:nJU'.Ao^A^sA. -X-^^dAU^e%t /^ ^55a?S^y-S5^ Sy — OL- THE LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. JAMES W. SHEAHAN. NEW YORK: HAKPEK & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, tiumiu 8QITAEE. 1860. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty, by HARPER & BROTHERS, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New York. Crv. S"8 ii PREFACE. In the following pages it is proposed to present as full and as complete an account of the life and public services of Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, as the limits of this volume -will allow. The events of the last six years have given to his name a world-wide fame, but his entire public career, as well as the incidents of his boyhood, furnish an example of success following a determined purpose to ad- -^here to fixed political principles that has rarely had its equal. So intimately has Mr. Douglas been connected with the most important legislation, and with the history of the political parties of the last twenty-five years, that it has been found difficult- at times to confine this work to a record of his acts. But as far as it has been possible to do so, the writer has .abstained carefully from comments upon the acts of others, except when to do so was necessary to present clearly and truthfully the history qf Mr. Douglas. It is due to candor to state that these pages have been prepared without having been submitted to Mr. Douglas, who, if he read them at all, will do so for the first time after the issue of the book. They have been written by one who agrees fully with Mr. Douglas in political views, and who, since the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, has been engaged in maintaining before the people of Illinois the wisdom, justice, and expediency of the policy of the Democratic party upon the question of Slavery in the Ter ritories. "With these words of explanation the book is submitted to those who may choose to read it. CONTENTS. CHAPTEE I. Ancestry. — Death of his Father. — Life on a Farm. — Disappointment. — Ap prenticeship. — Enters School. — Removal to Western New York. — Studies Law. — Taste for Politics. — Goes to the West. — Experience in Cleveland. —Cincinnati. — Louisville. — Trip to St. Louis. — Hon. E. C. Bates. — Il linois at that time. — Internal Improvements. — Douglas reaches Jackson ville Pagel CHAPTER II. Want of Money. — Goes to Winchester. — Clerk of Auction. — Obtains a School. — Murray M 'Connel. — Admitted to the Bar. — Personal Appear ance. — Jackson's Bank Policy.' — Douglas proposes Meeting to defend it. — The Meeting. — Douglas's Triumph. — Meeting of Legislature. — Douglas elected State's Attorney. — Early Friends. — Predictions of his Failure. — His Tact and Ability. — His Success. — Institutes Convention System in Morgan County. — Its Success. — Douglas put on Ticket. — Democrats carry the County , 14 CHAPTER HI. Douglas in the Legislature. — Internal Improvement System. — National Poli tics. — Reports against Divorces. — Proposes Plan for Internal Improve ments. — Is overruled. — System adopted. — Appointed Register of Land- office. — Gloomy political Prospects. — Convention System resorted to. — Origin of Democratic State Organization. — Nominated for Congress. — Memorable Canvass. — Is defeated. — First State Convention. — Public Din ner at Quincy. — Rejoicings of the Whigs. — Several Speeches. — The Case of M'Clernand and Field. — Douglas's Argument. — Supreme Court. — Cam paign of 1840, — Douglas's Canvass. — Debates in the Lobby. — Appointed Secretary of State. — History of the "Alien Suffrage." — Douglas presents a hostile Decision. — The Vote saved for "Van Buren. — Supreme Court re organized. — Douglas elected to the Bench. — His Circuit. — The Mormons. — Saves Joe Smith's Life. — Gratitude of Smith. — Douglas's Influence with the Mormons. — His Popularity as a Judge. — Caucus for U. S. Senator. — Is defeated by one Vote. — Second State Convention. — Nominated for Con gress. — His Opponent. — Is elected. — Violent Illness. — Leaves for Wash ington. — Retrospect 27 CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. Early Support of Jackson. — Speech on Jackson's Fine. — Invited to Tennes see. — Monster Convention. — Visit to the Hermitage. — Interview with Jackson. — Interesting Account. — Jackson's Estimate of Douglas's Speech. — Speech at Inauguration of Jackson's Statue Page 59 CHAPTER V. Annexation of Texas. — Proposes 36° 30'. — It is adopted. — Mexican War. — Great Speech on American Title, and in Defense of the War. — Treaty of Peace. — Votes against it 72 CHAPTER "VT. Foreign Policy. — Oregon Boundary. — Democratic Platform. — 54° 40'. — Monroe Doctrine. — Clay ton-Bulwer Treaty. — Debates in Senafe. — Speech on Monroe Doctrine. — Extracts from Debates. — Cuba 91 CHAPTER VII. Territorial Expansion. — Central America. — Annexation of more Territory. — Friendship of England. — Repelling foreign Aggressions. — Filibuster- ism. — Acquisition of Cuba Ill CHAPTER VHI. Compromise of 1850. — The Questions at issue. — The Demands on both sides. — Henry Clay in the Senate. — PresJBfent's Message. — Plans of Com promise by Houston, Benton, Foote, Bell, and Clay. — Abolition of Peti tions. — Protracted Debates. — Speeches by Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Doug las. — Bills reported for California, the Territories, and Texas Boundary. — Committee of Thirteen appointed. — Why Clay reported Omnibus. — Conversation between Clay and Douglas. — History of Omnibus Bill. — Davis's Amendments. — Restrictions on Territorial Legislation. — Soule"s Amendment. — Douglas votes for Wilmot Proviso. — His Reasons. — Texas Boundary. — California..— Death of President Taylor. — Power of Terri torial Legislatures. — Extracts from Debates. — Destruction of the Omnibus. — New Mexico put out. — Texas put out. — California put out. — Utah left alone.— 36° 30' repudiated by the Abolitionists.— Passage of the Bill. 124 CHAPTER IX. California Bill passed. — Texas Boundary Bill passed. — New Mexico Bill passed. — Fugitive Slave Law passed. — Exclusion of free Negroes from States. — Douglas's Speech. — Extracts from Debates on final Passage of Compromise Acts. — Douglas returns to Chicago. — The Abolition Mob. — Defends the Fugitive, Slave Law. — Effects of the Speech. — The Compro mise in Congress. — His Speech in 1851. — Why his Vote not recorded for Fugitive Slave Law. — Why he voted for Wilmot Proviso. — The Chicago Speech. — Defense of Fugitive Slave Law 155 CONTENTS. IX CHAPTER X. The Nebraska-Kansas Bill.— Its Purpose.— The Freedom of the People- Douglas reports the Bill. — The Missouri Compromise. — Dixon Amend ment. — Sumner Amendment. — Bill taken up. — Chase asks Postponement. — Meantime Chase issues his Address. — Douglas's Exposure of the Trick. — Chase's Apology. — Protest of New -England Clergy. — Of the Chicago Clergy. — 14th Section. — The Chase Amendment. — Its Design. — Why it was voted down. — Extracts from Speeches of Wells, Toucey, Hunter, Cass, Atchison. — The Badger Amendment. — Clayton Amendment. — Bill passed. — History of Bill in the House. — Returned to Senate. — Passed. — Douglas's Speech of March 3. — President Pierce and the Nebraska Bill. ...Page 187 CHAPTER XI. Anti-Nebraskaism. — Know-nothingism. — Douglas denounces Know-noth ingism at Philadelphia. — His Speech on that occasion. — Chicago Mob in 1854. — Description of Scene. — Reason for refusing him a Hearing. — Vio lence at other points. — The Election of 1854. — Fusion Legislature. — Elec tion of Trumbull. — Douglas offered a public Dinner at Chicago. — His Speech on that occasion. — Visits New Orleans. — Denounces Know-noth ings at Richmond, Va 263 CHAPTER XII. Relief of Supreme Court of U. States. — Douglas's Plan. — His Speech explain ing it. — Plan rejected. — Bill fails. — His Defense of Supreme Court... 277 CHAPTER XHI. Kansas in 1856. — President's Message. — Topeka Constitution. — Douglas's celebrated Report, March 12th. — Reports a Bill enabling Kansas to form a State Government. — Extracts from Report.. — His Speech on same sub ject. — His Reply to Collamer. — Various Bills introduced. — Toombs's Bill. — Bill passed. — House passes Bill admitting Kansas. — Senate amends it. — Dunn's Bill passes House. — Douglas's Report upon it. — Laid on Table. — House introduces Legislation for Kansas into Army Bill. — Disagree ment of Houses. — Congress adjourns. — Army Bill lost. — Congress con vened, and Bill passed < 284 CHAPTER XIV. The Lecompton Controversy. — Governors for Kansas. — Governor Walker. — Conditions of Acceptance. — His Instructions and Inaugural. — Constitu tion to be submitted. — Meeting of Congress. — President's Message. — Douglas's Speech of 9th December -. 311 CHAPTER XV! Internal Improvements. — River and Harbor Bills. — Tonnage Duties. — Douglas's Proposition. — Letter to Governor Matteson. — Illinois Central X CONTENTS. Railroad. — History of the Measure before Congress. — Its Passage. — Its Benefits to Illinois and the West. — Pacific Railroad. — Speech on sub ject Page 354 CHAPTER XVI. Campaign of 1858. — The Lecompton Constitution. — John Calhoun. — Dem ocratic Protests. — Unanimity in Illinois.' — President sustained.- — Change of Policy hy Administration. — Disappointment in Illinois. — Strange Doc trines of Washington Union.- — Panic of Republicans.- — Their Hopes re vived. — President's Message.— Meeting in Chicago. — Speeches. — Bigler and Fitch denounced. — Proscription commenced. — Danitism instituted. — Democratic Convention. — New Delegations. — How got up. — Unanimity of Democrats. — Meeting of the' Convention. — Its Proceedings. — Its Reso lutions, — Danite Convention. — Proscription continued. — Second Danite Convention.— Republican Convention. — Democratic Papers in Illinois. — Douglas returns to Chicago. — His Reception. — The Proceedings. — Lin coln's Speech, 17th June. — Douglas's Speech in Chicago 380 CHAPTER XVII. Lincoln addresses Meeting at Chieago.-^Republican Aid to Danites. — Ger man Democrats of Chicago. — Douglas leaves for Springfield. — His Route. — Douglas makes and announces his Appointments for Meetings. — The List. — Returns to Chicago. — Lincoln's Challenge.— Its Cause. — Douglas's Reply. — Joint Discussions agreed upon. — Trumbull speaks at Chicago. — Proscription continued. — How a Democrat saved his Head. — Douglas's Visit and Speech at Winchester. — Freeport Treason. — Popular Sovereign ty Doctrines of Orr, Douglas, Buchanan. — Joint Discussion at Ottawa. — Its Result. — The Freeport Questions.— Douglas's Answers. — Is denounced and read out of Party. — Douglas's Speech in '59 on same subject. — Joint Debates. — -'Trumbull's Policy. — Imported Orators to "kill Douglas." — Danite Proceedings. — Washington Union. — Letters from Breckenridge, Wise, and Clay. — Hon. A. H. Stephens. — Labors of the Campaign. — Douglas's last Speeches. — Returns to Chicago. — Election Day. — The Re sult.— Danite Vote. — Why it was small.— Efforts to Defeat Douglas con tinued. — Senator Coffee... 4ig CHAPTER XVin. Married in 1847.— Death of Mrs. Douglas in 1853.— His Children.— Mar ried in 1856.— Plantation and Slaves Story. — True Statement. — Remarks in Senate upon it. — Slaveholders' Stories in 1858.— Mr. Slidell refutes them. — Malignity of federal Officers. — Property in Chicago. — Donation to University. — Aid in 1856 to carry Pennsylvania 435 CHAPTER XIX. Douglas visits Europe. — Not presented to Queen Victoria. — Court Costume. — Goes to St. Petersburg. — Interview with Nesselrode. — Costume Question again. — Is presented to the Emperor. — Sebastopol. — Douglas and the CONTENTS. XI Presidency. — Convention of 1848. — Supports Cass. — Convention of 1852. — Convention of 1856. — Two-third Rule. — Buchanan obtains Majority. — Douglas withdrawn. — His Letter. — Effect on Convention. — Illinois State Convention in 1860. — Resolutions. — Conventions in other States. — Demo cratic Organization in Illinois. — History from 1837 to 1860 Pagjs 443 CHAPTER XX. Utah. — The Mormons. — Prohibition of Polygamy. — Power and Expediency of Congressional Legislation. — Mormon Government. — Their Want of Loyalty. — Aliens to the Laws of the United States. — The Remedy for ex isting Evils. — Douglas's Views. — His Plan. — His Speech in 1857. — Min nesota. — Oregon. — Douglas and Organization of new States and Terri tories. — Naturalization Question. — African Slave-trade 456 CHAPTER XXI. Cincinnati Platform. — Anxiety for Endorsement of Nebraska Act. — His Defense of that Platform. — His Interest in it. — Popular Sovereignty. — Harper's Magazine Article. — Attorney General Black. — The Pamphlets. — Gwin's Speech. — Douglas's Reply. — Cobb's unfriendly Legislation. — An unchanged Platform 466 CHAPTER XXII. Harper's Ferry Affair. — Debates in Congress. — Douglas's Remedy. — His Reply to Fessenden. — His Reply to Seward 502 CHAPTER XXIII. Popular Demonstrations. — St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington. — Service on Committees in House. — On Senate Committees. — Public Lands. — Liberal Policy. — Homestead Bill. — Friendship for Agriculturists. — Opposition to Monopolies. — Con clusion 524 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. CHAPTER I. EAELY LIFE. "The issues of all human action are uncertain. No man can undertake to predict positively that even virtue will meet with its full reward in this world ; but this much may be said with entire certainty, that he who succeeds in marrying his name to a great principle, achieves a fame as imperishable as truth itself." Such was the language in which a senator from Virginia concluded an able and most eloquent speech upon the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. The prediction has been verified by history. By that act of legislation, the name of Stephen ' A. Douglas was " married" to the principle of Popular Sov ereignty ; and, even had he no other claim upon the grateful memory of the American people, that indissoluble blending ! of his name with the most vital principle of constitutional lib erty would alone render his name as imperishable as truth itself. The name of Stephen A. Douglas, therefofeThas, by tfiaTsingle and most memorable act, been stamped ineffaceably upon the pages of his country's history, and, though contem poraneous writers may have recorded the most widely differ ing judgments upon his conduct, and future historians may differ as widely as those who were present at, and who were participants in the consequences of the passage of that great act as to the measure of censure or praise that should be awarded to him, still the assertion of the senator from Vir ginia will stani/erified, and, in defiance of all the bitterness of his enemies, throughout all coming time the name Of Doug las and the great principle of Popular Sovereignty will be so linked in the records of the past, and so closely identified with the memories of the present, that the fame of the former can only perish in the overthrow of the latter — an occurrence only possible in the total fdestructiorj oftruth itselE "j 2 LIFE OE STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. That branch of the Douglas family from which the subject of this work is a descendant emigrated from Scotland, and settled at New London, in the province of Connecticut, during the earlier period of our colonial settlements. One of the two brothers who first came to America subsequently removed from New London, and settled in Maryland, on the banks of the Potomac, not very distant from the site of the present city of Washington. His descendants, now very numerous, are to be found in Virginia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, and other South ern States. The other brother remained at New London, and his descendants are scattered over New England, New York, Pennsylvania, and the Northwestern States. Doctor Stephen A. Douglas, the father of the statesman of the present day, was born at Stephentown, in Rensselaer County, New York, and when quite a youth removed with his parents to Bran don, Rutland County, Vermont, where, after his regular course at Middlebury College, he studied medicine, and became dis tinguished in his profession. He married Miss Sarah Fisk, the daughter of an extensive farmer in Brandon, by whom he had two children — the first a daughter, and the second a son. On the first of July, 1813, without any previous illness or physical warning, he died suddenly of a disease of the heart. At the very moment of his attack and of his death, he was playing with the daughter at his knees, and holding his son Stephen in his arms. In 1813 the country was at war with Great Britain — had undertaken a war with the most powerful nation in the world ; at that time the United States, with an unprotected coast, with an overbearing, and insulting, and powerful enemy menacing both seaboard and frontier ; with hostile navies swarming upon the lakes, and commanding every sea where the enter prise of American commerce had unfurled a sail,' and veteran armies, fresh from Continental fields of renown, landing on our shores — at that time, when the infant republic, trusting in the justice of her cause, had risked every thing to preserve the sacred principle that an American citizen, no matter where he might be, who stood upon an American deck, was to be se cured, at all hazards, in all the great-rights guaranteed to him by lhe_JIlonsJaiutionof his country — while this war was waging, and while theXontest between absolute power and popular right was maintained with fire and sword from De- EARLY LIFE. 3 troit to Key "West, in the midst of this struggle, on the 23d day of April, 1813, was born Stephen A. Douglas, who, forty- one'years th^reaiterTTJecame the great cha'm'pibTTofThsr-saTne sacred_j-mr^ml?,— n^ men who tread the decks of the American fleets, but in behalf of those other and no less gallant heroes — the pioneers of Amer- icari "pT:ogr- vided that the State of Coahuila and Texas " is free and independent of the other united Mexican states, and of every other foreign power and domin ion ;" that "in all matters relating to the Mexican confederation the state delegates its faculties and powers to the general Congress of the same ; but in all that properly relates to the administration and entire government of the state, it retains its liberty, independence, and sovereignty ;" that, " there fore, belongs exclusively to the same state the right to establish, by means of its representatives, its fundamental laws, conformable to the basis sanctioned in the constitutional act and the general constitution." This new state, com posed of a union of the two provinces, was admitted into the Mexican con federacy under the general constitution established in 1824, upon the condi tions which I have recited. The province of Coahuila lay on the west side of tho Eio del Norte, and Texas upon the east. An uncertain, undefined boundaiy divided them ; and, so long as they remained one state, there was no necessity for establishing the true line. It is immaterial, therefore, whether the Nueces or the Eio del Norte, or an imaginary line between the two, was the boundary between Coahuila and Texas, while these provinces constituted one state in the Mexican confederacy. I do not deem it necessaiy to go back to a period anterior to the Texan revolution to ascertain the lim its and boundaries of the republic of Texas. But, if the gentleman has so great a reverence for antiquity as to reject all authorities which have not be come obsolete and inapplicable in consequence ofthe changed relations of that country, I will gratify his taste in that respect. It must be borne in mind that Texas (before her revolution) was always understood to have been a por tion of the old French province of Louisiana, whilst Coahuila was one of the Spanish provinces of Mexico. By ascertaining the western boundaiy of Lou isiana, therefore, prior to its transfer by France to Spain, we discover the di viding line between Texas and Coahuila. I will not weary the patience of the House by an examination ofthe authorities, in detail, by which this point is elucidated and established. I will content myself by referring the gentle man to a document in which he will find them all collected and analyzed in a masterly manner, by one whose learning and accuracy he will not question. I allude to a dispatch (perhaps I might with propriety call it a book, from its great length) written by our secretary of state in 1819 to Don Onis, the Span ish minister. The document is to be found ih the State Papers in each of our libraries. He will tliere, find a multitudinous collection of old maps and musty records, histories and geographies— Spanish, English, and French — by D 2 82 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. which it is clearly established that the Eio del Norte was the western bound ary of Louisiana, and so considered by Spain and France both, when they owned the opposite banks of that river. The venerable gentleman from Mas sachusetts [Mr. Adams] in that famous dispatch reviews all the authorities on either side with a clearness and ability which defy refutation, and demon strate the validity of our title in virtue of the purchase of Louisiana. He went farther, and expressed his own convictions, upon a full examination of the whole question, that our title as far as the Eio del Norte was as clear as to the island of New Orleans. This was the opinion of Mr. Adams in 1819. It was the opinion of Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney in 1805. It was the opin ion of Jefferson and Madison — of all our presidents and of all administrations, from its acquisition in 1803 to its fatal relinquishment in 1819. I make no question with the gentleman as to the applicability and bearing of these facts upon the point in controversy. I give them in opposition to the supposed facts upon which he seems to rely. I give him the opinions of these eminent statesmen in response to those of Almonte and his brother Mexican general. Will the gentleman tell us and his constituents that those renowned states men, including his distinguished friend [Mr. Adams], as well as President Polk and the American Congress, were engaged in an unholy, unrighteous, and damnable cause when claiming title to the Eio del Norte ? I leave the gentleman from Ohio and his venerable friend from Massachusetts to settle the disputed point of the old boundary of Texas between themselves, trusting that they may agree upon some basis of amicable adjustment and compromise. But, sir, I have already said that I do not deem it necessary to rely upon those ancient anthorities for a full and complete justification of our govern ment in maintaining possession of the country on the left bank of the Eio del Norte. Our justification rests upon better and higher evidence, upon a firm er basis — -an immutable principle. The republic of Texas held the country by a more glorious title than can be traced through the old maps and musty records of French and Spanish courts. She held it by the same title that our fathers of the Eevolution acquired the territory and achieved the independ ence of this republic. She held it by virtue of a successful revolution, a dec laration of independence setting firth the inalienable rights of man, triumph antly maintained by the irresistible power of her arms, and consecrated by the precious blood of her glorious heroes. These were her muniments of title. By these she acquired the empire which she has voluntarily annexed to our Union, and which we have plighted our faith to protect and defend against invasion and dismemberment. We received the republic of Texas into the Union with her entire territory as an independent and sovereign state, and have no right to alisnate or surrender any portion of it. This proposition our opponents admit, so far as respects the country on this side ofthe Nueces, but they deny both the obligation and the right to go beyond that river. Upon what authority they assume the Nueces to have been the boundaiy of the re public of Texas they have not condescended to inform us. I am unable to conceive upon what grounds a distinction can be drawn as to our right to the opposite sides of that stream. I know nothing in the history of that repub lic, from its birth to its translation, that would authorize the assumption. The same principles and evidence which, by common consent, give ns title on this side of the Nueces, establish our right to the other. The revolution ex tended to either side of the river, and was alike successful on both. Upon this point I speak with confidence, for I have taken the precaution, within the last few minutes, to have the facts to which I shall refer authenticated by the testimony of the two most distinguished actors (one of whom I now recognize in my eye) of those thrilling and glorious scenes. Upon this high authority, I assume that the first revolutionary army in Texas, in 1835, embraced soldiers and officers who were residents of the" country between the Nueces and the THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 83 Eio del Norte. These same heroic men, or so many of them as had not been butchered by the Mexican soldiery, were active participators in the battle of San Jacinto on the 21st of April, 1836, when Santa Ana was captured and the Mexican army annihilated. Although few in number, and sparsely scattered over a wide surface of countiy, and consequently exposed to the cruelties and barbarities of the en emy, none were more faithful to the cause of freedom, and constant in their devotion to the interests of the republic throughout its existence. Immedi ately after the hattie of San Jacinto Santa Ana made a proposition to the commander of the Texan army (General Houston) to make a treaty of peace, by which Mexico would recognize the independence of Texas, with the Eio del Norte as the boundary. In May, 1836, such a treaty was made between the government of Texas and Santa Ana on the part of the Mexican na tion, in which the independence of Texas was acknowledged, and the Eio del Norte recognized as the boundary. In pursuance of the provision of this treaty, the remnant of the Mexican army was permitted, under the orders of Santa Ana, to retire beyond the confines of the republic of Texas, and take a position on the other side of the Eio del Norte, which they did accordingly. Mr. J. W. Houston. Was that treaty ever ratified by the government of Mexico? Mr. Douglas. I am not aware that it was ratified by any body on the part of the government of Mexico except Santa Ana and his subordinate officers, for the veiy good reason that he was himself the government at the time. Only one year previous he had usurped the government of Mexico, had abol ished the Constitution of 1824, and concentrated all the powers of govern ment in his own hands. To give stability to the power which he had ac quired by the sword, he called a Congress around him, composed of his fol lowers and adherents, and had himself formally proclaimed dictator of the republic, and, as such, clothed with all the powers of government, civil and military. From that moment the government of Mexico was a republic in name, but a military despotism in fact. She had no Constitution, no govern ment, except the will of the dictator, and the instruments he chose to select to execute his will. In this capacity, he marched his armies into Texas for the purpose of reducing those people to subjection to the despotism which he had established, and exterminating the last vestige of freedom which remain ed in his dominions. The Texans flew to arms in defense of their liberties, in defense of the form of government which they had established for them selves by their state Constitution of 1827, and the national Constitution of 1824, in pursuance of the provisions of which they had been admitted as a sovereign state into the Mexican confederacy. The Texans had taken up arms in support, and Santa Ana for the destruction, of the Constitutional gov ernment in Texas. While engaged in this work of desolation with fire and sword, committing butcheries and barbarities unknown to civilized warfare, Santa Ana fell into the hands of the heroic Houston and his gallant little army, a captive to those whom he was striving to reduce to captivity. Then it was that the tyrant became a suppliant — a suppliant fpr his life and liberty — at the hands of those he had doomed his victims. Then the dictator bent his knee in prayer for mercy, and sued for peace, offering to recognize the in dependence of Texas if he could be permitted to rescue the remnant of his followers from destruction, and remove them beyond the Eio del Norte. A treaty to this effect, as I have already stated, was subsequently entered into in due form ; and, in pursuance of its provisions, the Mexicans evacuated Texas, and retired beyond the Rio del Norte. This treaty was executed by Santa Ana as the government de facto for the time being, and, as such, was bind ing on the Mexican nation. Mr. J. Q. Adams. I desire to inquire of the gentleman from Illinois if 84 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Santa Ana was not a prisoner of war at the time, and in duress when he ex ecuted that treaty. Mr. Douglas. Santa Ana was a prisoner and in duress, and so was the en tire government of Mexico, for he was at that time the government de facto, clothed with all its functions, civil and military. The government itself was «¦ prisoner and in duress. But will it be contended that that circumstance rendered the obligation less obligatory ? Mr. Adams. It is a strange doctrine that the acts of a prisoner while in duress are to be deemed valid after he has recovered his liberty. Mr. Douglas.lWe are at war with Mexico. Our. armies will soon march into the heart ofthat country. I trust they will penetrate as far as the cap ital, and capture not only the army, but the government itself in the halls of the Montezumas, that we may make them all prisoners of war, and keep them in duress until they shall make a treaty of peace and boundary with us, by which they shall recognize not onlyrtie Eio del Norte, but such other line as we shall choose to dictate or accept^ Will the gentleman from Massachu setts contend that a treaty made witn us under those circumstances would not be binding, because, forsooth, the government was a prisoner at that time 1 How is a conquered nation ever to make peace if the gentleman's doctrine is to prevail ? Take the case of an absolute monarchy : the king is captured in battle at the head of his army. Both parties may then be willing to settle the dispute, but no treaty can be made because the king is in duress, and, of course, the victor would not release his royal prisoner until a treaty of peace had been executed, lest he might continue hostilities, and, by the fortunes of war, triumph in the contest. This doctrine would place all unfortunate bel ligerents in a most deplorable condition. They refuse to make peace before defeat, because they hope for victory. They are incompetent to do it after ward, because they are in duress. Surely a defeated nation would find itself in a lamentable predicament. Too feeble to resist, disarmed, conquered, and still incompetent to make a treaty of peace and adjust the matter in dispute on such fair and equitable terms as a magnanimous foe might propose, be cause the war of aggression which they had commenced had resulted disas trously, and made them captives. I fear, if the gentlemen on the other side succeed in establishing their doctrine, they will soon find their Mexican friends in a dilemma truly pitiable. Perhaps, if General Paredes and his military government should be reduced to captivity, these gentlemen would require that our armies should retire within our own territory, and set the prisoners at liberty, before negotiations for peace should be opened. This may be their view of the subject, but I doubt whether it is the view which the American government or the American people will feel it their duty to act upon. Our crude notions of things might teach us that the city of Mexico was a very suitable place for conducting the negotiations. I must, therefore, be permitted to adhere to my original position that the treaty of peace and boundaries between Santa Ana and the Texan government in May, 1836, was binding on the Mexican nation, it having been executed hy the govern ment de facto for the- time being. Mr. Adams. Has not that treaty with Santa Ana been since discarded by the Mexican government ? Mr. Douglas. I presume it has, for I am not aware of any treaty or com pact which that government ever entered into that she did not afterward either violate or repudiate. The histoiy of our treaty stipulations with her furnishes ample ground for this presumption. I have not deemed it necessa ry to inquire what particular acts of disavowal, if any, have been since adopt ed by the Mexican government. It is sufficient, for my purpose that the treaty was entered into by competent authority at the time of its execution. The acts of a government de facto are binding on the nation as against for- THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 85 eign nations, without reference to the mode by which that government was established, whether by revolution, usurpation, or rightful and constitutional means. Mr. Adams. I deny it. I deny the proposition. Mr. Douglas. I will not enter into an elaborate discussion of the laws of nations on the point with the .learned gentleman from Massachusetts. I will say, however, that I understand writers on international law to lay down the principle as I have stated. Certainly the practice and usages of all civilized nations sanction it, of which history furnishes innumerable examples. Does the gentleman deny the validity of the acts of the British government in the times of Cromwell because it was a mere government de facto, established in blood, in violation of the English Constitution ? Many of the most import ant treaties affecting the destiny of Europe were made with the British gov ernment during that period ; and who ever heard of a European sovereign denying their obligation or failing to claim the benefits of them ? More re cent and memorable instances may be found in our claims of indemnities against France, Naples, and Spain, for injuries which we sustained during the French Eevolution. We did not permit these countries to exonerate them selves from the obligation to make us compensation upon the pretext that Napoleon, Murat, and Joseph Bonaparte were military despots, who had as cended the thrones through blood and violence. We recognized them as the heads of those governments de facto, while seated on the thrones of the le gitimate kings of those countries, and subsequently held the nations responsi ble for all their invasions of our rights. Spain, Naples, and France have each acknowledged the obligation and granted indemnities. Will the gentleman deny the validity of the purchase of Louisiana upon the ground that it was made with a usurper, who was afterward taken prisoner and dethroned? With as little propriety may he reject Santa Ana's treaty with Texas, and our treaties with the presidents and dictators of Mexico, who have successively and alternately seized the reins of that government at short intervals, and banished or beheaded their predecessors, and changed the forms of govern ment to suit their purposes. In these and all similar cases the usages of the civilized world sanction the doctrine for which I contend, that the govern ment de facto, for the time being, is recognized, and the nation held respons ible for its acts, without inquiring into the means by which it was establish ed, or allowing the obligation to be dissolved by subsequent revolutions or disavowals. I am not now discussing the question whether the distinctions attempted to be established in England on the termination of the Wars of the Eoses, between the rival houses of Lancaster and York, were well found ed or not. I do not pretend to say whether it is a settled principle of the laws of nations that there Is such a distinction between governments de facto and governments de jure as some gentlemen insist upon. I wish to avoid all immaterial issues, for I have had no opportunity for investigation or prepar ation on these points. All I insist upon in this discussion is that the acts of the government de facto, for the time being, are binding on the nation in re spect to foreign states. It«js immaterial, therefore, whether Mexico has or has not disavowed Santa Ana's treaty with Texas. It was executed at the time by competent authority. She availed herself of all its benefits. By virtue of it she saved the remnant of her army from total annihilation, and had her captive dictator restored to liberty, Under it she was permitted to remove, in peace and security, all her soldiers, citizens, and property, beyond the Eio del Norte. The question is, had she a moral and legal right to re pudiate it after she had enjoyed all its advantages ? The gentleman from Massachusetts attempts to apply the legal maxims relative to civil contracts to this transaction. Because an individual who enters into a contract while in duress, has a right to disavow it when restored 86 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. to his liberty, he can see no reason why Santa Ana could not do the same thing. I shall not go into an argument to prove that the rights of a nation, in time of war, are not identical with those of a citizen, under the municipal laws of his own country, in a state of peace. But if I should admit the just ness of the supposed parallel, I apprehend the gentleman would not insist upon the right to rescind the contract without placing the parties in statu quo ; for it must be borne in mind that Santa Ana was a prisoner according to the rules of war, and consequently in lawful custody. Is the gentleman prepared to show that the Mexican government ever proposed to rescind the treaty, and place the parties in the same relative position they occupied on the day of its execution ? Did they ever offer to send Santa Ana and his defeated army back to San Jacinto, to remain as General Houston's prisoners until the Texan government should dispose of them according to its discretion, under the laws of nations ? But I must return from this digression to the main point of my argument. I was proceeding with my proof, when these interruptions com menced, to show that the Eio del Norte was the boundary between Texas and Mexico, and has been so claimed on the one side and recognized on the other ever since the battle of San Jacinto. I have already referred to the fact that the country west of the Nueces had her soldiers in the Texan army during the campaigns of 1835 and 1836, and that the treaty of peace and independ ence between Santa Ana and the Texan government recognized the Eio del Norte as the boundary. I have also referred to the fact that the Mexican army was removed from Texas, in pursuance of that treaty, to the west bank of that stream. I am informed by high authority that General Filisola re ceived instructions from the authorities in Mexico, who were exercising the functions of government in Santa Ana's absence, to enter into any arrange ment with the Texan government which should be necessary to save the Mexican army from destruction, and secure its safe retreat from that coun try ; and that, in pursuance of those instructions, he did ratify Santa Ana's treaty previous to marching the army beyond the Eio del Norte. My friend from Mississippi, before me (Mr. Davis), who has investigated the subject, as sures me that such is the fact. My own recollection accords with his state ment in this respect. These facts clearly show that Mexico, at that time, re garded the revolution as successful as far as the Eio del Norte, and conse quently that the river must necessarily become the boundaiy whenever the in dependence of the new republic should be firmly established. Subsequent transactions prove that the two7 countries have ever since acted on the same supposition. Texas immediately proceeded to form a Constitution and estab-. lish a permanent governm'ent. The country between the Nueces and the Eio del Norte was represented in the convention which formed her Constitution in 1836. James Powers, an actual resident of the territory now in dispute, was elected a delegate by the people residing there, and participated in the pro ceedings of the convention as one of its, members. . The first Congress which assembled under the Constitution proceeded to define the boundaries of the republic, to establish courts of jurisdiction, and the exercise of all the powers of sovereignty over the whole territory. One ofthe first acts of that Congress declares the Eio del Norte, from its mouth to its source, to be the boundary between Texas and Mexico, and the others provide for the exercise of juris diction. Counties were established, reaching across the Nueces, and even to the Eio del Norte, as fast as the tide of emigration advanced in that direc tion. Corpus Christi, Point Isabel, and General Taylor's camp, opposite Matamoras, are all within the county of San Patricio, in the State of Texas, according to our recent maps. That same county, from the day of its for mation, constituted a portion of one ofthe congressional districts, and also of a senatorial district in the Republic of Texas ; it now forms a portion, if not the whole, of a representative district, and also a senatorial district, for the THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 87' election of representatives and senators to the Texan Legislature, as well as a -congressional district for the election of a representative to the Congress of the United States. Colonel Kinney, who emigrated from my own state, has resided in that country, between the Nueces and the Eio del Norte, for many years ; has represented it in the Congress of the Eepublic of Texas, also in the convention which formed the Constitution of the State of Texas, and now represents it in the Texan Senate. I know not what stronger evi dence could be desired that the country in question was, in fact, a portion of the Eepublic of Texas, and, as a consequence, is now a portion of the United States. If an express acknowledgment by Mexico of the Eio del Norte as the boundary, is deemed essential, andthe recognition ofthat fact in Santa Ana's treaty, and subsequently by Filisola, is not considered sufficient, I will en deavor to furnish further and more recent evidence, which, I trust, will be satisfactory on that point. I have not the papers to which I shall refer be fore me at this moment, but they are of such general notoriety that they can not fail to be within the recollection of the members of the House generally. It will be remembered that when we were discussing the propriety and expe diency of the annexation of Texas some two years ago, much was said about an armistice entered into between Mexico and Texas for the suspension of hostilities for a limited period. Well, that armistice was agreed to by the two governments, and in the proclamation announcing the fact by the Mexi can government, the Mexican forces were required to retire from the terri tory -of Texas to the west side of the Rio del Norte. This proclamation was issued, as near as I recollect, in 1843 or 1844, just before the treaty of annex ation was signed by President Tyler, and at a period when Mexico had had sufficient time to recover from the dizziness of the shock at San Jacinto, and to ascertain to what extent the revolution had been successful, and where the> true boundary was. She was not a prisoner of war, nor in duress, at the time she issued this proclamation. It was her own deliberate act (so far as delib eration ever attends her action), done of her own volition. In that proclama tion she clearly recognizes the Eio del Norte as the boundary, and that, too, in view of a treaty of peace, by which the independence of Texas was to be again acknowledged. Mr. Adams. I wish to ask the gentleman from Illinois if the last Congress did not pass an act regulating trade and commerce to tbe foreign province of Santa Fe ? Mr. Douglas. I believe the last Congress did pass an act upon that sub ject, and I will remind the gentleman that the present Congress has passed an act extending the revenue laws of the United States over the countiy be tween the Eio del Norte and the Nueces, and providing for the appointment of custom-house officers to reside there. As near as I recollect, the gentle man from Massachusetts and myself voted for both of those acts. The only difference between us, in this respect, was, that he, being a little more zealous than myself, made a speech for the last one — for the act extending our laws over and taking legal possession of the very country where General Taylor's army is now encamped, and which he now asserts to belong to Mexico. That act passed this Congress unanimously at the present session, taking legal pos session of the whole countiy in dispute, and of course making it the sworn duty of the President to see its provisions faithfully executed. In the name of truth and justice, I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, and his follow ers in this crusade, how they can justify it to their consciences to denounce the President for sending the army to protect the lives of our citizens there, and defend the country from invasion, after they had voted to take legal pos session by the extension of our laws ? They had asserted our right to the country by a solemn act of Congress ; had erected it into a collection dis trict, and the Constitution required the President to appoint the officers, and 88 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. see the laws faithfully executed. Pie had done so ; and for this simple discharge of a duty enjoined upon him by a law for which they voted, he is ^ssailed, in the coarsest terms known to our language, as having committed an act wliich is unholy, unrighteous, and damnable ! But I feel it due to the venerable gentleman from Massachusetts to respond more particularly to his inquiry in regard to the act of the last Congress regulating commerce and trade to Santa Fe. I do not now recollect its exact provisions, nor is it important, inas much as that act was passed before Texas was annexed to this Union. Of course Santa Fe was foreign to us at that time, whether it belonged to Texas or Mexico. The object of that act was to regulate the trade across our west ern frontier between us and foreign countries. Texas was then foreign to us, but is no longer so since her annexation and admission into the Union. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have now said all that I intended for the purpose of showing that the Eio del Norte was the western boundaiy of the Eepublic of Texas. How far I have succeeded in establishing the position, I leave to the House and the country to determine. If that was the boundaiy of the Ee public of Texas, it has, of course, become the boundary of the United States by virtue ofthe acts of annexation and admission into the Union. I will not say that I have demonstrated the question as satisfactorily .as the distinguish ed gentleman from Massachusetts did in 1819, but I will say that I think I am safe in adopting the sentiment which he then expressed — that our title to the Rio del Norte is as clear as to the island of New Orleans. Mr. Adams. I never said that our title was good to the Eio del Norte from its mouth to its source. Mr. Douglas. I know nothing of the gentleman's mental reservations. If he means, by his denial, to place the whole emphasis on the qualification that he did not claim that river as the boundary "from its mouth to its source," I shall not dispute with him on that point. But if he wishes to be understood as denying that he ever claimed the Rio del Norte, in general terms, as our boundary under the Louisiana treaty, I can furnish him with an official docu ment, over his own signature, which he will find very embarrassing and ex ceedingly difficult to explain. I allude to his famous dispatch as secretary of state, in 1819, to Don Onis, the Spanish minister. I am not certain that I can prove his handwriting, for the copy I have in my possession I find printed in the American State Papers, published by order of Congress. In that paper he not only claimed the Rio del Norte as our boundary, but he demonstrated the validity of the claim by a train of facts and arguments which rivet conviction on every impartial mind, and defy refutation. Mr. Adams. I wrote that dispatch as secretary of state, and endeavored to make out the best case I could for my own countiy, as it was my duty ; but I utterly deny that I claimed the Rio del Norte as our boundary in its full extent. I only claimed it a short distance up the river, and then diverged northward some distance from the stream. Mr. Douglas. Will the gentleman specify the point at which his line left the river ? Mr. Adams. I never designated the point. Mr. Douglas. Was it above Matamoras ? Mr. Adams. I never specified any particular place. Mr. Douglas. I am well aware that the gentleman never specified any point of departure for his northward line, which, he now informs us, was to run a part of the way on the east side of that river ; for he claimed'the river as the boundaiy in general terms, without any qualification. But his present ad mission is sufficient for my purposes, if he will only specify the point from which he then understood or now understands that his line was to have di verged from the river. I have heard of this line before, and know with rea sonable certainty its point of departure. It followed the river to a place near THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 89 the highlands — certainly more than one hundred miles above Matamoras ; con sequently, if we adopt that line as our present boundary, it will give us Point Isabel and General Taylor's camp opposite Matamoras, and every inch of ground upon which an American soldier has ever placed his foot since the annexation of Texas to the Union. Hence my solicitude to extract an an swer from the venerable gentleman to my interrogatory whether his line fol lowed the river any distance above Matamoras, and hence, I apprehend, the cause of my failure to procure a response to that question. If he had re sponded to my inquiry, his answer would have furnished a triumphant refu tation of all the charges which he and his friends have made against the Presi dent for ordering the army of occupation to its present position. I am not now to be diverted from the real point in controversy by a discussion of the question whether the Rio del Norte was the boundary to its source. My present object is to repel the calumnies which have been urged against our government, to place our country in the right and the enemy in the wrong, before the civilized world, according to the truth and justice'of the case. I have exposed these calumnies by reference to the acts and admissions of our accusers, by which they have asserted our title to the full extent that we have taken possession. I have shown that Texas always claimed the Rio del Norte as her boundary during the existence of the republic, and that Mexico on several occasions recognized it as such in the most direct and solemn manner. The President ordered the army no farther than Congress had extended our laws. In view of these facts, I leave it to the candor of every honest man whether the executive did not do his duty, and nothing but his duty, when he ordered the army to the Eio del Norte. Should he have folded his arms, and allowed our citizens to be murdered and our territory invaded with im punity ? have we not forborne to act, either offensively or defensively, until our forbearance is construed into cowardice, and is exciting contempt from those toward whom we have exercised our magnanimity ? We have a long list of grievances, a long catalogue of wrongs to be avenged. Tho war has commenced ; blood has been shed ; our territory invaded ; all by the act of the enemy. I had hoped and trusted that there would be no anti-war party after war was declared. In this I have been sadly disappointed. I have been particularly mortified to see one with whom I have acted on the Oregon question, who was ready to plunge the country into immediate war, if necessary, to main tain the rights and honor of the country in that direction, now arraying him self on the side of the enemy when our country is invaded by another portion of the Union. To me, our countiy and all its parts are one and indivisible. I would rally under her standard in the defense of one portion as soon as an other — the South as soon as the North; for Texas as soon as Oregon. And I will here do my Southern friends the justice to say that I firmly believe, and never doubted that, if war had arisen out of the Oregon question, when once declared, they would have been found shoulder to shoulder with me as firmly as I shall be with them in this Mexican war. Mr. Adams. I thought I understood the gentleman some time ago, while standing on 54° 40', to tell his Southern friends that he wanted no dodging on the Oregon question. Mr. Douglas. I did stand on 54° 40' ; I stand thjere now, and never in tend, by any act of mine, to surrender the position. I am as ready and will ing to fight for 54° 40' as for the Eio del Norte. My patriotism is not of that kind which would induce me to go to war to enlarge one section of the Union out of mere hatred and vengeance toward the other. I have no personal or political griefs resulting from the past to embitter my feelings and inflame my resentment toward any section of our country. I know no sections, no divisions. I did complain of a few of my Southern friends on the Oregon question ; did tell them that I wished to see no dodging ; endeavored to rally PO life of Stephen a. douglas. them on 54° 40' as our fighting line, regardless of consequences, war or no war. But, while they declined to assume this position in a time of peace, they unanimously ayowed their determination to stand by the country the moment war was declared. j But, since the gentleman from Massachusetts has dragged the Oregon question into this debate, I wish to call his attention to one of his wise sayings on that subject, and see if he is not willing to apply it to Texas as well as Oregon, to Mexico as well as Great Britain. He recalled to the mind of the House that passage of history in which the great Frederick took military possession of Silesia, and immediately proposed to settle the question of title and boundaries by negotiation. During the Oregon debate he avow ed himself in favor of Frederick's plan for the settlement of that question, " Take possession first, and negotiate afterward." I desire to know why the gentleman is not willing to apply this principle to the country on the Eio del Norte as well as Oregon ? According to his own showing, that is precisely what President Polk has done. He has taken possession, and proposed to negotiate, In this respect the President has adopted the advice of the gen tleman from Massachusetts, and followed the example of the great Frederick. The only difference in the two cases is that the President was maintaining a legal possession, which Congress had previously taken by the extension of our laws. For -this be is also abused. He is condemned ahke for using the sword and the olive branch. His enemies object to his efforts for amicable adjustment as well as to the movements of the army. All is wrong in their eyes. Their country is always wrong, and its enemies right. It has ever been so. It was so in the last war with Great Britain. Then it was unbe coming a moral and religious people to rejoice at the success of American arms. We were wrong, in their estimation, in the French Indemnity case, in the Florida war, in all the Indian wars, and now in the Mexican war. I despair of ever seeing my country again in the right, if they are to be the oracles. . On the 23d of February, 1848, President Pierce communi cated to the Senate the treaty of peace with Mexico, negotiated at Guadalupe Hidalgo by !N\ P. Trist, caUing attention to cer tain provisions in it which were highly objectionable. The debate on this treaty continued until March 10, when, it hav ing been amended, the vote was taken, " Will the Senate ad vise and consent to the ratification of the treaty in the form of this resolution ?" and the vote stood : Yeas — Ashley, Atherton, Bagby, Bell, Bradbury, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Cameron, Cass, Clarke, Crittenden, Davis of Massachusetts, Davis of Missis sippi, Dayton, Dickinson, Dix, Downs, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hale, Hanne- gan, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson of Geor gia, Mangum, Mason, Miller, Moor, Niles, Rusk, Sevier, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Yulee — 38. Nays — Allen of Ohio, Atchison of Missouri, Badger of North Carolina, Baldwin of Connecticut, Benton of Missouri, Berrien of Georgia, Breese of Illinois, Corwin of Ohio, Douglas of Illinois, Lewis of Alabama, Spruance of Delaware, Upham of Vermont, Webster of Massachusetts, Westcott of Florida — 14. Two thirds having voted in the affirmative, the treaty was ratified. The objections to the treaty on the part of Mr. Douglas are stated in the extracts from his speeches in the various part of this volume. POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 91 CHAPTER VI. POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. Since the advent of Mr. Douglas upon the floors of Con gress, he has always taken an active and decided part in the discussions upon the proper policy to be adopted and main tained by the United States with respect to foreign govern ments, and also respecting foreign possessions and foreign domination upon the American continent. While he has al ways been a strenuous defender of the Monroe doctrine, and a zealous advocate of its rigid maintenance on all occasions by the United States, he has never given his approval to any of the resolutions or propositions which, from time to time, have been introduced into Congress, with a view of having a declar ation of what this government would or would not do under certain circumstances. His theory is that the declaration by Mr. Monroe was a formal notice to the world that thenceforth there was to be no new establishment of power or acquisition of territory on this continent by any European nation. By tilat declaration he is willing to stand. It is broad, explicit, and covers the whole subject. As to all other questions, he is for leaving the United States unfettered by declarations, pledges, or treaty stipulations. He is - opposed to any agree ment between the United States and any European power by which the United States will be bound to do or not to do cer tain things respecting the future of any part of this continent. He is for leaving the government perfectly free to act when the occasion arises, just as the circumstances and interests of the country shall at the time require. When Mr. Douglas entered Congress the Oregon boundary question was causing considerable agitation. He had dis- cuss.ed the subject often at home in Illinois. It was no new subject for him. He at once entered largely into it. As the whole controversy has long since been finaUy disposed of by ' treaty, it is unnecessary to quote in a work of this kind his speeches on the question. They were many and able, and dis played a research for which those who were strangers to him 92 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. were reluctant to give him credit. He was for 54° 40', and was the last man to yield in the memorable congressional struggle that ensued some years later. He had declared in his first speech his matured and deliberate opinion that the American title was clear and indisputable, and that he never would, now or hereafter, yield up an inch of Oregon to Great Britain or any other government. He was a warm supporter of the proposition of giving the notice required by existing treaty for the termination of the joint occupation of the disputed ter ritory. He advocated the immediate organization of a terri torial government for Oregon, and its protection by an ample military force. If these events, if this just enforcement of American rights were to lead to a Avar with Great Britain, he urged the strong necessity for puttmg the country in a state of defense. He reviewed, with strong and emphatic denuncia tions, the incessant progress made by Great Britain in ex tending and maintaining dominion on this continent. He de scribed her power at the north and on the lakes ; her posses sions and depots in the Atlantic, and also on the Pacific; pointed out her intrigues to obtain Texas on the southwest — all these things he presented with great force and power. On the 3d of June, 1844, he made a, speech in the House contrasting the principles, and the opinions upon all pending national questions, of Messrs. Clay and Polk. This speech wag made in reply to one delivered by Colonel Hardin, of Illinois ; it was such an able exposition of Democratic principles that it was the campaign speech of the session, was printed in im mense numbers, and was sent all over the Union. THE OREGON BOUNDARY. The following extracts from speeches delivered by him on the Oregon question of that day will serve to Ulustrate his general views : "It therefore becomes us to put this nation in a state of defense; and, when we are told that this will lead to war, all I have to say is this, violate no treaty stipulations, nor any principle of the law of nations ; preserve the honor and integrity of the country, but, at the same time, assert our right to the last inch, and then, if war comes, let it come. We may regret the necessity which produced it, but when it does come, I would administer to our citizens Hannibal's oath of eternal enmity, and not terminate the war until the question was settled forever. I would blot out the lines on the map which now mark our national boundaries on this continent, and make the area of liberty as broad as the continent itself. I would not suffer petty rival POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 93 republics to grow up here, engendering jealousy of each pther, and interfering with each other's domestic affairs, and continually endangering their peace. I do not wish to go beyond the great ocean — beyond those boundaries wbich the God of nature has marked out, I would limit myself only by that bound ary which is so clearly defined by nature." Again : "Our federal system is admirably adapted to the whole continent; and, while I would not violate the laws of nations, nor treaty stipulations, nor in any manner tarnish the national honor, I would exert all legal and honor able means to drive Great Britain and the last vestiges of royal authority from the continent of North America, and extend the limits of the republic from ocean to ocean. I would make this an ocean-bound republic, and have no more disputes about boundaries, or 'red lines' upon the maps." The Baltimore Convention, which in June, 1844, nominated Mr. Polk for the presidency, had passed the following resolu tion: ' ' Resolved, That our title to the whole of the territory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable ; that no portion of the same should be ceded to En gland or any other power ; and that the reoccupation of Oregon, and the reannexatiori of Texas at the earliest practicable period, are great American measures, which this convention recommends to the ardent support of the Democracy of the Union. " It subsequently became a subject of grave discussion and of warm controversy whether that part of this resolution relating to Oregon was or Avas not a part of the Democratic platform to which the party was committed. In the discussion upon that point, Mr. Douglas, while conceding to President Polk all possible patriotism, and admitting that the President could not have been aware, on his accession to the presidency, that the United States had at one time ofibred to compromise on 49°, contended, nevertheless, that all Democrats were bound by the resolution of the Baltimore Convention. The history of the Oregon boundary question is one of the most interesting in the annals of our government. The limits of this work will not permit it to be given in full here, but its progress and final settlement may be understood from the fol lowing brief sketch : The proposition to give the notice of the termination of the joint occupancy ofthe disputed territory was renewed during the first Congress of which Mr. Douglas was a member, and failed. In the twenty -ninth Congress it was again urged. This was the first Congress foUowing Mr. Polk's inauguration. In his inaugural address the President had used these memo rable words : 94 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. " Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to assert and maintain, by all constitutional means, the right of the United States to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains. Our title to the country of the Oregon is ' clear and unquestionable,' and already are our people prepar ing to perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children." By the 3d article ofthe treaty of October, 1818, it had been agreed that the country in dispute should be open and free for ten years to the citizens of both countries, without prejudice to the claims of either country. Several subsequent efibrts were made to settle the matter by negotiation, but without success. In 1827 a convention was made, by Avhich it was agreeckto con tinue in force the existing stipulation for a joint occupancy, with a proviso that after October, 1828, either ofthe contract ing parties, on giving due notice of twelve months to the other contracting party, might annul and abrogate this last treaty, which should, from and after the expiration of the twelve months' notice, be abrogated and annulled. ' The United States had, in all the negotiations, offered to fix the boundary upon the parallel of 49° north latitude, but the offer had been reject ed. Great Britain offered the boundary of 49° to its intersec tion with the northeastern branch of the Columbia River, and then with the channel of said river to the ocean. This had been rejected, for obvious reasons, by the United States. In 1843 the negotiations had been renewed ; and in August, 1844, ¦ pending the presidential contest in which Mr. Polk was a can didate, Great Britain, through her minister at Washington, made an offer having for its main feature the hue of 49°. This was rejected by Mr. Tyler. Upon Mr. Polk's entering the of fice of President, he found that the United States, from 1818 up to a very recent period, had offered to accept the parallel of 49°, the difference between the two governments being upon questions involving the joint right of navigation ofthe Colum bia River, free ports upon Vancouver's Island, and other points of detail. Mr. Polk again offered as a compromise the fine of 49°, omitting what had been tendered by his predecessors — the free navigation of the Columbia River south of that line. He was, he said, unwilling to concede to Great Britain the free navigation of any river in the United States. The British min ister rejected the offer, and Mr. Polk then asserted the Amer- POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 95 ican claim to the whole territory. He recommended that the notice be given for the termination of the existing convention. In December, 1845, Mr. Douglas, being then chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported " a bill to protect the rights of American settlers in the Territory of Oregon untU the term ination of the joint occupancy of the same." In January, 1846, the Committee on Foreign Relations in the House reported a joint resolution directing the President forthwith to give the twelve months' notice for the abrogation of the treaty of 1827. Upon this resolution a protracted debate took place. Mr. Douglas advocated its passage. He took the high ground that the American title to the whole territory was indisputa ble, and he was for resuming its exclusive occupancy. He denied that such a course would afford cause for war ; but if it was used as a pretext for Avar by Great Britain, he would not shrink from the contest. He denied that Great Britain had the slightest legal claim to any part of the northwestern coast, and, having no just or legal claim, he was for excluding her entirely from that coast. The records of Congress bear ample evidence of the interest felt by the country upon the question ; and in the broad pages which contain the speeches, . there are none that will better repay the time given to thfpj, perusal than those which contain the speeches of Mr. Douglas. The excitement following these measures, and up to the day of the final settlement of the question in Congress, was intense, and the country was no less agitated. Peace or war, the in tegrity ofthe national domain or its severance, were the themes of daily and angry discussions in all parts of the country. State conventions and state Legislatures took action upon the subject, and throughout the land the declaration of "fifty-four forty or fight" was growing into popular favor, and was fast becoming an expression of national sentiment. In the second week of February, the House, by resolution, closed the debate in Committee of the Whole. In the mean time, while these propositions were pending before the House, the British min ister, on the 27th of December, 1845, and again on January 16, 1846, proposed to the American government, 1st, to sub< mit the whole question of an equitable division of Oregon ter' ritory to the arbitration of some friendly sovereign or state ; and, 2d, to refer the question of title in either ofthe two pow- 96 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. ers to the whole territory ; the arbitrator, in case he found the title to the whole to be in neither, to assign to each such por tions as he might think it entitled. These propositions were promptly rejected by Mr. Polk, who declined the first proposi tion (among other reasons) because he could not admit Great Britain to have any claim to any portion, and, secondly, because he did not think the territorial rights of the nation a proper subject for arbitration. He could not consent to any measure which would withdraw our title from the control of the gov ernment and people of the United States, and place it within the discretion of any arbitrator, no matter how intelligent and respectable. The debate closed at three P.M., Mr. Darragh having made the last speech, and then ensued a scene which is graphicaUy described in the Congressional Globe. The question pending was on the joint resolution reported by the Committee on For eign Relations, directing that the President forthwith give the notice. The first amendment proposed was to strike out the word "forthwith," which was agreed to without a division. The next amendment proposed was to authorize the President to give the notice whenever, in his judgment, the public inter est required it. This was rejected; ayes 56, noes 136. HIr. Dromgoole submitted a substitute for the resolution reported by the committee. It authorized the President to give the notice, but declared that nothing in such action was to be taken as interfering with negotiations for an amicable settlement of the controversy. Under the rules of the House, both the original proposition and the proposed substitute were open for amendment. Mr. Dargan moved an amendment, providing, 1st, that the existing differences between the two governments were still the subject of honorable negotiation and compromise, and should be so adjusted ; and, 2d, that the boundary-line between the Canadas and the United States should be extended due west to the coast south of Frazer's River, and thence through the centre of the Straits of Fuca to the Pacific, giving to the United States ' all the territory south, and Great Britain aU lying north of that line. The first clause was rejected — ayes 96, noes 102 ; and the second clause by an overwhelming vote. Mr. J. A. Rockwell moved an amendment declaring that, as the President had refused to accept an offer to refer the mat- POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 97 ter to arbitration, it was the sense of the House that the Presi dent should be permitted, upon his own responsibUity, to take such further measures as he might deem expedient. This was rejected. Mr. J. A. Black offered as an amendment for the substitute a preamble and resolution, that, with a view of fixing a limit beyond which the settlement of the question could not be de layed, and at the same time affording every possible opportu nity for a just and final settlement, the President give the twelve months' notice, etc. Rejected. Mr. Ramsey moved to amend by striking out all after the word " resolved," and insert, "That the Oregon question is no longer a subject of nego tiation or compromise." This was the ultimate ground on the subject, and the House voted — ayes 10, noes 146. The proceedings having taken place in Committee ofthe Whole, and the vote by teUers, no rec ord is preserved of the names of members voting on this or any other of the propositions ; but Mr. Wheeler, in his History of Congress, Avriting from personal knowledge, gives as the names ofthe ten who voted in the afiirmative the foUowing; Alexander Ramsey, of Pennsylvania. Joseph B. Hoge, of Elinois. Archibald Yell, of Arkansas. William Sawyer, of Ohio. Cornelius Darragh, of Pennsylvania. F. G. M'Connell, of Alabama. Robert Smith, Stephen A. Douglas, J. A. M'Clernand, John Wentworth, FinaUy, after the rejection of a large number of amendments, the committee, by a vote of ayes 110, noes 93, adopted the fol lowing : " Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representa tives, etc., that the President of the United States cause notice to be given to the government of Great Britain that the con vention between the United States of America and Great Brit ain concerning the territory on the northwest coast of Amer ica, west of the Stony or Rocky Mountains, of the sixth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, sign ed at London, shaU be annuUed and abrogated twelve months after giving said notice. " Resolved, That nothing herein contained is intended to in terfere with the right and discretion of the proper authorities ofthe two contracting parties to renew or pursue negotiations for an amicable settlement of the controversy respecting tha Oregon Territory." E 98 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. The committee rose and reported the resolution to the House. The House, by a vote of yeas 163, nays 54, ordered it to be engrossed, and then, without a division, the resolution passed. The Senate debated this resolution from February tUl the 16th of AprU, when it amended it by substituting an other resolution for it. The House refused to concur ; a com mittee of conference was appointed, and they reported a reso lution which was finaUy agreed to by both houses. It author ized the President, in his discretion, to give the notice, which authority he promptly exercised. It is known that while the Senate and House were thus engaged, an active correspondence was going on between the representatives of the two govern ments, which finally ended in a formal offer, in the month of June, by the British government for a settlement of the bound ary-line upon the parallel of 49°. As the rejection of that prop osition involved possibly the issue of peace or war, the Presi dent, imitating the example set by Washington in several cases, submitted the offer to the Senate for their -advice upon it. The Senate, by a vote of 38 to 12, advised the President to ac cept the proposal ofthe British government. On the 16th of June the President communicated the treaty to the Senate ; and on the 18th, the Senate, by a vote of yeas 41, nays 14, ad vised and consented to the ratification of the same. Thus end ed the exciting Oregon boundary question, in the discussions upon which Mr. Douglas earned an enviable reputation both as an orator and as a statesman. The annexation of Texas and the Mexican war, though both questions bearing directly upon the foreign policy of the gov ernment of the United States, are subjects so intimately con nected, and forming a distinct chapter of the history of the . country at the time, will be found under a separate head. MONROE DOCTRINE. CLAYTON-BULAVER TREATY. The next great question affecting the policy of the United States respecting the management of its relations Avith foreign governments was the Treaty of Washington, more familiarly known as the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. The proceedings of the Senate (of which Mr. Douglas was then a member) upon this treaty were, of course, secret, and the record since made pubUc presents the statement of the votes of senators, and the resolutions of the Senate. Involved in this treaty was the pol- POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 99 icy of the United States respecting the states of Central Amer ica, and the enforcement of what is known historically as the Monroe Doctrine. In March, 1849, General Taylor succeeded Mr. Polk in the presidency. The Hon. John M. Clayton succeeded Mr. Bu chanan as secretary of state. 'During the summer and winter following the administration undertook to establish some fixed relations respecting affairs in Central America. The result was the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. This convention was communicated to the Senate by a special message on the 22d of AprU, 1850. On the 22d of May foUowing it was ratified by that body by the following vote : Yeas — F. Badger of North Carolina, Baldwin of Connecticut, Bell of Tennessee, Berrien of Georgia, Butler of South Carolina, Cass of Michigan, Chase of Ohio, Clarke of Rhode Island, Clay of Kentucky, Cooper of Pennsyl vania, Corwin of Ohio, Davis of Massachusetts, Dawson of Georgia, Dayton of New Jersey, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Downs of Louisiana, Felch of Michigan, Foote of Mississippi, Green of Rhode Island, Hale of New Hampshire, Houston of Texas, Hunter of Virginia, Jones of Iowa, King of Alabama, Mangum of North Carolina, Mason of Virginia, Miller of New Jersey, Morton of Florida, Norris of New Hampshire, Pearce of Maryland, Pratt of Maryland, Sebastian of Arkansas, Seward of New York, Shields of Illinois, Smith of Connecticut, Soule of Louisiana, SpruanCe of Delaware, Sturgeon of Pennsylvania, Underwood of Kentucky, Wales of Delaware, and Webster of Massachusetts — 42. Nays — Atchison of Missouri, Borland of Arkansas, Bright of Indiana, Clemens of Alabama, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson of New York, Douglas of Illinois, Turney of Tennessee, Walker of Wisconsin, Whitcomb of Indiana, and Yulee of Florida-7— 11. The very interesting debates were not published, though it was well known at the time that Mr. Douglas had taken an active part in opposition to the ratification of the treaty. At the session of 1852-3, General Cass caUed the attention of the Senate to certain alleged misunderstandings between the two governments respecting the meaning of certain stipu lations in the treaty. A debate of deep interest sprung up, and for several days the entire subject of the treaty was dis cussed. Mr. Clayton was then at his residence in Delaware. So deeply did he consider himself involved in the matters agi tated before the Senate, that he addressed a long letter by tele graph to the National Intelligencer. The Legislature of Dela ware shortly after elected him to a seat in the Senate. On the 3d of March Congress adjourned ; but, as is usual upon the incoming of a new administration, the retiring President called a special session of the Senate to consider such executive 100 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. business as might be laid before them. Mr. Clayton took his seat at this special session, and, by way of a resolution calling for information, he renewed the controversy. Upon this res olution, the Avhole subject of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and Central American affairs was discussed in a debate which was protracted until late in AprU. As Mr. Douglas bore a con spicuous part in the debate in February, as well as at the spe cial session, his speeches on these occasions are quoted from largely, as presenting in a clear and comprehensive form his views and opinions upon the important subjects embraced in the debates. On the 14th of February, in the Senate, Mr. Douglas said: Thirty years ago, Mr. Monroe, in his message to Congress, made a mem orable declaration with respect to European colonization upon this continent. That declaration has ever since been a favorite subject of eulogism with or ators, politicians, and statesmen. Eecently it has assumed the dignified ap pellation of the "Monroe doctrine." It seems to be the part of patriotism for all to profess that doctrine, while our government has scarcely ever failed to repudiate it practically whenever an opportunity for its observance has been presented. The Oregon treaty is a noted case in point. Prior to that convention there was no British colony on this continent west of the Eocky Mountains. The Hudson's Bay Company was confined by its charter to the shores of the bay, and to the .streams flowing into it, and to the countiy drained by them. The western boundary of Canada was hundreds of miles distant; and there was no European colony to be found in all that region en the Pacific coast stretching from California to the Russian possessions. We had a treaty of non-occupancy with Great Britain, by the provisions of whieh neither party was to be permitted to colonize or assume dominion over any portion of that territory. We abrogated that treaty of non-occupancy, and then entered into a convention, by the terms of which the country in question was divided into two nearly equal parts, by the parallel of the forty- ninth degree of latitude, and all on the north confirmed to Great Britain, and that on the south to the United States. By that treaty Great Britain consented that we might establish territories and states south of the forty- ninth parallel, and the United States consented that Great Britain might, to the north of that parallel, establish new European colonies, in open and fla grant violation of the Monroe doctrine. It is unnecessary for me to remind the countiy, and especially my own constituents, with what energy and em phasis I protested against that convention, upon the ground that it carried with it the undisguised repudiation of the Monroe declaration, and the con sent of this republic that new British colonies might be established on that portion of the North American continent where none existed before. Again : as late as 1850 a convention was entered into between the govern ment of the United States and Great Britain, called the Clayton and Bul wer treaty, every article and provision of which is predicated upon a practical negation and repudiation of what is known as the Monroe doctrine, as I shall conclusively establish before I close these remarks. Since the ratifica tion of that treaty and in defiance of its express stipulations, as well as of the Monroe declaration, Great Britain has planted a new colony in Central America, known as the colony of the Bay Islands. In view of this fact, and with the colony of the Bay Islands in his mind's eye, the venerable senator POLICY "WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 101 from Michigan lays upon the table of the Senate, and asks us to affirm by our votes, a -resolution in which it is declared that "while existing rights SHOULD BE RESPECTED, AND WILL BE BY THE UNITED STATES, » the Amer ican continents "are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power," and "that no future European colony or dominion shall, with their consent, be planted or established on any part of ihe North American continent." Now, sir, before I vote for this resolution, I desire to understand, with clear ness and precision, its purport and meaning. Existing rights are to be re spected ! What is to be the construction of this clause 1 Is it that all colo nies established in America by European powers prior to the passage of this resolution are to be respected by the United States as "existing rights?" Is this resolution to be understood as a formal and official declaration, by the Congress of the United States, of our acquiescence in the seizure of the isl ands in the Bay of Honduras, and the erection of them into a new British colony ? When, in connection with this clause respecting " existing rights, ' ' we take into consideration the one preceding it, in which it is declared that "henceforth" the American continents are not open to European coloni zation ; and the clause immediately succeeding it, which says that " no future European colony or dominion" shall, with our consent, be planted on the North American continent, who can doubt that Great Britain will feel herself au thorized to construe the resolution into a declaration on our part of uncondi tional acquiescence in her right to hold all the colonies and dependencies she at this time may possess in America ? Is the Senate of the United States prepared to make such a declaration ? Is this republic, in view of our pro fessions for the last thirty years, and of our present and prospective position, prepared to submit to such a result f If we are, let us seal our lips, and talk no more about European colonization upon the American continents. What is to redeem our declarations upon this subject in the future from utter con tempt, if we fail to vindicate the past, and meekly submit to the humiliation of the present ? With an avowed policy, of thirty years' standing, that no future European colonization is to be permitted in America — affirmed when there was no opportunity for enforcing it, and abandoned whenever a case was presented for carrying it into practical effect — is it now proposed to beat an other retreat under cover of terrible threats of awful consequences when the offense shall be repeated ? ' ' Henceforth" no " future" European colony is to be planted in America ' ' with our consent .'" It is gratifying to learn that the United States are never going to " consent" to the repudiation ofthe Monroe doctrine again. No more Clayton and Bulwer treaties ; no more British " alliances" in Central America, New Granada, or Mexico ; no more resolu tions of oblivion to protect "existing rights!" Let England tremble, and Europe take warning, if the offense is repeated. "Should the attempt be made," says the resolution, "it will leave the United StatesyJ-ee to adopt such measures as an independent nation may justly adopt in defense of its rights and honor." Are not the United States now free to adopt such measures as an independent nation may justly adopt in defense of its rights andhonor? Have we not given the notice ? Is not thirty years sufficient notice ? And has it not been repeated within the last eight years, and yet the deed is done in contempt of not only the Monroe doctrine, but of solemn treaty stipula tions ? Will you ever have a better opportunity to establish the doctrine — a clearer right to vindicate, or a more flagrant wrong to redress ? If you do not do it now, your "henceforth" resolutions, in respect to "future" attempts, may as well be dispensed with. I have no resolutions to bring forward in re lation to our foreign policy. Circumstances have deprived me of the oppor tunity or disposition to participate actively in the proceedings of the Senate this session. I know not what the present administration has done or is do- 102 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. ing in reference to this question ; and I am willing to leave the incoming ad ministration free to assume its own position, and to take the initiation unem barrassed byrthe action of the Senate. My principal object in addressing the Senate to-day is to avail myself of the opportunity, now for the first time presented by the removal of the injunc tion of secrecy, of explaining my reasons for opposing the ratification of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. In order to clearly understand the question in all its bearings, it is necessaiy to advert to the circumstances under which it was presented. The Oregon boundary had been established, and important interests had grown up in that territory ; California had been acquired, and an immense commerce had sprung into existence ; lines of steamers had been established from New York and New Orleans to Chagres, and from Panama to California and Oregon ; American citizens had acquired the right of way, and were engaged in the construction of a railroad across the Isthmus of Pa nama, under the protection of treaty stipulations with New Granada ; other American citizens had secured the right of way, and were preparing to con struct a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through Lake Nicaragua ; and still other American citizens had procured the right of way, and were prepar ing to commence the construction of a railroad, under a grant from Mexico, across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Thus the right of transit on all the routes across the isthmus had passed into American hands, and were within the protection and control of the American government. In view of this state of things, Mr. Hise, who had been appointed charge d'affaires, under the administration of Mr. Polk, to the Central American States, negotiated a treaty with the- State of Nicaragua which secured to the United States forever the exclusive privilege of opening and using all canals, railroads, and other1 means of communication, from the Atlantic to the Pa cific, through the territory of that republic. ' The rights, privileges, and im munities conceded by that treaty were all that any American could have de sired. Its provisions are presumed to be within the knowledge of every sen ator, and ought to be famihar to the people of this country. The grant was to the United States, or to such companies as should be organized under its authority, or received under its protection. The privileges were exclusive in their terms and perpetual in their tenure. They were to continue forever as inalienable American rights. In addition to the privilege of constructing and using all roads and canals through the territory of Nicaragua, Mr. Hise's treaty also secured to the United States the right to erect and garrison such fortifications as we should deem necessaiy at the termini of such communi cation on each ocean, and at intermediate points along the lines of the works, together with a grant of lands three miles square at the termini for the estab lishment of towns with free ports and free institutions. I do not deem it nec essary to detain the Senate by reading the provisions of this treaty. It is published in the document I hold in my hand, and is open to every one who chooses to examine it. It was submitted tp the Department of State in Washington on the 15th of September, 1849, but never sent to the Senate for ratification. In the mean time, the administration of General Taylor had su perseded Mr. Hise by the appointment of another representative to the Cen tral American States, and instructed hinyln procuring a grant for a canal, to "CLAIM NO PECULIAR PRIVILEGE — NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT NO MONOPOLY OF COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE." After having thus instructed Mr. Squier as to the basis of the treaty whieh he was to conclude, Mr. Clayton seems to have been apprehensive that Mr. Hise might already have entered into a convention by which the United States had secured the exclusive and perpetual privilege, and in order to guard against such a contingency, he adds, at the conclusion of the same letter of instructions, the following : POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 103 "If a charter or grant ofthe right of way shall have been incautiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to have it prop erly MODIFIED TO ANSWER THE ENDS WE HAVE IN VIEW." In other words, if Mr. Hise shall have made a treaty by which he may have secured all the desired privileges to the United States exclusively, " seek to-have it properly modified," so as to form a partnership with England and other monarchical powers of Europe, and thus lay the foundation for an alli ance between the New and Old World, by which the right of European pow ers to intermeddle with the affairs of American states will be established and recognized. With these instructions in his pocket, Mr. Squier arrived in Nic aragua, and before he reached the seat of government, learned, by a " publi cation in the Gazette of thejsthmus," that Mr. Hise was already negotiating a treaty in respect to the contemplated canal. Without knowing the pro visions of the treaty, but taking it for granted that it was in violation of the principles of General Taylor's administration, as set forth in his instructions, Mr. Squier immediately dispatched a notice to the government of Nicaragua, that ' ' Mr. Hise was superseded on the 2d of April last, upon whieh date I (Mr. Squier) received my commission as his successor ;" " that Mr. Hise was not empowered to enter upon any negotiations of the character referred to ;" and concluding with the following request : " / have, therefore, to request that no action will be taken by the government of Nicaragua upon the inchoate treaty which may have been negotiated at Gua temala, but that the same may be allowed to pass as an unofficial act." On the same day, Mr. Squier, with, commendable promptness, sends a let ter to Mr. Clayton, informing our government of what he had learned in re spect to the probable conclusion of the Hise treaty, and expressing his appre hension that the information may be true, and adds : "If so, I shall be placed in a situation of some embarrassment, as I con ceive that Mr. Hise has no authority for the step he has taken, and ss certain ly not informed of the present view7s and desires of our government." . He also adds : "Under these circumstances, I have addressed a note [B] to the govern ment of this republic (Nicaragua), requesting that the treaty- made at Gua temala (if any such exists) may be allowed to pass as an unofficial act, and that new negotiations may be entered upon at the seat of government." Having communicated this important intelligence to his own government, Mr. Squier proceeded on his journey with a patriotic zeal equal to the im portance of his mission, and on his arrival upon the theatre of his labors opened negotiations for a new treaty in accordance with the "present views and desires of our government," as contained in his instructions. The new treaty was concluded on the 3d of September, 1849, and transmitted to the government, with a letter explanatory ofthe negotiation, bearing date the 10th of the same month. Mr. Squier's treaty, so far as I can judge from the pub lished correspondence— for the injunction of secrecy forbids a reference to more authentic sources of information — is in strict accordance with his in structions, and entirely free from any odious provisions which might secure "peculiar privileges or exclusive rights" to the United States. These two treaties — the one negotiated by Mr. Hise and the other by Mr. Squier — were in the State Department in this city when Congress met in December, 1849. The administration of General Taylor was at hberty to choose between them, and submit the one or the other to the Senate for rat ification. The Hise treaty was suppressed, without giving the Senate an op portunity of ratifying it or advising its rejection. I am aware that a single letter published in this document of correspondence (House of Representatives) Executive Document, No. 75) gives an apparent excuse — a mere pretext — for withholding it from the Senate. I allude to the letter of Mr. Carache, 104 . LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. charge7 d'affaires from Nicaragua, to Mr. Clayton, dated Washington, Dc cember 81, 1849, that the Hise treaty "has been, as is publicly and univers' ally known, disapproved by my government, and that my government desire? the ratification of the treaty signed by Mr. Squier on the 3d of September last." And I am also aware that Mr. Clayton, in reply to this letter, stated to Mr. Carache that ' ' if, however, as you state, that convention has not been approved by your government, there is no necessity for its farther con sideration by the government of the United States." From this it would seem that Mr. Clayton desires to have it understood that the failure of the govern ment of Nicaragua to approve the Hise treaty was the reason he suppressed it, and refused to allow the Senate an opportunity of ratifying it. Is that the true reason ? Why did the government of Nicaragua fail to approve the Hise treaty ? I have already shown conclusively that the failure to approve on the part of the government of Nicaragua was produced by the represent ative of General Taylor's administration in Central America, acting in obe dience to the imperative instruction ofthe State Department of this city, over the signature of Mr. Clayton himself. Mr. Clayton had instructed Mr. Squier, in advance, that in the event Mr. Hise should have made a treaty before his arrival in the country, he (Mr. Squier) must "seek to have it prop* erly modified to answer the ends we have in view." Mr. Squier did "seek" to have it so " modified, " and with great difficulty, as the correspond ence proves, succeeded in the effort. The government and people of Nicara gua were anxious to grant the exclusive and perpetual privilege to the United States, and to prevent the consummation ofthe grand European alliance and partnership. Mr. Squier, in his letter of September 10, 1849, communica ting to Mr. Clayton the joyous news that his efforts had been crowned with complete success, says : " Sir : / have the satisfaction of informing the department that I have suc ceeded in accomplishing the object of my mission to this republic." . Then, after giving an exposition ofthe main provisions of his treaty, he de tails the embarrassment he was compelled to encounter before he could bring the government of Nicaragua to terms. Hear him, and then judge whether the failure of the government of Nicaragua to approve the Hise treaty was the reason why Mr. Clayton refused to submit it to the Senate for ratifica tion ! "The principal source of embarrassment was Mr. Hise's special convention, which had raised extravagant hopes of a relation between the United States, amounting to something closer than exists between the states of our confederacy. However, as matters have been finally arranged, they are all the better for this republic, and quite as favorable to the United States. " So it seems that the Hise treaty was "the principal source of embarrass ment" to the consummation ofthe European partnership. It "had raised ex travagant hopes" on the part ofthe government and people of Nicaragua of a " closer" relation to the United States, which it was difficult to induce them to relinquish. It required all the zeal, skill, and tact of Mr. Squier to accom plish so great a feat. "Finally" the matter was " arranged, " and the result communicated to the department with "satisfaction," in these memorable words, which must have carried great joy to Mr. Clayton's heart : "I have succeeded in accomplishing the objects of my mission to this republic." Ee- joice, all ye advocates of European intervention in the affairs of the American continent! Tbe Hise treaty is dead! The principal source of embarrass ment is removed ! Nicaragua has failed to approve the special convention granting peculiar privileges and exclusive rights to the United States ! This failure has enabled us "properly to modify the grant, so as to answer the ends we have in view," and, at the same time, relieves Mr. Clayton from the POLICY AVITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 105 imminent risk of submitting these peculiar privileges to the Senate, where there was great danger of their being accepted. Nicaragua has at last con sented ! Her appeals to the United States for mediation or protection against British aggression being unheeded — her letters to our government remaining unanswered — their receipt not even acknowledged — her hopes of a closer re lation to this Union blasted — the Monroe doctrine abandoned — the Mosquito kingdom, under the British protectorate, rapidly absorbing her territory, she sinks in despair, and yields herself to the European partnership which was about to be established over all Central America by the Clayton and Bulwer treaty ! Now, sh-, I repeat that these two treaties — the one negotiated by Mr. Hise and the other by Mr. Squier, the first conceding peculiar privileges and ex clusive and perpetual rights to the United States, the second admitting of a partnership in these privileges with European powers, Mr. Clayton suppress ed the first, and sent the second to the Senate for ratification, and imme diately opened negotiations with the British minister, which resulted in what is known as the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. In stating my objections to this treaty, I shall not become a party to the protracted controversy respect ing its true meaning and construction, which has engaged so much of the attention of this session. I leave that in the hands of those who conducted the negotiation and procured its ratification. That is their own quarrel, with which I have no disposition to interfere. Establish which construction you please— that contended for by the secretary of state who signed it, or the one insisted upon by the venerable senator from Michigan, and those who acted in concert with him in ratifying it — neither obviates any one of my objections. In the first place, I was unwilling to enter into treaty stipulations with Great Britain or any other European power in respect to the American con tinent, by the terms of which we should pledge the faith of this republic not to do in,all coming time that which in the progress of events our interests, duty, and even safety may compel us to do. I have already said, and now repeat, that every article, clause, and provision of that treaty is predicated upon a virtual negation and repudiation of the Monroe declaration in relation to European colonization on this continent. The article inviting any power on earth with which England and the United States are on terms of friendly intercourse to enter into similar stipulations, and which pledges the good offices of each, when requested by the other, to aid in the new negotiations with the other Central American states, and which pledges the good offices of all the nations entering into the " alliance" to settle disputes between the states and governments of Central America, not only recognizes the right of European powers to interfere with the affairs of the American continent, but invites the exercise of such right, and makes it obligatory to do so in certain cases. It establishes, in terms, an alliance between the contracting parties, and invites all other nations to become parties to it. I was opposed also to the clause which stipulates that neither Great Britain nor the United States will ever occupy, colonize, or exercise dominion over any portion of Nicara gua, Costa Eica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America. I did not desire then, nor do I now, to annex any portion of that country to this Union. I do not know that the time will ever come in my day when I would be willing to do so. Yet I was unwilling to give the pledge that neither we nor our successors ever would. This is an age of rapid movements and great changes. How long is it since those who made this treaty would have told us that the time would never come when we would want California or any portion of the Pacific coast ? California being a state Of the Union, who is authorized to say that the time will not arrive when our_ interests and safety may require us to possess some portion of Central America, which lies half E 2 106 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. way between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions, and embraces the great water lines of commerce between the two oceans ? I think it the wiser and safer policy to hold the control of our own action, and leave those who are to come after us untrammeled and free to do whatever they may deem their duty, when the time shall arri-ne. They will have a better right to determine for themselves when tbe necessity for action may arise, than we have now to prescribe the line of duty for them. I was equally opposed to that other clause in the same article, which stipulates that neither party will ever fortify any portion of Central America, or any place commanding the entrance to the canal, or in the vicinity thereof. It is not reciprocal, for the reason that it leaves the island of Jamaica, a British colony, strongly fortified, the near est military and naval station to the line of the canal. It is, therefore, equivalent to a stipulation that the United States shall never have or main tain any fortification in the vicinity of, or commanding the line of navigation and commerce through said canal, while England may keep and maintain those she now has. I was not satisfied with the clause in relation to the British protectorate over the Mosquito Coast. It is equivocal in terms, and no man can say with certainty whether the true construction excludes the protectorate from the continent or recognizes its rightful existence, and imposes restraints upon its use and exercise. Equivocal terms in treaties are easily understood where the stipulations are between a strong power on the one hand and a feeble one on the other. The stronger enforces its own construction, and the weaker has no alternative but reluctant acquiescence. In this case neither party may be willing to recognize the potential right of the other to prescribe and enforce a construction of the equivocal terms which shall enable it to ap propriate to itself all the advantages in question. It would seem that our own government have not ventured to insist upon a rigid enforcement of the provisions of the treaty in relation to the British protectorate over the Mos quito Coast, in the sense in which it was explained and understood when submitted to the Senate for ratification. Has the British protectorate disap peared from