>> ' • • • . c-^ 'j^. .'^■•:;« ■'?'■__ '^^ %^- .-^ 4. O % -.V"'*/ .^* 'o , » • A ;♦ .*"% / V v '^ ^oV* '^J.r^ } .^^^.. " ^^^ '^: \\-h3 / / S P E E C II F / RICHARD T. ARCHER, ESQ., DELIVERED ON THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST, 1S60, AT PORT GIBSON, MISS., IS AXSWEU TO A CHALLEXCR FltOJI MESSRS. B. G. HUMPHREYS, Sr. AND OTHERS. BELL AND EVERETT PARTY, TO snow THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT LAW IN THE TEKKITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES, FOE THE PROTECTION OP ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY. PORT GIBSON, MISS. J. E. ELLIOTT, PRINTER. MDCCCLX. SPEECH RICHAKD T. ARCHER, ESQ Fellow Citizens : — I am hero on the challenge of my esteemed friend of Lucknow, to prove that there is law in the Territories for the protection of your equal rights if you go there. I was not challenged to defend the Democratic party ,• and I decline to do so, for the following reasons : First. — I think the Democratic party has character enough to withstand all the abuse of its enemies. It will never be in dano-er, until my friend shall persuade it to take his worm medicines. Secondly. — I should as soon expect to argue my friend out of his religion, as out his bitter hatred of the party he aban- doned. He says I joined his party; I never knew by what party principles he was governed, except bitter hostility to Democracy. Never a partizan myself, though at all times a Democrat, I could not have joined hia party. 4 SPRECfl OF n. 'I'. AUCIfRR, E.sU. Third. — I cannot reply to my friend, because I asked per- mission to see his reply to me in manuscript. He consented, but after I had read it, he objected to my answering it ; until it had all appeared in print. I affirm, and will endeavor to demonstrate : First. — That the will of God is the basis of all law. Second. — That property is a natural right. That the nor- mal condition of the negro, is slavery. That it is a normal right of the white man to buy him for a possession and an inheritance forever. Third. — What Avere the rights of the States, when they con- quered their independence of England. Fourth. — That State governments are not sovereign. Fifth. — That the Federal government is not sovereign. Sixth. — The ConL^litution of the United States ; for what purposes established ; its powers defined and limited. Scrnith. — The powers of Congress in the Territories, and what laws govern the Territories. Eighth. — Abraham Lincoln ineligible for the Presidency. Ninth. — Stephen A. Douglas ineligible. Tenth. — John Bell unworthy. Eleventh. — That John C. Ereckenridge is eminently wor- thy and constitutional. Finding my speech long, I have rt^jected much amplifica- tion, and noAv to avoid the beaten track of thought, at the ex- pense of effect, I shall curb myself by reading mucli of what 1 have to say. If my esteemed friend of Lucknow is in luck now ; his dan- gerous heresies will be exploded, and sound principles of law will be pr(!Sented, which will raise an impregna1)le bulwark of defences to his property; which if the laws are administered faithfully, will resist all assaults. For these laws, I will not appeal to a Congress, a majority of which would pass no la\\- for the defence of his slave j)roperty ; but would if the Consti- tution invested f1ic power to legislate <'ii ibis subj(>c1. jtass laws SrRF.rH tip i;. T. Ar..IIF',R, F.>ii. ', to abuli.sli and aimiliilatt' his riglit of pioporty. I'\)rtuuat('ly for tlio slave-owner, we are not in their power, but our proper- ty is liedged round witli (h'fences which Congress has no pow- er to r(>p(;al or to impair. I hope that the great importance of these rights ; the great value of our slave property, and the honor of freemen, who cannot without ignominy and degrada- tion submit to this wrong, will cause you to bear with me pa- tiently while 1 laboriously expound tliese laws from the first chapter of Genesis, down to the Constitution of the United States of America. In every civilized and Christian land, the will of God, clearly revealed and understood, is the highest law, and the basis of all law. ISTo nation or people can claim to be civilized, whose laws contravene the laws of God. I suppose no good christian, or good citizen will deny this : I maintain tlien, that PROPERTY IS A NATURAL RIGHT. "And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind : and God saw that it was good." The learned Dr. Samuel A. Cartwright informs us, that in the He- brew Bible, in this tvrenty-fourth verse of the first chapter of Genesis :" God (furtlier) said, let the earth bring forth ?