say, all the world can say, will never prevent
any freeman in any free State — or slave State, I hope, either — from
exercising the right of suffrage just when and as he pleases. No
menace from any man, or a number of men living at my own door
in Ohio, I trust, will ever avail to induce me to surrender that great
inalienable right, or shrink with a craven timidity from its free exercise.
I can assure those who threaten disunion, because the North or the
West shall chance to vote for whom they deem proper for President,
that no more fatal mistake ever entered into the head of a maniac,
than the supposition that threats from any or all other quarters of
the United States will prevent or deter a freemen in the North or
West from voting according to the dictate of his own unbiased sense
of duty to himself and his country.
Mr. Clerk, yesterday I intended to bring before the House the
constitutional doctrines held by the Republican party, and compare
them with the doctrines held by the founders of the Republic, and
thus endeavor to prove, that when we delare that Congress, under
our Constitution, has the power to prohibit Slavery in the Territories
of the United States, before they become States, we propose noth
ing which is new, either in the principles or policy of those who
founded this Government ; and that the practice and policy of this
Government, up to the year 1854, is in accordance with the doctrines
now held by the Republican party of this day. I am sure that the
history of the Government, in ah its departments — legislative, judi
cial and executive — will sustain me in this position. If so, then I
shall feel authorized to inquire of gentlemen on the other side, by
what authority you dare to denounce us as holding principles fatal to
the peace or interests or liberties of the people ? Your apology will
be, public opinion is changed; the world has changed its opinions

414 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
touching Slavery. I admit that public opinion may have changed in
the South, and public opinion in the North may have been modified
somewhat. The public opinion of the world, however, against Slav
ery is stronger now than it was sixty years ago. I know from the
declaration of Mr. Calhoun, himself, that his mind did undergo a
change in respect to some constitutional points, and in respect to the
propriety and morality of the institution of Slavery. But do not
gentlemen know that ever since the time when Jefferson said, when
he contemplated Slavery in this country, he "trembled when he
remembered that God is just;" that ever since the time when he
declared that "nothing was more certainly written in the book of
fate, than that the black man one day would be free;" that from that
very time, and even before that time, the whole moral sense of the
highest minds of England had been running in the very direction of
abolitionism ? We know, now, that the slave trade never was legal
ized by any people upon the face of the earth. We learn it from
the great debates in the British House of Commons, when the slave
trade was prohibited under the auspices of Wilberforce, Granville
Sharp, of Pitt and Fox ; we know that the license given by Elizabeth
to Hawkins expressly forbade him from bringing a negro from Africa
"by force." We know that the statute of George II., which was said
to legalize that traffic, forbid that any African should be brought away
from Africa except by his own consent. England is not so much to
blame as we may suppose for initiating the slave trade, though it is
true that she and all Europe acquiesced in it.
Mr. Clerk, we know very well that, in the midst of that univer
sal excitement of the public mind which prevailed during the reign
of Elizabeth and subsequent reigns,, touching the Protestant and
Catholic religions, and the establishment of Protestantism, when all
the Powers of Europe were engaged in fighting for the success of
the Protestant or Catholic Princes ; we know that this affair of the
slave trade was a subordinate matter, and passed unnoticed. Had
England been in the calm which she enjoyed afterwards in the time
of James, I very much doubt whether there ever would have been a
negro slave brought from the coast of Africa by force. But it has
gone, and England, during the last half of the last century, could
not boast of any very great mind in her Padiament who was not
opposed to the slave trade. And, as the gentleman from Mississippi
well said yesterday, after having abolished the slave trade, the very
next step was the abolition of Slavery in Jamaica; and I will add.

on the slavery QUESTION. 415
with their views of the subject, they were right. Our crime is, that
our notions about Slavery, its morality and its evils, are such as these
men held. I do not now speak of our right, under the Constitution, to
touch it anywhere ; that I shall come to by and by. Suppose we do
hold opinions touching the evils of Slavery in common with the
greatest minds that have ever illustrated the history of England — the
greatest empire, in my judgment, upon earth — in common with the
great minds that founded this Republic. Is it fair, because we have
not changed, but still adhere to those old opinions, to charge us with
being reptiles, traitors and serpents ? If it is, then dig up from their
last resting-place the bones of Jefferson, and hang them up, as royal
hatred in England did Cromwell's for many a year. Go to the sacred
sarcophagus, now in the hands of the women of this country, and
get the bones of Washington to-day, spit upon them, and throw
them into the Potomac. He held the opinion that Slavery ought to
be abolished when it could be done with safety to both master and
slave. No Northern man goes further than that. Gentlemen will
find that these things will lead us into singular conclusions after a
while. I have shown that those opinions were the opinions which
illustrate the history of the world, and that they were openly pro
claimed by Southern men, too, of whose greatness we all so justly
boast. I endeavored to show yesterday — of which I shall have more to
say presently — ^that Mr. Monroe's administration had sanctioned the
very law which the Republican party say shall be passed with refer
ence to the Territories ; and that is all they do say. I grant you they
stand upon that; that is the only thing which they have ever
announced to the world intelligently, and as a matter of law, and
doctrine, and practice. It was the departure from that principle
which gave birth to the Republican party. I know that in the plat
form read here the other day by some gentleman on the other side,
there was something said about the inalienable rights of man, and
there was a long quotation read from the Declaration of Independ
ence. Now, if it has become a crime to quote the Declaration of
Independence, pass a law making it so, and we will obey it. I rec
ollect that the celebrated John Randolph once told a young friend of
mine, who was traveling with him abroad, that he ( this young gen
tleman) would live to see the day when men would be called to
order for quoting the Constitution in Congress.
It seems now, Mr. Clerk, that a gentleman or a party is entirely

416 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
out of place when he or it quotes the Declaration of Independence
with approbation. But I do not construe it as mad enthusiasts do,
at all ; nor does the Republican party construe it as they do, as para
mount to the Constitution. That Declaration says that every man is
born with certain inherent, inalienable rights; these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. I suppose that the Almighty intended
man to live, or he would not have breathed the breath of life into
him. Every man has the right to live, but he certainly may forfeit
that right whenever he violates the law. I suppose everybody knows
that. I have seen it tried. Man has a right to liberty ; but, in my
State of Ohio, if a man breaks a pane of glass, and takes away a
piece of goods from a tradesman's store, all that inalienable right, as
it is called, cannot save him, and he is sent to serve ten years in the
penitentiary, where he never gets the floor, not even for a personal
explanation. [Laughter]. Man has a right to the pursuit of happi
ness, undoubtedly ; but if Brigham Young came into the State of
Ohio in the pursuit of happiness, in his way, [ laughter] we would
lead him off to the penitentiary immediately. All these things are
understood by men who analyze them. I know that they are too
much abused by men who take occasion to use these general
expressions — all of which are true in the sense in which these great
men use them. They are truly much abused ; but 1 hope that the
Republican party will not be blamed for it, for they have as many
men in their ranks who understand them properly as you have.
We have schools and colleges in the West; but still we beheve
that there are men on the eastern slopes of the Atlantic, who, com
paratively ignorant though they be, do still comprehend these truths.
They have a Bunker Hill there which reminds them of certain things.
They had a James Otis there, and to him will history certainly award
the merit of having inaugurated the doctrines of the Revolution
ary war. Sir, I said yesterday that I could not suppose that anybody
believed that the Republican party differed with the old men of the
Confederation, who passed the ordinance of 1787, at the very time
they were making the Constitution. I do not think any man on the
other side, or any side, or anywhere in the world, can say to me that
I differ with the founders of the Republic, that I differ with the men
who made the Constitution, on this subject. Why so? I say that
I agree with them. My principle is to exclude forced labor — negro
labor— from every Territory where white men can work well and be

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 417
healthy. That is my idea. But I do not know but that I shall be
turned out of the Republican party by my friend from Illinois [ Mr.
Lovejoy] for heresy. That is my doctrine, and I say that the
founders of the Constitution and of the Republic had that very idea,
and put it into practice by excluding Slavery, in 1787, from the
entire Northwestern Territory, now five powerful States. I now
pass to the question of the power of the Congress of the United
States. If the men of 1787 were right in their policy, then I think
that every gentleman will say that we are equally right in entertain
ing similar views, If the men of former times had the truth with
them in saying that it was better, not alone for the present States,
not for the East, nor for the West, not for the North, nor for the
South, alone, but for aU of them ; better for the whole Republic, that
the white children o'f the father should go to a place where they
could work well and be healthy ; better for these and better for all
that the children of the white man should have all that unoccupied
land, if not too hot for them^if they believed that they were right
in that, then I say we will find power in the Constitution, if we by
fair construction can, to do that right thing. I think that I have
established the point, at least, that the Republican party proposes to
do exactly that which the makers of the Constitution did, a year
before the Constitution was made. They got the power to do it
under the old Confederation ; they had that power, not merely by the
consent of the South, but at the urgent request of the South. Now,
have we the power under the Constitution to do it ?
The gentleman from Mississippi [ Mr. Lamar j suggested to me
yesterday that the law organizing the Territory of Orleans recognized
Slavery there. So it did. I wish, now, that section of the law en
acted in 1798, for the Government of the Territory of Mississippi,
be read. The Clerk read as follows :
" Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That from and after the establish
ment of the aforesaid Government, it shall not be lawful for any person or
persons to import or bring into the said Mississippi Territory, from any port
or place without the limits of the United States, or to cause or procure to be
so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or bring
ing, any slave or slaves ; and that every person so offending, and being thereof
convicted before any court within said Territory, having competent jurisdic
tion, shall forfeit and pay, for each and every slave so imported or brought,
the sum of $300 ; one moiety for the use of the United States, and the other
28

418 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
moiety for the use of any person or persons who shall sue for the same ; and
that every slave so imported or brought shall thereupon become entitled to,
and receive, his or her freedom."
I have read that section of the law. Now, Mr. Clerk, to show
that at that time, in 1798, the Congress of the United States assumed
and exercised a power in a Territory which they were forbidden by
the Constitution to exercise towards a State, is proof conclusive that
they at that time understood that they had the power to make laws
concerning Slavery and the slave trade in the Territories.
There are some other matters, sir, which I have been looking at
this morning, which I wish also to read. About the year 1808, a
gentleman whom some of us remember well, being then a Delegate
from the Territory of Mississippi, (Mr. Poindexter) moved to change
the organic law of that Territory, so that the Governor should not
have the power of proroguing the Legislature at his pleasure. Then,
as is usual in deliberative bodies, a discussion sprung up upon general
questions involved. On that occasion a gentlemen from Georgia,
whom I had also the pleasure to know for some time — a Mr. Troup
— made the following remarks :
" By the articles of cession, the right of soil and jurisdiction was ceded
to the people of the United States on the express condition that the articles of
the ordinance should form the government of the Mississippi Territory, and
that they should not be governed otherwise. The inference inevitably is, that
the State of Georgia would not have ceded but upon the express condition ; and
this inference is the more inevitable, inasmuch as in this clause Georgia has
made an express exception to a particular article in the ordinance; from
which I say that Georgia intended that no other alteration should be made.
" What was the policy of the ordinance, and what the object of its fram
ers ? Why, assuredly, to render the Government of die Territories depend
ent upon the Government of the United States. And how was it to be
effected ? By making the Territorial Legislature in a great degree dependent
on the Governor, and him absolutely dependent on the Federal Executive.
The moment we make the Legislature of a Territory independent of its Exec
utive, we make it independent of the Federal Government. * *
" But the gentleman from Mississippi Territory is certainly mistaken as
to one point. He seems to consider the Constitution of the United States as
giving to the people of the Territories the same rights as the people of the
States. It is a mistaken idea, neither warranted by the letter or the spirit of
the Constitution ; for although the Constitution has declared that the people
of one State are entitled to all the rights and privileges of anotlier, yet it has not
declared that the people of the Territories have the same rights as the people

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 419
of the States. In another part of the Constitution, it is indeed expressly
declared that Congress shall make all laws for the disposal of the Territories ;
but there is a salvo that all acts done and contracts made previous to the
adoption of the Constitution shaH be as binding as if done afterward. The
articles of the ordinance were enacted previously, and are consequently bind
ing under the Constitution. It cannot be controverted that they were wisely
adopted, and have been salutary in their operation. They were framed by
the Congress of 1787, composed of men whose integrity was incorruptible
and judgment almost infallible. These articles, from that time to this, have
remained unaltered, and carried the Territories, through difficulties almost
insuperable, to prosperity. And now, for the first or second time, an altera
tion is proposed, the consequence of which cannot be foreseen, without any
evidence that it is either necessary or expedient.
" The population of every new country must necessarily be composed of
a heterogeneous mixture of various tempers, characters and interests. In a
population thus composed, it would be highly ridiculous to expect that love
¦of order and obedience to law would always predominate. Therefore the old
Congress wisely reserved to itself the right to control them ; to give the Gov-
¦emor power, when a Legislature became disorderly, to dissolve them ; and
for the exercise of this power he is accountable to the General Government.
' ' The gentleman from Mississippi wishes us not to treat the Territories
as children, whose wild extravagances may require correcting by the indul
gent hand of their parents, but as the equals of the States, without any other
reason than that which he states to be the situation of the people of his Terri
tory. They will next wish us to admit them into the Union before their pop
ulation will authorize it ; tell us that that Territory does not grow fast enough,
and we must demolish the system for their convenience."
Mr. Clerk, it will be observed that, in all the early discussions
about the power of Congress in relation to a Territory, it has been
admitted that Congress had entire control over its legislation under
the Constitution of the United States. I would, if I thought it pru
rient, commend to my lUinois friends and to others, who contend for
this very plausible and captivating doctrine of popular sovereignty
in the Territories, to examine what it was the great founders of the
Republic thought on that subject. I would advise them, as the hon
est clergymen of Illinois, who are about to be silenced by some law
which we hear of, would do: to give it their prayerful attention.
'[Laughter.] I now send to the Clerk's desk, to be read, the tenth section of
a law passed in 1804, to be enforced in the Territory of Orleans,
which was thereby established.
The Clerk read as follows:

420 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
"Sec. 10. It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import
or bring into the said Territory, from any port or place without the limits of
the United States, or cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or
knowingly to aid or assist in importing or bringing, any slave or slaves ; and
every person so offending, and being thereof convicted before any court
within said Territory having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay, for
each and every slave so imported or brought, the sum of $300, one moiety
for the use of the United States, and the other moiety for the use of the per
son or persons who shall sue for the same ; and every slave so imported or
brought shall thereupon become entitled to and receive his or her freedom.
It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import or bring into the
said Territory, from any port or place within the limits of the United States,
or tc cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or
assist in so importing or bringing, any slave or slaves which shall have been
imported since the first day of May, 1798, into any port or place within the
limits of the United States, or which may hereafter be so imported from any
port or place without the limits of the United States ; and every person so
offending, and being thereof convicted before any court within said Territory
having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay for each and every slave
so imported or brought from without the United States the sum of S300, one
moiety for the use of the United States, and the other moiety for the use of
the person or persons who shall sue for the same; and no slave or slaves
shall, directly or indirectly, be introduced into said Territory, except by a
citizen of the United States removing into said Territory for actual settlement,
and being, at the time of such removal, bona fide owner of such slave or
slaves ; and every slave imported or brought into the said Territory contrary
to the provisions of this act shall thereupon be entitled to and receive his or
her freedom." Mr. Clerk, I do not have these extracts read from the early leg
islation of the Congress of the United States, regarding this matter,
with any view now to enter into an argument showing that they were
constitutional. I only produce them as the opinions of the men of
that day, who heretofore have been considered safe counsellors
on questions of constitution law. What they did certainly evinces
their belief that they had power to regulate the question of Slavery
in Territories. I wish now to commend to the consideration of
the House, on this point, the opinions of another gentleman (Mr.
Louis McLane ) long known and deservedly honored in the legislative
and executive annals of the country ; always considered as exalting
in his person the executive offices he occupied ; a foreign minister of
the very highest reputation since the old men of the Revolutionary

