m w

Ketchurn, Hirairi
An Oration, ...at The Request of its Citizens,.,
New Haven, 1851

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

AN

OEATION,

DELIVERED ON THE

PUBLIC SQUARE AT NEW HAVEN,

THE REQUEST OF ITS CITIZENS,

JULY 4, 1851,

HIRAM KETCHUM, ESQ.

< ll ^ ¦> »

NEW HAVEN:
THOMAS J. STAFFORD, PRINTER.
1851.

New Haven, June llth, 1851.
Hiram Ketchum, Esq. Dear Sir, — The undersigned have been appointed a Commit
tee to procure an Orator to address the people of New Haven on the 4th of
July. Among several distinguished names, yours has been particularly mentioned,
and the Committee have agreed to invite you to accept of the appointment.
On an ordinary occasion of this Idnd, we should hardly expect to obtain a gentle
man of your distinction in a laborious and absorbing profession. But our people
seem determined to make an unusual demonstration, and we think it a rare oppor
tunity, in the present state of the public mind on great national questions, to make
a salutary and enduring impression in regard to our great duties to the Union, the
Constitution, and the Laws.
We hope you will take the subject into consideration, on the score of patriotic
duty, and be able to give us a favorable answer.
Respectfully Yours,
A. N. SKINNER, )
JONATHAN STODDARD, [ Cmnmittee,
CHAS. ATWATER, Jun. )

New York, June 13th, 1851.
Gentlemen, —
I received yesterday your letter of the llth inst. inviting me, on behalf
of a Committee appointed by the Citizens of New Haven, to address the people
of that City on the 4th of July ensuing.
I accept the invitation. This is the first time I have ever consented to deliver a
4th of July Oration, and it ill suits my convenience to do it now ; but tlie time has
come, in my judgment, when every Republican in the land ought profoundly to
consider the duties of an American citizen, and if he has anything to say, to com
municate it when a fitting occasion presents. There can be no occasion more fitting
for this purpose than the celebration of the day when the independence of our
country was declared.
If there be any place where I should feel a diffidence in expressing my views on
public topics, it would be in New Haven, whose inhabitants are known to possess
unusual inteUigence, and whose learned institutions are filled with scholars and
phUosophers of a world-wide reputation ; stUl I shall do the best my circumstances
allow. I have the honor to be, very respectfully.
Your obedient servant and fellow citizen,
HIRAM KETCHUM.
A. N. Skinner, Jno. Stoddard, Chas. Atwater, Jun.

New Haven, July 5th, 1851.
HiaAM Ketchum, Esfj. DEAR_Sra, — The assemblage that heard your address on the
4th, on the Publie Square in New Haven, expressed their desire to see it in print,
by a unanimous vote.
Acting in their behalf, we thank you for your sound, able, and eloquent argu
ment, and request a copy for publication.
With great regard, we are.
Respectfully Yours,
A. N. SKINNER,
HENRY DUTTON, \- Committee.
JONATHAN STODDARD,

New York, July llth, 1851.
Gentlemen, —
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of tbe 5th instant,
requesting, on behalf of the assemblage who heard my remarks oii the Public Square
io New Haven, the day preceding, a copy of them for publicatiou.
By the aid furnished by your faithful reporter' of those remarks, and my own
notes,»I am enabled to comply with your request, substantially, and do so with great
pleasure. My own convictions of right and duty, in respect to the great question
of the day, are very clear ; and I desire, above all things, to have no misunder
standings with that class of the community with whora I usually act.
WiU you aUow me, gentlemen, to tender to you, and through you, the citizens of
New Haven, my thanks for the great civUities and kindness extended to me on my
recent visit to that city.
I have the honor to he, very respectfully.
Your friend and fellow citizen,
HIRAM KETCHUM.
A. N. Skinner, Henry Dutton, and Jonathan Stodd.4rd, Esqs.

ORATIOI, &c.

Prayer having been oflered by the Rev. Mr. Norris, and the Declaratioli of In-
dependence read by the Hon. Charles H. Pond, recently Lieutenant Governor of
Connecticut, His Honor, Aaron N. Skinner, Mayor of the City of New Haven,
introduced the Orator of the day to the large audience, which, notwithstanding the
falling rain, had gathered upon the Northern portico and steps of the State House,
and upon the gentle hill-side below, as foUows : —
Fellow Citizens : I have the honor to introduce to you the Hon. HIRAM
KETCHUM of New York, who has consented, at your invitation, through your
Committee, to come here on this occasion, at much private inconvenience, from a
sense of duty and love of country, to address you on interesting subjects connected
with this hallowed day. I need not ask of you for him, your most respectful
attention. Mr. Ketchum then came forward, and after the applause with whioh he was
enthusiastically greeted had subsided, remarked :
Fellow Citizens :
It is seventy-five j^ears to day, three quarters of a cen
tury, since the United States of America declared themselves
independent, and claimed admission into the Family of .Nations.
I shall take occasion, in my remarks to-day, to notice some of
the consequences which have resulted from this great transac
tion ; but at present, I shall revert to one only.
The declaration of national independence has had a tendency
to beget and foster a strong and decided feeling of personal in
dependence. The right of private judgment is here recog
nized ; every man feels that he has an interest in the govern
ment, and that he is entitled to a voice in the administration,
preservation, and, if needs be, the alteration of that govern
ment. The American mind too, has cast off many, perhaps too
many, restraints ; it investigates boldly ; it is unwilling to sub
mit to mere authority ; it demands a reason for every rule of

action prescribed for its government ; it does not say even to
the law of the land, " what thou bidst unargued I obey, so God
ordains ;" but it claims the right to question, to argue, and to
investigate. I cannot better illustrate my meaning, than by describing the
actual state of feeling now prevalent in this country. Some
thing more than sixty years ago, the federal Union was formed
by the adoption of the present Constitution. Since that time,
and as the result of the Union, the advancement and prosperity
of the people of this country have been unparalleled. Our
numbers and resources have increased almost beyond compu
tation. Besides the multiplication of our own native inhabit
ants, thousands and hundreds of thousands have sought our
shores from the continent of Europe, and found here prosper
ous and happy homes. Now we have extended ourselves to
the Pacific, and the genius of American liberty, standing on
the shore ofthat mighty ocean, invites the down trodden millions
of Asia to partake the fruits of our liberty. At this time, when
our mission of beneficence to the whole human race is just exhib
iting its most valuable triumphs, there are many persons in this
country who question the utility of the Union, and indeed
denounce it as the enemy of liberty. There are those here,
both at the North and South, who would destroy this Union.
Under these circumstances, what shall the friends of the Union
do ? There are those among us at the North, themselves pro
fessing to be friends of the Union, who say — do nothing. Are
these persons sincere ? Let us see.
In the year 1830, the State of South Carolina being dissat
isfied with some of the revenue laws, designed for the protection,
incidentally or otherwise, of American manufactures, claimed
a right to nullify an act of Congress, and thus dissolve the
Union. This right to nullify was asserted and advocated with
great plausibility, on the floor of the Senate, but it was met by
a distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Daniel Webster,
who, by one of those intellectual efforts, which characterize
the age, overthrew the heresy, and held it up to the contempt
of the country. What was the result of this effort, in its ope
ration upon Mr. Webster himself? Was he told that his labor