Central America ? I am not referring to the matters in contro versy between certain senators who supported the treaty and Mr. Clayton, in respect to the Balize settlement. I allude to the Mosquito Coast, which, by name and in terms, is expressly made subject to the provisions of the treaty. Has the British protectorate disappeared from that part of Central America ? Have the British authorities retired from the port of San Juan, and thereby recognized the right of American citizens and vessels to arrive and depart free of hinderance and molestation ? Is it not well known that the protector ate is continued and maintained with increased vigor and boldness ? Is not the British consul at San Juan now actively engaged in disposing of the soil, conveying town lots and lands, and exercising the highest functions of^over- eignty under the pretext of protecting the rights of the Mosquito king? These things are being done openly and without disguise, and are well known to the world. Can any senator inform me whether this government has taken the slightest notice of these transactions ? Has our government en tered its protest against these infractions of the treaty, or demanded a specific compliance with our understanding of its terms ? How long are we to wait for Great Britain to abandon her occupancy and withdraw her machinery of government ? Nearly three years have elapsed since we were boastingly told that by the provisions of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty Great Britain was expelled from Central America. Shall we wait patiently until our silence shall be construed into acquiescence in her right to remain and maintain her possessions ? But there was another insuperable objection to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty which increases, enlarges, and extends the force of all the obnoxious POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 107 provisions I have pointed out. I allude to the article in which it is pro vided that ' * " The government of the United States and Great Britain, having not only desired to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general PRINCIPLE, THEY HEREBY AGREE TO EXTEND THEIR PROTECTION, BY TREATY stipulations, to any other practicable communications, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America, and especially to the interoceanic communications, should the same prove to be prac ticable, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by the way o/Tehuantepec or Panama." The "particular object" which the parties had in view being thus accom plished — the Hise treaty defeated, the exclusive privilege to the United States surrendered and abandoned, and the! European partnership established — yet they were not satisfied. They were not content to "accomplish a particu lar object, " but desired to " establish a general principle!" Thatwhich, by the terms of the treaty, was particular and local to the five states of Cen tral America, is, in this article, extended, to Mexico on the north, and to New Granada on the south, and declared to be a general principle by which any and all other practicable routes of communication across the isthmus be tween North and South America are to be governed and protected by the allied powers. New and additional treaty stipulations are to be entered into for this purpose, and the net-work which had been prepared and spread over all Central America is to be extended far enough into Mexico and New Granada to cover all the lines of communication, whether by railway or canal, and especially to include Tehuantepec and Panama. When it is remember ed that the treaty in terms establishes an alliance between the United States and Great Britain, and engages to invite all other powers, with which either is on terms of friendly intercourse, to become parties to its provisions, it will be seen that this article seeks to make the principles of the Clayton and Bul wer treaty the law of nations in respect to American affairs. The general principle is established ; the right of European powers to intervene in the af fairs of American states is recognized; the propriety of the exercise of that right is acknowledged ; and the extent to which the allied powers shall carry their protection, and the limits within which they shall confine their opera tions, are subject to treaty stipulations in the future. When the American continent shall have passed under the protectorate of the allied powers, and her future made dependent upon treaty stipulations for carrying into effect the object of the alliance, Europe will no longer have cause for serious apprehensions at the rapid growth, expansion, and develop ment of our federal Union. She will then console herself that limits have been set and barriers erected beyond which the territories of this republic can never extend, nor its principles prevail. In confirmation of this view, she will find additional cause for congratulation when she looks into the treaty of peace with Mexico, and there sees the sacred honor of this republic irrev ocably pledged that we will never, in all coming time, annex any more Mex ican territory in the mode in which Texas was acquired. The fifth article contains the following extraordinary provision : "The boundary-line established by this article shall be religiously respect ed by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the general government of each, in conformity with its own Constitution." One would naturally suppose that, for all the ordinary purposes of a treaty of peace, the first clause of the paragraph would have been entirely sufficient. It declares that " the boundary-line established by this article shall be relig iously respected by each of the two republics." Why depart from the usual course of proceeding in such cases, and add, that " no change shall ever be 108 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the general government of each, in conformity with its own Consti tution." What is the meaning of this peculiar phraseology ? The history. of Texas furnishes the key by which the hidden meaning can be unlocked. The Sabine was once the boundaiy between the republics of the United States and Mexico. By the revolt of Texas and the establishment of her inde pendence, and the acknowledgment thereof by the great powers of the world, and her annexation to the United States, the boundary between tbe two re publics was ' ' changed" from the Sabine to the Eio Grande without ' ' the ex press and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the general govern ment of each, in conformity with its own Constitution." Mexico regarded that change a just cause of war, and accordingly invaded Texas with a view to the recovery of the lost territory. A protracted war ensued, in which thousands of lives were lost, and millions of money expended, when peace is concluded upon the express condition that the treaty should contain an open and frank avowal that the United States has been wrong in the causes of the war, by the pledge of her honor never to repeat the act which led to hostilities. Wherever you turn your eye, whether to your own record, to the statute- books, to the histoiy of this countiy or of Mexico, or to the diplomatic his tory of the world, this humiliating and degrading acknowledgment stares you in the face, as a monument of your own creation, to the dishonor of our com mon country. Well do I remember the determined and protracted efforts of the minority to expunge this odious clause from the treaty before its ratifica tion, and how, on the 4th of March, 1 848, we were voted down by forty-two to eleven. The stain which that clause fastened upon the histoiy of our coun try was not the only objection I urged to its retention in the treaty. It vio lated a great principle of public policy in relation to this continent. It pledges the faith of this republic that our successors shall not do that which duty to the interests and honor of the country, in the progress of events, may compel them to do. I do not meditate or look with favor upon any aggres sion upon Mexico. I do not desire, at this time, to annex any portion of her territory to this Union ; nor am I prepared to say that the time will ever come, in my day, when I would be willing to sanction such a proposition. But who can say that, amid the general wreck and demoralization in Mex ico, a state of things may not arise in which a just regard for our own rights and safety, and for the sake of humanity- and civilization, may render it im perative for us to do that which was done in the case of Texas, and thereby change the boundary between the two republics, without the free consent of" the general government of Mexico, lawfully given in conformity with her Con stitution? Recent events in Sonora, Chihuahua, and Tamaulipas do not es tablish the wisdom and propriety of that Une of policy which ties our hands in advance, and deprives the government of the right, in the future, of doing whatever duty and honor may require, when the necessity for action may arrive. Mr. President, one of the resolutions under consideration makes a decla ration in relation to the island of Cuba, which requires a passing notice. It is in the following words : "That, while the United States disclaim any designs upon the island of Cuba, inconsistent with the laws of nations and with their duties to Spain, they consider it due to the vast importance of the subject to make known, in this solemn manner, that they should view all efforts on the part of any other power to procure possession, whether peaceably or forcibly, of that island, which, as a naval or military position, must, under circumstances easy to be foreseen, become dangerous to their southern coast, to the Gulf of Mexico, and to the mouth of the Mississippi, as unfriendly acts, directed against them, to be resisted by all the means in their power." POLICY AVITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 109 That we would resist any attempt to transfer the island of Cuba to any Eu ropean power, either with or without the consent of Spain, there is, I trust, no question in the mind of any American, and the fact is as well known to Europe as it is to our own country. That the United States do not meditate any designs upon the island inconsistent with the laws of nations, and with their duties to Spain, has been demonstrated to the world in a manner that forbids the necessity for a disclaimer of unworthy and perfidious purposes on our part. The resolutions convey, beneath this disclaimer, the implication that our character is subject to suspicion upon that point. Shall we let the presumption go abroad that a disclaimer of an act of dishonesty, and perfidy, and infamy has become necessary upon our part ? Sir, is there any thing in the history of our relations with foreign nations, or in respect to Cuba, that should subject our countiy to such injurious imputations? When has our government failed to perform its whole duty as a neutral power in respect to Cuba ? The only complaint has been, that in its great anxiety to preserve in good faith its neutral relations, it has permitted treaty stipulations with Spain, providing for the protection of our citizens, to be wantonly and flagrantly vi olated. No suspicion that this government has been wanting in energy and fidelity in the enforcement of our. laws has been entertained in any quarter. It was the excessive energy and severity with which the duty was performed that has provoked the disapprobation of some portion of the American people. Sir, what right has Great Britain to call upon the United States, as she did in a late application, to enter into a, negotiation to guarantee Cuba to Spain ? Such a step might have been necessary on the part of England in order to satisfy Spain that she has abandoned the policy which for centuries has marked her colonial history with plundet and rapine. Why does not England first restore to Spain the island of Jamaica, by the seizure and pos- ssesion of which she is enabled to overlook Cuba, while it gives her the com mand of the entrance of the proposed Nicaragua canal ? Why does she not restore to old Spain Gibraltar, which, from proximity and geographical posi tion, naturally belongs to her, and is essential to her safety ? Why does she not restore the colonial possessions which she has stretched all over the world, commanding every important military and naval station, both upon land and water ? Why does she not restore them to their original owners, from whom she obtained them by fraud and violence ? Why does she not do these things before she calls upon us to enter into stipulations that we will not rob Spain of the island of Cuba ? The whole system of European colonization rests upon seizure, violence, and fraud. European powers hold nearly all their colonies by the one or the other of these tenures. They can show no other evidence, no other mu niment of title. What is there in- the histoiy of the United States that re quires us to make any such disclaimer? We have never acquired one inch of territory, except by honest purchase and full payment of the consideration. We have never seized any Spanish or -other European colony. We have never invaded the rights of other nations. We do not hold in our hand the results of rapine, violence, war, and fraud for centuries, and then prate about honesty, and propose to honest people to enter into guarantees that they will not rob their neighbors. * * * * I confess I have not formed a very high appreciation of the value of these disclaimers of all intention of committing crimes against our neighbors. I do not think I should deem my house any more secure in the night in conse quence of the thief having pledged his honor not to steal my property. If I am surrounded by honest men, there is no necessity for the "friendly assu rance ;" and if by rogues, it would not relieve my apprehensions or afford much security to my rights. I am unwilling, therefore, to make any dis claimer as to our purposes upon Cuba, or to give any pledge in respect to 110 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. existing rights upon this continent. The nations of Europe have no riglit to call upon us for a disclaimer of the one, or for a pledge to protect the other. It is true, British newspapers are in the habit of calumniating the people of the United States as a set of marauders upon the territorial rights of our neighbors. It is also true that, for party purposes, some portion of the press of this country is in the habit of attributing such sentiments to some of our public men ; but it is not true, so far as I know, that any one man in either house of Congress does entertain, or has ever entertained or avowed, a senti ment that justifies such an imputation. I am unwilling, therefore, to coun tenance the vile slander by voting for a resolution which by imputation con tains so base an insinuation. Perhaps I may as well speak plainly. I feel that there may be a lurking insinuation in these two clauses, -having a little bearing toward an individual of about my proportions. _¦ It is the vocation of some partisan presses and personal organs to denounce and stigmatize, a cer tain class of politicians, by attributing to them unworthy and disreputable purposes, under the cognomen of "Young America." It is their amiable custom, I beheve, when they come to individualize; to point to me as the one most worthy to bear the appellation. I have never either assumed or dis claimed it. I have never before alluded to it, and should not on the present occasion, had it not been introduced into the discussions of the Senate in such a manner as to leave the impression that I evaded it if I failed to no tice it. I am aware that the senator who the other day directed so large a portion of his speech against the supposed doctrines of ' ' Young America" had no reference to myself in that part of his speech, and that the only allu sion he made to me was land and complimentary. So far as I am concerned, and those who harmonize with me in sentiment and action, the votes to which I have referred, and the reasons I have given in support of them, constitute the only profession of faith I deem it necessary to make on this subject. I am willing to compare votes and acts, principles and professions, with any senator who chooses to assail me. I yield to none in strict observance of the laws of nations and treaty stipulations. I may not have been willing blindly or recklessly to pledge the faith of the republic for all time on points where, in the nature of things, it was not reasonable to suppose that the pledge could be preserved. I may have deemed it wise and prudent to hold the control of our own nation, and leave our successors free, according to their own sense of duty under the circumstances which may then exist. CUBA. Now, sir, a few words with regard to the island of Cuba. If any man de sires my opinions upon that, question, he can learn them very easily. They have been proclaimed frequently for the last nine years, and still remain un changed. I have often said, and now repeat that, so long as the island of Cuba is content to remain loyal to the crown of Spain, be it so. I have no desire, no wish to disturb that relation. I have always said, and now repeat that, whenever the people of the island of Cuba shall show themselves worthy of freedom by asserting and maintaining their independence and establishing republican institutions, my heart, my sympathies, my prayers are with them for the accomplishment of the object. I have often said, and now repeat that, when that independence shall have been estabfished, if it shall be necessary to their interest or safety to apply as Texas did for annexation, I shall be ready to do by them as we did by Texas, and receive them into the Union. I have said, and now repeat that, whenever Spain shall come to the conclu» sion that she can not much longer maintain her dominion over the island, and that it is better for her to transfer it to us upon fair and reasonable terms, I am one of those who would be ready to accept the transfer. I have said, TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. — FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. Ill and now repeat that, whenever Spain shall refuse to make such transfer to us, and shall make it to England or any other European power, I would be among those who would be in favor of taking possession of the island, and resisting such transfer at all hazards. Thus far I have often gone ; thus far I now go. These are my individual opinions ; not of much consequence, I admit, but any one who desires to know them is welcome to them. But it is one thing for me to entertain these indi vidual sentiments, and it is another and very different thing to pledge forever and unalterably the policy of this government in a particular channel, in de fiance of any change in the circumstances that may hereafter take place. I do not deem it necessary to affirm by a resolution, in the name of the repub lic, every opinion that I may entertain and be willing to act upon as the rep resentative of a local constituency. I am not, therefore, prepared to say that it is wise policy to make any declaration upon the subject of the island of Cuba. Circumstances not within our control, and originating in causes- be yond our reach, may precipitate a state of things that would change our ac tion and reverse our whole line of policy. Cuba, in the existing position of affairs, does not present a practical issue. All that we may say or do is merely speculative, and dependent upon contingencies that may never happen . CHAPTER VII. TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. — FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. The Senate reassembled on the 4th of March. Mr. Clayton submitted resolutions calling for certain information respect ing negotiations with Costa Rica, Honduras, etc. On the 8th and 9th of March he addressed the Senate on the general sub ject of Central American affairs, and criticised with severity the remarks made by Senators Mason, Cass, and Douglas dur ing the debate in February. On the 10th of March Mr. Doug las replied in an argument of rare ability and searching power. He reviewed the entire history of the negotiations respecting Central American affairs during the Taylor administration. A few extracts from the closing portion of his speech Avill furnish most clearly his views upon the great question of extending the territorial hmits of the United States. His views upon that point are stated with great precision and force. He said : ' "But, sir, I do not wish to. detain the Senate upon this point, or to pro long the discussion. I have a word or two to say in reply to the remarks of the senator from Delaware upon so much of my speech as related to the pledge in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty never to annex any portion of that country-. I objected to that clause in the treaty upon the ground that I was unwilling to enter into a treaty stipulation with any European power in re spect to this continent, that we would not do, in the future, whatever our duty, interest, honor, and safety might require in the course of events. The senator infers that I desire to annex Central America because I was unwill ing to give a pledge that we never would do it. He reminded me that there 112 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. was a clause in the treaty with Mexico containing the stipulation that, in certain contingencies, we would never annex any portion of that country. Sir, it was unnecessary that he should remind me of that provision. He has not forgotten how hard I struggled to get that clause out of the treaty, where it was retained in opposition to my vote. Had the senator given me his aid then to defeat that provision in the Mexican treaty, I would be better satis fied now with his excuse for having inserted a still stronger pledge in his treaty. But, having advocated that pledge then, he should not attempt to avoid the responsibility of his own act by citing it as a precedent. I was un willing to bind ourselves by treaty for all time to come never to annex any more territory. I am content for the present with the territory we have. I do not wish to annex any portion of Mexico now. I did not wish to annex any part of Central America then, nor do I at this time. ' ' But I can not close my eyes to the history of this country for the last half century. Fifty years ago the question was being debated in this Senate whether it was wise or not to acquire any territory on the west bank of the Mississippi, and it was then contended that we could never, with safety, ex tend beyond that river. It was at that time seriously considered whether the Alleghany Mountains should not be the barrier beyond which we should nev er pass. At a subsequent date, after we had acquired Louisiana and Flori da, more liberal views began to prevail, and it was thought that perhaps we might venture to establish one tier of states west of the Mississippi ; but, in order to prevent the sad calamity of an undue expansion of our territory, the policy was adopted of establishing an Indian Territory, with titles in perpetu ity, all along the western borders of those states, so that no more new states could possibly be created in that direction. That barrier could not arrest the onward progress of our people. They burst through it, and passed the Eocky Mountains, and were only arrested by the waters of the Pacific. Who, then, is prepared to say that in the progress of events, having met with the barrier of the ocean in our western course, we may not be compelled to turn to the north and to the south for an outlet ?" * * * * "You may make as many treaties as you please to fetter the limbs of this giant republic, and she will burst them all from her, and her course will be onward to a limit which I will not venture to prescribe. Why the necessity of pledging your faith that you will never annex any more of Mexico ? Do you not know that you will be compelled to do it ; that you can not help it ; that your treaty will not prevent it, and that the only effect it will have will be to enable European powers to accuse us of bad faith when the act is done, and associate American faith and Punic faith as synonymous terms ? AVhat is the use of your guarantee that you will never erect any fortifications in Central America ; never annex, occupy, or colonize any portion of that coun try ? How do you know that you ean avoid doing it ? If you make the ca nal, I ask you if American citizens will not settle along its line ; whether they will not build up towns at each terminus ; whether they will not spread over that country, and convert it into an American state ; whether Amer ican principles and American institutions will not be firmly planted there ? And I ask you how many years you think will pass away before you wih find the same necessity to extend your laws over your own kindred that you found in the case _ of Texas? How long will it be before that day arrives? It may not occur in the senator's day, nor mine. But, so certain as this re public exists, so certain as we remain a united people, so certain as the laws of progress which have raised us from a mere handful to a mighty nation shall continue to govern our action, just so certain are these events to be worked out, and you will be compelled to extend your protection in that di rection. " Sir, I am not desirous of hastening the day. I am not impatient of the TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. — FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. 113 time when it shall be realized. I do not wish to give any additional impulse to our progress. We are going fast enough. But I wish our policy, our laws, our institutions, should keep up with the advance in science, in the me chanic arts, in agriculture, and in every thing that tends to make us a great and powerful nation. Let us look the future in the face, and let us prepare to meet that which can not be avoided. Hence I was unwilling to adopt that clause in the treaty guaranteeing that neither party would ever annex, colonize, or occupy any portion of Central America. I was opposed to it for another reason. It was not reciprocal. Great Britain had possession of the island of Jamaica. Jamaica was the nearest armed and fortified point to the terminus of the canal. Jamaica at present commands the entrance of the canal ; and all that Great Britain desired was, inasmuch as she had pos session of the only place commanding the canal, to procure a stipulation that no other power would ever erect a fortification nearer its terminus. That stipulation is equivalent to an agreement that England may fortify, but that we never shall. Sir, when you look at the whole history of that question, you will see that England, with her far-seeing, sagacious policy, has attempt ed to circumscribe, and restrict, and restrain the free action of this govern ment. When was it that Great Britain seized the possession of the terminus of this canal ? Just six days after the signing of the treaty which secured to us California ! The moment England saw that, by the pending negotiations with Mexico, California was to be acquired, she collected her fleets and made preparations for the seizure of the port of San Juan, in order that she might be gate-keeper on the public highway to our new possessions on the Pacific. Within six days from the time we signed the treaty, England seized by force and violence the very point now in controversy. Is not this fact indicative of her motives ? Is it not clear that her object was to obstruct our passage to our new possessions ? Hence I do not sympathize with that feeling which the senator expressed yesterday, that it was a pity to have a difference with a nation so friendly to us as England. Sir, I do not see the evidence of her friendship. It is not in the nature of things that she can be our friend. It is impossible she can love us. I do not blame her for not loving us. Sir, we have wounded her vanity and humbled her pride. She can never forgive us. But for us, she would be the first power on the face of the earth. But for us, she would have the prospect of maintaining that proud position which she held for so long a period. We are in her way. She is jealous of us, and jealousy forbids the idea of friendship. England does not love us ; she can not love us ; and we do not love her either. We have some things in the past to remember that are not agreeable. She has more in the present to humiliate her that she can not forgive. "I do not wish to administer to the feeling of jealousy and rivalry that exists between us and -England. I wish to soften and allay it as much as possible; but why close our eyes to the fact that friendship is impossible while jealousy exists? Hence England seizes every island in the sea and rock upon our coast where she can plant a gun to intimidate us or to annoy our commerce. Her policy has been to seize eveiy military and naval sta tion the world over. Why does she pay such enormous sums to keep her post at Gibraltar, except to hold it ' in terrorem' over the commerce of the Mediterranean ? Why her enormous expense to maintain a garrison at the Cape of Good Hope, except to command the great passage on the way to the Indies ? Why is she at the expense to keep her position on the little barren islands Bermuda and the miserable Bahamas, and all the other islands along our coast, except as sentinels upon our actions ? Does England hold Bermuda because of any profit it is to her ? Has she any other motive for retaining it except jealousy which stimulates hostility to us ? Is it not the case with all her possessions along our coast? Why, then, talk about the 114 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. friendly bearing of England toward us when she is extending that policy eveiy day? New treaties 'of friendship, seizure of islands, and erection of new colonies in violation of her treaties, seem to be the order of the day. In view of this state of things, I am in favor of meeting England as we meet a rival ; meet her boldly, treat her justly and fairly, but make no humiliating concession even for the sake of peace. She has as much reason to make concessions to us as we have to make them to her. I would not willingly disturb the peace of the world, but, sir, the Bay Island colony must be dis continued. It violates the treaty." At a subsequent part of the debate he quoted the letter of Mr. Everett (secretary of state under Mr. Fillmore) declining, on the part of the United States government, the agreement proposed by England and France, that neither nation should ever annex or take possession of Cuba. Mr. Everett, in de clining that proposition, said : " But, whatever may be thought of these last suggestions, it would seem impossible for any one who reflects upon the events glanced at in this note to mistake the law of American growth and progress, or think it can be ulti mately arrested by a convention hke that proposed. In the judgment of the President, it would be as easy to throw a dam from Cape Florida to Cuba, in the hope of stopping the flow of the Gulf Stream, as to attempt, by a com pact like this, to fix the fortunes of Cuba, now and for hereafter, or, as is expressed in the French text of the convention, 'pour le present comme pour 1'avenir' — that is, for all coming time." Mr. Douglas, in commenting upon this, said : "There the senator is. told that such a stipulation (to annex no more ter ritory) might be applicable to European politics, but would be unsuited and unfitted to American affairs ; that he has mistaken entirely the system of policy which should be applied to our own country ; that he has predicated his action upon those old antiquated notions which belong to the stationaiy and retrograde movements of the Old World, and find no sympathy in the youthful, uprising aspirations of the American heart. I endorse fully the sentiment. I insist that there is a difference, a Wide difference, between the system of policy which should be pursued in America and that which would be applicable to Europe. Europe is antiquated, decrepit, tottering on the verge of dissolution. When you visit her, the objects which enlist your highest admiration are the relics of past greatness ; the broken columns erected to departed power. It is one vast grave-yard, where you find here a tomb indicating the burial of the arts ; there a monument marking the spot where liberty expired ; another to the memory of a great man whose place has never been filled". The choicest products of her classic soil consist in relics, which remain as sad memorials of departed glory and fallen greatness ! They bring up the memories of the dead, but inspire no hope for the living ! Here every thing is fresh, blooming, expanding, and advancing. We wish a wise, practical policy adapted to our condition and position. Sir, the statesman who would shape the policy of America by European models, has failed to perceive the antagonism which exists in the relative position, history, institutions— in every thing pertaining to the Old and the New World." " THE FRIENDSHIP OF ENGLAND. In reply to a remark, in the same debate, by Mr. Butler, he said: TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. — FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. 115 "I can not go as far as the senator from South Carolina. I can not rec ognize England as our mother. If so, she is and ever has been a cruel and unnatural mother. I do not find the evidence of her affection in her watch fulness over our infancy, nor in her joy and pride at our ever-blooming pros perity and swelling power since we assumed an independent position. ' ' The proposition is not historically true. Our ancestry were not all of English origin. They were of Scotch, Irish, German, French, and of Nor man descent as well as English. In short, we inherit from every branch of the Caucasian race. It has been our aim and policy to profit by their exam ple — to reject their errors and follies — and to retain, imitate, cultivate, per petuate all that was valuable and desirable. So far as any portion of the credit may be due to England and Englishmen — and much of it is — let it be freely awarded and recorded in her ancient archives, which seem to have been long since forgotten by her, and the memory of which her present policy toward ns is not well calculated to revive. But, that the senator from South Carolina, in view of our present position and of his location in this confederacy, should indulge in glowing and eloquent eulogiums of England for the blessings and benefits she has conferred and is still lavishing upon us, and urge these considerations in palliation of the wrongs she is daily perpe trating, is to me amazing. He speaks in terms of delight and gratitude of the copious and refreshing streams which EngUsh literature and science are pouring into our country and diffusing throughout the land. Is he not aware that nearly every English book circulated and read in this countiy contains lurking and insidious slanders and libels upon the character of our people and the institutions and poliey of our government ? Does he not know that abolitionism, wliich has so seriously threatened the peace and safety of this republic, had its origin in England, and has been incorporated into the policy of that government for the purpose of operating upon the pe culiar institutions of some of the states of this confederacy, and thus render the Union itself insecure ? Does she not keep her missionaries perambu lating this countiy, delivering lectures, and scattering broadcast incendiary publications, designed to incite prejudices, hate, and strife between the dif ferent sections of this Union ? I had supposed that South Carolina and the other slaveholding states of this confederacy had been sufficiently refreshed and enlightened by a certain species of English literature, designed to stir up treason and insurrection around his own fireside, to have excused the sena tor from offering up praises and hosannas to our English mother ! (Applause in the galleries. ) Is not the heart, intellect, and press of England this mo ment employed in flooding America with this species of ' English literature ?' Even the wives and daughters of the nobility and the high officers of govern ment have had the presumption to address the women of America, and in the name of philanthropy appeal to them to engage in the treasonable plot against the institutions and government of their own choice in their native land, while millions are being expended to distribute ' Uncle Tom's Cabin' throughout the world, with the view of combining the fanaticism, ignorance, and hatred of all the nations of the earth in a common crusade against the peculiar institutions of the state and section of this Union represented by the senator from South Carolina; and he unwittingly encourages it by giving vent to his rapturous joy over these copious and refreshing streams with which England is irrigating the American intellect." (Eenewed applause inthe galleries.) REPELLING FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. Mr. Douglas has always been in favor of a strict mainte nance of all the rights of nations, and of the respect and obliga- 116 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. tions properly due from one nation to another. He has always declared that the best way to preserve peace was to enforce a respect for American rights, and the surest way to invite a war was to submit to outrage and injustice, and thus provoke a state of circumstances from which war must necessarily result. In all things Mr. Douglas expresses his views so clearly and distinctly that no language can be employed that will so read ily inform the reader as to his opinions as his OAvn. In the Senate, in a debate on the Naval Appropriation Bill, on the 7th of June, 1858, he discussed the whole subject of foreign aggres sions, and thus distinctly stated his views : "I agree, Mr. President, with most that has been said by my friend from Georgia (Mr. Toombs), and especially that we ought to determine what we are to do in reference to the outrages upon our flag in the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies, before we decide the amount of money we shall vote for war purposes. If we are going to content ourselves with simple resolu tions that we will not submit to that which we have resolved for half a cen- turyshould never be repeated, I see no use in additional appropriations for navy or for army. If we are going to be contented with loud-sounding speeches, with defiances to the British lion, with resolutions of the Senate alone, not concurred in by the other House, conferring no power on the ex ecutive — merely capital for the country, giving no power to the executive to avenge insults or prevent their repetition, what is the use of voting money 1 I find that patriotic gentlemen are ready to talk lond, resolve strong ; but are they willing to appropriate the money? Are they willing to confer on the executive power to repel these insults, and to avenge them whenever they may be perpetrated ? Let us know whether we are to submit and protest, or whether we are to authorize the President to resist and to prevent the repe tition of these offenses. If senators are prepared to vote for a law reviving the act of 1839, putting the army, the navy, volunteers, and money at the dis posal of the President to prevent the repetition of these acts, and to punish them if repeated, then I am ready to give the ships and the money ; but I desire to know whether we are to submit to these insults with a simple pro test, or whether we are to repel them. ' ' Gentlemen ask us to vote ships and money, and they talk to us about the necessity of a ship in China, and about outrages in Tampico, and disturb ances in South America, and Indian difficulties in Puget's Sound. Every enemy that can be found on the face of the earth is defied except the one that defies us. Bring in a proposition here to invest the President with pow er to repel British aggressions on American ships, and what is the response 1 High-sounding resolutions, declaring in effect, if not in terms, that whereas Great Britain has perpetrated outrages on our flag and our shipping which are intolerable and insufferable, and must not be repeated, therefore, if she does so again, we will whip Mexico, or we will pounce down upqn Nicaragua, or we will get up a fight with Costa Eica, or we will chastise New Granada, or we will punish the Chinese, or we will repel the Indians from Puget's Sound paughter], but not a word about Great Britain. What I desire to know is whether we are to meet this issue with Great Britain? I am told we shall do it when we are prepared. Sir, when will you be prepared to re pel an insult unless when it is given ? **#* ** ****** " Sir, I tremble for the fame of America, for her honor, and for her char- TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. — FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. 117 acter, when we shall be silent in regard to British outrages, and avenge our selves by punishing the weaker powers instead of grappling with the stronger. I never did fancy that policy nor admire that chivalry which induced a man, when insulted by a strong man of his own size, to say that he would whip the first boy he found in the street in order to vindicate his honor, or, as is suggested by a gentleman behind me, that he would go home and whip his wife [laughter] in order to show his courage, inasmuch as he was afraid to tackle the full-grown man who had committed the aggression. ' Sir, these outrages can not be concealed ; they can not have the go-by ; we must meet them face to face. Now is the time when England must give up her claim to search American vessels, or we must be silent in our protests, and resolu tions, and valorous speeches against that claim. It will not do to raise a navy for the Chinese seas, nor for Puget's Sound, nor for Mexico, nor for the. South American republics. It may be used for those purposes, but England must first be dealt with. Sir, we shall he looked upon as showing the white feather if we strike a blow at any feeble power until these English aggres sions and insults are first punished, and security is obtained that they are not to be repeated." After referring to the unanimous action of Congress in 1839 investing Mr. Van Buren vrith power and means to resist ag gressions during the controversy respecting the northeastern boundary, he said : "The vote in the Senate was unanimous, and in the House of Eepresenta tives it was one hundred and ninety-seven against six. This unanimity among the American people, as manifested by their representatives, saved the two countries from war, and preserved peace between England and the United States upon that question. If the Senate had been nearly equally di vided in 1839, if there had been but half a dozen majority for the passage of the measure, if the vote had been nearly divided in the House of Eepresenta tives, England would have taken courage from the divisions in our own coun cils, she would have pressed her claim to a point that would have been ut terly inadmissible and incompatible with our honor, and war would have been the inevitable consequence. " I tell you, sir, the true peace measure is that which resents the insult and redresses the wrong promptly upon the spot, with a unanimity that shows the nation can not be divided. " He thus closed his remarks: "Besides, sir, as has been intimated by the senator from Massachusetts, England has given pledges for her good behavior on this continent. She is bound over to keep the peace. She has large possessions upon this continent of which she could be deprived in ninety days after war existed 5 and she knows that, the moment she engages in war with us, that moment her power upon the American continent and upon the adjacent islands ceases to exist. While I am opposed to war — while I have no idea of any breach of the peace with England, yet I confess to you, sir, if war should come by her act and not ours— by her invasion of our right and our vindication of the same, I would administer to every citizen and every child Hannibal's oath of eternal hostil ity as long as the English flag waved or their government claimed a foot of land upon the American continent or the adjacent islands. Sir, I would make it a war that would settle our disputes forever, not only of the right of search upon the seas, but the right to tread with a hostile foot upon the soil of the American continent or its appendages. England sees that these con sequences would result. Her statesmen understand these results as well as 118 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. we, and much better. Her statesmen have more respect for us in this partic ular than we have for ourselves. They will never push this question to the point of war. They will look you in the eye, march to you steadily, as long as they find it is prudent. If you cast the eye down she will rush upon you. If you look her in the eye steadily, she will shake hands with you as friends, and have respect for you. " Mr. Hammond. Suppose she does not? ' ' Mr. Doughs. Suppose she does not, my friend from South Carolina asks me. If she does not, then we will appeal to the God of battles — we will arouse the patriotism of the American nation — we will blot out all distinc tions of party, the voice of faction will be hushed, the American people will be a unit ; none but the voice of patriotism will be heard, and from the north and the south, from the east and the west, we will come up as a band of brothers, animate'd by a common spirit and a common patriotism, as were our fathers of the Eevolution, to repel the foreign enemy, and afterward dif fer as we please, and discuss at our leisure matters of domestic dispute. Sir, I am willing to suppose the case which is suggested by the senator from South Carolina : suppose England does not respect our rights ? To fight her now — "Mr. Hammond. I said, suppose England would not submit to be bullied. " Mr. Douglas. Who proposes to bully England ? ' ' Mr. Hammond. I understood the senator to say that if wa looked down she would rush on us, but if we looked up she would give way. I consider that bullying. " Mr. Douglas. Precisely ; that is the case of a bully always. He will fix his eye on his antagonist's, and see if it is steady. If it is not, he will ap proach a little nearer. If it is, he stops ; but if his eye sinks, he rushes on him ; and that is the parallel in which I put England, playing the bully with us. The question is, whether we will look her steadily in the eye, and main tain our rights against her aggressions. We do not wish to bully England. She is resisting no claim of ours. She sets up the claim to search our vessels, stop them on the high seas, invade our rights, and we say to her that we will not submit to that aggression. I would ask to have the United States act upon the defensive in all things — make no threat, indulge in no bullying, but simply assert our right ; then maintain the assertion with whatever power may be necessary, and the God of our fathers may have imparted to us for maintaining it — that is all. I believe that is the true course to peace. I repeat that, if war wi»h England comes, it will result from our vacillation, our division, our hesitation, our apprehensions lest we might be whipped in the fight. Perhaps we might. I do not believe it. I believe the moment England declares war against the United States, the prestige of her power is gone. It will unite our own people ; it will give us the sympathy of the world ; it will destroy her commerce and her manufactures, while it will ex tend our own. It will sink her to a second-rate power upon the face of the globe, and leave us without a rival who can dispute our supremacy. We shall, however, come to that point early through the paths of peace. Sueh is the tendency of things now. I would rather approach it by peaceable, quiet means, by the arts and sciences, by agriculture, by commerce, by immi gration, by natural growth and expansion, than by warfare. But if England is impatient of our rising power, if she desires to hasten it, and should force war upon us, she will seal her doom now ; whereas Providence might ex tend to her, if not a pardon, at least a reprieve for a few short years to come." FILIBUSTERISM. On the 7th of January, 1858, President Buchanan communi cated to the Senate, in obedience to a resolution ofthat body, TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. — FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. 119 copies of the orders, instructions, and correspondence with ref erence to the arrest of William Walker onthe coast of Central America. On the motion to refer these documents, a debate took place involving the propriety of Commodore Paulding's conduct, and the course of the President in relation thereto, and also as to the views expressed by him in his communica tion accompanying the papers. In this debate, Messrs. Davis and Brown of Mississippi, Pugh of Ohio, and Toombs of Geor gia, sharply criticised the message, and repudiated the exist ence of the power claimed by the President in his message. The President was ably defended-, and with much warmth, by Mr. Seward, and by Mr. Doolittle of Wisconsin. During this debate Mr. Douglas expressed his views upon the affair, and upon filibusterism generally, in the foUowing terms : Mr. Douglas. I do not rise to prolong the debate, but to return the com pliment which my friend from Mississippi [Mr. Brown] paid me when he said he admired my pluck in speaking my sentiments freely, without fear, when I differed from the President of the United States. He has shown his pluck, and various others have shown theirs, on the present occasion. According to the doctrine announced the other day, each senator who has done so has read himself out of the party. I find that I am getting into good company ; I have numerous associates ; I am beating up recruits a little faster, than General Walker is at this time. [Laughter.] I think, however, it will be found, after a while, that we are all in the party, intending to do our duty, expressing our opinions freely and fearlessly, without any apprehension of being excommunicated, or having any penalties inflicted on us for thinking and speaking as we choose. If my friend from Louisiana [Mr. Slidell] were in his seat, I should say to him, inasmuch as he declared in his Tammany Hall letter that he was going to fill by recruits from the Eepublicans all the vacancies caused by desertions in the Democratic party on account of differ ences with the President in opinion, that he seems to have been very success ful to-day in getting leading Eepublicans on his side, and recruiting his ranks just about as rapidly as there are desertions on this side of the house. [Laughter.] The senator from New York, I believe, has the command of the new recruits. Well, sir, strange thjpgs occur in these days. Men rap idly find themselves in line and out of line, in the party and out of the party. Mr. Seward. Will the honorable senator allow me to interrupt him ? Mr. Douglas. Certainly. Mr. Seward. I have an inducement on this occasion which is new and peculiarly gratifying to me, which will excuse me for being found on the side of the administration. The message announces that, in the judgment of the President, this expedition of Mr. Walker was in violation of the laws of the land, and therefore to be condemned. So far I agree with him ; but he goes further, and pronounces it to be in violation of "the higher law ;" and I am sure I should be recreant to my sense of " the higher law" itself if I did not come to his support on such an occasion. [Laughter.] Mr. Douglas. I perceive the consistency of the senator from New York in the ground on which he bases his support of this message. Now, sir, so far as the President pronounces this arrest of General Walker to have been a violation of the law of the land, I concur with him. As to the allusion to 120 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. "the higher law," I think that is well enough in its place, but it is not ex actly appropriate in the execution of the neutrality laws of the United States. I would rather look into the statutes of the United States for the authority of the President to use the army and navy in enforcing the neutrality laws. By the statute of 1818 he has ample authority within the jurisdiction of the United States, and that jurisdiction is defined to extend as far as one marine league from the coast. If an arrest be made within that distance, the courts of the United States have jurisdiction, but there is no authority to arrest be yond that distance. The authority given in the eighth section of the act, to which reference is made, but which is not quoted in the message, is confined in terms to cases within the jurisdiction of the United States as defined in the act. How defined? Defined in the previous sections as being within one marine league of the coast. It thus appears that the whole extent of the President's power to use the army and navy under the act of 1818 is within our own waters, and one marine league from the coast. I did suppose that the President himself put that construction on his au thority, for I understood him to ask for further and additional authority from Congress to enable him to put down filibustering expeditions. What further authority could he want, if the existing laws allowed him to roam over the high seas, and sail around the world, and go within one marine league of ev ery nation on the earth ? It might be supposed that his authority was ex tensive enough to employ his entire navy, and that, certainly, he would not ask for power to invade other nations. For these reasons I supposed that the President, on reflection and examina tion, had come to the conclusion that his authority was full and ample within one marine league of our coast, and ceased the moment you passed beyond that on the high seas. That has been my construction of the neutrality laws. I believe it is the fair construction. I am in favor of giving those neutrality laws a fair, faithful, and vigorous execution. I believe the laws of the land should be vigorously and faithfully executed. There may be public senti ment in certain localities unfavorable to the operation of the law, but preju dice should not be allowed to deter ns from its execution. This is a govern ment of law. Let us stand by the laws so long as they stand upon the stat ute-book, and execute them faithfully, whether we like or dislike them. Sir, I have no fancy for this system of filibustering. I believe its tendency is to defeat the very object they have in view, to wit, the extension of the area of freedom and the American flag. The President avows that his opposition to it is because it prevents him from carrying out a line of policy that would absorb Nicaragua^rad the countries against which these expeditions are fitted out. I do not know that I should dissent from the President in that object. I would like to see the boundaries of this republic extended gradually and steadily, as fast as we can Americanize the countries we acquire, and make their inhabitants loyal American citizens when we get them. Faster than that I would not desire to go. My opposition to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which pledges the faith of this nation never to annex Central America, or colonize it, or exercise dominion over it, was not based on the ground that I desired then to acquire the country ; but inasmuch as I saw that the time might come when Nicaragua would not be too far off to be embraced within our republic, being just half way to California, and on the main road there, I was unwilling to pledge the faith of this nation that in all time we never would do that which I believed our interest and our safety would compel us to do. I have no objection to this gradual and steady expansion' as fast as we can Americanize the countries. I believe the interests of commerce, of civilization, every interest which civilized nations hold dear, would be bene fited by expansion ; but still I desire to see it done regularly and lawfully, and I apprehend that these expeditions have a tendency to check it. To TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. — FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. 121 that extent I have sympathized with the reasons which the President has as signed in his message for his opposition to them ; but I desire that his oppo sition shall be conducted lawfully ; for I am no more willing to allow him un lawfully to break them up than I am to permit them unlawfully to fit them out. I am not willing to send out naval officers with vague instructions, and set them to filibustering all over the high seas and in the ports of foreign countries under the pretext of putting down filibustering. Let us hold the navy clearly within the law. Let the instructions that are given to our of ficers be clear and specific ; and if they do not obey the law, cashier them, or, by other punishment, reduce them to obedience to the law. But in this case it is a very strange fact that Captain Chatard is degraded and brought home for not arresting Walker on the identical spot where Com modore Paulding did arrest him. Paulding and Chatard are thus placed in a peculiar position. Paulding arrests him, we are told, in violation of law. Chatard is degraded for not arresting him in violation of law. This shows that the moment we depart from the path of duty, as defined by law, we get into difficulty every step we take. All the difficulties and embarrassments connected with the conduct of Paulding and Chatard arise from the fact that in our anxiety to preserve the good opinion of other nations, by putting a stop to filibustering, we have gone beyond the authority of law. I think it will be better for us to confine ourselves to the faithful execution of the neutrality laws as they stand, and stop these expeditions, if we can. before they are fitted out. If, notwithstanding our efforts, they escape, we are not responsible for them. I do not hold that every three men that leave this country with guns upon their shoulders are necessarily fitting out a military expedition against countries with which we are at peace. Each citizen of the United States has the same right under the Constitution to expatriate himself that a man of foreign birth has to naturalize himself under our laws. When the Constitu tion of the United States declares that foreigners coming here may be natu ralized, it recognizes the universal principle that all men have a right to ex patriate themselves and become naturalized in other countries. Walker had a right, under the Constitution of the United States, to become a naturalized citizen of Nicaragua. Nicaragua had the same right to make him a citizen of that countiy that we have to make a German or an Irishman a citizen of this. When Walker went from California, on his first expedition to Nicara gua, and became naturalized there, he was from that moment a citizen of Nicaragua, and not a citizen of the United States. You have no more right to treat Walker as a citizen of the United States than Great Britain has to follow an Irishman to this country, and claim that he is a British subject after he has been naturalized here. You have no more right to put your hands on Walker, after his naturalization by Nicaragua, than Austria or Prussia has to follow their former subjects here and arrest them on the ground that they wore once Germans. Walker is a Nicaraguan, and not an Amer ican. Since he has been President of that republic, recognized as such, it is too late for us to deny that he is a citizen of that country, or to claim that he is an American citizen. We are not responsible for his action when he is once beyond our jurisdiction. If he violated our laws here, we can punish him ; but we have no right to punish him for any violation of the laws of Nicaragua. If he invites men to join him, and they get their necks in the halter, they must not call upon us to untie tho noose after they have expa triated themselves. It is a modem doctrine that no citizen can leave our shores to engage in a foreign war. We filled the Eussian regiments, during the Crimean war, with American surgeons, and only lately the Emperor of Eussia has been deliver ing medals and acknowledgments of knighthood to these very men. We also allowed our men to go ancl join the Turks, tho English, and «hc French, and V r, 122 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. fight against the Bussians. American senators were in the habit of giving to their friends letters to the Eussian minister, in order to enable them to obtain from him commissions in the Eussian army during the Crimean war. Did we suppose that we were violating the neutrality laws ? We knew that each person that went on that service went on his own responsbility. If he got a leg shot off, he could not call upon us to protect him, or to punish the man who shot the gun. So it is with those who choose to go to Nicaragua and tiy their fortunes there. I had hoped that the feverish excitement in favor of these expeditions would have ceased long ago, and that we should be enabled to acquire what ever interest we desired in Central America in a regular, lawful manner, through negotiation rather than through these expeditions. But, sir, when I am called upon to express an opinion in regard to the legality of these - movements, I must say that in my judgment the arrest of Walker was an act in violation of the law of nations and unauthorized by our own neutrality laws. To this extent, like the gentlemen around me who have spoken,I dis sent from the President of the United States. I do so with deep regret, with great pain. My anxiety to act with that distinguished gentleman, and con form to his recommendations as far as possible, will induce me to give the benefit of all doubts in his favor; but where my judgment is clear, like my friend from Mississippi [Mr. Brown], 1 must take it upon myself to speak my own opinions and abide the consequences. THE ACQUISITION OF CUBA. In December, 1858, after the election ofthat year in Illinois, Mr. Douglas visited the city of New Orleans. He was about closing his speech in explanation of his course upon Lecompt- onism, when there were loud cries Df " Cuba ! Cuba !" from the audience. In response to these calls, Mr. Douglas said : It is our destiny to have Cuba, and it is folly to debate tbe question. It naturally belongs to the American continent. It guards the mouth of the Mississippi Eiver, which is the heart of the American continent, and the body of the Ameriean nation. Its acquisition is a matter of time only. Our government should adopt the policy of receiving Cuba as soon as a fair and just opportunity shall be presented. Whether that opportunity occur next year or the year after, whenever the occasion arises and the opportunity pre sents itself, it should be embraced. " The same is true of Central America and Mexico. It will not do to say we have territory enough. AVhen the Constitution was formed there was enough, yet in a few years afterward we needed more. We acquired Lou isiana and Florida, Texas and California, just as the increase in our popula tion and our interests-demanded. When, in 1850, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty- was sent to the Senate for ratification, I fought it to the end. They then asked what I wanted with Central America. I told them I did not want it then, but the time would come when we must have it. They then asked what my objection to the treaty was. I told them I objected to that, among other clauses of itj Which said that neither Great Britain nor the United States should everTTiiy, annex, colonize, or acquire any portion of Central America. yL said I would never consent to a treaty with anyforeign power pledging ourselves not to do in the future whatever interest or necessity might compel us to do. ¦ I was then told by veteran senators, as my distinguished friend well knows (looking toward Mr. Soule), that Central America was so far off that we should never want it. I told them then, " Yes ; » good way TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. — FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. 123 off— half way to California, and on the direct road to it.' I said it was our right and duty to open all tho highways between the Atlantic and the Gulf States and our possessions on the Pacific, and that I would enter into no treaty with Great Britain or any other government concerning the affairs of the American continent. And here, without a breach of confidence, I may be permitted to state a conversation which took place at that time between myself and the British minister, Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, on that point. He took occasion to remonstrate with me that my position with regard to the treaty was unjust and untenable ; that the treaty was fair because it was re ciprocal, and it was reciprocal because it pledged that neither Great Britain nor the United States should ever purchase, colonize, or acquire any terri tory in Central America. I told him that it would be fair if they would add one word to the treaty, so that it would read that neither Great Britain nor the United States should ever occupy or hold dominion over Central Ameri ca or Asia. But he said, ' You have no interests in Asia.' ' No,' answered I, ' and you have none in Central America.' " ' But,' said he, ' you can never establish any rights in Asia.' ' No,' said I, ' and we don't mean that you shall ever establish any in America.' Iiold him it would be just as respectful for us to ask that pledge in reference to Asia, as it was for Great Britain to ask it from us in reference lo Central C America. "If experience shall continue to prove, what the past may be considered to have demonstrated, that those little Central American powers can not maintain self-government, the interestsjf Christendom require that some power should preserve order for themj Hence I maintain that we should adopt and observe a line of policy in unison with our own interests and oui destiny. I do not wish to force things. We live in a rapid age. Events crowd upon each other with marvelous rapidity. I do not want territory any faster than we can occupy, Americanize, and civilize it. I am no filibuster. I am opposed to unlawful expeditions. But, on the other hand, I am opposed to this country acting as a miserable constabulary for France and England. "I am in favor of expanana-as-fast as consistent with our interest and the increase and development of our population and resources ; .but I am natin fr favni- nf that policy unless the great principle of non-intervention_and- the rightof the pXl"' tn ^cinV X question ot slavery and all~otTTeOomest-ic qripstinnslvir themselves shall be maintained._,If that principle prevail, we hafe a future before us more glorious tban that of any other people that ever existed. Our republic will endure for thousands of years. Progress will be the law of its destiny. It will gain new strength with every state brought into the confederacy. Then there will be peace and harmony between the free states and the slave states. The more degrees of latitude and longitude embraced beneath our Constitution, the better. The greater the variety of productions, the better ; for then we shall have the principles of free trade apply to the important staples of the world, making us the greatest planting as well as the greatest manufacturing, the greatest commercial as well as the greatest agricultural power on the globe." 124 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. CHAPTER Vin. THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. Mr. Douglas took an active part in the proceedings which resulted in the measures of legislation known as the " Com promise of 1850." The general history ofthat compromise is well known to the American people. It has for a number of years been so thoroughly and so frequently discussed, that its history, as well as its provisions, have become familiar to all Arho take an interest in political matters. A brief synopsis of the events preceding and attending the adoption ofthat compromise Avill not be uninteresting, at least to those Avhose interest in the history of Mr. Douglas's career has induced them to read thus far in these pages. By the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (voted against by Mr. Douglas), the United States acquired the territory of California, Utah, and New Mexico. That treaty was ratified in 1848, and Con gress shortly after adjourned Avithout making any provision for the government of the newly-acquired country. During the short session of 1848-'9 several efforts Avere made, the most prominent of Avhich was the Clayton Compromise, and the amendment of Mr. Walker of Wisconsin, which, though they both passed the Senate, failed to meet the approval of the House of Representatives. The struggle was betAveen the friends and the opponents of the Wilmot Proviso. Congress adjourned on the 4th of March, 1849, without having made any provision for the government of the new territories. In the mean time the discovery of gold in California had drawn thou sands to that state ; a civil government was absolutely neces sary. The only government there was that of General Riley, who, by virtue of his office as commander of the American forces, exercised to a limited extent the functions of a civil governor. During the summer of 1849, the people of Califor nia, aided by General Riley, Avho acted under instructions from Washington, called a convention, formed a state Constitution, elected state officers, put their state government in operation, elected two United States senators and two members of the THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 125 House of Representatives. The Constitution of the new state prohibited slavery. These proceedings in California had great ly added to the excitement upon the pending issue of a con gressional prohibition of slavery in the territories. Those who had opposed any action of Congress which applied a prohibi tion of slavery to any part of the new territory denounced the action of the people of California. They demanded that the usurpation by the squatters on the Pacific should be rebuked by Congress. It was held by many that the action of Califor nia was a " snap judgment" upon the South ; that, taking ad vantage of the non-action by Congress, the people of Califor nia had been induced to do that, by the proceeding of estab lishing a state government and the adoption of a Constitution prohibiting slavery, Avhich Congress had positively refused to do, and which Congress had not the power to do. To admit California as a state, to recognize the " usurpation" of sover eign powers by her people, and to recognize her broad, em phatic, and sweeping prohibition of slavery, by which the peo ple of one half the states of the Union were to be forever de nied the privilege and right of remaining with their property upon the common territory of all the states, was to do indi rectly that which Congress could not do directly without giv ing good cause for a withdrawal from the Union by those states thus placed upon an inequality of right in the territories. This was the argument against the admission of California as far as the Slavery question was involved. But that was only one point in the great controversy. The majority of the Northern members elected to Congress were pledged to vote for the application of the Wilmot Proviso to all the territories of the United States. The Texas Boundary question was another vexed and exciting question. Texas claimed, as part of her territory, a vast region now embraced in the territorial limits of New Mexico. Texas was a slaveholding state. To admit her claims was to deliver up a large portion of " free soil" to the "slave power." In the general excitement, the subjects of the local traffic in slaves and the continuance of slavery in the District of Columbia were agitated ; and last, but not least, was the no less exciting, and, even to this day, hotly contested claim for a sufficient law to enforce the constitutional mandate for the rendition of fugitive slaves. Both sides had demands, and both sides were determined to resist the demands of each 126 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. other. The Supreme Court having decided that it was not obligatory on the part of the states to provide by their laws for the enforcement of the rights of claimants of fugitive slaves, the existing laAV of Congress on that subject Avas clearly insuf ficient. Following this decision, many of the states abohshed all laws intended to aid in the rendition of fugitives from serv ice ; others passed laws prohibiting their officers from aiding in any such cause. The North — ancl, when we use the terms North and South in this matter, we mean the representatives in Congress of the extreme sentiments of both sections — the North required, 1. The establishment of governments for all the territories ofthe United States, Avith a prohibition of slavery. 2. The admission of California. 3. The abolition of the local slave-trade in the District of Columbia. 4. The abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. The South claimed : 1. An efficient fugitive slave act. 2. The establishment of territorial governments for all the territories, including California, but without a prohibition of slavery. The Texas Boundary question was one on which the several parties divided, the South supporting the claims of Texas, and the North insisting that the disputed territory formed part of New Mexico. State Legislatures had passed various resolutions during the controversy, taking strong grounds upon these several subjects. Most of the Northern states had instructed their senators to vote for the Wilmot Proviso, and one of these states so in structing was Illinois. When Congress met in December, 1849, these exciting ques tions were fully before the people. General Taylor had been elected President by the votes of the most ultra anti-slavery . states, and by the votes ofthe most ultra Southern states. The two extremes had rejected the Avise, and safe, and only practi cable principle of General Cass, as avowed in his Nicholson Let ter, and had put their confidence in a man whose views were, \to speak most kindly, unknown. Massachusetts and Vermont had voted with Georgia and Tennessee ; both extremes were sure that the candidate represented their respective views. Somebody Avas to be undeceived. THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 127 Happily for the country, and happily for the peace and har mony of the Union which he had so long and so nobly served, and upon every page of whose history for half a century his name and deeds will ever stand as bright as the brightest and as pure as the purest, Henry Clay had come forth from his retirement, had quit the peaceful shades of Ashland, once more to mingle in the strife of contending sections, and once more by his magic voice to quell the storm, and guide the hostile factions into one common path of peace and safety. At that time the Senate Avas in its zenith. It numbered among its members men whose names Avere historical — Webster, Phelps, Calhoun, Benton, Berrien, King (we name only those Avho are no longer living), each was in himself a host, whose loss can best be appreciated by stating that a Sumner now represents Massachusetts, and an Iverson holds the seat of Berrien. The list of senators of that session Avill compare, in all the elements of true greatness, with that ofthe same number of men in any country in any age. The House of Representatives failed for several weeks in organizing. At last, by the adoption of the plurality rule, on the 22d of December, Mr. Cobb was elected speaker. A portion of the North would- not vote for Mr. Win throp because he was not sufficiently ultra as an anti-slavery man, and a portion of the South refused to vote for Mr. Cobb because he was not ultra enough on the other extreme. The President's message was received a few days later, and" the country were advised for the first time as to the views of the administration upon the Territorial question. The Presi dent recommended to the favorable consideration of Congress the action taken by the people of California for admission into the Union. He also recommended that Congress should ab stain from any action with respect to the Territory of New Mexico, as the people there would, at no distant period, pre sent themselves for admission into the Union. This message was not calculated to quiet the storm. The administration Avas charged with having instigated the proceedings in Cali fornia, and resolutions calling for information Avere introduced into both houses. These, after Avarm discussion, were adopted. The questions at issue were soon brought before the Senate in a variety of forms. On the 14th of January, Mr. Houston submitted a series of resolutions covering most ofthe subjects. On the 16th Mr. Benton introduced a bill proposing to Texas a 128 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. reduction of her limits, and to pay her fifteen millions of dollars. On the same day Mr. Foote introduced a bill establishing ter ritorial governments for California, Deseret, New Mexico, and to enable the people of San Jacinto (a new state to be formed out of Texas) to form a state government. And Mr. Butler, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a Fugitive Slave Bill. On the 8th of January the resolutions of the State of Vermont upon the subject of slavery were presented, and the motion to print them was objected to. In December a resolu tion tendering the apostle of temperance, Father Mathew, the privilege of the floor, was introduced, was debated — the debate turning exclusively upon the anti-slavery views of that gentle man. On the 29th of January Mr. Clay submitted his famous se ries of resolutions proposing a plan of settlement of all the dis tracting questions. They were promptly discussed. On February 5th and 6th Mr. Clay addressed the Senate upon the subjects embraced in his resolutions. On the 13th of the same month the President communicated to the Senate the Constitution of the State of California. Mr. Benton sug gested its reference to a select committee. Mr. Foote suggest ed that it be referred to a select committee of fifteen, to be in structed to consider all the questions relating to slavery in the territories, etc. Mr. Douglas moved to refer it to the Com mittee on Territories, of which he was chairman. On February 25th Mr. Foote offered his resolution to refer all the pending resolutions, etc., upon the subject of the Terri tories, Texas Boundary, California, etc., to a select committee of thirteen. He stated that it was his wish that this commit tee should be constituted as follows : Mr. Clay, Chairman ; three Northern Whigs, three Northern Democrats, three South ern Whigs, and three Southern Democrats. On the 28th of February Mr. Bell submitted a series of resolutions embracing a plan of compromise. In the mean time, from the first day the Senate had proceed ed to legislative business, Mr. Hale had from time to time pre sented petitions praying the prohibition of slavery in the Terri tories, others praying its abolition in the District of Columbia, others remonstrating agamst the admission of slave states, etc., etc. The presentation of these petitions frequently led to very exciting discussions, sometimes consuming the entire day's sit- THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 129 ting. They were generally stopped by an objection to their reception, and then by an affirmative vote upon laying the mo tion to receive on the table. The debates on all these propo sitions embraced all the questions involved in the complicated series. On the 7th of February Mr. Hale presented a memo rial praying the dissolution of the Union. A debate upon its reception took place, in which Mr. Douglas defined his posi tion upon the subject of the duty of Congress to receive peti tions generally, and particularly upon the reception of petitions relating to slavery. The debate on this question was contin ued several hours on several successive days. Mr. Douglas's remarks will be found elsewhere in this volume. Mr. Benton having moved to amend Mr. Douglas's motion to refer the President's message and the California Constitution to the Committee on Territories, by adding that said commit tee be instructed to report a bill. for the admission of Califor nia, disconnected with any other subject of legislation, and this amendment having opened up on that motion a debate upon the general subject of slavery and the propriety of passing a compromise in one omnibus bill, Mr. Douglas, on the 22d of January, moved to take up from the table the memorial of the people of Deseret asking a state or territorial government, and refer it to his committee. An animated debate took place — the South generally 'urging the reference to the Judiciary Committee. The motion, however, was agreed to — yeas 30, nays 20. He then moved to refer the bill introduced by Mr. Foote to the same committee, and this motion was also agreed to — yeas 25, nays 22. The committee now had the entire sub ject before them. The debates on the general subject con tinued. On the 4th of March, Mr. Calhoun, who had been in failing health for some time, appeared in the Senate, and his last great speech was read to a crowded chamber by Mr. Mason. Three .days later, on March 7th, Webster made his famous speech, and the spectre of the Wilmot Proviso was banished. From that day forth it lost its terrors, and a better feeling prevailed. There were no longer any fears of its adop tion, and the attention was then directed to some broad, na tional, and just principle which should be adopted as a final rule in all hke cases. On March 14th and 15th Mr. Doug las addressed the Senate upon the subject of the admission of California — a speech which, for argument and power, will F 2 130 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. compare favorably with any dehvered in Congress upon that question. On March 25th, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Terri tories, reported bills as follows : " A bill for the admission of the State of California into the Union ;" " A bill to establish the territorial governments of Utah and New Mexico, and for other purposes ;" which bills were read, ordered to a second reading, and ordered to be printed. In addition to all the resolutions and propositions before the Senate, the three leading questions of the compromise were now before the body in the shape of bills ready for legislative action. The struggle in the Senate for the select' committee of thirteen was animated and protracted. For a long time it hung in doubtful balance. The friends ofthat measure desired to pass all the subjects embraced in one bill. To this there were many objections. Mr. Benton was particularly strenuous in his opposition to any proposition having for its object the connection of the admission of California Avith any other sub ject. He declared it an indignity to couple her admission with any other measure. At every stage of the motion to raise the committee of thirteen, he presented his motion to except from the matters referred to said committee the question of the ad mission of California. When his amendments were voted down in one form he proposed them in another. Mr. Douglas Avas one of those who had doubted the expediency of uniting the several measures in one bill. But, having succeeded in getting the matters before the Senate in separate bills, and as nothing could be done with either bill as long as a majority of the Senate desired a report from a select committee, he urged the friends of the California Bill to allow the committee to be raised, to abandon a struggle which could result only in a delay of action. Pending these measures, on the 31st of March Mr. Calhoun's death took place. It Avas not until the 18th of April that the Senate came to a vote upon the motion to raise the select committee of thirteen, and before that time the several memorable scenes between Foote and Benton took place. The vote on raising the committee was, yeas 30, nays 18. On the 19th of April the Senate proceeded to ballot for the members ofthe committee, and the following senators were elected : THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 131 Mr. Clay, chairman ; Messrs. Cass, Dickinson, Bright, Webster, Phelps, Cooper, King, Mason, Downs, Mangum, Bell, Berrien. As soon as the committee Avas raised, Mr. Douglas persist ently presented his motion to take up the bill for the admis sion of California. On the day the committee Avas elected he made the motion making that bill the special order. He was sustained by Mr. Clay; but a committee of six senators having been appointed to accompany the remains of Mr. Calhoun to South Carolina, Mr. Clay said that he "wished some under standing on the subject of taking up this California Bill with the senator from Illinois and the Senate." He then stated that the committee of six were about leaving the city, and he wish ed some understanding'that the bill, during the absence of these six members, should not be pressed to a vote. Mr. Douglas promptly responded that he would not feel authorized to ask a vote in the absence of the committee on a duty like that. His only object was to have the bill considered, and, when the Senate had arrived at the point for a test vote, he Avould defer that vote until the committee should return. To this Mr. Clay said : " Mr. Clay. That is exactly in conformity with the Uberal, manly course of the senator, and, with that understanding, I hope the bill will be taken up." # Mr. Clay gave notice on that same day that he would, Avhile the bill was under consideration, move to add to it provisions for territorial governments and for the adjustment ofthe Texas Boundary ; and, in explanation, stated that the amendments he proposed to offer were " the biUs reported by the senator from Illinois, and which have already been printed." Mr. Benton gave notice that he would resist all such amendments ; and on the 22d, his resolution "that the said committee (of thirteen) be instructed to report separately upon each different subject referred to it, and that the said committee tack no two bills of different natures together, nor join in the same bill any tAvo or more subjects which are in their nature foreign, incoherent, or incongruous to each other," was taken up and debated. In the course ofthat debate, Mr. Cass, a member ofthe commit tee, said : " Now, sir, I think it quite possible, yea, even probable, that the committee will not report any bill at all. The senator (Mr. Benton), then, is presupposing a state of things Avhich may 132 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. never occur at all, and which it will be quite time enough to discuss when it does. * * * " It is perhaps necessary that I should explain what I said a moment ago. I merely meant that, instead of reporting a specific bill or bills, it was quite possible that the committee may propose amendments to, or recommend the passage of bills now before the Senate." The probable course of the committee, as suggested by Mr. Cass, was the one favored by the distinguished chairman of that committee. It was not his intention then, and not until after his report was written, to report a bill that would include the admission of California or governments for the Territories. Whoever will turn to the report of the select committee will see that it recommends the passage of the bill reported from the Committee on Territories for that purpose, and that the bill reported from the same committee, establishing territorial governments for NeAv Mexico and Utah, making proposals to Texas for the settlement of her boundaries, should be added by the Senate to the California Bill, and all passed as one meas ure. In the report no mention is made of any bill agreed upon by the committee, except one to abohsh the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. How Mr. Clay came to change his determination in this re spect may possibly be explained by stating the substance of a conversation between him and Mr. Douglas. Mr. Clay made his report on Wednesday, the 8th of May. On Tuesday, the 7th, Mr. Clay and Mr. Douglas met in the Senate Chamber, and, after an exchange of friendly greetings and some conversation on indifferent subjects, Mr. Douglas inquired of Mr. Clay when he would report his Compromise Bill. Mr. Clay said that he should present an elaborate report upon all the subjects before the committee, in which would be recommended that the Sen ate should unite the two bills, California and Territorial, which Mr. Douglas had previously reported from the Committee on Territories, and pass them in one act ; but he should report no bill on those subjects from his committee. Mr. Douglas asked why Mr. Clay did not himself unite the two bills and report them from the select committee as their bill ; to which Mr. Clay promptly answered, that such a course would not be just or fair toward Mr. Douglas, the author of those bills, par ticularly after having had all the labor, and having prepared THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 133 them in a form so perfect that he (Mr. Clay) could not change them in any particular for the better ; hence, continued Mr. Clay, as a matter of justice toAvard Mr. Douglas, he intended to recommend to the Senate to take up the bills as they stood, and, after uniting them, pass them without change. Mr. Douglas at once stated that he had no such pride in the mere authorship of the measures as to induce him to desire that the select committee, out of regard to him, should omit adopting that course which would or might possibly best ac complish the great object in view. Moreover, there was an other reason, which he regarded as of the very highest im portance, why the select committee should report to the Sen ate the bills united into one. It was his opinion they could never pass the two houses of Congress as a joint measure, be cause the union of them would unite the Opposition to the several measures without uniting. their respective friends; the bill for the admission of California, as a separate measure, would receive all the votes from the North, and enough from the South to secure its passage ; while the Territorial Bills, if not connected with the California Bill, could receive nearly all the Southern votes, with a sufficient number from the North to secure their passage through both houses of Congress. For this reason, he urged that, if the bills Avere to be united at all, they should be united by the select committee, and in that form reported to the Senate as the action of that committee. If that course were adopted by the select committee, the Sen ate would have the several measures before them in two forms — one as separate measures, and the other as a joint measure, and thus all the chances of success would be secured; for, in the event of the defeat ofthe joint measure, the friends of the Compromise could fall back upon the bills separately. If united in the Senate, and then defeated, all would be defeated. Mr. Clay acknowledged the full force of this reasoning, but repeated that to take the bills of Mr. Douglas and report them as the great Compromise Bill, prepared by the select commit tee, would be unjust to their author, who was entitled to all the honor of preparing them. Mr. Douglas then said : " I respectfully ask you, Mr. Clay, what right have you, to whom the country looks for so much, and as an eminent statesman having charge of a great measure for the pacification of a distracted country, to sacrifice to any 134 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. extent the chances of success on a mere punctilio as to whom the credit may belong of having first written the bills ? I, sir, waive all claim and personal consideration in this matter, and insist that the committee shall pursue that course which they may deem best calculated to accomplish the great end we all have in view, Avithout regard to any interest merely personal to me." Mr. Clay (extending his hand to Mr. Douglas). "You are the most generous man living. I will unite the bills and re port them ; but justice shall nevertheless be done to you as the real author of the measures." The next morning Mr. Clay presented his report, and also reported the bill subsequently known as the " Omnibus Bill," being a bill consisting of Mr. Douglas's two bills attached to gether by a Avafer. Extracts from subsequent debates Avill be found in this volume, and will show, to the satisfaction of all, who was the author ofthe compromise acts of 1850 re lating to territorial questions. True to his promise, Mr. Clay subsequently bore honorable testimony to the ability, fairness, and patriotism displayed by Mr. Douglas throughout that long and memorable session. The only change made by the select committee in the Ter ritorial Bill was to insert in the sections defining the powers of the Territorial Legislature the words " nor in respect to Af rican slavery." The effect of this amendment Avas to deny to the Legislature of the Territories the privilege or authority to legislate upon the subject of African slavery. On May 13th Mr. Clay addressed the Senate in support of thejbill. On the 15th, Mr. Douglas, with a view of saving time, by ascertaining at once the sense of the Senate as to whether the questions involved in controversy should be con sidered upon the Omnibus Bill or upon the separate bills, moved, as a test question on that point, to lay Mr. Clay's bill on the table. The motion was rejected*— yeas 24, nays 28. The Senate having thus decided to consider the general bill in preference to the separate measures, the former thenceforth, and until its fate was accomplished, occupied the consideration ofthe Senate to the exclusion of the bills ofthe Committee on Territories. Mr. Jefferson Davis moved to amend the bill so as to re strain the Legislature from interfering " Avith those rights of THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 135 property growing out of the institution of African slavery as it exists in any of the states of the Union." This amendment provoked considerable discussion. It was originally proposed on the 15th of May; on the next day it was modified so as to leave in the section the prohibition of any legislation in respect to African slavery, but declaring that nothing in the bill should be construed as preventing the Ter ritorial Legislature from passing such laAvs or providing such remedies as may protect the owners of African slaves in said Territory in the enjoyment of their property, etc. On the 22d of May, at the suggestion of Mr. Pratt, Mr. Davis farther mod ified his proposed amendment so as to declare that the Terri torial Legislature shall not pass any law " to introduce or ex clude African slavery ;" providing also that nothing in the act contained should prevent the Territorial Legislature from " passing such laws as may be necessary for the protection of the rights of property of any kind which may have been, or may be hereafter, lawfully introduced into said Territory." On the 3d of June the amendment was Avarmly debated ; but, as the question involved was' renewed some weeks later, the extracts from the speeches made upon the question of the power of the Territorial Legislature to legislate upon the sub ject of African slavery, both at this as well as the later pe riod of the debate, will be found grouped together on a sub sequent page. On the 5th of June, the amendment of Mr. Davis, which prohibited the Legislature from introducing or excluding slavery, but authorized them to pass laws to protect slave property there, was rejected — yeas 25, nays 30. The bill stood as reported by the committee of thirteen, including the words " nor in respect to African slavery." Mr. Berrien moved to amend by making the clause read, " But no law shall be passed interfering with the primary dis position of the soil, nor establishing or prohibiting African slavery." And that amendment was agreed to — yeas 30, nays 27. Mr. Douglas then moved to strike out the words " nor es tablishing or prohibiting African slavery." And the motion was rejected — yeas 21, nays 33, as follows : Yeas— Bradbury, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Clay, Cooper, Corwin, Dickinson, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Felch, Greene, Hamlin, Jones, Miller, Norris, Sew ard, Shields, Sturgeon, Underwood, and Upham. 