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 421
time have passed away. His son is now one of the diplomatic
agents of the country. Mr. Louis McLane said what I send to the
Clerk. The Clerk read as follows :
" Mr. Chairman, the people of Missouri cannot be incorporated into the
Union but as the people of a' State,' exercising State government. It is a
union of States, not of people, much less of Territories. A Territorial Gov
ernment can form no integral part of a union of State Governments ; neither
can the people of a Territory enjoy any Federal rights until they have formed
a State Government and obtained admission into the Union. The most
important of the Federal advantages and immunities consist in the right of
being represented in Congress — as well in the Senate as in this House — the
right of participating in the councils by which they are governed. These are
emphatically the ' rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United
States.' The inhabitant of a Territory merely has no such rights. He is not
a citizen of the United States. He is in a state of disability as it respects his
political or civil rights. Can it be called a ' right' to acquire and hold prop
erty, and have no voice by which its disposition is to be regulated ? Can it
be called an advantage or immunity of a citizen of the United States to be
subjected to a Government in whose deliberations he has no share or agency
beyond the mere arbitrary pleasure of the Governor — to be ruled by a power
irresponsible ( to him, at least ) for its conduct ? Sir, the rights, advantages
and immunities of citizens of the United States, and which are their proudest
boast, are the rights of self-government — first, in their State Constitutions,
and secondly, in the Government of the Union, in which they have an equal
participation." **********
"The right to govern a Territory is clearly incident to the right of
acquiring it. It would be absurd to say that any Government might purchase
a Territory with a population, and not have the power to give them laws ;
but, from whatever source the power is derivable, I admit it to be plenary, so
long as it remains in a condition of Territorial dependence, but no longer. I
am willing at any time to exercise this power. I regret that it has not been
done sooner. But, though Congress can give laws to a Territory, it cannot
prescribe them to a State. The condition of a people of a Territory is to be
governed by others; of a State, to govern themselves." — Annals of Sixteenth
Congress, First Session, vol. 1, pages 1145, 1146, 1160.
The general drift of all these observations of the early men of
the country concedes the fact that when a Territory is acquired, it is,
before it becomes a State, to be governed by the Congress of the
United States, whether you derive that power from the clause of the
Constitution which says Congress shall have power to make all need
ful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property

422 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
of the United States, or derive it as an incident to the power to
make war as some contend, or as incident to the power to make
treaties without qualification, as others contend. You see that
the power to make laws for a Territory was always considered, under
one or the other of these clauses, as belonging to Congress. As
that power is without limitation — as there is no possible limitation
placed on it by these views of the subject — I maintain that it is just
as large a legislative power as the States have in regulating their
State policy. I hold, and I may differ from some of my Republican
friends, that Congress can enact that Slavery shall be in a Territory,
or enact that it shall not be in a Territory, just as fully and freely as
a State can do the same within its limits.
Let us now recur for a few moments to the legislation of Con
gress in that portion of the Louisiana purchase lying north of lati
tude 36° 30' — that part of the purchase now known as Kansas and
Nebraska. I was endeavoring to show that the Cabinet of Mr. Mon
roe had all, upon mature reflection, in 1821, conceded the power of
Congress to prohibit Slavery in a Territory, as they did in that Mis
souri restriction. When I quoted the opinions of Mr. Calhoun, it
was suggested by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Keitt]
that Mr. Calhoun did not approve of it at the time. I have in my
hand an extract from a speech of Mr. Calhoun, delivered in the Sen
ate in 1838, when that question came directly before that body. I
had, I thought, a very perfect recollection of it ; but I did not like to
state it positively yesterday. It was made in a debate upon a reso
lution which he himself had offered, in which he said that any
attempt by Congress to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia,
upon the ground that it was sinful, would be a dangerous invasion of
the rights of the South. He went further, and said that Congress
had no right to determine whether the institutions of a State were
wicked or righteous. I am very much of that opinion myself I
think every State has sins enough to answer for itself, without inter
fering with its neighbors. When that subject was under discussion,
Mr. Calhoun said :
" He was glad that the portion of the amendment which referred to the
Missouri compromise had been struck out. He was not a member of Con
gress when that compromise was made, but it is due to candor to state that
his impressions were in its favor ; but it is equally due to it to say that, with
his present experience and knowledge of the spirit which then, for the first
time, began to disclose itself, he had entirely changed his opinion."

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 423
This is from Mr. Calhoun's own speech, made in 1838. I read
from Benton's Thirty Years in the United States Senate, page 136*.
It was made in a very animated discussion, which vs^as conducted
with perfect propriety and gentlemanly deportment, but with zeal
and fervor and great power, too — all of which contributes to the use
fulness of every discussion ; and which I could wish, in common with
us all, might be more sedulously imitated by us all upon this floor,
in this present House of Representatives.
Now, I could read further, if cumulative testimony were want
ing to show that Mr. Calhoun was in favor of that law. I think I
have shown that the whole Cabinet did agree to it ; and I only now
wish to show that they agreed to it deliberately and in writing. Mr.
Benton, on page 141 of the same work, has collected, among other
proofs, the following:
" First, a fac simile copy of an original paper in Mr. Monroe's handwrit
ing, found among his manuscript papers, dated March 4, 1820, (two days
before the approval of the Missouri compromise act ), and endorsed : ' Inter
rogatories — Missouri— to the Heads of Departments and the Attorney-Gen
eral,' and containing within two questions :
"1. Has Congress a right, under the powers vested in it by the Con
stitution, to make a regulation prohibiting Slavery in a Territory ?
"2. Is the eighth section of the act which passed both Houses of Con
gress on the 3rd instant, for the admission of Missouri into the Union, consis
tent with the Constitution ?"
This is a letter in the handwriting of Mr. Monroe, and the
endorsement, as I have said, is in his handwriting ; and it was made
two days before the act making this restriction was approved by him
as President. The second piece of testimony collected here is :
"The draft of an original letter m Mr. Monroe's handwriting, but with
out signature, date or address, but believed to have been a copy of a letter
addressed to General Jackson, in which he says :
" ' The question which lately agitated Congress and the public has been
settled, as you have seen, by the passage of an act for the admission of Mis
souri as a State, unrestricted ; and Arkansas also, when it reaches maturity ;
* Mr. Lamar, of Mississippi, between whom and Mr. Corwin there was a colloquy
as to the correctness of Mr. Benton's citation, seemed to doubt that Mr. Calhoun had
ever made such an admission. The extract here given will be found in Mr. Calhoun's
remarks in the Senate, in the year 1838, during the debate on his celebrated
resolutions on Slavery, precisely as Mr. Benton quotes in the " Thirty Years View." —
See Appendix Congressional Globe, Second Session Twenty-fifth Congress, volume 6,
page 72.

424 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
and the establishment of the parallel of 36° 30' as a line north of which Slav
ery is prohibited, and permitted south of it. I took the opinion, in writing,
of the Administration, as to the constitutionality of restraining Territories,
which was explicit in favor of it ; and it was, that the eighth section of the act
was applicable to Territories only, and not to States when they should be
admitted into the Union.' "
The third piece of testimony collected by Mr. Benton is :
" An extract from the diary of Mr. John Quincy Adams, under date of
the 3d of March, 1821, stating that the President on that day assembled his
Cabinet, to ask their opinions on the two questions mentioned, which the
whole Cabinet immediately answered unanimously and affirmatively ; that on
the 5th, he sent the question in writing to the members of his Cabinet, to
receive their written answers, to be filed in the Department of State; and
that, on the 6th, he took his own answer to the President, to be filed with the
rest — all agreeing in the affirmative, and only differing, some in assigning,
other not assigning, reasons for their opinions. The diary states that the
President signed his approval of the Missouri act on the 6th [ which act shows
he did, ] and requested Mr. Adams to have all the opinions filed in the De
partment of State."
The other day, some gentleman upon the other side of the House
read that diary, as extracted from Mr. Adams's journal. Mr. Benton
only condenses it, and all will agree that it is correctly stated here.
After that, in 1855, a letter was addressed by Mr. Benton to Mr.
Clayton, who was Secretary of State in 1849-'50, to know what had
become of these written opinions. Mr. Clayton answered, under
date of July 19, 1855, as follows:
" In reply to your inquiry, I have to state that I have no recollection of
having ever met with Mr. Calhoun's answer to Mr. Monroe's Cabinet queries
as to the constitutionality of the Missouri compromise. It had not been found
while I was in the Department of State, as I was then informed ; but the
archives of the Department disclose the fact that Mr. Calhoun, and other
members of the Cabinet, did answer Mr. Monroe's questions. It appears, by
an index, that these answers were filed among the archives of that department.
I was told that they had been abstracted from the records, and could not be
found ; but I did not make a search for them myself. I have never doubted
that Mr. Calhoun at least acquiesced in the decision of the Cabinet of that
day. Since I left the Department of State, I have heard it rumored that
Mr. Calhoun's answer to Mr. Monroe's queries had been found ; but I know
not upon what authority the statement was made."
I think, Mr. Clerk, that if we were in a court of justice, and
before a jury, with the fact in dispute whether Mr. Monroe's Cabi"

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 425
net did make these answers affirmatively, and if I were maintaining
the afifirmative of that proposition, I should be sure to get the unan
imous verdict of a sensible jury on that point, on the evidence. I
shall therefore assume it as true, as a matter of history, that, in the
year 1821, James Monroe, President of the United States; John
Quincy Adams, Secretary of State ; William H. Crawford, Secretary
of the Treasury; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War; Smith
Thompson, Secretary of the Navy ; William Wirt, Attorney General,
all agreed, after hearing that debate — going on, as it had been, for
two years in Congress — with their minds imbued with all the argu
ments on both sides, came to the conclusion that Congress did pos
sess, always had possessed, and always would possess, the unqual
ified power to restrict Slavery in the Territories, or to make any
other law they pleased on the subject. That is all the sin the Re
pubhcan party has committed. I believe that Mr. Monroe did know
something about the Constitution of the country. I believe that
John Quincy Adams did understand something of the nature of this
delicate machinery of ours, as it is now called. The Republican
party is weak enough to believe that there are some men in the
world who have brains in their heads besides themselves. They
believe the men of 1821, as well as the great men of 1787 and 1804,
all held the doctrines of the Republican party of 1860; and this, I
think, I have proved.
Sir, need I now call from their homes in eternity the great and
good men who, in 1787, declared that it was not just or politic to
permit Slavery in the territory northwest of the Ohio, and so
ordained ? Need I call the shades of Monroe and his Cabinet from
the "abodes of the blessed," to come here into this Hall, and declare
again, in the presence of the world, the same doctrines they have
declared under just such obligations as now rest upon us? I could
wish that this majestic and venerated host could pass in review before
the vision of the Democratic members here this day. Each and all
would range themselves on the Republican side of this House ; for
there, and there only, in this House, would they find the principles,
policy and constitutional law, which they proclaimed, acted upon,
and established, from the day they broke the yoke of foreign power
up to the day when it pleased God to relieve them from their earthly
trials, and take them to himselfi
Mr. Clerk, I find myself at a loss to understand how it is possi
ble for the gentlemen on the other side to rid their minds of the

426 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
crushing weight of authority which presses against them, upon this
subject, either as to the policy of restricting Slavery, or the power
of Congress to do it. Will they assert that the men of 1787 were
mistaken in the policy, and that Congress and the Executive Depart
ment, from 1804 to 1821, were mistaken in the point of constitu
tional power ? Where is the enormous egotist to be found who will
assert that he understands, to-day, the Constitution of the United
States better than President Monroe and his entire Cabinet did
in 1821? Monroe was a patriot and a soldier of the Revolution. He was
familiar with all the deliberations of the wise men and all the
thoughts and writings of his times which led to the formation of the
Union and adoption of the Constitution. He was an anxious par
ticipant in the discussions concerning the powers vested in Congress
by that Constitution. He had carefully watched its operations from
the time of its adoption up to 1821, when he was called upon, under
the responsibilities resting on the highest officer of the Government,
to decide whether Congress possessed the power to prohibit Slavery
in a "Territory." He was a Virginian, a slaveholder; and, if biased
at all, that bias might be expected to incline him against the power.
Such a man, such a President, on full deliberation, decided that such
power did exist in, and by virtue of that Constitution, and accord
ingly approved the act of Congress which exerted that power.
John Quincy Adams was his Secretary of State. A child of the
Revolution, educated in the principles which brought that Revolu
tion to its glorious conclusion, thoroughly taught and studied in the
science of jurisprudence, he brought to this very question all the
powers of a mind naturally strong, strengthened and enriched by all
the appliances of study, while its operations were freed from all sinis
ter influences, by candor and integrity which even party malignity
has never questioned. Adams was a Northern man and not a slave
holder. He, too, agreed with Monroe, the Southern slaveholder.
William H. Crawford, of Georgia, was then the Secretary of the
Treasury. He was a Southern man and a slaveholder. He was at
that time a most notable man among men who were indeed worthy
of notice — a man of austere virtues, and yet of kindly and gener
ous nature. But, above almost all men of his time, he was remark
able and remarked for carrying what is caOed "strict construction"
to great extremes. Every power not clearly granted, in terms, to
the Federal Government, was, by him and his school, denied to the

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 427
Government and reserved to the States or the people ; and this, too,
whether such power were claimed for the executive, or legislative, or
judicial department. In this characteristic he stood in perfect con
trast with his colleague in the War Department, Mr. Calhoun, who
then held doctrines on this subject condemned by Mr. Crawford and
his school as dangerous, as latitudinarian. Mr. Crawford had been
much in public life ; had studied — as men of that day did — the Con
stitution, and all other forms of civil polity found in libraries accessible
to them. His name and character will long live in the esteem of all
Georgians, as well as in that of all Americans who venerate the wise
and good. Crawford, strict constructionist as he was, slaveholder as
he was, admitted that Congress had power to prohibit Slavery in a
Territory. John C. Calhoun was also in this Cabinet council of
1821. He was then Secretary of War. He was a South Carolinian,
and a slaveholder ; a man of rare powers of mind, quick in discern
ing the point of merit in any question. His power of ' ' generaliza
tion" was greater and more rapid in its processes than that of any
man with whom I have had the good fortune to be acquainted. Alt
Southern as he was, he, too, admitted this power to subsist in Con
gress ; and, as I think I have shown, gave his written opinion to that
effect under all the grave responsibilities of a "Cabinet minister."
Smith Thompson, of New York, was then Secretary of the Navy.
This gentleman is better known to the world as a Judge of the Su
preme Court of the United States, to whicTi place he was transferred
on account of his accurate and profound knowledge of law — law as
a science — comprehending all subjects embraced in what are denom
inated national and municipal law. He was a Northern man, and to
the four others I have enumerated he added the great weight of his
opinion, concurring with them fully and entirely.
But who was he, the then Attorney General of that Cabinet? —
he whose entire official duty it was to advise the President and each
one of the Cabinet on questions of law? Mr. Wirt was that Attor
ney General — a name known and respected by all lawyers who know
anything of law ; a name equally known and respected by all, of all
classes and professions, who admire true intellectual greatness com
bined with amenity of manners and amiability of temper that won
the afifections of all hearts ; a man of such rich and diversified intel
lect, that while he toiled in the profoundest depths of the richest
mines of legal learning, yet found leisure and had the taste to gather
from the gardens of polite letters some of the richest and rarest of

428 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
their fruits and flowers ; and, to crown all, he was gifted with an elo
quence that charmed and enraptured all who heard him. To this
Virginian, this slaveholder, this all-accomplished mind, our Repub
lican platform of this day was submitted. It was not then a great
spring-board whence some insane aspirant for Presidential power was
to leap into the coveted Executive chair ; it was not then a principle
to be used only for the occasion, and to be announced to the world
amid the hoarse clamor of popular strife, and then abandoned at the
end of four years for some novelty more captivating to the popular
ear. It was argued, considered, and decided, by such men as I have
named, at a time when the old party names, Federalist and Repub
lican, had ceased to have a meaning; when the beacon fires of party
war were quenched in the pure waters of a pervading American
patriotism. As the Republican platform (so much derided and condemned
now by learned gentlemen of the Democratic party) now reads, so
did the great tribunal to which I am now referring decide the law of
the Constitution. To this august court I appeal, from the
hasty opinions of your modern politicians and the teachings and
paragraphs cut from obscure newspapers. To that tribunal I sum
mon, for judgment and sentence of death, these new notions which
teach us that this same Constitution, which in 1821 permitted Con
gress to forbid Slavery in "Territories," now, in 1860, tramples on
Congress and its power, scoffs at all power. Federal or Territorial,
and bears Slavery, as the phrase goes, "suo proprio zigore," into all
Territories ; and only pauses to bow with royal courtesy to the
crowned and sceptred majesty of State Constitutions. Hither, also,
do I summon that other modern partisan war-cry, " popular sover
eignty," born of the partisan struggles of 1854. From the heated
furnaces of political strife this fire went forth. It shed its baleful
light over Kansas for three troubled years ; blazed up to noontide,
and then, like a tropical sun, dashed down the sky, cast a lurid blaze
over the chaos it had created, and sunk,' quenched in blood, leaving
behind it only the spectral images of confusion and war which its
brief day had evoked into life.
Mr. Clerk, in treating this subject of the power of Congress
over Territories, the object of our inquiry is to ascertain whether
any clause in the Constitution gives, in terms or by fair implication,
the power in question. In aU such cases the inquiry is, what is the
true intent and meaning of the Constitution ? The words employed

