E 
 
 £95 
 
Class L 44Q 
 Book . f. 9 5 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ^°^-^'^JkT 
 
 HON. THOMAS EWING, 
 
 CHILLICOTHE, OHIO, 
 
 1 
 Before a Republican Mass Meeting, Sep. 29th, 1§60. 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 
 RICKEY, MALLORY & CO., 75 WEST FOURTH STREET. 
 
 I860. 
 
 SoJ-wv ■i^33/;4c4^ 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HON. THOMAS EWING, 
 
 AT 
 
 CIIILLICOTHE, OHIO, 
 
 BEFORE A REPUBLICAN MASS MEETING, SEPTEMBER 29tli, 1860. 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 EICKEY, MALLORY & CO., 75 WEST FOURTH STREET. 
 
 I860. 
 
•EfS 
 
 West. Kes. Hlat. Soc. 
 
SPEECH: 
 
 My Friends and Fellow Citizens: 
 
 I am here to address you by the invitation of your 
 Kepublican Central Committee. I belong to no existing 
 party. I am attached to none, but to the Union — the 
 States — their liberties and laws. I come not to arouse 
 your enthusiasm in behalf of any man or any party, but 
 to speak my own free thoughts, and the conclusions of 
 my own judgment, as to the condition of our country and 
 the course — of all that are open to us — which is most 
 likely to tend to its permanent prosperity and peace. I 
 will speak something of men, but more of principle and 
 policy. 
 
 And it may be proper for me to say, in the outset, that 
 I have made up my mind to vote for Abraham Lincoln. 
 I know him personally, and am satisfied with him. He 
 is a manofunimpeached integrity — sufficiently acquainted 
 with the recent history of our country, and the men and 
 measures which have made up that history. I am satis- 
 fied with the man, though I do not place him in advance 
 of all his opponents. John Bell is his equal in personal 
 qualities, of large experience, the elder statesman, and if 
 we could make him our President, I would consider him 
 a very safe choice. I know him much more intimately 
 than Mr. Lincoln. I was in counsel with him daily for 
 many months in times of trial, and besides my confidence 
 
in the statesman, I have for him a warm feeling of per- 
 sonal friendship and regard. 
 
 But he can not get the vote of Ohio. His ticket is but 
 a disturbing element in the canvass. The contest in this 
 State is between Lincoln and Douglas, and between them 
 I cannot hesitate for a moment, and indeed, have no vote 
 to throw away Avhen such is the contest. 
 
 As a statesman, Douglas has shown himself inconsider- 
 ate and recldess. The extreme agitation of the country 
 for the past six years is due to his restless impatience for 
 notoriety. He is politically answerable for all the terrible 
 atrocities conse:iuent upon the repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise. They were embodied in the repeal, and the 
 eye of a statesman could not have failed to discern them 
 there. He set a complicated machine, which he under- 
 stood not, in wild and destructive motion, and his sole 
 merit, is that he attempted but knew not how to check or 
 direct its movement. Experience of the past does not 
 warrant us in believing that the Repubhc would be safe 
 under his guidance. It would-be once again Phaeton 
 guiding the chariot of the sun. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge I know only as a gentleman, and as 
 such I esteem him and believe him stainless. He has no 
 record as a statesman, at least none known to me ; and 
 he stands as the representative of an extreme sectional 
 party, whose opinions and policy tend strongly to disunion. 
 Besides, Lane, the candidate for Vice President, is, I 
 think, little worthy of that honorable position. ]\Iy 
 opinion of his personal merits will be found at large in a 
 speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, Janu- 
 ary 7, 18-31, on the Bradbury resolutions, which, with 
 accompanying documents, is in Appendix to Congressional 
 Globe, vol. 23, puges G7 and G8. 
 
This will suffice for the personal merits and status of 
 the several candidates. The political questions involved, 
 and my own relation to those questions, require a more 
 careful presentation. 
 
 I view the existing contest almost from a neutral stand 
 point. I have belonged to no political party since the 22d 
 day of March, 185 4 but have since that time looked upon 
 the acts and purposes of each as subjects of approval or cen- 
 sure, solely and only as in my opinion their efforts might 
 be useful or injurious to the country. 
 