was unnecessary — that the nullifiers were not worth attention ?
Oh no ! far otherwise. All through the Northern States, certainly,
he was lauded to the skies, by many of those too, who now pre
tend that the seceders and higher law gentlemen are not worthy
of notice. Daniel Webster was then, and for his great effort
in defense of the Union, hailed as the defender of the Con
stitution. But when in the year of our Lord 1850, twenty
years subsequent, true to the character which he had established,
and the title he had received, he deemed it his duty to say to
the people of the free States, that they were not faithful to the
Constitution ; then it was quite a different matter — then he was
told, " Mr. Defender of the Constitution, this is more than we
bargained for. (Laughter.) We meant that you should ex
pose and denounce the South when it attempted to violate the
Constitution ; but we regard you as a Northern man ; we do
not authorize you to censure, much less to rebuke — oh no ! If
you presume to put yourself in opposition to us, we shall brand
you a traitor and a dough face."
We have men at the North, who openly avow their intention
not to obey the law of the land ; we have men at the South,
who are endeavoring to secede from the Union. Now the
question is — what is our duty, who believe that the preservation
of this Union is essential to the very existence of Hberty ?
Shall we be silent ? Shall we be dumb when sounds of disso
lution fill the air ? Far otherwise. Our liberty, as well as our
religion, rest upon certain great fundamental principles, and
our only security is — when these principles are assailed — to de
fend them. We must resist the beginning of opposition, the
very first assaults upon that which we hold valuable beyond
all estimation. We must keep our armor on, and be ready to
contend for the faith which is within us, and the principles
which we hold invaluable, at all times and on all occasions.
(Enthusiastic cheers.)
[The Mayor here requested the audience to close their um
brellas, remarking that they had been paying the orator a great
compliment, having been so interested in his discourse that they
had not observed that it had stopped raining.]
Fellow citizens, we shall have to commune together a little

while, and if you will give your patience, I will give my voice
any how. (Laughter.)
The time has come when it is necessary that the foundations
of those institutions which furnish securities to American lib
erty, should be reexamined ; should be tested again by reason
and argument, and, for one, I am not afraid of such investiga
tion, beheving that after it is made in the most thorough man
ner, we shall only regard and cherish our institutions, and espe
cially our Union, more than we ever did before.
Let us then go back to the very beginning of our government.
What right had the people of the thirteen colonies to raise the
standard of revolution, and cast off the government under
which they were born, and to which many of them had sworn
allegiance ? This was a question which our fathers long and
anxiously considered. They were a Christian people, who re
cognized civil government as an ordinance of God, which they
were bound to obey, not only for the fear of the penalties de
nounced against disobedience, but for conscience sake ; because
obedience had been enjoined by God himself But at the same
time that they regarded government as a divine ordinance, they
had been well instructed in the principles of English liberty,
and they knew that there were bounds, which the government
itself could not lawfully transgress, and they knew too that the
right existed in the governed to change their form of govern
ment. This had been exemplified in the history of the mother
country. They knew that the right to hold and enjoy, and
dispose of private property, was one which no government
could rightfully violate — their property could not be taken from
them without their consent ; and because the British govern
ment insisted on the right to take it when the colonists had no
voice in that government, they rebelled. But even when they
knew they were the subjects of oppression and injustice, they
did not forcibly resist until they had well considered and fa
vorably decided these two questions : — 1. Can we succeed ?
2. Will success enure, upon the whole, to the benefit of the peo
ple ? If, in a calm, dispassionate view ofthe case, these questions
could not be answered in the affirmative, the right of resistance
did not exist, it had not accrued. Hence our forefathers pro-

9
ceeded with great caution and circumspection ; they were not
fanatics, but were sagacious and far-seeing ; they hastened slowly
and bided their time. They remonstrated humbly and earn
estly — they resisted in the first instance, on the ground that
they could rightfully do so, according to the principles of the
British Constitution. They again remonstrated ; the Repre
sentatives in Congress appealed to the people. Will you allow
me to read a short address from Congress to the people, made
at that time — on the 28th day of April, A. D. 1775 ?
" We conjure you, by aU that is dear, by all that is sacred, that you give all as
sistance possible in forming the army. Our aU is at stake. Death and devastation
are the certain consequences of delay. Every moment is infinitely precious. An
hour lost may deluge your country in blood, and entail perpetual slavery upon the
few of your posterity which may survive the carnage. We beg and entreat as you
will answer it to your country, to your conscience, and above all, as you wiU an
swer it to God himself, that you will hasten and encourage, by all possible means,
the enlistment of men to form the army ; and send them forward to head-quarters
at Cambridge, with that expedition which the vast importance and instant urgency
of the affair demand."
What says the faithful historian ? " This address was at
tended to ; the men discovered a readiness to turn out for the
salvation of their country, and the women applied themselves
with cheerfulness to the fitting out of their husbands, fathers,
and brothers, for the important expedition, while the dangers of
it were overlooked or disregarded."
This address was thus received by the American people,
and when it was ascertained by the Continental Congress
that the spirit of the people was right, that the men were
ready to die for liberty, and the women — God bless them —
to give up their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons, to
fight the battles of their country, regardless of all consequen
ces — when they discovered this — when they found that they
had strength to carry out their designs, then, and not till then,
did they put forth that Declaration — to the reading of which
you have just attended — and bravely did they maintain it.
Suppose they had failed — suppose they had been overcome —
don't you see that glorious Declaration would have been noth
ing but a laughing stock ? We are in the habit very much of
commending this Declaration. It was drawn up by a Commit-