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 429
are to be carefully criticised ; and if they be plainly such as to give
or deny the power, then the meaning is ascertained. If doubts arise,
however, from an examination of the words employed, it is always
safe to ascertain, in other modes, what they did mean who wrote and
enacted these words. Hence, the acts of individuals, done in per
formance of their own written engagements, show what they under
stood their own written contracts to mean. So the conduct of
nations in the execution of treaties is always resorted to to show
what each nation understood its treaty contracts to bind it to perform.
This plain rule of good sense, when applied to Constitutions or legis
lative enactments, is called "cotemporaneous construction."
Sir, we know that while the Convention that formed the Con
stitution was in session, in the year 1787, the old Congress, under
the old Articles of Confederation, passed the celebrated ordinance of
1787, whereby that Congress did enact that there should be "no
Slavery or involuntary servitude '' in the then Northwestern Territory.
It is only reasonable to suppose that the Convention then in session,
seeing this power exerted by Congress under the old Government,
should conclude that the same ought to be granted to Congress in
the new Constitution, which was to supersede the old "Confedera
tion." Accordingly we find a clause inserted, which says:
" Congress shall have power to make all needful rules and regulations
concerning the territory and other property of the United States."
The men who enacted the ordinance of 1787, and those who
formed the Constitution, were many of them the same persons. Is
it not an irresistible conclusion that they did intend, by the clause I
have quoted, to confer the same power upon Congress, by that
clause which they had in the old Congress in the same year,
themselves exerted, by virtue of the powers given to Congress,
by the "Articles of Confederation," under which they then acted?
Let us not be told that the power "to make all needful rules and
regulations concerning the territory," was inserted in haste, or was
not weh examined and well understood. Before the Constitution
was adopted, and after it was formed, it underwent the closest scru
tiny. The public prints teemed with criticisms upon all its provis
ions. State Conventions debated it with all the interest its vast
importance naturally elicited, and with all the power which the great
est minds, in that age of truly great men, could bring to the discus
sion. They knew the meaning and import of every word, and the

430 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
extent and intent of every power granted to each branch of the new
Government. Now, we also know that the leading men in the Con
vention that formed this Constitution were many of them leading
and active men in the legislative, judicial and executive departments
of the Government under this Constitution. In every office they
may have thus held, they took a solemn oath to "observe the Con
stitution," it being the same they themselves had made. We must
admit, therefore, that they did not intend to violate any clause in
that Constitution. Even the Democratic party will not assert that
the great men of that day would be likely to commit perjury, and,
in doing it, destroy their own great work ; for all of them regarded
the Union under that Constitution as furnishing the only hope
remaining to them and their posterity, of realizing their long-cher
ished object, rational freedom regulated by law. Did not they think
they had the constitutional power to do that? They did it in 1798 ;
they did it in 1804; they did it in 1820. These were fathers of the
Revolution ; the apostles were there, making their own commentary
upon their own gospel ; and this was the commentary : That Con
gress make laws for the territory, composed as it was of a heteroge
neous and discordant population, not likely to agree among them
selves upon any system of civil polity. We treat them as infants.
We, owning the country, are the proper legislative power to give it
laws. That is the way they treated it ; and I never shall believe that
they intended that that power should not be there when they made
the Constitution. If they had not intended it to be there, they
never would have exerted it. They would have asked for an amend
ment of the Constitution if they had thought it necessary ; but they
went right forward, and exerted the power, because they knew the
power to be there. One of two conclusions you must come to, or
admit the full weight of my authorities : either that these men vio
lated the Constitution which they had sworn to support, knowingly
and wilfully, or that they, the makers and cotemporaneous exponents
of the Constitution, did conscientiously believe that it gave them
this power. Who knows so well what he meant to do, what he
meant to say, and what he meant to inculcate, as the author of the
book himself? And if he be honest, he wiU always give you the
true meaning. Thus we have this constitutional gospel delivered to
us by no remote posterity, not acquainted with the writers ; by no
commentator or historian at all ; but by the fathers, the very men
themselves who wrote the book. And we, of the Republican party.

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 431
are to be charged with treason, and with an odious attempt to disrupt
this glorious Union which these very men made for us ; we are to be
denounced for believing these opinions to be right, instead of believ
ing the doctrines of modern commentators on that Constitution, who
have found out that the authors of it did not know what they meant !
Now we have got through with the legislative and executive his
tory of this Constitution of ours. I was stating yesterday what the
Supreme Court had done. A friend of mine has been kind enough
to furnish me with a speech made by a gentleman in the Senate who
has collected the very authorities to which I wanted to refer. From
that I shall read to show what the judiciary think about this matter.
As I said yesterday, such is the structure of our Government, that,
if there be any dispute about the constitutional power of Congress
in making a law, and an individual right comes in question, so as to
give the judicial department of the Government cognizance of it,
and they decide that the law is unconstitutional, I know of no relief
against that decision, if it shall be wrong.
I wish to show what the judicial department of the Government
thought of this power of Congress to govern the Territories. There
is a case referred to which I had not before me yesterday, and I have
been unable to get the book from the Library this morning. I take
it for granted that it is here correctly referred to, and that the quota
tions are correct. It is the case of Sere vs. Pilot. It occurred in
1810, and is reported in 6 Cranch, page 336. The Supreme Court
of the United States, without a dissenting voice, in the most explicit
language, then declared "that the power of governing and legislat
ing for a Territory is the inevitable consequence of the right to
acquire and hold it."
Let me advert to that Supreme Court. Who were upon the
bench of the Supreme Court at that day? Look at the judicial rec
ords of the country. There was John Marshall, and all of them like
him in great qualities of mind and nature. Virginians know who I
mean when I refer to John Marshall. Questions are not brought up
in that court as they are here. A gentleman jumps up in the morn
ing here to set himself right before the country. [ Laughter]. To
do that, he offers a resolution. The House votes on it. One gen
tleman speaks over on that side, and another gentleman speaks on this
side, pretty nearly all the time he has the floor. Fifty gentlemen sit
between, engaged in an earnest colloquy as to what the speakers are
saying. [Laughter]. It is to be inferred that we have a fair oppor-

432 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
tunity of knowing the opinions of gentlemen. That is the way we
decide great questions here at this time in our present unorganized
condition. Go into the Supreme Court. Not a whisper is heard.
The court is opened, and sits for four hours. You might, at the
time I refer to, have argued a question for three weeks, if you had
the power to hold out so long, and every judge would have been
found listening every day and every hour and every minute. All the
learning of the law, all the histoiy of the law, all the logic of the
law, is laid before that court ; and the court, accustomed to look into
the intricacies of the law, will revolve all that has been brought
before them in their minds, and pronounce what is and what is not
law. They have sober and discreet minds. It is a better court than
this. I do not mean to cast any disparagement upon your court,
Mr. Clerk. I wish, if it could be so, that from the beginning of this
session the Journal Clerk had every night blotted out the record of
our proceedings, that they might not be heard of any more among
men. When I entered this Hall a new man the other day, there was
a strange feeling came upon me that I was not in the Congress of the
United States. Over the chair where the Speaker presided sat, in
the old time, the Muse of History with her pen. The men who
built the first Hall of the House of Representatives thought that
this grand inquest of this great Republic was to make that history
which should illustrate our annals. Clio was there, emblematical of
what was to be submitted to the dread tribunal of posterity.
But to the decision of the court. The decision referred to is to
be found in 6 Cranch, page 336. There was no dissenting opinion.
It was in 1810. There was no Democratic party in those days; but
there was a Republican party. This question was not decided the
year before a Presidential election. Time is always a circumstance
to be looked at in referring to a historical fact. There was then a
powerful party in this country called the Republican party, and there
was a remnant of an old and most respectable party called Federal
ists ; and they were discussing whether we should make war upon
England or upon France. I have always thought they were not sure
which one of these nations to fight ; and that they were never sure
they had hit upon the right one ; for they had quite equal causes of
war against both. They recollected La Fayette was with us, and
that, I believe, turned the scales against England. Says the court of
that day :

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 433
" The power of governing and legislating for a Territory is the inevita
ble consequence of the right to acquire and hold territory. Could this posi
tion be contested, the Constitution declares that ' Congress shall have power
to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the terri
tory or other property belonging to the United States ;' accordingly, we find
Congress possessing and exercising the absolute and undisputed power of gov
erning and legislating for the Territory of Orleans."
Do you not think, Mr. Clerk, that John Marshall was a man
who knew and understood the subject then before him? If any
question could be submitted to the mind of that man with which he
was more familiar than any other, it was a question arising under the
powers of the Government as defined in that Constitution. We
know that the whole court agreed with him in 1810. I have shown
the legislative history of this question. Now, it was declared by the
Supreme Court, as early as 1810, that the power to govern the Ter
ritories arises under the power to acquire territory, or under the
clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to make all needful
rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of
the United States. So much for 1810. Now, some years have
elapsed. In 1 Peters, page 511, there is a reference to the same
question, and the law is laid down in the same terms as in 1810. In
the meantime, says Judge Marshall, "Florida continues to be a Ter
ritory of the United States, governed by that clause of the Constitu
tion which empowers Congress to make all needful rules and regula
tions respecting the territory or other property of the United States."
He goes on :
" Perhaps the power of goveming a Territory belonging to the United
States, which has not, by becoming a State, acquired the means of self-gov-
emment, may result necessarily from the facts that it is not within the juris
diction of any particular State, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the
United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable consequence of
the right to acquire territory. Whichever may be the source whence the
power may be derived, the possession of it is unquestioned."
These Republican traitors, these dupes, these insurrectionists,
these one hundred and thirteen men who were, as you say, by
intendment, at Harper's Ferry with John Brown ; these men have
committed no sin but that of believing, with Judge Marshall, and
with the Supreme Court up to the year 1828, in the opinions they
entertain. I shall show, by and by, that the same doctrine now held
29

434 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
by the Republican party was carried forward by an unbroken current
of decisions up to the year 1852.
Much is said by the present Democratic party just now about
the sanctity of constitutional law, as delivered to us by the Supreme
Court. I revere that great court, and will abide its decisions, when
made upon any question brought fairly on the record before them ;
which, I maintain, was not done, as some suppose, in the famous
Dred Scott case. Gentlemen on the other side would disregard the
solemn decisions of that court for half a century, and cling to an
obiter dictum, casually thrown out in a single case recently. They
remind me of a dispute between two excellent clergymen. They
both regarded the Old and New Testaments very properly as the ora
cles of God; but they differed as to their meaning. "Well, brother,"
said the old Methodist, "we agree well enough about the Adamic
law and the Abrahamic covenant, and the Divine legation of Moses;
but when we come to the Christian dispensation, you will fork off."
Our Democratic brethren here have a strange disposition to "fork
off" from us, and run after the casual remarks of the court — the
"obiter dicta" of the court, to express it in judicial phrase — while
they travel on with us in the well-paved highway up to 1852.
Mr. Clerk, I know that this long, wandering journey among the
legislative annals and judicial records of the country is very tedious;
but truth is a jewel of such precious value, that we are told we must
go to the bottom of a deep well after it, if, perchance, we may
find it there. I wish to let down my pitcher for another draught of
that sort of water from the well of the Supreme Court. Two decis
ions of that court we have had already. Here is the third in the
year 1853. We are coming now close upon the period of the Dem
ocratic Hegira. In 1853, a very few weeks before the introduction
of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, there was an opinion pronounced by
Judge Wayne, at the December term of that court, in which he
said: " The Territory [ speaking of California] had been ceded as a conquest,
and was to be preserved and governed as such, until the sovereignty to which
it passed [ the United States ] had legislated for it."
He proceeds :
"That sovereignty was the United States, under the Constitution, by
which power had been given to Congress ' to dispose of and make all need
ful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging
to the United States.' "

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 435
Then, I say, from the earliest period of our Government down
to 1853, everybody — all agreeing to it; all shades of politics; Con
gresses of every hue of politics; all the courts of the country, all
over it — regarded the question as clearly settled, as the Republicans
now hold it. I wish this speech of mine, so far as it goes, imperfect
as it is, to be considered as "Corwin's Apology for Republicanism."
Mr. Barclay wrote "An Apology for Quakerism," a capital book,
with a good deal of sense in it. My Apology for Republicanism
may not be quite as authoritative.
What I have proved, I think to the satisfaction of all, is, that
the men who framed the Constitution acted upon the power to gov
ern the Territories, believing it to be there ; and they acted under
oath; that the legislative department of the Government always
have exercised it up to the year 1854; and that the judicial depart
ment of the Government decided the law thus, whenever the ques
tion arose, up to the year 1853. Now, I say to gentlemen upon the
other side, if you can put yourself in as good society as this Repub
lican party are in, then I will agree to pay a visit to you, and per
haps stay all night. [Laughter.] Until you do, I choose to put up
at the Republican hotel. [Laughter.] I wish to compare grave
yards, monuments, epitaphs and authorities with the Democratic
party. We Republicans may possibly be under a great mistake upon
this subject ; but if we are, the most intelligent people, according to
your own account of it — and I believe it true — have been under the
same mistake from the beginning.
Sir, I am an old Whig, and the very doctrines which the Whig
party always inculcated upon this subject are the cardinal doctrines
of the Republican party ; and the only constitutional doctrines they
have enunciated were born of a violation of the same Whig doctrines
in 1854. The Repubhcan party had never had a name, and never
had an existence, in that form and that name, had it not been for the
proceedings of that Congress in 1854. I suppose that every man
will admit this. And why? Why was that treasonable party, as
you now denominate it, brought into existence? Do you suppose
that all the people of the North are insane ? I would like an inquest
of lunacy to try the question, and I would show where the insanity
is. It was in that year 1854 that you proposed to renounce this
doctrine of the control of Congress over the Territories. If was then
that you determined to depart from that compromise of 1850, to
which my friend from IlHnois [Mr. McClernand] just referred me.