136 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Nays— Atchison, Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright, Butler, Clemens, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Downs, Foote, Hale, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Eusk, Sebastian, Soule, Spruance, Turney, Walker, Webster, Whit comb, Yulee. So the bill stood with the prohibition on the powers of the Territorial Legislature. In the mean time the Wilmot Proviso, in every imaginable shape, was offered as an amendment to the bill, and always voted down. If every motion to insert it be not mentioned, the reader will not understand by the omission that it was not submitted on every possible occasion by its advocates and friends. Mr. Douglas, for reasons stated on a subsequent page, voted for these amendments whenever offered. The debate progressed. On the 14th of June, Mr. Turney, of Tennessee, moved to strike out all that part of the bill re lating to the Texas Boundary. Lost — yeas 24, nays 27, the senators from Texas voting in the negative. On the 15th of June Mr. Soule moved to insert the following clause in that part of the bill relating to Utah : " And when the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be admitted as a state, it shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission." This amendment was debated for three days, and on the 17th it was adopted by the following vote : Yeas — Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Bright, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clemens, Cooper, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pratt, Eusk, Sebastian, Shields, Soule", Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Wales, Webster, Whitcomb, Yulee — 38. Nays — Baldwin of Connecticut, Chase of Ohio, Clarke of Ehode Island, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton of New Jersey, Dodge of Wisconsin, Greene of Ehode Island, Hale of New Hampshire, Miller of New Jersey, Smith of Connecticut, Upham of "Vermont, Walker of Wisconsin — 12. Pending this amendment, Mr. Douglas stated why a provi sion of that kind had not originally been placed in the bill, and also the reasons why he had voted on several previous occa sions for the Wilmot Proviso. He said : "I shall vote for this amendment, not because I believe it confers any new right upon the people ofthe Territories, or modifies the terms of any old" right which they possess. I shall vote for it as the assertion of a principle which is already in the Constitution, and which I believe would be implied, and be equally valid, if not here expressed. I would not deem it necessary to ex- THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 137 press it again but for the fact that the amendment has been offered, and but for the farther fact that I have heard, to my surprise, the doctrine that the people, when they come to form a state government, have a right to do as they please in moulding their domestic institutions questioned in some quar ters. "If it is questioned, I see no reason why we should not express, when it comes in our way, what we believe to be the true constitutional doctrine. I believe the people have a right to do as they please when they form their Constitution, and, no matter what domestic regulations they may make, they have a right to come into the Union, provided there is nothing in their Con stitution which violates the Constitution of the United States; Believing that, I shall vote for the amendment, in order that the Senate may express its opinion in this bill. I have always held that the people have a right to settle these questions as they choose, not only when they come into the Union as a state, eot that thet should be permitted to do so while a Tebei- TOET. " If I have ever recorded a vote contrary to that principle, even as applica-\ ble to Territories, it was done under the influence of the pressure of an au- ) thority higher than my own will. Each and every vote that I have given/ contrary to that principle is the vote of those who sent me here, and not my own. I have faithfully obeyed my instructions, in letter and in spirit, to the fullest extent. They were confined to the prohibition of slavery in the Terri tories while they remained Territories, and leaving the people to do as they please when they shall be admitted into the Union as states. The vote which I am now about to give is entirely consistent with those instructions. I repeat that, according to my view of this subject, all these vexed questions ought to be left to the people of the States and Territories interested, and that any vote which I have given, or may give, inconsistent with this principle, will be the vote of those who gave the instructions, and not my own." The part of the bill proposing terms to Texas for the ad justment of the boundaries between that state and the Terri tory of New Mexico was the most embarrassing and perplex ing. It was debated almost every day. As Mr. Rusk said, it was the first thing discussed each morning, and the last at night. Mr. Clay had left a blank in the bill for the amount of money to be paid to Texas, and he was questioned and assail ed in every way to name the sum with which he intended to fill that blank. He parried all efforts to draw him out on that subject, declaring that, when the bill had reached its last stage, he would move to fill the blank. As a matter of history, it may be here stated that the proper time never arrived, and the " omnibus broke down" with that blank unfilled. On the 19th of June Mr. Underwood moved to strike out all the sec tions of the bill relating to the Texas Boundary, and to insert a provision authorizing the determination of the boundary by a suit in the Supreme Court. This was eventually rejected. On the 20th Mr. Berrien moved to limit the representation of California in the House of Representatives to one member, and 138 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. providing that that representative, as well as the senators, should be chosen after the passage of the bill. Upon this proposition Mr. Douglas vindicated the justice of allowing California her tAvo members in the House, and of admitting them at once to their seats upon the passage of the bill. The motion Avas lost — yeas 12, nays 28. On June 24th and 25th Mr. Soule* advocated Avith great power and eloquence an amendment postponing the admission of California until that state had by an ordinance relinquished all title or claim to tax, dispose of, or interfere with the prima ry disposal of the public domain by the United States within her limits ; that she Avould not interfere with the United States in the control of the mining regions, etc. ; that the navigable waters should be open and free to all citizens of the United States ; and that the southern boundary of the state shall be restricted to the line of 36° 30' north latitude. On the 26th, and again on the 28th, Mr. Douglas replied to this speech of Mr. Soule, demonstrating that the argument that, unless this ordinance was adopted by California previous to her admission, the public lands and mines would escheat to that state, was wholly unsound. His speech was thorough and complete. It revieAved the entire history of the policy, as Avell as the possessory right ofthe government ofthe United States to the public domain, wherever situated, Avhether in state or territory. The limits of this work will not admit the publica tion here of this speech in full, and to abbreviate it would de stroy its force. The speech Av,as deemed so conclusive upon the points embraced in it that it was printed in pamphlet, and thousands of copies of it were circulated, particularly in Cali fornia. The amendment was rejected — yeas 19, nays 36. Mr. Jefferson Davis about this period offered an amendment proposing to repeal or annul all the Mexican laws, customs, etc., which, existing previous to the acquisition of the territory, prohibited or abolished slavery. This was rejected — yeas 18, nays 30 ; every northern Democrat who voted voting in the negative. On the 9th of July — the intervening time having been oc cupied in speeches mainly against the bill — Mr. Butler was ad dressing the Senate, when he was interrupted by Mr. Webster, who, in appropriate terms, announced the dying condition of THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 139 President Taylor. The Senate adjourned, and the considera tion of the Compromise Bill was not resumed until the 15th of July. On that day it was taken out of. Committee of the Whole and reported to the Senate, and the amendments Avere concurred in. Mr. Benton then commenced an active war upon the bill by proposing amendments, particularly to that part re lating to the adjustment of the boundary of Texas. On July 1 7 Mr. Webster made an elaborate speech in favor of the bill — the last speech delivered by him in the Senate. On the 22d the Senate was notified of the resignations of Messrs. Webster and Corwin, who -had accepted places in Mr. Fillmore's cabi net. They were soon succeeded by Messrs. Winthrop and Ewing, both opponents of the bill. Mr. King, of Alabama, moved to amend the bill by making the admission of California conditional Avith the establishment of her southern boundary on the line of 35° 30' north latitude. Mr. Jefferson Davis moved to make the line 36° 30'. Both propositions were rejected — 36° 30' by a vote of 32 to 23, and 35° 30' by a vote of 37 to 20. Mr. Bradbury, of Maine, on the 23d of July moved to strike out ofthe bill aU relating to the adjustment of the Texas bound ary, and to insert a section providing for the appointment of commissioners by the United States and by Texas, who were to ascertain and agree upon a boundary, and report the same, which, if agreed to by the United States and by Texas, was to be binding upon both parties. Mr. Benton and other senators proposed various amend ments to Mr. Bradbury's proposition, all of which were reject ed, and finally that proposition, on the 29th of July, was reject ed — yeas 29, nays 29 ; both senators from Texas voting in the negative. Mr. Seward submitted an amendment admitting New Mexi co as a state, and supported it in a long speech which provoked an angry and excited debate. This was rejected — yeas 1, nays 42. Mr. Bradbury then renewed his amendment, having slightly modified it. The debate Avas renewed, and proceeded Avith great feeling, the bill evidently having approached a crisis. Mr. Walker moved, on the 30th, that the bill be laid on the ta ble; lost — yeas 25, nays 32. Mr. Dawson moved to amend the proposition of Mr. Bradbury by providing that during the 140 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. proceedings of the Boundary Commission the territorial gov ernment provided in the bill should not go into operation in that part of the Territory lying east of the Rio Grande, being the territory in dispute. This proviso was agreed to, and Mr. Bradbury's proposition, as amended, was then inserted in lieu of the sections of the bill containing the proposals to Texas for the adjustment of her boundary — yeas 30, nays 28. POWER OF THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURES AGAIN. At this stage of the bill Mr. Norris moved to strike out the words which prohibited the Territorial Legislature from pass ing any law " establishing or prohibiting African slavery," the object of the amendment being to leave the Territorial Legisla ture as free to pass laws upon that question as upon any other "rightful subject of legislation." In order to show that the object in placing in the bill the restriction was to deny the power and the authority of the Territorial Legislature to legis late upon that matter, and the object in moving to strike it out was to recognize and admit such a power and authority in the Legislature, and that these objects were fully understood by all parties, and also to show what was the final decision of the Senate upon this point, which has become so important in the political discussions of the present day, extracts from some of the speeches delivered upon the subject are here inserted. FROM THE DEBATE ON MR. DAVIS'S AMENDMENT MR. DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS. . I wish to say one word before this part of the bill is voted upon. I must confess that I rather regretted that a clause had been introduced into this bill providing that the territorial governments should not legislate in respect to African slavery. The position that I have ever taken has been, that this and all other questions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic policy \ of the Territories ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves, and that we ought to be content with whatever way they may decide the ques tion, because they have a much deeper interest in these matters than we have, and know much better what institutions suit them than we, who have never been there, can decide for them. I would, therefore, have much pre ferred that that portion of the bill should have remained as it was reported from the Committee on Territories, with no provision on the subject of slavery the one way or the other ; and I do hope yet that that clause in the bill will be stricken out. I am satisfied, sir, that it gives no strength to the bill ; I am satisfied, even if it did give strength to it, that it ought not to be there, because it is a violation of principle — a violation of that peinciple upon WHICH WE HAVE ALL BESTED OUB DEFENSE OP THE COUBSE WE HAVE THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 141 taken on this question. I do not see how those of us who have taken the position which we have taken (that of non-interference), and have argued in favor of the right of the people to legislate for themselves on this question, can support such a provision without abandoning all the arguments whieh we urged in the presidential campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set forth by the honorable senator from Michigan in that letter which is known as the " Nicholson Letter." We are .required to abandon that plat form ; we are required to abandon those principles, and to stultify ourselves, and to adopt the opposite doctrine, and what for ? In order to say that the people of the Territories shall not have such institutions as they shall deem adapted to their condition and their wants. I do not see, sir, how such a provision as that can be acceptable either to the people ofthe North or South. Besides, it settles nothing ; it leaves it a matter of doubt and uncertainty what is to be the condition of things under the bill ; and, whatever shall be ascertained to be the condition in respect to slavery, it may turn out that, while the law is held to be one way, the people of the Territory are unanimous the other way. And, sir, is an institution to be fixed upon a people in opposi tion to their unanimous opinion ? Or are the people, by our action here, to be deprived of a law which they unanimously desire, and yet have no power to remedy the evil f I, for one, think that such ought not to be the case. In my own opinion, I have no doubt as to what the law would be under that provision; but if I were left to the exercise of my own judgment and to carry out my own principles, I desire no provision whatever in respect to the institution of slavery in the Territories. I wish to leave the people ofthe Ter ritories free to enact just such laws as they please in respect to this institu tion. On this one point I am not left to followlike to know of whom that Legislature is composed ? Inasmuch as the governor would have the power to veto an act of the Legislature calling a convention, I should like to know who is governor, so that I may judge whether he would veto such an act ? Can not our good friends get the president pio tempore of the convention to write a letter to the Star ? Can they not procure a letter from the committee of seven ? Can they not clear up this mysteiy, and re lieve bur suspicious minds of any thing unfair or foul in the arrangement of this matter ? Let us know how the fact is. This publication of itself is calculated to create more apprehension than there was before. As long as Mr. Calhoun took the ground that he would never declare the result until Lecompton was admitted, and that, if it was not admitted, he would never make the decision, there seemed to be some reason in his course; but when, after taking that ground for months, it be came understood that Lecompton was dead, or was lingering and languish ing, and likely to die, and when a few more votes were necessary, and a pre text was necessary to be given in order to secure them, we find this letter published by the deposed ex-president, giving his opinion when he had no power- over the subject ; and when it appears by the Constitution itself that another man or another body of men has the decision in their hands, it is calculated to arouse our suspicions as to what the result will be after Le compton is admitted. Mr. President, in the course of the debate on this bill, before I was com pelled to absent myself from the Senate on account of sickness, and I presume the same has been the case during my absence, much was said on the Slavery question in connection with the admission of Kansas. Many gentlemen have labored to produce the impression that the whole opposition to the admission arises out of the fact that the Lecompton Constitution makes Kansas a slave state. I am sure that no gentleman here will do me the injustice to assert or suppose that my opposition is predicated on that consideration, in view ofthe fact that my speech against the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution was made on the 9th of December, two weeks before the vote was taken upon the slavery clause in Kansas, and when the general impres sion was that the pro-slavery clause would be excluded. I predicated my opposition then, as I do now, upon the ground that it was a violation of the fundamental principles of government, a violation of popular sovereignty, a violation of the Democratic platform, a violation of all party platforms, and a fatal blow to the independence of the new states. I told you then that you had no more right to force a free-state Constitution upon a people against their will than you had to force a slave-state Constitution. Will gentlemen say that, on the other side, slavery has no influence in producing that united, THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 345 almost unanimous support which we find from gentlemen living in one sec tion of the Union in favor of the Lecompton Constitution ? If slavery had nothing to do with it, would there have been so much hesitation about Mr. Calhoun's declaring the result ofthe election prior to the vote in Congress? I submit, then, whether we ought not to discard the Slavery question alto gether, and approach the real question before us fairly, calmly, dispassion ately, and decide whether, but for, the slavery clause, this Lecompton Con stitution could receive a single vote in either house, of Congress. Were it not for the slavery clause, would there be any objection to sending it back to the people for a vote ? , Were it not for the slavery clause, would there be any objection to letting Kansas wait until she had ninety thousand people, instead of coming into the Union with not over forty-five or fifty thousand ? Were it not for the Slavery question, would Kansas have occupied any considerable portion of our thoughts ? would it have divided and distracted political parties so as to create bitter and acrimonious feelings ? I say now to our Southern friends that I will act, on this question on the right of the people to decide for themselves, irrespective of the fact whether they decide for or against slavery, provided it be submitted to a fair vote at a fair election, and with honest returns. In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of newspapers, or notice the articles which they publish in regard to myself; but the course of the Washington Union has been so extraordinary for the last two or. three months, that I think it well enough to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of the Democratic party every other day, at least, for two or three months, and keeps reading me out (laughter) ; and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues to read me out, using such terms as "traitor," "renegade," " deserter, " and other kind and polite epithets ofthat nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my Democracy against the Washington Union, or any other newspaper. I am willing to allow my history and action for the last twenty years to speak for themselves as to my political principles, and my fidelity to political obliga tions. The Washington Union has a personal grievance. When its editor was nominated for public printer I declined to vote for him, and stated that at some time I might give my reasons for doing so. Since I declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and constant attacks, have been repeated almost daily on me. Will my friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude ? Mr. Stuart read the following editorial article from the Washington Union of November 17, 1857 : " Free-soilism.— The primary object of all government, in its original in stitution, is the protection of person and property. It is for this alone that men surrender a portion of their natural rights. "In order that this object may be fully accomplished, it is necessary that this protection should be equally extended to all classes of free citizens with out exception.^ This, at least, is a fundamental principle ofthe Constitution of the United States, which is the original compact on which all our institu tions are based. "Slaves were recognized as property in the British colonies of North Amer ica by the government of Great Britain, by the colonial laws, and by the Con stitution of the United States. Under these sanctions vested rights have ac crued to the amount of some sixteen hundred million dollars. It is therefore the duty of Congress and the state Legislatures to protect that property. "The Constitution declares that 'the citizens of each state shall be en titled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.' Every citizen of one state coming into another state has therefore a right to the protection of his person, and that property which is recognized as such by P2 346 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. the. Constitution ofthe United States, any law of a state to the contrary not withstanding. So far from any state having a right to deprive him of this prop erty, it is its bounden duty to protect him in its possession. " If these views are correct — and we believe it would be difficult to inval idate them — it follows that all state laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit a citizen of one state from settling in another, and bringing his slave property with him, and most especially declaring it forfeited, are direct viola tions ofthe original intention of a government which, as before stated, is the protection of person and property, and ofthe Constitution ofthe United States, which recognizes property in slaves, and declares that ' the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, ' among the most essential of which is the protection of person and property. "What is recognized as property by the Constitution of the United States, by a provision which applies equally to all the states, has an inalienable right to be protected in all the states. " * * * * " The protection of property being, next to that of person, the most import ant object of all good government, and property in slaves being recognized by the Constitution of the United States, as well as originally by all the old thir teen states, we have never doubted that the emancipation of slaves in those states where it previously existed, by an arbitrary act of the Legislature, was a gross violation of the rights of property." * * * * " The emancipation ofthe slaves ofthe Nortliern States was then, as previously stated, a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was not a vol untary relinquishment on the part of the owners. It was an act of coercive legislation." * * * * "This measure of emancipation was the parent or the offspring of a doc trine which may be so extended as to place the property of every man in the community at the mercy of rabid fanaticism or political expediency. It is only to substitute scruples of conscience in place of estabfished constitutional principle, and all laws and all constitutions become a dead letter. The rights of persons and property become subservient, not to laws and Constitutions, but to fanatical dogmas, and thus the end and object of all good government is completely frustrated. There is no longer any rule of law nor any consti tutional guide ; and the people are left to the discretion, or rather the mad ness, of a school of instructors who can neither comprehend their own dogmas nor make them comprehensible to others." * * * * "Where is all this to end? and what security have the free citizens ofthe United States that their dearest rights may not, one after the other, be offer ed up at the shrine of the demon of fanaticism, the most dangerous of all the enemies of freedom ? If the Constitution is no longer to be our guide and protector, where shall we find barriers to defend us against a system of legis lation restrained by no laws and no Constitutions, which creates crimes at pleasure, punishes them at will, and sacrifices the rights of persons and prop erty to a dogma or a scruple of conscience ? All this is but the old laws of Puritanism now fermenting and souring in the exhausted beer-banel of Mas sachusetts. The descendants of this race of ecclesiastical tyrants, or rather ecclesiastical slaves, have spread over the western part of the State of New York, and throughout all the new states, where they have, to some extent, dis seminated their manners, habits, and principles, most especially their blind subserviency to old idols, and their abject subjection to their priests. There is no doubt that they aspire to give tone and character to the whole confed eracy, and believe that their dream will be realized ? We are pretty well con vinced, however, that the people ofthe United States will never become a na tion of fanatical Puritans." Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions ad- THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 347 vanced boldly by the Washington Union editorially and apparently authori tatively, and every man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abo litionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primary object of all government at its original institution is the protection of' person and property ; second, that the Constitution of the United States declares that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states ; and that, therefore, thirdly, all state laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one state from settling in another with their slave property, and especially declaring it for feited, are direct violations of the original intention of the government and Constitution of the United States ; and, fourth, that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner. Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17f'h of No vember, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesion ofthe Union to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words: "Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed question is settled. The problem is solved. The dread point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone," and a column nearly of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put forth editorially in the Union. What is it ? "Article 7, Section 1. The right of- property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to such. slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever." Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be amended after 1864 by a two thirds vote, "But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the own ership of slaves." It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that they are identical in spirit with this authoritative article in the Washington Union of the day previous to its endorsement of this Constitution, aud every man is branded as a Free-soiler and Abolitionist who does not subscribe to them. The proposition is advanced that the emancipation acts of New York, of New England, of Pennsylvania, and of New Jersey, were unconstitutional, were outrages upon the right of property, were violations of the Constitution of the United States. The proposition is advanced that a Southern man has a right to move from South Carolina, with his negroes, into Illinois, to settle there and hold them there as slaves, any thing in the Constitution and laws of Il linois to the contrary notwithstanding. The proposition is, that a citizen of Virginia has rights in a free state which a citizen of a free state can not him self have. We prohibit ourselves from holding slaves within our own limits, and yet, according to this doctrine, a citizen of Kentucky can move into our state, bring in one hundred slaves with him, and hold them as such in defi ance of the Constitution and laws of our own state. If that proposition is true, the creed ofthe Democratic party is false. The principle ofthe Kansas- Nebraska Bill is, that " each state and each Territory shall be left perfectly free to form and regulate its domestic institutions in its own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. " I claim that Illinois has the sov ereign right to prohibit slavery, a right as undeniable as that the sovereignty of Virginia may authorize its existence. We have the same right to prohibit it that you have to recognize and protect it. Each state is sovereign within its own sphere of powers, sovereign in respect to its own domestic and local institutions and internal concerns. So long as you regulate your local insti tutions to suit yourselves, we are content ; but when you claim the right to 348 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. override our laws and our Constitution, and deny our right to form our insti tutions to suit ourselves, I protest against it. The same doctrine is asserted in this Lecompton Constitution. There it is stated that the right of property in slaves is " before and higher than .any constitutional sanction." Mr. President, I recognize the right of the slaveholding states to regulate then- local institutions, to claim the services of their slaves under their own state laws, and I am prepared to perform each and every one of my obliga tions under the Constitution of the United States in respect to them ; but I do not admit, and I do not think they are safe in asserting, that their right of property in slaves is higher than and above constitutional sanction, is inde pendent of constitutional obligations. When you rely upon the Constitution and upon your own laws, you are safe. When you go beyond and above con stitutional obligations, I know not where your safety is. If this doctrine be true, that slavery is higher than the Constitution, and above the Constitution, it necessarily follows that a state can not abolish it, can not prohibit it, and the doctrine of the Washington Union, that tbe emancipation laws were out rages on the rights of property and violations of the Constitution, becomes the law. When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification ofthe Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that no state has a right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the states of this Union, u. death-blow to state rights, subversive of the Democratic platform and of the principles upon which the Democratic party have ever stood, and upon which I trust they ever will stand. Because of these extraordinary doctrines, I declined to vote for the editor of the Washington Union for public printer, and for that refusal, as I suppose, I have been read out of the party by the editor of the Union at least every other day from that time to this. Sir, I submit the question : Who has deserted the Democratic party and the Democratic platform — he who stands by the sovereign rights of the state to abolish and prohibit slavery as it pleases, or he who attempts to strike down the sovereignty of the states, and combine all power in one central government, and establish an empire in stead of a confederacy ? The principles upon which the presidential campaign of 1856 was fought are well known to the country. At least in Illinois I think I am authorized to state that they were with clearness and precision, so far as the Slavery question is concerned. The Democracy of Illinois are prepared to stand on the platform upon which the battle of 1 856 was fought. It was, First. The migration or importation of negroes into the country having been prohibited since 1808, never again to be renewed, each state will take care of its own colored population. Second. That while negroes are not citizens of the United States, and hence not entitled to political equality with whites, they should enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities which they are capable of exercising, con sistent with the safety and welfare of the community where they live. Third. That each state and. Tenitory must judge and determine for itself of the nature and extent of its rights and privileges. Fourth. That while each free state should and will maintain and protect all the rights of the slaveholding states, they will, each for itself, maintain and defend its sovereign right within its own limits to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. Fifth. That in the language of Mr. Buchanan's letter of acceptance of the presidential nomination, the Nebraska-Kansas Act does no more than give the form of law to this elementary principle of self-government when it de- THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 349 clares "that the people of a Territory, like those of a state, shall decide for themselves whether slaveiy shall or shall not exist within their limits." These were the general propositions on which we maintained the canvass on the Slavery question — the right of each state to decide for itself; that u, negro should have such rights as he was capable of enjoying, and could en joy, consistently with the safety and welfare of society ; and that each state should decide for itself the nature, and extent, and description of those rights and privileges. Hence, if you choose in North Carolina to have slaves, it is your business, and not ours. If we choose in Illinois to prohibit slavery, it is our right, and you must not interfere with it. If New York chooses to give privileges to the negro whieh we withhold, it is her right to extend them, but she must not attempt to force us to do the same thing. Let each state take care of its own affairs, mind its own business, and let its neighbors alone, then there will be peace in the country. Whenever you attempt to enforce uniformity, and, judging that a peculiar institution is good for you, and there fore good for every body else, try to enforce it on every body, you will find that there will be resistance to the demand. Our government was not formed on the idea that there was to be uniformity of local laws or local institutions. It was founded upon the supposition that there must be diversity and variety in the institutions and laws. Our fathers foresaw that the local institutions which would suit the granite hills of New Hampshire would be ill adapted to the rice plantations of South Carolina. They foresaw that the institutions which would be well adapted to the mountains and valleys of Pennsylvania would not suit the plantation interests of Virginia. They foresaw that the great diversity of climate, of production, of interests, would require a corre sponding diversity of local laws and local institutions. For this reason they provided for thirteen separate states, each with a separate Legislature, and each state sovereign within its own sphere, with the right to make all its local laws and local institutions to suit itself, on the supposition that they would be as different and as diversified as the number of states themselves. . Then the general government was made, with a Congress having limited and speci fied powers, extending only to those subjects which were national and not local, which were federal and not state. ' These were the principles on which our institutions were established. These are the principles on which the Democratic party has ever fought its battles. This attempt now to establish the -doctrine that a free state has no power to prohibit slavery, that our emancipation acts were unconstitutional and void, that they were outrages on the rights of property, that slaveiy is national and not local, that it goes eveiy where under the Constitution of the United States, and yet is higher than the Constitution, above the Constitu tion, beyond the reach of sovereign power, existing by virtue of that higher law proclaimed by the senator from New York, will not be tolerated. When the doctrine of a higher law, u, law above the Constitution, a law overriding the Constitution, and imposing obligations upon public men in defiance of the Constitution, was first proclaimed in the Senate, it was deemed moral treason in this body ; but now I am read out of the party three times a week by the Washington Union for disputing this higher law, which is embodied in the Lecompton Constitution, that slavery, the right to slave property, does not depend upon human law nor constitutional sanction, but is above, and be yond, and before all constitutional sanctions and obligations ! I feel bound, as a senator from a sovereign state, to repudiate and rebuke this doctrine. I am bound as a Democrat, bound as an American citizen, bound as a senator claiming to represent a sovereign state, to enter my protest, aud the protest of my constituency, against such a doctrine. Whenever such a doctrine shall be ingrafted on the policy of this country, you will have revolutionized the government, annihiTated the sovereignty of the states, established a con- 350 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. solidated despotism with uniformity of local institutions, and that uniform ity being slaveiy, existing by Divine right, and a higher law beyond the reach of the Constitution and of human authority. Mr. President, if my protest against this interpolation into the policy of this countiy or the creed of the Democratic party is to bring me under the ban, I am ready to meet the issue. I am told that this Lecompton Consti tution is a party test, a party measure ; that no man is a Democrat who does not sanction it, who does not vote to bring Kansas into the Union with the government established under that Constitution. Sir, who made it a party test ? Who made it a party measure ? Certainly the party has not assem bled in convention to ordain any such thing- to be a party measure. I know of but one state convention that has endorsed it. It has not been declared to be a party measure by state conventions, or by a national convention, or by a senatorial caucus, or by a caucus of the Democratic members of the House of Representatives. How, then, came it to be a party measure ? The Democratic party laid down its creed at its last national convention. That creed is unalterable for four years, according to the rules and practices of the party. Who has interpolated this Lecompton Constitution into the party platform ? Oh ! but we are told it is an administration measure. Because it is an administration measure, does it therefore follow that it is a party measure ? Is it the right of an administration to declare what are party measures and what are not ? That has been attempted heretofore, and it has failed. When John Tyler prescribed a creed to the Whig party, his right to do so was not respected. When a certain doctrine in regard to the neutrality laws was proclaimed to be a party measure, my friends around me here considered it a ' ' grave error, " and it was not respected. When the Army Bill was pro claimed an -administration measure, the authority to make it so was put at defiance, and the Senate rejected it by a vote of four to one, and the House . of Representatives voted it down by an overwhelming majority. Is the Pacific Railroad Bill a party measure ? I should hke to see whether the guillotine is to be applied to every recreant Democrat who does not come up to that test. Is the Bankrupt Law a party measure ? We shall see, when the vote is taken, how many renegades there will be then. Was the Loan Bill an administration measure or a party measure ? Is the guillotine to be applied to every one who does not yield implicit obedience to the behests of an administration in power ? There is infinitely more plausibility in declar ing each of the measures to which I have just alluded to be an administration measure, than in declaring the Lecompton Constitution to be such. By what right does the administration take cognizance of the Lecompton Constitu tion? The Constitution of the United States says that "new states may be ad mitted into the Union by the Congress" — not by the President, not by the cabinet, not by the administration. The Lecompton Constitution itself says, ' ' This Constitution shall be submitted to the Congress of the United States at its next session ;" not to the President, not to the cabinet, not to the ad ministration. The convention in Kansas did not send it to the administra tion, did not authorize it to be sent to the President, but directed it to be sent to Congress ; and the President of the United States only got hold of it through the commission of the surveyor general, who was also president of the Leeompton Convention. The Constitution as made was ordered to be sent directly to Congress; Congress having power to admit states, and the President having nothing to do with it. The moment you pass a law ad mitting a state, it executes itself. It is not a law to be executed by the President or by the administration. It is the last measure on earth that could be rightfully made an administration measure". It is not usual for the THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 351 Constitution of a new state to come to Congress through the hand of the Pres ident. True, the Minnesota Constitution was sent to the President because the Convention of Minnesota directed it to be so sent, and the President sub mitted it to us without any recommendation. Beeause senators and repre sentatives do not yield their judgments and their consciences, and bow in ab ject obedienqe to the requirements of an administration in regard to a meas ure on which the administration are not required to act at all, a system of proscription, of persecution is to be adopted against every man who maintains his self-respect, his own judgment, and his own conscience. • I do not recognize the right of the President or his cabinet, no matter what my respect may be for them, to tell me my duty in the Senate Cham ber. The President has his duties to perform under the Constitution, and he is responsible to his constituency. A senator has his duties to perform here under the Constitution and according to his oath, and he is responsible to the sovereign state which he represents as his constituency. A member of the House of Representatives has his duties under the Constitution and his oath, and he is responsible to the people that elected him. The Presi dent has no more right to prescribe tests to senators than senators have to the President ; the President has no more right to prescribe tests to the repre sentatives than the representatives have to the President. Suppose we here should attempt to prescribe a, test of faith to the President of the United States, would he not rebuke our impertinence and impudence as subversive of the fundamental principle of the Constitution ? Would he not tell us that the Constitution, and his oath, and his conscience were his guide ; that we must perform our duties, and he would perform his, and let each he re sponsible to his own constituency ? Sir, whenever the time comes that the President of the United States can change the allegiance of the senators from the ' states to himself, what be comes of the sovereignty of the states ? When the time comes that a sena tor is to account to the executive and not to his state, whom does he repre sent ? If the will of my state is one way and the will of the President is the other, am I to be told that I must obey the executive and betray my state, or else be branded as a traitor to the party, and hunted down by all the newspapers that share the patronage of the government ? and every man who holds a petty office in any part of my state to have the question put to him, " Are you Douglas's enemy ?" if not, " your head comes off?" Why ? "Because he is a recreant senator; because he chooses to follow his judg ment and his conscience, and represent his state instead of obeying my exec utive behest." I should like to know what is the use of Congresses ; what is the use of Senates and Houses of Representatives, when their highest duty is to obey the executive in disregard of the wishes, rights, and honor of their constituents ? What despotism on earth would be equal to this, if you estab lish the doctrine that the executive has a right to command the votes, the consciences, the judgment of the senators and of the representatives, instead of their constituents ? In old England, whose oppressions we thought intol erable, an administration is hurled from power in an hour when voted down by the representatives of the people upon a government measure. If the rule of old England applied here, this cabinet would have gone out of office when the Army Bill was voted down, the other day, in the House of Repre sentatives. There, in that monarchical country, where they have a queen by divine right, and lords by the grace of God, and where Republicanism is supposed to have but a slight foothold, the representatives of the people can check the throne, restrain the government, change the ministry, and give a new direction to the policy of the government, without being accountable to the king or the queen. There the representatives of the people are respon sible to their constituents. Across the Channel, under Louis Napoleon, it 352 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. JUOUGLAS. * may be otherwise ; yet I doubt whether it would be so boldly proclaimed there that a man is a traitor for daring to vote according to his sense of duty, according to the will of his state, according to the interests of his con stituents. Suppose the executive should tell the senator from California [Mr. Gwin] to vote against his Pacific Railroad Bill ; would he obey ? If not, he will be deemed a rebel. . Suppose the executive should tell the senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] to vote for the Pacific Railroad Bill, or the senator from Geor gia [M*. Toombs] to vote for the Army Bill, or the senator from Mississippi [Mr. Brown] to sustain him on the Neutrality Laws, we should have more rebels and more traitors. But it is said a dispensation is granted from the fountain of all power for rebellion on all subjects but one. The President says, in effect, " Do as you please on all questions but one ; " that one is Le compton. On what principle-is it that we must not judge for ourselves on this measure, and may on every thing else ? I suppose it is on the old adage that a man needs no friends when he knows he is right, and he only wants his friends to stand by him when he is wrong. The President says that he regrets this Constitution was not submitted to the people, although he knows that if it had been submitted it would have been rejected. Hence the Presi dent regrets that it was not rejected. Would he regret that it was not sub mitted and rejected if he did not think it was wrong ? And yet he demands our assistance in forcing it on an unwilling people, and threatens vengeance on all who refuse obedience. He recommends the Army Bill ; he thinks it necessary to carry on the Mormon war ; it is necessaiy to cany out a meas ure of the administration, and hence it is an administration measure ; but he does not quarrel with any body for voting against it. He thinks every one of the other recommendations to which I have alluded is right, and, there fore, there is no harm in going against them. The only harm is in going against that which the President acknowledges, to be wrong; and yet the system of proscription, to subdue men to abject obedience to executive will, is to bo pursued. ¦>,.,- Is it seriously intended to brand every Democrat in the United States as a traitor who is opposed to the Lecompton Constitution ? If so, do your friends in Pennsylvania desire any traitors to vote with them next fall ? We are traitors if we vote against Lecompton, our constituents are traitors if they do not think Lecompton is right, and yet you expect those whom you call trai tors to vote with and sustain you. Are you to read out of the party every man who thinks it wrong to force a Constitution on h, people against their will ? If so, what will be the size of the administration party in New York ? what will it be in Pennsylvania ? how many will it number in phio, or in Indiana, or in Illinois, or in any other Northern state ? Surely you do not expect the support Of those whom you brand as renegades ? Would it not be well to allow all freemen freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of action ? Would it not be well to allow each senator and representative to vote according to his judgment, and perform his duty according to his own sense of his obligation to himself, and to his state, and to his God ? For my own part, Mr. President, come what may, I intend to vote, speak, and act according to my own sense of duty so long as I hold a seat in this chamber. I have no defense of my Democracy. I have no professions to make of my fidelity. I have no vindication to make of my course. Let it speak for itself. The insinuation that I am acting with the Republicans or Americans has no terror, and will not drive me from my duty or propriety. It is an argument for which I have no respect. When I saw the senator from Virginia acting with the Republicans on the Neutrality Laws, in sup port of the President, I did not feel it to be my duty to taunt him with voting with those to whom he happened to be opposed in general politics. When THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 363 I saw the senator from Georgia acting with the Republicans on the Army Bill, it did not impair my confidence in his fidelity to principle. When I see senators here every day acting with the Republicans on various questions, it only shows me that they have independence and self-respect enough to go according to their own convictions of duty, without being influenced by the course of others. I have no professions to make upon any of these points. I intend to per form my duty in accordance with my own convictions. Neither the frowns of power nor the influence of patronage will change my action, or drive me from my principles. I stand firmly, immovably upon those great principles of self-government and state sovereignty upon which the campaign was fought and the election won. I stand by the time-honored principles of the Demo cratic party, illustrated by Jefferson and Jackson — those principles of state rights, of state sovereignty, of strict consti-uction, on which the great Demo cratic party has ever stood. I will stand by the Constitution of the United States, with all its compromises, and perform all my obligations under it. I will stand by the American Union as it exists under the Constitution. If, standing firmly by my principles, I shall be driven into private life, it is a fate that has no terrors for me. I prefer private life, preserving my own self-re spect and manhood, to abject and servile submission to executive will. If the alternative be private life or servile obedience to executive will, I am pre pared to retire. Official position has no charms for me when deprived of that freedom of thought and action which.becomes a gentleman and a senator. Mr. President, I owe an apology to the Senate for the desultory manner in which I have discussed this question. My health has been so feeble for some time past that I have not been able to anange my thoughts, or the order in which they should be presented. If, in the heat of debate, I have ex pressed a sentiment which would seem to be unkind or disrespectful to any senator, I shall regret it. While I intend to maintain, firmly and fearlessly, my own views, far be it from me to impugn the motives or question the pro priety of the action of any other senator. I take it for granted that each senator will obey the dictates of his own conscience, and will be accountable to his constituents for the course which he may think proper to pursue. On the 1st of April the bill was taken up in the House. The House refused — yeas 95, nays 137 — to reject the bill. Mr. Montgomery, of Pennsylvania, moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and to insert the same amendment proposed by Mr. Crittenden in the Senate. That amendment was agreed to — yeas 120, nays 112 — and, as amended, the bill was passed by the same vote. The next day, (April 2) the Senate — yeas 32, nays 23 — re fused to concur in the amendment made by the House. On the 8th the House — yeas 119, nays 111 — voted to "adhere" to their amendment. On the 13th the Senate "insisted" on its disagreement, and asked for a committee of conference. On the 14th Mr. Montgomery moved that the House " adhere," and Mr. English, of Indiana, moved that the House appoint a com mittee of conference. The vote on the last motion was— yeas 108, nays 108; the speaker voting in the affirmative, the mo tion was agreed to. The committees were appointed — Messrs. 354 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Green, Hunter, and Seward on the part of the Senate, and En glish, Stephens, and Howard on the part of the House. This committee reported to the House on the 23d what is known as the " EngUsh BUl," and on the 4th of May the House, by a vote of yeas 112, nays 103, concurred inthe report ofthe com mittee of conference, and the Senate, by the vote of all the friends of the original bill, did the same. The English Bill be came the law. Its fate before the people of Kansas is well known. Thus ended the Lecompton controversy in Congress. Happy for the best interests of the country would it have been had it been allowed to reach its end without the bitter ness that attended its progress. We wiU notice no farther at this time the assaults upon Mr. Douglas than to refer, as an ex ample ofthe violence to which excited feelings led some men, to an article — leading editorial — in the Washington Union in the early part of March, in which it was demonstrated to the writ er's entire satisfaction that no man of small physical stature could be a true Democrat at heart ; and that R. J. Walker and S. A. Douglas were so constructed physically that it was nat urally impossible for either of them to be a Democrat ! In this struggle Mr. Douglas was heartily sustained and support ed to the end by his Democratic colleagues in the House, Messrs. Harris, Marshall, Morris, Shaw, and Smith. CHAPTER XV. INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. Douglas, during his entire political hfe, has agreed with the Democratic party in resisting any general system of internal improvements by the federal government. That hos tility to a general system of internal improvements has been expressed over and over again in the platforms of the Demo cratic party, and has had no warmer defender than Mr. Doug las. Upon some points, however, such as the improvements of rivers and harbors, he has had opinions somewhat peculiar. He has endeavored throughout to discriminate between those works which were essential to the protection of commerce and the improvement of the navigable waters of the country, and those other works asked for by parties having local interests to serve, and desirous to promote them at the expense of the INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 355 federal treasury. Mr. Douglas voted pretty generally for all the River and Harbor Appropriation Bills, always protesting against such items as were included in them that did not come up to his idea of justice or propriety. He was thus often com pelled to vote for a number of smaU appropriations for what he deemed inappropriate works, or vote against others that were eminently just and proper. He has uniformly protested against that system of legislation which compelled him thus to vote against what was right, or vote for others that did not meet his approval. RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS. His effort has been always to break up this irregular, incom plete, and unsatisfactory mode of legislating upon this, import ant subject. The appropriations even for the most needful works had been so irregular and so often interrupted that the works constructed in one season under a partial appropriation would frequently be destroyed or rendered valueless before the additional sum was appropriated. To remedy these evils, he has always urged that Congress would adopt some regular system under which these works could be safely, intelligently, and profitably carried on. AU efforts of that kind, however, failed in Congress, where local interests could not be recon ciled to any plan that did not include them. In 1852, when the River and Harbor Bill was under consid eration in the Senate, Mr. Douglas, who supported the bill, proposed to add to it three sections, having for their object the recognition and establishment of such works as the busi ness and interests of the country would demand. His amend ment proposed to grant the consent of Congress to all the states, and that the several states might authorize the authori ties of any city or town within their respective limits, which might be situated on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, or on the Gulf of Mexico, or on the banks of any bay or arm of the sea connecting therewith, or on the shores of Lakes Champlain, Ontario, Erie, St. Clair, Huron, Michigan, or Superior, or on the banks of any bay or arm ofthe lake connecting with either of said lakes, to levy duties of tonnage, not exceeding ten cents per ton, upon boats and vessels of every description entering the harbor or waters within the limits of such city or town, the funds to- be derived from said duties to be expended ex- 356 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. clusively in constructing, enlarging, deepening, improving, and securing safeXid commodious harbors and entrances thereto at such cities and towns ; the duties thus levied and collected not to exceed the amount necessary for the purpose for which they -were levied. It also granted the consent of Congress that, where several states bordered on a lake, such states might enter into an agreement by which a portion of the fund raised by tonnage duties in all the cities and towns wifhin their limits might be applied to such works as should be deemed necessary to improve and render safe and convenient the navi gation of the lakes, and of the rivers and channels connecting them together ; these works to be the deepening of the chan nels, or artificial channels to be constructed for that purpose. When canals or artificial channels should be thus constructed, only such tolls should be levied as would be necessary to keep them in repair. His amendment farther granted the consent of Congress that, in all cases where any navigable river or water might be situated, wholly or in part, within the hmits of any state, th'e Legislature of such state might provide for the improvement ofthe navigation of such river within its own limits, by the collection of a tonnage duty upon all boats and vessels navigating the same. And where a navigable river or water might form the boundary of any two or more states, such states might, by joint action and agreement, provide for the collection of tonnage duties, to be applied exclusively to the improvement of the navigation of such river or navigable water. This was substantially the proposition of Mr. Douglas. It was offered, not as a substitute for the pending Appropriation Bill, but as an addition thereto. It was intended as a consent on the part of Congress that each state that felt disposed to do so might go on at once and provide the means for putting her harbors in good order, her streams in proper condition, and her channels in a safe and proper state. It was to throw open to the enterprise and public spirit of each community the com merce of the country. Instead of subjecting each city on the lake to the most uncertain chances in the lottery of Congres sional appropriations for harbor improvements, it proposed to give the assent of .Congress, as required by the Constitution, to each city to go on and make her own harbor. If two cities on the lake, having equal chances for a good lake traffic, should j INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 357 j both have their harbors improved by the federal government, there would be no cause of complaint. If, however, Congress interfered, and gave the money to improve one harbor and re fused it for the other, it was a discrimination in favor of the one city and agamst the other that would be most unjust and oppressive. It would be the interference by the federal gov ernment to build up one city and break down the other, out of a treasury upon which both had an equality of claim. If this policy would have been so unjust where there were only two cities, how much more so was it unjust when Congress would select one or two harbors on a lake, appropriate money for their improvement, and leave a score of others, equally needy, wholly unprovided for. Such has been and such must ever be the practical operation of the existing system. Mr. Douglas proposed to throw open the doors in the man ner provided in the Constitution, and allow each community to improve its own harbor ; to let competition and commercial enterprise decide the question of commercial consequence. If one town made a good harbor, and drew to it a commerce that might have gone elsewhere had the harbor not been put in proper order, then that was an advantage and a success to which such town was entitled, and which its commercial spirit fairly merited. If another town faUed to improve its harbor, and thus lost a trade and commerce that it would have other wise enjoyed, it was a consequence fairly foUowing its omis sion to do its duty. Why should the federal treasury be em ployed to build up the commerce of one point and not the oth er ? Why should the federal government interpose its weight and its. money for one city in its contest with a rival city? The strongest, and, indeed, only plausible argument urged against this proposal was that it imposed a tax upon the navi gating interest. The objection is only plausible — it has no value in reality. AU duties, whether upon imports, port du ties, toUs, freights, insurance, or otherwise, are a tax : not a tax upon the importer or shipper, manufacturer or producer, but upon the consumer. The consumer eventually pays all the tax imposed upon articles of merchandise. If the tax upon a barrel of flour from Chicago to New York be fifty cents or two dollars, the tax is eventuaUy paid by the consumer. If a tax of five cents per ton be levied upon all vessels passing the St. Clair River, that tax must eventually be added to the cost of 358 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. the merchandise carried in said vessels. The amount now paid for insurance upon vessels and merchandise passing that river is a tax imposed upon the articles shipped for the trip. If, in stead of paying that tax in the shape of extra insurance be cause ofthe wretched condition ofthat great commercial high way, it was applied to the deepening and improvement ofthe river, it is doubtful, very doubtful, whether in five years the public would be subjected to an aggregate tax equal to that to which they are now subjected in the shape of extra insurance, loss of property, delay in receipt of goods, and all the other innumerable delays resulting from the dangerous and often im passable condition of that stream. The money expended now by the general government for purposes of river and harbor improvement is a tax — a tax mainly collected from the con sumers of foreign imports. The same amount of money col lected from those communities benefited by the work, and ap plied under their own direction, would accomplish ten-fold the good now accomplished. If this system were made general, people on the lakes would not be taxed for the improvement of harbors and rivers on the Atlantic, and the friends of the Savannah and Cape Fear River improvements might do all that they desire, and have no cause of complaint on account of the money lavished upon lake harbors and river improvements in the West. Mr. Douglas supported his proposition in a very earnest speech, in which he argued the constitutional question, and the legislative history of river and harbor appropriations. It met with decided opposition in debate ; and as it was intended at that time merely as an index of what he should propose when Congress would eventually, as he supposed, be forced to adopt some plan or system upon the subject, he did not press it, but allowed it to drop. Subsequently, in January, 1854, he addressed a letter to the Governor of Illinois upon the subject, which letter embodies in a brief form some of the reasons inducing him to favor that plan of providing for the improvement of rivers and harbors. The following is his LETTER TO GOVERNOR MATTESON. Washington, January 2d, 1854. Sie, — I learn from the public press that you have under consideration the proposition to convene the Legislature in special session. In the event such INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 359 a step shall be demanded by the public voice and necessities, I desire to in vite your attention to a subject of great interest to our people, which may require legislative action. I refer to the establishment of some efficient, and permanent system for river and harbor improvements. Those portions of the Union most deeply interested in internal navigation naturally feel fhat their interests have been neglected, if not paralyzed, by an uncertain, vacil lating, and partial policy. Those who reside upon the banks of the Missis-*, sippi, or on the shores of the great Northern Lakes, and whose lives and\ property are frequently exposed to the mercy of the elements for want of ' harbors of refuge and means of safety, have never been able to comprehend ' the force of that distinction between fresh and salt water, which affirms the ; power and duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to provide security to I navigation so far as the tide ebbs and flows, and denies the existence of the , right beyond the tidal mark. Our lawyers may have read in English books that, by the common law, all waters were deemed navigable so far as the tide extended and no farther ; but they should also have learned from the same authority that the law was founded upon reason, and where the reason failed the rule ceased to exist. In England, where they have neither lake nor river, nor other water which is, in fact, navigable, except where the tide rolls its briny wave, it was natural that the law should conform to the fact, and establish that as a rule which the experience of all men proved to be founded in truth and reason. But it may well be questioned whether, if the common law had originated on the shores of Lake Michigan — a vast inland sea with an average depth of six hundred feet — it would have been deemed "not navigable," merely because the tide did not flow, and the wa ter was fresh and well adapted to the uses and necessities of man. We therefore feel authorized to repudiate, as unreasonable and unjust, all inju rious discrimination predicated upon salt water and tidal arguments, and to insist that if the power of Congress to protect navigation has any existence iu the Constitution, it reaches ..every portion of this Union where the water is in fact navigable, and only ceases where the fact fails to exist. This power has been affirmed in some form, and exercised to a greater or less extent, by each successive Congress and every administration since the adoption of the federal Constitution. All acts of Congress providing for tbe erection of light houses, the placing of buoys, the construction of piers, the removal of snags, the dredging of channels, the inspection of steam-boat boilers, the carrying of life-boats — in short, all enactments for the security of navigation, and the safety of life and property within our navigable waters, assert the existence of this power and the prppriety of its exercise in some form. The great and growing interest of navigation is too important to be over looked or disregarded. Mere negative action will not answer. The irregu lar and vacillating policy which has marked our legislation upon this sub ject is ruinous. Whenever appropriations have been proposed for river and harbor improvements, and especially on the Northern lakes and the Western rivers, there has usually been a death-struggle and a doubtful issue. We' have generally succeeded with an appropriation once in four or five years ; in other words, we have, upon an average, been beaten about four times put of five in one house of Congress or the other, or both, or by the presidential veto. When we did succeed, a large portion of the appropriation was ex pended in providing dredging-machines and snag-boats, and other necessaiy machineiy and implements ; and by the time the work was fairly begun, the appropriation was exhausted, and farther, operations suspended. Failing to procure an additional appropriation at the next session, and perhaps for two, three, or four successive sessions, the administration has construed the re fusal of Congress to provide the funds for the prosecution of the works info an abandonment of the system, and has accordingly deemed it a duty to sell, 360 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. at public auction, the dredging-machines and snag-boats, implements and materials on hand, for whatever they would bring. Soon the countiy was again startled by the frightful accounts of wrecks and explosions, fires and snags upon the rivers, the lakes, and the sea-coast. The responsibility of these appalling sacrifices of life and property were charged upon those who defeated the appropriations for the prosecution of the works. Sympathy was excited, and a concerted plan of agitation and organization formed by the interested sections and parties to bring their combined influence to bear upon Congress in favor of the re-establishment of the system on an enlarged scale, sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the local interests and influences in a majority of the Congressional districts of the Union. A legislative omnibus was formed, in which all sorts of works were crowded together, good and bad, wise and foolish, national and local, all crammed into one bill, and forced through Congress by the power of an organized majority, after the fearful and exhausting struggle of a night session. The bill would receive the votes of a majority in each house, not because any one senator or repre sentative approved all the items contained in it, but for the reason that hu manity, as well as the stern demands of an injured and suffering constituen cy, required that they should make every needful sacrifice of money to dimin ish the terrible loss of human life by the perils of navigation. The result was a simple re-enactment of the former scenes. Machinery, implements, and materials purchased, the works recommenced — the money exhausted — subsequent appropriations withheld — and the operations suspended, without completing the improvements, or contributing materially to the safety of nav igation. Indeed, it may well be questioned whether, as a general rule, the money has been wisely and economically applied, and in many cases whether the expenditure has been productive of any useful results beyond the mere distribution of so much money among contractors, laborers, and superintend ents in the favored localities ; and in others, whether it has not been of pos itive detriment to the navigating interest. Par be it from my purpose to call in question the integrity, science, or skill of those whose professional duty it was to devise the plan and superintend the construction of the works. But I do. insist that from the nature of their profession and their habits of life they could not be expected to possess that local knowledge — that knowledge of currents and tides — the effects of storms, floods, and ice, always different and ever changing — in each locality of this widely-extended country, which is essential in determining upon the proper site and plan for an improvement to the navigation. Without depreciating the value of science or disregarding its precepts, I have no hesitation in say ing that the opinion of an intelligent captain or pilot, who for a long series of years had sailed out of and into a given port in fair weather and foul, and who had carefully and daily watched the changes produced in the channel by the currents and storms, wrecks and other obstructions, would inspire me with more confidence than that of the most eminent professional gentleman, whose knowledge and science in the line of his profession were only equaled by his profound ignorance of all those local and practical questions which ought to determine the site and plan of the proposed improvement. To me, therefore, it is no longer a matter of surprise that errors and blunders occur in the mode of constructing the works, and that follies and extravagance ev ery where appear in the expenditure of the money. These evils seem to be inherent in the system ; at least, they have thus far proven unavoidable, and have become so palpable and notorious that it is worse than folly to close our eyes to their existence. In addition to these facts, it should be borne in^mind that a large and in telligent portion of the American people, comprising, perhaps, a majority of the Democratic party, are in the habit of considering these works as consti- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 361 tuting a general system of internal improvements by the federal government, and therefore in violation of the creed of the Democratic party and of the Constitution of the United States. These two-fold objections — the one de nying tbe constitutional power, and the other the expediency of appropria tions from the national treasury — seem to acquire additional strength and force in proportion as the importance of the subject is enhanced, and the ne cessity for more numerous and extensive improvements Is created by the ex tension of our territoiy, the expansion of our settlements, and the develop ment of the resources of the country. As a friend to the navigating interest, and especially identified by all the ties of affection, gratitude, and interest with that section of the republic which is the most deeply interested in inter nal navigation, I see no hope for any more favorable results from national appropriations than we have heretofore realized. If, then, we are to judge ! the system by its results, taking the past as a fair indication of what might reasonably be expected in the future, those of us who have struggled hardest j to render it efficient and useful are compelled to confess that it has proven a miserable failure. It is even worse than a failure, because, while it has fail ed to accomplish the desired objects, it has had the effect to prevent local and private enterprise from making the improvements under state authority, by holding out the expectation that the federal government was about to make them. By way of illustration, let us suppose that twenty-five years ago, when we first began to talk about the construction of railroads in this country, the fed eral government had assumed to itself jurisdiction of all works of that de scription to the exclusion of state authority and individual enterprise. In that event, does any one believe we would now have in the United States fourteen thousand miles of railroad completed, and fifteen thousand miles in addition under contract. Is it to be presumed that, if our own state had prostrated itself in humble supplication at the feet of the federal government, and with folded arms had waited for appropriations from the national treas ury, instead of exerting state authority, and stimulating and combining indi vidual enterprise, we should now have in Illinois three thousand miles of railroad in process of construction? Let the history of internal improve ments by the federal government be fairly written, and it will furnish con clusive answers to these interrogatories. Por more than a quarter of a cen tury the energies of the national government, together with all the spare funds in the treasury, were directed to the construction of a Macadamized / road from Cumberland, in the State of Maryland, to Jefferson City, in the | State of Missouri, without being able to complete one third of the work. If \ the government were unable to make three hundred miles of turnpike road i in twenty-five years, how long would it take to construct a railroad to the Pacific Ocean, and to make all the harbor and river improvements necessary to protect our widely-extended and rapidly-increasing commerce on a sea- coast so extensive that in forty years we have not been able to complete even the survey of one half of it, and on a lake and river navigation more than j four times as extensive as that sea-coast ? These questions are worthy of the serious consideration of those who think that improvements should be made for the benefit of the present generation as well as for our remote pos terity ; for I am not aware that the federal government ever completed any ' work of internal improvement commenced under its auspices. The operations of the government have not been sufficiently rapid to keep pace with the spirit of the age. The Cumberland Road, when commenced, may have been well adapted for the purposes for which it was designed ; but after the lapse of a quarter of a century, and before any considerable portion of it could be finished, the whole w#s superseded and rendered useless by the introduction of the railroad system. One reason, and perhaps the principal Q 362 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. cause, of the slow progress of all government improvements, consists in the fact that the appropriation for any one object is usually too small to be of material service. It may be sufficient for the commencement of the work, but before it can be completed, or even so far advanced as to withstand the effects of storms, and floods, and the elements, the appropriation is exhausted, and a large portion of the work swept away before funds can be obtained for finishing it, or even protecting that which has been done. The ruinous con sequences of these small appropriations are well understood and seriously deprecated, but they arise from the necessity ofthe case, and constitute some of the evils inseparable from the policy. All experience proves that the numberless items of a river and harbor, or internal improvement bill, can not pass, each by itself, and upon its own merits, and that the friends of particular works will not allow appropriations to be made for the completion of others which are supposed to be of paramount importance unless theirs are embraced in the same bill. • Each member seems to think the work in his own district to be ofthe sternest necessity and highest importance, and hence feels constrained to give his own the preference, or to defeat any bill which does not include it. The result is a legislative omnibus, in which all manner of objects are crowded together indiscriminately ; and as there never is and never can be money enough in the treasury to make adequate appropriations for the whole, and as the bill can not pass unless each has something, of course the amount for each item must be reduced so low as to make it of little or no service, and thus render the whole bill almost a total loss. In this manner a large portion of our people have been kept in a state of suspense and anxiety for more than half a centuiy, with their hopes always excited and their ex pectations never realized. I repeat that the policy heretofore pursued has proved worse than a fail ure. If we expect to provide facilities and securities for our navigating in terests, we must adopt a system commensurate with our wants — one which will be just and equal in its operations upon lake, river, and ocean, wherever the water is navigable, fresh or salt, tide or no tide — a system which will not depend for its success upon the dubious and fluctuating issues of political campaigns and Congressional combinations — one which will be certain, uni form, and unvarying in its results. I know of no system better calculated to accomplish these objects than that which commanded the approbation of the founders of the republic, was successively adopted on various occasions since that period, and directly referred to in the message of the President. It is evidently the system contemplated by the framers of the Constitution when they incorporated into that instrument the clause in relation to tonnage duties by the states with the assent of Congress. The debates show that this provision was inserted for the express purpose of enabling the states to levy duties of tonnage to make harbor and other improvements for the benefit of navigation. It was objected that the power to regulate commerce having already been vested exclusively in Congress, the jurisdiction of the states over harbor and river improvements, without the consent or supervision of the federal government, might be so exercised as to conflict with the Congres sional regulations in respect to commerce. In order to avoid this objection, and at the same time reserve to the states, the power of making the necessary improvements, consistent with such rules as should be prescribed by Congress for the regulation of commerce, the provision was modified and adopted in the form in which we now find it in the Constitution, to wit : " no state shall lay duties of tonnage except by the consent of Congress." It is evident from the debates that the framers of the Constitution looked to tonnage duties as the source from which funds were to be derived for improvements in navigation. The only diversity of opinion among them- arose upon the point whether those duties should be levied and the works constructed by the federal government INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 363 or under state authority. These doubts were solved by the clause quoted, providing, in effect, that while the power was reserved to the states, it should not be exercised except by the consent of Congress, in order that the local legislation for the improvement of navigation might not conflict with the gen eral enactments for the regulation of commerce. Yet the first Congress which assembled under the Constitution commenced that series of contra dictory and partial enactments which has continued to the present time, and proven the fruitful source of conflict and dissension. The first of these acts provided that all expenses for the support of light houses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, should be paid out of the, national treasury, on the condition that the states in which the same should be situ ated respectively should cede to the United States the said works, " together with the lands and tenements thereunto belonging, and together with the ju risdiction ofthe same." A few months afterward the same Congress passed an act consenting that the States of Rhode Island, Maryland, and Georgia might levy tonnage duties for the purpose of improving certain harbors and rivers within their respective limits. This contradictory legislation upon a subject of great national importance, although commenced by the first Con gress, and frequently suspended and renewed at uncertain and irregular pe riods, seems never to have been entirely abandoned. While appropriations from the national treasury have been partial and irregular — sometimes grant ed and at others withheld — stimulating hopes only to be succeeded by disap pointments, tonnage duties have also been collected by the consent of Con gress, at various times and for limited periods, in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Massachu setts, Rhode Island, and perhaps other states. Indeed, there has never been a time, since the declaration of Independence, when tonnage duties have not been collected under state authority for the improvement of rivers or har bors, or both. The last act giving the consent of Congress to the collection of these duties was passed for the benefit of the port of Baltimore in 1850, and will not expire until 1861. , Thus it will b-; seen that the proposition to pass a general law giving the '. consent of Congress to the imposition of tonnage duties according to a uni- \ form rule, and upon equal terms in all the states and Territories of the Union, j does not contemplate the introduction of a new principle into our legislation I upon this subject. It only proposes to convert a partial and fluctuating pol- j icy into a permanent and efficient system. If this proposition should receive the sanction of Congress, and be carried into successful operation by the states, it would withdraw river and harbor improvements from the perils of the political arena, and commit them to the fostering care of the local authorities, with a steady and unceasing source of revenue for their prosecution. The system would be plain, direct, and sim ple in respect to harbor improvements. Each town and city would have charge of the improvement of its own harbor, and would be authorized to tax its own commerce to the extent necessaiy for its construction. The money could be applied to no other object than the improvement of the har bor, and no higher duties could be levied than were necessary for that pur pose. There would seem to be no danger of the power being abused ; for, in addition to the restrictions, limitations, and conditions which should be embraced in the laws conferring the consent "of Congress, self-interest will furnish adequate and ample assurances and motives for the faithful execution of the trusts. If any town whose harbor needs improvement should fail to impose the duties and make the necessaiy works, such neglect would inevita bly tend to drive the commerce to some rival port, which would use all the means in its power to render its harbor safe and commodious, and afford all necessary protection and facilities to navigation and trade. If, on the other 364 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. hand, any place should attempt to impose higher duties than will be abso lutely necessary for the construction of the requisite improvements, this line of policy, to the extent of the excess, would have the same deleterious effects upon its prosperity. The same injurious influences would result from errors and blunders in the plan of the work, or from extravagance and corruption in the expenditure of the money. Hence each locality, and eveiy citizen and person interested therein, would have a direct and personal interest in the adoption of a wise plan, and in securing strict economy and entire .fidelity in the expenditure of the money. While upon the rivers the plan of operations would not be so direct and simple as in the improvement of harbors, yet even there it is not perceived that any serious inconvenience or obstacle would arise to the success of the system. It would be necessary that the law, which shall grant the consent of Congress to the imposition of the duties, shall also give a like consent in conformity with the same provision of the Constitution, that where the river to be improved shall form the boundary of, or be situ ated in two or more states, such states may enter into compacts with each other, by which they may, under their joint authority, levy the duties and improve the navigation. In this manner Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey could enter into a compact for the improvement of the Delaware River, by which each would appoint one commissioner, and the three commissioners constitute a board, which would levy the duties, prescribe the mode of their collection, devise the plan of the improvement, and superintend the expenditure of the money. The six states bordering on the Ohio River, in like manner, eould each ap point a commissioner, and the six constitute a board for the improvement of the navigation of that river from Pittsburg to the Mississippi. The same plan could be applied to the Mississippi, by which the nine states bordering upon that stream could each appoint one commissioner, and the nine form a board for the removal of snags and other obstructions in the channel from the Palls of St. Anthony to the Gulf of Mexico. There seems to be no diffi culty, therefore, in the execution of the plan where the water-course lies in two or more states, or forms the boundary thereof in whole or in part ; and where the river is entirely within the limits of any one state, like the Illinois or Alabama, it may be improved in such manner as the Legislature may pre scribe, subject only to such conditions and limitations as may be contained in the act of Congress giving its consent. All the necessities and difficulties upon this subject seem to have been foreseen and provided for in the same clause of the Constitution, wherein it is declared, in effect, that, with the con sent of Congress, tonnage duties may be levied for the improvement of rivers and harbors, and that the several states may enter into compacts with each other for that purpose whenever it shall become necessary, subject only to such rules as Congress shall prescribe for the regulation of commerce. It only remains' for me to notice some of the objections which have been urged to this system. It has been said that tonnage duties are taxes upon the commerce of the countiy, which must be paid in the end by the consum ers of the articles bearing the burden. I do not feel disposed to question the soundness of this proposition. I presume the same is true of all the duties, tolls, and charges upon all public works, whether constructed by government or individuals. The State of New York derives a revenue of more than two millions of dollars a year from her canals. Of course this is a tax upon the commerce of the countiy, and is borne by those who are interested in and benefited by it. This tax is a blessing or a burden, dependent upon the fact whether it has the effect to diminish or increase the cost of transportation. If we could not have enjoyed the benefit of the canal without the payment of the tolls, and if, by its construction and the payment, the cost of trans portation has been reduced to one tenth the sum which we would have been INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 365 compelled to have paid without it, who would not be willing to make a still further contribution to the security and facilities of navigation, if thereby the price of freights are to be reduced in a still greater ratio ? The tolls upon our own canal are a tax upon commerce, yet we cheerfully submit to the pay ment for the reason that they were indispensable to the construction of a great work, which has had the effect to reduce the cost of transportation between the Lakes and the Mississippi far below what it would have been if the canal had not been made. All the charges on the fourteen thousand miles of rail road now in operation in the different states of this Union are just so many taxes upon commerce and travel, yet we do not repudiate the whole railroad system on that account, nor object to the payment of such reasonable charges as are necessary to defray the expenses of constructing and operating them. But it may be said that if all the railroads and canals were built with funds from the national treasury, and were then thrown open to the uses of com merce and travel free of charge, the rates of transportation would be less than they now are. It may be that the rates of transportation would be less, but would our taxes be reduced thereby ? No matter who is intrusted with the construction of the works, somebody must foot the bill. If the federal gov ernment undertake to make railroads and canals, and river and harbor im provements, somebody must pay the expenses. In order to meet this enlarged expenditure, it would be necessary to augment the revenue by increased taxes upon the commerce of the countiy. The whole volume of revenue which now fills and overflows the national treasury, with the exception of the small item resulting from the sales of public lands, is derived from a system of taxes imposed upon commerce and collected through the machinery of the custom houses. No matter, therefore, whether these works are made by the federal government, or by stimulating and combining local and individual enterprise under state authority ; in any event, they remain a tax upon commerce to the extent of the expenditure. That system which will insure the construction of the improvements npon the best plan and at the smallest cost will prove the least oppressive to the tax-payer and the most useful to commerce. It requires no argument to prove — for every day's experience teaches us — that public works of every de scription can be made at a much smaller cost by private enterprise, or by the local authorities directly interested in the improvement, than when construct ed by the federal government. Hence, inasmuch as the expenses of con structing river and harbor improvements must, under either plan, be defray ed by a tax upon commerce in the first instance, and finally upon the whole people interested in that commerce, I am of the opinion that the burdens would be less under this system referred to in the message than by appropri- , ations from the federal treasury. Those who seem not to have understood the difference have attempted to excite prejudice against this plan for the im provement of navigations by comparing it to the burdens imposed upon the navigation of the Rhine, the Elbe, the Oder, and other rivers running through the German states. The people residing upon these rivers did not complain that they were required to pay duties for the improvement of their naviga tion. Such was not the fact. No duties were imposed for any such pur pose. No improvements in the navigation were ever made or contemplated by those who exacted the tolls. Taxes were extorted from the navigating. interest by the petty sovereigns through whose dominions the rivers run, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the pomp, and ceremonies, and fol lies of vicious and corrupt courts. The complaint was, that grievous and un necessary burdens were imposed on navigation without expending any por tion of the money for its protection and improvement. Their complaints were just. They should have protested, if they had lived under a govern ment where the voice of the people could be heard, against the-payment of 'See LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. any more or higher tolls than were necessary for the improvement of the navigation, and have insisted that the funds collected should be applied to that purpose and none other. In short, a plan similar to the one now pro posed would have been a full and complete redress of all their grievances upon this subject. In conclusion, I will state that my object in addressing you this communi cation is to invite your special attention to so much of the President's Mes sage as relates to river and harbor improvements, with the view that when the Legislature shall assemble, either in special or general session, the sub ject may be distinctly submitted to their consideration for such action as the great interests of commerce may demand. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your friend and fellow-citizen, S. A. Douglas. Joel A Matteson, Governor ofthe State of Illinois. THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD GRANT. In 1843 Mr. Douglas entered Congress, and for over seven years he supported and struggled to obtain that magnificent grant of land which led to the construction ofthe Illinois Cen tral RaUroad, and eventually to the establishment of the grand web of railroads which is now spread out all over the North western States. The construction of a great railroad from the junction ofthe Ohio and Mississippi Rivers through the state to a point on the Illinois River, and thence north to Galena, had for many years been one of the leading topics in Illinois. It was regarded then and very justly as the one great thing needed to develop the resources of the state, and attract to its fruitful soil the tide of emigration. When the Internal Im provement System broke down so irretrievably in the state, the attention of the people was directed to Congress and to the public lands as the only reliable resources from whence the necessary aid to construct the desired work could be expected. When Mr. Douglas entered Congress there was in existence in Illinois a eompany possessing certain rights to construct a. railroad from Cairo to the north. This company was gener ally known as the "Cairo Company;" it -had petitioned Con gress for permission to enter as pre-emptions a certain quan tity of land along the line of the proposed road. The title of the company was the " Great Western Railway Company." A Mr. Holbrook was the active operator in its affairs. In the Senate, at the session of '43,-4, a bUl was introduced and reported upon favorably, granting to Holbrook's com pany the right of way through the public lands for a railway, and entitling them to enter as pre-emptors the public lands along tha route, they to pay the government eventuaUy one INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 367 dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. Mr. Douglas, who was, as we have stated, a member of the House, was strongly op posed to this measure. He insisted that, if any grant was made, it should be made to the state, of Illinois, and not to any private corporation. He had no faith in Holbrook or his asso ciates, and had no idea that they would ever construct the road. He believed that the object of the operators was to ob tain the pre-emption privUege, and then sell their charter with it in Europe, and thus get out of the matter. He urged that a failure to carry out in good faith the object in considera tion of whieh the, grant was made would have the effect to pre vent a like application thereafter, would suspend the land sales for several years, would retard the settlement of the state, and give a very unjust impression abroad as to the prospects of Illinois as an improving and flourishing community. He urged that the scheme proposed should be abandoned, and that Con gress should be asked for a direct grant of land to the state to aid it in constructing the proposed railroad. In these ob jections he was sustained generally by his colleagues in the House. The bUl as introduced was persisted in, and passed the Senate, and no action was had upon it in the House. At the next session a bUl was introduced into the Senate the same as that of last session, with the exception that the " State of Illinois" was named as the grantee of the right of pre-emption instead of the "Great Western Railway Company." That bill was never taken up. At the session of '45-' 6 a bill was introduced into the Senate, granting "to the State of IUinois alternate sections ofthe public land to aid in the construction of the Northern Cross and Central Railroads in said state." This bill was never taken up during that session. At the ses sion of 1846-7 a bill was introduced into the Senate granting the right of way and a pre-emption privilege, but containing no grant of land. This bill also was suffered to sleep, and no action was had upon it. In the winter of 1846-7 Mr. Douglas was elected to the Senate. During the summer of 1847 he traveled over a large portion of the state, and, wherever he made speeches, he dis cussed the question of the IUinois Central RaUroad. He took the position that whatever grant was obtained should be ob tained for the state, and not for private individuals ; that the state ought not to take a mere grant of pre-emption privilege 368 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. — a privilege of buying the government land for one dollar and a quarter per acre upon the condition of constructing a railroad through them ; and told the people he would apply for a grant of alternate sections of land to1* be given to the state gratuitously on condition that the road was constructed. He expressed a confident hope that that measure would re ceive an undivided support in Illinois, in which case he had no doubt as to its ultimate success. He urged the propriety of holding pubUc meetings and the signing of memorials having the obtaining of such a grant in view. The old bills contemplated but one road — that upon the line of the one projected by the state in '36, having its northern terminus at Galena, and carefully avoiding Chicago and the country lying between that city and the Illinois River. He stated his determination to include in the measure a road con necting with the lakes, thus securing for it friends in the Northeastern and Middle States, who did not like a proposi tion having for its natural tendency the diversion of all trade and traffic from the upper Mississippi toward New Orleans instead of toward the Atlantic sea-board. By making an ad ditional road to the lakes at Chicago, a direct route would be made from the Southwest through to Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York ; would connect the lower Mississippi with the lakes, the lakes and the Eastern States with the Southwest, and give to the vast region north and west of IUinois a com munication both east and south. When Congress met in December, 1847, Mr. Douglas took his seat in the Senate. In a few weeks the old and familiar " Pre-emption" BUl was introduced and referred. In January Mr. Douglas introduced his bill granting alternate sections of the public land to the State of Illinois to aid in the construc tion of a railroad from Cairo to Galena, with a branch from some appropriate point on the road to Chicago. It also em braced a proposition for a road crossing the state from Indiana to the Mississippi River. Both bills were reported from the Senate Committee on public lands, of which the Hon. Sidney Breese of Illinois was chairman. The latter bill — the one pro posed by Mr. Douglas — was subsequently taken up, and early in May was passed by the Senate. The other bill was not acted upon. The representatives in the House from Illinois aU gave to INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 369 the measure their cordial support. Toward the close of the session, however, it was laid on the table by a small majority. At the next session, '48-9, Mr. Douglas introduced his bill in the Senate again ; but, before any action was had in that body, the Illinois representatives in the House had succeeded in hav ing the bill of the last session restored to its place on the cal endar, but Congress adjourned without, any farther action on the bill by the House. In December, 1849, Mr. Douglas, with his colleague, General Shields, who had succeeded Mr. Breese, and the Illinois dele gation in the House, matured a bill having but one road in contemplation, and that the Illinois Central and its Chicago branch. That bill, in which all the Illinois members had a part in framing, was introduced into the Senate by Mr. Doug las in January, 1850. The Compromise Measures of that year, and the question of Slavery generally, engrossed nearly all the time and discussions of the Senate. That subject came up al most every morning, and frequently was considered several days in succession, to the exclusion of all other business. There was, however, another reason for delay. When it had become certain that the only act that would be seriously pressed by the Illinois representatives would be one making a grant of land to the State of IUinois, the parties interested in the Cairo Company saw at once an end to their schemes unless they could in some manner circumvent that policy. They / therefore proceeded to the Legislature of IUinois, and after a siege, and bythejnost djx^erjras_majiagemeDt, the Legislature was induced to pass a measure ceding to Holbrook and his , associates all lands that might at any time be granted by Con- \ gress to the state for the purpose, or in aid ofthe construction : of the Illinois Central Railroad. Here, then, was a new and dangerous pitfall prepared for the great measure. If Congress should grant land to the company, the state would be at the mercy of an irresponsible band of speculators ; to prevent this the policy had been changed, so as to secure the grant direct ly to the state, leaving the latter full power and control over the entire matter, and free to act with whoever would offer the best terms. But Holbrook had effectually headed off this policy by the amendment which he had obtained to his charter. He came to Washington and importuned for the passage of the bill in the shape in which it had been introduced some Q2 370 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. years before, or he would take the biU then pending. He pro posed to be on intimate terms with Mr. Douglas, but the lat ter declined the association. At length, when fully informed of all the facts, Mr. Douglas sent for Holbrook, and told him that no biU of any kind would be suffered to pass unless the grant was made directly to the state, and to be held and disposed of by the state freely, and unlimited by any previous charter either to Holbrook or any one else. If Holbrook persisted in the right obtained under his charter and the subsequent legislation of IUinois, he, Mr. Douglas, would expose and denounce the whole scheme as one intended to use the name of the state to obtain an immense property for irresponsible and dishonest men to speculate and grow rich upon. He refused to move in the matter in Con gress unless Holbrook would first sign and execute ajjood.and valid release of every right, claim, and demand, to any -lands that might be granted by Congress to the state for railroad or other purposes. If Holbrook would not sign such a release, and attempted to have any bill passed, Mr. Douglas notified him that he would denounce and expose the whole game. It was a serious matter to the state, and equally so to Holbrook. It was total loss to one or the other. If the law passed as matters then stood, Holbrook's company got all, the state nothing. If Holbrook's company surrendered, as demanded by Mr. Douglas, then the state got all, and the company noth ing. If Holbrook refused to surrender, Douglas stood in his way of obtaining any grant of any kind. The alternatives were not inviting to Mr. Holbrook ; but at length he yielded ; he signed and delivered the demanded release to the state, which release was forwarded to Springfield, and filed in the archives of the State of IUinois. Thus was it that the grant was received by the state unfettered and unimpaired by any of the adroit schemes ofthe wily speculators upon the public wel fare. Having relieved the state of the Holbrook Company's claim, Mr. Douglas at once undertook to get the biU considered. It was not until April 29 that he could induce the Senate to consider the bill, and then only after a most spirited and fer vent appeal. Having once got the biU before the Senate, he pressed it day after day until the 2d of May, when, notwith standing the covert hostility of some Western senators, the bUl passed — yeas 26, nays 14. INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 371. The bUl was taken to the House, and there, by the skill, good management, and unity of action of the representatives of the state, the House was eventuaUy brought to a vote, and the act making the donation of pubhc land to the State of Illinois, to aid in the construction of the IUinois Central RaUroad and its branch to Chicago, became a law. On his return to Illinois at the close of the session, Mr. Douglas and General Shields were tendered a public dinner by the citizens of Chicago, in consideration of their services in obtaining the passage of this act. The two senators, in de clining the honor, took the occasion to award to their col leagues in the House the full measure of credit for the suc cessful carrying of the bill through the intricate parliamentary mazes that surrounded its pathway to completion. The great Central Railroad of Illinois, the beginning of a system of great works, is now completed. The benefits it has produced to the state can not be calculated. During the five years immediately foUowing the passage of the bill the popu lation of IUinois increased from 850,000 to over 1,300,000/ Other railroads have been constructed, and to day the Illinois Central Railroad is but a trunk to which and from which the travel and. transportation ofthe Valley ofthe Mississippi ben,d their way by roads from every quarter ofthe country. The peo ple of Illinois and of the Northwest will never be indifferent to the great benefits resulting from the passage of the Illinois Central Railroad land grant, nor will the men who were in strumental in achieving the great work be forgotten by a grateful people. Mr. Douglas has always supported and voted for the bills making grants fpr similar purposes to the states of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, aud perhaps other states. THE PACIFIC RAILROAD. Mr. Douglas has been a friend and supporter of what he has himself styled "the great measure ofthe age" — the construc tion of a railroad to the Pacific Ocean. He has repeatedly in troduced bills for that end, and has as repeatedly been chosen on select committees having that subject in charge. .By vote and by speech he has exhibited the sincerity of his. interest in this great national work, and has suffered no occasion to pass 372 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. without appealing to the friends of the road to drop all cor,- troversy as to the details, and secure the substance, the main thing, the road itself. He was originally in favor of authoriz ing the construction of three roads — one at the north, one at the centre, and the other at the south, leaving to the con tractors the choice of such route as private interest and enter prise would select as the most promising of success. He has always opposed an arbitrary declaration by Congress of the route to be taken, preferring to fix only the termini, and leave to those interested in the construction ofthe road to determine the route between the given points, by such considerations as time and experience might suggest. Bills for the construction of the Pacific railroad have been before Congress for several years, and they have always re ceived the support of Mr. Douglas. If no act has passed for that work, no part of the serious responsibility for the omis sion of duty can rest upon him. He has never faUed in his duty toward this important national work. When the bill was under consideration in the Senate in 1858, Mr. Douglas, on the 17th of April, thus stated his views : Mr. President, — I have witnessed with deep regret the indications that this measure is to be defeated at the present session of Congress. 