10
tee of Congress — Jefferson himself was the actual instrument
ality ; but there is nothing novel in the Declaration of Inde
pendence. Why, our fathers were perfectly familiar with the
principles which it contains. They are beautifully put to
gether, but these principles themselves were as familiar as house
hold words. Farmers discussed them ; mechanics discussed
them; professional men discussed them ; the clergy^ — God bless
them — discussed them from the pulpit. The question whether
the time had come to revolt from the government under which
they were born, was anxiously discussed, and by noue more
than New England and the men of New England. The ques
tion was carried by them, where all important questions should
be carried — they consulted the Being unto whom all hearts are
open ; and they decided, the pulpit decided, religious men deci
ded, that it was right— that it was just— and, by the blessing of
Almighty God, they would be free ! And that declaration was
maintained, until at length the time arrived when the enemy
was driven from our shores. The British government acknowl
edged the independence which we ourselves had declared ; but,
my fellow citizens, mark it — mark it ! this was but the begin
ning of the contest. Now the great question arose, how shall
we preserve the liberty which has been acquired ? That was
the question which disturbed all minds at this time ; and, if you
will allow me — I know it is somewhat unpleasant to hear the
reading of extracts — I will read a few extracts from Washing
ton, indicating the feeling which pervaded the country at that
time. Washington ! whose image is here, [pointing to a
large marble bust of " the Father of his Country" near him
on the platform, which was followed by loud applause,] and I
will give you his inscription. We are not at hberty to make
to ourselves graven images and worship them, but we are at lib
erty to cherish in our heart of hearts, the principles entertained
by such men as Washington, (cheers,) and I hope will cherish
them ; I hope you will listen to them with a reverence only
second to divine inspiration ; I hope you will nol only listen,
but teach the lessons of wisdom to your children and children's
children. The first extract I will read you, is contained in a
letter from Washington to Hamilton, under date of March
4th, 1783.

11
" For it is clearly my opinion, unless Congress have powers competent to aU gen
eral purposes, that the distresses we have incurred, and the blood we have S(iilt,
will avail us nothing.''
The second is from a letter from the same, to the same, dated
March 31, 1783.
"No man in the United States is or can be more deeply impressed with the ne
cessity of a reform in our confederation, than myself. No man perhaps has felt
the bad effects of it more sensibly ; for to the defects thereof and want of power
in Congress, may be justly ascribed the prolongation of the war, and consequently,
the expenses occasioned by it."
He wrote to La Fayette about the same time, April 5, 1783.
" We are now an independent people, and have yet to learn political tactics. We
are placed among the nations of the earth, and have a character to establish ; but
how we shall acquit ourselves, time must discover.
" To avert these evils, to form a new constitution, that will give consistency, sta
bility, and dignity to the Union, and sufficient powers to the great council of the
nation for general purposes, is a duty incumbent upon every man wlio wishes well
to his country, and will meet every aid, as far as it can be rendered in the private
walks of life."
But on taking leave of the army, June Sth, 1783, when Wash
ington thought he was taking leave of public life forever ; and,
let me say, Washington was then only fifty-one years of age, yet
he was very anxious to get out of public life ; but, with the
greatest deference, let me say, he had no right to retire at fifty-
one ; so his countrymen thought, and they kept him at work.
(Merriment.) When about retiring, he addressed what he
thought was his last oflScial act, to the governors of the respect
ive States. Will you allow me to read a few extracts from this
address, dated June 8th, 1783 ?
" For, according to the system of policy the States shall adopt at this moment,
they wUl stand or fail ; and by their confirmation or lapse it is yet to be decided,
whether the revolution must ultimately be considered a blessing or a curse ; a bless
ing or a curse, not to the present age alone, for with our fate will the destiny of
unborn millions be involved.
" There are four things, which, I humbly conceive, are essential to the weU being,
I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States, as an independ
ent power :
Fir.it.—An indissoluble union of the States under one federal head.
Second. — A sacred regard to public justice.
Third. — The adoption of a proper peace estabUshment.
Fourth.— Ihe prevalence of that pacific and fiiendly disposition among the peo-

12
pie of the United States, which wiU induce them to forget their local prejudices
and poUcies ; to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the gener
prosperity ; and, in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to
interests of the community."— IVashington's circu'ar io the Staie Go'iiernors on dis
banding the army.
Washington to James McHenry, in Congress, August 22,
1785. " I confess to you candidly, that I can foresee no evU greater than disunion ; thau
those unreasonable jealousies, (I say unreasonable, because I would, I have aproper
jealousy always awake, and the United States on the watch to prevent individual
States from infracting the Constitution with impunity,) which are continuaUy
poisoning our minds and filling them with imaginary evUs for the prevention of
real ones."
To James Madison, November 5, 1786.
" Fain would I hope, that the greatest and most important of all subjects, ihe
federal Government, may be considered with that calm and deUberate attention
which the magnitude of it so criticaUy and loudly calls for. Let prejudices, unrea
sonable jealousies, and local interests, yield to reason and liberality. Let us look
to our national character, and to things beyond the present moment. No mom
ever dawned more favorably than ours did— and uo day was ever more clouded
than the present. Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue
the political machine from the impending storm."
Again, November 6, 1786.
" How melancholy is the refiection, that in so short a time we should have made
such large strides towards fulfilling the predictions of our transatlantic foes !
' Leave them to themselves, and their government will soon dissolve.' Will not
the wise and good strive hard to avert this evil ? Or will their supineness suffer
ignorance, and the arts of self-interested, designing, disaffected, and desperate char
acters, to involve this great country in wretchedness and contempt ?
" Thirteen Sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the Federal
head, wiU soon bring ruin on the whole."
To David Stewart, July 1, 1787.
" Weak at home and disregarded abroad is our present condition, and contempti
ble enough it is."
Now, my friends, you see that from the time peace was de
clared, up to the time of the formation of the new Constitution,
Washington feared, constantly feared, we were about to lose
all we had gained by the Revolution ; that for the want of a
good government, our union would be a mere rope of sand •
that for the want of a federal government which should unite