436 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
and with which I was satisfied. Why was I satisfied with it ? In
the first place, when the compromise measures of 1850 were passed,
I was not a member of the Senate. I was a member of the Cabi
net when they were brought to President Fillmore. I was for their
approval. Congress had determined the details ; it was for the Pres
ident to see whether the laws were constitutional, not whether they
were good laws. It is sometimes said that Congress, by the com
promises of 1850, renounced its power over the Territories.
Mr. McClernand — Renounced the policy of exercising it.
Mr. Corwin — I hold that to be a very different question. I
suppose that Congress has the power to declare war against the
whole world, although nobody intends to exercise it. What I speak
of is the law. The gentleman will find, if he looks to the law, that
Congress reserved this power. Utah and New Mexico were to
report their laws to Congress. If Congress disapproved of the laws,
they were to be null and void. Does that look like surrendering the
legislative power of Congress over the Territories ? If Congress had
not even expressly reserved the power, the acts organizing those Ter
ritories, in view of the previous history of this Territorial question,
could not properly receive a different construction. But the power
was expressly reserved, so that there could be no mistake about it;
and every law made by either of those Territories might have been
vetoed by Congress. Now, I want to stand upon high authority. I
was in Congress during about ten months of that debate. A certain
orator, in a place I will not name, for fear I may offend the sensibili
ties of some gentlemen here, in speaking of the battle of Okecho-
bee, said:
" Gentlemen, I can say, as an ancient Greek poet said, quorum pars fui.
If you have not had the advantages of education, ( and I dare say many of
you have not), that means a part of whom I was which." [Great laughter].
I heard all of that Senatorial debate. I certainly heard all the
earnest debate — listened to it for several months. I heard the sub
ject debated by the great men of the day — ^by old men and by
young men, too. Webster was there ; Clay was there ; Mr. Calhoun
made a speech upon the subject, also. Will you read it now? He
scarcely changed his opinions after that. He said that this doctrine
of the Territories having the right to make laws for themselves was
absurd. Besides, said he, it is contrary to the practice of the Gov
ernment from its foundation down to the present time. I do not say

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 437
it is absurd, but I agree with him in the historical fact — that it is
contrary to the practices of the Government. Some of my friends
at the North, and some at the West, too, thought that these compro
mise measures of 1850 did abandon the notion that it was expedi
ent to legislate for the Territories. I have no quarrel to make with
them now on that point. I know how they treated Webster. I
hope God will forgive them for that — I cannot. What were the doc
trines of Clay and Webster on the subject? They repeated them
over and over again. Those men understood the law of nations.
They never had any dispute about them in the Senate of the United
States. By the law of nations, when one sovereignty cedes a colony
or country to another, with the power of the Government passing
with it, all the institutions of the ceded territory not incompatible
with the fundamental law of the country to which it is ceded remain
just as they were at the time of the cession, until they are changed
by positive legislation. Now, apply that doctrine to Mexico. Not
only was there no positive law in that territory, when acquired under
the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, making Slavery legal, but there
was a positive law against its existence. Negro Slavery had been
abrogated by a decree of the Mexican Government, which had not
been altered or changed with regard to any of the territory which we
acquired. What was the effect of that ?
First, then, that there was no necessity for prohibiting Slavery
in those new territories, because Slavery never could be there until
some legislative power, having authority to make the law, established
it. Slavery is the offspring of local. State or municipal law. The
sovereign legislative power over the Territories being with Congress,
Slavery never could be established there by law till Congress had
made the law, or approved the law of the Territorial Legislature
establishing it. Here were two reasons. First, it never could
exist without positive law ; and secondly, there was a positive law
forbidding it. Such were the views and reasons assigned by the
eminent men of whom I speak, for not prohibiting Slavery in the ter
ritory acquired from Mexico by law of Congress.
When Mr. Clay rose in his place — whose majestic form I think
I now see before me — and declared that no power on earth would
ever induce him to plant Slavery anywhere where it did not exist ;
when he said this, prepared to refer all his life's history to the tribu
nal of posterity, and knowing that he was soon to appear before Him
who knows the motives of men, aU understood his principles then.

438 SPEECHES OP THOMAS COEWIN.
and felt their truth and power. Mr. Webster had the same view of
the question precisely. He repeated it over and over again, and
said he would have put a restriction upon the Territory if there had
been a legal necessity for it. This idea of the Constitution introduc
ing Slavery everywhere, when not forbidden by a State Constitution,
had not become fashionable then. That was in 1850, and the Dred
Scott decision came after that.
Mr. Clerk, I speak of the different departments of the Govern
ment with perfect respect, but 1 undertake to say that neither Mr.
Clay nor Mr. Webster could ever have been led to believe that the
Supreme Court of the United States would decide that Congress had
no power to legislate over the subject of Slavery in the Territories.
I shall not here discuss the Dred Scott decision, for I have passed
over that already.
Now, sir, in the most extreme and warmest brotherly kindness,
I will show a little of the antiquities of the Democratic party.
[Laughter]. I shall speak of the Democratic party of the North.
De mortuis nihil nisi bonum. [Laughter]. A celebrated man in our
country has said that that maxim ought to be changed to "de mor
tuis nihil nisi verum." I take that proposition and adopt it. I do
not mean to accuse the Democratic party of any crime, except of
being once in the right, and afterwards pursuing the wrong. My
colleague from the Dayton district [Mr. Vallandigham], in a spirit
of candor, told us the other day that the Democratic party of Ohio
had been wrong on this question of Slavery. I wish to show that
he was right in that declaration, according to his view of it, and that
if he would just change that word "wrong" into "right," the Dem
ocratic party were right according to the doctrines of the fathers of
the Government ; but they wandered away from the institutions of
Moses, to the worship of Astheroth and other diabolical divinities.
I will quote a little of their gospel, from cathedral authority, in the
State of Ohio, in the year 1848, whereby I wish to show to the
Democratic party of the South, as it is called, how great an act they
have achieved in having converted the most hardened and abomina
ble sinners who have existed in the world. [Laughter].
Democratic gentlemen from the South must summon their Chris
tian charity to this work. They must remember that our Demo
cratic Sauls of Tarsus were on the way to Damascus in 1848, bent
upon persecuting Democratic Christians in the South. You see how
they divided the clothes of the Southern Stephen, and stoned him to

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 439
death. You will rejoice, however, to see how "a great light shone
upon them" in 1854, and how they heard about that time a voice
from the South, and lo! upon the instant, they donned their "sandal
shoon and scallop shell," and, with meek submission and pious zeal,
they made their pilgrimage from the icy regions of old constitutional
faith to the sunny realms of Southern novelties, where, to this day,
they remain in "brotherly love." Miracles had not ceased. But
who shall say whether these wanderers from their old homes may
not grow weary of their new abodes, and yet turn their faces to
Judea, crying, "When I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right
hand forget its cunning !" But let me refer you to their heresies •
but be not alarmed, for they are all safe now :
" Resolved, That the people of Ohio now, as they have always done,
looking upon the institution of Slavery as an evil, unfavorable to the full
development of our institutions ' 
These Democratic people have had greatly at heart that "devel
opment of our institutions." They were speaking for the people of
the State of Ohio — for the Whigs held the same ideas exactly, with
one exception, which I shall state directly 
 " unfavorable to the full development of our institutions ; and that, enter

taining these sentiments, they will feel it to be their duty to use all the pow
ers consistent with the national compact to prevent its increase, to mitigate,
[here is the point on which I differ with them] and finally eradicate them."
The classical mind of my colleague from the Dayton district
suggests to him the etymological meaning of that horrible word
[laughter] "eradicate" — not lop it off, not prevent its growing into
other fields from those in which it is now planted ; but to walk into
the South, and take Slavery there, and grub it up — provided the
Constitution will allow it. What do you charge these Seward men
with ? You say that they will act according to the forms of the Con
stitution; that they will get an overruling power in the popular
department of the Government — in this House ; that they will get a
majority of the Senate ; that they will have a willing, obedient Exec
utive in the White House ; and then, that they will walk over the
Constitution. That is precisely what the Democratic party of Ohio
proposed to do. We Whigs never did propose to do that. We
never believed that we had any business to "eradicate" Slavery.
We never intimated that we could interfere with it in the South, or
that we desired to interfere with it. But your Democratic brethren,

440 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
with whom you are now associating so happily, believed that identi
cal doctrine. You charge Mr. Seward with having introduced into
the brain of John Brown the idea that Slavery ought to be uprooted
in the States. I suppose he had seen this resolution passed by the
great Democratic party of Ohio in 1848. I think he lived in that
State. You have been spending days and weeks — seven weeks — in
proving that John Brown never would have been at Harper's Ferry,
and that Helper never would have written his book — although he
wrote it two or three years before Mr. Seward made the remark — if
they had not heard that WiHiam H. Seward said there was "an irre
pressible conflict" between free labor and slave labor. That is alto
gether too philosophical an idea for an enthusiast like John Brown to
take hold of He had been reading the Old Testament. He was a
member of the old New England school of Presbyterians. He
believed it was his duty to draw the sword of the Lord and Gideon
and to smite the heathen, everywhere he could, with sword and bat
tle-ax — not with argument. That is the way with that set of people.
In every battle-field of the Revolution, if these Yankee regiments
were there, and had the slightest chance before the encounter with
the British foe, they would kneel down and invoke the aid of that
God who of old had bared His right arm for the salvation of His
people. These were the kind of men from whom John Brown
sprang. When he saw the great State of Ohio represented by the
Democratic party, and heard them say that Slavery was an enormous
evil — an evil which prevented the development of the glorious insti
tutions for which his fathers had fought, what would be his reflec
tion? "What is to be done to eradicate this institution?" He
would say: "I will strike at this unholy thing that impedes the
onward march of this Government to that consummation which shall
give freedom to all men!"
Mr. Vallandigham — The other part of the resolution has not been
read. As there are some peculiar beauties in it, illustrative of the first part,
I regret that my distinguished colleague has been so unfortunate as not to
have it in his possession."
Mr. Corwin — That is the whole of one resolution.. The next
resolution reads:
' ' But be it fui thcr resolved. That the Democracy of Ohio do, at the same
time, fully recognize the doctrine held by the early fathers of the Republic,
and still maintained by the Democratic party in all the States, that to each
State belongs the right to adopt and modify its own municipal laws ; to regu-

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 441
late its own internal affairs ; to hold and maintain an equal and independent
sovereignty with each and every other State ; and that upon these rights the
National Legislature can neither legislate nor encroach."
That is an entirely different thing. What the Democratic party
proposed to do was to eradicate Slavery by some means or other.
The great sin that the Republican party has committed is, it holds at
this day the doctrine which the Democratic party announced in 1848,
though it does not pretend, and has never pretended, that Slavery
should be eradicated in the States, otherwise than by the States
themselves. I will cheerfully read the resolutions of the Ohio Democracy in
1840, to which my colleague refers. Here they are :
" Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Convention, Congress ought not,
without the consent of the people of the District, and of the States of- Vur-
ginia and Maryland, to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, and that
the efforts now making for that purpose, by organized societies in the free
States, are hostile to the spirit of the Constitution, and destructive to the har
mony of the Union.
" Resolved, That Slavery, being a domestic institution recognized by the
Constitution of the United States, we, as citizens of a free State, have no
right to interfere with it ; and that the organizing of societies and associations
in the free States, in opposition to the institutions of sister States, while pro
ductive of no good, may be the cause of much mischief; and while such
associations, for pohtical purposes, ought to be discountenanced by every
lover of peace and concord, no sound Democrat will have part or lot with
them. " Resolved, That political Abolitionism is but ancient Federalism, under
a new guise ; and that the political action of anti-slavery societies is only a
device for the overthrow of Democracy."
Now, Mr. Clerk, it becomes me, of course, to make some
remarks. They had Abolition societies springing up in those days,
and at that time it was doubtful with which party these Abolitionists
would vote. They put up a separate ticket, and it was this very
ticket that elected a President of the United States in 1844, and
changed the history and destiny of this Republic. Gentlemen
remind me that Governor Chase, of Ohio, is a good Republican
now, and a member of the Republican party, and was a member
of the Liberty party in 1844. I believe all this is true. Governor
Chase's principles are now well known. He is a Republican now;
nothing more. All men who believe, as the Abolitionists say they

442 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
believe, that Slavery is such an inherent wrong that the Consti
tution and laws can give it no validity, will go with the Repub
lican party for restricting it in any place where it does not exist,
though it is now a fact that Abolitionists, as a party, will have
no affiliation with the Republicans While at the same time, this
Abolition Society, which always was opposed to the Whig party,
because they did not go far enough upon this subject, defeated
Henry Clay, the great Whig champion, made Mr. Polk President,
acquired territory, and brought upon you the very questions which
ai'e now before you.
What I mean to say, sir, is, that in 1848 the Northern Demo
cratic party held these doctrines, going further than- the Whig party
of that day, reaching out their arms further to get hold of Slavery
in the States — for I conceive their action means nothing else — in
some form, by public opinion, or in some other way, to restrict it,
and finally to eradicate it. Well, they went on their way rejoicing.
But in 1848, it may be remembered, the Democratic party was car
ried captive to Babylon ; Zachary Taylor was elected President, and
he was a Whig. The Democracy hung their harps upon the willows,
by the streams of Babylon, and lifted up their voices and wept,
[ laughter J and mourned over the slain of the daughters of their peo
ple. What then happened ? Why, we maintained the doctrine that
you may restrict Slavery ; we stood with the fathers, the courts, the
Congresses and the Presidents, in an unbroken and unobstructed cur
rent of authority, up to the year 1852. The Democrats of the
North woke up suddenly, and said that Slavery was a very good
thing — that it helped to develop the resources of the country, and
improve it.
I only want to show that the Republicans cannot be converted
as quickly as the Democrats. 1 only want to show that we are some
what obstinate in our old opinions, and that when we go back, and
get into the assemblies of the Fathers — old men whose garments were
yet wet with the waters of the Red Sea through which they had
passed for our deliverance — we find that they held the Republican
doctrines with respect to the Territories. We cannot account for
the sudden conversion of our Democratic brethren of the North. I
hope they are happy in their new faith. I want all men to be happy,
all people to be happy — men, women, and children. I see that they
are happy.- For instance, if the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Crawford] were to get into a loving mood with the Democracy of

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 443
the North, he might murmur in the ear of my colleague [ Mr. Val
landigham ] a verse from the elegies of Shenstone :
" Dear region of silence and shade."
in reference to the Democratic party, [laughter] and then Mr. Vallan
digham, in his softest notes of affection, would take up the strain —
" Soft scenes of contentment and ease.
Where I have so happily strayed,
Since naught in thy absence could please."
Now, it is pleasant to see them thus dwelling together; for it is
impossible for such a man as I am, much as I am opposed to their
doctrines, to fail to sympathize with men, when I see they are per
fectly happy. Long may they live ; long may they live ; for if they
were to die suddenly, they might die in their sins. [Great laughter.]
A very curious question is this thing of hfe, and what a man
may do in a lifetime. In 1848 the Democratic party, with their eye
balls bloodshot, and the perspiration dropping off their noses, like
one of our sugar-trees in February, upon the south side of a hill,
[loud laughter] with their resolution in one hand, and the torch of
Abolition philosophy in the other, marched through the country,
proclaiming universal liberty, and the final advent of that day when
Slavery should be no longer recognized in the land. That is what
they did in eight short years — between 1848 and 1856. That is but
a short time in the annals of this country. Suppose any man had
been gifted as it is supposed the Wandering Jew was; suppose
Adam had been cursed with a continued existence up to this day,
and had started off with this doctrine in the beginning, and had
changed every eight years, how many times would he have changed ?
[Laughter.] Three-score and ten years seem to be the allotted period
of man in this age of the world ; and in that time he might change
seven or eight times. Now, my Republican friends, do not be dis
couraged. My Democratic friends upon the other side of the
House, do not let me make you unhappy. This is the year before
the Presidential election. Do not flatter yourselves that your church
is well founded, and that you can go through another Presidential
election as you went through the last. Besides, man is given to
change; mutability is stamped on all things. "Man is of few
days and full of sorrow," [laughter] "he cometh forth like a flower,
is cut down, and fleeth away like a shadow" — every eight years.
[Roars of laughter.]
In 1850 the present fugitive slave law was passed. Now, it is

444 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
always necessary, in order to understand the gyrations of political
parties, to know what happened accidentally or incidentally about a
particular time. A gentleman, who had been judge of our Supreme
Court of Ohio, was a Democratic candidate for Governor of Ohio in
1852. Mr. Fillmore was then President, and his was called a Whig
Administration. The extreme anti-Slavery people of the State of
Ohio did not like him. They abhorred him. Mr. Fillmore was
President at the time of the passage of these compromise measures.
What had the Democratic party to complain of in them ? Nothing.
The fugitive slave law had been passed, and Mr. Fillmore had given
it his approval. Judge Wood, the candidate of the Democratic
party, which had a great majority in Ohio, was elected Governor of
the State, and in his message to the Legislature he said :
"While public opinion may be divided, perhaps, on the law [the fugi
tive slave bill] there is, nevertheless, another matter in close connection with
it, on which it is believed the sentiments of the people are entirely united.
The area of Slavery must never be extended in this Government while the
voice, the united voice, and action of Ohio, in any constitutional form, can
stay it. Here, with propriety, we may take our stand. Thus far, proud
wave, shalt thou advance, but no further shalt thou come."
What did that mean ? You shall never have another slave State
in the Union. You shall never establish Slavery in another Territory
of the United States. The political voice of the Democratic party
of Ohio had spoken in that language in 1848. In 1852, the embod
iment of it in the gubernatorial office of that State proclaimed the
sentiments that I have read. I do not say now that Governor Wood
was wrong, or that the Democratic party was wrong ; but I only say
that mutability is stamped on all human things.
Now, I ask, how can the Democratic people of the North sit
still and hear the Republican party denounced as disorganizers and
disunionists, and as disloyal to the Constitution, as they are
denounced every hour and every day? The accusing eloquence of
these Southern men has been brought in full volume of rich rhetoric,
and launched on the heads of the Republican party, while, as I have
shown, they have only followed in the footsteps of the Northern
Democrats. The only difference is, that, as we think we have
derived our principles from the founders of the Repubhc, and as our
doctrines are sanctified by executive and judicial and legislative
approbation, we choose rather to follow these old principles than to
take up with new-fangled doctrines. Can you not forgive us for