«/e/- lectual creatures loltli immortal souls, after their kind." And he shews, that these creatures with immortal souls, were ne- groes. "And God said, Let us make man in oiu* imago, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Gen. i. 26. Thus God invested the white man with property and sovereignty over the eartli, and in everv living thing thereon, the negro included. Again: "Both thy bondmen, and thy lioudmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of tlumi shall y<> buy bondmen and bondmaids. "?*riir(Mi\-er, of rlic cinidri'ii of the strano-frs that iln sdjdiini C SPEECH OF R. T. ARCHER, ESQ. among you, of them tiliail ye liu}', ami of tlieir families tliat art with you. Avliicli they begat in your land: and thL^y shall be your possession. "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after vou, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever: but over your brethren the children of Is- rael, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor." her. xxv. 44-45-46. At one and the same time, Cservation is as mncb a law to bodies ])olitic, as to iiatmnl [htsous. They are indeed, under higher and more iin- I'erieiis ohliLiatioiis. tlian natural persons. In the creation ol' S'JA'I'K (;OVEU.\MEi\TS, a speci;!.] agenl is created, v\bich is not sovereign,^ though the people who are the sovereignty, slumld delegate full authority to exercise every ])ower which the sovereign could exercise. It is a question of policy, how much power shall be delegated ; f(jr these poA\'ers may be eidarged or curtailed, and recalh.'d at the pleasure of the peoph-. 'I'hey may be abrogated ami new constitutions adopted. These agents or gowrnmenis be- ing the cn'atures of the sovereignty, are of less authority, and cannot violate natural rights, or God's laws; for the sov- ereignty itself, it has been shown, is subordinate to God's law, and but equal to natural rights, which were cr(>ati'd at the sPEford (.(•' R. ■{'. Aui iii:H, i;>(4. \) same liiius and by the .sauie puwer; and are tla'n.'fuiv ('(|Ual iu dignity and authority of existence. So also in t]io creation of a common or confederate jajovern- ment. The contracting sovereigns can devolve on the confederate government no power which the separate sovereigns could not exercise. They cannot confer the power to violate natu- ral rights ; they cannot subordinate God's authority to Federal authority; they cannot dictate sovereignty: but they may make compacts between themselves, as to the powers they delegate to the common agent; as to the powers they will fcr- bear separately to exercise ; and these compacts are contracts binding on the good faith of the parties ; but sovereigns being equal, and no common authority over them being possible; they are each the judge of these compacts, and when they may be annulled or are revocable. They could, if consistent with the general welfare, have consolidated into one sovereignty ; and have merged their separate individualities into one uncontrollable sovereignty. This is the great impending danger; for when this shall have resulted from Black Republicanism, or other combination, lib- erty and personal rights will have perished ; and a despotism will have been inaugurated. But our fathers wisely chose to confederate, and not to con- solidate. They have preserved their separate sovereign in- dividuality. They have strictly defined and limited the powers delegated to the common agent ; they have stated clearly the powers they will forbear separately to exercise ; and they have reserved all powers not expressly delegated to the Federal agent ; or agreed to forbear the exercise of by the States. And here, in qiialification and limitation of all that I have spoken ; I reiterate that bodies politic are under obli- gation to God, to preserve themselves, and to perfect them- selves. They cannot maim, or lop oft' any power or faculty necessary to that perfection. For il]u^itralio^, just as 1. a 10 8PEF,CH OF n. T. ARCHKR, !■,. U- natural body, fur tlie j^aku of harmony, the profound i-cspici i entertain for my friends, and for self respect, will Ibrbear all personality in tins discussion ; but if my right hand should oft'end, I niay not v/ithout sin, lop it oft". Our wise fathers especially enumerated and stated,, in the preamble, for Avhat purposes they ordained and established THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect iiuion, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquil- ity, provide for the conmon d(ifence, promote the general Avel- fare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America, in this Constitution, no authority is given to Congress to legi.