13
US under one head, we were about to lose every thing ; that we
were about to fall to pieces and realize the predictions of our
transatlantic foes. His constant aim was to get the people to
frame a more perfect union.
A Convention met in September, 1786, at Annapolis, for the
purpose of taking measures with respect to trade. Very few
States were represented ; Connecticut not at all ; there was
not, I believe, a delegate from any of the New England States.
The Convention did nothing but recommend that a Convention
should be called with fuller powers, and represent all the States.
It was called ; it contained representatives from all the States.
The Convention met in May, 1787, and continued until Sep
tember. From May to September they were deliberating all
the time and preparing the Constitution under which we all
live. You know that Washington was at the head — that Wash
ington was its President — the ablest man of any age or country.
Franklin was also a member, and Hamilton, and Madison, and
Sherman of this State, and Ellsworth, and a host of other wor
thies. They labored with untiring zeal. They did not make
speeches as members of Congress now do, to be reported and
read by their constituents ; [laughter,] but they labored for re
sults. Their speeches were not published till long afterwards,
when they were brought out by Mr. Madison. It is important
we should fully understand the character of the Convention, in
order to appreciate the Constitution which was the work of
their hands. Will you allow me to read a speech, which is the
best almost ever made by any man. It is a speech by Dr.
Franklin ; no doubt many of you have read it before ; but I
doubt not it will be refreshing to hear it again. He was at the
time of its delivery, eighty years old, and he had never forgot
ten a good thing which had occurred in the course of a long
experience. You know his history. He remarked —
"Mr. President, the small progress that we have made after four or five weeks'
close attendance and continual reasonings with each other — our different sentiments
on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes — is,
methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding.
We, indeed, seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been run
ning about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of
government, and examined the different forms of those republics which, having been

14
formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have
viewed modern States, all around Europe, but find none of their constitutions suita
ble to our circumstances.
" In the situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find politi
cal fruth, and scarce able to distinguish it wlien presented to us, how has it hap
pened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Fa
ther of Ughts, to illumine our understandings ? In the beginning of the contest with
Great Britain, when we wei-e sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room
for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously
answered. AU of us who were engaged in the struggle, must have observed fre
quent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Provi
dence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of estab
Ushing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful
Friend ? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance ? I have lived,
sir, a long time, and the longer I Uve, I see more convincing proofs of tbis truth —
that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot faU to the
ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His
aid ? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that ' except the Lord
build fhe honse, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this ; and I
also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political build
ing no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial,
local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a
reproach aud by-word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may
hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of estabUshing governments by
human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
" I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance
of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every
morning before we proceed to busine.'ss, and that one or more of the clergy in this
city be requested to officiate in that service.
" Mr. Sherman seconded the motion."
The Convention succeeded in presenting a form of Constitu
tion. It was reported to Congress. Congress submitted it to
the States ; the States were to call conventions and ratify or not
the Constitution, as they chose. You know the history ; these
States had conventions, and in these conventions were the ablest
men of the day. They deliberated upon every article and upon
every clause in the Constitution, and after weeks and months of
anxious dehberation, they at last adopted the form of govern
ment under which we now live. Now, will you allow me to
trouble you with one or two more extracts from Washington
written after this work was done ? He writes —
To Patrick Henry, afterwards Governor of 'Virginia, Sept. 24 l^gv
" I wish the Constitution, which is offered, had been more perfect ¦ but I s'
ly believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time.

15
" From a variety of concurring accounts it appears to me, that the poUtical con
cerns of this country are in a manner suspended by a thread , and that the conven
tion has been looked up to, by the refiecting part of the community, with a s( licitude
which is hardly to be conceived ; and, if nothing had been agreed upon by that
body, quarreling would have ensued, the seeds being deeply sown in every soil."
To Edmund Randolph, Governor of 'Virginia, Jan. 8, 1778.
"There are some things in the new form, I will readily acknowledge, which nev
er did, and I am persuaded never will, obtain my cordial approbation ; but I did
then conceive, and do now most firmly believe, that in the aggregate it is the best
Constitution that can be obtained at this epoch, and that this or a dissolution of the
Union awaits our choice, and is the only alternative before us."
To Benjamin Lincoln, June 29. 1788.
" Mr. Henry, the great leader of it, [the opposition,] has signified, that, though
he can never be reconciled to the Constitution in its present form, and shall give it
every constitutional opposition in his power, yet he will submit to it peaceably, as
he thinks every good citizen ought to do when it is in exercise, and that he wiU,
both by precept and example, inculcate this doctrine on all around him."
To Gov. TrumbuU, July 20, 1788.
" We may, with a, kind of pious and grateful exultation, trace the Providence
through those dark and mysterious events, which first induced the States to appoint a
general convention, and then led them, one after another, by such steps as were
best calculated to effect the object, into an adoption of the system recommended
by that general' convention ; thereby in all human probability laying a lasting
foundation for tranquilUty and happiness, where we had but too much reason to fear
that confusion and misery were coming rapidly upon us."
Now, then, you see the Constitution was adopted. You see
how Washington speaks of it. Yet the Constitution had its op
ponents ; it had its opponents in the convention at Philadelphia ;
it had its opponents among respectable men, and Patrick Henry
was one of these respectable men ; it had its opponents among
those outside of the convention — but a majority adopted it.
Now I put this question to you — would it have been right for
these opponents of this Constitution at that time, the moment it
was adopted, to bring forward before the people agitating topics
and keep the community in perfect turmoil upon points that
had been settled ? I put it to you. Patrick Henry opposed it,
George Clinton, Governor of New York, opposed the Constitu
tion. The Constitution provided for alterations and amend
ments. A perfect legal right existed in every man ; but was it
the part of patriotism, when the country had been agitated week
after week, and month after month, to bring up these subjects

16
of excitement — and one of the principal subjects was the ques
tion of slavery ? Why, no, said Patrick Henry, I will give the
Constitution a fair trial ; I was opposed to it, but I will give it
a fair trial — and every patriotic man in the country deemed it
his duty to forbear his right to agitate, and to submit and give
the Constitution a fair trial before the people. Why, gentlemen,
can there be any doubt that this was the duty of patriotism ?
Who disputes the right of any man to agitate on the subject ?
Why, yonder I can imagine there lives an honorable husband
and an honorable wife — one a high-toned Presbyterian, as blue as
possible, (laughter,) and the other a high Churchman. Don't you
think each would have a perfect right to discuss the principles
and peculiarities of their different creeds and modes of worship ?
Who denies it ? To speak on religious subjects is a sacred right.
If the wife thinks the only way to get to heaven is throilgh a
church that has a bishop, and gets into a dispute with her hus
band every morning at the breakfast table, how long do you
think the union would be worth preserving ? (Vociferous laugh
ter and cheers.) You will not be slow to make the application.
In 1850 occurred the longest session of Congress that ever
was held. Speech after speech was made by northern men
against southern men, and by southern men against northern
men. These speeches were printed, sent home and read, and they
influenced the South against the North and the North against
the South, for month after month, far more than the people were
influenced during the discussions of the convention that framed
the Constitution. Any one looking on, as I was a year ago in
Washington, at the bad feeling kept alive by incessant irritation,
would have thought the Union on the very verge of dissolution.
How can you dissolve the Union ? If Congress breaks up in a
passion and public business is stopped by passion, the nation is
dissolved ; the machinery has stopped ; it won't work  then
there is an end of it.
What was done ? In Congress there were some old men 
some able men of all sides and of all political parties  and they
conferred together; they said, come, let us compromise this
difference, this talking — this incessant irritation ; let us labor in
season and out of season, and let us not cease till we quiet the