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 445
that? If we be mistaken, can you not suppose that, at least, we
think we are doing right? Do you suppose we ever intend to go
into your States, and interfere with you there? There is not a man
of you who can delude himself into the belief that we have any idea
of subverting this glorious Union, which we worship so much that
we believe every word and every syllable of the fathers' sayings.
Now, I wish to announce that the day has gone by that these things
will be heard without response. This question shall be tried here, if
we can ever organize. Then it shall be brought to the standard of
constitutional law, on canons of construction that have been admit
ted ever since the intellect of man operated on the construction of
language; and we will try conclusions with the gentlemen of the
South. Moreover, if you announce, as you have done, that this
Union shaU be dissolved, that this constitutional Confederacy of ours
shall be broken up, because the people of the North choose to elect
a President — a man whom you do not like — we shall see where the
treason really lies.
That is my view of the subject. I think I am the most placable
man that was ever born of woman. I am prepared to enter into this
controversy with gentlemen like brethren — to controvert these mat
ters as statesmen, if we can elevate ourselves to that position, and
submit to a candid world to decide who is right. If the worid decide
against us, depend upon it that we shaU believe we have misappre
hended the pubhc opinion of the country, and shah submit to what
ever award that public opinion may make. That, in this country, is
the final arbiter of aU controversies of this kind, and must be obeyed.
In the meantime, I warn Democratic gentlemen to remember that a
doctrine is now coming up from the South, that the inhabitants of a
Territory have no power to prohibit Slavery therein. Parties have
so divided the people of the country, that they have begun to con
sider themselves enemies ; and we, instead of considering ourselves
the "conscript fathers" of the people, bound to consider the inter
ests, not of one State, but of aU the States, have commenced to
regard ourselves as the diplomatic Representatives of particular sec
tions of the country. I hold that every man on this floor is the
Representative of every man, woman and child in the Republic ; and
every act which he does, in a national aspect, must operate for good
or for evil on all. I hold that a man who acts for his section, and
not for the Union, does not comprehend the great duty that he is
sent here to discharge. Our fathers intended that Representatives

446 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
should be elected by districts, because then they would be well
known to the electors ; but they meant that when here, and after
they had taken the oath, they should be just as much the Represent
atives of every district in the United States as of the district that
sent them. That is my conception of our duty. That, I know, was
the idea of the fathers who made the Republic, and formed the
House as it is now formed.
Suppose us assembled together, Mr. Clerk, with these feeHngs,
and called on to legislate for the Territories that belong to us all —
that were won by the common blood and common treasure of all;
what would we then say? We would say this: "There are certain
portions of our children in the South who have property which will
not prove of any worth to them in the cold latitudes of this Terri
tory. They cannot go there. There are certain other children of
this family of ours — poor people, as we call them, meaning those
who must work for their living — and I hope that men will always be
compelled to work in some way, with the head or hand, for an hon-
¦est living — and here is the territory lying beyond the Mississippi,
called Kansas and Nebraska, for which Congress has power to make
all needful rules and regulations; let them go there." In the Terri
tories are emigrants from the State of Georgia, from Virginia, from
all the States of the East and the West. Your own constituents are
the relations and dear friends of these people. So are mine. They
are unacquainted with each other ; a heterogeneous people, not yet
homogeneous enough to make their own laws in harmony.
When we prohibit Slavery in a Territory, we allow men from all
the States to go there with the same rights exactly. While a man
from a slave State may not take a slave into the Territory and hold
him in Slavery, neither can one of my children in Ohio 'purchase a
negro in Kentucky and take him there, and hold him as a slave. Is
not that equally just to all? I know that you say every one should
go there with his property, of whatever kind ; but I say that this law
of inhibiting Slavery is equal and just to men of every section.
Everybody may go there with the same sort of property. We make
no distinction between any. If it be a Territory in which slave labor
is unprofitable, you ought to be rebuked, from the mere motive of
economy. Let us look at it as a mere question of economy. The
whole country belongs to us, and you are our children. We are to
divide it among you. Suppose you have one son who can work in
a warm climate, and another who can work in a cold cHmate. In

ON THE ' SLAVERY QUESTION. 447
dividing your estate between them, you give to each that portion of
it which suits his wants in that respect. You have one a mechanic ;
you do not give him a farm, and set him to work as a farmer. Nei
ther should you take the negro to work where his labor would be
unprofitable. Mr. Reagan — I understand the gentleman is now speaking for the
Repubhcan party.
Mr. Corwin — No, sir ; I am speaking for a leader of that party.
[Laughter]. Mr. Reagan — ^Then 1 ask the gentleman for himself, and not for the
Republican party, if he recognizes the right of people owning slaves to go
into a Territory in a Southern latitude, and occupy that Territory with their
slaves with the protection of the Government ?
Mr. Corwin — I will speak for myselfi If you acquire territory
by treaty, and the people in it hold slaves, I would not, against their
will, interfere with Slavery there. I would act, in that particular,
just as the Congresses of 1798 and 1804 acted in relation to Missis
sippi and Orleans Territories. If Slavery were there, I would not
disturb it. I would not interfere with the rights of property against
the will of the people ; and if you get territory where the white man
cannot work, I would permit people of the States to send their
slaves there; and when there, certainly, I would protect them, if
protection were wanted. I agree with the gentlemen of the extreme
South in one point : whenever you can show me that, under the laws
and Constitution of the United States, ( as you phrase it, under the
Constitution,) Slavery is lawfully in a Territory, I hold it to be a
duty to make laws to protect property lawfully held anywhere, if
such laws be necessary for its protection ; but remember, I do not
believe the Constitution takes Slavery into Territories, or anywhere
else. Slavery is the creature of local, municipal law. Whenever
you acquire a territory where Slavery exists, if you have a treaty
sanctioned by two-thirds of the Senate of the United States, you are
just as sure of Slavery as we are sure of what we call "freedom" in
Ohio. I dare say that some of my tender-footed brethren on the
Republican side of the House wince a httle at that, but I act upon
possibihties and upon probabilities.
And there is another thing which you do, which is totally at
war with one of the fundamental maxims of our Government. You
begin by sending forth to the worid the very doctrines of Rousseau's

448 SPEECHES OP THOMAS CORWIN.
social compact — that Government claims its rightful authority from
the consent of the people governed. And then you conquer a coun
try, and a part is ceded to you, but no consent of the people thus
ceded is ever asked. You seize them and govern them, whether
they consent or not. You did not ask the people of California, or
New Mexico whether they were willing to be American citizens.
You took the treaty, and you took the lands and the people. So
when you get Cuba — which you will not get soon ; but whenever you
do get it, if you ever should. Slavery will be there ; and the Spanish
Government, when it cedes that island, will say that you shall take
the people, with all their rights of property. That is sure to be
done, if the time ever arrives when you are to acquire Cuba. So if
you acquire territory where white men cannot work. There are such
countries ; I have been told so by the best physicians I ever knew.
What do you want with such territory, unless you have slaves, if
it be true that free negroes will not work without coercion? If I
were the father of all the world, and I had some children who
could work in cold and temperate climates, I would send them there
to work ; and if I had other children who could work only in the
warmer portions of the globe, I would send them there; and if they
would not go, I would make them. I am not speaking of constitu
tional law. I look at society as it is. What will you do with the
men who will not work, and will eat? I know what we do with
them in Ohio. We send them to the poor-house, and make them
work. Some, for reasons known to the law, are sent to the peniten
tiary, where they are deprived of their inalienable right, to liberty.
That is a question we cannot discuss here. I state it for the benefit
of weak brothers, who never think about the matter. [Laughter.]
If my white son would not work in the proper place for him, I
would punish him ; and if I had a black man, who, like the ana
conda, fattened upon malaria, and only lived well in a rice swamp,
there I would make him go.
I know that I have no right to do anything of that kind. The
moral right, according to our conceptions of God's will, meets with
a different interpretation in the different countries of the world.
One of the most honest, upright men of aU the Roman Emperors I
ever read of — I mean Vespasian — took thirty thousand Jewish pris
oners when he went to conquer Judea. He pledged the honor of a
Roman general, that, if these men surrendered, they should receive
quarter and be treated as prisoners of war. When he came to hold

on THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 449
a council of war as to what disposition should be made of them,
every ofiicer was for kihing them. They said, "If the Emperor
trust them upon parole of honor, there is no faith in the Jews, and
to-morrow they wih be kilhng us." The question was put like the
celebrated speech of a Scotch colonel, in the army of Gustavus
Adolphus. The commander-in-chief, before a certain engagement,
ordered that each one of his colonels should make a speech at the
head of his regiment. The old Scotchman, who had never done
anything in his life but cleave skulls, said: "My lads, ye see those
fellows in black. Well, if ye dinna kill them, they maun kill you."
That was a difficult question to be decided by Vespasian's council of
war. How was it compromised ? The honor of a Roman general
was pledged. (So is mine. I am sworn to obey the Constitution
and the laws of the country.) It was agreed that one portion of the
prisoners should be spared and treated as prisoners of war, that
another should be sold into Slavery, and the rernainder put to death.
Alas I for poor human nature. We will always kill a man when we
know he is going to kill us. It seems, then, that having no such
power as I have stated, nations, like families, must let each other
alone. The slave trade, as I have said already, was an abomination
from the beginning. It was wrong in the beginning. Year after
year I have listened to talk, on one side and on the other, about this
question of negro Slavery. I was a delegate to the Colonization
Society, which met at the Smithsonian Institution. I thought I would
go there and see whether I could hear a solution of this question.
One of the most eloquent and learned men I have hstened to for a
long time made an address. He was one of those divines who, I
know, will preach what he believes. He said that the finger of God
was plainly to be seen in the slave trade. In old times. Governor
Oglethorpe endeavored to keep Slavery out of Georgia, as every
man knows who has read the history of that State. It was brought
there, and he could not keep it out. Whitfield, that eminent divine,
was there. He told Oglethorpe to let Slavery alone, for the hand of
the Almighty was in it. He said, "we have been trying to Chris
tianize the world ; we are at it now ; and what progress have our
missionaries made ? Very little, or none. Let the poor negro be
brought into this country, and whether his master likes it or not, he
will imbibe some idea of the morals of Christianity, and in due time
the right missionaries will be those of the black race, to return
30

450 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
among their own color. Thus, that wicked man who sold this people
into Slavery, in the hands of Heaven will have proved the instru
ment of bringing them to Christianity and civilization."
If the finger of God be in Slavery, let the Southern man take
care how he treats these missionaries, these instruments of Heaven
for the great work of Christianizing the heathen African. Keep
them in Slavery if you will ; but, as that Whitfield said, you cannot
take a negro and keep him ten years in this country without his
becoming a more enlightened man than when he left the shores of
Africa. Take care that you give him freely that light. The pres
ent generation of negroes sprung from those brought here a cen
tury ago, will, I believe, compare favorably with the most intelligent
of their own countrymen in Africa. Let us, then, not despair of the
ultimate fortunes of the negro races. We hear of what is doing in
Liberia. I must remind my boastful white brethren here, that the
history of the legislation in that black colony would warrant any one
in the conclusion that our colored brethren there would have organ
ized their Congress with more temperate judgment, and in much
shorter time, than we have consumed in our efforts, which, up to
this time, seem to promise no very speedy result. [Laughter].
Who knows, sir, but that Slavery may accomplish the great
work of Christianizing and civilizing the African race? May we not
hope, that while these people are content, even in Slavery, to
advance in civilization in this country, and to develop the resources of
countries which it is said can be developed by slave labor alone, the
great ends and purposes of Him who sits enthroned in the circle of
the Heavens will be accomplished by some agency to us as yet
unknown. That wonderful man, Cyrus, did not know that he was execut
ing the commands of God, when he invaded Babylon, as it had been
foretold. So it may be that you, who so much admire the institution
of Slavery — and I do not mean to discuss its merits here — like
Cyrus, may be the chosen instruments, even against your own
wishes, to work out the purposes of Almighty God. When your
negroes shall have reached the point of civilization which will fit
them to enjoy that portion of liberty which a rational Government
may give them, then they will no longer be your slaves. They will
then stay and work with you for moderate wages, cheaper than the
white man can, or they wiH go abroad, such of them as choose to
go, on the great errand of the great Master of us all, to carry the

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 451
light of His Gospel to a benighted people. I think that looks plau
sible enough. Nothing in this debate has given me so much pleas
ure as listening to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Davidson],
when he told us upon this side of the House, that the Gospel is
preached upon his plantation in Louisiana, just as it is preached in
the churches in the North. And so Southern members assure me it
is everywhere in the South. When the master conducts himself in
that way to his poor, ignorant slave, he will be enlightened.
If it be possible for the black man — -and that is a question upon
which I am no philosopher — to rise by slow and gradual degrees to
that intellectual and moral eminence which shall qualify him for
another state than that which he now occupies, depend upon it, mas
ters, when the time comes, will be willing to assent to the change of
his condition. So I think Slavery, so I think history, teaches us.
But in the meantime I admit that there are a great many evils con
nected with the system.
I assure gentlemen of the South that that kind of disciphne
which our education and mode of life at the North give us does not
allow us to be quite so free in the indulgence of these fits of ill tem
per which come upon us at times, whether in the North or South,
or in the expression which may be given in words to that frailty.
You are good and honorable gentlemen, but you make entirely too
much noise for our Northern tastes, [laughter] and you are "too
sudden and quick in quarrel." But do not misunderstand the people
of the North. Their education and training teach them to govern
their passions. That is just the difference between us. But when
the quarrel does come, which to them appears just, why, then I will
not enter into recognizance that they will keep the peace. I have
seen it tried before now.
Why, then, shah we not have harmony? I assert here — and I
care not for anybody's criticism — that this Slavery question would
not exist two hours in this House, if you passed a resolution not to
acquire any more territory for ten years. If it could be that there
should not be another Presidential election for ten years, that of
itself would bring peace. The cause of discontent and strife, in a
great measure, is, that we must have a Presidential election in a few
months. You do not want any more slave territory. How will you
fill up Texas, which has been generously devoted for all the surplus
slaves for fifty years? Do you expect to find a milder climate or a
better latitude? You quarrel with the people of the North about

452 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
the settlement of Kansas. There are four States for you to fill,
where you can go unquestioned. Go first and bring into cultivation
those fertile lands yet unoccupied, before you think of another
expansion of territory. You will not go there, but stand here quar
reling with us, Northern Republicans, because you cannot get more
territory. If you had more territory, you could not settle it, because
you have not the slave labor.
A gentleman upon the other side of the House called out to us
the other day : ' ' Disband your Republican party ; disband it ; you
threaten the peace of the Union." Sir, I am not afraid of this
Union. I see plainly enough that I can save it in the last extremity,
just by letting a Democrat be elected President. [Great laughter.]
Ever since I found that out, I have cared little what you say about
danger to the Union. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Barks
dale] declared, also, that his State would go right off out of the
Union, in the event of the election of Mr. Seward. The people of
the State of Mississippi may walk out, but the State never will.
Why, sir, I have heard of this thing ever since I have heard any
thing in public affairs. In 1833, South Carolina was determined to
go out of the Union, because of what she deemed an excessive duty
on foreign goods. Pennsylvania was going out because we taxed
her whisky in 1794 ; and Massachusetts thought the Union was
endangered when Louisiana was purchased. Each and all of these
States yet remain, and are, I trust, loyal to the Union. I have lived
through three dissolutions of the Union myself, [great laughter] and
the Union is stronger to-day than when its dissolution was first
threatened — stronger than it was in the beginning. The State of
Mississippi is a glorious little State, covered all over with cotton ;
and, in my judgment, she will be "cotton to" the Union to the last.
[Laughter.] All these planets which revolve around this great con
stitutional center, whence truth, light, political knowledge radiate,
may threaten to fly off occasionally. Mississippi may seem to fly
off in some eccentric orbit, but she will soon return to her proper
perihelion. I do not say how she will do it, but she certainly will
do it of her own accord. Let us then hear no more of this angry
talk about disunion ; but, like men, like brethren, as we are, work
earnestly and happily together for the common good of all.
As to this question of Territorial legislation, touching Slavery in
the Territories, let gentlemen pause upon that, and consider before
they rush to conclusions. I tell gentlemen of the South — and the