 The RepubUcan party arose out of the repeal of the 
 Missouri Compromise. This attempt, when jBrst made, 
 seemed an act of wanton childish recklessness, and took 
 the nation by surprise. The people in no section of the 
 Union desired it, or thought of it. That Compromise 
 was the settlement of a difficult and dangerous question, 
 with which thinking men of all sections were satisfied. 
 The proposed repeal was received in the South with no 
 approbation. I myself heard Southern Senators speak of 
 it as meddlesome and officious — a thing which annoyed 
 them greatly. Their ablest statesmen disapproved of it 
 and would have resisted it had they not feared that dem- 
 agogues at home might use it to their injury. In the 
 North it excited indignation and alarm. While the mea- 
 sure was still pending in Congress — and it was a long time 
 pending — a convention was called to meet at Columbus, 
 the avowed object of which was to combine the elements 
 of opposition to that, irrespective of all other political 
 issues. This was the seed-germ of the Republican party. 
 
 It was a movement for the success of which I felt 
 deep sohcitude. I had no fears of the permanent 
 establishment of slavery in Kansas or Nebraska, but 
 I foresaw the disorders to which the repeal must 
 
6 
 
 give riso, and I greatly feared that the movement 
 itself, under the guidance of extreme party leaders 
 acting upon aroused public feeling, might ]je pushed 
 beyond its legitimate object, and by attempting too much, 
 fail in that, and do evil and not good by the effort. I 
 wished to move the rock and leave the mountain at rest 
 but I feared that our engineers would attempt both and 
 ftiil in both. The object of the organization is shown by 
 a letter of the State Central Committee, asking me to 
 attend and address the Convention ; and my fears that it 
 would fail by attempting too much, or turning aside from 
 its avowed purpose, are shown in an extract from my 
 reply, which I take the liberty to read : 
 
 LETTER OF INVITATION. 
 
 Columbus, Ohio, March 2d, 1854. 
 Hon. Thos. Ewing, Lancaster, Ohio. 
 
 You will see by the newspapers of this city, that a 
 Mass Convention of the people of Ohio, without distinc- 
 tion of party, has been called to meet in this city, on the 
 22d day of March next. It is proposed that the Con- 
 vention consist of all who are opposed to the repeal of 
 the jMissouri Compromise, and the introduction of slavery 
 into Kans IS and Nebraska. 
 
 The undersigned Committee of Correspondence ear- 
 nestly invite you to attend the Convention as one of the 
 speakers on the occasion, Signed, 
 
 E. K. ECKLEY. 
 
 In my reply, after a brief discussion of the ordinances 
 and laws which make up the history of the division of 
 
7 
 
 our unoccupied territory between free and slave labor, I 
 say: 
 
 EXTRACT FROJI ANSWER. 
 
 " The free and slave territory must be separated by a 
 law, prior to its occupation or it will at no distant day 
 separate itself in a manner greatly more injurious to the 
 peace and good order of society. We can not ask our 
 free laborers to mingle and associate with slaves without 
 forgetting the dignity and importance of labor as a social 
 and political element in our Northern communities, 
 
 " The Missouri Compromise makes this separation. It 
 was a wise and well considered measure. Its repeal would 
 be a great TNTong and a great evil. As such, we ought to 
 resist and if possible, avert it. On this the people of the 
 North, almost as a body and a goodly portion of the 
 South wiU unite. Let us engage in it in a manner becom- 
 ing the subject — with calmness, prudence and considera- 
 tion — and by no means suffer ourselves to be defeated in 
 this, which we all feel to be just, right and necessary, by 
 blending with it, or sufiering to be involved with it, any 
 other object, however desirable to many. Let us take 
 this single and alone. In any departure from the plain 
 straightforward path to the one sole object there is dan- 
 ger — danger of division, and with division defeat. We 
 can probably prevent the infliction of the anticipated 
 wrong ; if not Ave can certainly in due time and by con- 
 stitutional means redress it. 
 
 " I have purposely confined myself to the political and 
 practical view of this subject, as in my opinion, it embra- 
 ces the true principle of the measure which it is the object 
 of the Convention to sustain. 
 