17
troubled sea, and harmony and brotherly feeling are restored.
With the utmost difficulty the disturbing questions were settled
by a series of measures not satisfactory to all. Washington
tells us there were some things in the Constitution which were
not settled to his satisfaction. I will not discuss the question,
which gained the most by the compromise, the north or the
south ; you can discuss that as well as I ; but if freedom did not
gain most, I know nothing about it. Now what ought we to do ?
Shall we have the fight over again? Ah ! but says my friend in
one corner of this crowd, do you deny my right to aid in the
alteration of this law that I don't approve of? Do you deny my
right to discuss the subject ? God forbid that I should deny
your right to do this, but I say, as a prudent, patriotic Ameri
can — be still ; say nothing now ; let it work, and let us see
what the practical operation of the law is, before we begin to ag
itate. In other words, I say to you, what has been said by au
thority of the administration, which I now repeat to you, for it
contains as much patriotism and good sense as any thirfg ever
said by the Father of his country :
" The President's message, at the opening of the present session of Congress, ex
presses fully and plainly his own and the unanimous opinion of all those associated
with him in the Executive administration of the Government, in regard to what are
caUed the Adjustment or Compromise measures of last session. That opinion is,
that those measures should be regarded in principle as a final settlement of the
dangerous and exciting subjects which they embrace ; that though they were not
free from imperfections, yet, in their mutual dependence and connection, they form
ed a system of compromise the most conciliatory and best for the entire country
that could be obtained from conflicting sectional interests and opinions, and that
therefore they should be adhered to, untU time and experience should demonstrate
the necessity of further legislation to guard against evasion or abuse. That opin
ion, so far as I know, remains entirely unchanged, and will be acted upon steadily
and decisively. The peace of the country requires this ; the security of the Consti
tution requires this ; and every consideration of the public good demands this. If
the Administration cannot stand upon the principles of the message, it does not
expect to stand at all." — [Daniel Webster's Letter to the Union Meeting at West
chester. Now, my friends, that was in point. It came out on the side
not of the Whig party or of the Democratic party ; but it came
out on an exigency that arose after the Presidential Election.
It is the language of patriotism, and I ask you here to-day, if
3

18
there is a man that now hears me, or in Connecticut, that can
gainsay the wisdom or patriotism of this advice? I say to you,
and utterly disclaim, that any one denies the rights of petition
and discussion ; but thousands and tens of thousands say, it is
patriotic sometimes to withhold the exercise even of our un
questioned rights. [Here a man on the upper step of the plat
form handed the orator a small piece of manuscript to read.
Mr. K. said to him, these people (pointing to the large audience)
must be attended to first. I go for the good of the many.
(Laughter and cheers.)]
There is one other topic which, though I fear you are a little
tired — (cries of " not yet, sir, go on") — I have a little delicacy
about — it is not entirely new — upon which I will take the lib
erty of addressing you. I say I approach it with delicacy —
because among good men there are conflicting opinions ; I
know that among good men there are ; but it seems to me that
if we could explain ourselves, there ought to be no difference
of opinion.
I read, a few days ago, the proceedings of a convention of
divines, held in a neighboring city, (Bridgeport,) a convention
of Congregational ministers. Now, I say here, with my deep
est conviction of its truth, that there is no body of men for
whom I entertain higher respect than I do for the New Eng
land clergy. I know, and God forbid that I, or my children,
should ever forget that these New England clergymen, in the
time of trial and difficulty, came up to sustain the peopie in de
fending the cause of liberty ; (cheers,) and I am prepared to say
that without them — without their assistance — the cause would
never have been triumphant. I confess, that if upon any great
question of public morals I should find my opinions differing
from the opinions ofthe New England clergy, I should examine
and reexamine those opinions with a doubt whether I could be
right if opposed to them. I am not of the persuasion or de
nomination that assembled at Bridgeport the other day yet I
confess that their principles upon great fundamental points are
right ; and I shall be happy if their heaven shall be my heaven.
Now, my friends, with these preliminary remarks I shall ap!
proach the subject. The Constitution declares—" No person

19
held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or reg
ulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor ; but
shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such ser
yice or labor may be due." Now, before I proceed to a dis
cussion of this point, will you allow me to state — what may be a
repetition of what you have heard before — the circumstances
under which this provision was inserted in the Constitution ?
Almost every State in this Union recognized, practically, as
well as theoretically, the institution of slavery at that time.
Connecticut had slaves ; New York had slaves ; I believe every
State had them, unless it was Massachusetts, and I think she
had some. There are men old enough here to remember it ; I
am not the oldest man present, and I remember it. Nothing
was more common than for slaves to run away on a frolick or
otherwise. One hundred men could be found here now who
can remember cases of slaves going from here to Hartford, or
to Middletown, or to New London. Did anybody dispute the
right of their masters at any time to go and bring them back ?
Is there a man here, a divine or layman, that will say a master
could not go to Middletown and bring back his slaves? Was
there any man in Middletown to dispute his right ? Would the
people of Middletown not have said — '• Here is your slave ; he
came here last night to see Sally, (laughter,) and shall go back
again." ,1 have cases in my mind that occurred in New York,
in Saratoga county, where I then lived, from which slaves
escaped to Rensselaer, Albany or Columbia counties. This, I
sav, in 1787 was a perfectly familiar occurrence. Its propriety
was disputed by no man, clergyman or layman. I have not
heard that even Quakers disputed it; if there were any excep
tions, they were Quakers.
That was the state of things at the time of the adoption of
the Constitution. All that the Constitution meant to say was,
that if a slave run away from Virginia to Connecticut, the own
er in Virginia would have the same right to bring him back
that the owner in New Haven would have had, at the time of
the adoption of the Constitution, to bring back his slave which
had escaped to Hartford in the same State. The resident of