-late for THE TERKITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES, save what is contained in the last half of Section iii. of Ar- ticle 4, in these words : "The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful ruh;s and regulations respecting the territory or other propei'ty belonging to tht; United States j and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State." — The framers of the Constitution knew, that wheresoever there is territory, there is sovereignty in the owners ; whether held in separate ownership or in joint and common property. That Avheresoever there is sovereignty, there the laws go ; and that law is an absolute and imperative necessity over every territo- ry and people. They kneiv also, that the Federal govern- ment was not a sovereignty, but a common agent of several confederate sovereigns. Had they intended to confer on this common agent, the authority to legislate for the territories, they Avould have done so. No one denies that the territories are the common property of all the States. It is in virtue of this common property, and common sovereignty, that all thfe citizens of all the States, have an unquestioned right to re- SPRKCH OF n. r. ARclIKH, F.SQ. ' ' move into tlif tcrritor'u'rf, and to cruTy their jiropins n.i, . No reason for this right of all tlio citi/.ens of .ill thi- States to go into the common territories, and carry their property there, can bo given, that is not conclusive^ to show that the laM's of the States must necessarily precede them, to protect flieir cit- izens in their lives and prf)pert3'. God ordained sovereignty for protection. It is conceded that these sovereigns, iu com- mon of the territories, if they had chos(!n to do so, might li,i\-e conferred authority on their common agent, the l«^Hleral go\ - ernment, to legislate for the tca-ritories ; hut th(>y did not con- fer this power, but reserved it. It cannot be conceded tliaf these States can b(i excused and exonerated from the high ob- ligation of sovereigns, to provide laws. We are fortified, then in oxu' position, that at the time the Constitution of the United States was adopted, all the States but one, being slave States, all the laws of the States, by harmonions concurrence, were recognized as authoritative in the territories. It is con- ceded that governments do sometimes usurp authority, to cancel natui'al rights, and to withdraw the protection of law, within their exclusive territorial limits : but they have no right to do this, iu territories common to them and to otlun-s. And if the laws of the sovereigns in common conflict, the equal and ef[uivalent authorities counteract and jmnnl ench other. But the right to own slaves, being a normal right of the white man, eternal and authoritative by (iod's mandate ; and this right being in actual practical exist(!nce : and Congress having no authority to repeal, or to pass laws, or even rules and regulations, prejudicial to any right or claim of a State; and it being the duty of the Federal government to protect citizens and their property wheresoever the jurisdiction of the United States extends, it is the duty of the Federal govern- ment to enforce the laws ; and if a contumacious jv.ry shall refuse to render a verdict, it is the dxity of the Court to enforce obedience. TF *]ie v,.v,i;i.t i^^ nM THR I'OKT :;1HSI)N TUI-WKEKLY SOUTHERN KEVf-.II.I.E OF AHCUST II, ISOll. A street discussion about the position taken by Mr. Breck- inridge in his letter of acceptance that " the friends of con- stitutional eqiiality do not, and have not demanded a Congres- sional slave code, nor any code in regard to property in the territories;" and that " they hold the doctrine of non-inter- vention by Congress or by a territorial Legislature, either to establish or prohibit slavery, but that they assert, (fortifii^d by the highest judicial tribunal in the Union,) the plain duty of tlm Federal Government in all its departments, to secure when necessary, to citizens of all the States, the enjoyment of tlunr property in the territories," led to a challenge to me to show that there is law for the protection of property in the territo- ries. Without law books or State papers to refer to, with no aids but the faint recollection of the little law read when a boy, the newspaper and Congressional discussions occasional- ly read, (for I was never a great reader,) and principles es- tablished in my mind, 1 had the temerity to accept the chal- lenge. To those learned in law and statesmanship, such a discussion can present but little of interest or instruction, but the affirmation that th(ire is law and the absurd negation of law, ;n',' tha first, fortified by conclusions so irresistable ; and 16 KEferOI\.SK UK K. T. ARCHER, ESU. the