'I had hoped that this Congress would signalize itself by inaugurating the great measure of connecting the Mississippi Valley with the Pacific Ocean by a railroad. I had supposed that the people of the United States had decided the question at the last presidential election in a manner so emphatic as to leave no doubt that their will was to be canied into effect. I believe that all the presiden tial candidates at the last election were committed to the measure. All the presidential platforms sanctioned it as a part of their creed. I believe it is about the only measure on which there was entire unanimity ; and it is a very curious fact that the measure which commanded universal approbation — the measure upon which all parties united — a measure against which no man could be found, previous to the election, to raise his voice — should be the one that can receive no support, nor the co-operation of any one party, while dis puted measures can occupy the whole time of Congress, and can be carried through successfully. I make no complaint of any political party, nor of any gentleman who opposes this bill ; but it did strike me that it was a fact to be noticed, that a measure of this description, so long before the countiy, so well understood by the people, and receiving such universal sanction from them, should not be carried into effect. Ifthe bill which has been devised by the committee is not the best that can be framed, let it be amended and modified until its objectionable features shall be removed. Let us not make a test question of this particular form of bill or that particular form ; of this partic ular route or that particular route ; of the benefits to this section or that sec tion. If tliere is any thing wrong in the details, in the form, in the constrac- tion of the bill, let the objectionable features be removed, and carry out the great object of a railroad communication between the Mississippi Valley and tha Pacific Ocean. INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 873 Various objections have been raised to this bill, some referring to the route, involving sectional consideration ; others to the form of the bill ; others to the present time as inauspicious for tlie construction of such a railroad under any circumstances. Sir, I have examined this bill very carefully. I was a mem ber of the committee that framed it, and I gave my cordial assent to the re port. I am free to say that I think it is the best bill that has ever been re ported to the Senate of the United States for the construction of a Pacific railroad. I say this with entire disinterestedness, for I have heretofore re ported several myself, and I believe I have invariably been a member of the committees that have reported such bills. I am glad to find that we have progressed to such an extent as to be able to improve on the former bills that have, from time to time, been brought before the Senate of the United States. This may not be perfect. It is difficult to make human legislation entirely perfect ; at any rate, to so construct it as to bring about an entire unanimity of opinion upon a question that involves, to some extent, selfish, sectional, and partisan considerations. But, sir, I think this bill is fair. Pirst, it is fair in the location of the route, as between the different sections. The ter mini are fixed. Then the route between the termini is to be left to the con tractors and owners of the road, who are to put their capital into it, and, for weal or for woe, are to be responsible for its management. What is the objection to these termini ? San Francisco, upon the Pacific, is not only central, but it is the great commercial mart, the great concentra ting point, the great entrepot for the commerce of the Pacific, not only in the present, but in the future. That point was' selected as the western ter minus for the' reason that there seemed to be a unanimous sentiment that whatever might be the starting-point on the east, the system would not be complete until it should reach the city of San Francisco on the west. I sug gested myself, in the committee, the selection of that very point ; not that I had any objection to other points ; not that I was any more friendly to San Francisco and hSr inhabitants than to any other port on the Pacific ; but be cause I believe that to be thg commanding port, the large city where trade concentrates, and its position indicated it as the proper terminus on the Pa cific Ocean. , Then, in regard to the eastern terminus, a point on the Missouri River is selected for various reasons. One is, that it is central as between the North and South — as nearly central as could be selected. It was necessary to com mence on the Missouri River, if you were going to take a central route, in order that the starting-point might connect with navigation, so that you might reach it by boats in carrying your iron, your supplies, and your mate rials for the commencement and the construction of the road. It was essen tial that you should commence at a point of navigation so that you could connect with the sea-board. If you start it at a point back in the interior five hundred or a thousand miles, as it is proposed, at El Paso, from the nav igable waters of the Mississippi, it would cost you more money to carry the iron, provisions, supplies, and men to that starting-point, than it would to make a road from the Mississippi to the starting-point, in order to begin the work. In that case it would be a matter of economy to make a road to your starting-point in order to begin. Hence, in my opinion, it would be an act of folly to think of starting a railroad to the Pacific at a point eight hundred or a thousand miles in the interior, away from any connection with naviga ble water, or with other railroads already in existence. For these reasons, we agreed in the bill to commence on the Missouri Riv er. When you indicate that rivei-, a little diversity of opinion arises as to Svhat point on the river shall be selected. There are various respectable, thriving towns on either bank of the river, each of which thinks it is the ex act position where the road ought to commence. I suppose that Kansas City, 374 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Wyandott, Weston, Leavenworth, Atchison, Platte's Mouth City, Omaha, De Soto, Sioux City, and various other towns whose names have not become familial- to us, and have found no resting-place on the map, each thinks that it has the exact place where the road should begin. Well, sir, I do not de sire to show any preference between these towns ; either of them would suit me very well ; and we leave it to the contractors to say which shall be the one. We leave the exact eastern terminus open for the reason that the pub lic interests will be substantially as well served by the selection of the one as the other. It is not so at the western terminus. San Francisco does not oc cupy that relation to the towns on the Pacific coast that these little towns on the Missouri Biver do to the countiy east of the Missouri. The public have no material interest in the question whether it shall start at the mouth of the Kansas, at Weston, at Leavenworth, at St. Joseph, at Platte's Mouth, or at Sioux City. Either connects with the great lines ; either would be substan tially central as between North and South. So far as I am concerned, I should not care a sixpence which of those towns was selected as the starting- point, because they start there upon a plain that stretches for eight hundred miles, and can connect with the whole railroad system of the country. You can go directly west. You can bend to the north and connect with the northern roads, or bend to the south and connect with the southern roads. The senator from Georgia (Mr. Iverson) would be satisfied, as I understand, with the termini, if we had selected one intermediate point, so as to indicate the route that should be taken between the termini. I understand that he would be satisfied if we should indicate that it should go south of Santa Fe, so as to include as the probable line the Albuquerque route, or the one on the thirty-fifth parallel, or the one south of it. Sir, I am free to say that, indi vidually, I should have no objection to the route indicated by the senator from Georgia. I have great faith that the Albuquerque route is an exceed ingly favorable one; favorable in its grades, in the shortness of its distances, in its climate, the absence of deep snow, and in the topography of the coun try. While it avoids very steep grades, it furnishes, perhaps, as much of grass, of timber, of water, of materials necessary for the construction and re pair of the road, if not more, than any other route. As a Northern man, living upon the great line of the lakes, you can not indicate a route that I think would subserve our interests, and the great interests of this countiy, better than that ; yet, if I expressed the opinion that the line ought to go on that route between the termini, some other man would say it ought to go on Governor Stevens's extreme northern route ; some one else would say it ought to go on the South Pass route ; and we should divide the friends of the meas ure as to the point at which the road should pass the mountains — whether at the extreme north, at the centre, the Albuquerque route, or the further south ern one down in Arizona — and we should be unable to decide between our selves which was best. I have sometimes thought that the extreme northern route, known as the Stevens' route, was the best, as furnishing better grass, more timber, more water, more of those elements necessary in constructing, repairing, operating, and maintaining a road, than any other. I think now that the preference, merely upon routes, is between the northern or Stevens's route on the one side, and the Albuquerque route on the other. Still, as I never expect to put a dollar of money into the road, as I never expect to have any agency or con nection with or interest in it, I am willing to leave the selection of the route between the termini to those who are to put their fortunes and connect their character with the road, and to be responsible, in the most tender of all points, if they make a mistake in the selection. But for these considerations, I should have cheerfully yielded to the suggestion ofthe senator from Georgia to fix the crossing-point on the Rio Grande River. INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 375 But, sir, I am unwilling to lose this great measure merely because of a dif ference of opinion as to what shall be the pass selected in the Rocky Mount-" ains through which the road shall run. I believe it is a great national meas ure. I believe it is the greatest practical measure now pending before the country. I believe that we have anived at that period in our histoiy when our great substantial interests require it. The interests of commerce, the great interests of travel and communication — those still greater interests that bind the Union together, and are to make and preserve the continent as one and indivisible — all demand that this road shall be commenced, prosecuted, and completed at the earliest practicable moment. - I am unwilling to postpone the bill until next December. I have seen these postponements from session to session for the last -eight or ten years, with the confident assurance every year that at the next session we should have abundance of time to take up the bill and act upon it. Sir, will you be better prepared at the next session than now ? We have now the whole summer before us, drawing our pay, and proposing to perform no service. Next December you will have but ninety days, with all the unfinished busi ness left over, your appropriation bills on hand, and not only the regular bills, but the new deficiency bill ; and you will postpone this measure again for the want of time to consider it then. I think, sh-, we had better grapple with the difficulties that surround this question now, when it is fairly before ns, when we have time to consider it, and when I think we can act upon it as dispassionately, as calmly, as wisely, as we shall ever be able to do. I have regretted to see the question of sectional advantages brought into this discussion. If you are to have but one road, fairness and justice would plainly indicate that that one should be located as near the centre as practi cable. The Missouri River is as near the centre and the line of this road is as near as it can be made ; and if there is but one to be made, the route now indicated, in my opinion, is fair, is just, and ought to be taken. I have here tofore been ofthe opinion that we ought to have three roads : one in the cen tre, one in the extreme south, and one in the extreme north. If I thought we could cany the three, and could execute them in any reasonable time, I would now adhere to that policy and prefer it ; but I-liave seen enough here during this session of Congress to satisfy me that but one can pass, and to ask for three at this time is to lose the whole. Believing that that is the temper, that that is the feeling, and, I will say, the judgment of the members of both houses of Congress, I prefer to take one road rather than to lose all in the vain attempt to get three. If there were to be three, of course the one indicated in this bill would be the central ; one would be north of it, and another south of it. But if there is to be but one, the central one should be taken ; for the north, by bending a little down south, can join it ; and the south, by leaning a little to the north, can unite with it too ; and our South ern friends ought to be able to bend and lean a little, as well as to require us to bend and lean all the time, in order to join them. The central position ' is the just one, if there is to be but one road. The concession should be as ' much on the one side as on the other. I am ready to meet gentlemen half way on every question that does not violate principle, and they ought not to ask us to meet them more than halfway where there is no principle involved, and nothing but expediency. Then, sir, why not unite upon this bill? We are told it is going to involve the government of the United States in countless millions of expenditure. How is that ? Certainly not under this bill, not by authority of this bill, not without violating this bill. The bill under consideration provides that when a section of the road shall be made, the government may advance a portion ofthe lands, and $12,500 per mile in bonds on the section thus made, in or* der to aid in the construction of the next, holding a lien upon the road for 376 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. the refunding of the money thus advanced. Under this bill it is not possible that the contractors can ever obtain more than $12,500 per mile on each mile of the road that is completed. 5t is, therefore, very easy to compute the cost to the government. Take the length ofthe road in miles, and multi ply it by $12,500, and you have the cost. If you make the computation, you will find it will come to a fraction over $20,000,000. The limitation in the bill is, that in no event shall it exceed $25,000,000. Therefore, by the terms of the bill, the undertaking of the government is confined to $25,000,000; and, by the calculation, it will be less than that sum. Is that a sum that would bankrupt the Treasury of the United States ? I predict to you now, sir, that the Mormon campaign has cost, and has led to engagements and undertakings that, when redeemed, will cost more than $25,000,000, if not double that sum. During the last six months, on account of the Mormon rebellion, expenses have been paid and undertakings have been assumed which will cost this government more than the total expendi ture which can possibly be made in conformity with the provisions of this bill. If you had had this railroad made you would have saved the whole cost which the government is to advance in this little' Mormon war alone. If you have a general Indian war in the mountains, it will cost you twice the amount called for by this bill. If you should have a war with a European power, the construction of this road would save many fold its cost in the trans portation of troops and munitions of war to the Pacific Ocean, in canying en your operations. In an economical point of view I look upon it as u. wise measure. It is one of economy as a war measure alone, or as a peace measure for the pur pose of preventing a war. Whether viewed as a war measure, to enable you to check rebellion in a Tenitory, or hostilities with the Indians, or to carry on vigorously a war with a European power, or viewed as a peace measure, it is a wise policy, dictated by every consideration of convenience and public good. Again, sir, in canying the mails, it is an economical measure. As the senator from Georgia has demonstrated, the cost of carrying the mails alone to the Pacific Ocean for thirty years, under the present contracts, is double the amount of the whole expenditure under this bill for the same time in the construction and working of the road. In the transportation of mails, then, it would save twice its cost. The transportation of army aud navy supplies would swell the amount to three or four fold. How many years will it be before the government will receive back, in transportation, the whole cost of this advance of aid in the construction of the road ? But, sir, some gentlemen think it is an unsound policy, leading to the doc trine of internal improvements by the federal government within the differ ent states of the Union. We are told we must continue the road to the lim its of the Territories, and not extend it into the states, because it is supposed that entering a state with this contract violates some great principle of state- rights. Mr. President, the committee considered that proposition, and they avoided that objection in the estimation of the most strict, rigid, tight-laced State-rights men that we have in the body. We struck out the provision in the bill first drawn, that the President should contract for the construction of a railroad from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and followed an example that we found on the statute-book for canying themailsfrom Alex andria to Richmond, Virginia — an act passed about the time when the reso lutions of 1798 were adopted, and the report of 1799 was made — an act that we thought came exactly within the spirit of those resolutions. That act, ac cording to my recollection, was, that the Department be authorized to con tract for the transportation of the United States mail by four-horse post-coach es, with closed backs, so as to protect it from the weather and rain, from AX- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 377 exandria to Richmond, in the State of Virginia. It occurred to this com mittee that if it had been the custom, from the beginning of this government to this day, to make contracts for the transportation of the mails in four-horse post-coaches, built in a particular manner, and the contractor left to furnish his own coaches and his own horses, and his own means of transportation, we might make a similar contract for the transportation of the mails by railroad from one point to another, leaving the contractor to make his own railroad, and furnish his own cars, and comply with the terms of the contract. There is nothing in this bill that violates any one principle which has pre vailed in every mail contract that has been made, from the days of Dr. Franklin down to the elevation of James Buchanan to the presidency. Ev ery contract for carrying the mail by horse, from such a point to such a point, in saddle-bags, involves the same principle. Every contract for carrying it from such a point to such a point in two-horse hacks, with a covering to pro tect it from the storm, involves the same principle. Every contract to car ry it from such a point to such a point in four-horse coaches of a particular description, involves the same principle. You contracted to carry the mails from New York to Liverpool in ships of two thousand tons each, to be con structed according to a model prescribed by the Navy Department, leaving the contractor to furnish his own ships, and receive so much pay. That in volves the same principle. You have, therefore, carried out the principle of this bill in every contract you have ever had for mails, whether it be upon the land or upon the water. In every mail contract you have had, you have carried out the identical prin ciple involved in this bill — simply the right to contract for the transportation of the United States mails, troops, munitions of war, army and navy supplies, at fair prices, in the manner you prescribed, leaving the contracting party to famish the mode and means of transportation. That is all there is in it. I do not see how it can violate any party creed ; how it can violate any prin ciple of state-rights ; how it can interfere with any man's conscientious scru ples. Then, sir, where is the objection? If you look on this as a measure of economy and a commercial measure, the argument is all in favor of the bill. It is true, the senator from Massa chusetts has suggested that it is idle to suppose that the trade of China is to . centre in San Francisco, and then pay sixty dollars a ton for transportation across the continent by a railroad to Boston. It was very natural that he should indicate Boston, as my friend from Georgia might, perhaps, have thought of Savannah, or my friend from South Carolina might have indi cated Charleston, or the senator from Louisiana might have indicated New Orleans. But I, living at the head of the great lakes, would have made the computation from Chicago, ahd my friend from Missouri would have thought it would have been very well, perhaps, to take it from St. Louis. When you are making this computation, I respectfully submit you must make the cal culation from the sea-board to the centre of the continent, and not charge transportation all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific ; for suppose you do not construct this road, and these goods come by ship to Boston, it will cost something to take them by railroad to Chicago, and a little more to take them by railroad to the Missouri River, half way back to San Francisco again. If you select tlfe centre of the continent, the great heart and centre of the Republic — the Mississippi Valley — as the point at which you are to concentrate your trade, and from which it is to diverge, you will find that the transportation of it by railroad would not be much greater from San Fran cisco than from Boston. It would be nearly the same from the Pacific that it is from the Atlantic ; and the calculation must be made in that point of view. There is the centre of consumption, and the centre of those great prod ucts that are sent abroad in all quarters to pay for articles imported. The 378 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. centre of production, the centre of consumption, the future centre of the pop ulation ofthe continent, is the point to which, and from which, your calcula tion should be made. ¦ Then, sir, if it costs sixty dollars per ton for transportation from San Fran cisco to Boston by railroad, half way you may say it will cost thirty dollars a ton. The result, then, of coming from San Francisco to the centre by rail road would be to save transportation by ship from San Francisco to Boston, in addition to the railroad transportation into the interior. Bat, sir, I dissent from a portion of the gentleman's argument, so far as it relates to the transportation even from San Francisco to Boston. I admit that heavy articles of cheap value and great bulk would go by ship, that being the cheapest mode of communication ; but light articles, costly articles, expensive articles, those demanded immediately, and subject to decay from long voyages and delays, would come directly across by railroad, and what you would save in time would be more than the extra expense of the trans portation. You must add to that the risk of the tropics, which destroys many articles, and the process which is necessary to be gone through with to prepare articles for the sea-voyage is to be taken into the account. I have had occasion to witness that evil in one article of beverage very familiar to you all. Let any man take one cup of tea that came from China to Russia overland, without passing twice under the equator, and he will never be rec onciled to a cup of tea that has passed under the equator. The genuine ar ticle, that has not been manipulated and prepared to pass under the equator, is worth tenfold more than that which we receive here. Preparation is nec essary to enable it to pass the tropics, and the long, damp voyage makes- as much difference in the article of tea as the difference between a green apple and a dried apple, green corn and dried corn, sent abroad. So you will find it to be with fruits ; so it will be with all the expensive and pre< :ous articles, and especially those liable to decay and to injury, either by exposure to a tropical climate or to the moisture of a long sea-voyage. Then, sir, in a commercial point of view, this road will be of vast import ance. There is another consideration that I will allude to for a moment. It will extend our trade more than any other measure that you can devise, certainly more than any one that you now have in contemplation. The peo ple are all anxious for the annexation of Cuba as soon as it can be obtained on fair and honorable terms — and why? In order to get the small, pitiful trade of that island. We all talk about the great importance of Central America in order to extend our commerce ; it is valuable to the extent it goes. But Cuba, Central America, and all the islands surrounding them put together, are not a thousandth part of the value of the great East India trade that would be drawn first to our western coast, and then across to tlie Valley of the Mississippi, if this railroad be constructed. Sir, if we intend to extend our commerce — if we intend to make the great ports of the world tributary to our wealth, we must prosecute our trade eastward or westward, as you please ; we must penetrate the Pacific, its islands, and its continent, where the great mass of the human family reside — where the articles that have built up the powerful nations of the world have always come from. That is the di rection in which we should look for the expansion of our commerce and of our trade. That is the direction our public policy should take — a direction that is facilitated by the great work now proposed to be made. I care not whether you look at it in a commercial point of view, as a mat ter of administrative economy at home, as a question of military defense, ol in reference to the building up of the national wealth, and power, and glory ; it is the great measure of the age — a measure that in my opinion has been postponed too long — and I frankly confess to you that I regard the postpone ment to next December to mean till after the next presidential election. No MTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 379 man hopes or expects, when ybu have not time to pass it in the early spring, at the long session, that you are going to consider it .at the short session. When you come here at the next session, tho objection will be that you must not bring forward a measure of this magnitude, because it will affect the po litical relations of parties, and it will be postponed then, as it was two years ago, to give the glory to the incoming administration, each party probably thinking that it would have the honor of carrying out the measure. Hence, sir, I regard the proposition of postponement till December to mean till after the election of 1860. I desire to see all the pledges made in the last contest redeemed during this term, and let the next president, and the parties under him, redeem the pledges and obligations assumed during the next campaign. The people of all parties at the last presidential election decreed that this road was to be made. The question 'is now before us. We have time to consider it. We have all the means necessaiy, as much now as we can have at any other time. The senator from Massachusetts intimates that, the treasury being bankrupt now, we can not afford the money. That senator also remarked that we were just emerging from a severe commercial crisis — a great com mercial revulsion — which had carried bankruptcy in its train. If we have just emerged from it, if we have passed it, this is the very time of all others when a great enterprise should be begun. It might have been argued when we saw that crisis coming, before it reached us, that we should furl our sails and trim our ship for the approaching storm ; but when it has exhausted its rage, when all the mischief has been done that could be inflicted, when the bright sun of day is breaking forth, when the sea is becoming calm, and there is but little visible of the past tempest, when the nausea of sea-sick ness is succeeded by joyous exhilaration, inspired by the hope of a fair voy age, let men feel elated and be ready to commence a great work like this, so as to complete it before , another commercial crisis or revulsion shall come upon us. Sir, if you pass this bill, no money can be expended under it until one sec tion of the road has been made. The surveys must be completed, the route must be located, the land set aside and surveyed, and a section of the road made, before a dollar can be drawn from the treasury. If you can pass the bill now, it can not make any drain on the treasury for at least two years to come ; and who doubts that all the effects of the late crisis will have pass ed away before the expiration of those two years. Mr. President, this is the auspicious time, either with a view to the inter ests of the country, or to that stagnation which exists between political par ties, which is calculated to make it a measure of the country rather than v. partisan measure, or to the commercial and monetaiy affairs of the nation, or with reference to the future. Look upon it in any point of view, now is the time ; and I am glad that the senator from Louisiana has indicated, as I am told he has, that the motion for postponement is a. test question ; for I con fess I shall regard it as a test vote on a Pacific railroad during this term, whatever it may be in the future. I hope that we shall pass the bill now. 380 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. CHAPTER XVI. THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. The reader who has given attention to those pages of this book relating to the Lecompton controversy in Congress wiU of course be informed of many of the events connected with and leading to the most memorable election held in the State of Illinois during the year 1858. To many persons, however, it will be serviceable that, before entering upon the description of the contest of that year, a brief repetition of some leading facts, and a detaUed history of others, should be given now. When the announcement was made by telegraph from St. Louis that Mr. John Calhoun and his associates in the Lecomp ton Convention had, for the purpose of securing for their mon strosity a legal substance which it could never obtain at tht hands of the people, wantonly and wickedly resolved to de clare the Lecompton Constitution as already made, and wait ing only the sanction of Congress to erect it as the government of the people of the unfortunate Territory, there was in all Illi nois a universal expression of indignation. Calhoun had for many years been an active Democrat in the central part of the state, and he was believed to be a man who, whatever other failings and imperfections he might have, would never consent, under any circumstances, to embarrass or injure his party friends by rash or unjustifiable political action. In short, he was esteemed by all as a " safe and reliable" man, who could not be seduced, under any state of things, to do political acts, the effect of which was to destroy, or, to say the least, embar rass and place his party in a most unenviable position before the country. For many days those who had a personal ac quaintance with the " Lord President," as he was subsequent ly styled by the papers of the state, declined giving credit to the reports of the action of the convention, but these doubts were but of short duration ; letters from a number of persons in the Territory, and from Calhoun himself, soon removed all question, not only as to the action ofthe convention, but also as to the full participation of Calhoun in the iniquitous pro ceedings. THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 381 From one end of the state to the other, the Democratic newspaper press immediately and determinedly denounced the action of the convention, and of the daring attempt by Cal houn and his associates to defraud the people of Kansas of a sacred right ; to violate the entire spirit of the Kansas-Nebras ka Act ; to repudiate the saving and most peculiar principle of the Cincinnati platform ; to disregard and contemptuously set aside the peremptory and pointed instructions of Mr. Bu chanan, and the earnest advice and appeals of Governor Walker. In the very expressive language of Mr. Buchanan, no Demo crat in Illinois " had any serious doubt" but that the conven tion would submit the Constitution to the people, and each Democrat in the state felt that the convention, in utterly scorn ing and repudiating the instructions of Mr. Buchanan to Gov ernor Walker, had sought, through pure wantonness, to treat the instructions of the venerable President as the " fogyism" of old age. The Chicago Times, Springfield Register, Quincy Herald, Galena Courier, Peoria News, and Alton Democrat — the daUy Democratic papers of the state — without any previ ous consultation or understanding, simultaneously, and with all their power, proclaimed the indignant feeling of the Democ racy in their respective localities, and called upon the party to take immediate action, by meetings and resolutions, to sustain Mr. Buchanan and the Cincinnati platform against the cow ardly and insolent attempt on the part ofthe Lecompton Con vention to treat both with sovereign contempt. The weekly Democratic press of the state followed with great unanimity, and within ten days from the receipt of the first intelligence of the action of the Lecompton Convention, Illinois, speak ing through the Democratic press, had become unanimously pledged to the support and defense of the President in his ef forts to preserve the Cincinnati platform pure and inviolate. No Democrat in Illinois believed the silly slander of a North ern senator, that " the administration wa^s a little weak in the knees;" and all relied implicitly that the policy ofthe govern ment, so clearly and emphatically enunciated in the speeches of Governor Walker and in his instructions from the hand of General Cass, would be carried out to the last extremity, there by vindicating the power and majesty of the great principle embraced in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, so cordially and unani mously ratified and adopted by the Democracy at Cincinnati. 382 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. There was not one Democratic newspaper in all Illinois that did not, with all its power, sustain the President and Governor Walker against the unfortunate and ill-judged action of John Calhoun and his associates at Lecompton. Judge Douglas was at that time in Chicago ; though no pub lic meeting was held at which he could offer his views, there was no doubt entertained by any one, Democrat or Republi can, as to his determination to sustain the President in the policy so recently declared by the administration. In a few days Democratic newspapers in other states came into Illinois sustaining the administration and denouncing the Lecompton- ites. From the entire Northwest there was not a Democratic paper which opposed the administration by sustaining Cal houn. The papers of New York gave to the Democracy of Illinois the most unbounded assurance that the Democracy of that state would unite with their Western brethren in a vigor ous support ofthe President. Some weeks later, the Washing ton Union, which, since the action of the Kansas Convention, had remained silent, appeared with an elaborate editorial, claim ing in behalf of the slaveholder the constitutional right to carry his slaves into any state or Territory of the United States, and hold them in such state or Territory by virtue of a constitu tional right, in defiance of the laws of such state or Territory. As this matter has been treated of in one of Mr. Douglas's speeches, it is unnecessary to do more here than to repeat that this article of the Union was the first indication that the De mocracy of Illinois had that any change was contemplated in the policy of the administration ; and foUowing immediately upon this strange declaration of the most unsound and unten able propositions was a quasi endorsement of the Lecompton fraud, and a suggestion that the best course to pursue was to acquiesce in it, and thus get rid of a " distracting question." StiU, so complete had been Mr. Buchanan's committal to the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska Act ; so acknowledged and boasted of General Cass's devotion to unrestrained squatter sovereignty; so well known Mr. Cobb's liberal views, pro claimed so eloquently upon the hills and in the valleys of Penn sylvania during 1856 ; so emphatic had been Mr. Toucey's en dorsement of the right of self-government, that human intellect refnsed to understand how, in one moment, and without any rational pretense or occasion, an administration could thus THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 383 suddenly give the negative to its past history and official acts, and render ridiculous at least a majority of its members by making them active supporters of proceedings planned and perpetrated in positive conflict with their opinions and speech es during a long, excited, and severe political contest of but very recent date. Up to the appearance of these articles in the Washington Union, the Republican party had been panic-stricken. The only hope that that party could have had of perpetuating its existence in the Northwest was a want of fidelity on the part of the Democracy to the Cincinnati platform ; and when the Democracy ofthe Northwest, without a dissenting voice, united in sustaining the administration in its Kansas policy and in re pudiating the action of the Lecompton Convention, because it violated the Cincinnati platform, that party saw its own ex tinction as plainly as it could be written. Its first hope was that Douglas, with a view of being considered the peculiar. friend of the South, would sustain the Lecompton Convention. That hope being dissipated, the Republican party was prepar ing for its demise, when, from a quarter most unexpected, came words of cheering consolation, of hope, and of future glory. There is no use in disguising the fact, even were it possible to do so, that, had the administration, in December, 1857, remain ed true to its previously maintained policy, and urged upon Congress the duty of disregarding any and all propositions for the admission of Kansas tainted with fraud, and not approved by the free and deliberate choice ofthe people, the Republican party would have virtually ceased to exist as an organization in the Northwestern States. It would have at once been re duced to a mere handful of abolition fanatics, who by educa tion, as well as natural tastes, habits, and associations, wiU al ways cling to the theory that the only way of elevating the negro is by removing every law, custom, or other hinderance to the degradation of the white man to the level of the negro. The thousands who had by their votes, during the previous three years, given a consequence and a power to the Repub lican party, because of a sincere belief that the policy of the Democratic party had been and would continue to be shaped and changed to promote the ends and purposes of the South as opposed to .those of the North, upon the official declaration by the President that he would not sanction or approve of 384 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. fraud, nor consent to a violation of the leading principle to which he owed his own election, even to secure the admission of another slave state, would have abandoned the Republican party and rallied under the Democratic flag, having no longer any doubt of the honesty of their party. But no such course was pursued by the President. He did give his official ap proval to the result of fraud ; he did give his executive recom mendation to the completion of the violation of the Cincinnati platform by the admission of a state under a Constitution to which the people were not only no party, but which had been kept from them because it was known they would repudiate it. Hence these men, instead of being restored to the Demo cratic party by a prompt vindication of its honesty and devo tion to principle, were repelled, and confirmed in their impres sion that the Democratic party had but one principle, and that was to promote the ends of slavery. The golden opportunity of putting an end to an organization which, in the hands ofthe unprincipled managers who have heretofore and ever will con trol its movements, must be dangerous to the peace and pros perity of the nation and to the supremacy of the Constitution, was neglected and lost. The subsequent action of Congress, of the executive and his cabinet, and of some of the Northern representatives of the Democracy, supplied the Republicans with sufficient proof to enable them to argue with plausibility that the Democratic party was one devoted to the interests of the slaveholding population of the Southern States. The annual message of Mr. Buchanan, in which he formally proclaimed his approval of Lecomptonism, was received with a most depressing effect upon the party in Illinois. Though he had never been the choice of the party in Illinois, yet, on ac count of his advanced age, and the fact thafhe must have, felt how many risks the party had always undertaken in advancing him from one high position to another, despite the absence of all personal popularity on his part, and want of striking quali ties in his character, Democrats in the West entertained that respect for him which years and long service always excite in the breasts of an intelligent and refined people. While they deplored what they could not but regard as a great error, viewed as a matter of governmental as well as party policy, yet no word of unkindness or reproach was uttered. The mes sage was published in aU the papers ofthe state ; and while the THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 385 Republicans were jubUant over it, the Democratic papers pub lished it sUently — one only, a weekly paper, edited by a federal office-holder, venturing very slight approval of it. The subse quent messages of the President, both by their manner as weU as by their language — the very stupid exhibition of iU-conceal- ed venom by Mr. Bigler, in his speech, which was represented as being an authorized expression of the views of the adminis tration, and the Quixotical effort of Dr. Fitch to read Douglas and all who thought with him out of the party — could not faU to modify very greatly the personal interest previously enter tained by the Democracy in the venerable President. The de bates in Congress and the proceedings there have already been spoken of in these pages, and it will only be necessary to refer to them now as explaining proceedings in the state. On a previous page wUl be found some notice of a meeting held in Chicago in December responsive to the speech of Douglas in the Senate on the 9th of December. The names mentioned in those proceedings are of some moment, not because of any con sequence attaching personally to the individuals, but as illus trating the depths to which rancorous enmity stooped for the selection of fitting instruments to accomplish its ends. The resolutions of that meeting were reported by a commit tee consisting of the following persons : Thomas Hoyne, ex- United States Attorney ; Iram Nye, ex-United States Marshal; Isaac Cook, ex-United States Postmaster ; Brock M'Vickar, Surgeon United States Marine Hospital ; William Price, post master ; Thomas Dyer, B. F. Bradley, and H. D. Colvin. The chairman of the meeting was Dr. Daniel Brainard, ex- Surgeon to the United States Marine Hospital, who appointed this committee, and who gave as his reason for placing upon it the federal officers appointed by Mr. Buchanan, as well as those who had been removed, that it was right that the admin istration should know and be made to feel that no Democrat in Chicago, in office or out of it, could permit so gross a viola tion of the principles of the party to pass without expressing in the strongest terms a reprobation of the act. The meeting was addressed by Dr. Brainard and others ; their speeches were not published, because the friends of Mr. Douglas and those who really desired harmony in the party thought that, if peace and harmony were to be restored, it could be better accom plished by suppressing the fierce invectives employed, and R 386 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. sweeping denunciations, not only of Lecomptonism, but of its supporters. Had these speeches been preserved, it would ba refreshing at this time to read how Mr. Bigler was denounced as an overgrown dunce, and Dr. Fitch as a bogus senator whose Pomeroy Letter* ought to have consigned bim to a po htical obUvion so profound that not even a Lecompton Conven tion could resuscitate his memory. The President subsequently appointed Messrs. Hoyne, Nye, Brainard, and Cook to office, they having become opponents of Douglas and supporters of Lecomptonism. In February, Cook, one of the above-named committee, pro ceeded to Washington, and was nominated to the Senate as postmaster; he was then a defaulter to the government in a * As Dr. Fitch, of Indiana, was one of the " foreign" disturbers in the Illi nois contest, and as he was generally styled on the stump " Pomeroy Fitch," it may not be out of place to state why he was so called. At one time he was nominated for Congress in Indiana by the Democracy, whose platform was the Nicholson Letter. Just previous to the election, some Abolitionists in the district, not satisfied with the Whig nominee, addressed a letter to Fitch, propounding questions to him, to which Fitch replied ; his reply se cured the Abolition vote. The correspondence was secret, and not known to the Democracy until too late to take action upon it. The conespondence on the part of the Abolitionists was conducted by Mr. Pomeroy. We give the letters without comment, except to say that Dr. Fitch veiy honorably kept all his pledges to Mr. Pomeroy, as will be seen by reference to the journals of the House of Representatives at the time. " Plymouth, August 4, 1849. " Sin, — As there are » few who think you have not been quite definite enough on some of the questions involved in the present canvass, I wish you to answer the following questions, to wit : " 1. Will you, if elected, vote for the unconditional repeal of slavery in the District of Columbia ? " 2. Will you vote for the abolition of the inter-state slave-trade? " 3. Will you vote for the Wilmot Proviso being extended over the Terri tories of California and New Mexico, and against any law authorizing slaves to be taken there as property ? " Please answer the above questions yes or no, without comment. " Grove Pomekot." The Answer, "With pleasure I answer ' yes' to the above questions. "Entertaining the views indicated in my answer above, I shall not only vote ' yes' on these measures, but if no older or abler member, whose influence would be greater than mine, introduce them into Congress, I shall do it my self, if I have the honor of holding a seat there. "G.N. Fitch." THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 387 very large sura, but nevertheless his confirmation was forced through the Senate — senators of honorable name and distinc tion uniting in the action. The nomination was not confirmed without opposition, and that, too, of the most determined char acter ; the result was that Cook was not confirmed until after the first of March. In the mean time, whUe this unheard-of proscription was going on at Washington, letters from cabinet officers and senators were flooding the maUs, all tendering office, profit, and honors to such of the" gallant Democracy of Illinois as would abandon the principles ofthe party and take up the banner of hostility to Douglas. In more than one let ter, and by more than one of these men who thus wrote in be half of the President, it was suggested that as the President was too old to attend to business personally, particularly the. distribution of patronage, the rewarding of friends would be the especial duty of the gentlemen to whom had been commit ted that business. It need not be stated that these letters were from presidential aspirants, some in Congress and some in the cabinet. It is with no pleasure that these, as well as other equally disgraceful proceedings on the part of " distin guished" men in the, councils of the nation, are recorded here. We have abstained from giving names, because to do so would be to single out individuals and hold them up to scorn and contempt, when, in truth and in fact, they acted, so far as the attempt to corrupt the people, as the authorized exponents of a new and fatal policy which had been adopted for the purpose* of defeating Stephen A. Douglas. The result of this species of attempted corruption was soon apparent. A prominent in dividual residing in Illinois, who perhaps had just received a letter from a member of the cabinet suggesting the importance of sustaining the administration and of defeating Douglas, and intimating that the administration would cheerfully bestow its best offices upon those who would aid in accomplishing these ends, while the writer, who already had the confident assur ances of a majority in the Charleston Convention, Would not fail to have a particular regard now and hereafter for the per son Who would pubhcly avow a hostility to Douglas, would be startled by receiving next day a letter ofthe same import from a senator, and, before the week was out, would possibly have on his table four or five letters from as many " distinguished Democrats," aU praying the defeat of Douglas, and each con- 388 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. eluding with the suggestion that the writer had already re ceived promises sufficient to justify him in expecting the nom ination at Charleston ! The effect of such a course of action on the part of those who had taken the cause of the adminis tration in hand was, as might be expected, entirely fatal. The work was overdone. There were too many engaged in it. No inteUigent man who received such letters could have the shghtest respect for the writers, or could place the least faith in any thing they said. * Before Cook's confirmation, the IUinois Democratic State Central Committee issued the call for the Democratic State Convention to nominate state officers. The call was signed by the Hon. Alexander Starne, of Pike County, as chairman, and was approved by all the members of the committee. It apportioned the number of votes which each county would be entitled to in convention, the number being based, accord ing to custom, upon the Democratic vote at the previous pres idential election. Counties were authorized, of course, to send as many delegates as they chose, but the number of votes which each county would be entitled to was fixed. The con vention-was caUed to meet at Springfield, in the State-house, at ten o'clock A.M., April 21st. It has been stated that this con vention was called at an unusually early day ; but, by reference to a table published elsewhere in this volume, it wUl be seen that, with one exception, it was held later than any preceding ^Democratic State Convention ever held in Ilhnois. The excep tion was in 1856, when the convention was held on the first of May. The day after copies of this call reached Washing ton, Cook's nomination was confirmed ; longer delay was thought dangerous to the score of embryo presidents to whom had been pledged the eleven votes of IUinois at the Charleston Convention. He hurried home, and on the 1 7th of March as sumed the duties of postmaster. He immediately turned out a number of competent, worthy men, and filled their places with individuals who had recommendations signed by Fitch, Bright, Cobb, Slidell, and other very excellent statesmen of that class. The best comment upon these appointments is the one furnished by time ; two or three of them have since been sent to the Penitentiary, a few others are fugitives from justice, others have been removed by order ofthe Department, and oth ers have sought safety and peace by voluntary resignation. THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 389 The administration had now a representative in Illinois, and if there was a disposition on the part of any one to reflect dis respectfully upon the Chicago postmaster or the policy of the administration, it might be said with great truth that that pol icy and its representative were eminently worthy of each other. This representative of the administration, being himself illit erate, selected from a brothel in Chicago a clerk, through whose penmanship the Chicago postmaster undertook, in the name and by the authority of the President of the United States, and of several members of his cabinet, to corrupt the Democracy ofthe state. As the personal and official character of the postmaster of Chicago is of itself not of sufficient im portance to require more than a passing notice, even of its in famy, yet as, with a full knowledge ofthe man, the administra tion chose to place its character and fortunes in Illinois in his hands, there is no escape from the disagreeable task of record ing a few particulars of the joint movements of principal and agent at that time. At Chatham, in Sangamon County, one N. S. Wright had been postmaster, and, up to the period of Cook's appointment to office, had been an ardent supporter of Douglas. By some means — possibly at a personal interview — this man, Wright's, ambition or cupidity had been excited by a suggestion that he ought to be the postmaster at Springfield. That he had been in correspondence with Cook upon the sub ject is evident, for upon the eighth of April Cook addressed him a letter, warning him that it was the intention of the friends of Mr. Buchanan to get up a new organization in the state ; that he, Wright, was expected to secure the election of anti-Douglas delegates to the state convention, but, if defeated in that, he was, by aU means, to get up a new delegation. The letter closed with a suggestion that the business of appointing a new postmaster at Springfield would be settled at the meet ing of the convention. It will be seen by the above letter that the administration, through its agent, declared, in advance of the state convention, the purpose of reorganizing the Democracy of Illinois, and in structed the federal officer in that quarter that if he, the fed eral officer, was beaten in the choice of delegates at the regu lar Democratic county convention, " by all means to get up another delegation." This letter, owing to the stupidity of some one connected with the Chicago Post-office, never got 390 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. into the maU, but reached Mr. Wright through the columns of the newspapers, into which it found its way. Mr. Wright was beaten at the county convention, he being at that time the solitary Lecomptonite in the county ; but he " got up a new delegation" on paper by putting down the names of twelve postmasters who would not, as he supposed, dare to say nay to any act done by order of the administration. Sim Uar letters were sent aU over the state; and the efforts of politicians in other states to sow discord and promote differ ences were unremitting. There were one hundred counties in the state ; in ninety-eight of these the county conventions passed resolutions sustaining the course of Douglas, Harris, Marshall, Morris, Shaw, and. Smith, the Democratic delega tion in Congress. In one county resolutions approving of the proposed admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitu tion were passed. In the other county, the call for a meeting of the county convention was never published, but a few days before the time fixed for the state convention the chairman of the county committee held a private meeting in his own office, and appointed himself and some friends as delegates to the state convention. In Lake County there were two or three candidates for the Waukegan Post-office : these candidates had been incited " to defeat Douglas" as the surest road to federal profit and honor. When the county convention met the at tendance was full, every township being represented. The candidates for the post-office were on hand with their resolu tions ; but the incumbent of the post-office entered the con vention, and, in person or by another, submitted anti-Lecomp- ton resolutions. Such doctrines, coming from such a quarter, were hailed by the Democracy with delight; the candidates for the post-office were voted down almost unanimously, and the Waukegan postmaster had every thing his own way. In the midst of the enthusiasm he proposed a list of delegates, he being one ; the convention adopted the Ust without ques tion, and adjourned with cheers for Douglas, and Harris, and their Illinois associates in Congress. The Waukegan post master had outwitted his rivals and cheated the convention. In Cook County the Democratic county convention met, and appointed its delegates, at the head of whom was Dr. Daniel Brainard; the resolutions ofthe convention were strong and deeided. The Chicago postmaster did not even attempt to THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 391 compete at the convention for the delegation, but caUed a con vention of his own, and appointed " a new delegation." On the 21st of AprU Springfield was fiUed with delegates. Never before in the history of the Democratic party had there been the shghtest attempt to get up division ; the subject of contested seats on an extensive scale was a new one in an IUi nois state convention. For more than twenty years these conventions had been held with the greatest harmony. Now, for the first time, there was an appearance of a storm. The Cook County (Chicago) delegation, the largest in the state, having thirty-six votes, were called together early in the morn ing to take preliminary steps to meet the contestants before the state convention ; Dr. Brainard was, at his own sugges tion, appointed to argue and defend the right of the " regu lars" to seats in the convention, and to expose the utter Ule- gality and absurdity of whatever pretense Cook and his asso ciates might set up to membership. As the hour approached for the meeting of the convention, the representative haU be came crowded. Delegation after delegation entered and took the seats assigned them by the state committee ; the hands on the clock pointed to five minutes before ten, and stUl not one of the men who were to contest the seats in the convention had made his appearance. As the clock struck ten, Mr. Starne, chairman of the state committee, called the convention to order, and, on motion, the Hon. John Moore was appointed temporary chairman. The convention was further temporarily organized by the appointment of secretaries. The Hon. Samuel Holmes, of Adams, moved the appoint ment of a committee to examine the credentials of delegates, and to report to the convention a list of the legaUy elected delegates, and that said committee consist of one member from each congressional district and two from the state at large. Hon. John A. M'Clernand requested the gentleman from Adams to. modify his motion so as that it would be in the fol io wing; form : Whereas, it is understood that there are contesting dele gates from one or more counties to this convention, and where as practice and fairness require that aU questions affeeting the titles of claimants to seats in this convention should be settled before the convention proceeds to effect a permanent organi zation ; therefore, 392 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Resolved, That the temporary chairman of the convention appoint a committee of eleven on the credentials of members that are contested, and that the members wUl entertain no proposition and do no business until the report of said com mittee shall have been acted upon by the convention ; and that, until otherwise ordered, the rules of the last House of Repre sentatives of this state be the rules for the government of this convention. Mr. Holmes accepting this as a substitute for his motion, the preamble and resolution were adopted. The president appointed as the committee the following per sons : Hon. Sam. Holmes, of Adams ; Hon. James Mitchell, of Stephenson ; Hon. S. S. Hayes, of Cook ; Hon. John A. M'Cler nand, of Sangamon ; Hon. W. C. Gondy, of Fulton ; Hon. U. F. Linder, of Coles ; Hon. Zadoc Casey, of Jefferson j Hon. W. J. Allen, of WUliamson; Hon. W.H.Roosevelt, of Hancock; Gov. J. A. Matteson, of Sangamon ; and F. Goodspeed, Esq., of Will. The secretary called the list of counties in alphabetical or der, and it was found that all the countie* in the state except Lake and Union were represented, and represented each by one delegation. When aU the credentials had been handed in, and the Committee on Credentials were about to retire, Mr. Holmes rose and said : " The Committee on Credentials are about to retire to the adjoining room to examine the certificates of aU persons claim ing seats in the Illinois Democratic State Convention of 1858, and if there are any persons claiming seats in such convention who have not yet presented their claims, they are hereby no tified to make known their claims without delay, or hold their peace forever." Not a contestant appeared then or at any time during the session of the convention. In fact, so bald and fabulous was the pretense ofthe new delegation, " got up" under the instruc tions of the administration, that not even a federal office-hold er could command sufficient impudence to lay claim to a seat in the convention. The entire number of persons present at Springfield whose names were used by the administration as delegates to a " National Democratic State Convention" was thirty-nine, of which some twenty-three were from Chicago. These met in the Senate Chamber, and never claimed seats in the state convention, but declared themselves a convention un- THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 393 der the new organization mentioned in Cook's letter to Wright. This meeting of the " new delegations" of the ad ministration, or, as they were at the time jocularly styled, the " Thirty-nine Articles" of Lecomptonism, having no instruc tions from Washington as to what they should do, except the general one to " defeat Douglas," passed some resolutions de claring that the state convention had been held too soon, and adjourned till June, in order " to give the Democracy time to turn out." The state convention was in many respects the greatest ever held in the State of Illinois. The names of many of the dele gates had long previously been familiar to the party and to the country. The Committee on Resolutions consisted of the foUowing persons, one being selected from e^ch congressional district and two from the state at large : Gov. Joel A. Matteson ; John D. Crouch, of Jo Daviess ; Richard T. Merrick, of Cook ; John Hise, of LaSalle ; John M'Donald, of Peoria ; James M. Camp bel], of M'Donough ; John A. M'Clernand, of Sangamon ; Za- doc Casey, of Jefferson ; J. S. Post, of Macon ; S. A. Buckmas- ter, of Madison ; J. S. Robinson, of White. An abler committee never was appointed by any state con vention. The members were all men of standing, and most of them had occupied positions under the state and federal governments. Mr. M'Clernand had represented one of the dis tricts iii Congress during many years, and until he declined a re-election. John Hise was known all over the state for his long and able services in the Legislature. Mr. Casey had been lieutenant governor and member of Congress for many years. Messrs. Crouch and M'Donald were experienced editors ; Buck- master, Campbell, and Post were men of sterling Democracy, and known to the central portions of the state as unfaltering supporters of Democratic principles. Mr. Merrick had been an Old Line Whig, who, in the disruption of that party, had united in 1856 with the Democracy, and had rendered earnest and vigorous aid in the election of Mr. Buchanan. The convention nominated W. B. Fondey and Hon. A. C. French, the former for state treasurer, and the latter for super intendent of public instruction. The committee on resolutions, through the Hon. John A. M'Clernand, reported the following resolutions, which were R2 394 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. read, and the question having been taken upon each resolution as it was read, and then upon the whole, they were adopted without one dissenting voice, and with an enthusiasm that was extraordinary even in conventions ofthe Democracy of IUinois. Resolved, That the Democratic party of the State pf Illinois, through their delegates in general convention assembled, do reassert and declare the prin ciples avowed by them as when, on former occasions, they have presented their candidates for popular suffrage. Resolved, That they are unalterably attached to, and will maintain invio late, the principles declared by the National Convention at Cincinnati in June, 1856. Resolved, That they avow, with renewed energy, their devotion to the fed eral Union of the United States, their earnest desire to avert sectional strife, their determination to maintain the sovereignty of the states, and to protect every state, and the people thereof, in all their constitutional rights. Resolved, That the platform of principles established by the National Democratic Convention at Cincinnati is the only authoritative exposition of Democratic doctrine, and they deny the right of any power on earth, except a like body, to change or interpolate that platform, or to prescribe new or different tests ; that they will neither do it themselves, nor permit it to be done by others, but will recognize all men as Democrats who stand by and uphold Democratic principles. Resolved, That in the organization of states, the people have a right to de cide at the polls upon the character of their fundamental law, and that the experience of the past year has conclusively demonstrated the wisdom and propriety of the principle that the fundamental law under which a Territory seeks admission into the Union should be submitted to the people of such Territory for their ratification or rejection at a fair election, to be held for that purpose ; and that before such Territory is admitted as a state, such fundamental law should receive a majority ofthe legal votes cast at such elec tion ; and they deny the right and condemn the attempt of any convention called for the purpose of framing a Constitution, to impose the instrument formed by them upon the people against their will. Resolved, That a fair application of these principles requires that the Le compton Constitution should be submitted to a direct vote of the actual in habitants of Kansas, so that they may vote for or against that instrument be fore Kansas shall be declared one of the states of this Union ; and until it shall be ratified by the people of Kansas at\a fair election held for that pur pose, the Illinois Democracy are unalterably opposed to the admission of Kansas under that Constitution. Resolved, That we heartily approve and sustain the manly, firm, patriotic, and Democratic position of Stephen A. Douglas, Isaac N. Morris, Thomas L. Harris, Aaron Shaw, Robert Smith, and Samuel S. Marshall, the Demo cratic delegation of Illinois in Congress, upon the question of the admission of Kansas under tbe Lecompton Constitution ; and that by their firm and uncompromising devotion to the Democratic principles, and to the cause of justice, right, and the people, they have deserved our admiration, increased, if possible, our confidence in their integrity and patriotism, and merited our warm approbation, our sincere and hearty thanks, and shall receive our earn est support. Resolved, That in all things wherein the national administration sustain and cany out the principles of the Democratic party as expressed in the Cin cinnati platform and affirmed in these resolutions, it is entitled to and will receive our hearty support. THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 395 The probabihty of the reassembling of the Danite meeting was a subject of much discussion. Hundreds of Democrats who had agreed with Mr. Buchanan upon the subject. of Le compton expressed the earnest hope that the iU-advised move ment to divide the Democracy would receive no farther coun tenance from the President. At this time, too, the House of Representatives adopted the English amendment, and in a few days thereafter the Senate concurred. Lecomptonism was at an end. The question ofthe admission of Kansas with the Lecompton Constitution was referred to the people of Kansas. The struggle was over. Both sides claimed a victory. The advocates of the admission of Kansas with the Lecompton Constitution had all voted to remand the issue of the admis sion of the state with that Constitution to the people of Kan sas for their decision at the polls. It is true they did not sub mit the approval or disapproval of the Constitution directly to a vote of the people, but they did submit to the people of Kansas a question, in voting on which they were practicaUy to decide whether they were willing to be admitted as a state with Lecompton, or remain a Territory without it. Many of the opponents of the admission of Kansas with the Lecompton Constitution voted for the English Bill, because they thought it accomphshed the same result that would have been accomphshed had the Constitution been submitted di rectly to the people for ratification or rejection. Those Anti- Lecompton men who voted agamst the Enghsh BUl claimed a practical victory, though they could not consistently vote to admit Kansas with that Constitution without a direct vote ap proving it. There was reaUy, then, not the slightest justifica tion for continuing the proscription of Democrats for having agreed with Judge Douglas. But the official axe was not idle. It was wielded in all the departments of the government. Nor was it confined to Illinois. Postmasters were cut down with a suddenness that was intended to be terrifying; mail agents were dismissed a service that was thereafter to be de voted to the especial aid of Republicanism. The secretary of the treasury struck down the venerable Ja cob Frt, collector of Chicago, who for forty years had been an active Democrat, and had never sullied his own name, nor that of his party, by any act, personal or official, that was un worthy a gentleman. The same secretary continued in office 396 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. a man who had violated every law recognized by the govern ment or by society for the regulation of official or personal honesty. The war was continued. Francis J. Grund, " the basest Hes sian of them ah," was dispatched to Chicago. He was the mouthpiece — and a fitting one — through which despotism spoke its decrees to its cringing servitors in Illinois. The Danite Convention was officially caUed to meet again at Spring field. Grund was a delegate. Dr. Brainard, having in the mean time made arrangements with Grund for the place of surgeon tq the Marine Hospital, was also made a delegate. O. C. Skinner, who had been an active member of the Democratic State Convention, and who had moved the adoption of the res olutions without the change of a word, was also a delegate. The promises of office had been cast far and wide over the state, and, strange to relate, almost every man who had aban doned General Cass and supported the Buffalo platform in 1848 now rallied at the Danite call to defeat Douglas on a sus picion of Free-soUism ! The convention was held. The pro ceedings were boisterous. The principal operators were Grund, Lieb, Carpenter, and Pine ; the resolutions, which were of the most denunciatory character, Were reported by Carpenter. What has become of those men can be ascertained upon apph cation to HoweU Cobb or Attorney General Black. With the exception of Lieb, who is now a Republican, they have all left the State of Illinois. Why they have done so let the govern ment that clothed them with official patronage and power an swer. The effort to compel the attendance of postmasters by threats of removal faUed. It is true that the names of many postmas ters were published as delegates, but not one in a hundred paid the slightest attention to the matter. The " delegates" consisted principally of men who hoped for office. Nine of the " most eminent" men in the convention subsequently were candidates for Congress in their respective districts, and the manner in which their eminent abilities and their perfidy to the Democratic party were appreciated can be seen by the record of the votes at the election. At this time more than one mem ber of the cabinet was at work denouncing Douglas and urging his defeat. The issue was well known. It was- Douglas or Lincoln — a Democrat or a Republican, Yet the defeat of THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 397 Douglas was demanded. The Danite convention adjourned on the 9th of June, having nominated John Dougherty and John Reynolds in opposition to Fondey and French. Let it always be remembered that this proceeding took place at the express desire of the administration, and after the passage of the English BiU, and before Mr. Douglas's return to Illinois from Congress. It was designed deliberately to defeat the Democratic state ticket, and to defeat aU the Democratic nom inees for Congress and for the Legislature. On the 16th of June the Republican state convention as sembled at Springfield, and put in nomination Abraham Lin coln for the United States Senate, and on the same day Dr. Fitch telegraphed to the faithful at Chicago that the removal of the venerable General Fry had been consummated by the confirmation of Mr. Strother as collector of Chicago. On the same day the special session of the Senate closed its business and adjourned. A few days thereafter, Senator Doug las, accompanied by his family, left Washington via PhUadel phia and New York for Chicago. From a list prepared at that time of the Democratic papers published in IUinois, it was found that there were sixty-nine supporting the regular party organization, and five supporting the Danite ticket. Of these five, two were new papers com menced after the entanglement. One other was published by a postmaster, who, as late as January preceding, bad " dared" the administration to remove him for denouncing " Lecompton as a fraud," or for supporting Douglas ; but, having become a defaulter as postmaster, was then confidently expecting a high er office, which he ultimately attained, but which he has since vacated for cause. Another had changed its politics in con sideration of a post-office advertisement for which the govern ment paid $417. The other, edited by a postmaster, had al ways been Lecompton. Any one not blinded by hatred would have been able to judge by these indications the tide of Dem ocratic sentiment in IUinois. In vain were the facts presented to the administration. They would listen to no reason. It seemed as if the whole power of the administration had been surrendered to the control of those presidential aspirants, who sought in the defeat of Douglas the removal of what they re garded the only person standing between them and the object of their ambition. 398 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. On the 9th of July Senator Douglas arrived in Chicago. The circumstances attending his arrival were of such a charac ter as to deserve more than a passing notice. It was an era in his history. It was the third occasion of his return to the city after having taken part in exciting national controversies in Congress. In 1850, after the passage of the compromise measures, he was met by a violent armed mob ; but, by the power of a single speech, he had conquered and subdued that mob. In 1854, after the passage ofthe Nebraska Bill, he was again met by an armed mob, who, remembering the result in 1850 of allowing him to speak to the people, refused to let him be heard, and, after several hours' struggle, forced him to leave the meeting. And now, after another interval of four years, he again re turned to Chicago, from a session during which he had been the object of an assault more fearful than he had ever before encountered. The events of that night were so remarkable that an account of them, published in the Chicago Times the morning after, will not prove uninteresting : " Yesterday Senator Douglas was received in Chicago, and the occasion, aa well as the manner of that reception, was of the most magnificent character. Some few days' ago it was heard that he was at Cleveland, and forthwith ar rangements were hastily made to give him a reception worthy of his great services. With that view it was determined to appoint a committee to meet him at Michigan City, and escort him to the city. The committee was ap pointed. , DEPASTURE OF THE COMMITTEE. "As per announcement in the programme of the reception of Hon. Ste phen A. Douglas, pubhshed by authority of the Committee of Arrange ments, an extra train of cars was ready at 1 o'clock yesterday to convey the Committee of Reception to Michigan City, distant from Chicago sixty miles, at which place Senator Douglas was to take the Michigan Central road on the return trip. It was not contemplated, either by the committee or any one else, that many persons, besides such as were on the committee, would desire to go that distance in the middle of an intensely hot day, over a sandy and exposed road, and accordingly no effort was made to make up a long train. But full half an hour before the time of starting, hundreds of citizens, many of whom came from remote parts of the state, had collected at the depot. We noticed several stanch Democrats who had come up from the extreme southern sec tion — from Egypt — and still others from the central sections ; indeed, there were delegations here from almost every county in Illinois. While the crowd was gathering, fine bands of music were employed, which, by their inspiriting strains, helped to awaken the most general and intense enthusiasm. In the mean time, also, a great number of large national flags were elevated at conspicuous points near the depot and elsewhere, and banners of different shapes and colors, besides streamers, pendents, etc., were disposed in all di rections. A grand sight it was ! All present partook largely of the spirit which inspired to the work of love and patriotism. It was the deliberate THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 399 preparation of the Democratic citizens of Chicago for the brilliant reception of Stephen A. Douglas — of the man, the noble, devoted man, who has at this time more of the confidence and affection of the people of Illinois and of the Union than any other man who can be named. " It was now 1 o'clock. The train was to start at that hour, and all things being ready, the cars moved off amid shouts from the outside, and answering shouts and music from within. In all, the company numbered four hundred. A splendid banner, that of the Young Men's Democratic Club, was carried upon the locomotive. "Was there ever in this country, whose people are proverbially parsi monious of public attention, a greater tribute given to any man ? Four hundred strong, leading citizens of the state going sixty miles in a melting day to meet a fellow-citizen ! And it should be observed that many of this great company came from places distant, some fifty, others one hundred, and still others one hundred and fifty, and even two hundred miles. They came to meet Senator Douglas, to take his true hand in theirs, and to tell liim that they and the masses of people in Illinois confide in his great ability, ad mire the brave consistency of his course, and will sustain him at the ballot- boxes. 1 ' The train proceeded to Michigan City, where it was met by a host of gal lant Indianians, who accompanied the judge from Laporte to Michigan City. Some malicious person having secretly spiked the only gun of the town, the Democracy obtained a large anvil, and placing it in the middle of the prin cipal street, made the welkin echo with its repeated discharges. "The delegation from Chicago, including Democrats from Logan, Peoria, Tazewell, La Salle, Marshall, M'Henry, Knox, Will, Boone, Kankakee, Champaign, Stephenson, Kane, De Kalb, Du Page, and other counties of the state, formed into line, and, preceded by a band of music, marched to the Tremont House, where they met Senator Douglas. After exchanging per sonal salutations with his friends, Judge Douglas returned, in a few happy remarks, his thanks for this marked expression of their continued friendship. THE RETURN TO THE CITY. " At a few minutes after five o'clock the procession was formed and pro ceeded to the depot, Judge Douglas being now the guest of the committee. The train soon started, and all along the road — at every station, at almost every farm-house and laborer's cabin— in every corn-field, and at every point where laborers were engaged — there was exhibited by cheers, by waving of handkerchiefs and other demonstrations, that cordial ' welcome home' to the great representative of popular rights. " At the outer depot of the Illinois Central Railroad the national flag had been raised by the operatives, and a swivel belched forth its roaring notes of welcome. The hardy hands of the mechanics resounded with applause, and cheers and huzzas continued until the train had passed on to the city. "As the train passed along from Twelfth Street to the depot, crowds of ladies were assembled on the door-steps of the residences on Michigan Ave nue, waving banners and handkerchiefs ; the Lake Park was crowded by per sons hastily proceeding to the depot. Long before the train could enter the station-house, thousands had crossed over the breakwater, got upon the track, and climbed into the cars, and when the latter reached the depot they were literally crammed inside and covered on top by ardent and enthusiastic friends and supporters of the illustrious Illinoisian. "Capt. Smith's artillery were, in the mean time, firing from Dearborn Park a salute of 150 guns (guns were also firing in the West and North Di visions), the booming of the cannon alone rising above the cheering plaudits of the assembled multitude. 400 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. "The hotels and principal buildings of the city were adorned with flags. The Adams House, near the Central dep6t, was most handsomely decorated. The national flag, a banner bearing the motto ' Douglas, the champion of Popular Sovereignty,' as well as numerous flags belonging to vessels in the harbor, were suspended across the street, presenting a grand display. The doors, windows, balconies, and roofs of the Adams House, as well as the private residences in the neighborhood, and the large stores and warehouses along Lake Street, were crowded with ladies and other persons, all cheering and welcoming the senator. At the depot, a procession, consisting of the 'Montgomery Guards,' Capt. Gleeson, and the 'Emmett Guards,' Lieut. Stu art commanding, acting as a military escort, was then formed. Judge Doug las was in an open barouche drawn by six horses, and was followed by the Committee of Arrangements in other carriages. The procession proceeded up Lake to Wabash Avenue, down Wabash Avenue to Washington Street, and thence by Dearborn Street to the Tremont House. "Throughout the whole route of the procession the senator was greeted from house-top and window, from street, from awning-post and balcony, by eveiy demonstration of grateful welcome. THE SCENE AT THE TREMONT. " As early as half past six o'clock people began to collect around the Tre mont House. The omnibuses from Union Park, and from the southern and northern limits of the city, were crowded with suburban residents, and peo ple came on foot from the remotest parts of the city, taking up eligible stand ing-places around the hotel. At about half past seven, the booming of can non on the Lake shore having announced the arrival of the train, it was the signal for the assembling of thousands of- others, who rapidly filled up every vacant spot in Lake Street, from State to Clark. Dearborn Street was also thronged from Water to Randolph. The area occupied by the people, pack ed together in one dense mass, was considerably over fifty thousand square feet. In addition to this, every window and roof within hearing distance was occu pied, a large portion of the occupants being ladies. The assemblage of peo ple who welcomed in vociferous and prolonged shouts of joy the return of Senator Douglas numbered at the least calculation thirty thousand. "Chicago has never before witnessed such a sight. A field of human forms parted with difficulty as the procession passed through, and closed in stantly behind it, with the surge and roar of the waters of the sea ; an ocean of upturned faces, extending beyond the farthest limits to which the senator's powerful voice could reach, from whieh broke one spontaneous burst of ap plause as he appeared upon the balcony before them. Over all, the light of the illumination, and the glare and glitter of fireworks, spread an appear ance which is indescribable. "The building just across the street from the Tremont, on Lake, occupied by Jno. Parmly, hat manufacturer, and others, was finely illuminated, and a handsome transparency was displayed, bearing the words, 'Welcome to Stephen A. Douglas, the Defender of Popular Sovereignty.' THE SPEECHES. " Charles Walker, Esq., then appeared on the Lake Street balcony, and in a very neat address welcomed Senator Douglas to his constituents from a prolonged but glorious struggle, in which he had defended and maintained the right. "Senator Douglas responded in a speech of over an hour, in which he reviewed the history of the past and the prospect ofthe future." Before giving the speech of Senator Douglas on this occa- THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 401 sion, it should be stated that, on the evening ofthe 16th of June, when nominated as a candidate for the United States Senate, the Hon. Abraham Lincoln had addressed the Repub lican State Convention in a carefuUy prepared speech. As Mr. Lincoln's speech constituted one ofthe leading subjects ofthe great contest that followed, justice to that gentleman, and jus tice to the history of the memorable canvass, suggest that it should be here inserted. SPEECH OF ME. LINCOLN. On that evening Mr. Lincoln said : Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, — If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was in itiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have heen reached and passed. "A house divided against itself can not stand. " I believe this government can not endure per manently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dis solved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. , It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the farther spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new — North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination — piece of machinery so to speak — compounded of the Ne braska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace if he can, or rather fail if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action among its chief architects from the beginning. The New-year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state Constitutions, and from most of the national tenitory by Con gressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which end ed in repealing that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the nation al territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. But so far Congress only had acted ; and an endorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more. This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self-government, " which latter phrase, though ex pressive of the oijly rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this : that if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska Bill itself in the language which follows : " It being the true intent and meaning' of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their 402 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty," and "sacred right of self-government." "But," said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slaveiy." "Not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment. While the Nebraska Bill was passing through Congress, a law case involv ing the question of sf negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having volun tarily taken him first into a free state and then into a Tenitory covered by the Congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the U. S. Circuit Court for the District of Mis souri, and both Nebraska Bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negro's name was "Dred Scott," which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States ; but the decision of it was deferred un til after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requests the leading advocate of the Nebraska Bill to state his opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally ex clude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers, "That is a question for the Supreme Court." The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the endorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The endorse ment, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satis factory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the en dorsement. The Supreme Court met again; did not announc? their decis ion, but ordered a re-argument. The presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court ; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision. The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital endorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman Letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to ex press his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained ! At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska Bill on the mere question of fact whether the Lecompton Con stitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas ; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind — the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the dred Scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding — like the mould at the foundry, served through one blast and fell back into loose sand — helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint strug gle with the Republicans against the Lecompton Constitution involves noth ing of the original Nebraska doctrine. The struggle was made on a point, the right of a people to make their own Constitution, upon which he and the Republicans have never differed. THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 403 The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. The working points of that machineiy are, First. That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descend ant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any state, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in or der to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provi sion of the United States Constitution which declares that " the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Secondly. That, ' ' subject to the Constitution of the United States, " neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States Tenitory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. Thirdly. That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free state makes him free as against the holder, the United States Courts will not de cide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed im mediately ; but if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently endorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might do lawfully with Dred Scott in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free state. Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doc trine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are, and partially, also, whither we are tending. It will throw additional light on the latter to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitu tion." What the Constitution had to do with it outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decis ion to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down ? Plainly enough now : the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up ? Why even a senator's individual opinion withheld till after the presidential election ? Plainly enough now : the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the elec tion was to be canied. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the endorsement ? Why the delay of a re-argument ? Why the incoming Pres ident's advance exhortation in favor of the decision 1 These things look like the cautious patting aud petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-endorsement of the decision by the President and others ? We can not absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of wliich we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions ofthe different pieces exactly adapted to their 404 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame ex actly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen, and Franklin, and Roger, and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a com mon plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. It should not be overlooked that by the Nebraska Bill the people of a state as well as Territory were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to tho Constitution." Why mention a state ? They were legislating for Territo ries, and not for or about states. Certainly the people of a state are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States ; but why is men tion of this lugged into this merely Territorial law ? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their re lation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same ? While the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a state, or the people of a state, to exclude it. Possibly this is a mere omission ; but who can be quite sure, if M'Lean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion » declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration in behalf of the people of a Territory into the Nebraska Bill — I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other ? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a state over slavery is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska Act. On one occasion his exact language is, "except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law ofthe state is supreme over the subject of slaveiy within its jurisdiction." In what cases the power of the states is so restrained by tbe United States Constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question as to the restraint on the power of the Territories was left open in the Nebraska Act. Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slav ery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery ba voted down or voted up" shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be main tained when made. Such a decision is all that slaveiy now lacks of being alike lawful in all the states. Welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present pohtical dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their state free, and we shall awake to the reality instead that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave state. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it ? Tliere are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whis per us softly that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. They wish us to infer all from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty, and that he has regu larly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never dif fered. They remind us that he is a very great man, and that the largest of THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 405 us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But " a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of -slavery ? He don't care any thing about it. His avowed mission is impressing the " public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas Democratic news paper thinks Douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave-trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching ? He has not said so. Does he really think so ? But if it is, how can he resist it ? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest ? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property ; and, as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade — how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be " perfectly free, " unless he does it as a protection to the home pro duction ? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to day than he was yesterday — that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change ofwhieh he himself has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his mo tives,' or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly he is not now with us — he does not pretend to be — he does not promise ever to be. Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends — those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work — who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single im pulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battles through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then to falter now — now, when that same enemy is wavering, dis severed, and belligerent ? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail — if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistake delay it, but sooner or later the victory is sure to come. In this speech was proclaimed the doctrine of an " irrepres sible Conflict." Mr. Lincoln, it is true, did not declare - it in that phrase, but he declared it in terms not less strong when he declared, " In my opinion, it (slavery agitation) will not cease untU a crisis shall have been reached and passed. I believe this gov ernment can not endure permanently half slave and half free. * * * It wiU become all one thing or the other." Mr. Seward, in his Rochester speech, expressed the same idea in more ornate terms, but not any more clearly or forcibly than it was expressed by Mr. Lincoln. And in a struggle be- 406 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. tween the originator and promulgator of that doctrine and the author of the Nebraska Bill, a Democratic federal admin istration took sides openly, through its federal officers and through its official organ at Washington, against the Democ racy of Illinois. In response to the cordial welcome given him by the mul titude, Mr, Douglas said : Mr. Chairman and Fellow-citizens : I can find no language whieh can adequately express my profound grati tude for the magnificent welcome which you have extended to me on this oc casion. This vast sea of human faces indicates how deep an interest is felt by our people in the great questions which agitate the public mind and wbich underlie the foundations of our free institutions. A reception hke this, so great in numbers that no human voice can be heard to its countless thousands — so enthusiastic that no one individual can be the object of such enthusiasm, clearly shows that there is some great prinoiple which sinks deep in the heart of the masses, and involves the rights and the liberties of a whole people, that has brought you together with a unanimity and a cordiality never before ex celled, if, indeed, equaled on any occasion. (Cheers.) I have not the vanity to believe that it is any personal compliment to me. (Voices, "It isl" "You have deserved it;" and great applause.) It is an expression of your devotion to that great principle of self-govern ment (cries of "Hear," "hear") to which my hfe for many years past has been, and' iu the whole future will be devoted. (Immense cheering.) If there is any one principle dearer and more saored than all others in free gov ernments, it is that which asserts the exclusive right of a free people to form and adopt their own fundamental law, and to manage and regulate their own internal affairs and domestic institutions. (Applause.) When I found an effort being made during the recent session of Congress to force a Constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, and to force that state into the Union with a Constitution which her people had re jected by more than 10,000, I felt bound, as a man of honor and a representa tive of Illinois — bound by every consideration of duty, of fidelity, and of patriotism, to resist to the utmost of my power the consummation of that fraud. (Cheers.) With others I did resist it, and resisted it successfully until the attempt was abandoned. (Great applause.) We forced them to refer that Constitution back to the people of Kansas, to be accepted or rejected as they shall decide at an election which is fixed for the first Monday of August next. It is true that the mode of reference and the form of the submission was not such as I could sanction with my vote, for the reason that it discriminated between free states and slave states; providing that if Kansas consented to come in under the Lecompton Constitution, it should be received with a popu lation of 35,000; but that if she demanded another Constitution, more con sistent with the sentiments of her people and their feelings, that it should not be received into the Union until she had 93,420 inhabitants. (Cries of "Hear," "hear," and cheers.) I did not consider that mode of submission fair, for the reason that any election is a mockery which is not free — that any election is a fraud upon the rights of the people which holds out inducements for affirmative votes, and threatens penalties for negative votes. (Hear, hear.) But, while I was not satisfied with the mode of submission — while I resisted it to the last, demanding a fair, a just, a free mode of submission, still, when the law passed placing it within the power of the people of Kansas at that THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 407 election to reject the Lecompton Constitution, and then make another in har mony with their principles and their opinions (Bravo, and applause), I did not believe that either the penalties on the one hand, or the inducements on the other, would force that people to accept a Constitution to which they are irre concilably opposed. (Cries of "Glorious," and renewed applause.) All I can say is, that if their votes can be controlled by such considerations, all the sympathy which has been expended upon them has been misplaced, and all the efforts that have been made in defense of their rights to self-government have been made in an unworthy cause. (Cheers.) Hence, my friends, I regard the Lecompton battle as having been fought and the victory won, because the anogant demand for the admission of Kan sas under the Lecompton Constitution unconditionally, whether her people wanted it or not, has been abandoned, and the principle wliich recognizes the right of the people to decide for themselves has been substituted in its place. (Immense applause.) Fellow-citizens. — While I devoted my best energies — all my energies, men tal and physical — to the vindication of that great principle, and while the re sult has been such as will enable the people of Kansas to come into the Union with such a Constitution as they desire, yet the credit of this great moral vic tory is to be divided among a large number of men of various and different political creeds. (Prolonged applause.) I was rejoiced when I found in this great contest the Republican party coming up manfully and sustaining the prinoiple that the people of each territory, when coming into the Union, have the right to decide for themselves (Cheers) whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. (A voice, " Hope they will stick to it," and great cheering.) I have seen the time when that principle was controverted. I have seen the time when all parties did not recognize the right of a people to have slavery or freedom, to tolerate or prohibit slavery, as they deemed best, but claimed that power for the Congress of the United States, regardless of the wishes of the people to be affected by it ; and when I found upon the Crittenden-Montgomery Bill the Republicans and the Americans of the North, and I may say, too, some glorious Americans and Old Line Whigs from the South (Cheers), hke Crittenden and hia patriotic associates, joined with a por tion of the Democracy to carry out and vindicate the right of the people to decide whether slavery should or should not exist within the limits of Kan sas, I was rejoiced within my secret soul, for I saw an indication that the American people, when they come to understand the principle, would give it their cordial support. (Cheers.) i The Crittenden-Montgomery Bill was as fair and as perfect an exposition of the doctrine of popular sovereignty as could be carried out by any bill that man ever devised. It proposed to refer the Lecompton Constitution back to the people of Kansas, and give them the right to accept or reject it as they pleased at a fair election, held in pursuance of law, and in the event of their- rejecting it and forming another in its stead, to permit them to come into the Union on an equal footing with the original states. It was fair and just in all of it3 provisions. I gave it my cordial support, and was rejoiced when I found that it passed the House of Representatives, and at one time I enter tained high hope that it would pass the Senate. (Applause.) I regard the great prinoiple of popular sovereignty as having been vindicated and made triumphant in this land as a permanent rule of public policy in the organization of territories and the admission of new states. (Cheers.) Illi nois took her position upon this principle many years ago. You all recollect that in 1850, after the passage ofthe compromise measures ofthat year, when I returned to my home there was great dissatisfaction expressed at my course in supporting those measures. (Shame.) I appeared before the people of Chicago at a mass meeting, and vindicated each and every one of those meas 408 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. ures ; and by reference to my speech on that occasion, which was printed and circulated broadcast throughout the state at the time, you will find that I then and there said that those measures were all founded upon the great prin ciple that every people ought to possess the right to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, and that that right being pos sessed by the people of the states, I saw no reason why the same principle should not be extended to all of the territories of the United States. A gen eral election was held in this state a few months afterward for members of the Legislature, pending whieh all these questions were thoroughly canvassed and discussed, and the nominees of the different parties instructed in regard to the wishes of their constituents upon them. When that election was over, and the Legislature assembled, they proceeded to consider the merits of those compromise measures and the principles upon wliich they were predicated. And what was the result of their action? They passed resolutions, first re pealing the Wilmot Proviso instructions, and in lieu thereof adopted another resolution, in which they declared the great principle which asserts the right of the people to make their own form of government and establish their own institutions. That resolution is as follows : " Resolved, That our liberty and independence are based upon the right of the people to form for themselves such a government as they may choose ; that this great principle, the birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, se cured to us by the blood of our ancestors, ought to be extended to future generations, and no limitation ought to be applied to this power in the organ ization of any territory of the United States of either a territorial govern ment or state Constitution, provided the government so established shall be Republican and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States." That resolution, declaring the great principle of self-government as appli cable to the territories and new states, passed the House of Representatives of this state by a vote of sixty-one in the affirmative to only four in the nega tive. Thus you find that an expression of public opinion, enlightened, edu cated, intelligent pubhc opinion on this question by the representatives of Illinois, in 1851, approaches nearer to unanimity than has ever been ob tained on any controverted question. That resolution was entered on the Journal of the Legislature of Dlinois, and it has remained there from that day to this, a standing instruction to ber senators and a request to her repre sentatives in Congress to carry out that principle in all future cases. Illinois, therefore, stands pre-eminent as the state which stepped forward early and established a platform applicable to this slavery question, concurred in alike by Whigs and Democrats, in which it was declared to be the wish of our people that thereafter the people of the territories should be left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, and that no limitation should be placed upon that right in any form. (Tremendous ap plause.) Hence, what was my duty in 1854, when it became necessary to bring forward a bill for the organization of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska? Was it not my duty, in obedience to the Ilhnois platform, to j-our standing instructions to your senators, adopted with almost entire unani mity, to incorporate in that bill the great principle of self-government, de- rlaring that it was " the true intent and meaning of the act not to legislate 3lavery into any state or territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institu tions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States ?" (Cries of " Yes, yes," and cheers.) I did incorporate that principle in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and perhaps I did as much as any living man in the enactment of that bill — (great applause) — thus establishing the doctrine in the public policy of the country. (Cries of " Good," and renewed applause.) I then defended that principle against assaults from one section of the Union. THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 409 During- this last winter it became my duty to vindicate it against assaults from the other section of the Union. (Cheers.) I vindicated it boldly and fearlessly, as the people of Chicago can bear witness, when it was assailed by Free-soilers — ("Yes, yes," and cheers) — and during this winter I vindi cated and defended it as boldly and as fearlessly when it was attempted to be violated by the almost united South. (Immense applause.) I pledged my self to you on every stump in Illinois in 1854, 1 pledged myself to the people of other states, North and South — wherever Lspoke — and in the United States Senate and elsewhere, in every form in which I could reach the public mind or the public ear, I gave the pledge that I, so far as the power should be in my hands, would vindicate the principle of the right of the people to form their own institutions, to establish free states or slave states as they chose, and that that principle should never be violated either by fraud, by violence, by circumvention, or by any other means, if it was in my power to prevent it. (Applause.) I now submit to you, my fellow citizens, whether I have not redeemed that pledge in good faith! (Cries of "Yes, yes," and three tremendous cheers.) Yes, my friends, I have redeemed it in good faith, and it is a matter of heartfelt gratification to me to see these' assembled thou sands here to-night bearing their testimony to the fidelity with which I have advocated that principle and redeemed my pledges in connection with it. (Cheers.) I will be entirely frank with you. My object was to secure the right of the people of each state and of each territory, North or South, to decide the question for themselves, to have slavery or not, just as they chose ; and my opposition to the Lecompton Constitution was not predicated upon the ground that it was a Pro-slavery Constitution — (cheers) — nor would my action rtave been different had it been a Free-soil Constitution. My speech against the Lecompton fraud was made on the 9th of December, while the vote on the slavery clause in that Constitution was not taken until the 21st of the same month, nearly two weeks after. I made my speech. against that Lecompton monstrosity solely on the ground that it was a vio lation of the fundamental principles of free government ; on the ground-that it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas ; that it did not embody their will; that they were averse to it; and hence I denied the right of Congress to force it upon them, either as a free state or a slave state. (Bravo.) I deny the right of Congress to force a slaveholding state upon an unwilling people. (Cheers.) I deny their right to force a free state upon an unwilling people. (Cheers-) I deny their right to force a good thing upon a people who are unwilling to receive it. (Cries of " Good, good," and cheers.) The great principle is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself whether a tiling is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to adopt it ; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, the right of free judgment upon the question is dearer to every true American than any other under a free governm'ent. My objection to the Lecompton contrivance was that it undertook to put a Constitution on the people of Kan sas against their will, in opposition to then- wishes, and thus violated the great principle upon which all our institutions rest. It is no answer to this argument to say that slavery is an evil, and hence should not be tolerated. You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is a good or an evil. You allow them to decide for themselves whether they desire a Maine liquor law or not; you allow them to decide for themselves what kind of common schools they will have ; what system of banking they will adopt, or whether they will adopt any at all ; you allow them to decide for themselves the relations between husband and wife, parent and child, and guardian and ward ;' in fact, you allow them to decide for themselves all other questions, and why not upon this question ? (Cheers.) Whenever S 410 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. you put a limitation upon the right of any people to decide what laws they want, you have destroyed the fundamental prinoiple of self-goverpment. (Cheers.) In connection with this subject, perhaps, it will not be improper for me on this occasion to allude to the position of thoae who have chosen to anaign my conduct on this same subject. I have observed from the pubhc prints that but a few days ago the Republican party of the State of Illinois assem bled in convention at Springfield, and not only laid down their platform, but nominated a candidate for the United States Senate as my successor. (Hisses.) I take great pleasure in saying that I have known personally and intimately, for about a quarter of a century, the worthy gentleman who has been nominated for my place — (a voice, " He will never get it," and cheers) — and I will say that I regard him as a kind, amiable, and intelligent gentle man, a good citizen, and an honorable opponent ; and whatever issue I may have with him will be of principle, and not involving personalities. (Cheers.) Mr. Lincoln made a speech before that Republican convention which unani mously nominated him for the Senate — a speech evidently well prepared and carefully written — in which he states the basis upon which he proposes to carry on the campaign during this summer. In it he lays down two distinct propositions, whieh I shall notice, and upon which I shall take a direct and bold issue with him. (Cries of " Good, good," and great applause.) His first and main proposition I will give in his own language, Scripture quotation and all. (Laughter.) I give his exact language: "'A house di vided against itself can not stand.' I believe this government can not en dure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it to cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or aU the other." In other words, Mr. Lincoln asserts as a fundamental principle of this government that there must be uniformity in the local laws and domestic in stitutions of each and all the states of the Union, and he therefore invites all the non-slaveholding states to band together, organize as one body, and make war upon slavery in Kentucky, upon slavery in Virginia, upon slavery in the Carolinas, upon slavery in all of the slaveholding states in this Union, and to persevere in that war until it shall be exterminated. He then notifies the slaveholding states to stand together as a unit and make an aggressive war upon the free states of this Union with a view of establishing slavery in them all ; of forcing it upon Illinois, of forcing it upon New York, upon New England, and upon every other free state, and that they shall keep up the warfare until it has been formally established in them all. In other words, Mr. Lincoln advocates boldly and clearly a war of sections, a war of the North against the South, of the free states against the slave states — a war of extermination — to be continued relentlessly until the one or the other shall be subdued, and all the states shall either become free or become slave. Now, my friends, I must say to you frankly, that I take bold, unqualified issue with him upon that principle. I assert that it is neither desirable nor possible that there should be uniformity in the local institutions and domes tic regulations of the different states of this Union. The framers of our government never contemplated uniformity in its internal concerns. ' The fathers of the Revolution, and the sages who made the Constitution, well understood that the laws and domestic institutions which would suit tho granite hills of New Hampshire would be totally unfit for the rice planta tions of South Carolina (Cheers) ; they well understood that the laws whieh would suit the agricultural districts of Pennsylvania and New York would be totally unfit for the large mining regions of the Pacific, or the lumber re gions of Maine. (Bravo). They well understood that the great varieties of THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 411 soil, of production, and of interests, in a republic as large as this, required different local and domestic regulations in each locality, adapted to the wants and interests of each separate state (cries of "Bravo, "and "Good"), and for that reason it was provided in the federal Constitution that the thirteen original states should remain sovereign and supreme within their own limits in regard to all that was local, and internal, and domestic, while the federal government should have certain specified powers which were general and national, and could be exercised only by the federal authority. (Cheers). The framers df the Constitution well understood that each locality, having separate and distinct interests, required separate and distinct laws, domestic institutions, and police regulations adapted to its own wants and its own condition ; and they acted on the presumption, also, that these laws and in stitutions would be as diversified and as dissimilar as the states would be numerous, and that no two would be precisely alike, because the interests of no two would be precisely the same. Hence, I assert, that the great fundamental principle which underlies our complex system of state and fed eral governments contemplated diversity and dissimilarity in the local insti tutions and domestic affairs of each and every state then in the Union, or thereafter to be admitted into the confederacy. I therefore conceive that my friend, Mr. Lincoln, has totally misapprehended the great principles upon which our government rests. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs would be destructive of state rights, of state sovereignty, of personal liberty, and personal freedom. Uniformity is the parent of despotism the world over, not only in politics, but in religion. Wherever the doctrine of uniformity is proclaimed, that all the states must be free or all^lave, that all labor must be white or all black, that all the citizens of the different states must have the same privileges or be governed by the same regulations, you have de stroyed the greatest safeguard which our institutions have thrown around the rights of the citizen. ("Bravo," and great applause). How could this uniformity be accomplished if it was desirable and pos sible ? There is but one mode in which it could be obtained, and that must be by abolishing the state Legislatures, blotting out state sovereignty, merg ing the rights and sovereignty of the states in one consolidated empire, and vesting Congress with the plenary power to make all the police regulations, domestic and local laws, uniform throughout the limits of the republic. When you shall have done this you will have uniformity. Then the states will all be slave or all be free ; then negroes will vote everywhere or no where ; then you will have a Maine liquor law in every state or none ; then you will have uniformity in all things local and domestic by the au thority of the federal government. But, when you attain that uniformity, you will have converted these thirty-two sovereign, independent states into one consolidated empire, with the uniformity of despotism reigning triumphant throughout the length and breadth of the land. (Great applause). From this view of the case, my friends, I am driven irresistibly to the conclusion that diversity, dissimilarity, varioty in all our local and domestic institutions, is the great safeguard of our liberties ; and that the framers of our institutions were wise, sagacious, and patriotic when they made this government a confederation of several states with a Legislature for each, and conferred upon each Legislature the power to make all local and do mestic institutions to suit the people it represented, without interference from any other state or from the general Congress ofthe Union. If we expect to maintain our liberties, we must preserve the rights and sovereignty of the states ; we must maintain and 'carry out that great principle of self-govern ment incorporated in the compromise measures of 1850 ; endorsed by the Illinois Legislature of 1851 ; emphatically embodied and carried out in the 412 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and vindicated this year by the refusal to bring Kansas into the Union with a Constitution distasteful to her people. (Cheers). The other proposition discussed by Mr. Lincoln in his speech consists in a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States on aeeount of the Dred Scott decision. On this question, also, I desire to say to you, unequiv ocally, that I take direct and distinct issue with him. I have no warfare to make on the Supreme Court of the United States (Bravo), either on account of that or any other decision which they have pronounced from that • bench. (" Good, good," and enthusiastic applause). The Constitution of the United States has provided that the powers of government (and the Constitution of each state has the same provision) shall be divided into three departments, executive, legislative, and judicial. The right and the province of expound ing the Constitution, and constructing the law, is vested in the judiciary es tablished by the Constitution. As a lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear before the court and controvert any principle of law while the question is pending before the tribunal ; but when the decision is made, my private opinion, your opinion, all other opinions, must yield to the majesty of that authoritative adjudication. (Cries of " It is right," " Good, good," and cheers). I wish you to bear in mind that this involves a great principle, upon wliich our rights, and our liberty, and our property all depend. What se curity have you for your property, for your reputation, and for your personal rights, if the courts are not upheld, and their decisions respected when once firmly rendered by the highest tribunal known to the Constitution ? (Cheers.) I do not choose, therefore, to go into any argument with Mr. Lincoln in re viewing the various decisions which the Supreme Court has made, either upon the Dred Seott case, or any other. I have no idea of appealing from the decision of the Supreme Court upon a constitutional question to the de cision of a tumultuous town meeting. (Cheers.) I am aware that once an eminent lawyer of this city, now no more, said that tbe State of Illinois had the most perfect judicial system in the world, subject to but one exception, which could bo oured by a slight amendment, and that amendment was to so change the law as to allow an appeal from the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, on all constitutional questions, to two justices of the peace. (Gr.eat laughter and applause.) My friend Mr. Lincoln, who sits. behind me, reminds me that that proposition was made when I was a judge of the Su preme Court. Be . that as it may, I do not think that fact adds any greater weight or authority to the suggestion. (Renewed laughter and applause.) It matters not with me who was on the bench, whether Mr. Lincoln or my self, whether a Lockwood or » Smith, a Taney or a Marshall ; the decision ofthe highest tribunal known to the Constitution ofthe country must be final until it has been reversed by an equally high authority. (Cries of " Bravo," and applause.) Henee I am opposed to this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, by whieh he proposes to take an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these high constitutional questions to a Re publican caucus sitting in the country. (A voice — " Call it Free-soil," and cheers.) Yes, or to any other caucus or town meeting, whether it be Ee publican, American, or Democratic. (Cheers.) I respect the decisions of that august tribunal ; I shall always bow in deference to them. I am a law- abiding man. 1 will sustain the Constitution of my country as our fathers have made it. I will yield obedience to the laws, whether I like them or not, as I find them on the statute-book. I will sustain the judicial tribunals and constituted authorities in all matters within the pale of their jurisdiction, as defined by the Constitution. (Applause!) • But I am equally free to say that the reason assigned by Mr. Lincoln for resisting the decision of the Su preme Court in the Dred Scott case does not in itself meet my approbation. He objects to it because that decision declared that a negro descended from THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 413 African parents who were brought here and sold as slaves is not and can not be a citizen of the United States. He says it is wrong, because it deprives the negro of the benefits of that clause of the Constitution which says that citizens of one state shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of tho several states ; in other words, he thinks it wrong* because it deprives the negro of the privileges, immunities, and rights of citizenship, which pertain, according to that decision, only to the white man. I am free to say to you that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. (Great applause.) It was made by the white man for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men in such manner as they should de termine. (Cheers.) It is also true that a negro, an Indian, or any other man of an inferior race tp a white man, should be permitted to enjoy, and humanity requires that he should have, all the rights, privileges, and immu nities which he is capable of exercising consistent with the safety of society. I would give him every right and every privilege which his capacity would enable him to enjoy, consistent with the good of the society in which he lived. (" Bravo.") But you may ask me what are these rights and these privileges. My answer is that each state must decide for itself the nature and extent of these rights. Q' Hear, hear," and applause.) Illinois has de cided for herself. We have decided that the negro shall not be a slave, and we have at the same time decided that he shall not vote, or serve on juries, or enjoy political privileges. I am content with that system of policy which we have adopted for ourselves. (Cheers.) I deny the right of any other state to complain of our policy in that respect, or to interfere with it, or to attempt to change it. On the other hand, the State of Maine has decided that in that state a negro may vote on an equality with the white man. The sovereign power of Maine had the right to prescribe that rule for herself. Illinois has no right to complain of Maine for conferring the right of negro suffrage, nor has Maine any right to interfere with, or complain of Illinois be cause she has denied negro suffrage. ("That's so," and cheers.) The State of New York hasdecided by her Constitution that a negro may vote provided that he owns $250 worth of property, but not otherwise.- The rich negro can vote, but the poor one can not. (Laughter.) Although that distinction does not commend itself to my judgment, yet I assert that the sovereign power of New York had a right to prescribe that form of the elective fran chise. Kentucky, Virginia and other states, have provided that negroes, or a certain class of them in those states, shall be slaves, having neither civil or political rights. Without endorsing the wisdom of that decision, I assert that Virginia has the same power by virtue of her sovereignty to protect slavery within her limits as Illinois has to banish it forever from our own borders. (" Hear, hear," and applause.) I assert the right of each state to decide for itself on all these questions, and I do not subscribe to the doctrine of my friend, Mr. Lincoln, that uniformity is either desirable or possible. I do not acknowledge that the states must all be free or must all be slave. I do not acknowledge that the negro must have civil and political rights everywhere or nowhere. I do not acknowledge that the Chinese must have the same rights in California that we would confer upon him here. I do -not acknowledge that the cooley imported into this country must necessarily be put upon an equality with the white race. I do not acknowledge any of these doctrines of uniformity in the local and domestic regulations in the dif ferent states. ("Bravo," and cheers.) Thus you see, my fellow-citizens, that the issues between Mr. Lincoln and myself, as respective candidates for the United States Senate, as made up, are direct, unequivocal, and irreconcilable. He goes for uniformity in our domes tic institutions, for a war of sections, until one or the other shall be subdued. I go for the great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the right of the peo- 414 LIFE OF STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. pie to decide for themselves. (Senator Douglas was here interrupted by the. wildest applause ; cheer after cheer rent the air ; the band struck up " Yankee Doodle;" rockets and pieces of fireworks blazed forth, andthe enthusiasm was7 so intense and universal that it was some time before order eould be restored and Mr. Douglas resume. The scene at this period was glorious beyond de scription.) On the other point, Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court ofthe United States because of their judicial decision in the Dred Seott case. I yield obedience to the decisions of that court — to the final determination of the highest judicial tribunal known to our Constitution. He objects to the Dred Seott decision because it does not put the negro in the possession of the rights of citizenship on an equality with the white man. I am opposed to negro equality. (Immense applause.) I repeat that this nation is a white people — a people composed of European descendants — a people that have established this government for themselves and their posterity, and I am in favor of preserving not only the purity of the blood, but the purity of the government, from any mixture or amalgamation with inferior races. (Renewed applause.) I have seen the effects of this mixture of superior and inferior races — this amalgamation of white men ancl Indians and negroes ; we have seen it in Mexico, in Central America, in South* America, and in all tbe Span ish-American states, and its result has been degeneration, demoralization, and degradation below the capacity for self-government. (" True, true.") I am opposed to taking any step that recognizes the negro man or the In dian as the equal of the white man. I am opposed to giving him a voice in the administration of the government. I would extend to the negro, and the Indian, and to 'all dependent races, every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety and welfare of the white races (bravo) ; but equality they never should have, either political or social, or in any other respect whatever. (Cries of "Good," "good," and protracted cheers.) My friends, you see that the issues are distinctly drawn. I stand by the same platform that I have so often proclaimed to you and to the people of Illinois heretofore. (Cries of "That's true," and applause.) I stand by the Democratic organization, yield obedience to its usages, and support its regu lar nominations. (Intense enthusiasm.) I indorse and approve the Cincin nati platform (renewed applause), and I adhere to and intend to 'carry out, as part of that platform, the great principle of self-government, which recog nizes the right of the people in each state and tenitory to decide for them-~ selves their domestic institutions. ("Good," "good," and cheers.) In other words, if the Lecompton issue shall arise again, you have only to turn back and see where you have found me during the last six months, and then rest assured that you will find me in the same position, batthng for the same prin ciple, and vindicating it from assault from whatever quarter it may come, sc long as I have the power to do it. (Cheers.)'' Fellow-citizens, you now have before you the outlines of the propositions which I intend to discuss before the people of Illinois during the pending cam paign. I have spoken without preparation, and in a very desultory manner, and may have omitted some points which I desired to discuss, and may have been less implicit on others than I eould have wished. I have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination which has been made against me. (Enthusiastic applause.) The Republican leaders have formed an alliance — an unholy, unnatural alliance — with a portion of the unscrupulous federal office-holders, i intend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. (Cheers.) I know they deny the alliance while avowing the common purpose, but yet these men who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the pur pose of electing a Republican senator in my place are just as much the agents, the tools, the supporters of Mr. Lincoln as if they were avowed Republicans, THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 415 and expect their roward for their services when the Republicans come into power. (Cries of " That is true," and cheers.) I shall deal with these allied forces just as the Russians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol. The Russians, when they fired a broadside at the common enemy, did not stop to inquire, whether it hit a Frenchman, an Englishman, or a Turk, nor will I stop (Laughter and great applause) ; nor shall I stop to inquire whether my blows hit the Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal offices, and yet acting in concert with the Republicans to defeat the Democratic party and its nominees. (Cheers, and cries of " Bravo 1") I do not include all of the federal office-holders in this remark. Such of them as are Demoeracts, and show their Democracy by remaining inside of the Democratic organization and supporting its nominees, I recognize as Democrats ; but those who, having been defeated inside ofthe organization, go outside, and attempt to divide ahd destroy the party in concert with the Republican leaders, have ceased to be Demoeracts, and belong to the allied army, whose avowed object is to elect the Republican ticket by dividing and destroying the Democratic party. (Cheers.) My friends, I have exhausted myself (cries of "Don't stop yet), and I cer tainly have fatigued you (" No, no," and " Go on") in the long and desultory remarks which I have made. (" Go on longer," " We want to hear you," etc.) It is now two nights since I have been to bed, and I think I have a right to a httle sleep. (Cheers, and a voice — " May you sleep soundly .") I will, however, have an opportunity of meeting you face to face, and addressing you on more than one occasion before the November election. (Cries of " We hope so," eto.) In conclusion, I must again say to you, justice to my own feelings demands it, that my gratitude for the welcome you have extended to me on this occasion knows no bounds, and can be described by no language which I can command. (Cries of " We did our duty," and cheers.) I see that I am literally at home when among my constituents. (Cries of " Welcome home," " You have done your duty," " Good," ete.) This welcome has amply repaid me for every effort that I have made in the public service during nearly twenty-five years that I have held office at your hands. (Cheers ; a voice — " You will hold it longer.") It not only compensates me for the past, but it furnishes an inducement and incentive for future effort, which no man, no matter how patriotic, can feel who has not witnessed the magnificent reception you have extended to me to-night on my return. At the conclusion of the remarks of Judge Douglas there was a spontaneous outburst of enthusiastic admiration. Cheers upon cheers followed, and the dense masses who had stood so long in sohd ranks refused to separate, but continued for some time in vociferous applause. Then followed another discharge of elegant fireworks. One piece, situ ated at the northwest corner of Dearborne and Lake Streets, was soon in a blaze, and as the fire ran from point to point on its surface, there was gradu- tally revealed, in letters of dazzling and sparkling light, the glorious motto " Popular Sovereignty." This handsome and appropriate display renewed the enthusiasm of the multitude, and for more than an hour thousands of our people surrounded the hotel, cheering. Douglas, Popular Sovereignty, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. 416 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. CHAPTER XVII. SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. Me. Lincoln addressed a Republican meeting at the same pl.ace on the next evening, and the active campaign had now been formally opened. The Republican leaders were sanguine of success. They became extravagantly delighted with the Danites. On the 14th of July the leading Republican paper of Chicago addressed words of strong encouragement to that faction. It affected a fear of its strength, and had the effron tery to tell its readers that Douglas and. his party were a mere handful and that the real party with whom the Republicans would have to contend would be the Danites. It may not be out of place here to remark that as nearly as could be estimated by those not within the inner circles of Republican councils, there was about sixty thousand dollars of Republican money, besides considerable self respect recklessly sacrificed during that year in keeping the Danite party on its legs. It was an expensive item in the cost of the election, and we doubt very much if the organization and opposition of that faction did not give the Democratic party additional strength by enlisting the timid and negligent in the cause which was so fearfully threatened by the allies. On the night of the 15th Judge Douglas was visited by a delegation of the German Democrats of Chicago — than whom a nobler band of patriots does not exist in the Union. It is true they form but a small portion of the German population of Chicago, but they are men of intelligence, education and experience. They understand the true principles of American freedom, and the Constitution has no more devoted supporters in the state. The speeches on the occasion were most happy. On the morning of the 16th Judge Douglas left Chicago on his way to Springfield to meet the Democratic State Com mittee. The object and intention of his visit were well known. All along the road at every station he was greeted with all possible demonstrations of welcome. At Bloomington, where he arrived in the afternoon, he was met by a vast concourse of THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 417 people ; he was greeted with a salute, which was re-echoed by a cannon carried down on the train by a large delegation from Joliet. In the evening he made a speech of over two hours and a half. Of that speech an edition of eighty thousand was printed in pamphlet form and distributed all over Illinois, and copies were sent to all parts of the Union. It was also pub lished in all the Democratic papers of the state, and thus dis tributed everywhere. Particular reference is made to this speech because in it is contained an assertion of doctrine exactly similar in all practi cal operation and effect with that subsequently expressed at Freeport. At that time, however, July 16th, the allies thought there was no chance of Douglas' success, and it was not thought necessary to discover treason to Democratic faith in sentiments corresponding exactly with those uniformly ex pressed by him during the previous eight years of active dis cussion of the slavery question. The next day he proceeded on his way to Springfield. Present at his speech in Bloom ington and on board the same train to Springfield was Mr. Lincoln. As the train proceeded it grew in length. At every station there was a mass of Democrats waiting to greet the champion of Democratic principles. Additional cars had to be added, and when the train reached Springfield it had twenty-five cars, each filled to overflowing with enthusiastic Democrats. Lincoln was perhaps the only Lincoln man on the train. During the day, which had been sultry, there fell heavy showers, yet the Democracy were not deterred in their determination to honor the man against whom there had been arraigned the force of such an extraordinary combination. Large trains filled to overflowing had come up from the lower part of the state. The vast multitude repaired to Edward's grove, and notwithstanding the ground was wet, and the trees Gripping with the rain that had fallen, for three hours they remained listening to the voice of Stephen A. Douglas, who, in the name of Democratic truth, the Constitution and the vested rights of the people of the states and territories, bid Black Republicanism and its allies bold defiance. The writer of these pages witnessed that day of rejoicing, excite ment and enthusiasm. It is imposible to describe it. It was the voluntary outpouring of popular enthusiasm towards a S2 418 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. man who had no patronage at his disposal, who was de nounced as a political outcast, yet who with words of truth and burning eloquence proclaimed the everlasting principles of Democracy. His speech on this occasion was published in full, and an edition of fifty thousand copies in pamphlet form was distributed in Illinois and other states. At night Lincoln spoke in reply at the State House. During the next few days Judge Douglas, acting with the State Democratic Committee, fixed upon ,a list of appointments for Democratic meetings, which list was published at once in all the Democratic papers ofthe State. This first list extended only to the 21st of August, but was afterwards extended to the last of October. The complete list was as follows : Clinton, on July 2*7^, then iu succession at Monticello, Paris, Hillsboro, Greenville, Edwardsville, Highland, Winchester, Pittsfield, Beardstown, Havana, Lewiston, Peoria, Lacon, Ottawa, Galena, Freeport, Junction, JoUet, Pontiac, Lincoln, Jacksonville, Carlinville, Belleville, Waterloo, Chester, Jones- boro, Benton, Charleston, Danville, Urbana, Kankakee, Hene- pin, Henry, Metamora, Pekin, Oquaka, Monmouth, Galesburg, Macomb, Carthage, Quincy, Alton, Gillespie, Decatur, Spring field, Atlanta, Bloomington, Toulon, Genessee, Rock Island — the last being on Friday, October 30 — the election taking place on Tuesday, the 3d of November. These were his regular ap pointments, but in addition to these he spoke perhaps at twenty other places, being points on his route, at which the people would turn out, and insist upon his speaking to them. His speeches at his regular appointments averaged about two hours and a half each ; except those at the joint discussions, where the time was limited to one hour and a half. A glance at the map of the State will give an idea of the distance trav eled, and the activity necessary to get from point to point upon the list of designated places. It was a task requiring a wonderful display of fortitude and of physical endurance. At almost each of these places Senator Douglas was met at a dis tance from the town by committees, who in the name of the Democracy welcomed him to the place. To all these speeches Judge Douglas made a response extending from ten to thirty minutes. He was then escorted to the place of meeting where he dehvered his regular speech. On the 24th of July Mr. Douglas returned to Chicago, pre- THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 419 paratory to setting out to meet his appointments, the first of which was fixed at Clinton" on the 27th. Mr. Lincoln addressed him a note proposing that they should canvass the State to gether. Lincoln or his friends had seen enough of the enthu siasm of the people along the line of Mr. Douglas' late journey to satisfy every one that wherever Douglas was announced to speak there would be no lack of auditors — men of all parties. To aUow Douglas to address these immense gatherings of Democrats and Republicans, without any reply being made to his remarks, was something that required attention if it could not be prevented. Mr. Douglas responded, stating his regret that Mr. Lincoln had not thought it proper to make the pro posal at an earlier day, and before he (Mr. D.), had with the Democratic State Committee arranged a series of exclusive Democratic meetings, at which not only he, but the Demo cratic nominees for Congress and the Legislature were ex pected to speak. Mr. Lincoln had gone down to Springfield with him, and from the 9th to the 24th had never said one word upon the subject. He, however, agreed to meet Mr. Lincoln once in each congressional district ; and that, as they had already both spoken at Chicago in the Second District and Springfield in the Sixth District, they would have one meeting in each of the other seven districts. He then left Chicago and proceeded to Clinton ; Mr. Lincoln was present on that occasion ; he next went to Monticello, where Lincoln was again present. Lincoln subsequently accepted Douglas' offer in a letter which, for its strange combination of phrases, has become historical in Illinois as "Lincoln's conclusion." Judge Douglas then named the following places for the joint discussions : Ottawa, 3d District, August 21. Freeport, 1st " " 27. Jonesboro, 9th " Sept. 15. Charlston, 7th " 18. G-alesburg, 4th " Oct. 7. Quincy, 5th " " 13. Alton, 8th " " 15. On the 7th of August Senator Trumbull spoke at Chicago, and indulged in language of the lowest and most disreputable personal abuse of Mr. Douglas. His special subject was the alleged mutilation of the " Toombs Bill." That speech was so boldly vituperative, and contained aUegations so utterly reck- 420 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. less, that it failed in produoing any impression save disgust for the author. His aUegations were promptly exposed and tri umphantly refuted. Douglas' tour- over the State was a succession of triumphs such as had rarely ever been witnessed in Illinois. Presiden tial aspirants in the Democratic party, who desired his defeat, hovered about Illinois, and were alarmed at the prospect. The arm of Federal power fell upon officials who dared say they would vote for Douglas. Brainard was appointed to the marine hospital in place of Dr. M'Vickae, an accomplished physician and a Democrat of unimpeachable integrity. An amusing incident occurred at this time, and it is ques tionable whether in the history of partizanship a parallel can be found for it. A venerable gentleman was holding a small, very smaU Federal office in Chicago. He was the father of twenty-one children ; his age, his democracy and his patriar chal character could not save him from destruction. One of the respectable statesmen who, living far off from Illinois had taken such an interest in Illinois politics, and had become so anxious for Lincoln's success, reached Chicago, and in a few days it was ascertained that the fate of the venerable office holder was sealed. On the morning when the papers for his removal and for the appointment of his successor were about to be sent off to Washington, the old man rushed into the hotel, entered unbidden the council chamber of the Danites, and addressing the exalted dispenser of Federal patronage, exclaimed, " He has come ! My wife have my twenty-second . child this morning, and I have called him , and he look very much like you !" The prefixes to the family name of the boy were the names of Mr. Buchanan's embassador to IUinois. Human nature could not resist that appeal ! He had already one boy named James Buchanan, and another HoweU Cobb. Even Danito revenge yielded, and the old man was continued in office. The old man afterwards said that if Bright and Fitch would only .give him ordinary time and notice he would be prepared for them when they should come to Illinois for the purpose of removing him. Since that time, however, his head has fallen, and the old gentleman is no longer an officer of the govern ment. THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 421 ME. DOUGLAS VISITS HIS FIRST HOME IN ILLINOIS. On August the 7th, 1858, Mr. Douglas reached Winchester. The people had taken the trouble to send all the way to Alton for a piece of artillery to add its reverberating tones to the welcome they had prepared for him. The attendance was very large. Winchester claimed Douglas as her own. The people of that little town regarded him as one whose history was to be forever identified with that of Winchester. He was greeted with the most unbounded expressions of delight. The Rev. Perry Bennett, of the Baptist church, in a chaste and eloquent speech welcomed him to his old home — his first home in Illinois. Mr. Douglas thus responded to the address : " Ladies and gentlemen — fellow-eitizens — To say that I am profoundly im pressed with the keenest gratitude for the kind ahd cordial welcome you have given me in the eloquent and too partial remarks which have been addressed to me is but a feeble expression of the emotions of my heart. There is no spot on this vast globe which fills me with such emotions as when I come to this place, and recognize the faces of my old and good friends who now sur round me and bid me welcome. Twenty-five years ago I entered this town on foot, with my coat upon my arm, without an acquaintance in a thousand miles, and without knowing where I could get money to pay a week's board. Here I made the first six dollars I ever earned in my life, and obtained the first regular occupation that I ever pursued. Eor the first time in my life I felt that the responsibihties of manhood were upon me, although I was under age, for I had none to advise with, and knew no one upon whom I had a right to call for assistance or friendship. "Here I found the then settlers ofthe country my friends — my first start in life was taken here, not only as a private citizen, but my first election to pub- Jie office by the people was conferred upon me by those whom I am now addressing and by their fathers. A quarter of a century has passed, and that penniless boy stands before you with his heart full and gushing with the sen timents which such associations and recollections necessarily inspire." Mr. Douglas subsequently received a personal- welcome from each of the vast multitude assembled at Winchester. Old times and old events were discussed familiarly ; and men who had kuown him twenty-five years before crowded around him with an affectionate interest. He was a " Winchester boy," and Winchester people regarded him with fraternal love and admiration. Scott County, united with Morgan, sent up two members of the Legislature pledged to vote for the re-election of Stephen A. Douglas. 422 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. THE FEEEPOET " TREASON." During 1856, 1857, and 1858 the Democratic papers of Illi nois and the Northwest, and Democratic speakers, including Mr. Douglas, in explaining and defending the Kansas-Nebraska Act, had been accustomed to quote arguments of southern- statesmen to show that necessarily, in all communities, the local institutions must be sustained by the prevailing public sentiment, or it was useless to endeavor to maintain them. They bad used this argument to prove that no matter what prohibitions Congress might enact against slavery in the terri tories, if the people desired to have slaves they would have them ; and local courts and laws would lean toward and pro tect the wishes and desires of the people. So, on the other hand, if slavery was not desired, it would be as effectually ex cluded by an adverse public sentiment as it could be by posi tive law. Upon this point they quoted as the views of a gen tleman deservedly high in the estimation of the people of the South, and particularly of his own state, the following remarks ofthe Hon. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, made in 1856, in reference to the practical operation of the Nebraska Bill, and these views Were Constantly presented to the people from the stump and through the press : OPINION OF ME. OEE IN 1856. "I say, although I deny that squatter sovereignty exists in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska by virtue of this bill, it is a matter practically of httle consequence whether it does or not ; and I think I shall be able to satisfy the gentleman of that. The gentleman knows that, in every slaveholding com munity of this Union, we have local legislation and local police regulations appertaining to that institution, without which the institution would not only be valueless but a curse to the community. Without them the slaveholder could not enforce his rights when invaded by others. And if you had no local legislation for the purpose of giving protection, the institution would be of no value. I can appeal to every gentleman upon this floor, who represents a slaveholding constituency, to attest the truth of what I have stated upon that point. " Now, the legislative authority of a territory is invested with a discretion to vote for or against laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every ter ritory where the territory is open to settlement, and. slaveholders go tliere, to protect slave property. But if they decline to pass such laws what is the re medy ? None, sir. If the majority of the people are opposed to the institu tion, and if they do not desire it engrafted upon the territory, all they have to do is simply to deehne to pass laws in the territorial Legislature for its protee- THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 423 tion, and then it is as well excluded as if the power was invested in the ter ritorial Legislature, and exercised by them to prohibit it. Now I ask the gen tleman what is the practical importance to result from the agitation and dis cussion of this question as to whether squatter sovereignty does or does not exist ? Practically, it is a matter of httle moment." In June, 1857, Mr. Douglas, at the invitation of the mem bers of the Grand Jury of the United States Court, and of other visitors at Springfield, delivered a speech at the State House upon the subject of Kansas and Utah affairs, and upon the Dred Scott decision. This speech was regarded at the time as the most thorough and complete vindication of the policy and principles ol the Democratic party upon the topics embraced in it that he had ever made. The speech had a wide circulation, and was produced in most ofthe leading papers in the slaveholding states as the view of a high-minded, far-see ing, and national statesman. That speech has otten been re ferred to by his enemies, even after the Lecompton difficulty had occurred, as a speech embracing the best and clearest views of constitutional law and of sound statesmanship. In that Springfield speech of June 12, 1857, a speech which has been held up as a model one, as containing nothing but sound Democratic doctrine, Mr. Douglas, in explaining what had been decided by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, used the following clear and emphatio language. That the Supreme Court had decided — " 2d. That the act of the 6th of March, 1820, commonly called the Mis souri Compromise Act, was unconstitutional and void before it was repealed by the Nebraska Act, and consequently did not and eould not have the legal effect of extinguishing a master's right to a slave in that territory. " While the right continues in full force under the guarantee of the Con stitution, and can not be divested or alienated by an act of Congress, it ne cessarily remains a barren and worthless right unless sustained, protected, and euforced by appropriate police regulations and local legislation present ing adequate remedies for its violation. These regulations and remedies must necessarily depend entirely upon the will and wishes of the people of the Ter ritory, as they can only be prescribed by the local Legislature. "Hence the great principle of popular sovereignty and self-government is sustained and firmly established by the authority of this decision." In his Bloomington speech, July 16th, 1858, he thus re peated the declaration of the same doctrine : " I tell you, my friends, it is impossible, under our institutions, to force slavery on an unwilling people. If this principle of popular sovereignty in serted in the Nebraska Bill be fairly carried out, by letting the people decide 424 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. the question for themselves by a fair vote, at a fair election, and with honest returns, slavery will never exist one day or one hour in any Territory against the unfriendly legislation of an unfriendly people. I oare not how the Dred Seott decision may have settled the abstract question so far as the practical result is concerned ; for, to use the language of an eminent southern senator on this very question : " ' I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, for it is of no par ticular consequence ; slavery can not exist a day or an hour in any territory or stato unless it has affirmative laws sustaining and supporting it, furnishing police regulations and remedies, and an omission to furnish them would be as fatal as a constitutional prohibition. Without affirmative legislation in its favor, slavery could not exist any longer than a new-bom infant could survive under the heat of the sun on a barren rook without protection. It would wilt and die for the want of support.' " Hence, if the people of a territory want slavery, they willeneourage it by passing affirmatory laws, and the necessary police regulations, patrol laws, and slave code ; if they do not want it they will withhold that legislation, and by withholding it slavery is as dead as if it was prohibited by a consti tutional prohibition — (cheers) — especially if, in addition, their legislation is unfriendly, as it would be if they were opposed to it. They could pass such local laws and police regulations as would drive slavery out in one day, or one hour, if they were opposed to it, and therefore, so far as the question of slavery in the territories is concerned, so far as the prinoiple of popular sove reignty is concerned, in its practical operation, it matters not how the Dred Scott case may be decided with reference to the territories. My own opinion on that law point is well known. It is shown by my votes and speeches in Congress. But, be it as it may, the question was an abstract question, invit ing no practical results, and whether slavery shall exist or shall not exist in any state or territory will depend upon whether the people are for it or agamst it, and whichever way they shall decide it in any territory or in any state will be entirely satisfactory to me. (Cheers.)" In his speech at Springfield, July 18, 1858, he repeated substantially the same remarks upon this point — the impossi bility of forcing or prohibiting slavery against the wishes of the people. Mr. Douglas and -his friends also frequently quoted Mr. Buchanan's clear statement of the same doctrine, in his letter accepting the Cincinnati nomination, as foUows : " This legislation (Kansas-Nebraska Act) is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and in accordance with themjias simply de clared that the people of a territory, like those of a state, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." On August 21 the first joint discussion between Lincoln and Douglas took place ; this occurred at Ottawa, in La Salle county, a strong Republican district, then and now repre sented in Congress by Mr. Lovejoy. The crowd in attend ance was a large one, and about equally divided in political sentiment — the enthusiasm of the democracy having brought THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 425 out more than a due proportion of that party to hear and see Douglas. His thrilling tones, his manly defiance towards the enemies of the party, assured his friends, if any assurance was wanting, that he was the same unconquered and unconquerable Democrat that for twenty-five years he had been proved to be. Douglas opened the discussion and spoke one hour; Lincoln followed, his time being limited to an hour and a half, yet he yielded thirteen minutes before the expiration of his time. The speeches delivered on Saturday afternoon were published in the Chicago Times, and Press aud Tribune, on Sunday afternoon. They had a wide circulation. The effect of them was most damaging to Lincoln. It was, therefore, deemed necessary to concoct some plan to break off the Dem ocracy from Douglas, by placing the latter in the position of a preacher of political heresy. The next joint meeting was to be at Freeport, on Friday, the 27th, and during the interval a meeting of the Danite and Republican leaders was held at Chicago to prepare some trap for Douglas. The speeches of Mr. Douglas, Mr. Orr, and the paragraphs from Mr. Buchanan's inaugural, were taken by the Danite and Republican leaders as the basis of a question to be pro pounded to Mr. Douglas at Freeport. If he answered nega tively, the answer was to be used by the allies as a repudiation of tuo principles of the Nebraska Bill, as in direct variance with the established doctrine of the party as declared by himself and by all others ; and as more pro-slavery than even the people of South Carolina asked for. If he answered in the affirmative, then he was to be denounced as a preacher of a political heresy, according to the Republican interpretation of the Dred Scott decision. The questions were, therefore, prepared, and when the parties met at Freeport, on the 27th, Mr. Lincoln, who had the opening, drew from his pocket a paper containing four questions, all (so he said) that he had had time to prepare for the occasion. Those questions were as foUows : " 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects,- adopt a state Constitution, and ask admission into the Union under' it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants, according to the English bill, to wit: ninety-three thousand, will you vote to admit them ? " 2. Can tbe people of the United States territory, in any lawful way 426 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a state Constitution ? " 3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that states can not exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in adopting and following such decision as a rule of political action ? " 4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory in disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question ? The second question was one involving the material point upon which the confederates proposed to make capital. The other questions really amounted to nothing, and were present ed, with ostrich-like sagacity, under an impression that Douglas would not perceive the hidden purpose. In his speech he thus replied to the four questions : " First he desires to know, If the people of Kansas shall form a Constitu tion by means entirely proper ami unobjectionable, and ask admission into the Union as a state before they have the requisite population for a member of Congress, whether I will vote for that admission 1 Well, now, I regret exceedingly that he did not answer that interrogatory himself before he put it to me, in order that we might understand, and not be left to infer, on which side he is. Mr. Trumbull, during the last session of Congress, voted from the beginning to the end against the admission of Oregon, although a free state, because she had not the requisite population for a member of Congress. . Mr. Trumbull would not consent, under any circumstances, to let a state, free or slave, come into the Union until it had the requisite population. As Mr. Trumbull is in the field fighting for Mr. Lincoln, I would like to have Mr. Lincoln answer his own question, and tell me whether he is fighting Trum bull on that issue or not. But I will answer his question. In reference to Kansas, it is my opinion that, as she has population enough to constitute a slave state, she has people enough for a free state. I will not make Kansas an exceptional ease to the other states of the Union. I hold it to be a sound rule of universal apphcation to require a territory to contain the requisite population for a member of Congress before it is admitted as a state into the Union. I made that proposition in the Senate in 1856, and I renewed it during the last session, in a bill providing that no territory of the United States should form a Constitution and apply for admission until it had the requisite population. On another occasion I proposed that neither Kansas, nor any other territory, should be admitted until it had the requisite popula tion. Congress did not adopt any of my propositions containing this general rule, but did make an exception of Kansas. I will stand by that exception. Either Kansas must come in as a free state, with whatever population she may have, or the rule must be apphed to all the other territories alike. I there fore answer at onee, that it having been decided that Kansas has people enough for a slave state, I hold that she has enough for a free state. I hope Mr. Lincoln is satisfied with my answer ; and now I would like to get his an swer to his own interrogatory — whether or not he will vote to admit Kansas before she has the requisite population. I want to know whether he will vote to admit Oregon before that territory has the requisite population. Mr. Trumbull will not, and the same reason that commits Mr. Trumbull against the admission of Oregon commits him against Kansas, even- if she should apply for admission as a free state. If there is any sincerity, any truth in the argument of Mr. Trumbull in the Senate against the admission of Oregon THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 427 # because she had not 93,420 people, although her population was larger than that of Kansas, he stands pledged against the admission of both Oregon and Kansas until they have 93,420 inhabitants. I would like Mr. Lincoln to an swer this question. I would like him to take his own medicine. If he differs with Mr. Trumbull, let him answer his argument against the admission of Oregon, instead of poking questions at me. " The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, Can the people of a territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a state Constitution ? I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a state Constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska Bill on that principle all over the state in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract, question whether slavery may or may not go into a territory under the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery can not exist a day or an hour anywhere unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local Legislature, and if the peo ple are opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to that body who will, by unfriendly legislation, effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave territory or a free territory is perfect and complete under the, Nebraska Bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point. " In this connection I will notice the charge which he has introduced in relation to Mr. Chase's amendment. I thought that I had chased that amend-. ment out of Mr. Lincoln's brain at Ottawa ; but it seems that it still haunts his imagination, and he is not yet satisfied. I had supposed that he would be ashamed to press that question further. He is a lawyer, and has been a member of Congress, and has occupied his time and amused you by telling you about parliamentary proceedings. He ought to have known better than to try to palm off his miserable impositions upon this intelligent audience. The Nebraska Bill provided that the legislative power, and authority of the said territory, should extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the organic act and the Constitution of the United States. It did not make any exception as to slavery, but gave all the power that it was possible for Congress to give, without violating the Constitution, to the territorial Legislature, with no exception or limitation on the subject of slavery at all. The language of that bill whieh I have quoted gave the full power and the full authority over the subject of slavery, affirmatively and negatively, to introduce it or exclude it so far as the Constitution of the United States would permit. What more eould Mr. Chase give by his amendment? Nothing. He offered his amendment for the identical purpose for which Mr. Lincoln is using it, to enable demagogues in the country to try and deceive the people. His amendment was to this effect. It provided that the Leg islature should have the power to exclude slavery ; and General Cass sug gested, ' Why not give the power to introduce as well as exclude ?' The answer was, they have the power already in the bill to. do both. Chase was afraid his amendment would be adopted if he put the alternative proposition and so make it fair both ways, but would not yield. He offered it for the purpose of having it rejected. He offered it, as he has himself avowed over 428 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. and over again, simply to make capital out of it for the stump. He expected that it would be capital for small politicians in the country, and that they would make an effort to deceive the people with it, and he was not mis taken, for Lincoln is carrying out the plan admirably. Lincoln knows that the Nebraska Bill, without Chase's amendment, gave all the power whieh the Constitution would permit. Could Congress confer any more ? Could Congress go beyond the Constitution of the country 1 We gave all, a full grant, with no exception in regard to slavery one way or the other. We left that question as we left all others, to be decided by the people for them selves, just as they pleased. I will not occupy my time on this question. I have argued it before all over Illinois. I have argued it in this beautiful city of Freeport ; I have argued it in the North, the South, the East, and the West, avowing the same sentiments and the same principles. I have not been afraid to avow my sentiments up here for fear I would be trotted down into Egypt. "The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented is, Tf the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that a state of this Union can not exclude slavery from its own hmits, will I submit to it ? I am amazed that Lincoln should ask such a question. (' A school-boy knows better.') Tes, a school boy does know better. Mr. Lincoln's object is to cast an imputation upon the Supreme Court. He knows that there never was but one man in Amer ica, claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, who ever for a moment pretended such a thing. It is true that the Washington Union, in an article pubhshed on the 17th of last November, did put forth that doctrine, and I denounced the article on the floor of the Senate in a speech which Mr. Lin coln now pretends was against the President. The Union had claimed that slavery had a right to go into the free states, and that any provision in the Constitution or laws of the free states to the contrary were null and void. I denounced it in the Senate, as I said before, and I was the first man who did. Lincoln's friends, Trumbull, and Seward, and Hale, and Wilson, and the whole Black Republican side of.the Senate were silent. Thev left it to me to denounce it. And what was the reply made to me on that occasion 1 Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, got up and undertook, to lecture me on the ground that I ought not to have deemed the article worthy of notice, and ought not . to have replied to it ; that there was not one man, woman, or child South of the Potomac, in any slave state, who did not repudiate any such pretension. Mr., Lincoln knows that that reply was made on the spot, and yet now he asks this question. He might as well ask me, suppose Mr. Lincoln should steal a horse, would I sanction it ; and it would be as genteel in me to ask him, in the event he stole a horse, what ought to be done with him. He casts an imputation upon the Supreme Court of the United States by sup posing that they would violate the Constitution of the United States. I tell him that such a thing is not possible. It would be an act of moral treason that no man on the bench could ever descend to. Mr. Lincoln himself would never, in his partizan feelings, so far forget what was right as to be guilty of such an act. " The fourth question of Mr. Lincoln is, Are you in favor of acquiring ad ditional territory in disregard as to how such acquisition may affeot the Union on the slavery question ? This question is very ingeniously and cunningly put. The Black Republican creed lays it down expressly, that under no cir cumstances shall we acquire any more territory unless slavery is first pro hibited in the country. 1 ask Mr. Lincoln whether he is in favor of that proposition. Are you (addressing Mr. Lincoln) opposed to the acquisition of any more territory, under any circumstances, unless slavery is prohibited in it ? That he does not like to answer. When I ask him whether -he stands up to that article in the platform of his party, he turns, Tankee-fashion, and THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 429 without 'answering 'it, asks me whether I am in favor of acquiring territory without regard to how it may affect the Union on the slavery question. I answer that whenever it becomes necessary, in our growth and progress, to acquire more territory, that I am in favor of it, without reference to the ques tion of slavery, and when we have acquired it, I will leave the people free to do as they please, either to make it slave or free territory, as they prefer. This was the origin and history of the famous questions put to Mr. Douglas at Freeport, and of his reply. The answers were not exactly what the allies desired. They would have preferred that he should repudiate popular sovereignty, be cause they had southern authority and his own entire record to produce against him. The fidelity of Mr. Douglas to his own and oft-repeated doctrines — to the doctrines he had proclaimed in every county in the state during 1856, was looked upon by the allies as unpardonable. The scheme to entrap him had failed. His reply to Lincoln had a startling effect upon that gentle man. Douglas had refused to bid for the Danite vote by re pudiating his own principles. Lincoln's half-hour rejoinder was a failure. He had expected a different answer, and had evidently intended in that half hour to expose Douglas' aban donment of popular sovereignty, and perhaps to quote upon him Mr. Ore's speech, Mr. Buchanan's letter, and a long list of other Democratic authorities. Immediately the Republican papers of the state took up the matter: they were 'shocked that Democrats could support a man who did not believe the Kansas-Nebraska Act was a purely pro-slavery measure ! They read Douglas out of the Democratic party ! The Washington Union took up the Republican cry, that Douglas had betrayed the Democratic party at Freeport', and the cry was continued from mouth to mouth, until, some time in the dog-days of 1859, it was heard for the last time in very feeble echoes, somewhere inthe remote neighborhood of Grass Valley, California. On the 23d of February, 1859, Mr. Douglas, in reply to a speech made by the Honorable A. G. Brown, of Mississippi, re peated the opinions expressed by him in his speeches in Illinois during 1856, 7, and 8, and in Congress from the time of the compromise measures of 1850. That speech has been widely circulated. Attached to the pamphlet edition is an appendix, making twenty-two pages of printed matter, in 430 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. which are grouped extracts from reports made by himself, and from speeches made by the Hon. W. A. Richardson, of Illinois, Hon. Louis Cass, Hon. Isaac Toucey, Hon. Howell Cobb, Hon. John C. Breckinridge, Hon. J. L. Orr, Hon. A. H Stephens, Hon. J. P. Benjamin, Hon. J. M. Mason, Hon. J. A. Bayard, Hon. G. E. Badger, Hon. John Pettit, Hon. A. P. Butler, Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, Hon. Robert Toombs, Hon. J. A. Smith, Hon. A. C. Dodge, Hon. T. F. Bowie, Hon. G. W. Jones, Hon. J. N. Elliott, Hon. J. S. Caskie, Hon. A. G. Brown, Hon. W. C. Daw son, Hon. T. L. Clingman, Hon. Z. Kid well, Hon. C. J. Faulk ner, Hon. J. H. Lumpkin, Hon. A. G. Talbott, Hon. Moses Norris, Hon. J. B. Weller, Hon. W. H. English, Hon. M. Macdonald, Hon. J. R. Thomson, Hon. R. Brodhead, Hon. W. Bigler, Hon. L. O'B. Branch, and Hon. Harry Hibbard ; also from the Cincinnati platform, and the letter of Mr. Buchanan accept ing the nomination — all showing the interpretation placed upon the Kansas-Nebraska Act by these gentlemen at the time of its passage and subsequently to its gping into effect. That speech and appendix present a compendium of authority upon the proper construction to be placed upon the language ofthe act. Mr. Douglas demonstrates in that speech that the " unsound doctrines" of his Freeport address were not new, but were of very ancient date, and thoroughly understood by the Senate and the country. The next joint debate took place at Jonesboro, in Egypt, on the 15th of September; the fourth at Charleston, in the seventh district, on the 18th. The fifth took place at Gales- burg, in Knox county — strongly abolition — on October 7th ; the sixth at Quincy, on the 13th, and the last at Alton, on the 15th. Between these periods both candidates were busily engaged. Lyman Trumbull was also at work. His speeches were neither argumentative nor poetical ; they were not devoted to the ad vocacy of Lincoln or of Republicanism ; they were fierce, ma licious, vituperative, and scandalous denunciations of Judge Douglas personally. Trumbull neither served Lincoln nor damaged Douglas. He descended to the level of Lieb, Grund, and Carpenter ; and at this day of intelligence the people of Illinois accept nothing on faith from men of that grade. In the meantime the Republican papers kept constantly be- THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 431 fore the people the famous declaration of the Washington Union : " Upon the issue of Douglas or Lincoln, Lincoln or Douglas, we confess to a serene indifference." Chase, of Ohio, Colfax, of Indiana, Blair, of Missouri, H. F. Douglas (negro), and other Republican orators, were in Illi nois urging their friends to " kill Douglas" now, or he would be President in 1860. The Danites were also busy. They had candidates for Con gress in all the districts. They talked of Judge Breese and Judge Skinner for the Senate. They had candidates for the Legislature in every district, except those which were over whelmingly Democratic, and in these districts they united with the Republicans. In the close districts they were par ticularly active, and, to their own eternal shame, succeeded in electing four Republicans to the Legislature, where by a united vote Democrats could have been chosen. It is but just, however, to say, that the major portion of these men have since regretted their conduct, and are now warm friends and supporters ofthe Democratic organization. The Washington Union throughout all this season continued its wholesale denunciation of Mr. Douglas. On the 3d of September it charged Douglas with degrading the office of senator by addressing the people of his own state in defense of his own official conduct, and in opposition to Republicanism. The Danites at an early day announced a " tremendous mass meeting," to come off at the state capital on September 7th ; and handbills, printed in a variety of colors, announced that tbe " Hon. John C. Breckinridge, Vice-President of the United States, would address the meeting," and denounce the Democ racy of Illinois. The mass meeting came off, but beyond a few hundred office-holders and expectants, no one attended, not even to hear Mr. Breckinridge upon that subject. The use of Mr. Breckinridge's name by these disorganizes was wholly unauthorized. In October following he timidly published a letter declaring his earnest hope that the Democracy of Illinois would sustain their regular nominees, including Mr. Doug las. This letter of Mr. Breckinridge, as well as an eloquent and stirring one from Governor Wise, were both written and pubhshed long after the Freeport speech, the doctrines of 432 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. which have been represented since then as a justification for an unmanly and vindictive assault upon Mr. Douglas. All honor and credit to the illustrious Virginian who, rising above the petty instigations of rivalry, had the courage and independence to declare that he did not desire the election of Lincoln, and did desire the election of Douglas, the chosen leader of the Illinois Democracy. The Hon. James B. Clay, of Kentucky, also sent to his Democratic brethren of Illinois words of ap proval and of encouragement. The Hon. A. H. Stephens, of Georgia, was in Chicago during the summer, and an attempt was made by the Danites to use his name in approval of their proceedings. This, however,_was unjust to that gentleman : he never, by word or deed, approved the election of the Re publican candidates. The labors of the campaign were excessive. The weather up to the tenth of October was oppressively warm. The most of Judge Douglas' appointments after that date were in north ern Illinois. Then the weather changed; a cold blustering wind, often accompanied with rain, continued untU the close. At Geneseo and Rock Island, where Mr. Douglas spoke on the Thursday and Friday preceding the election, it rained hard all day, yet he was listened to by thousands, many of whom had come hundreds of miles to hear him. On Saturday night, October 31, he reached Chicago pretty well fatigued, and voice almost exhausted from speaking so often in the open air, and exposed to the heavy rain. Sunday was a day of re pose, and one he much needed. On Monday night he was again called out to address a mass meeting in Chicago, but a rain storm prevented his saying much. Tuesday, at an early hour, the city was alive. Throughout the state an unusual excitement prevailed. In Chicago a rain continued at intervals all day. It is unnecessary to state here that the Republicans resorted to every possible means in the way of secret circulars to injure Mr.«Douglas by representing him as being a Know-Nothing, and a Republican. All such attempts failed. The fate of Lincoln was sealed by the discus sion at Ottawa, and nothing but a special interposition of Pro vidence could have elected a Legislature favorable to his elec tion to the Senate. THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 433 It only remains to add the result of the election : Upon the state ticket the vote was — "Fondey, Democrat 121,609 French " 122,413 Average democratic vote 124,011 Dougherty, Danite. 6,011 Total democratic vote 121,082 Miller, Republican 125,430 Bateman " 124,556 Average republican vote 124,993 Democratic majority in the state 2,089 The Danite organs in the state, after the election, apologized and accounted for the smallness of their vote, by saying that the great bulk of their party, failing to see any other mode of " killing Douglas," had voted the Republican ticket direct. The Legislature, including those holding over, stood thus : 7 Senate. tHouse. Totals. Democrats 14 40 54 Eepublicans 11 35 46 Danites. 00 00 00 Democratic majority on joint ballot 8. This was the result of one of the most extraordinary politi cal contests ever had in any state of the Union. It was a glorious personal as well as political triumph on the part of Mr. Douglas. It demonstrated the unpurchasable integrity of the Democracy of Illinois. It showed that they were without fear, and were above price. It showed also, and the fact was creditable to the intelligence of the American people, that no Federal authority can be successfully exercised to defeat the will and power of a free people. The effort to defeat Mr. Douglas did not end with the de cision of the people in November. It was at once noised about that among the Democratic senators holding over, were some who were under no obligation to vote for Mr. Douglas, and who were disposed to stand by the administration. The Legislature did not meet until January. The rumours con cerning the fidelity of certain state senators were taken up and vouched for by RepubUcan newspapers, and possibly found believers elsewhere. One federal officer in IUinois boasted that he held blank commissions to important federal offices, in which he was authorized to insert the names of such Demo- T 484 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. cratic senators as would refuse to vote for Douglas. This boast was too degrading to the administration to find any Democrat in Illinois who would believe it. The effect, how ever, was soon felt. The senators holding over were sterling Democrats ; they did not relish the free use of their names by the Danite chieftains, and they took occassion to express their sentiments very freely and decidedly upon the matter. It was stated that, during the interval between the election and the meeting of the Legislature, a politician of a neighboring state, who had been prominent as an outside friend and sup porter of the Danites, found occasion to cross that part of Illinois represented in the state Senate by Captain Coffee, one of the best and honestest Democrats in the west. The dis tinguished stranger stopped at a town in the vicinity of Coffee's residence and inquired particularly after his health. Coffee happened to be away from home at the time, and when he returned the landlord told him of the visit made by the " em inent statesman" from another state, and of his particular inquiries after Captain Coffee's health. The answer was as em phatic as its purport was unmistakable : he said, "When calls here on his way back, you teU him "for me, that I am a Democrat, and if he dare to ask me to vote against Douglas he may be sure that either he or I will be the worst whipped man that ever saw the state of Illinois." Captain Coffee's fidelity was never doubted by any Democrat, indeed his deter mination to vote for Douglas was soon publicly announced, and the distinguished gentleman has never returned that way since to hear any additional particulars touching Captain Cof fee's health, which it is hoped may never be anything else than in a high state of preservation. According to custom the Democratio members of the Legis lature met in caucus the night before the organization. Douglas was nominated by acclamation, and three days there after was, in joint meeting, re-elected United States senator. DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. 435 CHAPTER XVIII. DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. Me. Douglas was first married onthe 7th of AprU, 1847, in Rockingham county, North Carolina, to Miss Maktha Denny Martin, only daughter of Col. Robert Martin, of that county. With his bride he returned to the State of Illinois, whose senator he had become but a month previously. Everywhere during his tour he was greeted with affection by his constitu ents, with all the attention that friendship could suggest, and all the respect which the gentleness and amiability of his ac complished bride could not fail to inspire. Her gentleness, and her strong native good judgment were of great service to him in many a season of perplexing and troublesome excite ment. She made home an abiding place of peace and tran quility, where all the associations were of a refined and Chris tian character. In extending hospitality to the multitudes who thronged her husband's mansion, she was judicious and yet munificent. She won the respect of all his friends, and divided with him their unbounded admiration. After a happy life of nearly six years with a husband whose interest was the object of her wordly life, she died at his residence in Washington City, on the 19th of January, 1853, leaving three chUdren, two boys, and one girl, the latter an infant, who sur vived its mother but a few months. The two boys are now bright, active, intelligent youths, and reside with their father. In November, 1856, Mr. Douglas was married at Washing ton City to Miss Adele Cutts, the beautiful and accom plished daughter of Hon. James Madison Cutts, long a resi dent of that city. DOUGLAS' PLANTATION AND SLAVES. In speaking of the domestic affairs of Judge Douglas, it may not be out of place to introduce and dispose of a matter which on frequent occasions has served his political and per sonal enemies with a pretext for the most unscrupulous abuse. That matter is his " ownership of slaves." In 1847, on the day after his marriage, Colonel Martin 436 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. placed in Mr. Douglas' hands a sealed package of papers. Upon an examination of these papers Mr. Douglas found among them a deed of certain plantations, including the ser vants upon them, in the State of Mississippi, which deed vested the title to both land and servants in him absolutely. He at once, without one moment's hesitation, sought Colonel Martin and returned him the deed, stating that whUe he was no abolitionist, and had no sympathy with them in their wild schemes and ultra views respecting slavery, yet he was a northern man by birth, education and residence, and was to tally ignorant of that description of property, and as ignorant of the manner and rules by which it should be governed, and was therefore wholly incompetent to take charge of it and per form his duty towards it properly, particularly at a distance ol fifteen hundred miles from where he resided, and where he should continue to reside at all times with the people to whom he owed so much. He said that he preferred Colonel Martin should retain the property, at least during his lifetime, and if in the meantime no disposition was made of it, he could then by will leave directions as to the manner in which he desired it disposed of. Colonel Martin died on the 25th of May, 1848, leaving a will in which he provided for the disposal of his entire estate. In this will he recited the fact that he had a year previously offered the plantations in Mississippi, with the slaves upon them, to his son-in-law, Stephen A. Douglas, who had declined to re ceive them. He then declared substantially, that in the event of the death of his daughter, Martha D. Douglas, leaving sur viving children, it was his wish and desire that the slaves upon those Mississippi plantations should remain and continue the property of those children ; and he willed this in the firm belief that-the negroe's would be better off and better cared for as slaves in the family in which they had been born and raised than if set at liberty and sent to the free states ; but he provided, that in the event of his said daughter dying, leav ing no surviving children, the negroes should be sent to the coast of Africa and should be supported there one year, at the expense of his estate, and then be declared free. This is the entire history ofthe manner in which Mr. Doug las became " the owner of plantations stocked with slaves ;" and of the manner and the reasons by which the ownership of DOMESTIC AFFAIES. 437 the slaves was continued by their grandfather to the children, after Mr. Douglas, for the reasons given, had declined the ab solute gift of the entire property. It has been thought proper and just toward Mr. Dougla3 that this matter should be stated clearly and distinctly. At the time that Col. Martin made him the valuable present, Mr. Douglas was not blessed with an over abundance of treasure. As a pecuniary gift this was of great value, and in his circum stances would, if converted into money, have enabled him, by judicious investments in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, to have laid the foundation for a princely fortune. The gift was clogged with no conditions. He was at liberty to convert plantations and slaves into cash at any moment. How many of those who have denounced him as a slaveholder, as being the " owner of human beings," and the " proprietor of humln chattels," would have resisted the offer that he declined, is a question which the observer of the general hollowness of abo lition pretensions will have no difficulty in answering. A senator from Ohio, with a want of taste, a want of a be coming sense of the proprieties of life, shortly after the death of Mrs. Douglas, was shameless enough to introduce the mat ter into a debate in the Senate. The remarks made by Mr. Wade on that occasion elicited the following feeling, touch ing, manly reply from Mr. Douglas : " Mr. President, the senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade] has invaded the circle of my private relations in search of materials for the impeachment of my official action. He has alluded to certain southern interests which he insinuates that I possess, and remarked, that where the treasure is there the heart is also. So long as the statement that I was one of the largest slaveholders in America was confined to the abolition news papers and stump orators I treated it with silent contempt. I would gladly do so on this occasion, were it not for the fact that the reference is made in my presence by a senator for the purpose of imputing to me a mercenary motive for my official conduct. Under these circumstances, silence on my part in regard to the fact might be construed into a confession of guilt in reference to the impeachment of motive. I therefore say to the senator that his insinuation is false, and he knows it to be false, if he has ever searched the records or has any reliable information upon the subject. I am not the owner of a slave, 438 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. and never have been, nor have I ever received and appropri ated to my own use one doUar earned by slave labor. It is true that I once had tendered to me, under circumstances grateful to my feelings, a plantation with a large number of slaves upon it, which I declined to accept, not because I had any sympathy with abolitionists or the abolition movement, but for the reason that, being a northern man by birth, by education and residence, and intending always to remain such, it was impossible for me to know, understand, and provide for the wants, comforts and happiness of those people. I refused to accept them because I was unwilling to assume responsibili ties which I was incapable of fulfilling. This fact is referred to in the will of my father-in-law as a reason for leaving the plan tation and slaves to his only daughter, (who became the mother or my infant children), as her separate and exclusive estate, with the request that if she departed this life without surviving children the slaves should be emancipated and sent to Liberia at the expense of her estate ; but in the event she should leave surviving children, the slaves should descend to them, under the belief, expressed in the will, that they would be happier and better off with the descendants of the family, with whom they had been born and raised, than in a distant land where they might find no friend to care for them. This brief state ment, relating to private and domestic affairs, (which ought to be permitted to remain private and sacred), has been extorted and wrung from me with extreme reluctance, even in vindica tion ofthe purity of my motives in the performance of a high public trust. As the truth compeUed me to negative the in sinuation so offensively made by the senator from Ohio, God forbid that I should be understood by any one as being willing to cast from me any responsibility that now does, or ever has attached to any member of my family. So long as life shall last — and I shall cherish with religious veneration the memory and virtues of the sainted mother of my children — so long as my heart shall be filled with parental solicitude for the happi ness of those motherless infants, I implore my enemies, who so ruthlessly invade the domestic sanctuary, to do me the favor to believe that I have no wish, no aspiration, to be considered purer or better than she who was, or they who are, slave holders. ." Sir, whenever my assailants shall refuse to accept a like DOMESTIC AFFAIES. 439 amount of this species of property tendered to them, under similar circumstances, and shall perform a domestic trust with equal fidelity and disinterestedness, it will be time enough for them to impute mercenary motives to me in the performance of my official duties." The " ownership of slaves" has for several years been one of the favorite themes upon which the lower and more disre putable class of the opposition have loved to dilate in denounc ing Douglas to sympathetic audiences. Men of respectabUity, even among the abolitionists, have ceased to discourse of it. But in 1858, in the memorable contest to which a proper share of this book is_devoted, the matter was revived and assumed a new and more intensified color by men who, in uniting with the abolitionists to accomplish a common end, felt compelled to resort to fabrications which no honorable Republican would stoop to invent. It will be remembered that Illinois during that year was visited by several distinguished men, some of whom had such a profound regard for the rights ofthe South that they sought the election of Lincoln, with his negro equality doctrines, by the defeat of Douglas. In the list of statesmen who found, during 1858, a hitherto unknown salubriousness in the air of the northwest, was the Hon. John Slidell of Louisiana, who being, as was well known, or at least, as it was supposed, a friend, confident, and adviser of the President in the days of the Danite rebellion, attracted by his venerable appearance, as well as by the classic purity of his language upon the subject of Douglas' reelection, the especial regard ofthe entire Danite faction, and of the more numerous and respectable party, the Republicans. It was understood — and when we say under stood we mean that it was openly declared by the President's foUowers that Mr. Slidell was the main instrument by which certain changes in the federal offices in Illinois had been made. Dr. Daniel Beainaed, surgeon to the marine hospital, owed his appointment to the united and friendly exertions of Francis J. Grund, and Senator John Slidell. Par nobile fratrum ! Immediately after Mr. Slidell's final leave of Chicago it was stated upon the streets and in public places that Senator Douglas (then absent in other parts ofthe state) was not only a slaveholder, but one that had no parallel in wickednesss, even in Uncle Tom's Cabin. We will not repeat the stories which 440 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. were upon the lips of every one, because they eventually took shape, and appeared in a public and formal allegation. A few weeks befo're the election the leading Republican paper in Chi cago charged that Mr. Douglas spent in riotous living an im mense annual revenue, derived from his plantations in Missis sippi ; and not content with thus profiting by his property in human' beings — his equals in all human attributes — he ne glected them, placed them under cruel and tyrannical masters, who denied to the poor slaves food enough to keep them from suffering, and clothing enough to hide their nakedness. Upon this statement of facts, for which the authority of a distin guished southern senator was claimed, the paper produced a sensation article, which was extensively copied throughout all Illinois and the northwest. Mr. Douglas was absent from Chicago, and did not see the charge until after the election. Both Republican and administration orators made the most of the horrid condition of " Douglas' slaves ;" and the gentle man to whom Mr. Douglas had intrusted the care and man agement of his children's estate was held up to the people as a monster of wickedness, and as a demon in cruelty. The writer of these pages heard the same story repeated at a Republican convention in Chicago in September or October, 1858, by one of the persons nominated as a candidate for the Legislature. The candidate stated that there could be no doubt of the facts, for they were derived from a very distin guished southern man who had lately been in Chicago. In the meantime the story had reached New Orleans, there attracting much attention. The authors of the story seemed to have overlooked the possibility that there would be ulti mately an exposure of its want of truth. The New Orleans Picayune first noticed it, and pronounced it " an election canard." The Chicago Press and Tribune at once responded as follows : " We have only to say that the story came to us from a per sonal friend of Mr. Slidell — a gentleman of character and influ ence in this city — and he assured us that he had the statement from Slidell himself, during his visit to Chicago, while the lata canvass was going on. His name is at the service of any one authorized to demand it." The Democratic paper at Chicago at once demanded the name of the " gentleman of character" who had made the DOMESTIC AFFAIES. 441 statement. Upon the streets the name was publicly men tioned, but it had not been given up by the Press and Tribune. At last it was charged that Dr. Daniel Brainard, a federal office-holder, was the man. On the 18th of December Mr. Slidell published in the Washington Union a denial of having ever told Dr. Brainard or any one else such a story. He said : I am constrained to believe either that Dr. Brainard did not make the statement attributed to him by the Chicago Press and Tribune, or that he has been guilty of a deliberate and malicious falsehood. I have no recollection' of ever having spoken of Mr. Douglas' slaves ; it is possible that I may have been asked if he had any property of that description. If so, I could only have answered that they were employed in cotton-planting on the Mississippi river, and were in possession of an old and valued friend, James A. MoHat- ton, than whom a more honorable man or better master cannot be found in Louisiana." On the 23d of December Dr. Brainard addressed a note to the editors of the Press and Tribune, denying having ever made the statements imputed to him. In the issue of that paper of December 24 the editors lifted the veil and exposed the whole fabrication. That paper said : "We have on two occasions promised that, when called upon by one au thorized to ask the name of the gentleman who related to us, on the author ity of Mr. John Slidell, the story of the ill-treatment of Mr. Douglas' slaves, we would give it to the public. Mr. Slidell in his card above makes no de mand of the kind ; but as he denounces as a falsehood the story itself, we are impelled to make the following statement: " In July last, about the time of Mr. Slidell's visit to Chicago, one of the editors of this paper was informed by Dr. Daniel Brainard, Professor of Sur gery in the Bush Medical College, in a conversation invited by the doctor himself, in his own office, that Mr. Douglas' slaves in the South were ' the subjects of inhuman and disgraceful treatment — that they were hired out to a factor at fifteen dollars per annum each — that he, in turn, hired them out to others in lots, and that they were ill-fed, over-worked, and in every way so badly treated that they were spoken of in the neighborhood where they are held as a disgrace to all slaveholders and the system they support.' The authority given for these alleged facts, by Dr. Brainard, was the Hon. John Slidell, of Louisiana. ****** " At that time, Dr. Brainard suggested that the case as stated was a proper one for newspaper comment ; and he urged that Mr. Douglas should be de nounced in the Press and Tribune for his inhumanity. Just before election, on the authority above stated, we did comment upon Mr. Douglas' share in this matter with considerable severity. Out of the article in which he was rebuked this controversy has grown. " We had no doubt at the time this conversation took place, and have no doubt now, that Dr. Brainard was honest and truthful in his relation. We T2 442 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. believe him to be a gentleman, at least the equal of John Slidell in ability and veracity. If we are mistaken in our recollection, that he had the par ticulars recited from Mr. Slidell himself] he will no doubt inform us and Mr. Shdell from whom he had them, and we shall then be one step nearer the author of a tale, which, according to Mr. Slidell's latest testimony, is false." On December 28th Brainard published another letter, in which he admitted that he had had conversations with the editors of the Republican paper about the hardships, etc., of "Douglas' slaves," but denied having given Mr. Slidell as an authority. There the matter ended. The story faUed to ac complish its original purpose, viz., to defeat Douglas' election. It resulted in obtaining Mr. SlideU's testimony that the slaves were in the possession of a gentleman " than whom a more honorable man or better master cannot be found in Louisiana." It also resulted in a question of veracity between two leaders of Douglas' active opponents — the Republican editor, and Dr. Brainard, a federal office-holder. Upon the subject there never has been and is now but one opinion in Chicago. Hundreds had heard the story as published by the Republican paper, and nntU Mr. Slidell's letter of denial no one had ever doubted that he had authorized it. This having been the most violent, wUl possibly be the last paroxysm of abolition regard for the moral and physical condition of " Douglas' plantation of human chattels." The total failure of the attempt to injure Mr. Douglas before his constituents by this malicious fabrication was but a sorry return for the self-abasement committed by those who participated in repeating the slander. Dr. Brainard still holds federal office in Chicago. He has never given up the name of his authority, and the point whether he did not furnish Mr. Slidell's name in the first instance is involved in a question of veracity between him and the Republican editor. The public have never doubted on which side was the truth. Mr. Douglas is the owner of a very large landed estate in Illinois. His grounds at " Cottage Grove," near the southern limits of Chicago, are extensive and very valuable. In 1 856 he deeded ten acres of this valuable land — worth possibly six thousand dollars an acre — to the Trustees of the Chicago Uni versity, an institution organized under the auspices and patron age of the Baptist denomination. Upon this land thus donated has already been erected a portion of the University buildings, and already a large class of students, under the direction of an VARIOUS MATTERS. 443 accomplished faculty, are receiving instruction. The corner stone of the University was laid with appropriate honors on the 4th of July, 1856, and the ceremonies were attended by an immense concourse of people. In 1856 Mr. Douglas disposed of one hundred acres of land on the western limits of Chicago, for the round sum of $100,000. His contributions that year in aid of the election of Mr. Buchanan, particularly to aid the Democracy in carry ing Pennsylvania, were liberal in the extreme. In Illinois he was present in person ; he was aided by Richardson, Harris, McClernand, Morris, Marshall, Shaw, Smith, Logan and a host of Democrats ; and though Illinois, unlike Pennsylvania, had no candidate on the national ticket, still when called upon by Douglas and his friends, gave to the son of Pennsylvania a free, unbought, and generous support — a support that no expendi ture of money could have obtained — a support given volunta rily by intelligent freemen to the candidates of their party, pledged to sustain the cherished principles of the Democratic platform. CHAPTER XIX. VARIOUS MATTERS. In the spring of 1853 Mr. Douglas visited Europe, and spent several months in personal observation of the practical work ings of the various systems of government. He stayed a con siderable time in England, and though he had the pleasure and honor of being presented to several ofthe monarchs of Europe, it was done at no sacrifice of personal independence or yield ing of American principle. THE AMERICAN COSTUME. He was presented to the Emperor of Russia, and was not presented to the Queen of England. The circumstances at tending his success in the one case, and his failure in the other, furnish a practical lesson of the respect due to national eti quette. When he was in London there were several eminent gentle men of the United States there at the same time ; these as well as Mr. Douglas were about to be presented to her majesty 444 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. at the next reception. When the time came, there came also the inexorable requirement that the Americans must put off that costume and dress which is universal at home, and put on another which is entirely discarded in their own country. Mr. Douglas protested, as did also his countrymen, but the require ments of royal etiquette could not be evaded. The alternative was to submit to a change of costume, or be denied a presenta tion to the queen. Mr. Douglas accepted the latter, and his companions put on the dress required by the court; they were presented and he was not. Subsequently he visited St. Petersburg, and for two weeks examined personally aU the public institutions of the capital, and sought a thorough knowledge of the manners, laws and government of that city and of the empire. He had not made known his official position. After this time he left his card at the residence of Count Nesselrode, and promptly received a cordial and pressing invitation to that minister's palace. The interview was a pleasant and agreeable one ; the political affairs of the United States and of Europe were discussed un reservedly and with mutual gratification. At this, or a subse quent interview, Mr. Douglas announced his intended depart ure from the city, when Count Nesselrode inquired if he did not desire a presentation to the emperor. Mr. Douglas ex pressed the great pleasure such an honor would be to him, but suggested the difficulty of the*" court dress." Count Nessel rode, after some consultation upon this point, frankly told Mr. Douglas that he was right ; that a citizen of the United States entitled to be presented to a monarch in Europe, if received at all should be received in that dress in which he would be ad mitted to the presence of the President of the United States, and added that if Mr. Douglas desired to be presented to the emperor he could possibly arrange the interview within a few days. Mr. Douglas thanked his distinguished friend for his kind ness to him personally, and also for his manly and honorable tribute to the dignity of American citizenship. The result was that in a few hours Mr. Douglas was visited by an officer of the imperial household, with a notice that he would be received by the emperor. Mr. Douglas had the good fortune to be placed in the hands of Baron Stoeckle, who is well known in the United States from his official position in VARIOUS MATTERS. 445 the Russian embassy at Washington. The emperor was at that time celebrating, at some distance from St. Petersburg, a grand Russian national festival, and was reviewing the impe rial army. Accompanied by Baron Stoeckle, Mr. Douglas proceeded in an imperial carriage and under an imperial escort to the neighborhood of the camp, where he left the carriage and proceeded on horseback towards the position on the field occupied by the emperor. At a proper distance he was met by officers of the imperial staff and conducted to the emperor. He was the only American present at that magnificent dis play of the power and wealth of the empire ; representatives from all quarters of the world were present to witness one of the grandest festivals of Russia, graced by the presence of the imperial household and of all the most distinguished individuals of the empire, and yet into this scene of royal magnificence Mr. Douglas was admitted and welcomed with a frank cor diality by the emperor, in the same black suit of cloth in which, just before his departure, he had visited Franklin Pierce. The rule asserted by Mr. Douglas and confirmed and ap proved by Count Nesselrode — the veteran diplomatist and most eminent statesman of Europe — is the true one. Ameri cans are the only people who are required to put on a mas querade dress to obtairradmission to the presence of the Queen of England. The rule that persons of all nationalities may be admitted in that costume in which they would be received by their own sovereign is observed toward all persons except citizens of the United States. They are excepted. An officer in the service of a petty prince of a German kingdom, if pre sented, can obtain audience in the same suit that he would ap pear in before his prince, but an American will be excluded unless he puts off the dress in which he was admitted to the table of the President of the United States, and puts on the tinseled toggery prescribed by authority. Against this unjust discrimination between his countrymen and citizens of other nations Mr. Douglas protested, and preferred a total exclusion from the presence of royalty to a submission to any such degrading rule. Mr. Douglas visited Sebastopol and all the scenes shortly after made historical by the war then gathering in Europe. He visited all the principalpoints on the continent, storing his mind with practical information concerning the commerce, laws, 446 LLFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. and governments of the countries in which he sojourned, in formation which has since proved of great advantage to him. His.descriptions of what he saw in Europe, his conversations and interviews with the great and illustrious men whom he met during his trip, are of the most entertaining and instruc tive character. No one who has ever enjoyed an evening with him, when he discoursed of these things, has ever failed in ex pressing the delight and gratification afforded by Mr. Douglas' graphic delineations of men, and his charming pictures of scenes and events in Europe. MR. DOUGLAS AND THE PRESIDENCY. In 1848 the Democratic State Convention in Illinois unan imously recommended Mr. Douglas as a candidate for the presidency. He was then but thirty-five years of age, and had already attracted the attention of the nation by his abilities and great success as an orator. His services in Congress, dur ing the four years he was a member of the House, and his one year's service in the Senate, had recommended him most strongly to a very large portion of the people of the country, as a man possessing more of the natural characteristics of Jacksonian power and Democracy than any other statesman. Mr. Douglas, however, was a friend and supporter of Gen eral Cass. The doctrines declared in the celebrated Nichol son letter were doctrines of pure popular sovereignty. As in 1856, so in 1848, he preferred infinitely a platform embodying correct principles to any personal honors or distinctions. He and his friends were warm supporters of General Cass for the nomination. The result of that convention is well known. The names of Buchanan, Woodbury, Calhoun, Dallas, Worth, and others were presented. The two-thirds rule was in force. On the first ballot Mr. Cass received 125 votes, Mr. Buchanan, 93, Mr. Woodbury, 58, and the other votes, making up the aggregate of 253, were scattered. Gen. Cass lacked 45 votes of having two-thirds, and two votes of a majority. On the second bal lot he received 133, being a majority, but still less than two- thirds. The friends of other candidates then seeing that the distinguished statesman of Michigan was the choice of a ma jority, after the third ballot, yielded to what was the expressed TAEIOUS MATTERS. 