20
any one County, in any State, had a conceded right to bring
back his slave from another County in the same State. This
same right was, by the Constitution, guarantied to the owner of
a slave in one State, whose slave had escaped to another State.
For the purpose of reclaiming fugitive slaves, the whole coun
try was one country, and the different States were like the
County divisions in a separate State.
Long before the adoption of the Federal Constitution, it is
stated upon the best authority, the colonies of New England
had a law which provided for giving up fugitive slaves or ser
vants escaping from one colony to another colony. Did not
the Puritan fathers come here imbued with the knowledge, as
well as the love, of human liberty? I would ask, if I may take
the liberty to do so, with all respect, the Rev. Mr. Dutton to
consider these things. With the greatest kindness I would say
to him, and others of his profession, come, let us reason to
gether. It is not worth while to be excited, or angry. No
doubt every man's conscience must be his own guide, but he
should endeavor to enlighten it by all the means in his power.
Let no man talk about his conscience, until he has applied
his understanding to the subject and tried to ascertain the
right. (Cheers.) This is not so easily done in the compli
cated relations of society ; questions relating to right and duty,
as citizens of a State, are not always, or often, decided by im
pulse ; we are bound, in the investigation of these questions,
to task our reasoning powers, to acquire much and varied
knowledge, and exercise the understandings that God has
given us.
Now in the convention that formed the Constitution, thirteen
independent State sovereignties were represented. These States
were, for all the purposes of the argument, so many communi
ties, each entitled to make laws for its own government. By
the law of nations, neither of these States could interfere
with the laws or regulations for the government of any other
State. This independence of States or nations is best for the
whole family of mankind. This principle lies at the foundation
of all progress, all improvement. Each independent State is a
member of the family of nations. One member of this family

21
may have made more progress in intellectual, moral, and social
improvement, than another; but that does not authorize it to
prescribe rules of action to its inferior. I am the head of a
family, and it is a pretty numerous one ; the professors in the
College situated on this green may know belter how to manage
my family than I do, but I shall not, nevertheless, surrender my
control of it to any of them. It is my family, and, in the order
of Providence, it is my right and duty to govern it ; the re
sponsibility devolves on me, and that order is best, upon the
whole, for the human race.
By thelaw of nations, each one of the sovereign States was
authorized to maintain, so long as it chose to maintain, the in
stitution of domestic slavery. This institution existed in each
of the States, and it had long existed. By the same law of na
tions, each of these sovereign States was authorized to carry on
the African slave trade. These were rights which appertained
to State sovereignty, and which could not rightfully be abolish
ed, altered, or abridged, except by the action of the State itself.
Although this is a recognized principle, yet it may be well to
fortify it by authority. Chief Justice Shaw, in declaring the
unanimous opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massa
chusetts, in Simm's case, says : —
" It is too clear and manifest to require proof, that independently of the qualified
aUiance, created by the articles of confederation, which it is conceded contained no
stipulation on the subject of fugitive slaves, the several States would have been
sovereign and independent, invested with all the rights and powers, which are re
garded by the received laws of nations, as incident to sovereignty. Amongst these,
is the absolute right of each State to regulate by its laws the conduct, state and
condition of all persons and things within its limits ; to prohibit the entrance of all
persons, and the introduction of all things, according to its own views of its own
policy and best good. And each is under a corresponding obUgation of respecting
the territorial rights of others, and of so regulating the conduct of all persons within
its own territory, as to prohibit them fiom committing acts of violence or wrong
on the territory of others, and prevent them from becoming the asylum for per
sons or things injurious to another. Each would have been entitled to defend its
own rights, and to enforce the performance of these duties from others, by war, and,
of course, to qualify and regulate the use and enjoyment of them, by treaties of
peace, and other mutual compacts. Assuming this to be an outline of the right.=i
and duties of sovereign States towards each other, stated in the briefest and most
general terms, it becomes necessary to inquire what would have been their conditiou
in respect to slaves and slavery, supposing that slavery was sanctioned and upheld

22
by the laws of some, and abolished and prohibited by the laws of others. In doing
this, it will be necessary to do Uttle more than cite tbe case of Commonwealth v.
Aves, 18 Pick. 193. and the laws there cited and commented on.
" By the received laws of nations it seems to be well established that however
odious we may consider slavery and the slave trade, however abhorrent to the dic
tates of humanity and the plainest principles of justice and natural right, yet each
nation has a right, in this respect, tojudge for itself, and to allow or prohibit slavery
by its own laws, at is own will ; and that whenever slavery is thus estabUshed by
positive law ivithin the limits of such State, all other nations and people are bound
to respect it, and cannot rightfully interfere, either by forcibly seizing or artfully
enticing away slaves, wilhin the Umits of the territory of the nation establishing it,
or on the high seas, which are the common highway of nations. In the case cited, the
language of this Court is this : In cousidering the law of nations, we may assume
that the law of this State is analogous to the law of England in this respect, that
while slavery is considered as unlawful and inadmissible in both, because contrary
to natural right and the laws designed for the security of personal liberty, yet, in
both the existence of slavery in other countries is recognized, and the claims of
foreigners growing out ofthat condition are to a certain extent respected."
Now in the Convention it was suggested that with a view of
abolishing the slave trade, each State should, by the Constitu
tion, surrender to the general government the power which it
had to carry on this trade. It was well known that Congress
would abolish the trade, if it had the power, under the Consti
tution, to do so. South Carolina and Georgia, and, it is believ
ed, one other Southern State, refused to grant this power.
They said they would not agree to come into the Union if this
cession was insisted upon. The controversy was sharp and
excited, and, at length, it was agreed that Congress should have
the power after the year 1808. This power was exercised as
early as it could be by Congress, and the African slave trade
has therefore been abolished in this country for more than forty
years Here then humanity has made a great gain by a sur
render of one of the sovereign rights of the States. Georgia
and South Carolina made this surrender, contrary, as they
.asserted, to their own interest.
In the discussion in the Convention, Mr. Oliver Ellsworth
a delegate from this State, afterward Chief Justice of the Uni
ted States, said :
" Let every State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of Slavery
are considerations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a nart
riches the whole, aad the States ai-e the best judges of their particular interest The