 " Be kind enough to make known my concurrence in 
 the expressed objects of the Convention, and my convic- 
 tion that if pursued calmly and wisely, they can not fail 
 of ultimate success." lam, very respectfully yours, 
 
 T. EWING. 
 
 Messrs. E. K. Ecklei and others. 
 
8 
 
 In signifying my approbation of the objects of the 
 Convention, I was careful to use the qualifying term 
 " expressed," as I had little doubt that many ^Yho engaged 
 in the movement would attempt, and I feared successfully, 
 to extend it to other and widely different purposes. My 
 apprehensions were realized. The Convention was com- 
 posed of a large proportion of extreme anti-slavery men, 
 it was led by extreme men, and it passed resolutions 
 which in effect abandoned opposition to the repeal of the 
 Missouri Compromise — resolutions which, indeed, could 
 not be carried out without the repeal, virtual, if not actual. 
 In short, those who composed the Convention determined 
 to reject the division of territory made by the Missouri 
 Compromise, and go into a fight at large — a kind of irre- 
 pressible conflict against the holders of slaves in general 
 — while the admission of Kansas as a Free State was but 
 an inconsiderable incident in the progress of their pro- 
 posed action. Indeed, it must necessarily have arrested 
 that progress and defeated the ultimate object of the 
 leaders of that body. Their speeches announced and res- 
 olutions prescribed a course of political action which 
 involved as one of its essential elements, not the restora- 
 tion but the permanent abandonment of the Missouri 
 Compromise- 
 
 The expressed object of the original organization — 
 the restoration of that compromise, had met my approba- 
 tion ; I united, therefore, in its pursuit with men of widely- 
 different opinions on kindred subjects; but because I united 
 with them in iliis, I could, therefore, not allow them to 
 prescribe for me new laws of thought and action. They 
 turned to the pursuit of other objects which must, as I 
 believed, produce mighty mischiefs in their process of 
 development — a polic}' which involved a long and fierce 
 
conflict, and which left the question of Freedom or Sla- 
 very in the Territories, covered by the Missouri Compro- 
 mise, unsettled while the war was waged; and it left Kan- 
 sas, especially, delivered over to anarchy and violence. 
 This necessarily cut off from the party many thousands 
 who had in purpose or in act united in the original object, 
 and who still continued to deske and promote that object. 
 It drew a strictly sectional party Hne, which no one could 
 pass, and necessarily involved the selection of a party 
 leader who would be nothing more or less or other than 
 the representative embodiment of the sectional party, and 
 it as necessarily excluded any man of national opinion or 
 reputation. Parties of many discordant opinions were to 
 be united in the canvass ; it was, therefore, essential that 
 their leader should have no record. Hence, in 1856, Mr. 
 Fremont, a gentleman quito unknown in the political or 
 public history of our country, was selected as their candi- 
 date for President, and the 'party was defeated, while the 
 origincd principle triumphed. For as far as public opinion 
 had potency, Kansas was virtually a Free State on the 
 day Mr. Buchanan took his seat as President. 
 
 Thus, the original issue on which the Republican organi- 
 zation was put to the country, was tried and sustained, 
 while the partii which had abandoned it was defeated. 
 And if Mr. Buchanan had regarded the clear indications 
 of public will, and had facilitated the admission of Kan- 
 sas under a constitution of her own adoption, the Bepub- 
 lican party must have placed itself on national gTOund and 
 sustained itself on general principles of national policy, 
 or ceased at once to be a power in the land. But he and 
 his advisers seemed to be struck with judicial blindness. 
 Against all right, and truth, and justice, and against the 
 2 
 