447 wishes of a majority, and gave him on the 4th ballot the required two-thirds vote, and then nominated him by accla mation. In 1852 the Democracy of Illinois again recommended Mr. Douglas to the Democracy of the nation for the Presidency ; other states did the same. The Convention met at Baltimore, and having adopted the two-thirds rule proceeded to a ballot. The foUowing ballotings will exhibit the state of the vote dur ing the protracted contest. 1st. nth. 81st. 43th. 81 28 50 92 38 , 26 90 1 16 1 , 8.. . 10 6 0 0 55 On the next ballot Gen. Pierce received 283 votes, and was then unanimously nominated. It will be seen that until the 49th ballot no candidate had received a majority of the Con vention ; had Mr. Buchanan, or Mr. Marcy, or Mr. Cass ob tained a majority, the friends of the other candidates would undoubtedly have yielded their individual preferences, and given him the required two-thirds vote. In 1856 the ever memorable Cincinnati Convention met in June. The two-thirds rule was again adopted. Mr. Douglas had been recommended by the conventions of several states, but as this was the first National Convention of the Democra cy since the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, he was more solicitous for the adoption of a platform that would approve the principles of that measure than he was for the nomination. His name, however, was submitted to the Convention by his friends. There were but four names before the Convention — Messrs. Buchanan, Pierce, Douglas, and Cass. The whole number of votes was 296, ofwhieh 149 would be a majority, and 198 two-thirds. There were seventeen ballotings. On the first ballot Mr. Buchanan had 135, Mr. Pierce 122, Mr. Douglas 33, Mr. Cass 6. On the thirteenth ballot, Mr. Bu chanan received 150 votes, being a majority, and the first time that a majority vote had been obtained by any one. Mr. Douglas was at Washington, and the result of the several bal lotings was announced in that city as soon as made. The 448 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Convention adjourned that day without making a nomination, and when it assembled next day, the 16th baUot was taken with the following result : Buchanan 168, Douglas 122, Cass 6. Mr. Buchanan lacked thirty of the required two-thirds vote. The Convention was at a " dead lock." The eventful scene that took place can hardly be described in words. A majority of the delegates had expressed their choice ; had recorded their wish for the nomination of Mr. Buchanan. It was true the two-thirds rule had been adopted, but that rule was never designed or intended to defeat the wishes of a majority when once clearly and unmistakably as certained and declared. The vote ofthe states was announced and recorded. The choice of the majority was declared, and there were no questions asked whether that majority was made up of delegates from Democratic states, or from states hopelessly in the power of the opposition. It was regarded as the vote ofthe Democracy ofthe nation, a vote given by men in non-Democratic states as well as in Democratic states, with but one purpose and aim, and that was to nominate the man who in the estimation of the whole Democracy was the strong est candidate for the time. Mr. Buchanan's 168 votes on the sixteenth ballot were given for him as follows: from states that subsequently voted for him for President, 86 ; from states that voted for Fremont, 82. Mr. Douglas' 122 votes were given' him — from states that voted for Buchanan, 84 ; from states that voted for Fremont, 38. General Cass received the vote of California. A majority ofthe delegates representing the Democratic states voted against Mr. Buchanan on the sixteenth ballot ; yet, he having a clear majority of the delegates from all the states, after the result of that ballot was announced, certain proceedings took place which are thus recorded in the official report ofthe action ofthe Convention: "Mr. Preston, of Kentucky, said: Mr. President: As one of the friends of Mr. Douglas, I have become sufficiently satisfied, by the evidences presented here, that it is the wish of this Convention that James Buchanan should be the nominee for President of the United States. I believe that Judge Doug las himself, and the friends of Judge Douglas — and when I say this I speak with some degree of knowledge on the subject — I believe that the friends of Mr. Douglas will be among the first to come forward, and in a spirit of lib erality put an end to the useless contest. I will now give way to the gen tleman from Illinois, the friend of Mr. Douglas. "During Mr. Preston's remarks there were loud expressions of dissatisfac tion and cries of ' No, no I' ' Don't withdraw I' ' Don't withdraw.' VARIOUS MATTERS. 449 " Here W. A. Richardson, of Illinois, arose, and waving his hand, there was immediate and general silence. In a solemn and impressive manner that gentleman proceeded to address the Convention as follows : " Mr. Richardson. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention : Be fore undertaking to advise any gentleman on this floor what he ought to do, I consider that I have a duty which I owe to my constituents, and which, since it is now imposed on me, I feel it is due to the Democratic party and friends of Stephen A. Douglas that I should discharge. Whatever may be the opinion of the gentlemen as to the contest, I am satisfied that I can not advance his interests or the interests of the common cause, or the principles of the Democratic party, by continuing him in this contest. I will, there fore, state that I have a dispatch from Judge Douglas, which I desire may be permitted to be read, and I shall then withdraw his name from before the Convention. .1 desire gentlemen, after that, to decide on what course they may deem it proper to pursue. (Tremendous applause — profound sensation.) " The dispatch was sent to the chair to be read, and is as follows : " ' LETTER OF S. A. DOUGLAS TO W. A. RICHARDSON, OF ILLINOIS. " 'Washington, June i, 1856. " ' Deae Sie : Prom the telegraphic reports in the newspapers, I fear that an embittered state of feehng is being engendered in the Convention, which may endanger the harmony and success of our party. I wish you and all my friends to bear in mind that I have a thousand fold more anxiety for the triumph of our principles than for my own personal elevation. " ' If the withdrawal of my name will contribute to the harmony of our party or the success of our cause, I hope you will not hesitate to take the step. Especially it is my desire that the action of the Convention will embody and express the wishes, feelings and principles of the Democracy of the Repub lic ; and hence, if Mr. Pierce or Mr. Buchanan, or any other statesman who is faithfal to the great issue involved in the contest, shall receive a majority ofthe Convention, I earnestly hope that all my friends will unite in insuring him two-thirds, and then in making his nomination unanimous. Let no per sonal considerations disturb the harmony or endanger the triumph of our principles. S. A. DOUGLAS. " ' To Hon. W. A. Richardson-, Burnett House, Cincinnati, Ohio.' " The reading of this dispatch was interrupted by frequent and tremend ous applause. It was some time before order could be restored. When the Convention had subsided into something hke order, the president announced that they would proceed with the seventeenth ballot." On the next, or seventeenth ballot, Mr. Buchanan was nom inated unanimously. The friends of Mr. Douglas at once con ceding the justice of the suggestions in his letter, that Mr. Buchanan having received the votes of a majority ofthe Con vention ought to be given the required two-thirds. On the 4th of January, 1860, the Democratic State Con vention of Illinois, in consequence of the call of the National Convention at an earlier day than usual, met some months in advance ofthe ordinary period, to appoint delegates to Charles ton. The Convention was large, harmonious, and included 450 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. within its members the veterans who had done service in the party for twenty or thirty years. The following resolutions, reported by a committee of which the Hon. O. B. Ficklin was chairman, were adopted unanimously. Whereas, The Democratic party assembled in national convention in June, 1856, by the unanimous vote of all the delegates from every state in the Union, adopted a platform of principles, as the only authoritative expo sition of Democratic doctrines, which remains unaltered and unalterable until the meeting of the Charleston convention. And whereas, We have good reasons for the belief; that if we depart from the doctrines of that platform by attempting to force upon the party new issues and tests, the Democracy of the several states may never be able to agree upon another platform of principles with the same unanimity. And whereas, The Democratic party is tbe only political organization which can maintain in their purity the principles of self-government, the reserved rights of the states, and the perpetuity of the Union under the Constitution. And whereas, The unity, integrity, and supremacy of the Democratic party depend upon its faithful adherence to those fundamental principles upon which we have achieved so many glorious triumphs, and to which we are solemnly and irrevocably pledged. Therefore, - Resolved, That the Democracy of Illinois, in state convention assembled, do reassert and affirm the Cincinnati platform, in the words, spirit, and meaning with which the same was adopted, understood, and ratified by the people in 1856, and do reject and utterly repudiate all such new issues and tests as the revival of the African slave trade, or a congressional slave code for the territories, or the doctrine that slavery is a federal institution deriving its validity in the several states and territories in whieh it exists from the Constitution of the United States, instead of being a mere municipal insti tution, existing in such states and territories " under the laws thereof." Resolved, That there can be no exception to the rule that every right guar anteed by the Constitution must be protected by law, in all cases where leg islation is necessary for its protection and enjoyment, and, in obedience to this principle, it was the imperative duty of Congress to enact an efficient law for the surrender of fugitive slaves. Resolved, That no considerations of political expediency or partizan policy can release any member of Congress or American citizen from his sworn ob ligations of fidelity to the Constitution, or excuse him for not advocating and supporting all legislation which may be necessary for the protection and en joyment of every right guaranteed by that instrument. Resolved, That the Democratic party of the Union is pledged in faith and honor, by the Cincinnati platform and its indorsement of the Kansas-Ne braska act, to the following propositions : 1st. That all questions pertaining to African slavery in the territories shall be for ever banished from the halls of Congress. 2d. That the people of the territories respectively shall be left perfectly free to make just such laws and regulations in respect to slavery and all other matters of local concern as they may determine for themselves, sub ject to no other limitations or restrictions than those imposed by the Consti tution) of the United States. 3d. That all questions affecting the validity or constitutionality of any ter ritorial enactments, shall be referred for final decision to the Supreme Court ofthe United States as the only tribunal provided by the Constitution whieh is competent to determine them. VARIOUS MATTERS. 451 Resolved, That in the opinion of the Democracy of Illinois, Mr. Buchanan truly interpreted the Cincinnati platform in his letter accepting the presiden tial nomination, when he said, " the people of a territory, like those of a state, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." Resolved, That we recognize the paramount judicial authority of the Su preme Court of the United States, as provided in the Constitution, and hold it to be the imperative duty of all good citizens to respect and obey the de cision of that tribunal, and to aid, by all lawful means, in carrying them into faithful execution. Resolved, That the Democracy of Illinois repel, with just indignation, the injurious and unfounded imputation upon the integrity and impartiality of the Supreme Court, which is contained in the assumption on the part of the so-called Republicans that, in the Dred Scott case, that august tribunal de cided against the right of the people of the territory to decide the slavery- question for themselves, without giving them an opportunity of being heard ' by counsel in defense of their rights of self-government, and when there was no territorial law, enactment or fact before the court upon which that question could possibly arise. Resolved, That whenever Congress or the Legislature of any state or terri tory shall make any enactment, or do any act whieh attempts to divest, impair, or prejudice any right which the owner of slaves, or any other species of property, may have or claim in any territory or elsewhere, by virtue of the Constitution or otherwise, and the party aggrieved shall bring his case be fore the Supreme Court of the United States, the Democracy of Illinois, as in duty bound by their obligations of fidelity to the Constitution, will cheer fully and faithfully respect and abide by the decision, and use all lawful means to aid in giving it full effect according to its true intent and meaning. Resolved, That the Democracy of Illinois view with inexpressible horror and indignation the murderous and treasonable conspiracy of John Brown and his confederates to incite a civil insurrection in the slaveholding states ; and heartily- rejoice that the attempt was promptly suppressed, and the majesty of the law vindicated, by inflicting upon the conspirators, after a fair and impartial trial, that just punishment which the enormity of their crimes so richly merited. Resolved, That the Harper's Ferry outrage was the natural consequence and logical result of the doctrines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained and enforced in their platforms, partizan presses, books and pamph lets, and in the speeches of their leaders, in and out of Congress ; and for this reason an honest and law-abiding people should not be satisfied with the disavowal or disapproval by the Republican leaders of John Brown's acts, unless they also repudiate the doctrines and teachings which produced those monstrous crimes, and denounce all persons who profess to sympathize with murderers and traitors, lamenting their fate and venerating their mem ory as martyrs who lost their lives in a just and holy cause. Resolved, That the delegates representing Illinois in -the Charleston con vention be instructed to vote for and use all honorable means to secure the readoption of the Cincinnati platform, without any additions or subtrac tions. . Resolved, That no honorable man can accept a seat as a delegate in the national Democratic convention, or should be recognized as a member of the Democratic party, who will not abide the decisions of such convention and support its nominees. Resolved, That we affirm and repeat the principles set forth in the resolu tions of the last state convention of the Illinois Democracy, held in this city 452 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. on the 21st day of April, 1858, and will not hesitate to apply those princi ples wherever a proper case may arise. Resolved, That the Democracy of the State of Illinois is unanimously in favor of Stephen A. Douglas for the next presidency, and the delegates frem this state are instructed to vote for him, and make every honorable effort to procure his nomination. The Democratic State Conventions of Ohio, Indiana, Wiscon sin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa, have since adopted reso lutions substantially ofthe same character, and in other states, where delegates are appointed by districts, resolutions express ing the same doctrine and instructions in favor of Douglas' nomination at Charleston have also been adopted. Ih Penn sylvania, Tennessee, New Jersey and New York, and in other states where no expression has been made in favor of any par ticular person for the presidency, the state conventions have asserted principles and proclaimed doctrines so much in ac cordance with those of Mr. Douglas, that he and his friends would be somewhat embarrassed if forced to chose between them, in selecting, the particular one they would prefer. The resolutions so enthusiastically adopted by the Tennessee Demo cracy in their state Convention are resolutions that can be adopted and as heartily and emphatically approved and sus tained by the Democracy of the northwest, as they can be by those gallant Democrats who learned Democracy from the precept and example of Jackson and Polk. THE DEMOCEATIC OEGANIZATION IN ILLINOIS. As has been stated elsewhere in this volume, there was no organization ofthe Democracy of Illinois until 183 1. On the 22d of July ofthat year, the Legislature being then in session, a meeting of the Democratic members and other Democrats was held at the State House in Vandalia to adopt such meas ures as would produce " concert of action" in the party, and to enable it to combine all its members against the strong and united opposition. A call for a state Convention, to meet at Vandalia in December following, was agreed upon, and a com mittee of thirty were selected to prepare and publish an address to the people of the state. On tbat committee were James Semple, afterwards United States senator, W. A. Richardson, James Shields, now of Minnesota, John A. McClernapd, now of the House of Representatives, Robert Smith, ex-member VAEIOUS MATTERS. 453 of Congress, and other leading Democrats. A Central Com mittee, consisting of five members from each congressional district, was also appointed, viz : 1st. W. A. Richardson, J. W. Stephenson, E. D. Taylor, Newton Cloud, J. D. Early ; 2d. W. L. D. Ewing, William Walters, H. Smith, Joseph Kitchell, Dr. Turney; 3d. H. M. Rollings, H. L.Webb, R. G. Murphy, A. M. Jenkins, and S. M. Hubbard. This was the first State Committee appointed by the Democracy of Illinois. The Convention met in December, 1837, and nominated J. W. Stephenson for governor, and J. S. Hacker for lieutenant- governor. The candidates having both withdrawn in April, the Convention was called to reassemble, and did reassemble, on the 5th of June, 1838. The Convention nominated Thomas Carlin for governor and S. H. Anderson for lieutenant-governor ; and appointed as the State Committee V. Hickox, John Taylor, Robert Allen, John Calhoun, C. R. Burst, J. S. Roberts, and David Prickett. This committee, in 1839, called a state Con vention, to meet in the December following ; and on the 9th of December the second Democratic State Convention in Illi nois met at Springfield, to which place the seat of government had been removed. This body appointed as the State Com mittee, until the next state Convention, E. D. Taylor ,V. Hickox, James Shields, J. R. Diller, M. Carpenter, William Walters, and G. R. Webber; and in September, 1841, they issued a call for a state Convention to meet in December following. On the 13th of December, 1841, the Third Democratic State Convention met at Springfield. Having nominated candidates, it renewed the state authority by appointing the following State Committee : D. B. Campbell, James Shepherd, and G. R. Weber, of Sangamon ; James H. Ralston, of Adams ; Thomp son Campbell, of Jo Daviess ; N. W. Nunnally, of Edgar ; and John A. McClernand, of Gallatin. A. W. Snyder was nomi nated for governor, and John Moore for lieutenant-governor. Snyder died during the canvass, and the Hon. Thomas Ford, a judge of the Supreme Court, was selected as the candidate in his' stead. The State Committee appointed by the Convention of 1841 called, in 1842, a state Convention (the 4th), to meet in February, 1844, to appoint delegates to the Baltimore Con vention. It made no change in the State Committee. The Fifth Democratic State Convention met (pursuant to the caU of the committee) on February 10, 1846. It nominated 454 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. A. C. French for governor, aud Joseph B. Wells for lieutenant- governor. It appointed as the State Committee : J. R. Diller, William Walters, B. C. Webster, E. D. Jones, Peter Sweat, M. McConnell, and John Moore. In 1847, a Convention having met and prepared a new Constitution for the state, which went into operation in April, 1848, the office of governor was to be come vacant on the 1st of January, 1849. The Sixth Democratic State Convention met (pursuant to the call of the State Committee) on the 24th of April, 1848, and nominated A. C. French for reelection as governor, and William McMurtry for lieutenant-governor — besides a number of candidates for other state offices. It also appointed the delegates to the Baltimore Convention. The following gentle men were appointed the State Committee : V. Hickox, of Sangamon ; E. F. Sweeney, of Warren ; Thomas Dyer, of Cook ; James Bigler, of Brown ; J. P. Cooper, of Clark ; F. D. Pres ton, of Gallatin; Robert Dunlap, of Madison; J. R. Diller, of Sangamon ; James Dunlap, of Morgan ; H. E. Roberts, of San gamon. The Seventh State Convention met (pursuant to the call of the State Committee) April 19, 1852. It nominated J. A. Matteson for governor, and the full list of candidates for other offices. It appointed the delegates to the Baltimore Conven tion, and selected as the State Committee the following gentle men — four from the State at large and one from each Con gressional District, viz. : At large, John A. McClernand, of Gallatin ; J. McRoberts, of Will ; C. Sweeney, of Jo Daviess, and T. L. Harris, of Menard; 1st district, W. H. Snyder, of St. Clair ; 2d district, F. D. Preston, of Jefferson ; 3d district, B. W. Henry, of Shelby ; 4th district, E. Wilcox, of Kane ; 5th district, M. W. Delahay, of Green ; 6th district, James Sibley, of Hancock ; 7th district, C. H. Lanphier, of San gamon. On the 1st of May, 1856, the Eighth Democratic State Convention met (pursuant to the call of the committee) at Springfield. The Convention nominated W. A. Richardson for governor, and nominated an entire state ticket ; appointed delegates to the Cincinnati Convention, and selected the fol lowing State Committee : For the state at large, Alexander Starne, and Charles H. Lanphier ; 1st district, F. W. S. Braw- ley; 2d district, John Dement; 3d distriot, WiUiam Reddick; VAEI0US MATTEES. 455 4th district, Robert Holloway; 5th district, W. H. Carlin; 6th district, Virgil Hickox; 7th district, W. D. Latshaw; 8th district, A. H. Trapp ; 9th district, S. S. Taylor. The Ninth Democratic State Convention met (pursuant to the call of the above named committee) at Springfield, on the 21st of April, 1858, and nominated W. B. Fondey for State Treasurer and A. C. French for Superintendent of Public In struction. It appointed as the State Committee the following persons : At large, John Moore, C. H. Lanphier. 1st district, C. J. Horsman; 2d district, J. W. Sheahan ; 3d district, N. Elwood ; 4th district, John McDonald ; 5th district, Alex ander Starne ; 6th district, V. Hickox ; 7th district, S. A. Buckmaster; 8th district, O. B. Ficklin; 9th district, John White. The Tenth Democratic State Convention met (pursuant to the call of the above committee) at Springfield, January 4, 1860, and appointed delegates to Charleston. The Convention did not nominate candidates for state officers, and by resolu tion continued the existing State Committee in office, until the meeting of the Convention to be held to nominate candi dates for state offices, and an electoral ticket. That committee have called the Eleventh Democratic State Convention to meet at Springfield, on the 13th of June, to" nominate candidates for Governor, Lieutenant-governor, Sec retary of State, Auditor of Public Accounts, State Treasurer, and Superintendant of Public Instruction, also eleven candi dates for Presidential electors — electors pledged, to vote for the nominees of the Charleston Convention." For twenty-two years the authority ofthe Democratic State Committee has been transmitted in unbroken succession from each State Convention to the foUowing one. 456 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. CHAPTER XX. UTAH AND THE MOEMONS. — MINNESOTA. — OEEGON. — SLAVE TEADE. An attempt has been frequently made by the enemies of popular right to show the failure of popular sovereignty by pointing to the enormities aud outrages perpetrated by the Mormons in Utah. There is no question that the practices in Utah are dangerous to the peace of the Union, and dangerous to the moral and political character of the republic. That the political and social condition of the Mormon settlements in Utah are destined to be, especially if weak and timorous coun sels prevail, a source of great vexation and trouble to the American people. Polygamy exists in Utah, but polygamy is not the result of popular sovereignty. Polygamy existed in Utah before the passage of the territorial act of 1850, and polygamy will exist among the Mormons so long and wherever they have the political power. The Mormons are in :* majority in Kansas, they constitute so nearly the entire population that Utah may be regarded as a Mormon community. They have peculiar doctrines, which form part of what they call their "rehgious faith." They have an ecclesiastical organization, with its courts, tribunals, officers, decrees, mandates and pun ishments, to.all of which the people, as members of a religious society, yield implicit obedience. In the list of powers claimed and exercised by this ecclesiastical authority is that of sum mary divorce, and of sealing in marriage. It is by the author ity of this theocratical government, which rules above and independently of the civil government of the Territory, that polygamy and its attendant vices are encouraged, fostered and promoted. If Utah were a state, we suppose there is no one who would admit that CoDgress or the federal government had the con stitutional power or authority to legislate for the prohibition or punishment of polygamy, or any other crime ofthat nature within the limits of the state. It would be one of those in stances where the federal government would be restrained, by a total absence of all power, to interpose its authority. UTAH AND THE MOBMONS. 457 The question whether Congress has the power, or having it ought to exercise the power of passing laws for the prohibi tion, or for the protection of particular institutions in the ter ritories is one upon which there is, has been, and possibly will always be a variety of opinions. The Mormons, however, are not dangerous to the peace of the Union only because of their polygamy. That is a social evil, which, however infamous and dangerous it may be, is nevertheless one which is confined within their own territorial limits, and to their own people, There is a large class of people who seem to be horrified at the existence of slavery in some of the states, and who do not hesitate to attribute to that institution a character as revolting in many respects as is attributed to polygamy. Indeed the Republican party have in their platform linked slavery and polygamy as " twin relics of barbarism," which ought to be rooted out by all constitutional means. They disclaim all pur pose of interfering with slavery in the states, and we suppose would be equally forbearing to polygamy in the same localities. But against both in the territories they propose to wage a constant war — an "irrepressible conflict." These men represent that in the slaveholding states, mar riage is an institution unknown amongst slaves, and that owners have, and exercise the power, of giving slave women to men as wives, and then of separating them, and forming new arrangements by which the husband of one woman is trans ferred to other women, and the wives of certain men trans ferred to other men. The anti-slavery orators affect to see but little difference between the moral statutes established amongst slaves, and that existing under the polygamons institutions of the Mormons. Hence, they style them, " those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery," against whose existence in the territories there must ever exist an " irrepressible conflict." The Supreme Court has decided that any act of Congress pro hibiting slavery in the territories must be voi#, but no decision in terms that such a power exercised against polygamy has been made. Where the power to prohibit slavery is denied, and where the power to prohibit polygamy is granted to Con gress by the Constitution, is a question for constitutional law yers to determine. The Democratic party unanimously agree that Congress possesses no such power to prohibit slavery; and Congress having no power over one of the " twin relics," U 458 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. it is yet to be determined whether the party agree that Con gress' has the power to prohibit the other "twin relic." If Congress has no power to prohibit slavery, yet has the power to prohibit polygamy or other intercourse between the sexes unless sanctioned by marriage, then Congress may, we presume, legislate upon the marriage relations to be. preserved amongst all the slaves who may be taken to the territories, and if Con gress may legislate respecting the marriage relations between slaves in the territories, Congress will shortly find that, from the same source whence it derives that authority, it can also obtain the authority to legislate upon the relation between slaves and the white people, and between slaves and then- owners. The ultimate end to which the doctrine of interven tion by Congress with the internal affairs of the people of the territory must lead is evident. It can not be exercised in one case .without necessarily carrying with it an expression of authority to exercise it in all cases. The only safe rule is to abstain from the exercise of all doubtful powers and to leave the people of the territories, as long as they remain faithful to their political obligations, alone to work out their own destiny. But, it may be asked, is there no remedy for the evils in Utah? Must these Mormons go on in their works of evil wholly unchecked and unrestrained by any authority. To these questions it is only necessary to say that polygamy is not the only crime which the Mormons commit against the peace, law, and good order of the republic. They set up their ecclesiastical government in open and direct hostility to the government of the United States ; they set up the decrees of their apostles as the " higher law," which it is their duty as well as their pleasure to obey, even when the laws and their obligations as citizens of the United States require a different rule of government. In short, the Mormons, though living upon the soil of the United States, are not of the United States ; though living nominally under the government of the United States, that government is not their government, but their government is another established by themselves, of a social and religious character, to which they submit in preference and to the exclusion of all other governments. They are a people and a government wholly independent in all things ofthe peo ple and government of the United States, and recognize no authority on the part of the government, laws or Constitution UTAH AND THE MOEMONS. 459 of the United States to require of them the performance of any duty, or abstinence from any acts made unlawful by United States law. They are in organization,- sentiment and feeling, as much and as essentially aliens to the United States as if they resided upon the plains of Asia. A territorial gov ernment was established in 1850 for the people of Utah, but it was designed and prepared for a people knowing no allegi ance on earth save to the American Union. It was not in tended for a people who repudiate the Constitution and the Union, declare themselves free and independent of United States authority, and claim for their apostles a power civil and religious far above that of the Constitution and government of the United States. The searcher after an appropriate remedy for the evils in Utah will not find a practicable or a sufficient one in the exer cise of the doubtful power of prohibiting polygamy. Let him go further and he will find the primal cause for all the abom inations of Utah, and that cause is the entire disloyalty ofthe people ; their utter repudiation of the American Constitution and laws, and their total want of political fidelity. The terri torial government was designed for a portion ofthe American people ; the people of Utah are not Americans in any sense of the word, they are a distinct race and a separate people, having no relations with any other race or people. They are a Mormon people, who bid defiance to, and hold in scorn and contempt, all other people ; their government is a Mormon government, having no relations of any kind, much less allegiance to any other government on earth. The existing territorial government is used by these men only to draw money from the Federal treasury — " quartering upon the Gen tiles" — and to cover up and hide as far as possible their enor mities. The Act Of Congress making polygamy a crime will be treated as a farce. The jurors and sheriffs and witnesses must be Mormons. The party accused of polygamy must be indicted by a grand jury each member of which has from five to twenty wives; he must next be tried by a jury each mem ber of which has a dozen wives. That will be the practical ex ecution of the act to prohibit one of the twin relics of bar barism. The barbarians will be the judges of each other's barbarity. The only practical remedy for these evils is to treat these 460 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. alien barbarians as the government would treat any other na tion of aliens who, settling upon American soil, would raise the standard of independence, declare themselves a nation of them selves, and free of all allegiance to the government or people of the United States. Since the Mormons will not become American citizens, will not subject themselves to American laws and American authority, let the territorial goveinment be abolished ; let the Mormons become as all other aliens would become, mere residents of the territory which is under the exclusive control and jurisdiction of the United States, and subject beyond all question to the laws of Congress. Aslong ago as June, 1857, Mr. Douglas foresaw the evils to result from the persistent refusal of the Mormons to Ameri canize themselves, and he then proposed a remedy which time has proved to be the only effective one. In his famous speech at Springfield, on the 12th of June, 1857, after having spoken of Kansas affairs and the Dred Scott decision, he tfius referred to matters in Utah : Mr. President, I will now respond to the call which has been made upon me for my opinion of the condition of things in Utah, and the appropriate remedy for existing evils. The Territory of Utah was organized under one of the acts known as the Compromise measures of 1850, on the supposition that the inhabitants were American citizens, owing and acknowledging allegiance to the United States, and consequently entitled to the benefits of self-government while a terri tory, and to admission into the Union, on an equal footing, with the original states, so soon as they should number the requisite population. It was con ceded on all hands, and by all parties, that the peculiarities of their religious faith and ceremonies interposed no valid and constitutional objection to their reception into the Union, in conformity with the federal Constitution, so long as they were in all other respects entitled to admission. Hence tbe great political parties of the country indorsed and approved the Compromise meas ures of 1850, including the act for the organization of the Territory of Utah, with the hope and in the confidence that the inhabitants would conform to the Constitution and laws, and prove themselves worthy, respectable and law-abiding" citizens. If we are permitted to place credence in the rumors and reports from that country (and it must be admitted that they have in creased and strengthened, and assumed consistency and plausibility by each succeeding mail), seven years' experience has disclosed a state of facts en tirely different from that which was supposed to exist when Utah was organ ized. These rumors and reports would seem to justify the belief that the following facts are susceptible of proof : 1st. That nine tenths of the inhabitants are aliens by birth, who have re fused to become naturalized, or to take the oath of allegiance, or to do any other act recognizing the government of the United States as the paramount authority in that territory. 2d. That all the inhabitants, whether native or alien born, known as Mor mons (and they constitute the whole people of the territory), are bound by UTAH AND THE M0EM0NS. 461 horrid oaths and terrible penalties to recognize and maintain the authority of Brigham Toung, and the government of which he is the head, as paramount to.that of the United States, in civil as well as religious affairs; and that they will, in due time, and under the direction of their leaders, use all means in their power to subvert the government of the United States, and resist its authority. 3d. That the Mormon government, with Brigham Toung at its head, is now forming alliances with the Indian tribes of Utah and the adjoining ter ritories—stimulating the Indians to acts of hostility — and organizing bands of his own foUowers, under the name of " Danites or Destroying Angels," to prosecute a system of robbery and "murder upon American citizens, who sup port the authority of the United States, and denounce the infamous and dis gusting practices and institutions of the Mormon government. Ifj upon a full investigation, these representations shall prove true, they will establish the fact that the inhabitants of Utah, as a community, are out laws and alien enemies, unfit to exercise the right of self-government under the organic act, and unworthy to be admitted into the Union as a state, when their only object in seeking admission is to interpose the sovereignty of the state as an invincible shield to protect them in their treason and crime, debauchery and infamy. (Applause.) Under this view of the subject, I think it is the duty of the President, as I have no doubt it is his fixed purpose, to remove Brigham Toung and all his followers from office, and to fill their places with bold, able, and true men, and to cause a thorough and searching investigation into all the crimes and enormities which are alleged to be perpetrated daily in that territory, under the direction of Brigham Toung and his confederates ; and to use all the military force necessary to protect the officers in the discharge of their duties, and to enforce the laws ofthe land. (Applause.) When the authentic evidence shall arrive, if it shall establish the facts which are believed to exist, it will become the duty of Congress to apply the knife and out out this loathsome, disgusting ulcer. (Applause.) No temporizing policy — no half-way measure will then answer. It has been supposed by those who have not thought deeply upon the subject, that an act of Congress prohibiting murder, robbery, polygamy, and other crimes, with appropriate penalties for those offenses, would afford adequate reme dies for all the enormities complained of. Suppose such a law to be on the statute-book, and I believe they have a criminal code, providing the usual punishments for the entire catalogue of crimes, according to the usages of all civilized and Christian countries, with the exception of polygamy, which is practiced under the sanction of the Mormon church, but is neither prohi bited nor authorized by the laws of the territory. Suppose, I repeat, that Congress should pass a law prescribing a criminal code and punishing polygamy among other offences, what effect would it have — what good would it do ? Would you call on twenty-three grand jury men with twenty-three wives each, to find a bill of indictment against a poor miserable wretch for having two wives ? (Cheers and laughter.) Would you rely upon twelve petit jurors with twelve wives each to convict the same loathsome wretch for having two wives? (Continued applause.) Would you expect a grand jury composed of twenty-three " Danites" to find a bill of indictment against a brother "Danite" for having, under their direc tion, murdered a Gentile, as they call all American citizens ? Much less would you expect a jury of twelve " destroying angels" to find another " de stroying angel" guilty of the crime of murder, and cause him to be hanged for no other offense than that of taking the life of a Gentile I No. If there is any truth in the reports we receive from Utah, Congress may pass what laws it chooses, but you can never rely upon the local tribunals and juries 462 LLFK OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. to punish crimes committed by Mormons in that territory. Some other and more effectual remedy must be devised and applied. In my opinion the first step should be the absolute and unconditional repeal of the organic act — blotting the territorial government out of existence— upon the ground that they are alien enemies and outlaws, denying their allegiance and defying the authority ofthe United States. (Immense applause.) The territorial government onee aibolished, the country would revert to its primitive condition, prior to the act of 1850, " under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction ofthe United States," and should be placed under the operation of the act of Congress of the 30th of April, 1Y90, and the various acts sup plemental thereto and amendatory thereof; " providing for the punishment of crimes against the United States within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or ant other place oe district or country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. All offenses against the provisions of these acts are required by law to be tried and punished by the United States courts in the states or territories where the offenders shall be " first apprehended or brought for trial." Thus it will be seen that, under the plan proposed, Brigham Toung and his confederates could be " ap prehended and brought for trial" to Iowa or Missouri, California or Oregon, or to any other adjacent state or territory, where a fair trial could be had, and justice administered impartially — where the witnesses could be protected and the judgment of the court could be carried into execution, without vio lence or intimidation. I do not propose to introduce any new principles into our jurisprudence, nor to change the modes of proceeding or the rules of practice in our courts. I only propose to place the district of country em braced within the territory of Utah under the operation of the'same laws and rules of proceeding that Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota^and our other ter ritories were placed, before they became organized territories. The whole country embraced within those territories was under the operation of that same system of laws, and all the offenses committed within the same were punished in the manner now proposed, so long as the country remained "under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States;" but the moment the country was organized into territorial governments, with legis lative, executive and judioial departments, it ceased to be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within the meaning ofthe act of Congress, for the reason that it had passed under another and different juris diction. Hence, if we abolish the territorial government of Utah, preserving all existing rights, and place the country under the sole and exclusive juris diction of the United States, offenders can be apprehended, and brought into the adjacent states or territories, for trial and punishment, in the same man ner and under the same rules and regulations, whieh obtained, and have been uniformly practiced, under like circumstances since 1190. If the plan proposed shall be found an effective and adequate remedy for the evils complained of in Utah, no one, no matter what his political creed or partizan associations, need be apprehensive that it will violate any cherished theory or constitutional right in regard to the government of the territories. It is a great mistake to suppose that all the territory or land belonging to the United States must necessarily be governed by the same laws and under the same clause of the Constitution, without reference to the purpose to whieh it is dedicated or the use which it is proposed to make of it. While all that portion of country which is or shall be set apart to become new States, must necessarily be governed under and consistent with that clause of the Consti tution which authorizes Congress to admit new states, it does not follow that other territory, not intended to be organized and admitted into the Union as states, must be governed under the same clause of the Constitution, with all the rights of self-government and state equality. Eor instance, if we should UTAH AND THE MORMONS. 463 purchase Vancouver's Islaad from Great Britain, for the purpose of removing all the Indians from our Pacific territories, and locating them on that island, as their permanent home, with guarantees that it should never be settled or occupied by white men, will it be contended that the purchase should be made and the island governed under the power to admit new states, when it was not acquired for that purpose, or intended to be applied to that ob ject ? Being acquired for Indian purposes, is it not more reasonable to as sume that the power to acquire was derived from the Indian clause, and the island must necessarily be governed under and consistent with that clause of the Constitution which relates to Indian affairs. Again, suppose wo deem it expedient to buy a small island in the Mediterranean or Caribbean sea, for a naval station, can it be said, with any force or plausibility, that the purchase should be made or the island governed under the power to admit new states ? On the contrary, is it not obvious that the right to acquire and govern in that case is derived from the power " to provide and maintain a navy," and must be exercised consistent wifh that power ? So, if we pur chase land for forts, arsenals, or other military purposes, or set apart and dedicate any territory which we now own for a military reservation, it imme diately passes under the military power, and must be governed in harmony with it. So, if land be purchased for a mint, it must be governed under the power to coin money ; or if purchased for a post-office, it must be governed under the power to establish post-offices and post-roads; or for a custom-house, under the power to regulate commerce ; or for a court-house, under the ju diciary power. In short, the clause of the Constitution under which any land or territory belonging to the United States must be governed, is indi cated by the object for which it was acquired and the object to which it is dedicated. So long, therefore, as the organic act of Utah shall remain in force, setting apart that country for a new state, and pledging the faith of the United States to receive it into the Union as soon as it should have the requisite population, we are bound to extend to it all the rights of self-gov ernment, agreeably to the clause ofthe Constitution providing for the admis sion of new states. Henoe the necessity of repealing the organic act, withdrawing the pledge of admission, and placing it under the sole and ex clusive jurisdiction of the United States, in order that persons and property may be protected, and justice administered, and crimes punished under the laws prescribed by Congress in such cases. While the power of Congress to repeal the organic act and abolish the ter ritorial government cannot be denied, the question may arise whether we possess the moral right of exercising the power, after the charter has been once granted, and the local government organized under its provisions. This is a grave question— one whieh should not be decided hastily, nor under the influence of passion or prejudice. In my opinion, I am free to say there is no moral right to repeal the organic aet of a territory, and abolish the gov ernment organized under it, unless the inhabitants of that territory, as a com munity, have done such acts as amount to a forfeiture of all rights under it — such as becoming alien enemies, outlaws, disavowing their allegiance, or re sisting the authority of the United States. These and kindred acts, which we have every reason to believe are daily perpetrated in that territory, would not only give us the moral right, but make it our imperative duty to abolish the territorial government, and place the inhabitants under tbe sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, to the end that justice may be done, and the dignity and authority ofthe government vindicated. I have thus presented plainly and frankly my views of the Utah question — the evils and the remedy — upon the facts as they have reached us, and are Bupposed to be substantially correct. If official reports and authentic infor mation shall change or modify these facts, I shall be ready to conform my 464 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. action to the real facts as they shall be found to exist. I have no such pride of opinion as will induce me to persevere in an error one moment after my judgment is convinced. If, therefore, a, better plan can be devised — one more consistent with justice and sound policy, or more effective as a remedy for acknowledged evils, I will take great pleasure in adopting it, in heu of the ono I have presented to you to-night. In conclusion, permit me to present my grateful acknowledgements for your patient attention, and the kind and respectful manner in which you have received my remarks. Had the remedy thus indicated by Mr. Douglas in 1857 been adopted in place of the " war measures," to-day the- Mormons would have been divested of that political government which serves them merely to carry out more fully their treasonable and disgusting enormities. To that remedy the government must come at last, and with a new government in the gold re gions, the Mormons will eventually be forced either to leave the country or reform their code of civil and political morals to a standard more becoming the age, and more suitable to the enlightenment of the people of the United States. MINNESOTA AND OEEGON. Pending, the Lecompton controversy in Congress, the Pres ident on the 11th day of January, 185S, communicated to Con gress copies of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and an application for admission into the Union. It was referred in the Senate to the Committee on Territories. On the 26th of the same month Mr. Douglas reported a bill for the admis sion of the State. He was indefatigable in his efforts to have the bill taken up, but it was not until after the Kansas bill had passed that he could succeed. Eventually the bill was taken up, and passed with but very little objection. The vote in the Senate being, yeas, 49 ; nays, 3 ; and in the House, yeas, 157 ; nays, 38. On the 5th of April Mr. Douglas, from the Committee, on Territories, reported a bill for the admission of Oregon into the Union as a State. On the 18th of May, the bill having been debated in the meantime, and the principal objection urged was that of Mr. Trumbull, that the Constitution of the State prohibited the immigration of negroes, the question was taken on Trumbull's motion to postpone the bill till next session. This motion was rejected, the yeas being, Bell, Chandler, Clay, Crittenden, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitzpatrick, Hale, Hamlin, THE AFEICAN SLAVE TEADE. 465 Hammond, Hunter, Iverson, Kennedy, Mason, Trumbull and Wade. Democrats 6, Republicans 7, Americans 3. The biU then passed, yeas 35 ; nays 17 ; the nays being the same who voted to postpone, excepting Mr. Chandler, and with the addi tion of Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, and Mr. Heltderson, of Texas. The House did not act on the bill until the next session, when the bill was passed, and Oregon was admitted. At this point it may not be out of place to recapitulate the action of Mr. Douglas upon the subjeot of territorial bills, and the admission of new states. When a member of the house he was a warm supporter of the bills to establish a ter ritorial government in Oregon. He found that measure un acted upon when he entered the Senate. He voted for it there when it passed. He, as a member of the house, supported the resolutions for the annexation of Texas, and the bill for her admission into the Union. In the house he supported and voted for the bills admitting Iowa and Florida as states of the Union. On the latter bill he made one of his most forcible speeches on a proposal that Florida be required as a condition of her admission to abolish a provision in her Constitution lim iting the authority for emancipating slaves. He denied the right or power of Congress to legislate upon the provisions of any constitution adopted by a state. He reported the several bills respecting the admission of Wisconsin, and voted for the admission ofthat state. He wrote the bills establishing the territorial governments of Utah, New Mexico, Washington, Kansas, Minnesota and Nebraska. He prepared the acts for the admission of California, Minnesota, and Oregon, into the Union as states. THE AFEICAN SLAVE TEADE. Mr. Douglas has always been decided in his opposition to the. revival ofthe African slave trade. He has been always as de cided in his efforts to enforce the existing, and willing to pro vide additional laws if necessary against that traffic. When this matter was discussed some time ago, Mr. Douglas, in an swer to a letter from a gentleman in Virginia, thus expressed his views : , Washington, August 2, 1859. Col. John L. Peyton, Staunton, Va.: My Dear Sir: Tou do me no more than justice in your' kind letter, for which accept my thanks, in assuming that I do not concur with the admin- U2 466 LIFE OF STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. istration in their views respecting the rights of naturalized citizens, as defined in the " Le Clerc letter," which, it is proper to observe, has since been ma terially modified. Under our Constitution there can be no just distinction between the rights of native born and naturalized citizens to claim the protection of our gov ernment at home and abroad. Unless the naturalization releases tbe person naturalized from all "obligations which he owed to his native country, by virtue of his allegiance, it leaves him in the sad predicament of owing al legiance to two countries, without receiving protection from either — a di lemma in whieh no American citizen should be placed. Neither have you misapprehended my opinions in respect to the African slave trade. That question seriously disturbed the harmony of the Conven tion whieh framed the federal Constitution. Upon it the delegates divided into two parties, under circumstances which, for a time, rendered harmoni ous action hopeless. The one demanded the instant and unconditional pro hibition of the African slave trade, on moral and religious grounds, while the other insisted that it was a legitimate commerce, involving no other con sideration than a sound public policy, which each state ought to be per mitted to determine for itself) so long as it was sanctioned by its own laws. Each party stood resolutely and firmly by its own position, until both became convinced that this vexed question would break up the Convention, destroy the federal Union, blot out the glories of the Revolution, and throw away all its blessings, unless some fair and just compromise could be formed on the common ground of such mutual concessions as were indispensable to the preservation of their liberties, Union, and independence. Such a compromise was effected and incorporated into the Constitution, by which it was understood tnat the African slave trade might continue a legitimate commerce in those states whose laws sanctioned it until the year 1808, from and after whieh time Congress might and would prohibit it for ever, throughout the dominion and hmits of the United States, and pass all laws which might become necessary to make such prohibition effectual. The harmony of the Convention was restored, and the Union saved by this compromise, without which the Constitution could never have been made. I stand firmly by this compromise and by all the other compromises of the Constitution, and shall use my best efforts to carry each and all of them into faithful execution, in the sense and with the understanding in which they were originally adopted. In accordance with this compromise, I am irreconcilably opposed to the revival of the African slave trade, in any form and under any circumstances. am, with great respect, yours truly, S. A. DOUGLAS. CHAPTER XXI. THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. At no period of his life did Mr. Douglas experience more anxiety than just previous to the assembling of the Cincinnati Convention. This anxiety was not produced by any anticipa tions as to the action of that body respecting his nomination for the presidency. He had, in obedience to an established and recognized principle of the party, introduced and carried THE CINCINNATI PLATF0EM. 467 through Congress the Kansas-Nebraska Act, including the re peal of the Missouri Compromise. That act had failed to com mand the votes of a large body of the Democratic representa tives in Congress. It had been met by a fierce and unrelent ing combination in the northern states, against which the Democracy, except in a few isolated cases, had been unable to stand. The elections of 1854-5 had been most disastrous, and the thousands who regard present defeat as more fatal than the ultimate and successful establishment of a right principle heaped upon him their denunciations. His anxiety was lest the timid and temporizing would endeavor in that Convention to avoid or oppose a clear and unequivocal endorsement of the great principle of self-government and non-interference by Congress with the subject of slavery in the territories. When that Convention met, and- when the representatives of the De mocracy of all the states, without a dissenting voice, indorsed that great act of legislation, and proclaimed that thenceforth Congress washed its hands of all interference with the domes tic affairs of the people of the territories — those inchoate states, as President Pierce styled them — all anxiety was removed, and once more he had the assurance of the Democracy that his adherence to the cause of right and truth had received, as well it had merited, the approbation of the Democracy of the nation. There never was a platform of the Democracy that com mended itself more generally to the approval ofthe people than that adopted at Cincinnati. It commanded the approbation of at least one half ofthe Republican party at the North. The latter, however, could not be induced to believe that the De mocracy would carry out that platform in good faith. The action of the Lecompton Convention, the propositions for a revival of the slave trade, and for a slave code for the territo ries, have not had the effect to remove the doubts previously entertained by those who questioned the honesty of the inten tions of those who adopted the Cincinnati platform. The only way in which these doubts can ever be removed, and the people of the northwest again united under a common organ ization for the protection and security of the Constitution and the Union, is by placing the administration ofthat platform in the hands of a man who is known to entertain for it a devotion and an affection unequalled by that of any other person. A good 468 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. platform with candidates whose political fidelity is not estab lished in the minds of the people is one thing, and a very dif ferent thing from the same platform with candidates who are known to the people as men who, at all hazards, and under all circumstances, will stand by principle, and never, even to court popular favor, abandon the established doctrines of free consti tutional government. Since June, 1856, Mr. Douglas has been unremitting in his defense of that platform. He stands upon it now, and clings to it as the best exposition of political faith ever produced in the United States since the adoption ef the Constitution ; and, when fairly executed, the safest and only reliable chart for avoid ing those calamities that must ever attend any Federal legisla tion repecting African slavery. It is the best and most com prehensive declaration of the rights of the States that has ever been put in form, and there can be no violation of that plat form that does not equally violate the vested and constitutional rights ofthe states ofthe Confederacy. To the support and maintenance of that platform he has devoted much of his time, and expended his health and per sonal labor. In 1856, after its adoption, the Democratic National Committee at Washington regarded his report made upon Kansas affairs, on March 12th preceding, such an admir able epitome ofthe principles ofthe Democracy, subsequently asserted in the Cincinnati platform, that they had no less than three hundred thousand copies of it printed and circulated. The doctrines of that report were then deemed the best kind of Democracy, although they declared that no law or state government should be forced upon the people that did not receive a sanction from these people. In the defense of the Cincinnati platform all questions were narrowed down to the one — the great fundamental principle of the right of the people of every distinct political community, which may be loyal to the Constitution, to regulate their own domestic affairs and Jocal institutions, free of all interference by other states, or by the Federal goveinment, and subject to no other restraint than may exist in the Constitution of the United States. In the defense of this principle Mr. Douglas, during the recess of 1859, prepared an elaborate essay, which was published in the September number of Harper's New Monthly Magazine. It had not only the extensive oircula- THE CINCINNATI PLATFOEM. 469 tion ofthat popular publication, but soon found its. way through an extra or supplemental edition, in pamphlet form, to all parts of the country. It was also published extensively in the pub lic journals. We are authorized by Messrs. Harper & Brothers to republish that argument in this volume. It was as follows : THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND LOCAL AUTHOEITT. [Reprinted from Harper's Magazine, September, 1859.] Under our complex system of govern ment it is the first duty of American statesmen to mark distinctly the dividing line between federal and local au thority. To do this with accuracy involves an inquiry, not only into the powers and duties of the federal government under the Constitution, but also into the rights, privileges, and immunities of the people of the territories, as well as of the states composing the Union. The relative powers and, functions of the federal and state governments have become well understood and clearly defined by their practical operation and harmonious action for a long series of years ; while the disputed question — involving the right of the people of the territories to govern themselves in respect to their local affairs and internal polity — remains a fruitful source of partisan strife and sectional controversy. The political organization which was formed in 1854, and has assumed the name of the Republican party, is based on the theory that Af rican slavery, as it exists in this country, is an evil of such magnitude — social, moral, and political — as to justify and require the exertion of the entire power and influence of the federal government to the full extent that the Constitution, according to their interpretation, will permit for its ultimate extinction. In the platform of principles adopted at Philadelphia by the ¦Republican National Convention in 1856, it is affirmed : " That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the territories of the United States for their government, and that in the exorcise of this power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relies of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." According to tbe theory of the Republican party there is an irrepressible conflict between freedom and slavery, free labor and slave labor, free states and slave states, which is irreconcilable, and must continue to rage with in creasing fury until the one shall become universal by the annihilation of the other. Li tbe language of the most eminent and authoritative expounder of their political faith, " It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces ; and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisi ana will ultimately be tilled by -free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New Tork must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and New Tork become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men." In the Illinois canvass of 1858 the same proposition was advocated and defended by- the distinguished Republican standard-bearer in these words : " In my opinion it [the slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself can not stand.' I believe this government can not endure permanently half slave 470 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. and 'half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become' all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ulti mate extinction, or its advofcates will push forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States — old as well as new, North as well as South." Thus it will be seen, that under the auspices of a political party, which claims sovereignty in Congress over the subject of slavery, there can be no peace on the slavery question — no truce in the sectional strife — no fraternity between the North and South, so long as this Union remains as our fathers made it — divided into free and slave states, with the right on the part of each to retain slavery so long as it chooses, and to abolish it whenever it pleases. On the other hand, it would be uncandid to deny that, while the Demo cratic party is a unit in its irreconcilable opposition to the doctrines and principles of the Republican party, there are radical differences of opinion in respect to the powers and duties of Congress, and the rights and immuni ties of the people of the territories under the Eederal Constitution, which Seriously disturb its harmony and threaten its integrity. These differences of opinion arise from the different interpretations placed upon the Constitution by persons who belong to one of the following classes : First. — Those who beheve that the Constitution of the United States nei ther establishes or prohibits slavery in the states or territories beyond the power of the people legally to control it, but " but leaves the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Second. — Those who believe that the Constitution establishes slavery in the territories, and withholds from Congress and the territorial Legislature the power to control it ; and who insist that, in the event the territorial Leg islature fails to enact the requisite laws for its protection, it becomes the imperative duty of Congress to interpose its authority and furnish such pro tection. Third. — Those who, while professing to believe that the Constitution es tablishes slavery in the territories beyond the power of Congress or the territorial Legislature to control it, at the same time protest against the duty of Congress to interfere for its protection ; but insist that it is the duty of the Judiciary to protect and maintain slavery in the territories without any law upon the subject. By a careful examination of the second and third propositions, it will be seen that the advocates of each agree on the theoretical question, that the Constitution establishes slavery in the territories, and compels them to have it whether they want it or not ; and differ on the practical point, whether a right secured by the Constitution shall be protected by an act of Congress when all other remedies fail. The reason assigned for not protecting by law a right secured by the Constitution is, that it is the duty of the courts to protect slavery in the territories without any legislation upon the subjeet. How the courts are to afford protection to s'aves or any other property, where there is no law providing remedies ani imposing penalties and con ferring jurisdiction upon the courts to hear and determine the cases as they arise, remains to be explained. The acts of Congress, establishing the several territories of the United States, provide that: "The jurisdiction of the several courts herein pro vided for, both appellate and original, and that of the Probate Courts and Justices of the Peace, shall be as limited by law" — meaning such laws as the territorial Legislatures shall from time to time enact. It will be seen that the judicial tribunals of the territories have just such jurisdiction, and THE CINCINNATI PLATFOEM. 471 only such, in respect to the rights of persons and property pertaining to the citizens of the territory as the territorial Legislature shall see fit to confer ; and consequently, that the courts can afford protection to persons and prop erty no further than the Legislature shall, by law, confer the jurisdiction, and prescribe the remedies, penalties, and modes of proceeding. It is difficult.to conceive how any person who believes that the Constitu tion confers the right of protection in the enjoyment of slave property' in the territories, regardless of the wishes of the people and of the action of the territorial Legislature, can satisfy his conscience and his oath of fidelity to the Constitution in withholding such Congressional legislation as may be essential to the enjoyment of such right under the Constitution. Under this view of the subject it is impossible to resist the conclusion that, if the Constitution does establish slavery in the territories, beyond the power of the people to control it by law, it is the imperative duty of Congress to sup ply all the legislation necessary for its protection ; and if this proposition is not true, it necessarily results that the Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits slavery any where, but leaves the people of each state and territory entirely free to form and regulate their domestic affairs to suit themselves, without the intervention of Congress or of any other power whatsoever. But it is urged with great plausibility by those who have entire faith in the soundness of the proposition, that " a territory is the mere creature of Congress ;. that the creature can not be clothed with any powers not pos sessed by the creator ; and that Congress, not possessing the power to legis late in respect to Africa,n slavery in the territories, can not delegate to a territorial Legislature any power which it does not itself possess." This proposition is as plausible as it is fallacious. But the reverse of it is true as a general rule. Congress can not delegate to a territorial Legislature, or to any other body of men whatsoever, any power which the Constitution has vested in Congress. In other words : Every power conferred on Congress by the Constitution must be exercised by Congress in the mode prescribed in the Constitution. Let us test the correctness of this proposition by reference to the powers of Congress as defined in the Constitution : " The Congress shall have power — " To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," etc. ; " To borrow money on the credit of the United States ;" " To regulate commerce with foreign nations," etc. ; " To establish a uniform rule of naturalization," etc. ; " To coin money, and regulate the value thereof;" " To establish post-offices and post-roads ;" " To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court ;" "To declare war," ete. ; " To provide and maintain a navy." The list might be extended so as to embrace all the powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution ; but enough has been cited to test the principle. Will it be contended that Congress can delegate any one of these powers to a territorial Legislature or to any tribunal whatever ? Can Congress delegate to Kansas the power to " regulate commerce," or to Nebraska the power " to establish uniform rules of naturalization," or to Illinois the power " to coin money and regulate the value thereof," or to Virginia the power "to estab lish post-offices and post-roads ?" The mere statement of the question carries with it the emphatic answer, that Congress can not delegate any power which it does possess ; but that every power conferred on Congress by the Constitution must be exercised by Congress in the manner prescribed in that instrument. On the other hand, there are cases in which Congress may establish tribu- 472 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. nals and local governments, and invest them with powers which Congress does not possess and can not exercise under the Constitution. Por instance, Congress may establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and confer upon them the power to hear and determine causes, and render judgments affecting the life, liberty, and property of the citizen, without itself having the power to hear and determine such causes, render judgments, or revise or annul the same. In like manner Congress may institute governments for the territories, composed of an executive, judicial, and legislative department ; and may con fer upon the governor ah the executive powers and functions of the territory, without having the right to exercise any one of those powers or functions itself. Congress may confer upon the judicial department all the judicial powers and functions of the territory, without having the right to hear and determine a cause, or render a judgment, or to revise or annul any decision made by the courts so established by Congress. Congress may also confer upon the legis lative department of the territory certain legislative powers which it can not itself exercise, and only such as Congress can not exercise under the Constitu tion. The powers which Congress may thus confer but can not exercise, are such as relate to the domestic affairs and internal polity of the territory, and do not affect the general welfare of the Republic. This dividing line between Federal and local authority was familiar to the framers of the Constitution. It is clearly defined and distinctly marked on every page of history which records the great events of that immortal strug gle between the American colonies and the British government, which re sulted in the estabhshment of our national independence. In the beginning of that struggle tho colonies neither contemplated nor desired independence. In all their addresses to the Crown, and to the Parliament, and to the people of Great Britain, as well as to the people of America, they averred that as loyal British subjects they deplored the causes which impelled their separa tion from the parent country. They were strongly and affectionatefy attached to the Constitution, civil and political institutions and jurisprudence of Great Britain, whieh they proudly claimed as the birth-right of all Englismen, and desired to transmit them unimpaired as a precious legacy to their posterity. Por a long series of years they remonstrated agamst the violation of their in alienable rights of self-government under the British Constitution, and humbly petitioned for the redress of their grievances. They acknowledged and affirmed their allegiance to the Crown, their affec tion for tbe people, and their devotion to the Constitution of Great Britain ; and their only complaint was that they were not permitted to enjoy the rights and privileges of self-government, in the management of their internal affairs and domestic concerns, in accordance with the guaranties of that Constitution and of the colonial charters granted by the Crown in pursuance of it. Tbey conceded the right of the Imperial government to make all laws and perform all acts concerning the colonies, which were in their nature Imperial and not colonial — which affected the general welfare of the Empire, and did not in terfere with the " internal polity" of the colonies. They recognized the right of the Imperial government to declare war and make peace ; to coin money and determine its value; to make treaties and conduct intercourse with foreign nations ; to regulate commerce between the several colonies, and be tween each colony and the parent country, and with foreign countries ; and in general they recognized the right of the Imperial government of Great Britain to exercise all the powers and authority which, under our Federal Constitu tion, are delegated by the people of the several States to the government of the United States. Recognizing and conceding to the Imperial government all these powers — including the right to institute governments for ihe colonies, by granting charters THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 473 under which the inhabitants residing within the hmits of any specified terri tory might be organized into a political community, with a government con sisting of its' appropriate departments, executive, legislative, and judicial ; conceding all these powers, the colonies emphatically denied that the im perial government had any rightful authority to imposo taxes upon them with out their consent, or to interfere with their internal polity; claiming that it was the birth-right of all Englishmen — inalienable when formed into a political community — to exercise and enjoy all the rights, privileges, and-immunities of self-government iu respect to all matters and things which were local and not general— internal and not external — oolonial and not imperial — as fully as if they were inhabitants of England, with a fair representation in Par liament. Thus it appears that our fathers of the Revolution were contending, not for independence in the first instance, but for the inestimable right of local self- government under the British Constitution ; the right of every distinct politi cal community — dependent colonies, territories, and provinces, as well as sovereign states — to make their own local laws, form their own domestic in stitutions, and manage their own internal affairs in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of Great Britain as the paramount law of the empire. The government of Great Britain had violated this inalienable right of local self-government by a long series of acts on a great variety of subjects. The first serious point of controversy arose on the slavery question as early as 1699, which continued a fruitful source of irritation until the Revolution, and formed one of the causes for the separation of the colonies from .the* British Crown. Por more than forty years the Provincial Legislature of Virginia had passed laws for the protection and encouragement of African slavery within her hmits. This policy was steadily pursued until the white inhabitants of Vir ginia became alarmed for their own safety, in view of the numerous and for midable tribes of Indian savages which surrounded and threaded the feeble white settlements, while ship loads of African savages were being daily landed in their midst. In order to check and restrain a policy which seemed to threaten the very existence of the colony, the Provincial Legislature enacted a law imposing a tax upon every slave who should be brought into Virginia. The British merchants, who were engaged in the African slave trade, regarding this legislation as injurious to their interests and in violation of their rights, petitioned the King of England and his Majesty's ministers to annul the obnoxious law and protect them in their right to carry their slaves into Virginia and all other British colonies which were the common property of the empire: — acquired by the common blood and common treasure — and from which a few adventurers, who had settled on the imperial domain by his Majesty's sufferance, had no right to exclude them or discriminate against their property by a mere provincial enactment. Upon a full consideration of the subject the King graciously granted the prayer of the petitioners ; and accordingly issued peremptoryorders to the royal governor of Virginia, and to the governors of all the other British colonies in America, forbidding them to sign or approve any colonial or provincial enactment injurious to the African slave trade, unless such enactment should contain a clause sus pending its operation until his Majesty's pleasure should be made known in the premises. Judge Tucker, in his Appendix to Blackstone, refers to thirty-one acts of the Provincial Legislature of Virginia, passed at various periods from 1662 to 1112, upon the subject of African slavery, showing conclusively that Vir ginia always considered this as one of the questions affecting her "internal polity," over which she, in common with the other colonies, claimed " the right of exclusive legislation in their Provincial Legislatures" within their 474 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. respective limits. Some of these acts, particularly those whieh were enacted prior to the year 1699, were evidently intended to foster and encourage, as well as to regulate and control African slavery, as one of the domestic insti tutions of the colony. The act of 1699, and most of the enactments subse quent to that date, were as obviously designed to restrain and check the growth of the institution, with the view of confining it within the limit of the actual necessities of the community, or its ultimate extinction, as might .be deemed most conducive to the public interests, by a system of unfriendly legislation, such as imposing a tax on all slaves introduced into tho colony, which was increased and "renewed from time to time, as occasion required, until the period of the Revolution. Many of these acts never took effect, in consequence of the King withholding his assent, even after the governor had approved the enactment, in cases where it contained a clause suspending its operation until his Majesty's pleasure should be made known in the premises. In 1772 the Provincial Legislature of Virginia, after imposing another tax of five per cent, ou all slaves imported into the colony, petitioned the King to remove all those restraints whieh inhibited his Majesty's governors as senting to such laws as might cheek so very pernicious a commerce as slavery. Of this petition Judge Tucker says : " The following extract from a petition to the Throne, presented from the House of Burgesses of Virginia, April 1st, 1772, will show the sense of the people of Virginia on the subject of slavery at that period : " ' The importation of slaves into the colony from the coast of Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity ; and under its present encouragement we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very ex istence of your Majesty's American dominions.' " Mark the ominous words I Virginia tells the King of England in 1772, four years prior to the Declaration of Independence, that his Majesty's Ameri can dominions are in danger: not because of the stamp duties — not because of the tax on tea — not because of his attempts to collect revenue in Ameri ca 1 These have since been deemed sufficient to justify rebellion and revo lution. But none of these are referred to by Virginia in her address to the Throne — there being another wrong which, in magnitude and enormity, so far exceeded these and all other causes of complaint, that the very exist ence of his Majesty's American dominions depended upou it 1 That wrong consisted iu forcing African slavery upon a dependent colony without her consent, and in opposition to the wishes of her own people I The people of Virginia at that day did not appreciate the force of the ar gument used by the British merchants, who were engaged in the African slave-trade, and which was afterward indorsed, at least by implication, by the King and his ministers ; that the colonies were the common property of the empire — acquired by the common blood and treasure — and therefore all British subjects had the right to carry their slaves into the colonies and hold them in defiance of the local law and in contempt of the wishes and safety of the colonies. The people of Virginia, not being convinced hy this process of reasoning, still adhered to the doctrine which they held in common with their sister colonies, that it was the birth-right of all freemen — inalienable when formed into political communities — to exercise exclusive legislation in respect to all matters pertaining to their internal polity — slavery not excepted; and rather than surrender this great right they were prepared to withdraw their allegiance from the Crown. Again referring to this petition to the King, the same learned Judge adds: " This petition produced no effect, as appears from the first clause of our (Virginia) Constitution, where, among other acts of misrule, the inhuman use of the royal negative in refusing us (the people of Virginia) permission to THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 475 exclude slavery from us by law, is enumerated among the reasons for separ ating from Great Britain." This clause in the Constitution of Virginia, referring to the inhuman use of the royal negative, in refusing the colony of Virginia 'permission to ex clude slavery from her limits by law, as one of the reasons for separating from Great Britain, was adopted on the 12th day of June, 1776, three weeks and one day previous to the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress ; and after remaining in force as a part of the Constitution for a period of fifty-four years, was re-adopted, without alteration, by the Conven tion which framed the new Constitution in 1830, and then ratified by the people as a part of the new Constitution ; and was again re-adopted by the Convention which amended the Constitution in 1850, and again ratified by the people as a part of the amended Constitution, and at this day remains a portion of the fundamental law of Virginia, — proclaiming to the world and to posterity that one of the reasons for separating from Great Britain was " the inhuman use of the royal negative in refusing us (the colony of Virginia) permission to exclude slavery from us by law 1" The legislation of Virginia on this eubjeet may be taken as a fair sample of the legislative enactments of each of the thirteen colonies, showing con clusively that slavery was regarded by them all as a domestic question to be regarded and determined by each colony to suit itself, without the inter vention of the British Parliament or " the inhuman use of the royal nega tive." Each colony passed a series of enactments, beginning at an early period of its history and running down to the commencement ofthe Revolu tion, either protecting, regulating, or restraining African slavery within its respective limits and in accordance with their wishes and supposed interests. North and South Carolina, following the example of Virginia, at first en couraged the introduction of slaves, until the number increased beyond their wants and necessities, when they attempted to check and restrain the fur ther growth of the institution, by imposing a high rate of taxation upon all slaves which should be brought into those colonies ; and finally, in 1764, South Caroliqa passed a law imposing a penalty of one hundred pounds (or five hundred dollars) for every negro slave subsequently introduced into that colony. The colony of Georgia was originally founded on strict anti-slavery prin ciples, and rigidly maintained this policy for a series of years, until the inhabitants became convinced by experience that, with their climate and productions, slave labor, if not essential to their existence, would prove bene ficial and useful to their material interests. Maryland and Delaware protected and regulated African slavery as one of their domestic institutions. Penn sylvania, under the advice of William Penn, substituted fourteen years' ser vice and perpetual adscript to the soil for hereditary slavery, and attempted to legislate, not for the total abolition of slavery, but for the sanctity of mar riage among slaves, and for their personal security. New Jersey, New Tork, and Connecticut recognized African slavery as a domestic institution lawfully existing within their respective limits, and passed the requisite laws for its control and regulation. Rhode Island provided by law that no slave should serve more than ten years, at the end of which time he was to be set free ; and if the master should refuse to let him go free, or sold him elsewhere for a longer period of service, he was subject to a penalty of forty pounds, which was supposed at that period to be nearly double the value of the slave. Massachusetts imposed heavy taxes upon ail slaves brought into the col ony, and provided in some instances for sending the slaves back to their na tive land ; and finally prohibited the introduction of any more slaves into tha colony under any circumstances. 476 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. When New Hampshire passed laws which were designed to prevent the introduction of any more slaves, the British cabinet issued the following or der to Governor Wentworth : " Tou are not to give your assent to, or pass any law imposing duties upon negroes imported into New Hampshire." While the legislation of the several colonies exhibits dissimilarity of views, founded on a diversity of interests, on the merits and policy of slavery, it shows conclusively that they all regarded it as a domestic question affecting their internal polity in respect to which they were entitled to a full and ex clusive power of legislation in the several provincial Legislatures. Por a few years immediately preceding the American Revolution the African slave- trade was encouraged and stimulated by the British government and carried on with more vigor by the English merchants than at at any other period in the history of the colonies ; and this fact, taken in connection with the ex traordinary claim asserted in the memorable preamble to the act repealing the stamp duties, that " Parliament possessed the right to bind the colonies in all cases whatever," not only in respect to all matters affecting the gene ral welfare of the empire, but also in regard to the domestic relations and in ternal policy of the colony — produced a powerful impression upon the minds of the colonists, and imparted peculiar prominence to the principle involved in the controversy. Hence the enactments by the several colonial Legislatures calculated and designed to, restrain and prevent the increase of slaves ; and, on the other hand, the orders issued by the Crown instructing the colonial governors not to sign or permit any legislative enactment prejudicial or injurious to the African slave trade, unless such enactment should contain a clause suspending its operation until the royal pleasure should be made known in the premises ; or, in other words, until the king should have an opportunity of annulling the acts ofthe colonial Legislatures by the " inhuman use ofthe royal negative." Thus the policy of the colonies on the slavery question had assumed a direct antagonism to that of the British government ; and this antagonism not only added to the importance of the principle of local self-government in the col onies, but produced a general concurrence of opinion and action in respect to the question of slavery in the proceedings of the Continental Congress, which assembled at Philadelphia for the first time on the 5th of September, 1774. On the 14th of October the Congress adopted a bill of rights for the col onies, in the form of a series of resolutions, in whieh, after conceding to the British government the power to regulate commerce and do such other things as affected the general welfare of the empire without interfering with the in ternal poiity of the colonies, they declared "That they are entitled to a free and exclusive power in their sevtral provincial Legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all eases of taxation and internal polity." Having thus defined the prinoiple for which they were contending, the Congress proceeded to adopt the following "Peaceful Measures," whieh they still hoped would be sufficient to induce compliance with their just and reasonable demands. These " Peaceful Measures" consisted of addresses to the king, to the Parliament, and to the people of Great Britain, together with an A ssoeiation of Non-Intercourse to be observed and maintained so long as their grievances should remain unredressed. The second article of this Association, which was adopted without opposi tion and signed by the delegates from all the colonies, was in these words: " That we will neither import nor purchase ray slave imported after the fi.-st day of December next ; after which time we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are engaged m it." This bill of rights, together with these articles of association, were subse- THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 477 quently submitted to and adopted by each of the thirteen colonies in their respective provincial Legislatures. Thus was distinctly formed between the colonies and the parent country that issue upon which the Declaration of Independence was founded and the battles of tho Revolution were fought. It involved the specific claim on the part of the colonies— denied by the King and Parliament — to the exclusive right of legislation touching all local and internal concerns, slavery included. This being the principle involved in the contest, a majority of the colonies refused to permit their delegates to sign the Declaration of Independence except upon the distinct condition and express reservation to each colony of the exclusive right to manage and control its local concerns and police regu lations without tlie intervention of any general Congress which might bo established for the United Colonies. Let us cite one of these reservations as a specimen of all, showing conclu sively that they were fighting for the inalienable right of local ^elf-government, with the clear understanding that when they had succeeded in throwing off tbe despotism of the British Parliament, no congressional despotism was to be substituted for it : " We, the delegates of Maryland, in convention assembled, do declare that the King of Great Britain has violated his compact with this people, and that they owe no allegiance to him. We have, therefore, thought it just and ne cessary to empower our deputies in Congress to join with a majority of the United Colonies in declaring them free and independent States, in framing such further confederation between them, in making foreign alliances, and in adopting such other measures as shall be judged necessary for the preservation of their liberties : " Provided, the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal polity and government of this colony be reserved to the people thereof " We have also thought proper to call a new Convention for the purpose of establishing a government in this colony. "No ambitious views, no desire of independence, induced the people of Maryland to form an union with the other colonies. To procure an exemp tion from parliamentary taxation, and to continue to the Legislatures of these colonies the sole and exclusive right of regulating their internal polity, was our original and only motive. To maintain inviolate our liberties, and to transmit them unimpaired to posterity, was our duty and our first wish ; our next, to continue connected with and dependent on Great Britain. Por the truth of these assertions we appeal to that Almighty Being who is emphati cally styled the Searcher of hearts, and from whose omniscience none is con cealed. Relying on his Divine protection and assistance, and trusting to the justice of our cause, we exhort and conjure every virtuous citizen to join cor dially in defense of our common rights, and in maintenance of the freedom of this and her sister colonies." The first plan of Federal government adopted for the United States was formed during the Revolution, and is usually known as " The Articles of Con federation." By these articles it was provided that " Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." At the time the Articles of Confederation were adopted — July 9, 1778 — the United States held no lands or territory in common. The entire country — including all the waste and unappropriated lands — embraced within or per taining to the confederacy, belonged to and was the property of the several states within whose limits the same was situated. On the 6th day of September, 1780, Congress " recommended to the several states of the Union having claims to waste and unappropriated lands in the 478 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. western country, a liberal cession to the United States of a portion of their respective claims for the common benefit of the Union." On the 20th day of October, 1783, the Legislature of Virginia passed an act authorizing the delegates in Congress from that state to convey to the United States "the territory or tract of country within the limits of the Vir ginia charter, lying and bearing to the northwest of the river Ohio"— wbieh grant was to be made upon the "condition that the territory so ceded shall be laid out and formed into States;" and that "the states so formeu shall be distinct Republican states, and admitted members of the Federal Union, having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other states." On the lst.day of March, 1784, Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues in Con gress executed the deed of cession in pursuance of the act of the Virginia Leg islature, which was accepted and ordered to " be recorded and enrolled among the acts ofthe United States in Congress assembled." This was the first ter ritory ever acquired, held, or owned by the United States. On the same day of the deed of cession Mr. Jefferson, as chairman of a committee which had been appointed, consisting of Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, Mr. Chase, of Mary land, and Mr. Howell, of Rhode Island, submitted to Congress "a plan for the temporary government of the territory ceded or to be ceded by the individual States of the United States." It is important that this Jeffersonian plan of government for the territories should be carefully considered for many obvious reasons. It was the first plan of government for the territories ever adopted in the United States. It was drawn by the author of the Declaration of Independence, and revised and adopted by those who shaped the issues which produced the Revolution, and formed the foundations upon which our whole American system of govern ment rests. It was not intended to be either local or temporary in its char acter, but was designed to apply to all "territory ceded or to be ceded," a.nd to be universal in its application and eternal in its duration, wherever and whenever we might have territory requiring a government. It ignored the right of Congress to legislate for the people of the territories without their consent, and recognized the inalienable right of the people of the territories, when organized into political communities, to govern themselves in respect to their local concerns and internal policy, lt was adopted by the Congress of the Confederation on the 23d day of April, 1784, and stood upon the statute book as a general and permanent plan for the government of all territory whieh we then owned or should subsequently acquire, with a provision declar ing it to be a " Charter of Compact," and that its provisions should " stand as fundamental conditions between the thirteen original states and those newly described, unalterable but by the joint consent of the United States in Con gress assembled, and of the particular state within which such alteration is proposed to be made." Thus this Jeffersonian plan for the government ofthe territories — this " Charter of Compact" — " these fundamental conditions," which were declared to be " unalterable" without the consent of the people of ' ' the particular states (territories) within which such alteration is proposed to be made," stood on the statute book when the Convention assembled at Philadelphia in 1787 and proceeded to form the Constitution of the United States. Now let us examine the main provisions of the Jeffersonian plan : First. — " That the territory ceded or to be ceded by the individual states to the United States, whenever the same shall have been purchased of the Indian mhabitants and offered for sale by the United States, shall be formed into additional states," etc. etc. The plan proceeds to designate the boundaries and territorial extent of the proposed " additional states," and then provides : THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 47 j) Second. — " That the settlers -within the territory so-to be purchased and offered for sale shall, either on their own petition or on the order of Congress, receive authority from them, with appointments of time and place, for their free males of full age to meet together for the purpose of establishing a tem porary government to adopt the Constitution and laws of any one of these states (the original states), so that such laws nevertheless shall be subject to alteration by their ordinary Legislature ; and to erect, subject to like altera tion, counties or townships for the election of members for their Legislature." Having thus provided a, mode by which the first inhabitants or settlers of the territory may assemble together and choose for themselves the Constitu tion and laws of some one of the original thirteen states, and declare the §ame in force for the government of their territory temporarily, with the right on the part of the people to change the same, through their local Legislature, as they may see proper, the plan then proceeds to point out the mode in which they may establish for themselves " a permanent Constitution and govern ment," whenever they shall have twenty thousand inhabitants, as follows : Third. — "That such temporary government only shall continue in force in any State until it shall have acquired twenty thousand free inhabitants, when, giving due proof thereof to Congress, they shall receive from them authority, with appointments of time and place, to call a Convention of Representatives to establish a permanent Constitution and government for themselves." Having thus provided for the first settlers " a temporary government" in these " additional states," and for " a permanent Constitution and govern ment" when they shall have acquired twenty thousand inhabitants, the plan contemplates that they shall continue to govern themselves as states, having, as provided in the Virginia deed of cession, " the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence," in respect to their domestic affairs and internal polity, " as the other States," until they shall have a population equal to the least numerous of the original thirteen States ; and in the mean time shall keep a sitting member in Congress, with a right of debating but not of voting, when they shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other states, as follows : Fourth. — "That whenever any of the said states shall have of free inhabi tants as many as shall then be in any one of the least numerous of the thir teen original states, such state shall be admitted by its delegates into the Congress of the United States on an equal footing with the said original states." .... And— " Until such admission by their delegates into Congress any of the said states, after the establishment of their temporary government, shall have au thority to keep a sitting member in Congress, with the right of debating, but not of voting." Attached to the provision which appears in this paper under the " third" head is a proviso, containing five propositions, which when agreed to and ac cepted by the people of said additional states, were to " be formed into a charter of compact," and to remain forever " unalterable," except by the con sent of such states as well as of the United States — to wit : "Provided that both the temporary and permanent governments be estab lished on these principles as their basis : 1st — " That they shall forever remain » part of the United States of America." 2d— "That in their persons, property, and territory they shall be subject to the government of the United States in Congress assembled, and to the Arti cles of Confederation in all thoae cases in which the original states shall be so subject." 3d. — " That they shall be subject to pay a part of the federal debts oon- 480 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. tracted, or to be contracted— to be apportioned on them by Congress accord ing to the same common rule and measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other states." 