23
old confederation had not meddled with this point ; and he did not see any great
necessity for bringing it within the poUcy of the new oa&:'— Madison papers, Vol-
3, p. 1389.
Mr. Roger Sherman, another name not unknown to Con
necticut, or the world, also said :
" He was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of the slave trade ;
yet as the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public
good did not require it to be taken from them, and as it was expedient to have as
few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of government, he thought it best
to leave the mater as we find it." — Ibid, 1390.
On the other hand, each State had the sovereign right to de
clare every African, or the descendant of an African, within its
limits, free, whether he resided there, was brought there, or
escaped from another State, and fled there. Each of these
States gave up its right to declare a fugitive from another State
free, but agreed to give him up to his owner, on the claim of
that owner. Now suppose that the power to carry on the
African Slave trade was surrendered by the South, in consider
ation that the power to give freedom to a fugitive slave should
be surrendered by the North, was not this agreement for a mu
tual surrender of powers, a fair subject for a treaty — could not
such a treaty be lawfully made between sovereign States ? If
made, was it " a nefarious bargain," or was it not rather a bargain
in which humanity clearly gained an advantage ? Certainly it
was. Provision was made for a termination in these States of
the African slave trade, and thereby a result, over which hu
manity rejoices, has been achieved. The traffic in slaves has
not only been abolished here, but the influence of the Republic
has been exerted, and not without success, to abolish it through
out the world. Suppose' there had been no Constitution formed
and the States had remained sovereign, and a treaty had been
negotiated' between Maryland and Virginia, in which it was
stipulated on the part of Virginia to relinquish the slave trade,
in consid'eration that Maryland should exclude from its territory
all runaway slaves from Virginia. This, certainly, would be a
treaty which the States would have an undoubted right to
make, and which would be dictated by humanity.
Considering the provision of the Constitution, to deliver up

24
fugitive slaves, in the nature of a treaty, it is a treaty of the
most solemn obligation, for it has been ratified by the whole
people. Who then has a right to affirm that the provision is
contrary to the laws of nature, of nations, or of God ? The
fact is far otherwise.
The surrender of Sovereign powers by individual States was,
as we have seen, dictated by the highest principle of humanity
— its operation has been greatly beneficial to the cause of hu
manity. This arrangement is one of which it may be rever
ently affirmed, that the Ruler of the Universe approved ; for
by a concession, unexceptionable itself, that traffic, which was a
disgrace to Christendom, has been terminated in these United
States. Now if the stipulation to deliver up fugitives from service
was one which the States had a right to make, and not only so,
was wise and humane in itself, it is certainly binding upon the
States respectively, and if binding upon the States, it must be
binding upon every citizen of the State. This follows of neces
sity — what enlightened conscience then, can prompt disobedi
ence to this provision of the Constitution ? That enactment
which God approved, His children will obey — not only obey,
but see that it is fulfilled. Their conscience will compel obe
dience. I have said that the provision referred to, is in the nature of
a treaty ? What are the obligations of a treaty ? We have
some little information on this point in that Book, with the
contents of which, to their honor be it spoken, the people
of Connecticut are familiar. In the days of Joshua, the great
general of the Israelites, a treaty was made between this
people and the Gibeonltes. The latter, fearful that their
utter destruction was near at hand, came to Joshua and told
him that they came from a far country — that when they set
out from their homes, their shoes, now worn out, were new,
and their bread, now mouldy, was fresh from the oven, and
they desired to enterinto a league with him. "And Joshua
made peace with them, and made a league with them to let
them live : and the prince of the congregation sware unto
them. And it came to pass at the end of three days, after they

had made a league with them, that they heard that they were
their neighbors, and that they dwelt among them. And the
chddren of Israel journeyed, and came into their cities on the
third day. And the children of Israel smote them not, because
the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them by the
Lord God of Israel. And all the congregation murmured
against the princes. But all the princes said unto all the con
gregation, we have sworn unto them, now therefore we may
not touch them." But Israel made them bondsmen, hewers of
wood and drawers of water, but he spared their lives. Now it
happened several hundred years after this transaction, in the
days of David, King of Israel, that there was a sore famine in
the land of Israel, and David inquired of the Lord what it
meant. " And the Lord answered him, it is for Saul, and for
his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. And the king
called the Gibeonites, and said unto them : (now the Gibeonites
were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the
Amorites ; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them :
and Saul sought to slay them, in his zeal to the children of
Israel and Judah.) " Wherefore David said unto the Gibeon
ites : What shall I do for you ? and wherewith shall I make the
atonement, that 'ye may bless the inheritancy of the Lord ?
And the Gibeonites said unto him, we will have no silver nor
gold of Saul, nor of his house ; neither for us shalt thou kill
any man in Israel. And he said, what ye shall say, that will I
do for you. And they answered the king, the man that con
sumed us, and that devised against us, that we should be de
stroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, let seven
men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them
unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose.
And the King said, I will give them."
Here is a most instructive passage of inspired history, on the
solemn obligations of a treaty, made by the princes of the
people, but in the case under consideration, the treaty was
made by the princes of the people, and afterwards deliberately
and solemnly considered and ratified by the people themselves.
Shall " the people murmur" and say that their consciences will
not allow them to keep the solemn compact ?
4

26
Nothing has been said, you will observe, fellow citizens,
about any other provisions in the Constitution, except those
which relate to the slavery of the African race. I might speak
of others, such as advantages conceded to our coasting trade
and foreign commerce. I have chosen to regard the cession of
State sovereignty by means of which the slave trade was abol
ished, as a consideration for a like cession by which a fugitive
slave could not be emancipated, but must be given up. There
were doubtless other considerations entering into the compact;
indeed, the perfect propriety of giving up fugitive slaves was
never for a moment disputed either in the General Convention
or in the State Conventions, so far as I know.
The people ofthe United States, in providing for the dehvering
up of fugitive slaves, did not suppose that the States regarded
each other as foreign, much less hostile, but they were sister
republics, united together for general purposes under one federal
head. Great efforts have been made to excite prejudice against the
fugitive slave law. It has been represented that every man
may be compelled, under this law, to pursue and apprehend a
runaway slave. It is true that every man in the community
may be required to assist in the execution of the law, if the
officers appointed to execute it are interfered with in the dis
charge of their duty. This is a fundamental principle of our
law. Every executive officer of the lavv, in the discharge of
his duties, acts as the agent of the people : the people command
him. If he is obstructed — opposed by force — it is right that
they who command him should come to his assistance, for every
precept of the law, whether to attach property or to arrest a
citizen, in a civil or a criminal proceeding, must be executed.
This is essential to the very existence of civil society. Al
though this principle has been always incorporated in the law
of Connecticut, and of every other State, yet probably there is
not a man who hears me, who has ever actually been called
upon in his private capacity to give his personal aid to the ex
ecution of a law. Means the most unfair have been resorted
to, to render this law odious, and to prevent its execution. Is
this right, gentlemen ? Will you allow it ? Every good citizen