10 
 
 ohvious sense of a large majority of the nation, they 
 attempted to force a forged and false Constitution on 
 Kansas, which was to make it a Slave State in contempt 
 of the opinions of nine-tenths of its inhabitants. They 
 persevered in the wrong even after they were f lirly whip- 
 ped out of it. And when thus beaten beyond all possi- 
 bility of recuperation, they kept the question open by 
 refusing to admit Ksnsas as a Free State under a Consti- 
 tution of her own adoption. Those who organized them- 
 selves under the name of the Republican party, to exclude 
 Slavery fi'om Kansas and Nebraska, virtually accomplished 
 their object — it had become morally impossible for Sla- 
 very to be forced into Kansas; but Mr. Buchanan kept 
 the question open, and thus kept the Republican party 
 united, vigorous and active by intriguing to prevent full 
 and immediate consummation of its victory. That party, 
 though the ultimate accomplishment of the object of its 
 organization was rendered cer<^ain, had not yet actually 
 accomplished it ; and it must live till it fulfilled its des- 
 tiny. But, as I have said, men of differing and discord- 
 ant opinions in other matters, united in this: Abolition- 
 ists, higher law and irrepressible conflict men — all shades 
 and degrees — up to and including the solid phalanx of 
 Whig principles and opinion. And it happened in this 
 case, as in most others, that extreme men wore the busy, 
 active men always on the alert, little regarding the one 
 purpose which united the great mass of the people, except 
 in so far as it could be used as an instrument for their 
 ulterior objects. They called and took control of con- 
 ventions, and through them of many of the States. And 
 the people acted with them, for they were ostensibly pur- 
 suing the great object all had in view ; while the folly of 
 the Administration excused them in public oi)inion when 
 
11 
 
 they departed from or tresspassed beyond that object 
 By this means the people of some of the States North 
 and West were placed in a false position^ — misrepresented 
 as to then- opinions and feelings by the public acts of their 
 constituted authorities. In Ohio, extreme men ruled and 
 seemed to be the majority, but they never were so. As 
 in an effervescing fluid, all seems foam to those who look 
 only on its surface, so did this element seem to be all of 
 the party opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compro- 
 mise, while in truth its strength lay in the calm, conser- 
 vative Whig mass, which remained inactive below. As 
 examples in our own State, of extreme party action, wit- 
 ness the attack last year upon the independence of the 
 Judiciary in the person of Judge Swan — the refusal of 
 the Legislature last winter, when the subject was before 
 them, to pass a law to prohibit the forming or fitting out 
 in Ohio the marauding expeditions against our sister States, 
 The bill in form and substance being as nearly as possible 
 identical with a law of the United States, as to nations 
 with whom we are at peace ; and, which indeed, modern civ- 
 ilization has introduced into the codes of nearly all nations 
 not piratical ; and the refusal of our Executive to surren- 
 der fugitives fi'om justice — pursuant to the requirements of 
 the Constitution* all which indicated that this party was 
 
 *This, I find, is a heresy of some ten years standing, a fact which had 
 escaped me, as I was too busily engaged in organizing a new department 
 at Washington, at the time it arose, to give much attention to passing 
 events. Our present Governor, however, is not responsible for it, but 
 it is not the less a heresy, and highly injurious, especially in the connec- 
 tion in which I have placed it. It is said, in the opinion of the Attorney 
 General of that day, that this provision of the Constitution ought not to be 
 extended, 1st. To cases not within the rule observed by the comity of 
 nations; or 2nd. The cases designated in our treaties with foreign nations; 
 3d. Or crimes known to the common law ; 4th. Or such as are recognized 
 as crimes in the State called on to surrender the fugitive. Now, neither 
 
12 
 
 engaged in a conflict which must be, in fact and deed 
 irrcpressihh so long as it and the Union both endured ; 
 and that the organic law of the republic had been super- 
 seded by a higher or lo^vcr law — namely, the individual 
 will, dominant in the minds of excited men. Such was 
 the condition of things which caused me to stand aloof 
 from the party, the objects of whose original organization 
 I approved, and to advance which objects I labored after- 
 wards out of the party earnestly, and, I have reason to 
 believe, efiectively. 
 
 But I looked for a reaction, and it has come. Conser- 
 vative men, law-loving and law-abiding men, could not 
 suffer the excesses of the time to go abroad under their 
 apparent sanction and remain inactive. The reaction pre- 
 