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 453
day will come when they will remember my advice — not to trust
Northern people to make laws of their own in the Territories for the
exclusion or protection of Slavery. I do not care where you go, in
any latitude under the heavens where a white man can live and work,
the Yankees wih go there too. Wherever clocks can be used or sold,
there they wiU be. If they come to learn that it is the law of the
Republic that the status of the country is fixed forever by the first
inhabitants, instead of settling that status here, among men who are
responsible to the country and to history, they will settle the ques
tion as they did in Kansas. They will always beat you, if you open
the question in that way. Let this calm, deliberate, legislative
assembly of gentlemen, who legislate for the whole Union of thirty
millions of people — let them determine whether it is better that Slav
ery should go there or not ; let that question come here, where we
look at this great country and all the Territories we have, and all we
may ever acquire, as common patrimony, alike of all the States, and
all the people we represent.
The population which usually goes into new Territories is gen
erally led by an eager and sometimes wild spirit of adventure. The
people will keep out the negro, because they have no negroes of
their own, no slaves of their own. I care not whether the Territory
be at the north pole or near the equator, they will go there, and will
keep your negroes out, if you allow them to determine whether Slavery
shall be there or not. I should think that any man who has looked
at the history of Kansas for the last three years, with reference to
this matter, will not doubt my conclusions. In consequence of Con
gress giving up this ' great conservative power to make laws for an
uncongenial, heterogeneous people, civil war raged for three years
over the beautiful plains of Kansas, where there should have been
nothing heard but the jocund whistle of the plowman driving his
team to the field, and where nothing else or worse would have been
heard, if Congress had only made laws to govern that Territory, and
sent its Governor, and, if necessary, troops, to execute the law. You
made an experiment there, and you know the result.
What have you in another Territory now ? You say you cannot
make laws for Utah. You have denied the power of Congress to
make laws for the Territories. What is Utah? A blot on the fair
pages of your history, which all the waters of Lethe can never wash
out — a foul, incestuous den of miserable adulterers and murderers —
a disgrace to a civilized and Christian country. That is what comes

)4 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
¦ this glorious new doctrine which you have propagated on all sides.
hat comes of your parting with the wise usages and the wise insti-
itions of your fathers ; and so it will ever be, the moment you aban-
Dn those well-established, constitutional rules fixed by the founders
' the Republic. You have abandoned the great highways of the
1st — the good macadamized roads made for you — every mile-stone
" which was red with revolutionary blood ; you have strayed away
om them, and wandered after wills-o'-the-wisp into swamps and
y-paths. All that the Republican party wish to do, is to stand up
id call you back as a mother calls to her lost child, and put you on
le safe old road again. They call upon you to come out of the
ilderness ; to quit the shedding of each other's blood in fratricidal
ar for the right to have this or that law ; to let the Congress of the
^nited States, who represent the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, of
le peaceful emigrants who have gone into the Territories, consider
hat is best for their children and friends. But abandon, as you
ive abandoned, the institutions of your Fathers, and there will be
either peace nor progress in the Territories. There will be strife
ere, and civil war there, and wild confusion will reign supreme.
The wise prophet of Israel, after he came down from the moun-
lin with the law in his hand, and found his brother Aaron worhip-
ig a golden calf which he had made, was so angry that he threw
own the tables of the law, and broke them. He determined that
lat wicked people should never have an opportunity of worshiping
xy more golden calves ; he made all the women bring in their trink-
:s and golden ornaments, and melted them down in one mass. Let
s, in the same spirit, bring in these miserable idols of ours ; sacrifice
lem on the common altar of our country ; shake hands, forget and
)rgive. And now, before I sit down, let me ask again, are the destinies
f this mighty Republic to turn on the publication of a pamphlet?
'ou know that the gentleman whom we have nominated will make a
1st and impartial Speaker. Concede that for once. Concede that
e will have to elect by a plurality. I think that, if we could, we
ught to elect by a majority. There is something symmetrical in it.
ou say, he should be elected by a majority, because, in the happen-
ig of two or three very remote contingencies, he may become Pres-
lent of the United States. But, as I said yesterday, no President
r Vice-President will ever be found, both amiable enough to die and
:t the Speaker take that place. We will not consider that contin-

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 455
gency. If we cannot agree upon one man, is it possible, in the
name of the American people, that we cannot find some man in this
Congress who is fit to preside over this House ?
It has been stated that I said that I would vote for Mr. Sherman
till the last trump should sound. A better man than I am changed
his mind. David, King of Israel, repented of what he said, when
he remarked, "I have said, in my haste, that all men are liars." I
concede that fact, when I state now that I am willing to vote for any
one almost who can be elected. If this protracted contest means any.
thing, we cannot elect a Republican ; we cannot elect a Lecompton
Democrat; we cannot elect an anti-Lecompton Democrat; and though
there may be as many shades of party as Jacob had stripes in his cat.
tie — I do not know how many — it seems that we cannot elect any
one of them. I know of but one man in this House who does not
belong to any party, and I have thought that perhaps we might unite
upon him. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Horace F. Clark]
belongs to no party; he will not act with any party; does not love
any party ; does not hate any party ; does not care for any party.
[Great laughter]. Why not elect him?
Mr. Clerk, I believe that I am abusing my priviles here. [Cries
of "Goon!"] I hope the observations which I have made, Mr. Clerk, forced
from me without any of that preparation which is usual, may not be
entirely worthless. Whether we consider this ever-recurring ques
tion of Slavery as resting within our unrestricted discretion, or
whether we regard it as fixed and limited by constitutional law — in
either aspect, with good sense, guided by true patriotism — there is
nothing to be feared. The way through the future is, in my judg
ment, open, clear and plain. We cannot be so weak as to give way
to childish fears, or sink into lethargy and despair. On the contrary,
let us "gird up our loins" to the work before us; for upon us this
duty is devolved. We cannot escape from it if we would. Let us,
above all, preserve our Constitution inviolate, and the Union which
it created unbroken. By the lights they give us, with the aids of an
enlightened religion, and an ever-improving Christian philosophy, let
us march onward and onward in the great highway of social prog
ress. Let us always keep in the advancing car of that progress —
our book of Constitutions and our Bible. Like the Jews of old, let
the ark of the covenant be advanced to the front in our march.
With these to guide us, I feel the proud assurance that our free prin-

456 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
ciples will take their way through all coming time ; and before them
I do believe that the cloven-footed altars of oppression, all over the
world, will fall down, as Dagon of old fell down, and was shivered to
pieces in the presence of the ark of the living God.
But if we halt in this great exodus of the nations ; if we are
broken into inconsiderable fragments, and ultimately dispersed,
through our follies of this day, what imagination can compass the
frightful enormity of our crime 1 What would the world say of this
unpardonable sin? Rather than this, we should pray the kind Father
of all, even His wicked children, to visit us with the last and worst of
all the afflictions that fall on sin and sinful man. Better for us would
it be that the fruitful earth should be smitten for a season with bar
renness, and become dry dust, and refuse its annual fruits; better
that the heavens for a time should become brass, and the ear of God
deaf to our prayers ; better that Famine, with her cold and skinny
fingers, should lay hold upon the throats of our wives and children ;
better that God should commission the Angel of Destruction to go
forth over the land, scattering pestilence and death from his dusky
wing, than that we should prove faithless to our trust, and by that
means our light should be quenched, our liberties destroyed, and all
our bright hopes die out in that night which knows no coming dawn.

ON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF
THIRTY-THREE.

The second session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress met in December, i860, after
the election but before the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. The distracted state of
the country immediately engaged the attention of both branches. In the House a mo
tion was made, "That so much of the President's message as relates to the present
perilous condition of the country, be referred to a special committee of one from each
State." This was adopted by a vote of — ayes, 145; noes, 38. The committee was
appointed by the Speaker ; it consisted of thirty-three members, with Mr. CoRWiN as
chairman, and it embraced some of the most eminent men in the nation. On January
14th, 1861, Mr. Corwin presented to the House the report of the committee, which
consisted of a series of resolutions and a joint resolution to amend the constitution of
the United States ; an act for the admission of New Mexico into the Union ; and an
amendment to the fugitive slave law, and the law relating to fugitives from justice.
The report of " the committee of thirty- three " being under consideration on January
2ist, 1861, Mr. Corwin spoke as follows:
Mr. Speaker : It is not my intention to occupy the time of
the House this morning with the submission to them of remarks
upon many of the topics which are naturally associated with the
great questions before us. I shall have discharged the duty which I
feel incumbent upon me as one of the committee of thirty-three,
when I have presented the subjects which have been introduced,
with a few very brief explanations of the motives which have
induced the committee to recommend the adoption of the resolu
tions and bills which accompany their report.
It is about thirty years since I first took a seat in this House as
a representative from the Congressional district in Ohio in which I
now reside. Two years after that time I was called upon to act in
my representative character upon a subject very nearly akin to, if
not identical with, that which now widely distracts the public mind
from one end of this vastly-extended republic to the other. At the
time to which I now allude, a portion of the southern people of this
country, led on then, as now, by the State of South Carolina, had
declared, in a convention of their people, that the then existing laws
levying duties upon foreign merchandise, in its judgment being
(457)

458 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
unconstitutional, had absolved that State from its obligations to the
Union. She did not then actually attempt to secede. I believe
that was not the term then used to signify the action of that State.
She proposed to strike down the laws of the United States within
her limits ; and this was denominated nullification.
This movement of South Carolina met with little sympathy at
that time from the other southern States of the Union. Other
causes for the present distraction of our Union are now assigned ;
but the same mode of accomplishing it is adopted substantially. It
was then alleged that a supposed unconstitutional act of Congress
was to be adjudged of and decided upon in the last resort by any
and every State in the Union that might choose to assume jurisdic
tion of the question. South Carolina had determined for herself,
and her decision was then announced, that this act, levying duties on
foreign merchandise, was unconstitutional, and, in its nature and in
its tendency oppressive to the people of that section of the Union.
Therefore she would withdraw herself from the Union, and establish
an independent republic of her own. The doctrine now asserted in
some of the States is, that an unconstitutional act, passed by the
Legislature of a State, is of itself a ground for a withdrawal from
the Union whenever any State shall choose to consider such law
a violation of any provision contained in our Federal Constitution.
I little thought, when that unhappy difficulty which so much
excited the pubHc mind from 1831 to 1833 was composed, that at
the near termination of my natural life, and the still nearer approach
to the close of political service, 1 should ever be called upon again
to give a vote or utter a word which would have any application to
a question of such fearful import. But, sir, I believe the pages of
history will show that in every stage of human progress, from the:
beginning of the time when man began to be an occupant of this
earth, his restless and unquiet nature, while it has prompted him to
great improvements, has often led him to forsake the present good
for some vague hope, never to be realized, in the future.
Any one who had read the history of one of the greatest
of the empires of the world, especially of its decline and its disper
sion into fragrants, might have well suspected that at some period in
the history of this confederated republic a tendency to fly off" from
the center of attraction would, sooner or later, be exhibited in some
of the States ; and that from that cause, as the makers of the Con
stitution, some of them did believe, we might expect, at some day

ON REPORT OP COMMITTEE OP THIRTY-THREE. 469
or Other, an attempted dissolution of the bonds which hold us
together as one people.
Such is now our condition, and that unhappy state of things has
this day brought us to the consideration of the means by which the
threatened catastrophe may be averted. We are called on to
exhaust every means possible to accomplish a peaceful adjustment of
present difificulties, and if these should fail to effect the desired end,
then we must determine whether this government has the right and
the power to enforce the laws of the United States, and hold and
protect the property of the United States any and everywhere
within its territorial limits.
The word coercion has been made one of very fearful import by
some, when used to signify the power of the general government
to compel individual obedience to its laws. Much useless contro
versy, I think, has been had on both sides of the House touching
the power of the United States to coerce a State. The Constitution,
in my judgment, does not look to the coercion of a State. It only
proposes to enforce obedience to its provisions upon the people of
the United States, and I have always supposed it conveyed to the
United States Government the right and the power to resist and
punish all forcible opposition to its laws, offered by any number of
persons, whether acting upon their own responsibility, or under the
assumed authority of any State or combination of States.
But it is not my purpose now to discuss this question. My
mission to-day is one of conciliation, of peace. 3f grievances, real
or imaginary, are presented to me by one or more members of this
great family of States, I am ready to consider them, and employ
every resource within my power to remove or redress wrong, if
wrong has been done; to soothe anger if it exists; to remove
unfounded prejudices, or explain unhappy misunderstandings; to
heal wounds if there be any ; not to irritate and intensify them ; if
danger is apprehended to the rights of any portion of the people, I
am ready to shield them from even the apprehension of danger, by
fortifying their rights with further constitutional guarantees'.^ Show
me the wrong, and I will redress it if in my power ; point out the
danger, and I, if possible, will offer every security against it, and
pledge every power of the government to avert it. To effect these
beneficent purposes, the committee have diligently labored, and have
instructed me to report the bills and resolutions before us.>
Mr. Speaker, I cannot, will not, give up the belief that, if the

460 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
people of the United States, in the States north as well as in the
States south, can be satisfied that the causes of complaint which
have led to these strange and, as I think, unwarrantable movements
of the southern States, have any foundation in fact, these causes can
be, and will be, at once removed. These, sir, are the grounds of
my hope that public tranquility will again be restored.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I proceed to the consideration of two
or three topics embraced in the report, which, when, I have
explained, I shall for the present resign this debate into other hands.
We are compelled, in matters of this kind, to resort to a species of
information which is not always accurate, but the best at our com
mand. It has been alleged, sir, that unconstitutional laws have been
passed by several of the States of this Union which have a tendency
to embarrasss the operation of the laws of the United States, and
especially that for the recapture of fugitives from labor. It is
alleged that such acts, by some, or by many of the States, were in
the judgment of the southern States, sufficent cause for dissolving
their connection with the Union. These laws have acquired the
popular name of personal liberty laws. They have been so denomi
nated by the popular language of several of the States. And here,
Mr. Speaker, you will find the position which we now occupy differs
in principle very little, if at all, from that in which we were placed
by the attempted secession of South Carolina in 1832-33.
Then it was alleged that a law passed by Congress which had a
prejudicial effect on any portion of the Union, and adjudged by a
State convention to be unconstitutional, was, of itself, sufficient rea
son for dissolving the Union. Now, it is said, if a State should pass
a law unconstitutional in its character, that the proper judicature to
determine that unconstitutionality is a sovereign State ; and that if
that be so, then a State has the right to sever its connection with the
Union, and carry its citizens away from all allegiance to the United
States Government.
Undoubtedly, if this had been the case, if either of these had
been considered a sufficient cause for breaking up the Union of the
States, there have been a thousand cases which might have been
seized upon with just as much propriety as now. The reports of
your judicial courts, State and Federal, are full of decisions which
have declared that such and such laws of the United States were
unconstitutional ; that such and such laws of the States over which
that judicatory extended were also unconstitutional. It was for the

ON REPORT OP COMMITTEE OP THIRTY-THREE. 461
very purpose of having a tribunal to whom such questions should be
referred, whose decisions upon such subjects should protect the citi
zens against violations of the constitutions. State and Federal, that
the supreme courts of the several States, and the United States cir
cuit and supreme courts were established ; and the supreme court of
the United States was established to protect the rights of the people
of all the States existing under the Constitution, treaties, and laws of
the United States, against encroachment, by either Congress or the
States. To that arbitrament, ever since the adoption of the Consti
tution, it has been the habit of the peace-loving people of the coun
try to submit any dispute of that kind ; and hitherto it has shown
itself to be well and wisely adapted to the great duty assigned to it.
But now it is said that the States are the proper tribunals by which
such questions should be decided. If that be so, then the objects of
the great men who made this Constitution were not attained.
The alleged unconstitutional laws to which I have adverted were
enacted by the States, as they assert, for the laudable purpose of
protecting the free people of those States from possible danger aris
ing out of the manner in which the laws of Congress touching the
recapture of fugitive slaves was executed in their limits. I might
here say that I have not approved of many of these laws myself;
but it is not for me to arraign the Legislature of a sovereign State,
nor win I hghtly condemn any attempt it may make to preserve
what it deems a just right of the people over whom its legislative
jurisdiction extends. But, is it not obvious — ^just as obvious to my
brethren of the South as it can be to anybody else — that if any such
law has ever existed upon the statute-book of any State of the
Union, such a law was totally void, unless you assume the proposi
tion that the law of the United States with which it comes in conflict
is void? I am looking at this alleged cause of grievance now, as one
which, if it have any foundation in fact, whatever, can be easily
removed ; or rather, I wish to say, it cannot possibly have any effect
upon the interests and rights of the southern men and slavery. The
law concerning the recapture of fugitive slaves, has, by the act of
1850, been submitted exclusively to the courts of the United States.
The State courts have now nothing to do with it, as was the case
under the law of 1793. It must follow as a legal consequence, if
they deem the law of 1793, and the amendatory law of 1850, to be
within the constitutional powers of Congress, that they will execute