27
is bound to see this and every other law of the land fairly exe
cuted. What apology has any citizen of this country for a dis
obedience of law ? Here laws are enacted by the people them
selves ; they are the expressed will of a majority of the com
mumty. Indeed, everybody admits that the law must be su
preme ; even the opponents of the fugitive slave law acknowl
edge their obligation to submit to law, but some of them have
discovered a " higher law," not written in the Constitution or
the Statute book. Well, prove the existence of higher law, by
fair argument, and I doubt not the law of the land will be made
to conform to it. Its existence, I think, is far from being proved
in the present case.
Now, fellow citizens, shall it be charged that, because we ad
vance these doctrines, and employ these arguments, we are the
friends of slavery, or the slave trade ? Certainly not. Con
necticut and New York abolished slavery as soon as they could,
in moderation, and with a view to their own interest, and the
interest of the slave. But we have no right to interfere with
slavery in South Corolina and Georgia, any more than we have
to interfere with it in the Spanish dominions. If we were resi
dents of those States, the case would be different; then we
should have a right to act according to our sense of propriety,
under all the circumstances. Indeed, I am of the opinion ex
pressed by a distinguished Jurist in Massachusetts, (Mr. Choate,)
that we have less right to interfere with the institution of do
mestic slavery, where it is established in our sistei' States, than
we have to interfere with it in a foreign country. For among
ourselves, we are not only under an obligation to let each State
manage this institution in its own way, and according to its
own sense of right, but impliedly such control must be without
being subject to irritating and exasperating annoyances from
the inhabitants of sister States.
My friends, the people of these United States have entered
into a compact ; the whole bargain was made together, and its
obligation is of the most binding character. It has done more
to advance the happiness of man than any other that was ever
made. It has done more for the comfort and elevation of the
people than any form of government that ever existed before.

28
All this is to be undone because there are men so much wiser
than Washington, and Franklin, and Hamilton, and Madison,
and Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth, that they have found
out that the Constitution of the United States is against the
law of God, and must not be enforced. Do you believe it ?
(Cries of "no," "no.")
No enlightened conscience can view this subject on a great
scale — on a scale commensurate with the affairs of mankind —
and come to the conclusion, that any part of the Constitution
of the United States imposes obligations which honest men
cannot perform. There is, my friends, a great deal of dust cast
upon this subject — a great deal of extraneous matter brought
in, and, among others, is this : " Am I going," says one, " to be
a slave catcher, do you think ? Can any law of the land make
me a slave catcher ?" I might as well say — " do you think any
law of the land can make me take my neighbor's cattle, or his
household goods, or his person for a debt due another neigh
bor ?" Why, I should say, " please excuse me ;" yet still an ex
igency might exist, as we have before seen, which would render
my services necessary in executing the precept of the law.
Fellow Citizens — It is important that we discriminate justly
and wisely, betwixt our rights and correlative duties as mem
bers of the separate States, and our rights and duties as mem
bers of the United States. As citizens of a State, we may
legislate for our social, intellectual, and moral improvement ; as
citizens of the United States, we are confined to limits pre
scribed by the Constitution, which we ought by no means to
transgress. Among the powers which the people of a State
may exercise, is that of the abolition of slavery ; many States
have exercised this power, and if, by this act, they have in
creased their own prosperity, multiplied their population, built
up cities and villages, established and maintained common
schools and higher institutions of learning, their example can
not fail to have a salutary influence upon sister States in which
slavery yet exists ; but beyond the exercise of this influence, no
State has aright to go. There can be no employment of force
no resort to stratagems, no open or secret assaults, to abolish
slavery in another State. Independent States are naturally

29
jealous of any foreign interference with their domestic institu
tions ; example may lead them, but force cannot drive them.
What are called the free States have emancipated by law,
but there has been also a great amount of emancipation in what
are called the slave States. It has been stated on the authority
of a learned Presbyterian divine, that the value of the slaves
emancipated in those States by private persons, influenced
solely by a sense of duty, exceeds in amount the whole sum
paid by the British Government to purchase the freedom of all
the slaves in her West India Islands.
I fear I have been too tedious, (cries of " not at all," "go on.")
I thought I would converse witb you freely, and tell the whole
story. I have not come to dictate to anybody ; I came to
reason with you, and will conclude by asking — Can we do
anything better than to sustain, in all its provisions, the Consti
tution of the Government under which we live ? (Cries of
" no.") Who can point out any thing, which has worked or
will work better ? Shall we try the experiment of dissolution ?
Where will it land us? I believe that if we were to dissolve
the Union to-day, the revolution itself would cease to be a
blessing. I doubt whether it would be better for mankind that
it ever occurred. I know that the glory of Washington, and
of all the great men who fought the battles of liberty, and were
engaged in constructing this government, would perish from
off the earth. It would be all gone, and all worse than nothing
for the great cause of liberty and mankind.
If this be so, how shall we preserve this Constitution ? Why,
we must preserve it in one way only, and that is the way
recommended over and over again, in the extracts I have read
to you from the writings of the Father of his country, and
which you will find multiplied abundantly, if you will look into
his letters. Cultivate kindly feelings; treat Southern and
Western men as fellow citizens and brethren. Do not revive
the feeling over which Washington lamented, and which came
near to preventing the formation of the Constitution. How
can we expect this government to succeed, if we do not repress
those feelings of jealousy and irritation, which belong only to
hostile nations ?

30
True, we have slavery here ; we have three millions of slaves
in the country. Who does not deplore its existence ? We of
this generation are not responsible for bringing these slaves
here. One of the causes of complaint in the Instrument you
have heard read to-day, is, that they were brought here by a
tyrannical governnient without our consent. But here they are,
here they are — and what shall we do with them ? If they
should receive a fiat to-day — " be free, and take care of your
selves" — what would be the consequence ? In my judgment,
their utter ruin, and eventually, their extinction. They are
here, and what is their condition ? Better, far better, than any
three millions of their race and nation in the world. Shall we
on their account destroy this united government ? Will they
gain any thing by it ? Will the white population gain by it ?
Let us discharge our duty as American citizens, and no doubt
ours is the country which is to redeem Europe, Asia, and Af
rica too.
(The orator took his seat and three tremendous cheers were
given him, and three others for the Constitution and the Union.)

PHOTOMOUNT j
PAMPHLET BINDER '
PAT. NO. I
•77iee J
\ ~Mahofaaund^Bv -.m'^
1 GAYLORD BROS. Inc. <
1 Syracuse, N. Y.
[ Stockton, Calif. |

f