4-th. — " That their respective governments shall be in republican form, and shah admit no person to be a citizen who holds any hereditary title." The fifth article, which relates to the prohibition of slavery after the year 1800, having been rejected by Congress, never became a part of the Jeffer sonian plan of government for the territories, as adopted April 23, 1784. The concluding paragraph of this plan of government, which emphatically ignores the right of Congress to bind the people of the territories without their consent, and recognizes the people therein as the true source of all legi timate power in respect to their internal pohty, is in these words : " That all the preceding articles shall be formed into a charter of compact, shall be duly executed by the President of the United States, in Congress as sembled, under bis hand and the seal of the United States, shall he promul gated, and shall stand as fundamental conditions between the thirteen original states and those newly described, unalterable but by the joint consent of the United States in Congress assembled, and of the particular state within which such alteration is proposed to be made." This Jeffersonian plan of government embodies and carries out the ideas and principles ofthe fathers ofthe Revolution — that the people of every separate political community (dependent colonies, provinces, and territories, as well as sovereign states) have an inalienable right to govern themselves in respect to their internal polity, and repudiates the dogma of the British ministry and the Tories of that day, that all colonies, provinces, and territories were the property of the empire, acquired with the common blood and common treas ure ; and that the inhabitants thereof have no rights, privileges, or immunities except such as the Imperial government should graciously condescend to be stow upon them. This plan recognizes by law and irrevocable " compact" the existence of two distinct classes of states under our American system of government — the one being members of the Union, and consisting- of the original thirteen and such other states, having tbe requisite population, as Congress should admit into the Federal Union, with an equal vote in the man agement of Federal affairs, as well as the exclusive power in regard to their internal polity respectively — the others, not having the requisite population for admission into the Union, could have no vote or agency in the control of the Federal relations, but possessed the same exclusive power over their do mestic affairs and internal policy respectively as the original states, with the right, while they have less than twenty thousand inhabitants, to choose for their government the Constitution and laws of any one of the original states ; and when they should have more than twenty thousand, but less than the number required to entitle them to admission into the Union, they were au thorized to form for themselves, "a permanent Constitution and government ;" and in either case they were entitled to keep a delegate in Congress with the right of debating, but not of voting. This " Charter of Compact," with its " fundamental conditions," wljich were declared to be " unalterable" without "the joint consent" of the people interested in them, as well as of the United States, thus stood on the statute book unrepealed and irrepealable — furnish ing a complete system of government for all "the territories ceded or to be ceded" to the United States, without any other legislation upon the subject, when, on the 14th day of May, 1787, the Federal Convention assembled in Philadelphia and proceeded to form the Constitution under which we now five. Thus it will be seen that the dividing line between Federal and local authority, in respect to the rights of those political communities whieh, for the sake of convenience and in contradistinction to the states represented in Con gress, we now call territories, but which were then known as " states," or " new THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 481 states," was so distinctly marked at that day that no intelligent man could fail to perceive it It is true that the government of the Confederation had proved totally in adequate to the fulfillment ofthe ends for which it was devised ; not because of the relations between the territories, or new states and the United States, but in consequence of having no power to enforce its decrees on the Federal questions which were clearly within the scope of its expressly delegated powers. The radical defects in the Articles of Confederation were found to consist in the fact that it was a mere league between sovereign states, and not a Federal government with its appropriate departments — executive, legislative, and judicial— each clothed with authority to perform and carry into effect its own peculiar functions. The Confederation having no power to enforce compliance with its resolves, " the consequence was, that though in theory the resolutions of Congress were equivalent to laws, yet in practice they were found to b6 mere recommendations, which the states, like other sover eignties, observed or disregarded according to their own good-will and gra cious pleasure." Congress could not impose duties, collect taxes, raise armies, or do any other act essential to the existence of government, without the voluntary consent and cooperation of each of the states. Congress could resolve, but could not carry its resolutions into effect — could recommend to the states to provide a revenue for the necessities ofthe Federal government, but could not use the means necessary to the collection ofthe revenue when the states failed to comply — could recommend to the states to provide an army for the general defense, and apportion among the states their respec tive quotas, but could not enlist the men and order them into the Federal service. For these reasons, a Federal government, with its appropriate de partments, acting directly upon the individual citizens, with authority to enforce its decrees to the extent of its delegated powers, and not dependent upon the voluntary action of the several states in their corporate capacity, became indispensable as a substitute for the government of the Confederation. In the, formation of the Constitution of the United States the federal Con vention took the British Constitution, as interpreted and expounded by the colonies during their controversy with Great Britain, for their model — mak ing such modifications in its structure and principles as the change in our condition had rendered necessary. They intrusted the executive functions to a President in the place of a King ; the legislative functions to a Congress composed of a Senate and House of Representatives, in lieu of the Parlia ment consisting ofthe House of Lords and Commons; and the judicial func tions to a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress should from time to time ordain and establish. Having thus divided the powers of government into the three appropriate departments, with which they had always been familiar, they proceeded to confer upon the federal government substantially the same powers which they as colonies had been willing to concede to the British government, and to reserve to the states and to the people the same rights and privileges which they as colonies had denied to the British government during the en tire struggle which terminated in our independence, and which they had claimed for themselves and their posterity as the birth-right of all freemen, inalienable when organized into political communities, and to be enjoyed and exercised by colonies, territories, and provinces as fully and completely as by sovereign states. Thus it will be seen that there is no organic feature or fundamental principle embodied in the Constitution of the United States which had not been familiar to tho people of the colonies from the period of their earliest settlement, and which had not been repeatedly asserted by them when denied by G: eat Britain during the whole period of their colonial his tory. X 482 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. let us pause at this point for a moment, and inquire whether it be just to those illustrious patriots and sages who formed the Constitution of the United States to assume that they intended to confer upon Congress that unlimited and arbitrary power over the people of the American territories, which they had resisted with their blood when claimed by the British Par liament over British colonies in America ? Did they confer upon Congress the right to bind the people of the American territories in all cases whatso ever, after having fought the battles ofthe Revolution against a " Preamble" declaring the right of Parliament " to bind the colonies in all cases whatso ever ?" It, as they contended before the Revolution, it was the birth-right of all Englishmen, inalienable when formed into pohtical communities, to exercise exclusive power of legislation in their local Legislatures in respect to all things affecting their internal polity — slavery not excepted — did not the same right, after the Revolution, and by virtue of it, become the birth-right of all Americans, in like manner inalienable when organized into pohtical communities — no matter by what name, whether colonies, territories, prov inces, or new states ? Names often deceive persons in respect to the nature and substance of things. A single instance of this kind is to be found in that clause of the Constitution which says : " Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." This being the only clause of the Constitution in whieh the word "terri tory" appears, that fact alone has doubtless led many persons to suppose that the right of Congress to establish temporary governments for the terri tories, in the sense in which the word is now used, must be derived from it, overlooking the important and controlling facts that at the time the Consti tution was formed the word " territory" had never been used or understood to designate a political community or government of any kind in any law, compact, deed of cession, or pubhc document ; but had invariably been used either in its geographical sense to describe the superficial area of a State or. district of country, as in the Virginia deed of cession of the " territory or tract of country" northwest of the river Ohio; or as meaning land in its character as property, in which latter sense it appears in the clause of the Constitution referred to, when providing for the disposition of the " territory or other property belonging to the United States." These facts, taking in connection with the kindred one that during the whole period of the con federation and the formation of the Constitution the temporary governments Which we now call " territories," were invariably referred to in the deeds of cession, laws, compacts, plans of government, resolutions of Congress, public records, and authentic documents as "states," or "new states," conclusively show that the words " territory and other property" in the Constitution were used to designate the unappropriated lands and other property which the United States owned, and not the people who might become residents on those lands, and be organized into political communities after the United States had parted with their title. It is from this clause of the Constitution alone that Congress derives the power to provide for the surveys and sale of the public lands and all other property belonging to tbe United States, not only in the territories, but also in the several states of the Union. But for this provision Congress would have no power to authorize the sale of the public lands, military sites, old ships, cannon, muskets, or other property, real or personal, which belong to the United States and are no longer needed for any pubhe purpose. It refers exclusively to property in contradistinction to persons and communi- THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 483 ties. It confers the same power " to make all needful rules and regulations" in . the states as in the territories, and extends wherever there may be any land or other property belonging to the United States to be regulated or disposed of; but does not authorize Congress to control or interfere with the domestic institutions and internal polity of the people (either in the states or the ter ritories) who may reside upon lands which the United States onoe owned. Such a power, had it been vested in Congress, would annihilate the sover eignty and freedoih of the states as well as the great principle of self-gov ernment in the territories, wherever the United States happen to own a portion of the public land within their respective hmits, as, at present, in the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Ilh nois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, California, and Oregon, and in the Territories of Washington, 'Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, and New Mexico. The idea is repugnant to the spirit and genius of our com plex system of government ; because it effectually blots out the dividing line between federal and local authority, which forms an essential barrier for the defense of the independence of the states and the liberties of the people against federal invasion. With one anomalous exception, all the powers conferred on Congress are federal, and not municipal, in their character — af fecting the general welfare of the whole country without interfering with the internal polity of the people — and can be carried into effect by laws which apply alike to states and territories. The exception, being in dero gation of one of the fundamental principles of our political system (because it authorizes the federal government to control the municipal affairs and in ternal polity of the people in certain specified, limited localities), was not left to vague inference or loose construction, nor expressed in dubious or .equivocal language ; but is found plainly written in that section of the Con stitution which says : ." Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings." No such power " to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," nor indeed any legislation in any case whatsoever, is conferred on Congress in respect to the municipal affairs and internal polity, either of the states or of the territories. On the contrary, after the Constitution had been finally adopted, ¦ with its federal power delegated, enumerated, and defined, in order to guard in all future time against any possible infringement of the reserved rights of the states, or of the people, an amendment was incorporated into the Constitution which marks the dividing line between federal and local authority so directly and indelibly that no lapse of time, no partisan preju dice, no sectional aggrandizement, no frenzied fanaticism can efface it. The amendment is in these words : " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This view ofthe subject is confirmed, if indeed any corroborative evidence is required, by reference to the proceedings and debates of the Federal Con vention, as reported by Mr. Madison. On the 18th of August, after a series of resolutions had been adopted as the basis of the proposed Constitution and referred to the Committee of Detail for the purpose of being put in proper form, the record says: " Mr. Madison submitted, in order to be referred to the Committee of Do- 484 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. tail, the following powers, as proper to be added to those of the general Leg islature (Congress) : "To dispose of the unappropriated lands of the United States. "To institute temporary governments for the new states arising therein. " To regulate affairs with the Indians, as well within as without the limits of the United States. " To exercise exclusively legislative authority at the seat of the general government, and over a district around the same not excfeeding^ square miles, the consent of the Legislature of the state or states comprising the same being first obtained." Here we find the original and rough draft of these several powers as they now exist, in their revised form, in the Constitution. The provision empow ering Congress "to disposed the unappropriated lands ofthe United States" was modified and enlarged so as to include "other property belonging to the United States," and to authorize Congress to "make all needful rules and regulations" for the preservation, management, and sale of the same. The provision empowering Congress "to institute temporary governments for the new states arising in the unappropriated lands ofthe United States," taken in connection with the one empowering Congress "to exercise exclu sively legislative authority at the seat of the general government, and over a district of country around the same, " clearly shows the difference in the extent and nature of the powers intended to- be conferred in the new states or territories on the one hand, and in the District of Columbia on the other. In the one case it was proposed to authorize Congress " to institute temporary governments for the new states," or territories, as they are now called, just as our Revolutionary fathers recognized the right of the British crown to in stitute local governments for the colonies, by issuing charters, under whieh the people of the colonies were " entitled (according to the Bill of Rights adopted by the Continental Congress) to a free and exclusive power of legis lation, in their several Provincial Legislatures, where their right of represen tation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity ; " While, in the other case, it was proposed to authorize Congress to exercise, exclusively, legislative authority over the municipal and internal polity of the people residing within the district which should be ceded for that pur pose as the seat of the general government. Each of these provisions was modified and perfected by the Committees of Detail and Revision, as will appear by comparing them with the correspond ing clauses as finally incorporated into the Constitution. The provision to authorize Congress to institute temporary governments for the new states or territories, s>nd to provide for their admission into the Union, appears in the Constitution in this form : " New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." The power to admit " new states," and " to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" to that end, may fairly be construed to include the right to institute temporary governments for such new states or territories, the same as Groat Britain could rightfully institute similar governments for the colonies; but certainly not to authorize Congress to legislate in respect to their municipal affairs and internal concerns, without violating that great fundamental prinoiple iu defense of which the battles ofthe Revolution were fought. If judicial authority were deemed necessary to give force to principles sc eminently ju&t in themselves, aud which form the basis of our entire political system, such authority may be found in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott case. In that case the Court say : " This brings us to examine by what provision ofthe Constitution the present Federal government, under its delegated and restricted powers, is authorized THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 485 to acquire territoiy outside of the original limits of the United States, and what powers it may exercise therein over the person or property of a citi zen of the United States, while it remains a territory, and until it shall be admitted as one of the States of the Union. " There is certainly no power given by tho Constitution to the Federal government to establish or maintain colonies, bordering on the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure ; nor to en large its territorial limits in any way except by the admission of new states . . . " The -power to expand the territory of the United States by the admission ' of new states is plainly given ; and in the construction of this power by all the departments of the government, it has been held to authorize the acqui sition of territory, not fit for admission at the time, but to be admitted as soon as its population and situation would entitle it to admission. It is ac quired to become a state, aud not to be held as a colony and governed by Congress with absolute authority; and as the propriety of admitting a new state is committed to the sound discretion of Congress, the power to acquire territory for that purpose, to be held by the United States until it is in a suit able condition to become a state upon an equal footing with the other states, must rest upon the same discretion." Having determined the question that the power to acquire territory for the purpose of enlarging our territorial limits and increasing the number of states is included within the power to admit new states and conferred by the same clause of the Constitution, the Court proceeded to say that " the power to acquire necessarily carries with it the power to preserve and apply to the purposes for whieh it was acquired." And again, referring to a^ormer de cision ofthe same Court in respect to the power of Congress to institute gov ernments for the territories, the Court say: " The power stands firmly on the latter alternative put by the Court — that is, as the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory." The power to acquire territory, as well as the right, in the language of Mr. Madison, " to institute temporary governments for tbe new states arising therein" (or territorial governments, as they are now called), having been traced to that provision of the Constitution which provides for the admission of "new states," the Court proceed to consider the nature and extent of the power of Congress over the people of the territories : " All we mean to say on this point is, that, as there is no 'express regula tion in the Constitution defining the power which the general government may exercise over the person or property of a citizen in a territory thus ^ac quired, the Court must necessarily look to the provisions and principles of the Constitution, and its distribution of powers,_for the rules and principles by whieh its decision must be governed. " Taking this rule to guide us, it may be safely assumed that citizens of the United States, Who emigrate to a territory belonging to the people of the United States, can not be ruled as mere colonists, dependent upon the will of the general government, and to be governed by any laws it may think proper to impose. . . . The territory being a part of the United States, the government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Con stitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out ; and the federal government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has re served." Hence, inasmuch as the Constitution has conferred on the Federal govern ment no right to interfere with the property, domestic relations, police regulations, or internal polity of the people of the territories, it necessarily follows, under the authority of the Court, that Congress can rightfully exer cise no such power over the people of the territories. For this reason alone, 486 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. the Supreme Court were authorized and compelled to pronounce the eighth section of the act approved March 6,' 1820 (commonly called the Missouri Compromise), inoperative and void — there being no power, delegated to Congress in the Constitution authorizing Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories. In the course of the discussion of this question the Court gave an elabor ate exposition of the structure,, principles, and powers of the Federal govern ment ; showing that it possesses no powers except those whieh are delegated, enumerated, and defined in the Constitution ; and that all other powers are either prohibited altogether or are reserved to the states, or to the people. In order to show that the prohibited as well as the delegated powers are enu merated and defined in the Constitution, the Court enumerated certain pow ers which can not be exercised either by Congress or by the territorial Leg islatures, or by any other authority whatever, for the simple reason that they are forbidden by the Constitution. 1 Some persons, who have not examined critically the opinion of the Court in this respect, have been induced to beheve that the slavery question was included in this class of prohibited powers, and that the Court had decided in the Dread Scott case that the territorial Legislature could not legislate in respect to slave property the same as all other property in the territories. A few extracts from the opinin of the Court will correct th;s error, and show clearly the class of powers to which the Court referred, as being forbid den alike to the Federal government, to the states, and to the territories. The Court say : " A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition. Por example, no one, we presume, will contend that Con gress can make any law in a territory respecting the establishment of reli gion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances. "Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. ... So, too, it wiTl hardly be contended that Congress could by law quarter a soldier in a house in a territory with out the consent of the owner in a time of peace ; nor in time of war but in a manner prescribed by law. Nor could they by-law forfeit the property of a citizen in a territory who was convicted of treason, for a longer period than the life of the person convicted, nor take private property for pubhc use with out just compensation. " The powers over persons and property, of whieh we speak, are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are for bidden to exercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the states, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it re maining under territorial governments, as well as that covered by states. " It is a total absence of power, everywhere within the dominion of the United States, and places the citizens of a territory, so far as these rights are concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the states, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the general government might attempt, under the plea of implied or incidental powers. And if Con-. gress itself can not do this — if it is beyond the powers conferred on the Federal government—it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not au thorize a territorial government, established by its authority, to violate the provisions of the Constitution." Nothing can be more certain than that the Court where here speaking only of forbidden powers, which were denied alike to Congress, to the state legisla- ¦ THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 487 tures, and to the territorial legislatures, and that the prohibition extends " every where within the dominion of the United States," applicable equally to states and territories, as well as to the United States. If this sweeping prohibition — this just but inexorable restriction upon tho powers of government — federal state, and territorial — shall ever be held to include the slavery question, thus negativing the right of the people of the states and territories, as well as the federal government, to control it by law (and it will be observed that in the opinion of the Court " the citizens of a territory, so far as these rights are concerned, are on the same footing with the citizens of the states"), then, indeed, will the doctrine become firmly es tablished that the principles of law applicable to African slavery are uniform throughout the dominion of the United States, and that there " is an irrepressi ble conflict between opposing and enduring forces, whieh means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slave- holding nation or entirely a free-labor nation." Notwithstanding the disastrous consequences which would inevitably re sult from the authorative recognition and practical operation of such a doc trine, there are those who maintain that the Court referred to and included the slavery question within that class of forbidden powers which (although the same in the territories as in the states) eould not be exercised by the peo ple of the territories. Lf this proposition were true, which fortunately for the peace and welfare of the whole country it is not, the conclusion would inevitably result, which they logically deduce from the premises — that the Constitution by the recog nition of slavery establishes it in the territories beyond the power of the peo ple to control it by law, and guarantees to every citizen the right to go there and be protected in the enjoyment of his slave property ; an* when all other remedies fail for the protection of such rights of property, it becomes the im perative duty of Congress (to the performance of which every member is bound by his conscience and his oath, and from which no consideration of pohtical policy or expediency can release him) to provide by law such ade quate and complete protection as is essential to the full enjoyment of an im portant right secured by the Constitution. If the proposition be true, that the Constitution estabBshes slavery in the territories beyond the power of the people legally to control it, another result, no less startling, and from whieh there is no escape, must inevitably follow. The Constitution is uniform " every where within the dominions of the United States" — is the same in Pennsylvania as in Kansas — and if it be true, as stated by the President iu a speoial message to Congress, " that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of tho United States," and that "Kansas is therefore at this mo ment as much a slave state as Georgia or South Carolina," why does it not exist in Pennsylvania by virtue of the same Constitution ? If it be said that Pennsylvania is a Sovereign State, and therefore has a right to regulate the slavery question within her own limits to suit herself, it must be borne in mind that the sovereignty of Pennsylvania, like that of every other state, is limited by the Constitution, whieh provides that : " This Constitution, and all laws of the United States whieh shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state lo ihe contrary notwithstanding." Hence, the State of Pennsylvania, with her Constitution and laws, and domestic institutions, and internal policy, is subordinate to the Constitution of the United States, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as the Terri tory of Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska Act says that the Territory of Kan sas shall exercise legislative power over, " all rightful subjects of legislation 488 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. consistent with the Constitution," and that the people of said territory shaU be left " perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to tbe Constitution of the United States." The pro visions of this act are believed to be in entire harmony with the Constitution, and under them the people of Kansas possess every right, privilege, and im munity, in respect to their internal polity and domestic relations which the people of Pennsylvania can exercise under their Constitution and laws. Each is invested with full, complete, and exclusive powers in this respect, " subject only to the Constitution of the United States." The question recurs then, if the Constitution does establish slavery in Kan sas or any other territory beyond the power of the people to control it by law, how can the conclusion be resisted that slavery is established in like manner and by the same authority in all the states of the Union ? And if it be the imperative duty of Congress to provide by law for the protection of slave property in the territories upon the ground that " slavery exists in Kansas" (and consequently in every other territory), "by virtue of the Constitution of the United States," why is it not also the duty of Congress, for the same reason, to provide similar protection to slave property in all the states of the Union, when the Legislatures fail to furnish such protection ? Without confessing or attempting to avoid the inevitable consequences of their own doctrine, its advocates endeavor to fortify their position by citing the Dred Scott decision to prove that the Constitution recognizes property in slaves — that there is no legal distinction between this and every other de scription of property — that slave property and every other kind of property stand on an equal footing — that Congress has no more power over the one than over the other — and, consequently, can not discriminate between them. Upon this point the Court say : " Now as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a dif ferent point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. . . . And if the Consti.ation recognizes the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction, or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the government. . . . And the government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, if ihe slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words — too plain to. be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives- Congress a greater power over slave property, or wliich entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights." The rights ofthe owner which it is thus made the duty ofthe Federal gov ernment to guard and protect are those expressly provided for in the Consti tution, and defined in clear and explicit language by the Court — that " the government, in express terms, is pledged to protect it (slave property) in all future time, if the slave escapes from his owner." This is the only contingency, according to the plain reading of the Constitution as authoritatively inter preted by the Supreme Court, in which the Federal government is authorized, required, or permitted to interfere with slavery in the states or territories; and in that ease only for the purpose "of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights" to reclaim his slave property. In all other respects slaves stand on the same footing with all other property — " the Constitution makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen;" and "no word can be found in the Constitution which gives THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 489 Congress a greater power over slave property, or whieh entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description." This ia the basis upon which all rights pertaining to slave property, either in the states or the territories, stand under the Constitution as expounded by the Supreme Court in the Dred Seott case. Inasmuch as the Constitution has delegated no power to the Federal gov ernment in respect to any other kind of property belonging to the citizen — neither introducing, establishing, prohibiting, nor excluding it any where within the dominion of the United States, but leaves the owner thereof per feetly free to remove into any state or territory and carry his property with him, aud hold the same subject to the local law, and relying upon the local authorities for protection, it follows, according to the decision of the Court, that slave property stands on the same footing, is entitled to the same rights and immunities, and in like manner is dependent upon the local authorities and laws for protection. The Court refer to that clause ofthe Constitution which provides for the ren dition of fugitive slaves as their authority for saying that the " right of property in slaves is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution." By refer ence to that provision it will be seen that, while the word " slaves" is not used, still tho Constitution not only recognizes the right of property in slaves, as stated by the Court, but explicitly states what class of persons_ shall be deemed slaves, and under what laws or authority they may be held to ser vitude, and under what circumstauces fugitive slaves shall be restored to their owners, all in the same section, as follows : " No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be dehvered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." Thus it will be seen that a slave, within the meaning of the Constitution, is a " persou held to service, or labor in one state, under the laws thereof" — not under the Constitution ofthe United States, nor by the laws thereof, nor by virtue of any Federal authority whatsoever, but under the laws of the particular state where such service or labor may be due. It was necessary to give this exact definition of slavery in the Constitu tion in order to satisfy the people of the South as well as of the North. The slaveholding states would never consent for a moment that their domestic relations — and especially their right of property in their slaves — should be dependent upon Federal authority, or that Congress should have any power over the subject — either to extend, confine, or restrain it ; much less to pro tect or regulate it — lest, under the pretense of protection and regulation, the Federal government, under the influence of the strong and increasing anti- slavery sentiment which prevailed at that period, might destroy the institu tion, and divest those rights of property in slaves which were sacred under the laws and Constitutions of their respective states so long as the Federal government-iad no power to interfere with the subject. In hke manner the non-slaveholding states, while they were entirely will ing to provide for the surrender of all fugitive slaves — as is conclusively shown by the unanimous vote of all the states in the Convention for the provision now under consideration — and to leave each state perfectly free to hold slaves under its own laws, and by virtue of its own separate and exclusive authority, so long as it pleased, and to abolish it when it ehose, were un willing to become responsible for its existence by incorporating it into the Constitution as a national institution, to be protected and regulated, ex tended ahd controlled by Federal authority, regardless of the wishes qf the people, and in defiance of the local laws of the several states and territories. Por these opposite reasons the southern and northern states united in giv- X2 490 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. ing a unanimous vote in the Convention for that provision of the Constitu tion which recognizes slavery as a local institution in the several states where it exists, "under the laws thereof," and provides for the surrender of fugitive slaves. It will be observed that the term " state" is used in this provision, as well as in various other parts of the Constitution, in the same sense in whieh it was used by Mr. Jefferson in his plan for establishing governments for the new states in the territory ceded and to be ceded to the United states, and by Mr. Madison in his proposition to confer on Congress power " to institute temporary governments for the new states arising in the unappropriated lands of the United States," to designate the political communities, territories as well as states, within the dominion of the United States. The word " states" is used in the same sense in the ordinance of the 13th July, 1787, for the government of the territory northwest of the River Ohio, which was passed by the remnant of the Congress of the Confederation, sitting in New Tork while its most eminent ' members were at Philadelphia, as delegates to the Federal Convention, aiding in the formation of the Constitution of the United States. In this sense the word " states" is used in the clause providing for the rendition of fugitive slaves, applicable to all political communities under the authority of the United States, including the territories as well as the several states of the Union. Under any other construction the right of the owner to recover his slave would be restricted to the states of the Union, leaving the territories a secure place of refuge for all fugitives. The same remark is applicable to the clause of the Constitution which provides that " a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another slate, shall, on the demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up tq be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime." Unless the term state, as used in these provisions of the Constitution, shall be construed to include every distinct political community under the jurisdiction of the United States, and to apply to territories as well as to the states of the Union, the territories must become a sanctuary for all the fugitives from service and justice, for all the felons and criminals who shall escape from the several states and seek refuge and immunity in the territories. If any other illustration were necessary to show that the political commu nities whieh we now call territories (but which, during the whole period of the Confederation and the formation of the 'Constitution, were always re ferred to as " states" or " new states"), are recognized as " states" in some of the provisions of the Constitution, they may be found in those clauses which declare that " no state" shall enter into any " treaty, alliance, or con federation ; grant letters of marque and reprisal ; coin money ; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver and coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obli gation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." It must be borne in mind that in each of these cases where the power is not expressly delegated to Congress the prohibition is not imposed upon the Fed eral government, but upon the states. There was no necessity for any sueh prohibition upon Congress or the Federal government, for the reason that the omission to delegate any such powers in the Constitution was of itself a prohibition, and so declared in express terms by the. tenth amendment, which. declares that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Consti tution, nor prohibited by it. to the states, are reserved to the states respec tively, or to the people." Hence it would certainly be competent for the states and territories to ex ercise these powers but for the prohibition contained in those provisions of - THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 491 the Constitution; and inasmuch as the prohibition only extends to the " states," the people of the " territories" are still at hberty to exercise them, unless the territories are included within the term states, within the mean ing of these provisions of the Constitution of the United States. It only remains to be shown that the Compromise measures, of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 are in perfect harmony with, and a faith ful embodiment of the principles herein enforced. A brief history of these measures will disclose the principles upon which they are founded. On the 29th of January, 1850, Mr. Clay introduced into the Senate a series of resolutions upon the slavery question which were intended to form the basis of the subsequent legislation upon that subject. Pending the dis cussion of these resolutions the chairman of the Committee on Territories prepared and reported to the Senate, on the 25th of March, two bills — one for the admission of California into the Union of states, and the other for the organization of the territories of Utah and New Mexico, and for the adjust ment of the disputed boundary of the State of Texas, which were read twice and printed for the use of the Senate. On the 19th of April a select com mittee of thirteen was appointed, on motion of Mr. Foote, of Mississippi, of whieh Mr. Clay was made chairman, and to which were referred all pending propositions relating to the slavery question. On the 8th of May, Mr. Clay, from the select committee of thirteen, submitted to the Senate an elaborate report covering all the points in controversy, accompanied by a bill, which is usually known as the " Omnibus Bill." By reference to the provisions of of this bill, as it appears on the files of the Senate, it will be seen that it is composed of the two printed bills which had been reported by the Com mittee on Territories on the 25th of March previous ; and that the only material change in its provisions, involving an important and essential prin ciple, is to be found in the tenth section, which prescribes and defines the powers of the territorial Legislature. In the bill, as reported by the Com mittee on Territories, the legislative power of the territories extended to " rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States," without excepting African slavery ; while the bill; as reported by the committee of thirteen, conferred the same power on the territorial Legisla ture, with the, exception of African slavery. This portion of the section in its original form read thus : " And be it further enacted that the legislative power of the territoiy shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with tbe Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act ; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposition of the soil." To which the committee of thirteen added these words : " Nor in respect to African slavery." When the bill came up for action on the 15th of May, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, said : " I offer the following amendment. To strike out, in the sixth fine of the tenth section, the words 'in respect to African slavery,' and insert the words ' with those rights of property growing out of the institution of African slavery as its exists in any of the states of the Union.' The object of the amendment is to prevent the territorial Legislature from legislating against the rights of property growing out of the institution of slavery. It will leave to the territorial Legislatures those rights and powers which are essentially necessary, not only to the preservation of property, but to the peace of the territory. It will leave the right to make such police regulations as are nec essary to prevent disorder, and which will be absolutely necessary with such property as that to secure its beneficial use to its owner. With this brief explanation I submit the amendment." Mr. Clay, in reply to Mr. Davis, said: "I am not perfectly sure that I comprehend the full meaning of theamend- 492 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. ment offered by the senator from Mississippi. If I do, I think he accom plishes nothing by striking out the clause now in the bill and inserting that which he proposes to insert. The clause now in the bill is, that the territo rial legislation shall not extend to any thing respecting African slavery within the territories. The effect of retaining the clause as reported by the committee will be this : That if in any of the territories slavery now exists, it shall not be abolished by the territorial Legislature ; and if in any of the territories slavery does not now exist, it can not be introduced by the terri torial Legislature. The clause itself was introduced into the bill' by the committee for the purpose of tying up the hands of the territorial Legisla ture in respect to legislating at all, one way or the other, upon the subject of African slavery. It was intended to leave the legislation and tbe law of the respective territories in the condition in which the act will find them. I stated on a former occasion that I did not, in committee, vote for the amend ment to insert the clause, though it was proposed to be introduced by a majority of the committee. I attached very little consequence to it at the time, and I attach very little to it at present. It is perhaps of no particular importance whatever. Now, sir, if I understand the measure proposed by the senator from Mississippi, it aims at the same thing. I do not understand him as proposing that if any one shall carry slaves into the territory — al though by the laws of the territory he can not take them there — the legis lative hands of the .territorial government should be so tied as to prevent it saying he shall not enjoy the fruits of their labor. If the senator from Mis sissippi means to say that — " Mr. Davis: " I do mean to say it." Mr. Clay: " If the object of the senator is to provide that slaves may be introduced into the territory contrary to the lex loci, and, being introduced, nothing shall be done by the Legislature to impair the rights of owners to hold the slaves thus brought contrary to the local laws, / certainly can not vote for it. In doing so I shall repeat again the expression of opinion which I announced at an early period of the session." Here we find the line distinctly drawn between those who contended for the right to carry slaves into the territories and hold them in defiance of the local law, and those who contended that such right was subject to the local law of the territory. During the progress of the discussion on the same day Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, said : " We are giving, or proposing to give, a government to a territory, whieh act rests upon the basis of our right to make such provision. We suppose we have a right to confer power. If so, we may mark out the limit to which they may legislate, and are bound not to confer power beyond that which exists in Congress. If we give them power to legislate beyond that we commit a fraud or usurpation, as it may be done openly, covertly, or in directly." To whieh Mr. Clay replied : " Now, sir, I only repeat what I have had occasion to say before, that while I am willing to stand aside and make no legislative enactment one way or the other — to lay off the territories without the Wilmot proviso, on the one hand, with whieh I understand we are threatened, or without an attempt to introduce a clause for the introduction of slavery into the terri tories. While I am for rejecting both the one and the other, I am content that the law as it exists shall prevail ; and if there be any diversity of opin ion as to what it means, I am willing that it shall be settled by the highest judicial authority of the country. While I am content thus to abide the THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 493 result, I must say that I can not vote for any express provision recognizing the right to carry Blaves there." To which Mr. Davis rejoined, that — " It is said our Revolution grew out of a preamble ; and I hope we have something of the same character of the hardy men of the Revolution who first commenced the war with the mother country — something of the spirit of that bold Tankee who said he had a right to go to Concord, and that go he would ; and who, in the maintenance of. that right, met his death at the hands of a, British sentinel Now, sir, if our right to carry slaves into these territories be a constitutional right, it is our first duty to maintain it." Pending the discussion which, ensued, Mr. Davis, at the suggestion of a friends, modified his amendment from time to time, until it assumed the fol lowing shape : "Nor to introduce nor exclude African slavery. Provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to prevent the territorial Legislature from passing such laws as may be necessary for the protection of the rights of property of every kind which may have been, or may be hereafter, con formably to the Constitution of the United States, held in or introduced into said territory." To which, on the same day, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, offered the following amend ment: " Provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing or permitting the introduction of slavery or the holding of persons as property within said territory." Upon these amendments — the one affirming the pro-slavery and the other the anti-slavery position, in opposition to the right of the people of the terri tories to decide the slavery question for themselves — Mr. Douglas said : " The position that I have ever taken has been, that this, and all other ques tions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic policy of the territories, ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves ; and that we ought to be content with whatever way they may decide the question, because they have a much deeper interest in these matters than we have, and know much better what institutions suit them than we, who have never been there, can decide for them. I would therefore have much preferred that that portion of the bill should have remained as it was reported from the Committee on Ter ritories, with no provision on the subject of slavery, the one way or the other. And I do hope yet that that clause will be stricken out. I am satisfied, sir, that it gives no strength to the bill. I am satisfied, even if it did give strength to it, that it ought not to be there, because it is a violation of principle — a vio lation of that principle upon which we have all rested our defense of the course we have taken on this question. I do not see how those of us who have taken the position we have taken — that of non-intervention — and have argued in favor of the right of the people to legislate for themselves on this question, can support such a provision without abandoning all the arguments which we used in the presidential campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set forth by the honorable senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass), in that letter which is known as the ' Nicholson Letter.' We are required to abandon that platform ; we are required to abandon those principles, and to stultify our selves, and to adopt the opposite doctrine — and for what ? In order to say that the people of the territories shall not have such institutions as they shall deem adapted to their condition and their wants. I do not see, sir, how such a pro vision can be acceptable either to the people of the North or the South." Upon the question, how many inhabitants a territory should contain before it should be formed into a political community, with the rights of self-govern ment, Mr. Douglas said : " The senator from Mississippi puts the question to me as to what numbei 494 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGIAS. of people there must be in a territory before this righ t to govern themselves accrues. Without determining the precise number, I will assume that the right ought to accrue to the people at the moment they have enough to con stitute a government ; and, sir, the bill assumes that there are people enough there to require a government, and enough to authorize the people to govern themselves Tour bill concedes that a representative government is necessary — a government founded upon the principles of popular sovereignty and the right of a people to enact their own laws; and for. this reason you give them a Legislature composed of two branches, like the Legislatures of the different states and territories of the Union. Tou confer upon them the right to legislate on 'all rightful subjects of legislation,' except negroes. Why except negroes ? Why except African slavery ? If the inhabitants are compe tent to govern themselves upon all other subjects, and in reference to all other descriptions of property — if they are competent to make laws and determine the relations between husband and wife, and parent and child, and municipal laws affecting the rights and property of citizens generally, they are compe tent also to make laws to govern themselves in relation to slavery and With reference to the protection of property in slaves, Mr. Douglas said: " I have a word to say to the honorable senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis). He insists that I am not in favor of protecting property, and that his amendment is offered for the purpose of protecting property under the Consti tution. Now, sir, I ask you what authority he has for assuming that ? Do I not desire to protect property because I wish to allow the people to . pass such laws as they deem proper respecting their rights to property without any exception ? He might just as well say that I am opposed to protecting property in merchandise, in steamboats, in cattle, in real estate, as to say that I am opposed to protecting property of any other description ; for I desiro to put them all on an equality, and allow the people to make their own laws in respect to the whole of them." Mr. Cass said (referring to the amendments offered by Mr. Davis and Mr. " Now with respect to the amendments. I shall vote against them both; and then I shall vote in favor of striking out the restriction in the bill upon the power of the territorial governments. I shall do so upon this ground. I was opposed, as the honorable senator from Kentucky has declared he was, to the insertion of this prohibition by the committee. I consider it inexpedient and unconstitutional. I have already stated my belief that the rightful power of internal legislation in the territories belongs to the people." After further discussion . the vote was taken by yeas and nays on the amendment of Mr. Chase, and decided in the negative: yeas, 25 ; nays, 30. The question recurring on the amendment of Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, it was also rejected: yeas, 25; nays, 30. Whereupon Mr. Seward offered the foUow ing amendment : " Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than by conviction for'crime, shall ever be allowed in either of said Territories of Utah and New Mexico." Which was rejected: yeas, 23 ; nays, 33. After various other amendments had been offered and voted upon — all re lating to the power of the territorial Legislature over slavery — Mr. Douglas moved to strike out all relating to African slavery, so that the territorial Legis lature should have tbe same power over that question as over all-other rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution — which amendment was rejected. After the rejection of this amendment, the discussion was re newed with great ability and depth of feeling in respect to the powers which the territorial Legislature should exercise upon the subject of slavery. Various THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 495 propositions were made, and amendments offered and rejected — all relating to this one controverted point— when Mr. Norris, of New Hampshire, renewed the motion of Mr. Douglas, to strike out the restriction on the territorial Legislature in respect to African slavery. On the 31st of July this amend ment was adopted by a vote of 32 to 19 — restoring this section of the bill to the form in which it was reported from the- Committee on Territories on the 25th of March, and conferring on the territorial Legislature power over " all rightful ^ubjeets of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States," without excepting African slavery. Thus terminated this great struggle in the affirmance of the principle, as the basis of the compromise measures of 1850, so far as they related to the organization of the territories, that tlie people of the territories should decide the slavery question for themselves through the action of their territorial Legislatures. This controverted question having been definitely settled, the Senate pro ceeded on the same day to consider the other portions of the bill, and after striking out all except those provisions which provided for the organization of the Territory of Utah, ordered the bill to be engrossed for a third reading, and on the next day — August 1, 1850 — the bill was read a third time, and passed. On the 14th of August the bill for the organization of the Territory of New Mexico was taken up, and amended so as to conform fully to the provisions of the Utah Act in respect to the power of the territorial Legislature over "all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution," without excepting African slavery, and was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading without a division; and on the next day the bill was passed — yeas, 27; nays, 10. These two bills were sent to the House of Representatives, and passed that body without any alteration in respect .to the power of the territorial Legisla tures over the subject of slavery, and were approved by President Fihnore September 9, 1850. In 1852, when the two great political parties — Whig and Democratic — into which the country was then divided, assembled in National Convention at Baltimore for the purpose of nominating candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, each convention adopted and affirmed the principles em bodied in the compromise measures of 1850 as rules of action by which they would be governed in all future cases in the organization of territorial govern ments and the admission of new states. On the 4th of January, 1854, the Committee on Territories ofthe Senate, to which had been referred a bill for the organization of the Territory of Neb raska, reported the bill back, with an amendment, in the form of a substitute for the entire bill, which, with some modifications, is now known on the stat ute book as the "Kansas-Nebraska Act," accompanied by a report explaining the principles upon which it was proposed to organize those territories, as follows : " The principal amendments which your committee deem it their duty to commend to the favorable action of the Senate, in a special report, are those in which the principles estabfished by the compromise measures of 1850, so far as they are applicable to territorial organizations, are proposed to be affirmed and carried into practical operation within the limits of the new terri tory. The wisdom of those measures is attested, not less by their salutary and beneficial effects in allaying sectional agitation and restoring peace and harmony to an irritated and distracted people, than by the cordial and almost universal approbation with which they have been received and sanctioned by the whole country. " In the judgment of your committee, those measures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of MoXican territory. They 496 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only fur nish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of a similar agitation,- by withdrawing the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and committing it to the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in and alone responsible for its con sequences. With a view of conforming their action to the settled policy of the government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American people, your committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in their territorial bill, tbe principles and spirit of those measures." After presenting and reviewing certain provisions of the bill, the committee conclude as follows: " Prom these provisions it is apparent that the compromise measures of 1850 affirm and rest upon the foUowing propositions : " ' First. — That all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories, and in the new states to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives to be chosen by' them for that purpose. " ' Second. — That all cases involving title to slaves and questions of per sonal freedom, are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. " ' Third. — That the provision of the Constitution of the United States in respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in all the organized territories, the same as in the states. The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and prin ciples into practical operation, in the precise language of the Compromise Measures of 1850.' " By reference to that section ofthe " Kansas-Nebraska Act" as it now stands on the statute book, which described and defined the power of the territorial Legislature, it wUl be seen that it is " in tiie precise language of the Compro mise Measures of 1850," extending the legislative power of the territory "to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution," without excepting African slavery. It having been suggested, with some plausibility, during the discussion of the bill, that the act of Congress of March 6, 1820, .prohibiting slavery north ofthe parallel of 36° 30' would deprive the people of the territory of the power of regulating the slavery question to suit themselves while they should re main in a territorial condition, and before they should have the requisite pop ulation to entitle them to admission into the Union as a state, an amendment was prepared by the chairman of the Committee, and incorporated into the bill to remove this obstacle to the free exercise of the principle of popular sovereignty in the territory, while it remained in a territorial condition, by repealing the said act of Congress, and declaring the true intent and mean ing of all the friends of the bill in these words : " That the Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the territory as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, whieh being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Con gress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognized by the legisla tion of 1850, commonly called the ' Compromise Measures,' is hereby declared inoperative and void — it being the true intent a ,d meaning of this act not to leg islate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but lo leave the people tliereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions m their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." To which was added, on motion of Mr. Badger, the foUowing : THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 497 " Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of the sixth of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, or abolishing slavery." In this form,- and with this distinct understanding of its "true intent and meaning," the bill passed the two houses of Congress, and became the law of the land by the approval of the President, May 30, 1854. Iu 1856, the Democratic party, assembled in National Convention at Cin cinnati, declared by a unanimous vote of the delegates from every State in the Union, that "The American Democracy recognize and'adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing ths territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embod ying the only sound and safe solution of the ' slavery question,' upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union — non-interference by Congre ss with slavery in state and territory, or in the District of Columbia. " That this was the basis of the Compromises of 1850, confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in National Conventions — ratifie d by the people in the election of 1852 — and rightly applied to the organization of the territories in 1854; That by the uniform application of this Democratic prin ciple to the organization of territories and to the admission of new states, with or without domestic slavery as they may elect, the equal rights of all will be preserved intact — the original compacts of the Constitution main tained inviolate — and tbe perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing in peace aud harmony any future American State that may be constituted or annexed with a Republican form of govern ment." In accepting the nomination of this Convention, Mr. Buchanan, in "a letter dated June 16, 1856, said : "Tbe agitation on the question of domestic slavery has too long distracted and divided the people of this Union, and alienated their affections from each other. This agitation has assumed many forms since its commencement, but it now seems to be directed chiefly to the territories ; and judging from its present character, I think we may safely anticipate that it is rapidly approach ing a ' finality.' The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slav ery, derived, as it has been, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the majority, promises, ere long, to allay the dan gerous excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and in accordance with them has simply declared that the people of a territory, like those of a state, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." This exposition of the history of these measures shows conclusively that the authors of the Compromise Measures of 1850, and ofthe Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, as well as the members ofthe Continental Congress of 1774 and the founders of our system of government subsequent to the Revolution, regarded the people of the territories and colonies as political communities which were entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their pro vincial legislatures, where their representation could alone be preserved, in all bases of taxation and internal polity. This right pertains to the people collectively as a law-abiding and peaceful community, and not to the isolated individuals who may wander upon the public domain in violation of law. It can only be exercised where there are inhabitants sufficient to constitute a government, and capable of performing its various functions and duties — a act to be ascertained and determined by Congress. Whether the number shall be fixed at ten, fifteen, or twenty thousand inhabitants does not affect the principle. The principle, under our pohtical system, is that every distinct political com- 498 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. mwnity, loyal to ihe Constitution and the Union, is entitled to all the rights, priv ileges, and immunities of self-government in respect to their local concerns and internal polity, subject only to ihe Constitution ofthe United States. THE CONTROVERSY WITH BLACK. The appearance of this article in Harper's Magazine was rather a surprise to the enemies of popular right. The abUity of its argument and the great force of its reasoning, carry ing conviction to all candid minds, caused no little alarm. It was deemed necessary, on the part of those who professed doc trines which General Cass so emphatically declared were " far better suited to the meridian of Constantinople than to that of Washington," that there should be a reply. And with that blindness and blundering which seems to have marked every step and every movement of the Administration in the warfare upon popular sovereignty and its champion, instead of commit ting the office of replying to a competent or even well informed person, the task was intrusted to Attorney General Black. The country sustained a loss in this selection. Had the task of replying to Judge Douglas been assumed by a lawyer or statesman fitted by natural gifts or legal acquirements and political experience to discuss principles of government and their bearings and application towards the great point at issue, the literature — the political and legal literature of the country, would have been enriched by the productions on both sides, and the public would have been aided by the profound rea soning of the disputants in arriving at a correct cbnclusion. But Attorney General Black discussed the question not as a lawyer, not as a statesman, but after the style of a county court pettifogger arguing a case of slander. Had the discus sion of this topio been conducted by Senator Davis, of Missis sippi, instead of by Attorney General Black, the country would have had the views of a man thoroughly acquainted with the subject, well informed as a statesman, and one representing a people deeply interested in the matter ; and whose views would have been presented in a manner and in language becoming a dignified gentleman, a scholar, and a constitutional lawyer. Had it been conducted by Mr. Toucey, who once fiUed the office of attorney general with great distinction, the country would have had an argument not only embellished with dignity and learning, but possibly as clear and as convincing even as his THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 499 beautiful and thrUling defence of the opposite doctrine deliv ered in the Senate in 1854 and in 1856. It is related of an editor in one ofthe western cities who for ¦ a long time believed himself possessed of great powers of ora tory, and who upon all occasions and at all times felt called upon to "respond for the presSj" that on one occasion, while standing in a crowd at a depot, when a lady complained to her attendant of the almost suffocating pressure they were expe riencing, the editor, who had overheard only the first syl lable of the word " pressure," immediately mounted a pile of trunks, and in behalf of the " press" gave utterance to his opin ions. Judge Black seems to labor under a like impression, not only as to his capacity to discuss legal questions, but also as to the necessity for him, whenever a legal question is discussed, to enter into the debate, no matter where and by whom origin ated. With a recklessness that amounted almost to absurdity he rushed into print in reply to the Harper article of Judge Douglas. This reply appeared anonymously in the Wash ington Union, and was soon laughed at by the lawyers of the country. Subsequently the name ofthe author was given, and the reply, printed in pamphlet form, and franked by the attor ney general, was distributed broad-cast over the country. Judge Douglas was then in Chicago. He had agreed, in reply to an invitation of the Democrats of Ohio, to deliver three speeches in that State. One of these was, at Wooster, On his way to that place a copy of Black's reply was placed in his hands, and in his speech he discussed somewhat severely some of the personal passages of the document ; and made a remark that the author of that reply had, «in 1858, written letters to Illinois urging reasons for the defeat of Douglas and, conse quently, the election of Lincoln. It is only just, as a matter of history, that it should be stated that shortly after the publication of this speech letters from a cabinet officer were received by persons in Illinois, requesting the return of the originals of certain political letters written by the same cabinet officer during the great contest between the Democracy and the allied Danites and Republicans. The limits of this volume preclude the possibility of giving herein Judge Douglas' reply to Judge Black's pamphlet. It was a complete and thorough review and exposure ofthe mis takes and blunders of the attorney general. Judge Black, late 500 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. in October, rejoined in a pamphlet, and Mr. Douglas was pre paring an elaborate reply to that when he was stricken down with a painful and protracted disease. For weeks he hoped to be able to resume the work, but on November 16th, seeing no. hope of being able to complete it within a reasonable period, he sent what had been written to the printer. THE GWIN CONTEOVERST. Sometime during the summer of 1859, Senator Gwin made a speech at Grass Valley, California, in which he told the Dem ocrats there, that Judge Douglas had been removed from the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories because of the doctrines of his Freeport speech. Copies of Mr. Gwin's speech, as published in the San Fran cisco National, were sent to Mr. Douglas. He at once replied to that speech in a letter to the editor of that paper. Mr Douglas again asserted that the views entertained by him and expressed in his Freeport speech were the same expressed by him during the entire period commencing with the compromise measures of 1850. He cited numerous authorities to show that he always was of that opinion, and also that the Nebraska bill was understood by others in the same light. After quoting from speeches of Secretaries Cass and Toucey he made the following quotation from a speech delivered by Hon. Mr. Cobb — Howell Cobb, now Secretary ofthe Treasury, at West Chester, Pennsylvania, on the 19th of September, 1856: Fellow-citizens : There never has been, in all the history of this slavery matter, a more purely theoretical issue than the one involved in the question propounded to me by my friend, "and I will show it to you. I will stale lo you the positions of the advocates of this doctrine of non-intervention, on which there are different opinions held ; but I will show you that it is the purest abstraction, in a practical point of view, that ever was proposed for political discussion. There are those who hold that the Constitution carries all the institutions of this country into all the territories of the Union ; that slavery, being one of the institutions recognized by the Constitution, goes with the Constitution into the territories of the United States ; and that when the territorial government is organized the people 1 ave no right to prohibit slavery there, untU they come to form a state Constitution. That is vi uat my friend calls " southern doctrine." There is another class who hold that the people of the territories, in their terri torial state, and whilst acting.as a territorial Legislature, have a right to decide upon the question whether slavery shall exist there during their territorial state; and that lias been dubbed "squatter sovereignty." Now, you perceive that there is but one point of difference between the advocates of the two doctrines. Each holds that the people have the right to decide the question in the territory ; one holQ3 that it can be done through the territorial Legisla- THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 501 ture, and whUst it has a territorial existence, the other holds that it can be done only when they come to form a state Constitution. But those who HOLD THAT THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE CANNOT PASS A LAW PROHIBITING" SLAVERY, ADMIT THAT UNLESS THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE PASS LAWS TOR ITS PROTECTION, SLAVERY WILL NOT GO THERE. THEREFORE, PRACTICALLY A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE REPRESENTED IN THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE DECIDES THE QUESTION. WHETHER THEY DECIDE IT BY PROHIBITING IT, AC CORDING TO THE ONE DOCTRINE, OR BY REFUSING TO PASS LAWS TO PROTECT IT, AS CONTENDED FOR BY THE OTHER PARTY, IS IMMATERIAL. THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE BY THE ACTION OF THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE WILL DECIDE THE QUESTION; AND ALL MUST ABIDE THE DECISION WHEN MADE. (Great applause.) Commenting upon these quotations, Judge Douglas said : Here we find the doctrines of the Preeport speech, including " non-action" and " unfriendly legislation" as a lawful and proper mode for the exclusion of slavery from a territory clearly defined by Mr. Cobb, and tho election of Mr. Buchanan advocated on those identical doctrines. Mr. Cobb made simUar speeches during the presidential canvass in other sections of Pennsylvania, in Maine, Indiana, and most of tbe northern states, and was appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Mr. Buchanan as a mark of gratitude for the efficient ser vices which had been thus rendered. WUl any senator who voted to remove me from the chairmanship of the Territorial Committee for expressing opinions for which Mr. Cobb, Mr. Toucey and General Cass wore rewarded, pretend that he did not know that they or either of them had ever uttered such opin ions when their nominations were before the Senate ? I am sure that no sen ator wUl make so humiliating a confession. Why, then, were those distin guished gentlemen appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate as cabinet ministers if they were not good Democrats — sound on the slavery question, and faithful exponents of the principles and creed of the party ? Is it not a significant fact that the President and the most distinguished and honored of his cabinet should have been solemnly and irrevocably pledged to this monstrous heresy of " popular sovereignty," for asserting which the Sen ate, by Mr. Gwin's frank avowal, condemned me to the extent of their power ? THE PLATFORM UNCHANGED. In reply to an unworthy taunt by Judge Black in one of his letters, Mr. Douglas thus expressed his veneration for the Cin cinnati platform. WhUe I eould have no hesitation in voting for the nominee of my own party, with whom I might differ on certain points, in preference to the candi date of the Black Republican party, whose whole creed is subversive of the Constitution and destructive of the Union, I am under no obligation to be come a candidate upon a platform that I would not be willing to carry out in good faith, nor to accept the presidency on the implied pledge to carry into effect certain principles, and then administer the government in direct conflict with them. In other words, I prefer the position of senator, or even that of a private citizen, where; I would be at hberty to defend and maintain the weU- defined principles of the Democratic party, to accepting a presidential nomi nation upon a platform incompatible with the principle of self-government in the territories, or the reserved rights of the states, or the perpetuity of the Union under the Constitution. In harmony with these views, I said in those very speeches in Ohio, to which Judge Black refers in his appendix, that I 502 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. was in favor of conducting the great struggle of 1860 upon "the Cincinnati platform WITHOUT the addition of a word or the subtraction of A LET TER." Tet, in the face of all these facts, the attorney general does not hesi tate to represent me as attempting to establish a new school of politics, to force new issues upon the party, and prescribe new tests of Democratic faith. In conclusion, I have only to suggest to Judge Black and his confederates in this crusade, whether it would not be wiser for them, .and more consistent with fidelity to the party whieh placed them in power, to exert their energies and direct aU their efforts to the redemption of Pennsylvania from the thral dom of Black Republicanism than to continue their affiance with the Black Republicans in Illinois, with the vain hope of dividing and defeating the Dem ocratic party in the only western or northern state which has never faUed to cast her electoral vote for the regular nominee of the Democratic party at any Presidential election. CHAPTER XXII. THE INVASION OF STATES. When Congress assembled in December, 1859, the bloody history of the Harper's Ferry invasion was fresh in the minds ofthe people. That history was soon commented upon in the Senate, it formed a leading topic in the House of Representa tives during the protracted struggle over the election of Speaker. As soon as both houses had organized, Mr. Doug las submitted a resolution having in view some practical legis lation to prevent a recurrence of such an event. On that re solution a debate ensued, in which Mr. Douglas took a con spicuous part. We give his remarks entire, omitting all com ment, as they are their own best commentaries. On the 23d of January — the hour having arrived for the consideration of the special order — the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted by Mr. Douglas on the 16th instant: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report a biU for the protection of each state and, territory of the Union against inva sion by the authorities or inhabitants of any other state or territory ; and for the suppression and punishment of conspiracies or combinations in any state or territory with intent to invade, assail or molest the government, inhabi tants, property, or institutions of any state or territory of the Union. Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, onthe 25th of November last, the Governor of Virginia addressed an official communication to the President of the United States, in which he said : ¦ "I have information from various quarteig, upon which I rely, that a con spiracy of formidable extent, in means and numbers, is formed in Ohio, Penn sylvania, New Tork, aud other states, to rescue John Brown and his asso ciates, prisoners at Charleston, Virginia. The information is specific enough to be reliable. * * * * * , * "Places in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have been occupied as depots and rendezvous by these desperadoes, and unobstructed by guards or THE INVASION OF STATES. — 503 otherwise, to invade this state, and we are kept in continual apprehension of outrage from fire and rapine. I apprise you of these facts in order that you may take steps to preserve peace between the states." To this communication, the President of the United States, on the 28th of November, returned a reply, from which I read the following sentence : " I am at a loss to discover any provision in the Constitution or laws of the United States which would authorize me to ' take steps' for this purpose." [That is, to preserve the peace between the States.] This announcement produced a profound impression upon the pubhc mind and especially in the slaveholding states. It was generally received and re garded as an authorative announcement that tho Constitution of the United States confers no power upon the federal government to protect each of the states of this Union against invasion from the other states. I shaU not stop to inquire whether the President meant to declare that the existing laws con fer no authority upon him, or that the Constitution empowers Congress to en act no laws which would authorize the Pederal interposition to protect the states from invasion ; my object is to raise the inquiry, and to ask the judg ment of the Senate and of the House of Representatives on the question, whether it is not within the power of Congress, and the duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to enact all laws which may be necessary and proper for the protection of each and every state against invasion, either from foreign powers or from any portion of the United States. The denial of the existence of such a power in the Pederal government has induced an inquiry among conservative men — men loyal to the Constitution and devoted to the Union — as to what means they have of protection, if the Pederal government is not authorized to protect them against external violence. Itmust be conceded that no community is safe, no IState can enjoy peaoe, or prosperity, or domestic tranquility, without security against external violence. Every state and nation of the world, outside of this Republic, is supposed to maintain armies and navies for this precise purpose. It is the only legitimate purpose for which armies and navies are maintained in time of peace. They may be kept up- for ambitious purposes, for the purposes of aggression and foreign war ; but the legitimate purpose of a mUitary force in time of peace is to insure domestic tranquUity against violence or aggression from without. The states of this Union would possess that power, were it not for the re straints imposed upon them by the Pederal Constitution. When that Consti tution was made, the states surrendered to the Pederal government the power to raise and support armies, and the power to provide and maintain navies, and not only thus surrendered the means of protection from invasion, but con sented to a prohibition upon themselves which declares that no state shaU keep troops or vessels of war in time of peace. The question now recurs, whether the states of this Union are in that helpless condition, with their hands tied by the Constitution, stripped of aU means of repeUing assaults and maintaining their existence, without a guar antee from the federal government, to protect them against violence. If the people of this country shaU settle down into the conviction that there is no power in the Pederal government under the Constitution to protect each and every state from violence, from aggression, from invasion, they will demand that the cord be severed, and that the weapons be restored to their hands with which they may defend themselves. This inquiry involves the question of the perpetuity of the Union. The means of defence, the means of repel ling assaults, the means of providing against invasion, must exist as a con- dition of the safety of the states and the existence of the Union. Now, sir, I hope to be able to demonstrate that there is no wrong in this Union for which the Constitution of the United States has not provided a remedy. I believe, and I hope I shall be able to maintain, that a remedy is 504 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. furnished for every wrong whieh can be perpetrated within the Union, if the Pederal government performs its whole duty. I think it is clear, on a careful examination of the Constitution, that the power is conferred upon Congress, first, to provide for repelling invasion from foreign countries : and, secondly, to protect each state of this Union against invasion from any other state, territory, or place, within the jurisdiction of the United States. I wiU first turn your attention, sir, to the power conferred upon Congress to protect the United States — including states, territories, and the District of Columbia; in cluding every inch of ground within our limits and jurisdiction — against foreign invasion. In the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, you find that Congress has power — "To raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to pro vide for calling forth the mUitia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." These various clauses confer upon Congress power to use the whole military force of the country for the purpose specified in the Constitution. They shall provide for the execution of the laws of the Union ; and, secondly, suppress insurrections. The insurrections there referred to are insurrections against the authority of the United States— insurrections against a state authority being provided for in a subsequent action, in which the United States can not inter fere, except upon the application of the state authorities. The invasion which is to be repelled by this clause of the Constitution is an invasion of tlie United States. The-language is, Congress shaU have power to " repel invasions." That gives the authority to repel tbe invasion, no matter whether the enemy shaU iand within the limits of yirginia, within the District of Columbia, within the Territory of New Mexico, or anywhere else within the jurisdiction ofthe United States. The power to protect every portion of the country against invasion from foreign nations having thus been specifically conferred, the framers of the Con stitution then proceeded to make guarantees for the protection of each of the states by Federal authority. I wiU read the fourth section of the fourth article ofthe Constitution: " The United States shall guaranty to every state in this Union a Republi can form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion ; and, on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature can not be convened), against domestic violence." This clause contains three distinct guarantees : first, the United States shall guaranty to every state in .this Union a Republican form of government; second, the United States shall protect each of them against invasion ; third, the United States shall, on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, when the Legislature can not be convened, protect them against domestic violence. Now, sir, I submit to you whether it is not clear, from the very language of the Constitution, that this clause was inserted for the purpose of making it the duty of the Pederal government to protect each of the states against invasion from any other state, territory, or place within the jurisdiction of the United States ? Por what other purpose was the clause inserted ? The power and duty of protection as against foreign nations had already been provided for. This clause occurs among the guarantees from the United States to each state, for the benefit of each state, for the protection of each state, and necessarily from other states, inasmuch as the guarantee had been given previously as against foreign nations. "If any further authority is necessary to show that such is the true construc tion of the Constitution, it may be found in the forty-third number' of the Federalist, written by James Madison. Mr. Madison quotes the clause of the Constitution which I have read, giving these three guarantees; and, after discussing the one guarantying to each state a Republican form of govern- THE INVASION OF STATES. 505 ment, proceeds to consider the second, which makes it the duty ofthe United States to protect each of the states against invasion. Here is what Mr. Madi son says upon that subject: " A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts compos ing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each state, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enter prises of its more powerful neighbors. The history both of ancient and modern confederacies proves that the weaker members of the Union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this -article." The number of the Federalist, like all the others ofthat celebrated work, was written after the Constitution was made, and before it was ratified by the states, and with a view to securing its ratification ; hence the people of the several states, when they ratified this instrument, knew that this clause was intended to bear the construction which I now place upon it. It was intended to make it the duty of every society to protect each of its parts ; the duty of the Fede ral government to protect each of the states; and, he says, the smaUer states ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article of the Constitution. Then, sir, if it be made the imperative duty of the Pederal government, by the express provision of the Constitution, to protect each of the states against invasion or violence from the other states, or from combinations of desperadoes within their limits, it necessarUy follows that it is the duty of Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper to render that guarantee effectual. WhUe Con gress, in the early history of the government, did provide legislation, which is supposed to bo ample to protect the United States against invasion from for eign countries and the Indian tribes they have faded, up to this time, to make any law for the protection of each of the states' against invasion from within the limits of the Union. I am unable to account for this omission ; but I pre sume the reason is to be found in the feet that no Congress ever dreamed that such legislation would ever become necessary for the protection of one state of this Union against invasion and violence from her sister states. Who, until the Harper's Ferry outrage, ever conceived that American citizens could be so forgetful of their duties to themselves, to the country, to the Constitution, as to plan an invasion of another state, with the view of inciting servile insurrec tion, murder, treason, and every other crime that disgraces humanity ? While, therefore, no blame can justly be attached to our predecessors in failing to provide the legislation necessary to render this guarantee of the Constitution effectual ; still, since the experience of last year, we cannot stand justified in omitting longer to perform this imperative duty. The question then remaining is, what legislation is necessary and proper to render this guarantee of the Constitution effectual ? I presume there will be very little difference of opinion that it will be necessary to place the whole military power of the government at the disposal of the President, under proper guards and restrictions against abuse, to repel and suppress invasion when the hostile force shall be actually in the field. But, sir, this is not suffi cient. Such a legislation would not be a full compliance with this guarantee of the Constitution. The framers of that instrument meant more when they gave the guarantee. Mark the difference in language between the provision for prDtecting the United States against invasion and that for protecting the states. When it provided for protecting the United States it said Congress shall have power to " repel invasion." When it came to make this guarantee to the states it changed the language, and said the United States shall "pro tect" each of the states against invasion. In the one instance the duty of the government is to repel , in the other the guarantee is that they wUl-protect. In otiier words, the United States are not permitted to wait until the enemy shall be upon your borders ; until the invading army shaU have been organized and drilled, and placed in march with a view to the invasion; but they must 506 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. pass all laws necessary and proper to insure protection and domestic tranqml- ity to each state and territory of this Union against invasion or hostility from other states and territories. Then, sir, I hold that it is not only necessary to use the military power when the actual case of invasion shall occur, but to authorize the judicial depart ment of the government to suppress all conspiracies and combinations in the several states with intent to invade a state or molest or disturb its govern ment, its peace, its citizens, its property, or its institutions. You must punish the conspiracy, the combination with intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. There is no principle more familiar to the legal pro fession than that wherever it is proper to declare an act to be a crime, it is proper to punish a conspiracy or combination with intent td perpetrate the act. Look upon your statute books, and I presume you wiU find an enactment to punish the counterfeiting ofthe coin of the United States; and then another section to punish a man for having counterfeit coin in his possession with in tent to pass it ; and another section to punish him for having the molds, or dies, or instruments for counterfeiting, with intent to use them. This is a fa- mUiar principle in legislative and judicial proceedings. If the act of invasion is criminal, the conspiracy to invade should also be made criminal If it be unlawful and iUegal to invade a state, and run off fugitive slaves, why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in the several states with intent to do the act? We have been told that a notorious man who has recently suffered death for his crimes upon the gafiows, boasted in Cleve land, Ohio, in a public lecture, a year ago, that he had then a body of men em ployed in running away horses from the slaveholders of Missouri, and pointed to a livery stable in Cleveland which was full of the stolen horses at that time. I think it is within our competency, and consequently our duty, to pass a law making every conspiracy or combination iu any state or territory of this Union to invade another with intent to steal or run away property of any kind, whether it be negroes, horses, or property of any other description, into another state, a crime, and punish the conspirators by indictment in the United States courts, and confinement in the prisons or penitentiaries of the state or territory where the conspiracy may be formed and quelled. Sir, I would carry these provisions of law as far as our constitutional power wiU reach. I would make it a crime to form conspiracies with a view of in vading states or territories to control elections, whether they be under the garb of Emigrant Aid Societies of New England, or Blue Lodges of Missouri. (Applause in the gaUeries.) In other words, this provision of the Constitu tion meats more than the mere repelling of an invasion when the invading army shall reach the border of a state. The language is, it shall protect the state against invasion ; the meaning of whieh is, to use the language of the preamble to the Constitution, to insure to each state domestic tranquility against external violence. There can be no peace, there can be prosperity, there can be no safety in any community, unless it is secured against violence from abroad. Why sir, it has been a question seriously mooted in Europe, whether it was not the duty of England, a power foreign to Prance, to pass laws to punish conspiracies in England against the hves of the princes of France. I shall not argue the question of comity between foreign states. I predicate my argument upon the Constitution by which we are governed, and which we have sworn to obey, and demand that the Constitution be executed in good faith so as to punish and suppress every combination, every conspiracy, either to invade a state, or to molest its inhabitants, or to disturb its property, or to subvert its institutions and its government. I believe this can be effectually done by authorizing the United States courts in the several states to take jurisdiction of the offence, and punish the violation of the law with appropriate punishments. THE INVASION OF STATES. 50Y It cannot be said that the time has not yet arrived for such legislation. It cannot be said with truth that the Harper's Perry case will not be repeated, or is not in danger of repetition. It is only necessary to inquire into the causes whieh produced the Harper's Ferry outrage, and ascertain whether those causes are yet in active operation, and then you can determine whether there is any ground for apprehension that that invasion will be repeated. Sir, what were the causes which produced the Harper's Perry outrage? Without stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no hesitation in ex pressing my firm and deliberate conviction that the Harper's Ferry crime was the natural, logical, inevitable result of the doctrines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained and enforced in their platform, their par tisan presses, their pamphlets and books, and especiaUy in the speeches of their leaders in and out of Congress. (Applause in the galleries.) Mr. Mason. I trust the order of the Senate will be preserved. I am sure it is only necessary to suggest to the presiding officer the indispensable ne cessity of preserving the order of the Senate ; and I give notice that, if it is disturbed again, I shall insist upon the galleries being cleared entirely. Mr. Douglas. Mr. President Tlie Vice-President. The Senator will pause for a single moment. It is impossible for the chair to preserve order without the concurrence of the vast assembly in the gaUeries. He trusts that there will be no occasion to make a reference to this subject again. Mr. Toombs. I hope that the presiding officer wUl place officers in the galleries, and put a stop to this thing. It is a very bad sign of the times. It is unbecoming this body, or the deliberations of any free people. The Vice-President. The presiding officer has not the force at his com mand to place officers in the gaUery. Mr. Douglas. If the Senate will pardon me for a digression an instant, I was about to suggest to the presiding officer that I thought it would be nec essary to place officers in different parts of the gaUery, with instructions that if they saw any person giving any signs of approbation or disapprobation calculated to disturb our proceedings, they should instantly put the guUty person out of the gallery. The Vice-President. That has been done. Mr. Douglas. I was remarking that I considered this outrage at Harper's Ferry as the logical, natural consequence of the teachings and doctrines of the Republican party. I am not making this statement for the purpose of crimination or partisan effect. I desire to call the attention of members of that party to a reconsideration of the doctrines that they are in the' habit of enforcing, with a view to a fair judgment whether they do not lead directly to those consequences, on the part of those deluded persons who tuink that all they say is meant, in real earnest, and ought to be carried out. The great principle that underlies the Republican party is violent, irreconcUable, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery, with the view of its ulti mate extinction throughout the land ; sectional war is to be waged until the cotton field of the south shall be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields of New York and Massachusetts shall be cultivated by slave labor. In further ance of this article of their creed,- you find their political organization not only sectional in its location, but one whose vitality consists in appeals to northern passion, northern prejudice, northern ambition against southern states, southern institutions, and southern people. I have had some expe rience in fighting this element within the last few years, and I find that the source of their power consists in exciting the prejudices and the passions of the northern section against those of the southern section. They not only attempt to excite the North against the South, but they invite the South to assail and abuse and traduce the North. Southern abuse, by violent men, of 508 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. northern statesmen and northern people, is essential to the triumph of the Republican cause. Hence the course of argument which we have to meet is not only repeUing the appeals to northern passion and prejudice, but we have to encounter their appeals to southern men to assaU us, in order that . they may justify their assaults upon the plea of self-defence. Sir, when I returned home in 1858, for the purpose of canvassing Ilhnois, with a view to a re-election, I had to meet this issue of the " irrepressible conflict." It is true that the Senator from New York had not then made his Rochester speech, and did not for four months afterwards. It is true that he had not given the doctrine that precise name and form ; but the principle was in existence, and had been proclaimed by the ablest and the most clear headed men of the party. I will caU your attention, sir, to a single passage from a speech, to show the language in which this doctrine was stated in Il linois before it received the name of the " irrepressible conflict." The Re publican party assembled in state convention in June 1858, in IUinois, and unanimously adopted Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for United States senator. Mr. Lincoln appeared before the convention, accepted the nomina tion, and made a speech — which had been previously written and agreed to in caucus by most of the leaders of the party. I wiU read a single extract from that speech : " In my opinion, it [the slavery agitation] wiU not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself can not stand.' I believe this government can 'not endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it wUl cease to .be divided. It wiU become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery wiU arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ul timate extinction ; or its advocates wUl push forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states — old as well as new. North as well as South." Sir, the moment I landed upon the soil of DUnois, at a vast gathering of many thousands of my constituents to welcome me home, I read that "pas sage, and took direct issue with the doctrine contained in it as being revolu tionary and treasonable, and inconsistent with the perpetuity of this republic. That is not merely the individual opinion of Mr. Lincoln ; nor is it the individ ual opinion merely of the senator from New York, who four months afterward asserted the same doctrine in different language ; but, so far as I know, it is the general opinion of the members of the Abolition or Republican party. They teU the people of the North that unless they rally as one man, under a sectional banner, and make war upon the South with a view to the ulti mate extinction of slavery, slavery will overrun the whole North and fasten itself upon aU the free states. They then tell the South, unless you rally as one man, binding the whole southern people into a sectional party, and es tablish slavery aU over the free states, the inevitable consequence will be that we shall abolish it in the slaveholding states. The same doctrine is held by the senator from New York in his Rochester speech. He tells us that the states must all become free, or all become slave ; that the South, in other words, must conquer and subdue the North, or the North must triumph over the South, and drive slavery from within its limits. Mr. President, in order to show that I have not misinterpreted the position of the senator from New York, in notifying the South that, if they wish to maintain slavery within their limits, they must also fasten it upon the north ern states, I will read an extract from his Rochester Speech : " It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces ; and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of THE INVASION OF STATES. 