 one or all of these criteria will serve as a test, for 1st. There is no comity 
 
 of nations as to extradition of criminals, as such. 2nd. Our treaties desig- 
 nate the special crimes, and among them are not to be found the highest, 
 namely treason, nor one half of the high crimes known to the laws of every 
 civilized state and country, as burglary, larceny, rape, higamy, incest, perjury, 
 etc., etc., etc. 3rd. The common law omits, of course, all crimes having 
 their origin in the present changed condition of society, such as the mali- 
 cious destruction of canal locks, reservoirs, etc., and the maliciously 
 placing obstructions on railroads with intent to destroy life; and the 
 fourth test, namely, that it must be a crime by the law of the State called 
 on to make the surrender, would be subject to the last named difficulty, 
 for Florida, Arkansas and Oregon could not surrender a fugitive who 
 should be charged capitally with a crime against the canals, or railroads 
 of other States. But the conclusive objection is, that the constitution 
 gives no possible pretext for any such limited construction. The crime 
 must be committed in the State making the demand, by a person actually 
 within it; the laws of that State, therefore, must govern it; and as to the 
 degree of the crime, the enumeration by the Constitution is in the descend- 
 ing series, — "Treason, felony, or other crime." That is, lesser cv'imQ. 
 
 As to what is said of trivial offenses, it seems to me clear that it is for 
 the State whose laws declare the crime, to judge. The Constitution might 
 well presume that no State would make an act criminal out of mere wan- 
 tonness or folly. Nor can it be supposed that an oflFender would flee, or 
 the executive of a State demand a fugitive except in cases where the 
 offense was great, or greatly injurious to society. 
 
13 
 
 sented itself in a two-fold aspect. Out of the party, by 
 the Union organization in the North — in the party, by 
 the rejection of extreme party leaders and the nomination 
 of a sound conservative man for President at the late Chi- 
 cago Convention. 
 
 The resolutions of the Chicago Convention — the plat- 
 form — is better than we have been accustomed to, in 
 speeches and resolves, for four or five years past — better 
 in its positions, much better in tone and temper. It quite 
 rejects the heresy that any law applicable to the civil 
 government of our Union is higher than the Constitution 
 of the United States. It condemns in strong terms the 
 organization of marauding expeditions in any of the 
 States to attack the people or the institutions of neigh- 
 boring States, (a thing which the Ohio Legislature had so 
 recently refused to declare unlawful ;) and in its whole 
 tone and temper counsels, peace and mutual respect of 
 each other's rights between States, instead of the mainte- 
 nance of a continual and irrepressible conflict. It also 
 has discovered and declares that the nation has a mission 
 other than that of perpetual war over Slavery. And 
 especially it advances sound old Whig doctrine as to the 
 fostering care which Government owes to the industry of 
 its people. This suits me well. It is a recurrence to first 
 principles- — a strong assurance that the party, as it now 
 exists, intends to build up and preserve, and not pull down 
 and destroy. 
 
 But I do not think the adoption of a portion of the 
 Declaration of Independence in very good taste, and such 
 indeed seemed to be the opinion of a majority of the Con- 
 vention; but beyond that it is quite unimportant. The 
 clause adopted is true in the vague and general sense in 
 which it was used by the framers of the Declaration, who 
 
14 
 
 were three-fourths of them slaveholders. And in that 
 sense it seems to have been taken by the Convention; for 
 if not, it would be inconsistent with their other resolves, 
 which assert in express terms the absolute right of States 
 slave and free, over their domestic institutions. 
 
 I object to the eighth resolution. The proposition 
 " that the normal condition of all the territory of the Uni- 
 ted States is that of freedom," is not true in point of fact 
 The rule, the norma, which is announced by the proposi- 
 tion, must apply if it has any meaning, to the territory as 
 it stood at the time of the formation of the Constitution, 
 when slavery existed under and by the law of nearly all 
 the States and in all the Territories, except the territory 
 northwest of the river Ohio ; and as to the after acquired 
 territory, the norma or rule must be apphed to its condi- 
 tion at the moment it became the property of the United 
 States. And Louisiana, all that is now in question, was 
 tlicn slave territory. 
 
 The framers of the Constitution had no conception of 
 this ^^ normal condition.'''' When they willed that the 
 North-Western territory should be free, it was so declared 
 by the adoption of the ordinance of 1787, with its pro- 
 hibitory clauvse as binding under the Constitution. The 
 South- Western Territory was left to slavery just where 
 the laws of North Carolina and Georgia had held it. 
 The ships sailing under the flag and carrying papers 
 under the seal of the United States, attesting their nation- 
 ality, are wherever they may sail on the high seas, part 
 and parcel of the territory of the United States, and 
 under the dominion, pure and unmixed, of her Constitu- 
 tion and laws : and who would be bold enough to contend 
 that prior to the year 1808, while the Constitution forbade 
 the abohtiou of the slave trade, that the " normal condi- 
 
15 
 
 tion " of the ships which hore the slaves was " that of 
 freedom ?" Surely they had no condition ivhcdevcr except 
 that which the Constitution, and the laws passed under it, 
 created. I feel it clear to a demonstration that the prop- 
 osition as to the " normal condition " of the territories of 
 the United States in its most general or more restricted 
 sense can not be maintained. 
 