462 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
that law ; and every law, and every State constitution coming in con
flict with any part of that law will be declared by them totally void.
When I assert this as a legal proposition, I presume there is not
a man on this floor who will not agree with me. If, then, some of
these laws passed by some States, called northern, have come in con
flict with the laws of the United States, they were mere incompetent
acts of the States, mere incapable attempts by the States to inter
fere with the just and proper execution of that law of the United
States which, when declared constitutional by the courts of the Fed
eral Government, is made, by the Constitution under which we live,
the paramount law of the land ; for that Constitution ordained that
the Constitution itself and the laws made in pursuance of it, and the
treaties made under it, should be the supreme law of the land, any
thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not
withstanding. The committee were painfully anxious to find out whether any
injury had ever resulted to the property of any southern man by
reason of this conflict of law. I beg my friends upon this side of
the House to pardon the use of that common word as applicable to
the condition of a person who owes labor to another. A slave in
the slave States is called property, and is treated as such. He is
also called a person, and treated as such. I may as well stop here a
moment to say that I am not very much skilled in philology ; but I
profess to know something about legal phraseology. Upon this
point allow me to say that, whenever a man owns a thing which is
of value, and which can be converted into good Federal money, I
call that thing property. I do not say that man can hold property
in man ; but I do say there is a relation created between slaves and
the owners who hold them by the laws of the slave States, which
relation is a thing of value, and may as well be called property, recog
nized by the Constitution of the United States, so far as to declare
in plain terms, that every State is bound to deliver up one of those
persons who runs away from the man to whom he owes labor ; and
in that it does recognize the right of any State to establish that sort
of relation. I pray the day may never arrive when the Federal
Government shall assume jurisdiction over a subject so clearly
belonging to States alone, except in the simple case of territory not
yet formed into States.
That relation between the man that does owe labor and him to
whom that labor is due is called, in the familiar phraseology of the

ON REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THIRTY-THREE. 463
country, Slavery. Though I will not be bound by any criticism of
my own on questions of this kind, yet I may observe, in passing,
that the word "slave" has been strangely perverted from its original
meaning. I think if the history of that very word were looked into
by the gentlemen of the South, it would teach them something worth
their attention ; and among other matters, that the familiar appella
tion which they give the black man was derived from the national
patronymic of a people now constituting one of the most powerful
empires existing upon this earth. It was a name given to and
applied to white men, to blue-eyed men, and to fair-skinned men.
It was simply " sclave" or " sclavon," a name which, far back in the
history of the world, was applied to that powerful nation. So many of
them were in the condition of servants, that it became a common,
familiar name in after times for all people who were in a state of
abject servitude. That former slave or slavon now sways his scepter
over sixty or seventy millions of people, and may safely defy half
Europe in any contest of national strength.
The great autocrat who well and wisely presides with imperial
and despotic sway over that Russian empire, has found it convenient,
recently, to institute a system of things which looks to the extinc
tion of serfage throughout his entire dominions. Strange, indeed,
are those changes, which time and events bring about. The very
people, once so abject as to make their national name in after times
a synonyme with servitude, have become powerful and the owners
of vast numbers of slaves ; and in the plentitude of that power have
resolved that slavery or serfage shall exist no longer among them.
Why, then, should we, at this day, carry on this war of words?
We are concerned about things no matter by what word or form of
words those things are represented. I think we may as safely call
that relation of a slave to his owner property, as to give the name of
property to any other thing which a man by law may buy and sell.
Whether you call a slave property or a person, you do not change
the nature of his relation to his owner ; you do not alter his condi
tion, nor your obligation to acknowledge it by one or the other form
of definition. It is enough to know that whether rightly called
property or persons owning labor, the Constitution declares that if
they escape from him to whom their labor is due by the laws of any
State, they may be followed, reclaimed, and shall be delivered up.
An alleged opposition to the law, founded on the clause in the Con-

464 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
Stitution to which I have referred, forms one of the complaints of
the South against the North.
As I have before stated, the law of the United States in ques
tion has devolved upon the courts of the United States exclusive
power to administer and execute it. It has been declared constitu
tional by those courts. It follows that it is paramount in authority,
either to the law of a State or the constitution of a State ; and noth
ing therefore which controverts it, either in the organic law or in the
legislative acts of a State is worth more, as an instrumentality in
preventing you from recovering your fugitive slave than so much
blank paper bound up in the legislative archives of any State. It
will not do, therefore, Mr. Speaker, for us to sujppose that gentle
men of the South, intelligent men of the South, lawyers of the
South, statesmen of the South, have ever in their own minds consid
ered that this supposed conflict of laws furnishes sufficient cause for
disrupting the bonds of mutual good-will and brotherly regard which
grew naturally out of the Constitution and the union of these States.
It has been sometimes said — and is distinctly referred to in the
President's message this year — that the northern newspaper press
has emitted publications which, when circulated in the South, have
a tendency to excite domestic insurrection. It has been obvious to
every one that against these wrongs, it becomes every State to guard
itself First, I hold it to be the duty of every free State in the
Union to suppress any publication, designed to be circulated in the
South or North with the intent to create domestic insurrection. It
is the plain duty of every State to suppress such publications, and to
punish their authors.
I am well aware that I tread on dangerous ground when I treat
of the proper line to be drawn between the freedom and the licen
tiousness of the press. I know how prone have been the rulers in
other countries to use this dangerous power improperly; still, under
proper restrictions, while the jury is left free to determine the intent
whether good or bad, with which a book or paper is written or pub
lished, no good citizen is likely to suffer from the principle I
propose, I hold that every political association calling itself a govern
ment has the rightful power to protect its own peace, and by proper
means to preserve itself from destruction. In a form of Govern
ment such as ours, where all the laws are enacted by persons elected
by a majority of all the people, any publication made with the

ON REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THIRTY-THREE. 465
express intention to excite forcible opposition to the laws, involving
in its consequences aU the dangers of civil war, should be regarded
as a crime and so treated, and its author and publisher punished
accordingly. We are indebted to the labors of Lord Erskine, in England, for
the establishment of the true and safe rule on this subject. The
publication must be such as would necessarily tend to excite domes
tic insurrection, and.it must be written or published with the wicked
intent to produce insurrection ; of these the jury should be left to
judge. Thus, while press and tongue are left perfectly free to exert
all their powers to reform abuses or promote great public purposes,
both are only required to so exert their powers and faculties as not
to promote the destruction of all government ; at least, not to intend
to do it. What sort of a citizen is he, who, having these easy reme
dies for the safeguard of all his rights, instead of appealing to the
judgment of mankind in careful and well-considered articles, will
publish an article or utter a speech with the intent to excite insurrec
tion against those laws, made by the sufifrages of all the people?
God knows I would be the last man in the world who would do any
thing that should prevent the freedom of speech, for that is the only
freedom I have ever known. But if there is any feature that distin
guishes this Government from others — the autocracy of Russia, or
even constitutional monarchy — it is, that here the people, by their
chosen representatives, make all the laws. State and Federal. For
this reason, he who undertakes to put down the laws thus made, by
incendiary publications, instead of asking the people to vote upon
the subject as he himself would vote upon it — willfully and wickedly
excites to domestic insurrection, and should be punished as an
enemy to the public peace.
I here dismiss that part of the general subject, not doubting
that the good sense of the people of the States will, by proper
enactments at the proper time, secure us against the evils complained
of. I think it has been shown to the satisfaction of every gentle
man that if any law has been passed by any State intended to
impede any southern man in the recapture of one of those persons
who owe labor to him — in other words, in the recovery of his prop
erty — such law is totally void ; it is a mere ineffectual attempt by a
State, if it intends any such thing, to lift up its puny arm against
the strong and gigantic power of that Constitution of the United
States which declares that all laws made in pursuance of that instru-
31

466 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
rnent, shall be regarded as paramount to State constitutions and
State laws. Such a law never could have injured any of them. It
never has. It never will. I know how slow southern men are to
believe our declarations ; I know how utterly destitute they are of all
correct information in regard to the feelings of the North; I know
the prejudices they entertain against our population; I have heard
the unparalleled and fearful expressions of them in this hall during
the past two years; I have seen too plainly, from the newspaper
press of the South, how feelings and ideas dangerous to the peace of
the country have been instilled into the minds of the masses of the
people of that section.
Mr. Speaker, what next is presented to the consideration of this
House ? It has been the constant effort of one class of politicians,
at both the North and the South, to induce the people of the South
to believe that a political party, calling itself Republican, when it
shall have attained the command of the Congress of the United
States, when it shall have command of the executive department,
and shall have molded, in some way, the supreme court of the
United States and the subordinate United States courts, that then by
some means, which have never been explained, it would use the
power of the Federal Government to march over the Constitution
and seize the property of the slave States. This need not be denied.
The press of the South, the mysterious voices which have been
uttered in this hall for the last three years, show that this is the
meaning of southern men when they speak of the dangers to be
apprehended from the predominence of that Republican party. This
is not inferred from anything which that party has avowed — not from
any specific principles which it has adopted — but simply because you
believe that, ultimately, the great Abolition party, which you always
magnify in your imagination fifty or a hundred times beyond its-
proper proportions, will obtain the control of the Republican party.
How are we to disabuse your minds of that idea? How? The
Constitution of the United States no more gives to Congress, or
to the President, or to the Courts, power over Slavery in the States
where it exists, than it gives them power to regulate the policy of
the British empire in India, i
But you have assumed that the wicked intentions of that party,
pervading the legislative department, shown in its election of an
executive, and finally permeating and poisoning the fountains of jus
tice in our courts, would overleap all constitutional impediments. I

ON REPORT OP COMMITTEE OF THIRTY-THREE. 467
ask you if that is not an event so utterly improbable that it would have
been wise to have waited for the consummation of those evils attrib
uted to the Republican party, rather than to have anticipated an
event which I shall show you is utterly impossible, even under the
existing Constitution. Some historian, writing a thousand years
hence, will look back on this period of our history, and will come to
the conclusion that the great experiment on this continent, which
was intended to demonstrate that man was capable of self-govern
ment, was near a total failure at this time ; and one of his proofs
would be the very insanity — I can call it nothing else — which the
people of the country have exhibited touching this question of
Slavery. Now, if I may be permitted to address myself, not to the
House, but to that portion of the House which represents the South,
I would ask any of you, gentlemen, to describe to me how it would
be possible for the Republican party, or any party that might enter
tain so foolish and unconstitutional a design as that which you have
attributed to us, to accomplish their purpose ? You would reply, that,
when two-thirds of both branches of Congress are in favor of it,
they can propose to the people of the States an alteration of the
Constitution, whereby Congress shall have power over this subject of
Slavery in the States. That may be. But what sort of change
would it require in your political system and relations to give to an
anti-slavery party two-thirds of both branches of Congress? There
are now fifteen slave States in the Union. There may be another
one next year. In order to bring about the accomplishment of the
wicked designs which you say is so certain, and to prevent which,
States sever their connections with the Government, and plunge
themselves into anarchy, and, it may be, into the bloody whirlpool
of civil war, there must be forty-five States in the Union.
Before, therefore, you can get two-thirds of both branches of
Congress to agree to that change of the Constitution, while fifteen
slave States remain, and while you stand firm to your rights and
your duties, there must be thirty free States in the Union, all con
curring in that diabolical attempt to change the whole structure of
your Government. You have now eighteen States called free. To
get to the number of two-thirds of both branches of Congress, that
would ever recommend such a change to the other States of the
Union, you must have twelve more free States added to these eight
een free States. I appeal to every man upon this floor to say

468 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COKWIN.
whether he really does believe that, in the lifetime of the youngest
child, born but yesterday, such a state of things will ever be pre
sented in this Republic? Where will you get these States from?
Can you make twelve new States out of any territory that you now
have ? Nobody believes it possible. No sane man believes it pos
sible or probable. The very first step that you say is sure to be
taken, requires that which it is utterly impossible, with our present
territorial dimensions, ever to accomplish.
But you say you must acquire other territory ; and you gravely
sit down here in the halls of legislation, in the only successful Repub
lic that has yet appeared, in our form, on the face of the earth, and
distribute among yourselves the dominions of neighboring States,
while you are about to break in pieces your own Government
because you cannot agree as to the occupation of your present
domain. You are looking towards Mexico, and Nicaragua, and Bra
zil, to determine what you will do with all their territory when you
get it, while you are not sure you will have a government to which
these could be ceded.
But suppose two-thirds of Congress do recommend the change;
what then is the Constitution and the law? Three-fourths of the
States must agree to these amendments of the Constitution before
they become valid. Now, there are fifteen slave States which will
never agree to it. Consequently, while those fifteen remain, you
must have forty-five free States to overcome them. And yet, with
all the intelligence of this country, with 14,000,000,000 of property
depending upon it, people have been led to adopt a view so utterly
absurd in the very nature of things, so absurd and unreasonable,
that no reasoning can be applied to it. So singularly wild is it, that it
seems nothing more or less than one of those rare and faiitastical
forms of madness to which reason can have no application. But the
patient North, the peace-loving North, the law-abiding North, has
come now and offered to you that, if you have a doubt on this subject ;
if you can believe that there are to be twelve more free States in the
Union that would recommend such a change in the Constitution ; if
you believe that you can have twenty-two more free States in the
Union, so that three-fourths of all the States will authorize such
change ; if you believe anything of that kind ; if your slumbers are
disturbed by it ; if the harmony and good will which you bore to
those abused brethren of yours in the North, has given place to any
feeling of enmity, we will do away with that enmity, and render it

ON REPORT OP COMMITTEE OP THIRTY-THREE. 469
utterly impossible that the right of property in a man who owes
labor or ^service to another shah be interfered with by the North.
This committee, determined to leave nothing unattempted which held
out promise of peace, have come to the conclusion that they will
recommend now to all the States of the Union to change this Con
stitution of ours on that very subject, so that there shall never be a
project to interfere with Slavery in the States, originating in any free
State ;)and that if anything of the kind is ever suggested, it shall
come from a slave State, and shall never be adopted until the indi
vidual action of every State in the Union, north and south, shall be
had agreeing to it.
The idea of a determination to interfere with Slavery in the
States has been fastened on the minds of the masses of the South ;
and, acting on it, they are now endeavoring to break up the only
republic that can exist, as far as we know, on the face of the earth.
Out of the anomalies of our time there will be some day writ
ten a strange chapter in history. The North American repubhc,
maddened by an idle fancy, acts upon that figment of imagination
as veritable fact, and the pangs of dissolution lay hold of her. In
this very paroxysm the instincts of her former palmy days are upon
her. She turns her eyes in intervals of rest to future acquisition,
and insists upon providing for it in the very Constitution which, in
her fits of delirium, she tears into fragments. Herself about to die,
she still covets the lands of her neighbor, Mexico. Now turn to
Mexico — young, weak, but still struggling Mexico. For forty years
she has been striving to imitate us. The red cloud of war that, with
rare intervals, had enveloped her, has, within the last month, parted
its folds, and disclosed the star of peace. Religious despotism, it is
said, has received its death wound there. Constitutional government,
bringing with it liberty regulated by law, is likely to be at last
realized in Mexico. That for which she has fought forty years is
hers. That which we have enjoyed for twice that length of time we
are about to trample under foot as a worthless thing. The evils that
have crushed, and oppressed, and broken down the unhappy peo
ple of Mexico, are about to be adopted by us, to whom she has
looked as a model for stability in the execution of the laws, stability
in public sentiment, enlightened, as it is supposed to be, by a free
press, controlled by an enlightened, educated, brave, industrious and
religious people.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I did not propose to enter into gen-