latter, discredited by the fact, that unless there be law, the administration of justice in the territories from the earliest period of our Government, has been lawless and arbitraiy, en- courag(!S me to hope that my task will be light. For such territories as are a part of the former French col- ony of Louisiana, to which by the treaty of cession it was stipulated, if I am not in en-or, that the inhabitants should be; protected in all their property, ( slaves inclusive,) all the laAvs of the colony necessary to the protection of property remain- ed in force, until other laws were constitutionally and without violation of this treaty substituted. The Missouri compromise could not repeal them, because the Missouri compromise was a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and of the treaty of Louisiana. Kansas, I think, is a part of the territory of Louisiana. But a territory or foreign domain, when acquired by con- quest or otherwise, if without law, or uninhabited, or if bar- barian, becomes subject to the laws of the dominant State or kingdom. If conquered or acquired by two or more States or kingdoms, jointly, and in equal right, unless it is provided by an agreement or otherwise, such territory becomes subject to the laws of both dominant States or kingdoms, jointly, so far as reconcilable and necessary to the well orderc^d governing of the acquired territory. When, therefore, a territory is ac- quired by the United States, it is the property of the States in common, and not only do the laws of the United States go there, but all the laws of all the States necessary to the pro- tection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ; and pro- tection of property go with them. Now property is an imjjcv rious necessity of life, and in the pursuit of happiness and protection of property, goes from every State into tlie territo- ries of the States or United States. And in case of slaves taken into a territory, not oidy is it protect(Kl by thi' laws of all the States which protect property in general, but, as all the slave States have a common and equal prop(!rty in all the territories, the laws of the slave States which are necessary to the protection of property in slaves, go there with the slaves add are ad hoc a part of the laws of the United States, for the mast(;r carries his slave into a territory with all his rights un- impaired, and the most important of these rights is legal protection. But it may be asked, as the nou-slave-owning States have RH.Sl'UNSE OF K. T. AKi;HEK, KSQ. li) an etj^iuil property in the territories, why do not their hiws prohibiting slavery, go into the territories also? I answer, because the necessity of prot(?ction of property is universal — is a duty. The peculiar policy which any sovereign State or kingdom may adopt, of excluding a particular species of prop- erty, ii special, and limited by the bounds of their special and exclusive dominion or sovereignty. When it is attempt- ed to carry it into a territory common to them and other sover- eign States, it is in conflict with higher rights and duties. — The duty to protect the citizen in his rights of property is one of the higiiest duties and necessities of governments. The prerogative of destroying property, is a prerogative of sover- eignty which overrides the rights of the citizen only when sovereignty is exclusive or when all the sovereigns concur. I maintain that all the laws of all the States are, so far as ap- plicable and necessaiy to the protection of life liberty, prop- erty antl morals, ad hoc a part of the laws of the United States, They go into the territories by the same necessity that the common law was after the declaration of indepen- dence; a part of the law of the States. 1 think I am sustained in this by all the practice of the Federal government, from the earliest history of our territo- rial govornmeat. Judges and U. S. Attoruies have been ap- pointed for the leiritories and laws have b^fien administered. Either all the justice administered in the territories has been lawless, or there was law in the territories. Let us take a strong and conspicuous example. The Federal government sent judges and other officers into the territory at Utah, and upon necessity, it sent tin; army of the United States there to aid in administering justice. Did the Federal government act lawlessly? The Congress of the United States has no moral code, it can pass none. Jealous religious freedom with- holds the power. The squatter sovereigns of Utah, among other lawless acts, legalistnl bigamy, and if this abomination, squ.iiter sovereignty, be lawful power in the people of a ter- litory, they had as much