509 Louisiana, will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men." Thus, sir, you perceive that the theory, ofthe Republican party is, that there is a conflict between two different systems of institutions in tbe re spective classes of states — not a conflict in the same states, but an irrepres sible conflict between the free states and the slave states ; and they argue that these two systems of state can not permanently exist in the same Union; that the sectional warfare must continue to rage and increase with increas ing fury until the free states shall surrender, or the slave states shall be sub dued. Hence, whUe they appeal to the passions of our own section, their object is to alarm the people of the other section, and drive them to mad ness, with the hope that they wUl invade our rights as an excuse for some of our people to carry on aggressions upon their rights. I appeal to the candor of senators, whether this is not a fair exposition of the tendency of the doctrines proclaimed by the Republican party. - The creed of that party is founded upon the theory that, because slavery is not desirable in our states, it is not desirable anywhere ; because free labor is a good thing with us, it must be the best thing everywhere. In other words, the creed of their party rests upon the theory that there must be uniformity in the do mestic institutions and internal pofity of the several states of this Union. There, in my opinion, is the fundamental error upon which their whale sys tem rests. " In the Illinois canvass, I asserted, and nowri^eat, that uniform ity in the domestic institutions of the different states is neither possible nor desirable. That is the very issue upon which I conducted the canvass at home, and it is the question whieh I desire to put to the Senate. I repeat, that unifermity in domestic institutions of the different states is neither pos sible nor desirable. Was such the doctrine of the framers of the Constitution ? I wish the country to bear in mind that when the Constitution was adopted the Union consisted of thirteen states, twelve of which were slaveholding states, and one a free state. Suppose this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery ques tion had prevailed in the Pederal Convention, do the gentlemen on that side of the house think that freedom would have triumphed over slavery? Do they imagine that the one free state would have outvoted the twelve slave- holding states, and thus have abolished slavery throughout the land by a constitutional provision ? On the contrary, if the test had then been made, if this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery question had then been pro claimed, and believed in, with the twelve slaveholding states against one free state, would it not have resulted in a constitutional provision fastening slavery irrevocably upon every inch of American soil, North as weU as South ? Was it quite fair in those days for the friends of free institutions to claim that the Pederal government must not touch the question, but must leave the people of each state to do as they pleased, until under the operation of that principle they secured the majority, and then wield that majority to abolish slavery in the other states ofthe Union ? Sir, if uniformity in respect to domestic institutions had been deemed de sirable when the Constitution was adopted, there was another mode by which it could have been obtained. The natural mode of obtaining uniformity was to have blotted out the state governments, to have abolished the state Legislatures, to have conferred upon Congress legislative power over the mu nicipal and domestic concerns ofthe people of all the states, as well as upon Federal questions affecting the whole Union ; and if this doctrine of uniform- 510 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. ity had been entertained and favored by the framers of the Constitution, such would have been the result. But, sir, the framers of that instrument knew at that day, as well as we now know, that in a country as broad as this, with so great a variety of climate, of soil, and df production, there must necessarily be a corresponding diversity of institutions and domestic regula tions, adapted to the wants and necessities of each locality. The framers of the Constitution knew that the laws and institutions which, were well adapted to the mountains and valleys of New England, were Ul-suited to the rice plantations and the cotton-fields of the Carolinas. They knew that cur liberties depended upon reserving the right to the people of each state to make their own laws and establish their own institutions, and control them at pleasure, without interference from the Federal government, or from any other state or territory, or any foreign country. The Constitution, therefore, was based, and the Union was founded, on the principle of dissimUarity in the domestic institutions and internal pohty of the several states. The Union was founded on the theory that each state had peculiar interests, re quiring peculiar legislation, and peculiar institutions, different and distinct from every other state. The Union rests on tbe theory that no two states would be precisely alike in their domestic policy and institutions. Hence, I assert that this doctrine of uniformity in the domestic institutions of the different states is repugnant to the Constitution, subversive of the principles upon which the Union was based, revolutionary in its character, and leading directly to despotism if it is ever established. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs in a country of great extent is despotism always. Show me centralism prescribing uniformity from the capital to aU of its provinces in their Jfcal and domestic concerns, and I will show you a des potism as odious and as insufferable as that of Austria or of Naples. Dis similarity is the principle upon which the Union rests. It is founded upon the idea that each state must necessarily require different regulations ; that no two states have precisely the same interests, and hence do not need pre cisely the same laws ; and you cannot account for this confederation of states upon any other principle. Then, sir, what becomes of this doctrine that slavery must be established in aU the states or prohibited in all the states ? If we only conform to the principles upon which the Federal Union was formed, there can be no con flict. It is only necessary to recognize the right of the people of every state to have just such institutions as they please, without consulting your wishes, your views, or your prejudices, and there can be no conflict. And, sir, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress the power coupled with the duty of protecting each state against external aggression, and inasmuch as that includes the power of suppressing and punishing conspiracies in one state against the institutions, preperty, people, or government of every other state, I desire to carry out that power vigorously. Sir, give us such a law as the Constitution contemplates and authorizes, and 1 wUl show the senator from New York that there is a con stitutional mode of repressing the " irrepressible conflict." I will open the prison door to allow conspirators against the peace of the Republic and the domestic tranquUity of our states to select their cells wherein to drag out a miserable life, as a punishment for their crimes against the peace of society. Can any man say to us that although this outrage has been perpetrated at Harper's Ferry, tliere is no danger of its recurrence ? Sir, is not the Repub lican party still embodied, organized, confident of success, and defiant in its pretensions ? Does it not now hold and proclaim the same creed that it did before this invasion ? It is true that most of its representatatives here disa vow the acts of John Brown at Harper's Ferry. I am glad that they do so; I am rejoiced that they have gone thus far ; but I must be permitted to say THE INVASION OF STATES. 511 to them that it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless they also repudiate and denounce the doctrines and teachings which produced the act. Those doctrines remain the same ; those teachings are being poured into the minds of men throughout the country by means of speeches and pamphlets and books and through partisan presses. The causes that produced the Har per's Perry invasion are now in active operation. It is true that the people of all the border states are required by the Constitution to have their hands tied, without the power of self-defence, and remain patient under a threat ened invasion in the day or in the night ? Can you expect people to be pa tient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night without first stationing sentinels around their houses to see if a band of marauders and murderers are not approaching with torch and pistol ? Sir, it requires more patience than freemen ever should cultivate, to submit to constant annoyance, irrita tion and apprehension. If we expect to preserve this Union, we must rem edy, within the Union' and in obedience to the Constitution, every evil for which disunion would furnish a remedy. If the Pederal government fails to act, either from choice or from an apprehension of the want of power, it can not be expected that the states wiU be content to remain unprotected. Then, sir, I see no hope of peace, of fraternity, of good feeling, between the different portions of the United States, except by bringing to bear the power of the federal government to the extent authorized by the Constitution — to protect the people of aU the states against any external violence or ag gression. I repeat, that if the theory of the Constitution shaU be carried out by conceding the right of the people of every state to have just such institu tions as they choose, there cannot be a conflict, much less an " irrepressible conflict," between the free and the slaveholding states. Mr. President, the mode of preserving peace is plain. This system of sec tional warfare must cease. The Constitution has given the power, and all we ask of Congrees is to give the means, and we, by indictments and convictions in tbe Pederal courts of our several states, wUl make such examples of the leaders of these conspiracies as will strike terror into the hearts of the others, and there will be an end of this crusade. Sir, you must check it by crushing out the conspiracy, the combination, and then there can be safety. Then we shall be able to restore that spirit of fraternity which inspired our revolution ary fathers upon every battle-field ; which presided over the deliberations of the convention that framed' the Constitution, and fiUed the hearts of the peo? pie who ratified it. Then we shah be able to demonstrate to you that there is no evil unredressed in the Union for whieh disunion would furnish a remedy. Then, sir, let us execute the Constitution in the spirit in which it was made. Let Congress pass all the laws necessary and proper to give full and complete effect to every guarantee of the Constitution. Let them authorize the pun ishment of conspiracies and combinations in any state or territory against the property, institutions, people or government of any other state or territory, and there will be no excuse, no desire, for disunion. Then, sir, let us leave the people of every state perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. Let each of them retain slavery just as long as it pleases, and abolish it when it chooses. Let us act upon that good old golden principle which teaches aU men to mind their own business and let their neighbors alone. Let this be done and this Union can endure forever as our fathers made it, composed of free and slave states, just as the people of each state may determine for themselves. REPLY TO FESSENDEN. Mr, Fessenden having replied at some length to Mr. Doug- las, he made the following rejoinder : 512 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I shaU not fofiow the senator from Maine through his entire speech, but simply notice such points as demand of me some reply. He does not know why I introduced my resolution ; he cannot con ceive any good motive for it ; he thinks there must be some other motive besides the one that has been avowed. There are some men, I know, who cannot conceive that a man can be governed by a patriotic or proper motive ; but it is not among that class of men that I look for those who are governed by motives of propriety. I have no impeachment to make of his motives. I brought in this resolution because I thought the time had arrived when we should have a measure of practical legislation. I had seen expressions of opinion against the power from authorities so high that I felt it my duty to bring it to the attention of the Senate. I had heard that the senator from Virginia had intimated some doubt on the question of power, as weU as of policy. Other senators discussed the question here for weeks when I was confined to my sick bed. Was there any thing unreasonable in my coming before the Senate at this time, expressing my own opinion and confining my self to the practical legislation indicated in the resolution ? Nor, sir, have I in my remarks gone outside of the legitimate argument pertaining to the ne cessity for this legislation. I first showed that there had been a great outrage ; I showed what I befieved to be the causes that had produced the outrage, and that the causes which produced it were stUl in operation ; and argued that, so long as the party to which the gentlemen belong remains em bodied in full force, those causes wUl stiU threaten the country. That was all. The senator from Maine thinks he wiU vote for the biU that wUl be proposed to carry out the objects referred to in my resolution. Sir, whenever that sena tor and his associates on the other side of the chamber will record their votes for a biU of the character described in my resolution and speech, I shaU con gratulate the country upon the progress they are making towards sound prin ciples. Whenever he and his associates will make it a felony for two or more men to conspire to run off fugitive slaves, and punish the conspirators by con finement in the penitentiary, I shall consider that wonderful changes have taken place in this country. I tell the senator that it is the general tone of sentiment in aU those sections of the country where the Republican party predominate, so far as I know, not only not to deem it a crime to rescue a fugitive slave, but to raise mobs to aid in the rescue. He talks about slander ing the Republican party when we intimate that they are making a warfare upon the rights guarantied by the Constitution. Sir, where, in the towns and cities with Republican majorities, can you execute the fugitive slave law ? Is it in the town where the senator from New York resides ? Do you not re member the Jerry rescuers ? Is it at Oberlin, where the mob was raised that made the rescue last year and produced the riot ? Mr. Fessenden. I stated, and I beheve it was all I said on that matter, that I was disposed to'agree with the senator in his views as to the question of power ; and that, with my views, I should go very far — far enough to accom plish the purpose — to prevent the forming of conspiracies in one state to attack another. I did not understand the senator to say any thing about conspira cies to run away with slaves ; nor did I understand him to say any thing about the fugitive slave law. How I should act in reference to that matter I do not know ; I will meet it when it comes ; but I ask the senator whether that was a part of his first speech, or whether it is a part of his reply ? Mr. Douglas. The senator wiU find it several times repeated in my first speech, and the question asked : Why not make it a crime to form conspiracies and combinations to run off fugitive slaves, as weU as to run off horses, or any other property ? I am talking about conspiracies which are so common in all our northern states, to invade and enter, through their agents, the slave THE INVASION OF STATES. 513 states, and seduce away slaves and run them off by the underground raUroad, in order to send them to Canada. It is these conspiracies to perpetrate crime" with impunity that keep up the irritation. • John Brown could boast, in a public house in Cleveland, that he and his band had been engaged all the winter in stealing horses and running them off from the slaveholders in Mis souri, and that the livery stables were then filled with stolen horses, and yet the conspiracy to do it could not be punished. Sir, I desire a law that wUl make it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, after conviction in the United States court, to make a conspiracy in one state, agairfst the people, property, government, or institutions, of an other. Then we shalhget at the root of the evil. I have no doubt that gen tlemen on the other side wUl vote for a law whieh pretends to comply with the guarantees of the Constitution, without carrying any force or efficiency in its provisions. I have heard men abuse the fugitive slave law, and express their willingness to vote for amendments : but when you come to the amend ments whieh they1 desired to adopt, you found they were such as would never return a fugitive to his master. They would go for any fugitive slave law that had a hole in it big enough to let the negro drop through and escape ; but none that would comply with the obligations of-the Constitution. So we shall find that side of the chamber voting for a law that wiU, in terms, disapprove of unlawful expeditions against neighboring states, without being efficient in affording protection. But the senator says it is a .part of the policy of the northern Democracy to represent the Republicans as being hostile to southern institutions. Sir, it is a part of the policy of the northern Democracy, as well as their duty, to speak the truth on that subject. I did not suppose that any man would have the auda city to arraign a brother senator here for representing the RepubUcan party as dealing in denunciation and insult 6f the institutions of the South. Look to your PhUadelphia platform, where you assert the sovereign power of Congress over the territories for their government, and demand that it shaU be exerted against those twin relicts of barbarism — polygamy and slavery. Mr. Fessenden. Let me suggest to the senator that he is entirely changing the issue between him and me. I did not desire to say, and I did not say, that the Republicans of the North were not unfriendly to the institution of slavery. I admitted myself that I was ; I trust they all are. It is not in that respect that I accuse the Democracy of the North of misrepresenting the posi tion of the Republican party. It was in representing that they desired to inter fere with the institution in the southern states. That is the ground — that they were opposed to southern rights. That they do not think well of slavery, as it exists in this country, I do not undertake to deny. I do not know that southern gentlemen expect us to be friendly to it. I apprehend that they would not think very weU of us if we pretended to be friendly to it. If we were friendly to the institution, we should try to adopt, we certainly should not oppose it ; but what I charged upon the northern Democracy was, that they misrepresented our position. That we were opposed to the extension of slavery over free territory, that we called it a relic of barbarism, I admit; but I do deny that the Republican party, or the Republicans generally, have ever exhibited a desire or made a movement towards interfering with the right of southern men the states, or any constitutional 'rights that they have any where. That is the charge I made. . Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, for what purpose does the Republican party appeal to northern passions and northern prejudices against southern institu tions and the southern people, unless it is to operate upon those institutions ? They represent southern institutions as no better than polygamy ; the slave holder as no better than the polygamist ; and complain that we should inti mate that they did not hke to associate with the slaveholder any better than 12 514 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. with the polygamist. I can see a monstrous lowering of the flag in the sen ator's speech and explanation. I would respect the concession, if the fact was acknowledged. This thing of shrinking from position that every north ern man knows to be true, and arraigning men for slander for telling the truth to them Mr. Fessenden. I know it not to be true. Mr. Douglas. You may know it down in Maine, but you do not know it in IUinois. I have always noted that those men who were so far off from the slave states that they did not know any thing about them, are most anxious for the fate of the poor slave. Those men who are so far off that they do not know what a negro is, are distressed to death about the condition of the poor negro. (Laughter.) But, sir, go into the border states, where we associate across the fine, where the eivUities of society are constantly interchanged ; where we trade with each other, and have social and commercial intercourse, and there you wiU find them standing by each other like a band of brothers. Take southern Illinois, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, and that part of Pennsylvania bordering on Maryland, and there you will find social inter course, commercial intercourse, good feeling; because those people know the condition of the slave on the opposite side of the fine ; but just in propor tion es you recede from the slave states, just in proportion as the people are ignorant of the facts, just in that proportion party leaders can impose on their sympathies and honest prejudices. Sir, I know it is the habit of the Republican party, as a party, wherever I have met them, to make the warfare in such a way as to try to rally the whole north on sectional grounds against the south. I know that is to be the issue, and it is proven by the speech of the senator from New York, which I quoted before, and that of Mr. Lincoln, so far as they are authority. I happen to have those speeches before me. The senator from Maine has said that neither of these speeches justified the conclusion that they asserted that the free states and the slave states cannot coexist permanently in the same Republic. Let us see whether they do or not. Mr. Lincoln says : " A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free." Then he goes on to say they must aU be one thing or all the -other, or else tho Union cannot endure. What is the meaning of that language, unless it is that the Union cannot permanently exist, half slave and half free — that it must aU become one thing or all become the other ? That is the declaration. The declaration is that the North must combine as a sectional party, and carry on the agitation so fiercely, up to the very borders of the slaveholding states, that the master dare not sleep at night for fear that the robbers, the John Browns, wiU come and set his house on fire, and murder the women and chUdren, before morning. It is to surround the slaveholding states by a cordon of free states, to use the language of the senator ; to hem them in, in order that you may smother them out. The senator avowed, in his speech to-day, their object to be to hem in the slave states, in order that slavery may die out. How die out? Confine it to its present limits ; let the ratio of increase go on by the laws of nature ; and just in proportion as the lands in the slaveholding states wear out, the negroes increase, and you will soon reach that point where the soil will not produce enough to feed the slaves; then hem them in, and let them starve out — let them die out by starvation. That is the policy — hem them in, and starve them out. Do as the French did in Algeria, when the Arabs took to the caverns — smoke them out, by making fires at the mouths of the caverns, and keep them burning until they dio. The policy is, to keep up this agitation along the line ; make slave property insecure in the border states ; keep the master constantly in appre hension of assault, tiU he will consent to abandon his native country, leaving THE INVASION OF STATES. 515 his slaves behind him, or to remove them further south. If you can force Kentucky thus to abolish slavery, you make Tennessee the border state, and begin the same operation upon her. But, sir, let us see whether the senator from New York did not proclaim the doctrine that free states and slave states cannot permanently exist in the same Republic. He said : " It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces ; and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free labor nation." The opposing conflict is between the States ; the Union can not remain as it now is, part free and part slave. The conflict between free states and slave states must go on until there is not a slave state left, or until they are all slave states. That is the declaration of the senator from New York. The senator from Maine tried to make the senate believe that I had misrepre sented the senator from New York and Mr. Lincoln, of IUinois, in stating that they referred to a conflict between states. He said that all they meant was that it was a conflict between free labor and slave labor in the same state. Now, sir, let me submit to that man's candor whether he wiU insist on that position. They both say the contest wUl go on until the states be come all free or all slave. Then, when is the contest going to end ? When they become all slave ? Will there not be the same conflict between free labor and slave labor, after every state has become a slave state, that there is now ? If that was the meaning, would the conflict between slave labor and free labor cease even when every state had become slaveholding? Have not all the slaveholding states a large number of free laborers within their limits ; and if there is an irrepressible conflict between free labor and slave labor, will you remove that conflict by making the states all slave ? Yet, the senator from New York says they must, become all slave or all free be fore the conflict ceases. Sir, that shows that the senator from New York meant what I represented him as meaning. It shows that a man who knows the meaning of words, and has the heart to express them as they read, can not fail to know that that was the meaning of those senators. The boldness with which a charge of misrepresentation may be made in this body wiU not give character to it when it is contradicted by the facts. I dislike to have to repel these charges of unfairness and misrepresentation ; yet the senator began with a series of inuendoes, with a series of complaints of misrepresentation, showing that he was afraid to meet the real issues of his party, and would make up for that by personal assaults aud inuendos against the opposite party. He goes back to a speech of mine in opposition to the Lecompton Consti tution, in which I said that if you would send that Constitution back and let the people of Kansas vote for or against it, if they voted for a free state or a slave state I would go for it without caring whether they voted slavery up or down. He thinks it is a great charge against me that I do not care whether the people vote it up or vote it down. Mr. Fessenden. The senator is mistaken as to 'the speech to which I re ferred. It was one of his speeches made on his southern tour that I referred to. Mr. Douglas. The idea is taken from a speech in the Senate — the first speech I made against the Lecompton Constitution. It was quoted aU over IUinois by Mr. Lincoln in the canvass, and I repeated the sentiment each time it was quoted against me, and repeated it in the South as well as the North. I say this : if the people of Kansas want a slave state, it is then- business and not mine ; if they want a free state, they have a right to have it • and hence, I do not care, so far as regards my action, whether they make it a free stato or not ; it is none of my business. But the senator says he 516 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. does care, he has *, preference between freedom and slavery. How long would this preference last if he was a sugar planter in Louisiana, residing on his estate, instead of living in Maine ? Sir, I hold the doctrine that a wise statesman wUl adapt his laws to the wants, conditions, and interests ofthe people to be governed by them. Slavery may be very essential in one climate and totally useless in another. If I were a citizen of Louisiana I would vote for retaining and maintaining slavery, because I believe the good of that people would require it. As a citizen of Illinois I am utterly op posed to it, because our interests would not be promoted by it. I should like to see the Abolitionist who would go and five in a southern country that would not get over his scruples very soon and have a plantation as quickly as he could get the money to buy it. I have said and repeat that this question of slavery is one of climate, of pohtical economy, of self-interest, not a question of legislation. Wherever the climate, the soU, the health of the country are such that it can not be cultivated by white labor, you will have African labor, and compulsory labor at that. Wherever white labor can be employed cheapest and most profit ably, there African labor wiU retire and white labor will take its place. You cannot force slavery by aU the acts of Congress you may make on one inch of territory against the wiU of tbe people, and you cannot by any law you can make keep it out from one inch of American territory where the people want it. You tried it in IUinois. By the ordinance of 1187 slavery was prohibited, and yet our people, believing that slavery would be. profita ble to them, established hereditary servitude in the territory by territorial legislation, in defiance of your Federal ordinance. We maintained slavery there just so long as Congress said we should not have it, and we abolished it at just the moment you recognized us as a state, with the right to do as we pleased. When we established it, it was on the supposition that it was our interest to do So. When we abolished it, we did so because experience proved that it was not our interest to have it. I hold that slavery is a ques tion of political economy, to be determined by climate, by soU, by production, by self-interest, and hence the people to be affected by it are the most im partial jury to try the fact whether their interest requires them to have it or not. But the senator thinks it is a great crime for me to say that I do not care whether they have it or not. ' I care just this far : I want every people to have that kind of government, that system of laws, that class of institutions, wbich will best promote their welfare, and I want them to decide for them selves ; and so that they decide it to suit themselves, I am satisfied, without stopping to inquire or caring which way they decide it. That is what I meant by that declaration, and I am ready to stand by it. The senator has made the discovery — I suppose it is very new, for he would not repeat anything that was old,-after calling me to account for ex pressing an idea that had been heaid of before — that I re-opened the agitation by bringing in the Nebraska Bill in 1854; and he tries to put the responsi bility of the crimes perpetrated by his political friends, and in violation of the law, upon the provisions of the law itself. We passed a bill to allow the people of Kansas to form and regulate their own institutions to suit them-^ selves. No sooner had we placed that law on the statute book, than his po litical friends formed conspiracies and combinations in the different New England states to import a set of desperadoes into Kansas to control the elections and the institutions of that country in fraud of the laws of Congress. Sir, I desire to make the legislation broad enough to reach conspiracies and combinations of that kind ; and I would also include combinations and conspiracies on the other side. My object is to establish firmly the doctrine that each state is to do its own voting, establish its own institutions, make THE INVASION OF STATES. 51? its own laws, without interference, directly or indirectly, from any outside power. The. gentleman says that is squatter sovereignty. Call it squat ter sovereignty; call it popular sovereignty, call it what you please, it is the great principle of self-government on which this Union was formed, and by the preservation of which alone it can be maintained. It is the right of the people of every state to govern themselves and make their own laws, and be protected from outside violence or interference, directly or indirectly. Sir, I confess the object of the legislation I contemplate is to put down this outside interference; it is to repress this "irrepressible conflict;" it is to bring the government back to the true principles of the Constitution, and let each people in this Union rest secure in the enjoyment of domestic tranquility without apprehension from neighboring states. I wUl not occupy further time. On the 29th of February, Mr. Seward having addressed the Senate, Mr. Douglas said : Mb. President: I trust I shall be pardoned for a few remarks upon so much of the senator's speech as consists in an assault on the Democratic party, and especially with regard to the Kansas-Nebraska BUl, of whieh I was the responsible author. It has become fashionable now-a-days for each gentleman making a speech against tbe Democratic party to refer to the Kansas-Nebraska Act as the cause of aU the disturbances that have since ensued. They talk about the repeal of a sacred compact that had been un disturbed for more than a quarter of a century, as if those who complained of violated faith had been faithful to the provisions of the Missouri Compro mise. Sir, wherein consisted the necessity for the repeal or. abrogation of that act, except it was that" the majority in the northern states refused to carry out the Missouri Compromise in good faith? ¦ I stood willing to extend it to the Pacific ocean, and abide by it forever, and the entire South, without one exception in this body, was wiUing thus to abide by it ; but the free- soil element of the' northern states was so strong as to defeat that meas ure, and thus open the slavery question anew. The men who now complain of the abrogation of that act were the very men who denounced it, and de nounced all of us who were willing to abide by it so long as it stood upon the statute book. ' Sir, it was the defeat in the House of Representatives of the enactment of the bUl to extend . the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific ocean, after it had passed the Senate on my own motion, that opened the controversy of 1850, which was terminated by the adoption of the measures of that year. We carried those Compromise measures over the head of the senator from New York and his present associates. • ;We, in those measures, established a great principle, rebuking his doctrine of intervention by the Congress of the United States to prohibit slavery in the territories. Both parties, in 1852, pledged themselves to abide by that principle, and thus stood pledged not to prohibit slavery in the territories by act of Congress. The Whig party affirmed that pledge, and so did the Democracy. In 1854 we only carried out, in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the same prinoiple that had been affirmed in the Compromise measures of 1850. I repeat that their resistance to car rying out in good faith the settlement of 1820, their defeat ofthe biU for ex tending it to the Pacific ocean, was the sole cause of the agitation of 1850, and gave rise to the necessity of establishing the principle of non-interven tion by Congress with slavery in the territories. - "- Hence I am not willing to sit here and allow the senator from New York, with aU the weight of authority he has with the powerful party of which he 518 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. is the head, to arraign me and the party to which I belong with the respon sibility for that agitation which rests solely upon him and his associates. Sir, the Democratic party was willing to carry out the Compromise in good faith. Having been defeated in that for the want of numbers, and having established the principle of non-intervention iu the Compromise measures of 1850, in lieu of it, the Democratic party from that day to this has been faithful to the new principle of adjustment. Whatever agitation has grown out of the question since, has been occasioned by the resistance of the party of which that sena tor is the head, to this great principle which has been ratified by the Amer ican people at two presidential elections. If he was willing to acquiesce in the solemn and repeated judgment of that American people to which he ap peals, there would be no agitation in this country now. But, sir, the whole argument of that senator goes far beyond the question of slavery, even in the territories. His entire argument rests on the assump tion that the negro and the white man were equal by Divine law, and hence that all laws and constitutions and governments in violation of the principle of negro equality are in violation of tlie law of God. That is the basis upon which his speech rests. He quotes the Declaration of Independence to show that the fathers of the Revolution understood that the negro was placed on an equality with the white man, by quoting the clause, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that aU men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, hberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Sir, the doctrine of that senator and of his party is — and I have had to meet it for eight years — that the Declaration of Independence intended to recognize the negro and the white man as equal under the Divine law, and hence that all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States which recognizes slavery are in violation of the Divine law. In other words, it is an argument against the Constitution of the United States upon the ground that it is contrary to the law of God. The senator from New York has long held that doctrine. The senator from New York has often proclaimed to the world that the Constitution of the United States was in violation of the Divine law, and that senator will not contra dict the statement. I have an extract from one of his speeches now before me, in whieh that proposition is distinctly put forth. In a speech made in the State of Ohio, in 1848, he said : " Slavery is the sin of not some of the states only, but of them all ; of not one nationality, but of all nations. It perverted and corrupted the moral sense of mankind deeply and universally, and this perversion became a uni versal habit. Habits of thought become fixed principles. No American state has yet delivered itself entirely from these habits. We, in New York, are guUty of slavery still by withholding the rights of suffrage from the race we have emancipated. You, in Ohio, are guilty in the same way by a system of black laws still more aristocratic and odious. It is written in the Constitu tion of the United States that five slaves shall count equal to three freemen as a basis of representation; and it is written also, IN VIOLATION OF D1VINB LAW, that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at cci fireside from his relentless pursuers." There you find his doctrine clearly laid down, that the Constitution of the United States is " in violation of the Divine law," and therefore is not to be obeyed. You are told that the clause relating to fugitives slaves, being in violation of the Divine law, is not binding on mankind. This has been the doctrine of the senator from New York for years. I have not heard it iu the Senate to-day for the first time. I have met in my own State, for the last ten years, this same doctrine, that the Declaration of Independence recognized the negro and the white man as equal ; that the negro and white man are equals by Divine law, and that every provision of our Constitution and laws THE INVASION OF STATES. 519 which establishes inequality between the negro and the white man is void, because contrary to the law of God. The senator from New York says, in the very speech from whieh I have quoted, that New York is yet a slave state. Why ? Not that she has a slave within her limits, but because the Constitution of New York does not allow a negro to vote on an equality with a white man. Por that reason, he says, New York is still a slave state ; for that reason every other state that discrimi nates between the negro, and the white man is a slave state, leaving but a very few states in the Union that are free from his objection. Yet, notwith standing the senator is committed to these doctrines, notwithstanding the leading men of his party are committed to them, he argues that they have been accused of being in favor of negro equality, and says the tendency of their doctrine is the equality of the white man. He introduces the objection, and fails to answer it. He states the proposition, and dodges it, to leave the inference that he does not indorse it. Sir, I desire to see these gentlemen carry out their principles to the logical conclusion. If they wUl persist in the declaration that the negro is made the equal of the white man, and that any inequality is in violation of the Divine law, then let them carry it out in their legislation by conferring on the negroes all the rights of citizenship the same as on white men. For one, I never held to any such doctrine. I hold that the Declaration of Independence was only referring to the white man — to the governing race of this country, who were in conflict with Great Britain, and had no reference to the negro race at all when it declared that aU men were created equal. Sir, if the signers of that declaration had understood the instrument then as tho senator from New York now construes it, were they not bound on that day, at that very hour, to emancipate all their slaves? -If Mr. Jefferson had meant that his negro slaves were created by the Almighty his equals, was he not bound to emancipate the slaves on the very day that he signed his name to the Declaration of Independence ? Yet no ono of the signers of that decla ration emancipated his slaves. No one of the states oa whose behalf the declaration was signed emancipated its slaves until after the Revolution was over. Every one of the original colonies, every one of the thirteen original states, sanctioned and legalized slavery untU after the Revolution was closed. These facts show conclusively that the Declaration of Independence was never intended to bear the construction placed upon it by the senator from New York, and by that enormous tribe of lecturers that go through the country delivering lectures in country school houses and basements of churches to Abohtionists, in order to teach the children that the Almighty had put his seal of condemnation upon any inequality between the white man and the negro. Mr. President, I am free to say here — what I have said over and over again at home — that, in my opinion, this government was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be adminis tered by white men, and by none other whatsoever. Mr. Doolittle I will ask the honorable senator, then, why not give the ter ritories to white men ? Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I am in favor of throwing the territories open to all the white men, and aU the negroes, too, that choose to go, and then allow the white man to govern the territory. I would not let one of the negroes, free or slave, either vote or hold office anywhere, where I had the right, under the Constitution, to prevent it. I am ;n favor of each state and each territory of this Union taking care of its own negroes, free or slave. If they want slavery, let them have it ; if they desire to prohibit slavery, let them do it ; it is their business, not mine. We in IUinois tried slavery whUe we were, a territory, and found it was not profitable ; and hence we turned 520 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. phUanthropists and abohshed it, just as our British friends across the ocean did. They established slavery in all their colonies, and when they found they' could not make any more money out of it, abolished it. I hold that tho ques tion of slavery is one of political economy, governed by the laws of climate, soU, productions, and self-interest, and not by mere statutory provision. I repudiate the doctrine, that because free institutions may be best in one cli mate, they are, necessarily, the best every where ; or that because slavery may be indispensable in one locahty, therefore it is desirable every where. I hold that a wise statesman will always adapt his legislation to the wants, interests, condition and necessities of the people to be governed by it. One people wUl bear different institutions from another. One climate demands different insti tutions from another. I repeat, then, what I have often had occasion to say, that I do not think uniformity is either possible or desirable. I wish to see no two states precisely alike in their domestic institutions in this Union. Our system rests on the supposition that each state has something in her condition or chmate, or her circumstances, requiring laws and institutions different from every other state of the Union. Hence I answer the question of the senator from Wisconsin, that I am wUling that a territory settled by white men shaU have negroes, free or slave, just as the white men shaU determine, but not as the negro shall prescribe. The senator from New York has coined a new definition of the states of the Union — labor states and capital states. The capital states, I believe, are the slaveholding states ; the labor states are the non-slaveholding states. It has taken that senator a good many years to coin that phrase and bring it into use. I have heard him discuss these favorite theories of his for the last ten years, I think, and I never heard of capital states and labor states before. It strikes me that something has recently occurred up in New England that makes it politic to get up a question between capital and labor, and take the side of the numbers against the few. Wo have seen some accounts in the newspapers of combinations and strikes among the journeymen shoemakers in the towns there — labor against capital. The senator has a new word ready coined to suit their case, and make the laborers believe that he is on the side of the most numerous class of voters. What produced that strike among the journeymen shoemakers ? Why are the mechanics of New England, the laborers and the employees, now reduced to tbe starvation point ? Simply because, by your treason, by your sectional agitation, you have created a strife between the North and the South, have driven away your southern customers, and thus deprive the laborers of the means of support This is the fruit of your Republican dogmas. It is another step, foUowing John Brown, of the " irrepressible conflict." Therefore, we now get this new coinage of " labor states ' — he is on the side of the shoe makers, (laughter), and " capital states" — he is against those that furnish tbe hides. (Laughter.) I think those shoemakers wUl understand this business. They know why it is that they do not get so many orders as they did a few months ago. It is not confined to the shoemakers ; it reaches every mechanic's shop and every factory. All the large laboring establishments of the North feel the pressure produced by the doctrine of the " irrepressible conflict." This new coinage of words wiU not save them from the just responsibUity that fol lows the doctrines they have been inculcating. If they had abandoned the doctrine of the " irrepressible conflict," and proclaimed the true doctrine of the Constitution, that 'each state is entirely free to do just as it pleases, have slavery as long as it chooses, and abolish it when it wishes, there would be no conflict ; the northern and southern states would be brethren ; there would be fraternity between us, aud your shoemakers would not strike for higher prices. Mr. Clark. WUl the senator pardon me for interrupting him a moment 1 THE INVASION OF STATES. 521 Mr. Douglas. I wUl not give way for a speech ; I wUl for a suggestion. Mr. Clark. I desire simply to make one single suggestion in regard to what the senator from IUinois ' said in reference to the condition of the laboring classes in the factories. I come from a city where there are three thousand operatives, and there never was a time when they were more contented and better paid in the factories than now, and when their business was bettor than at this present time. Mr. Douglas. I was speaking of the scarcity of labor growing up in our northern manufacturing towns,as a legitimate and natural consequence ofthe diminution ofthe demand for the manufactured article; and then the question is, what cause has reduced this' demand, except the " irrepressible conflict" that has turned the southern trade away from northern cities into southern towns and southern cities? Sir, the feeling among the masses of the south we find typified in the dress of the senator from Virginia. (Mr. Mason) ; they are determined to wear the homespun of their own productions rather than trade with the north. That is the feeling which has produced this state of distress 'in our manufacturing towns. The senator from New York has also referred to the recent action of the people of New Mexico, in establishing a code for the protection of prop erty in slaves, and he congratulates the country upon the final success of the advocates of free institutions in Kansas. He could not fail, however, to say, in order to preserve what he thought was a striking antithesis, that popular sovereignty in Kansas meant state sovereignty in Missouri. No, sir ; popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken down by unholy combination in New England to ship men to Kansas — rowdies and vagabonds — with the Bible in one hand and Sharpe's rifle in the other, to shoot down the friends of self-government. Popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken down by the combinations in the northern states to carry elections under pretence of emi grant aid societies. In retaliation, Missouri formed aid societies too ; and she, foUowing your example, sent men into Kansas and then occurred the conflict. Now, you throw the blame upon Missouri merely because she foUowed your example, and attempted to resist its consequences. I condemn both; but I condemn a thousand-fold more those who set the example and struck the first blow, than those who thought they would act upon the principle of fighting the devU with his own weapons, and resorted to the same means that you had employed. But, sir, notwithstanding the efforts of the emigrant aid societies, the peo ple of Kansas have had their own way, and the 'people of New Mexico have had their own way. Kansas had adopted a free state ; ' New Mexico has es tablished a slave territory. I am content with both. If the people of New Mexico want slavery, let them have it, and I never will vote to repeal their slave code. If Kansas does not want slavery, I will not help anybody to force it on her. Let each do as it pleases. When Kansas comes to tho con clusion that slavery will suit her, and promote her interest better than the prohibition, let her pass her own slave code ; I wiU not pass it for her. Whenever New Mexico gets tired of her code, she must repeal it for herself; I wUl not repeal it for her. Non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the territories is the platform on which I stand. But I want to know why wUl not the senator from New York carry out his principles to their logical conclusion ? Why is there not a man in that whole party, in this body or in the House of Representatives, bold enough to redeem the pledges which that party has made to the country ? I believe you said, in your Philadelphia platform, that Congress had sovereign power over the territories for their government, and that it was the duty of Con gress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy. Why do you not carry out your pledges? Why do you not in- 522 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. troduce your biU ? The senator from New York says they have no new measures to originate ; no new movement to make ; no new bill to bring forward. Then what confidence shaU the American people repose in your faith and sincerity, when, having the power in one house, you do not bring brward a bill to carry out your principles? The fact is, these principles are avowed to get votes in the North, but not to be carried into effect by acts of Congress. You are afraid of hurting your party if you bring in your bill to repeal the slave code of New Mexico ; afraid of driving off the conservative men ; you think it is wise to wait until after the election. I should be glad to have confidence enough in the sincerity of the other side of the chamber to suppose they had courage to bring forward a law to carry out their prin ciples to their logical conclusions. I find nothing of that. They wish to agitate, to excite the people of the North against the South to get votes for the Presidential election ; but they shrink from carrying out their measures, lest they might throw off some conservative voters who do not like the Democratic party. But, sir, if the senator from New York, in the event that he is made Presi dent, intends to carry out his principles to their logical conclusion, let us see where they will lead him. In the same speech that I read from a few min utes ago, I find the following. Addressing the people of Ohio, he said : "You blush not at these things, because they have become as familiar as household words ; and your pretended free-soil allies claim peculiar merit for maintaining these miseaUed guarantees of slavery, whieh they find in the national compact. Does not aU this prove that the Whig party have kept up with the spirit of the age ; that it is as true and faithful to human free dom as the inert conscience of the American people will permit it to be ? What then, you say, can nothing be done for freedom, because the public conscience remains inert ? Yes, much can be done, everything can be done. Slavery can be limited to its present bounds." That is the first thing that can be done — slavery can be limited to its present bounds. What else ? "It can be ameliorated. It can and must be abolished, and you and i can and must do it." There you find our two propositions ; first, slavery was to be limited to the states in which it was then situated. It did not then exist iu any territory. Slavery was confined to the states. The first proposition was that slavery must be restricted and confined to those states. The second was that he, as a New Yorker, and they, the people of Ohio, must and would abolish it ; that is to say abolish it in the states. . They could abolish it no where else. Every appeal they make to northern prejudice and passion is against the in stitution of slavery everywhere, and they would not be able to retain their Abolition allies, the rank and file, unless they held out the hope that it was the mission of the Republican party, if successful, to abolish slavery in the states as well as in the territories of the Union. And again, in the same speech, the senator from New York advised the people to disregard constitutional obligations in these words : " But we must begin deeper and lower than the composition and combi nation of factions or parties, wherein the strength and security of slavery lie. You answer that it lies in the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions and laws of slaveholding states. Not at aU. It is in the errone ous sentiment ofthe American people. Constitutions and laws can no more rise above the virtue ofthe people than the limpid stream can climb above its native spring. Inculcate the love of freedom and the equal rights of man under ihe paternal roof ; see to it that they are taught in the schools and in the churches ; reform your own code ; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal THE INVASION OF STATES. 523 gods; correct your own error that slavery' is a constitutional guarantee which may not be released, and ought not to be relinquished." I know they tell us that all this is to be done according to the Constitu tion ; they would not violate the Constitution except so far as the Constitu tion violates the law of God — that is all — and they are to be the judges of how far the Constitution does violate the law of God. They say that every clause of the Constitution that recognizes property in slaves is in violation of the Divine law, and hence should not be made ; and with that interpreta tion of the Constitution they turn to the South and say, " We wiU give you all your rights under the Constitution as we explain it I" Then the senator devoted about a third of his speech to a very beautiful homUy on the glories of our Union. AU that he has said, all that any other man has ever said, all that the most eloquent tongue can ever utter, in be half of the blessings and the advantages of this glorious Union, I fuUy in dorse. But still, sir, I am prepared to say that the Union is glorious only when the Constitution is preserved inviolate. He eulogized the Union. I, too, am for the Union ; I indorse the eulogies ; but still, what is the Union worth, unless the Constitution is preserved and maintained inviolate in all its provisions? Sir, I have no faith in the Union loving sentiments of those will not carry out the Constitution in good faith, as our fathers made it. Professions of fidelity to the Union will be taken for naught, unless they are accompanied by obedience to the Constitution upon which the Union rests. I have a right to insist that the Constitution shall be maintained inviolate in all its parts, not only that whieh suits the temper of the North, but every clause of that Constitution, whether you like it or dislike it. Your oath to support the Constitution binds you to every line, word, and syUable of the instrument. You have no right to say that any given clause is in violation of the Divine law, and that, therefore, you wUl not observe it. The man who disobeys any one clause on the pretext that it violates the Divine law, or on any other pretext, violates hi3 oath of office. But, sir, what a commentary is this pretext that the Constitution is a vio lation of the Divine law upon those revolutionary fathers whose eulogies we have heard here to-day I Did the framers of that instrument make a Con stitution iu violation of the law of God ? If so, how do your consciences allow you to take the oath of office ? If the senator from New York still holds to his declaration that the clause in the Constitution relative to fugi tive slaves is a violation of the Divine law, how dare he, as an honest man, take an oath to support the instrument ? Did he understand that he was defying the authority of Heaven when he took the oath to support that in- instrument ? ' Thus, we see, the radical difference between the Republican party and the Democratic party, is this: we stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, and by the decisions ofthe constituted authorities as they are pronounced in obedience to the Constitution. They repudiate the instrument, substitute their own will for that of the constituted authorities, annul such provisions as their fanaticism, or prejudice, or policy, may declare to be in violation of God's law, and then say, " We will protect all your rights under the Con stitution as expounded by ourselves ; but not as expounded by the tribunal created for that purpose." Mr. President, I shaU not occupy further time in the discussion of this ques tion to-night. I did not intend to utter a word; and I should not have ut tered a word upon the subject, if the senator from New York had not made a broad arraignment of the Democratic party, and especially of that portion of the action of the party for whieh I was most immediately responsible. Everybody knows that I brought forward and helped to carry through the 524 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Kansas-Nebraska Act, and that I was active in support of the Compromise measures of 1850. -I have heard bad faith attached to the Democratic party for that act too long to be wUling to remain sUent and seem to sanction it by tacit acquiescence. CHAPTER XXIII. PUBLIC DEMONSTEATIONS — COMMITTEE SERVICE PUBLIC LANDS. Immediately after the election in 1858, Judge Douglas, for the purpose of recruiting his health, le Chicago with his fam ily for "Washington by the way ofthe Mississippi river. When in St. Louis he was the recipient of many public honors and courtesies. On his way South, he was met some fifty miles north of Memphis by a delegation of the citizens of that pros perous city, who earnestly invited him to remain over there and partake of the hospitalities which it would be their pride as well as pleasure to extend to him and his family. Gratified beyond measure by this most unexpected greeting at the hands ofthe people of a southern city, he accepted the cordial invita tion, and on the day after his arrival, addressed a very large assemblage of citizens, to whom he repeated the policy and principles he had advocated in the campaign that had just closed in Illinois. He declared that he could speak no senti ments in Tennessee that he could not speak as freely in Illinois, and that any opinions that could not be uttered in the one state as acceptably as in the other were necessarily unsound and anti-Democi-atic. He on the next day proceeded down the river to New Orleans, where a grand reception awaited him. He reached there at night, and as the steamer neared the city he was greeted with a salute, and an illumination. He was escorted to the hotel by the military and a vast concourse of people. At the hotel he was welcomed by the mayor as the guest of the city, and also welcomed by the Hon. Pierre Soule on the part of the citizens. To these addresses, in which he was congrat ulated upon his recent victory in Illinois, he responded in a suitable manner. On the 6th of December be addressed a mass meeting in Odd Fellows Hall, in a speech of which we have already given some extracts, and in which he repeated the famous doctrines so often defended by him in the Illinois campaign. After leaving New Orleans he staid some days at Havana, PUBLIC DEMOMSTEATIONS. 625 and then proceeded to New York by steamer. In the mean time the authorities of New York in anticipation of his arrival had unanimously voted that, " it is eminently due to this es teemed patriot and distinguished senator that the city of New York, through its constituted authorities, should extend to him a cordial welcome on his arrival, in order to express their ad miration of the man, and of the principles which he has so long and so ably defended," and therefore appointed a committe to extend to Mr. Douglas the hospitalities ofthe city. When he reached New York he was met by committees of the city coun cils and escorted to the Everett House. As soon as his presence in New York was ascertained, a meeting of citizens was held at Philadelphia to adopt measures for his reception there. The city council voted the use of In dependence Hall for that purpose. On his arrival there on the 4th of January, 1859, he was escorted to the venerated hall, and was there formally welcomed by Mayor Henry on behalf of the authorities, and by "W. E. Lehman, Esq., on behalf of the people. The speeches on this occasion have been pre served, and in a more comprehensive biography of Mr. Douglas will form a most interesting chapter. When leaving Philadelphia he was accompanied by a large delegation of his friends, who continued with him until he had crossed the Susquehanna, when he was met by a committee of citizens of Baltimore, who, in behalf of the people of that city, welcomed him to the soil of Maryland. In the evening of January the 5th, he was greeted with a serenade at the Gilmore House, and having been introduced to the assemblage of persons in Monument Square, addresssd them — returning his acknowledgments for the honors received by him, and again repeating the truths and arguments he had been accustomed to express to the people of Illinois. On his arrival at Washington he was welcomed by thou sands ofthe people ofthat city — people who held no office and expected none, and therefore had no dread of official frowns. On reaching his own house he made a suitable acknowledg ment for the kindness of his old friends and neighbors. His whole journey from Chicago to Washington was a succession of popular manifestations of admiration for the man who had had the boldness to maintain the right, and had the ability to overcome and vanquish all the opposition arrayed against him. 526 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. SERVICES ON COMMITTEES IN CONGRESS. While Mr. Douglas was at Havana, Congress had assem bled, and a caucus of the Democratic senators had arranged the Senate committees. In this arrangement Mr. Green, of Missouri, was named as chairman of the Committee on Terri tories in place of Mr. Douglas. This, it will be remembered, was done while Mr. Douglas was absent. No reason was given for it until late in the year, when Mr. Gwin stated the reason in his speech at Grass Valley, California. When Mr. Douglas first took his seat in the House of Rep resentatives he was assigned a place on the Committee on Elec- fions, from which committee at that session he made the cele brated report upon the constitutional powers of Congress to regulate the manner and time of holding elections in the states. The Whig Congress of 1841 and 1842 had passed a law requir ing the states to elect members of Congress by districts. New Hampshire, Georgia and some other states had disregarded this law and had elected their representatives by general ticket. The question whether the members thus elected against the provisions of the act of the previous Congress was one that was considered of great importance. Mr. Douglas made an elaborate report upon the subject, being a complete vindication of the rights of the states, and his report was adopted as the judgment of the house by a most decided majority. At the next session he was placed on the Judiciary Committee, from which he reported the bill extending the admiralty and mari time jurisdiction of the United States district and circuit courts to all cases arising on the lakes — thus giving to the in ternal commerce and navigation the same judicial protection that was enjoyed on the coast. At the opening of the next Congress, Mr. Douglas was made chairman of the Committee on Territories in the House of Representatives, and held that position until he closed his ser vices in that body. When he took his seat in the Senate he was made chairman ofthe Committee on Territories, and had been regularly elected to the position every year from Decem ber 1847, to December 1857, inclusive. In December 1858, for the reasons given by Mr. Gwin, he was displaced. It has been stated that he was tendered the chairmanship of another committee but he declined it — if politically unfitted for the one he was equally so for the other. PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS. 527 During his service in the Senate he was for many years a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and also a Regent of the Smithsonian Institution. THE PUBLIC LANDS. Mr. Douglas, as has been shown, successfully supported the act making the great donation of public land to Illinois for rail road purposes, and has supported acts making like grants to other states. He has always supported a liberal policy in the administra tion of the public lands^-a policy looking always to their occu pancy and cultivation by actual settlers. He has reported and defended those provisions in the Oregon, Washington and other territoritorial acts granting lands . to actual settlers on condition of occupancy, &c. In 1850 he introduced into the Senate a proposition having for its effect a liberal donation to the head of every family, male or female — of the public land on the condition of settle ment and cultivation. The principle involved in his proposi- sition was something similar to that embraced in the " Home stead bill" so long pending in Congress, and ofwhieh Mr. Douglas is an earnest supporter. He has always as a legislator, as a judge, and as a statesman been a firm friend and maintainer of the rights and interests of the agriculturists of the country. Hence it is that he has always opposed the extension and renewal by Congress for extraordinary periods the patents of inventors for agricultural implements, an opposition which has provoked a hostility that is as unjust as it is selfish. On the 18th of September, 1851, he delivered by invitation an address at Rochester, New York, before the New York Agricultural Society, an address abounding in lofty sentiment and practical teaching. A copy of that address is published in the annual reports of the proceedings of the society. CONCLUSION. In the foregoing pages have been crowded brief statements of some of the leading incidents of the marked career of Mr. Douglas. His history is a voluminous one, and to do full jus tice to it would require four times the space that has been taken in this work. At some future time, some of the events 528 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. herein only slightly touched upon may be elaborated to an extent that their importance will justify and that truth will require. The record, even prepared as it is imperfectly, will not fail to point out Mr. Douglas as a most remarkable man. At this day he occupies the most extraordinary position of being the only man in his own party whose nomination for the Presidency is deemed equivalent to an election. Friends of other statesmen claim that other men, if nominated, may be elected — a claim that admits of strong and well supported con troversy ; but friend and foe — all Democrats, unite in the opin ion that Douglas' nomination will place success beyond all doubt. THE END. E~£p Every Number of Harper's Magazine contains from 20 to 50 pages — and from one third to one half more reading — than any other in the country. HARPER'S MAGAZINE. The Publishers believe that the Nineteeen Volumes of Hakpek's Magazine now issued contain a larger amount of valuable and at tractive reading than will be found in any other periodical of the day. The best Serial Tales of the foremost Novelists of the time: Levees' "Maurice Tiernay," Bulwer Lttton's "My Novel," Dickens's "Bleak House" and "Little Dorrit," Thackeray's "Newcomes" aud "Virginians," have successively appeared in the Magazine simultaneously with their publication in England. The best Tales and Sketches from the Foreign Magazines have been carefully selected, and original contributions have been furnished by Charles Eeade, Wilkie Collins, Mrs. Gaskell, Miss Mu- loch, and other prominent English writers. The larger portion of the Magazine has, however, been devoted to articles upon American topics, furnished by American writers. Contributions have been welcomed from every section of the coun try ; and in deciding upon their acceptance the Editors have aimed to be governed solely by the intrinsic merits of the articles, irrespect ive of their authorship. Care has been taken that the Magazine should never become the organ of any local clique in literature, or of any sectional party in politics. At no period since the commencement of the Magazine have its literary and artistic resources been more ample and varied ; and the Publishers refer to the contents of the Periodical for the past as the best guarantee for its future claims upon the patronage of the Amer ican public. TEEMS.— One Copy for One Year, $3 00 j Two Copies for One Tear, $5 00; Three or more Copies for One Year (each), $2 00; " Harper's Magazine1' and " Harper's Weekly," One Year, $4 00. And an Extra Copy, gratis, for every Club of Ten Stosoeibeeb. Clergymen and Teachers supplied at Two Dollaes a year. The Semi-An- nual Volumes bound in Cloth, $2 50 each. Muslin Covers, 25 cents each. The Postage upon Haspee'b Magazine must be paid at the Office where it is received. The Postage is Thirty-six Cents a year. HAKPEK & BROTHERS, Publishers, Franklin Square, Now York. HARPER'S WEEKLY. A JOURNAL OF CIVILIZATION. % JFtnst-rictss JUnatrateb Jamil-n Nnwpaper PRICE FIVE CENTS. Harper's Weekly has now been in existence three years. Dur ing that period no effort has been spared to make it the best possi ble Family Paper for the American People, and it is the belief of the Proprietors that, in the peculiar field which it occupies, no ex isting Periodical can compare with it. Every Number of Harper's Weekly contains all the News of the week, Domestic and Foreign. The completeness of this de partment is, it is believed, unrivaled in any other weekly publica tion. Every noteworthy event is profusely and accurately illustratea at the time of its occurrence. And while no expense is spared to procure Original Illustrations, care is taken to lay before the readei- every foreign picture which appears to possess general interest. In a word, the Subscriber to Harper's Weekly may rely upon ob taining a Pictorial History of the times in which we live, compiled and illustrated in the most perfect and complete manner possible. It is believed that the Illustrated Biographies alone — of which about one hundred and fifty have already been published — are worth far more to the reader than the whole cost ot his subscription. The literary matter of Harper's Weekly is supplied by some of the ablest writers in the English language. Every Number con tains an installment of a serial story by a first-class author — Bul- wer's " What will he do with It f" has appeared entire in its columns ; one or more short Stories, the best that can be purchased at home or abroad ; the best Poetry of the day ; instructive Essays on topics of general interest ; Comments on the Events of the time, in the shape of Editorials and the Lounger's philosophic and amusing Gossip; searching but generous Literary Criticisms; a Chess Chron icle ; and full and careful reports of the Money, Merchandise, and Produce Markets. In fixing at so low a price as Five Cents the price of their paper, the Publishers were aware that nothing but an enormous sale could remunerate them. They are' happy to say that the receipts have already realized their anticipations, and justify still further efforts to make Harper's Weekly an indispensable guest in every home throughout the country. TERMS.— One Copy for Twenty Weeks, $1 00 ; One Copy for One Year, $2 50 ; One Copy for Two Years, $4 00 ; Five Copies for One Year, $9 00 ; Twelve Cop ies for One Year, $20 00; Twenty-five Copies for One Year, $40 00. An Extra Copy will be allowed for every Club of Twelve or Twenty-five St/bscbibzks. COMPLETION OF GROTE'S HISTORY OF GREECE, A HISTORY OF GREECE, FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE CLOSE OF THE GENERA TION CONTEMPORARY WITH ALEXANDER THE GREAT- BT GEORGE GROTE, ESQ. Vol. XII. contains Portrait, Maps, and Index. Complete in 12 vols. 12mo, Muslin, $9 00 ; Sheep, $12 00 ;' Half Calf, $15 00. It is not often that a work of such magnitude is undertaken ; more seldom still is such a work so perseveringly carried on, and so soon and yet so worthily ac complished. Mr. Grote has illustrated and invested with an entirely new signifi cance a portion of the past history of humanity, which he, perhaps, thinks the most splendid that hag been, and which all allow to have been very splendid. He has made great Greeks live again before us, and has enabled us to realize Greek modes of think - ing. He has added a great historical work to the language, taking its place with other great histories, and yet not like any of them in the special combination of merits which it exhibits : scholarship and learning such as we have been ac customed to demand only in Germans ; an art of grouping and narration different from that of Hume, different from that of Gibbon, and yet producing the effect of sustained charm and pleasure ; a peculiarly keen interest in events ofthe political order, and a wide knowledge of the business of politics ; and, finally, harmonizing all, a spirit of sober philosophical generalization always tending to view facts collectively in their speculative bearing as well as to record them individually. It is at once an ample and detailed narrative of the history of Greece, and a lucid philosophy of Grecian history. — London Athenaum, March 8, 1856. Mr. Grote will be emphatically the historian of the people of Greece. — Dublin University Magazine. The acute intelligence, the discipline, faculty of intellect, and the excellent eru dition every one would look for from Mr. Grote ; but they will here also find the element which harmonizes these, and without which, on such a theme, an orderly and solid work could not have been written. — Examiner. A work second to that of Gibbon alone in English historical literature. Mr. Grote gives the philosophy as well as the facts of history, and it would be difficult to find an author combining in the same degree the accurate learning ofthe schol ar with the experience of a practical statesman. The completion of this great work may well be hailed with some degree of national pride and satisfaction.— Literary Gazette, March 8, 1856. The better acquainted any one is with Grecian history, and with the manner in which that history has heretofore been written, the higher will be his estimation of this work. Mr. Grote's familiarity both with the great highways and the ob scurest by-paths of Grecian literature and antiquity has seldom been equaled, and not often approached, in unlearned England ; while those Germans who have ri valed it have seldom possessed the quality which eminetftly characterizes Mr. Grote, of keeping historical imagination severely under the restraints of evidence. The great charm of Mr. Grote's history has been throughout the cordial admira tion he feels for the people whose acts and fortunes he has to relate. * * "We bid Mr. Grote farewell ; heartily congratulating him on the conclusion of a work which . is a monument of English learning, of English clear-sightedness, and of English love of freedom and the characters it produces. — Spectator. Endeavor to become acquainted with Mr. Grote, who is engaged on a Greek History. I'expect a great deal from this production. — Niebuhr, the Historian, to Professor Lie ber. The author has now incontestably won for himself the title, not merely of a historian, but of the historian of Greece. — Quarterly Review. Mr. Grote is, beyond all question, the historian of Greece, unrivaled, so far as we know, in the erudition and genius with which he has revived the picture of a distant past, and brought home every part and feature of its history to our intel lects and our hearts. — London Times. For becoming dignity of style, unforced adaptation of results to principles, care ful verification of theory by fact, and impregnation of fact by tfieory— for extensive and well-weighed learning, employed with intelligence and taste, we have seen no historical work of modern times which we would place above Mr. Grote's histo ry, — Morning Chronicle. HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE, N. Y. CURTIS'S HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION. HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN, FORMATION, AND ADOP TION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. By George Ticknor Curtis. Complete in 2 toIs. 8vo, Muslin, $4 00 ; Law Sheep, $5 00 ; Half Calf, $6 00. A hook bo thorough as this in the comprehension of its subject, bo impartial in the summing up of its judgments, so well considered in its method, and bo - truthful in its matter, may safely challenge the most exhaustive criticism. The Constitutional History of our country has not before been made the subject of a special treatise. We may congratulate ourselves that an author has been found eo capable to do full justice to it ; for that the work will take its rank among tbe received text-books of our political literature will be questioned by no one who has given it a careful perusal. — National Intelligencer. We know of no person who is better qualified (now that the late Daniel Web ster is no more), to undertake this important history. — Boston Journal. It will take its place among the classics of American literature. — Boston Cour ier. The author has given years to the preliminary studies, and nothing has es caped him in the patient and conscientious researches to which he has- devoted so ample a portion of time. Indeed, the work has been so thoroughly performed that it will never need to be done over again ; for the sources have been exhaust ed, and the materials put together with so much judgment and artistic skill that taste and the sense of completeness are entirely satisfied. — JV". Y. Daily Times. A most important and valuable contribution to the historical and political lit erature of tbe United States. All publicists and students of public law will be grateful to Mr. Curtis for the diligence and assiduity with which he has wrought out the great mine of diplomatic lore in which the foundations of the American Constitution are laid, and for the light he has thrown on his wide and arduous subject. — London Morning Chronicle. To trace the history of the formation of the Constitution, and explain the cir cumstances of the time and country but of which its various provisions grew, is a taak worthy of the highest talent. To have performed that task in a satisfacto ry manner is an achievement with which an honorable ambition may well be gratified. We can honestly say that' in our opinion Mr. Curtis has fairly won tins distinction— JV. Y. Courier and Enquirer. We have seen no history which surpasses it in the essential qualities of a standard work destinfid to hold a permanent place in the impartial judgment of future generations. — Boston Traveler. Should the second volume sustain the character of the first, we hazard nothing in claiming for the entire publication the character of a standard work. It will furnish the only sure guide to the interpretation of the Constitution, by unfolding historically the wants it was intended to supply, and the evils which it was in tended to remedy. — Boston DaUy Advertiser. This volume is an important contribution to our constitutional and historical literature. * * * Every true friend of the Constitution will gladly welcome it. The author has presented a narrative clear and interesting. It evinces cai-eful research, skillful handling of material, lucid statement, and a desire to write in a tone and manner worthy of the great theme. — Boston Post. Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, Franklin Square, New Yorh *4* Haepee & Brothers will send the above Work hy Mail, postage paid (for Any distance in the United States under 3000 miles), on receipt of the Money. " They do honor to American Literature, and would do honor to the Literature of any Country in the World." THE RISE OF THE DUTCH REPUBLIC. & -fijislorg. By JOHN LOTHEOP MOTLEY. New Edition. "With a Portrait of William op Orange. 3 vols. 8vo, Muslin, $6 00; Sheep, $6 75; Half Calf antique, $9 00; Half Calf, extra gilt, $10 50. We regard this work as the best contribution to modern history that has yet been made by an American. — Methodist Quarterly Review. The "History of the Dutch Republic" is a great gift to us ; but the heart and earnestness that beat through all its pages are greater, for they give us most timely inspiration to vindicate the true ideas of our country, and to compose au able history of our own. — Christian Examiner (Boston). This work bears on its face the evidences of scholarship and research. The arrangement is clear and effective ; the style energetic, lively, and often brilliant. * * * Mr. Motley's instructive volumes will, we trust, have a circulation commen surate with their interest and value.— Protestant Episcopal Quarterly Review. To the illustration of this most interesting period Mr. Motley has brought tho matured powers of a vigorous and brilliant mind, and the abundant fruits of pa tient and judicious study and deep reflection. The result is, one of the most important contributions to historical literature that have been made in this coun try. — North Aynerican Review. We would conclude this notice by earnestly recommending our readers to pro cure for themselves this truly great and admirable work, by the production of which the auther has conferred no less honor upon his country than he has won praise and fame for himself, and than which, we can assure them, they can find nothing more attractive or interesting within the compass of modern literature. — Evangelical Review. It is not often that we have the pleasure of commending to the attention of the lover of books a work of such extraordinary aud unexceptionable excellence as this one. — Universalist Quarterly Review. There are an elevation and a classic polish in these volumes, and a felicity of grouping and of portraiture, which invest the subject with the attractions of a Hving and stirring episode in the grand historic drama. — Southern Methodist Quarterly Review. The author writes with a genial glow and love of his subject. — Presbyterian Quarterly Review^ Mr. Motley is a sturdy Republican and a hearty Protestant His style is live ly and picturesque, and his work is an honor and an important accession to our national literature. — Church Review. Mr. Motley's work is an important one, the result of profound research, sincere convictions, sound principles, and manly sentiments; and even those who are most familiar with the history of the period will find in it a fresh and vivid ad dition to their previous knowledge. It does honor to American literature, and would do honor to the literature of any country in the world. — Edinburgh Re view. A serious chasm in English historical literaturahas been (by this book) very remarkably filled. * # * A history as complete as "dustry and genius can make it now lies before us, of the first twenty years of the revolt of the United Prov inces. * * * All the essentials of a great writer Mr. Motley eminently possesses. His mind is broad, his industry unwearied. In power of dramatic description no modem historian, except, perhaps, Mr. Carlyle, surpasses him, and in analy sis of character he is elaborate and distinct — Westminster Review. 2 MOTLEY'S RISE OF THE DUTCH REPUBLIC. It is a work of real historical value, tho result of accurate criticism, written in a liberal spirit, and from first to last deeply interesting.— Athenaeum, The style is excellent, clear, vivid, eloquent ; and the industry with which original sources have been investigated, and through which new light has been shed over perplexed incidents and characters, entitles Mr. Motley to a high rank in the literature of an age peculiarly rich in history.— North British Review. It abounds in new information, and, as a first work, commands a very cordial recognition, no't merely of the promise it gives, but ofthe extent and importance ofthe labor actually performed on it. — London Examiner. Mr. Motley's "History" is a work of which any country might be proud. — Press (London). Mr. Motley's History will be a standard book of reference in historical litera ture. — London Literary Gazette. Mr. Motley has searched the whole range of historical documents necessary to the composition of his work. — London Leader. This is really a great work. It belongs to the class of books in which wo range our Grotes, Milman s, Mexivales, and Macaulays, as the glories of English literature in the department of history. * * * Mr. Motley's" gifts as a historical writer are among the highest and rarest.— Nonconformist (London). Mr. Motley's volumes will well repay perusal. * * * For his learning, his liberal tone, and his generous enthusiasm, we heartily commend him, and bid him good speed for the remainer of his interesting and heroic narrative. — Saturday Review. The story is a noble one, and is worthily treated. * * * Mr. Motley has had the patience to unravel, with unfailing perseverance, the thousand intricate plots of the adversaries of the Prince of Orange ; but the details and the literal extracts which he has derived from original documents, and transferred to his pages, give a truthful color and a picturesque effect, which are especially charming. — London Daily News* M. Lothrop Motley dans son magnifique tableau de la formation de notre R6- publique. — G. Geoen Van Peiksxeeeb. Our accomplished countryman, Mr. J. Lothrop Motley, who, during the last five years, for the better prosecution of his labors, has established his residence in the neighborhood of the scenes of his narrative. No one acquainted with the fine powers of mind possessed by this scholar, and the earnestness with which ho has devoted himself to the task, can doubt that he will do full justice tov his im portant but difficult subject— W. H. Pebscott. The production of such a work as this astonishes, while it gratifies the pride of the American reader. — N. Y. Observer. The "Rise of tbe Dutch Republic" at once, ,and by acclamation, takes its place by the " Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," as a work which, wheth er for research, substance, or style, will never be superseded JV. Y. Albion. A work upon which all who read the English language may congratulate themselves. — New Yorker Handels Zeitung. Mr. Motley's place is now (alluding to this book) with Hallam and Lord Ma- hon, Alison and Macaulay in the Old Country, and with Washington Irving, Prescott, and Bancroft in this. — JK Y. Times. Tms authority, in the English tongue, for the history of the period and people to which it refers. — N. Y. Courier and Enquirer. This work at once places the author on the list of American historians which has been so signally illustrated by the names of Irving, Prescott, Bancroft, and Hildreth. — Boston Times. The work is a noble one, and a most desirable acquisition to our historical lit erature. — Mobile Advertiser. Such a work is an honor to its author, to his country, and to the age in which it was written. — Ohio Farmer* Published ly HARPER & BROTHERS, m Franklin Square, New York. FTarpee & Bbothbbb will send the above Work by Mail (postage paid (for any distance in tbe United States under 8000 miles), on receipt of the Money. "A Grand Book— an Honor to America." THE PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE SEA. By Lieut. M. F. MAUEY, U.S.N". With "Wood-cuts and Charts. New Edition. Enlarged and Im proved. 8vo, Muslin, $1 50. Notices ofthe Press, Lieutenant Maury, in his fascinating book. — Blackwood's Magazine. We err greatly if Lieut. Maury's book will not hereafter be classed with the works of the great men who have taken the lead in extending and improving knowledge and art; his book displays, in a remarkable degree, like the " ad vancement of learning" and the natural history of Buffon, profound research and magnificent imagination. — London Illustrated News. We have not met for a long period with a book which is at once so minute and profound in research, and so plain, manly, and eloquent in expression. * * * At almost every page there are proofs that Lieut Maury is as pious as he is learned. * * * This is but one passage of a book which will make a sensation not like that or equal to that made by "Uncle Tom's Cabin," hut a durable and ex panding impression in the general mind, and hereafter Lieut. Maury will he re membered among the great scientific men of the age, and the benefactors of mankind. — London Economist We have scarcely ever met with a work that has given us more instruction and pleasure. Under the author's clear and familiar treatment, the Ocean no longer seems a mere mass of waters, unvaried except by storms and tides; it becomes a living thing, as it were, an immense vital organ, composed of a won derful congeries of powers, and performing a wonderful part in the natural econ omy of our terraqueous globe. Its currents and drifts, the temperature of its different parts, the depths of its several basins, its contents, the mountains, table lands, and profound valleys that occupy its bottom, its action on the atmosphere and the counteraction, its processes of evaporization, the courses of winds bear ing its vapors to the regions where they are precipitated in rain or snow, the great maritime routes across its expanse, and how they are determined by oce anic and atmospherical phenomena — all are set forth in a plain, vivid, and very impressive manner. — Universalist Quarterly Review. A grand book, an honor to America. — Presbyterian Quarterly Review. Whoever may wish a perfect treat among the novelties of science, will find it in the " Physical Geography of the Sea." — Methodist Quarterly Review. Pre-eminently popular and practical. Some of the theories of this ingenious book have already brought thousands, or even millions of dollars into the hands of commerce. As a contribution to science, and, above all, to popular and prac tical knowledge, hardly enough praise can he uttered. — N. Y. Daily Times. Lieut. Maury's eulogy will be found, like that of the discoverer of the compass, in thft. practice of every future navigator, and his discoveries will kindle a pride in generations to come of his countrymen, akin to that we feel in the achieve ments of science of Franklin and Fulton. — Journal of Commerce. Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, Franklin Square, New York. %* Habpeb & Beothebb will send the above Work by Mail, postage paid (for any distance in the United States under 3000 miles), on receipt of $1 50. THE LAND AND THE BOOK; OE, BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATIONS DRAWN PROM THE MANNERS AND CUSTOMS, THE SCENES AND SCENERY OP THE HOLY LAND.' By "W. M. THOMSON, D.D., Twenty-five Years a Missionary ofthe A.B.C.F.M. in Syria and Palestine. With two elaborate Maps of Palestine, an accurate Plan of Jeru salem, and several hundred Engravings representing the Scenery, Topography, and Productions of the Holy Land, and the Cos tumes, Manners, and Habits of the People. Two elegant Large 12mo Volumes, Muslin, $3 50 ; Half Calf, $5 20. The Land of the Bible is part of the Divine Eevelation. It bears testimony essential to faith, and gives lessons invaluable in exposi tion. Both have been written all over the fair face of Palestine, and deeply graven there by the finger of God in characters of living light. To collect this testimony and popularize these lessons for the biblical student of every age and class is the prominent design of this work. For twenty-five years the Author has been permitted to read the Book by the light which the Land sheds upon it ; and he now hands over this friendly torch to those who have not been thus favored. In this attempt the pencil has been employed to aid the pen. A large number of pictorial illustrations are introduced, many of them original, and all giving a genuine and true represen tation of things in the actual Holy Land of the present day. They are not fancy sketches of imaginary scenes thrown in to embellish the page, but pictures of living manners, studies of sacred topogra phy, or exponents of interesting biblical allusions, which will add greatly to the value of the work. Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, Franklin Square, New York* Haeper & BEOTnEEB will send the above Work hy Mail, postage paid, to any part ofthe United States, on receipt of the Money. Works by Thomas Carlyle. History of Friedrich the Second, called Frederic the Great. 4 vols. 12mo, Muslin, $1 25 each. Vols. I. and II., with Portraits and Maps, just ready. The French Revolution. A History. Newly Eevised by the Author, with Index, &c. 2 vols. 12mo, Muslin, $2 00 ; Half Calf, $3 70. Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches. Including the Supplement to the First Edition. With Elucidations and Connecting Narrative. 2 vols. 12mo, Muslin, $2 00; Half Calf, $3 70. Past and Present. "Chartism and Sartor Kesartus. A New Edition. Complete in 1 vol. 12mo, Muslin, $1 00 ; Half Calf, $1 85. Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, Franklin Square, New York. Hakpee & Beothees will send either of the above Works by Mail, postage paid (for any distance in the United States under 3000 miles), on receipt of the Money. Habpeb & Brothers will send either of the following, Works by Mail, pos*. age paid (for any distance in the United States under 3000 miles), on receipt of the Money. DICKENS AND BONNER'S CHILD'S HISTORIES. BOOKS FOE THE FIRESIDE, THE SCHOOL-ROOM, AND THE FAMILY AND SCHOOL LIBRARY. COMPRISING A Child's History of England. By Charles Dickens. 2 vols. 16mo, Muslin, 60 cents. A Child's Histoiy of the United States. By John Bonner. Illustrated. 2 vols. 16mo, Muslin, $1 00. A Child's History of Rome. By John Bonner. Illus trated. 2 vols. 16mo, Muslin, $1 00. A Child's History of Greece. By John Bonner. Illus trated. 2 vols. 16mo, Muslin, $1 00. Theae works present the leading facts of history in the form of stories, which children will read for the pleasure they afford. The histories of Eome and Greece are written from an American point of view. Capital little volumes. Though written in a simple and artless style to cap tivate juvenile students of history, they are not devoid of a philosophical spirit to prompt reflection. — Christian Register. For writings intended for juvenile readers Mr. Bonner's style is a model— sweet, flowing, animated, with a liberal use of colloquial expressions. — N. Y. Tribune. Good hooks for the school and family library.— N. Y. Observer. History presented in such a shape as to possess all the charms of a romance— New Orleans Crescent. Bonner's Child's Histoiy of Rome is the best in the market for young readers. — Church Journal. A remarkably successful effort at adapting a historical narrative to the tastes of youthful readers. — Presbyterian. Mr. Bonner writes with freedom and force, avoiding verbosity and pedantry, and a child of five or a man of seventy can alike understand his meaning. — N. Y. Daily Times. Written with simplicity, and in a manner to engage the attention of youthful readers. — JV. Y. Evening Post We welcome these volumes with most sincere pleasure. They have a perma nent value, and are fitting companions for that beautiful Child's History of En gland, by Dickens. — St. Louis Republican. The press can not teem with too many just such books. — Savannah Georgian. Mr. Bonner excels as a historian for the young. His simple, vigorous style, absence of profound reflections, and power of condensing, by grasping the prom inent points and leaving out minor incidents, admirably fit him for a task like the present. — Boston Journal. Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, Franklin Square, New Tork. LOSSING'S PICTORIAL FIELD-BOOK Of the Revolution ; or, Illustrations, by Pen and Pencil, of the His tory, Biography, Scenery, Relics, and Traditions of the War for Independence. 2 vols. Royal 8vo, Muslin, $8 00; Sheep, $9 00; Half Calf, $10 00; Full Morocco, $15 00. A new and carefully revised edition of this magnificent work is just completed In two imperial octavo volumes of equal size, containing 1500 pages and 1100 en gravings. As the plan, scope, and beauty ofthe work were originally developed, eminent literary men, and the leading presses of the United States and Great Britain, pronounced it one ofthe most valuable historical productions ever issued. The preparation of this work occupied the author more than four years, during which he traveled nearly ten thousand miles in order to visit the prominent scenes of revolutionary history, gather up local traditions, and explore records and his tories. In the use of his pencil he was governed by the determination to withhold nothing of importance or interest. Being himself both artist and writer, he has been able to combine the materials he had collected in both departments into a work possessing perfect unity of purpose and execution. The object ofthe author in arranging his plan was to reproduce the history of the American Revolution in such an attractive manner, as to entice the youth of his country to read the wonderful story, study its philosophy and teachings, and to become familiar with the founders of our Republic and the value of their labors. Tn this he has been eminently successful ; for the young read the pages of the *' Field-Book" with the same avidity as those of a romance ; while the abundant stores of information, and the careful manner in which it has been arranged and set forth, render it no less attractive to the general reader and the ripe scholar of more mature years. Explanatory notes are profusely given upon every page in the volume, and also a brief biographical sketch of every man distinguished in the events ofthe Revo lution, the history of whose life is known. A Supplement of forty pages contains a history of the Naval Operations ofthe Revolution; of the Diplomacy; ofthe Confederation and Federal Constitution; the Prisons and Prison Ships of New York ; Lives of the Signers qf the Declara tion of Independence, and other matters of curious interest to the historical student. A new and very elaborate analytical index has been prepared, to which we call special attention. It embraces eighty-five closely printed pages, and possesses rare value for every student of our revolutionary history. It is in itself a com plete synopsis of the history and biography of that period, and will be found ex ceedingly useful for reference by every reader. As a whole, the work contains all the essential facts ofthe early history of our Republic, which are scattered through scores of volumes often inaccessible to the great mass of readers. The illustrations make the whole subject ofthe American Revolution so clear to the reader that, on rising from its perusal, he feels thorough ly acquainted, not only with the history, hut with ¦ every important locality made memorable by the events of the war for Independence, and it forms a complete Guide-Book to the tourist seeking for fields consecrated hy patriotism, which lio scattered over our broad land. Nothing has been spared to make it complete,' re liable, and eminently useful to all classes of citizens. Upward of THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS were expended in the publication of the first edition. The exquisite wood-cuts, engraved under the immediate supervision ofthe author, from his own drawings, in the highest style ofthe art, required the greatest care in printing. To this end the efforts ofthe publishers have been directed, and we take great pleasure in presenting these volumes as the best specimen of typogra phy ever issued from the American press. The publication of the work having been commenced in numbers before its preparation was completed, the volumes of the first edition were made quite un equal in size. That defect has been remedied, and the work is now presented in two volumes of equal size, containing about 780 pages each. garner's Nero Catalogue. A new Descriptive Catalogue op Harper & Brothers' Pub lications is now ready for distribution, and may be obtained gratui tously on application to the Publishers personally, or by letter enclosing Six Cents in postage stamps. The attention of gentlemen, in town or country, designing to form Li braries or enrich their literary collections, is respectfully invited to this Catalogue, which will be found to comprise a large proportion of the standard and most esteemed works in English Literature — compre hending more than two thousand volumes — which are offered iq most instances at less than one half the cost of similar productions in England. To Librarians and others connected with Colleges, Schools, etc., who may not have access to a reliable guide in forming the true estimate of literary productions, it is believed the present Catalogue will prove es pecially valuable as a manual of reference. To prevent disappointment, it is suggested that, whenever books can not be obtained through any bookseller or local agent, applications with remittance should be addressed direct to the Publishers, which will be promptly attended to. Franklin Square, New York. I lJ II ! ii mm 11 1|| '( ¦''!'!|lil"ll iilftii 11 I i 111 II