470 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
eral discussion. There are some subjects, however, so tempting that
one cannot avoid pausing in the logical course of argument, to step
aside and survey for a moment the beauty or barrenness of the land
scapes that present themselves along the heretofore untraveled road,
which we are obliged to tread to-day.
And now, Mr. Speaker, a very few words on one other topic,
and I have done : I allude to the proposition we have submitted for
the admission of New Mexico into the Union as a State^ The pres
ent census will show the amount of the population now existing in
what are called the free States, and in all the territory north of that
magic Hne of 36° 30'. It wiH also show with convenient accuracy
the populations slave and free, existing in the southern States and the
Territory of New Mexico, lying south of latitude 36° 30'. This Ter
ritory is now the great battle-field on which the South and North
meet in wicked, foolish, fratricidal strife.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has often been said by the South, that
they have not their fair proportion of the lands of the United States.
If they have not, I ask who is to blame for it ? Grant this to be
true in fact, which I do not, is there any portion of the northern or
free States where any man can desire to establish, as an institution,
slave labor ? I think not. If gentlemen of the South will look at
the map, and mark that portion of it which is occupied by what is
called "free labor," they will see that there is not one foot of it to
which it would be profitable to carry Slavery. Whose fault is this ?
Will you blame the Almighty Maker of the world, because, in estab
lishing the climates of this continent. He did not place these north
ern States and Territories near enough to the sun to make slave, labor
profitable there ? The northern people are not to blame for the char
acter of the climate in which they live. The North is not to blame
because the country is adapted to corn-fields, and wheat-fields, and
buffalo-pastures north of 36° 30'. Nor do we of the North arraign
southern people because the territory south of that line is suitable
for sheep-folds, cotton, rice, and sugar plantations. Will gentlemen
of the South make war upon the North because the Creator of all
worlds, in fashioning this one on which we live, and making it fit to
be inhabited by his creatures, white or black, guided by infinite wis
dom has made more territory in our country profitable for free labor
than that which is suited to the labor of the slave.
But you say there is a portion of this territory which it would
be well to devote to slave labor. You want New Mexico, which lies

ON REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THIRTY-THREE. 471
south of the line of 36° 30'. New Mexico, you say, belongs to you.
Take it I Take it ! You do not claim, in any of the propositions
which have been submitted, to occupy with slave labor any territory
except that which lies south of 36° 30'. Take it ! I repeat, take it I
Will that satisfy you ? Will you then be content ? Alas, I fear you
will not. Why I fear you will not, I do not now wish to explain.
You know there is a radical difference of opinion recently — it was
not always so — between lawyers, touching Slavery and its rights in
the Territories. For about sixty years they all entertained the same
views upon this subject ; but recently it is unfortunately otherwise.
It is now said that Slavery exists in all our Territories, and that it is
the duty of this Government to protect it there by laws enacted for
that purpose. It is the duty of the Federal Government, whenever
there shall be a domestic insurrection in a slave State, to suppress it,
and for that purpo.^'e the militia of all the States may be brought into
the field, if necessary. Whenever that event shall take place, the
constitutional obligation to protect Slavery will then devolve upon
us all. North and South ; and you will find that thousands of men
from the North will fly with as much alacrity as the chivalry of the
South to quell that insurrection. You know they would. If you
do not, you are ignorant, totally ignorant, of the real character of
the people of the North. To that extent the Constitution binds us
to protect Slavery. But we have not supposed that Slavery did exist
in all the Territories by virtue of the Constitution. We have
regarded Slavery as confined to States ; we have regarded it as the
offspring of State legislation — as the child of State constitutions and
State laws.
What, then, shall we do with New Mexico? This committee
has provided that we shall do precisely what it is now competent for
Congress to do, and what would put an end to the issues which
divide us concerning the jurisdiction of Congress over the people
there. Let it become a State and form its own institutions. Now,
the question is submitted to us all, why may not that be done ? If
we cannot agree about the legal right of the Government to do this
or that, about the legal right of a man to carry his slave every
where, let us drop the legal question ; and since there is probably an
irreconcilable difference between the North and South as to the pow
ers and duties of Congress over Slavery in the Territories, I propose to
take all the territory south of 36° 30' and admit it as a State at once
into the Union. This is aU the territory claimed by the South. It

472 SPEECHES OF THOMAS CORWIN.
must very soon become a State, and then all agree it may elect to
have Slavery or reject it. Let this be done now. If the people
shall ordain Slavery in their constitution, the organic law of 1850
declares they may do so, and be admitted, to use the language of
the act of 1850, "with or without Slavery." If they should pro
hibit Slavery, they have only exerted a right of which they never
can be deprived ; and the South will submit, I doubt not, without a
murmur. [ Here the hammer fell and Mr. Millson obtained the floor. Mr. Bocock said he
trusted the gentleman from Ohio would be allowed to finish his remarks. Mr. Mont
gomery moved to suspend the rules, to enable the gentleman to go on. Mr. Millson
said: " I hope that there will be no objection made to the request of the gentleman
from Ohio, as the House has lately very often extended the courtesy to members to con
tinue their remarks beyond the hour allotted to them. I understand that he only
desires about fifteen minutes more to finish his remarks. That has lately been granted
to many gentlemen, and I hope it will be granted to the gentleman from Ohio by unan
imous consent." Mr. Vallandigham said he trusted that no objection would come from
his side of the House. The motion to suspend the rules was agreed to and Mr. Cor
win was granted leave to conclude his remarks.]
Mr. Corwin. I thank the House cordially for the indulgence
thus extended to me, and will promise not to abuse it.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will bear with me while I
explain to them what perhaps may not have been made apparent as
yet, the present condition of the Territory of New Mexico. We all
know that when the organic law for that Territory was enacted by
Congress, we were verging to the very condition in which we are
unhappily now placed. It was for the purpose of establishing peace
among the States of the Union, for the purpose of restoring the
harmony and concord of the States, that the law of 1850 was passed,
organizing, among others, the Territory of New Mexico. It was
enacted by that law that the Territorial Legislature should enact
laws for the government of the Territory, should report them to
Congress, and if Congress should disapprove of them, they should
be null and void. It follows, from a proper construction of that
statute, therefore, that, until both branches of Congress shall disap
prove of that law of New Mexico which was enacted in 1859,
establishing Slavery in that country. Slavery will be the condition
of New Mexico. This, sir, must remain her condition until, by a
vote of the Senate concurring with a vote of the House, that
law shall be annulled.
I ask gentlemen, as a matter of fact, what is likely to happen in
respect to that Territory ? How long will it be before you can com-

ON REPORT OP COMMITTEE OP THIRTY-THREE. 473
mand a majority of votes in the Senate? While the States are
bound by their ahegiance to the Union, and found in their places in
that great convocation of sovereign States, how long will it be before
you can get a vote which will annul that law of New Mexico ? I
shall not answer this question. I know that it is subject to be
answered variously by minds which entertain various views of the
future. Be that as it may, we are bound by a law acted on by a Ter-
titorial Legislature in the exercise of the powers given it. It has,
under the authority of the Congress of the United States, established
Slavery in New Mexico, and it exists there this day by a law as pow
erful as any law which can be made. If that portion of our vacant
territory which lies south of 36° 30' be, as it certainly is, the only
portion of the United States where you wish to establish the institu
tion of Slavery, why not, then, take up this territory, form it into a
State, and admit it? Then the strife is forever ended. It is inhab
ited by people who, only a year ago, established Slavery there.
Let them vote on their organic law, and come into the Union with
or without Slavery, as the law of 1850 permits. Thus you will
remove forever this fearful fire-brand which, if applied to your tem
ple of freedom, will require something more, I fear, than the
patriotism and wisdom of the present generation to extinguish.
Why not cast from you this apple of discord ? This is all the terri
tory of the United States which, you pretend, is adapted to slave
labor. It is all we can give you ; and it is much more likely that,
eight or ten years from this time, it will be less difficult to establish
free States than to extend Slavery there.
Some have said, some doubtless believe, that the people of that
Territory are not sufficiently educated in the principles of free gov
ernment to carry on a State government. I do not think it quite
modest or proper for us at this time to indulge in any harsh criticism
on the abihty of men anywhere to govern themselves. I am willing
to trust the old Mexican and the old Spaniard of that country;
and the peon too. Let me say a word about the peon. I myself
regarded the system of peonage as a great abuse until I came to
inquire into it. I have fully understood it from gentlemen who have
administered justice as judges in the courts of New Mexico. I find
that it is a voluntary contract entered into by one freeman to work a
given length of time for another freeman; and instead of giving
damages when the contracting party violates that contract, it is the

474 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
law of that Territory to enforce the execution of the contract specif
ically. That is the whole of the system of peonage.
I have no doubt, from the long continuance of that system of
labor by contract, that it is very well adapted to the condition of
that people; and, under our judicial system, cannot be greatly
abused. It is their mode of labor. Instead of giving damages on
the contract, when the hired man refuses to perform his part of it,
instead of pursuing him with a constable and writs of execution,
selling his cow, and starving his children for the want of milk, the
court says to the hired man, "Work out honestly; fulfill the letter of
your contract; and if this man, for whom you have contracted to
labor, and who has advanced money to you for your necessities, or
for any other object abuses you, the court is open. Come before it,
and you will have redress." Does anybody imagine a peon will be
denied redress, when it is remembered that he is a voter in that Ter
ritory? I am willing to trust the present people of New Mexico to
frame a constitution for State government, and trust the future for all
necessary amendment. If they do not know how to do it, they are
free to resort to imitation; and, I dare say, if they imitate us, we
must be satisfied they have done the best they could to produce a
perfect system.
Does any man suppose it is possible to combine all the intellects
which make up this Congress, in both branches of it, so that all shall
think alike in regard to a constitutional point? We know how vary
ing idiosyncracies give peculiar character to the operations of the
mind; we know how inherent selfishness operates upon the weakness
of men ; but it is enough for us to know that the South does believe
that a great political party intends to do it some wrong. Whether
there is any possibility of doing it, or any truth in it or not, it is
enough to know that the minds of our brethren are disturbed ; that
their hearts are sad at the prospect, and we ought to submit to them
such terms as will forever put it out of the power of that party to do
those imputed wrongs. And now let it be understood by our south
ern brethren that we have constitutional ideas upon this subject,
which it is impossible to eradicate from our minds ; and that, since
we do differ, and that difference is concentrated, so far as this institu
tion of Slavery is concerned, upon the Territory of New Mexico,
the North generously offers to put that Territory immediately under
their control, to be continued or not, as the constitution made by the
people shall ordain. Whether it remain there one or five years, or

ON REPORT OP COMMITTEE OP THIRTY-THREE. 475
be driven out, is with the people, who are left free to adopt or reject
it. And if you should protect Slavery there for ten years to come,
every year you would find more white population from the free
States there than would come from all the slave States. Why?
Because it is not a Territory adapted to the system of Slavery which
exists in the old slave States. But it is the best and only Territory
we have to ofiTer. It is all we can give.
And I now ask you, men of the South, why do you want to go
there at all ? You have not slave labor enough. In no quarter of
the globe is there such a demand for labor as there is in the southern
section of this Union now for slave labor. Before this present
unhappy state of our affairs had reduced the value of everything in
the country, a negro, who only a few years ago was worth $400, was
worth from twelve to fifteen hundred, and yet, in the language of
one of your eminent men, you declare that you must expand or die.
How is it that this delusion has been fastened upon you ? The sta
tistics of your country and the price of your negroes should have
told you that you have not negroes enough for the cultivation of
your soil, and that you will not, in the natural course of increase,
have negroes enough for fifty years to come, to work the territory
you already possess. How, then, could you occupy New Mexico?
I have been examining with some care into the present condi
tion of the southern country. I have sought information from those
who ought to know; I have been advised by gentlemen of the
South, and I have regulated my judgment entirely by theirs. In the
State of Texas alone there are three hundred million acres of lands.
I am informed by a gentleman who has explored that State thor
oughly, that one-third of that entire quantity of land can be profit
ably occupied in cultivating cotton. Another gentleman has told
me, that not more than one-fourth could be so cultivated. I have
taken the latter statement as my basis of calculation. That would
give seventy-five million acres of land in Texas which can be profit
ably cultivated with slave labor. How many million negroes have
you now? Not quite four millions, counting men, women and child
ren. Now, I am told by those gentlemen that one good hand in
Texas is equal to the production of five bales of cotton. The whole
product of cotton in this country now amount to about four miUion
of bales. Every acre of this land in Texas will produce one bale.
Therefore, if the cotton lands alone of Texas are cultivated by
slave labor, they would produce seventy-five million bales of cotton ;

476 SPEECHES OF THOMAS COEWIN.
and that they will do whenever the market of the world demands,
and you can get labor enough to produce that amount. Am 1 mis
taken in this ? There lies the land open to the sun, spreading out its
bosom to you, men of the South, inviting you to come with your
slaves, and make these acres white with cotton fields. But where
will you get your slave labor from for all this ? If seventy-five mil
lion bales of cotton be made, with an average of five bales to a
hand, you will want fifteen million working hands in Texas to pro
duce them. Now, out of a family of negroes you will not get on
an average, more than one working hand in three ; two out of three
being children or the decrepid and aged. So that, for every work
ing hand, you have two others, who are not considered hands.
Then, when you shall have, in the ordinary increase of negroes in
this country, fifteen million working hands in Texas, you will have
forty-five million slaves there. Now you have only four million in
all the United States, and yet you think you are ready to suffocate
for want of room. You want cotton fields to work. There they
are ; but where are the slaves to work them with ?
Now, I take it for granted that Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama,
Tennessee and Arkansas, are not occupied as they might be with
slavery, and I believe that those five States, if well cultivated, would
be equal at least to one-fourth of the unoccupied cotton territory of
Texas. Then you would have one hundred million acres of land to
be worked by slave labor. Then supposing that each hand produces
five bales of cotton, you will perceive that you will want nearly
twenty million working hands, which would give you a negro popu
lation of about sixty million, counting men, women and children.
Now you have only four million ; but you suffocate and choke, and
must expand or die ; so you say.
If in these things I have been mistaken, southern men have
been mistaken. In the face of these statistics, can you present to
the civilized world — -or to the barbarian world — a well-founded neces
sity for the expansion of slave territory? Look at the eighteen mil
lion white men who occupy the free States, as well as the territory
north of 36° 30'. There we have eleven persons to a square mile,
while you have only nine. But you seem not to care for the suffo
cation of white men. Territory must be conquered for Slavery,
when there is a demand for sixty millions of slaves in the country
now occupied by you, without going to New Mexico at ah. Is it

ON REPORT OP COMMITTEE OP THIRTY-THREE. 477
not SO? What then are we quarrehng about? What are we
to divide for?
But it is proposed that we shall insert in our proposition to
amend the Constitution, that this line of 36° 30' shall gird the globe,
and that all south of that shall be open to Slavery; and by this pro
posed amendment Slavery is fixed there, whether the people you
acquire wish it or not. Eve.'-y one who looks upon the map knows
that it means the conquest of Mexico, and all the small republics
in southern America. One of our Mexican acquisitions is now the
very accursed cause of our ruin ; and yet you covet another. Is not
this the very madness of the moon? You have four million
negroes now, and you must increase the number to sixty millions
before you can want room for slave labor. Fifty years hence you
will not be able to supply slaves enough to meet the reasonable
demand for slave labor in the present slave States ; yet you will pon
der and speculate upon your condition as it may possibly be half a
century to come; and unless your dreams are accepted as truths
now, and provision made for you half a century to come, you rush
madly on the destruction of yourselves, and not yourselves only,
but the final destruction and overthrow of the best government
known among men, and the extinction of the fairest hope yet pre
sented to the longing hearts of a world.
Mr. Speaker, I shall say nothing more now on the subject before
us. I have omitted all reference to several recommendations of the
committee. I leave their vindication, if it be wanted, to others. I
shall not follow the example of some, who lift the curtain which con
ceals the quick coming future from us. I have no wish to explore
the gloomy prospect they have held up to us. I will not now
encounter the grim specters of despair they present. I will not, I can
not, anticipate that future, and walk forth among the broken arches,
the ruined towers, and prostrate columns of this glorious temple of
freedom, in which the tribes of the South and the North have so
long worshipped in peace and in brotherly love. That temple still
stands in all its grand proportions; but it stands alone. Wander
over all the earth, and you will find no other like it. I will not
believe that the blows aimed at it, however numerous or powerful,
shall cause it to rock or reel. I will hope, as they who built it
prayed and hoped, that it shall stand forever, as it now stands, on its
own solid and deep foundations.

YALE UNIVERSITY

39002 002972280b

'. >lir:'i

'i ;it.<

.( .J ,