authority for doing so, as Louisiana had to license faro banks, a power, I believe never questioned in Louisiana. But all th<3 laws of all the States which own the territory of Utah, make bigamy criminal and punish it. Ls it right and lawful to dethrone the sovereign States of this confederacy of thtiir sovereignty in Utah, and to inaugurate bigamy and all the turpitudes of congri^gated criminals? Did ;,'(! HKSl'O'.N-^K (.IF li. 1. AKIHBK, KSQ. the Federal goveruuieut act lawlessly in seiidiiig the army of the United Stat-'S into Utah ; and did it have the sanction of the criminal codes of all the States ? Is it the duty of the Federal governnn^nt to eradicate and utterly exterminate this abomination before Utah can be invested with sovereignty, or should the Govermneut passively submit, and let these squat- ter sovereigns bo invested with legitimate sovereignty, when they will b(^ as competent to legalize bigamy as Louisiana was to legalize faro banks 1 I mHintain then, tiiat every species of property when carried into a territory, is hedged, shielded, guarded and barricaded by ample laws for its protection and defence, and that it is " the plain duty of the Federal govern- ment in all its departments, to secure when necessary, to the citizens of all the States, the enjoyment of their property in the common territories." It is absurd to suppose that our government has existed for eighty-four years, with territories to gov(;ru during all that tini^-, without laws to govern them, refusing to pass laws, and making no adjudications which be- come law. And with whatever temerity I may be justly chargeable, I renew the chaUenge to ail these Know Nothings of the Bell and Evertjtt party to disprove what 1 maintain. By the Know Nothing Bell and Everett gentlemen, I was tauntingly asked, how 1, a disunionist ^;er -se, could vote for Mr. Breckinridge, a Union man 'i I answer, that 1 am not a disunionist per sc. I am a worshipper of God pe?- sc, and as I think right and acce})table to my God ; all else that I ain, or ever have been, I am, and liave been, for cause. When Mr. Breckinridge was chosen Vice President of the United States spontaneously, (for if he evi^r sought, I was not aware of it,) I predicted to my friend and neighbor, Mr. Wm. T. Magruder, that in the same manner lie would be chosen Presid(!nt of the United States, and 1 designatiid him as emiiuuitly fitted for tlu! station. Tluire was one feature in his election that I par- ticularly approved ; he was called to the public service in the vigor of manhood, and not in the imbecility of dotage. I had seen the paralysis of government from the timidity, the du- plicity and imbecility of superannuated men placed at the helm of the ship of State. Breckinridge is of a stock re- nowned in the past for talent, courage, patriotism, statesman- ship and honor. I had })ersonally known his talented ac- complished, and eminently gentlemanly father, when I was a young man. 1 had been at college with liis cousin, Carey KC.-^roAsK uh' i{. r. .M!('iii;i!, i;;-u. jl Breckinridge, of Virginia, aud was, and still am, his warm friend. All I kue^v personally of the Breckim-idgi; family but confirmed the belief that they are a noble race of men. — That Mr. Breckinridge and I may differ on many (j^iiestions, I thought probable. I have differed on some questions with my long cherished friend Jefferson Davis, unquestionably my first choice for the Presidency, or for any other high public station. I am in favor of separation from the Northern States for am- ple and patriotic reasons. But could I hope for that equality in the Union, intended to be guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, could I see that the Union is union, aud not fettered antipatliics, bound together for dominion of the strong and servile submission of the weak, no one would more highly appreciate the benefits of Union in the foreign relations of the country. Suppose then, that I suppose the government will be so administered by Mr. Breckinridge, and in the event of his death, by Gen. Jo. Lane, who was intro- duced to me, and endorsed to me by my honored friend, Gen. John A. Quitman, as "as good a Southern man as himself," may I not without inconsistency desire to see them elected % May I not, give confidence to their administration % May I not do all I can for their election, and rejoice in its accom- plishment ? RICH'D T. ARCHER. Anchuca, July 1860. ^The mitJior loillfeel highly obliged to Editors who will copy the foregoing into their respective papers. §^ tt^ ,c^"^ ..^''. ^c •» " » ♦ <«>> c5°.^ A- .♦^ 'by -V»j, ^.* -i:^ % V *- 0-7- " ft i^ . ■* R, 4^ • <8> c " ;u:i|i;i||i||ii|||||i||p^^