 The other branch of the resolution, namely the propo- 
 sition, that Congress has but a limited power over slavery 
 in the Territories, though advanced by the Chicago Con- 
 vention in this eighth resolution, — by the Breckinridge 
 Convention in their second resolution, and sustained by 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of 
 Dred Scott vs. Sandford, does not command the assent of 
 my judgment. But if the proposition that the power of 
 Congress over the Territories is limited in that particular 
 be true, the Breckinridge Convention and the Supreme 
 Court of the United States have the best of argument, to 
 say nothing of authority. But, with all my habitual def- 
 erence and respect for that Court, and I think it second 
 to none in the world for the qualities which give weight 
 and dignity to a judicial tribunal, I can not divest myself 
 of the opinion that it erred on this point, which Avas quite 
 unnecessary to the decision of the case. 
 
 Their error, in my judgment, consists in considering 
 slaves as property merely ; instead of considering master 
 and slave as relations, which in our artificial system, man 
 holds to man. The latter is the view taken of it in the 
 Constitution of the United Stftes. Slaves in th;it instru- 
 ment are not treated as property, any more than minor 
 children, apprentices, or men bound by contract to perform 
 labor. Under the Constitution, property is not repre- 
 sented — persons owing service are. If property escape 
 
16 
 
 from one State and go into another, the Constitution does 
 not direct that it shall be delivered up. If persons owing 
 service escape, it does so direct. Congress is empowered 
 to regulate commerce between the States. Commerce has 
 to do with property. But the States exercise the sole 
 power of admitting or prohibiting the importation from 
 other States of persons owing service — in this their laws 
 treat them not as property. Congress has the express 
 power to regulate foreign commerce, but is denied the 
 power until the year 1808 to prohibit the imigration or 
 importation into any of the States now existing, of such 
 persons as the said State shall think proper to admit. 
 This implies the power to prohibit their importation into 
 any new State or into any Territory, and the argument 
 also involves this dilemma : If slaves are propcrtij merely, 
 under the Constitution, Congress can prohibit their impor- 
 tation into any Territory by virtue of its power to regu* 
 late commerce between the States. If they be not prop- 
 erty, but persons, the power of the sovereign (which the 
 Supreme Court says Congress is) to regulate and fix the 
 relations of man to man in the Territory is \vithout any 
 hmitation, expressed or imphed. Congress has, in this 
 point of view, the same power to prohibit slavery, so far 
 as property exists in the labor of the slave, as it would 
 have to make the son free at twenty, instead of twenty- 
 one, thus depriving the father of one year of his labor. 
 And I have so much confidence in the high character and 
 elevated feeling and sense of justice of the Court, that I 
 do not doubt the question wflil be re-considered when a new 
 case arises, if it ever do arise, which shall require its ap- 
 pHcation. 
 
 But, if we admit, with the eighth resolution of the Chi- 
 cago Convention, that the power of Congress is limited 
 
17 
 
 in the Territories over that one special subject matter — I 
 know not where to find an argument potent enough to 
 resist the conclusion of the Supreme Court, sustained as 
 it is by its high judicial authority. 
 
 No vague generalities will avail anything on either 
 side. No general purpose of gradual emancipation strong 
 enough to affect the question can be found Avritten down 
 in the Constitution — none to satisfy the legal mind that 
 it was intended to deny Congress the power to admit 
 slavery in the territories, when such generality, if any 
 bear that aspect, is found side by side with the clause 
 forbidding Congress to prohibit the slave trade for twenty 
 years. The Declaration of Independence is cited, but it 
 contains nothing, which upon sound legal construction 
 could sustain the position even if all its language were in- 
 serted in the Constitution. But this Declaration was 
 written about fourteen years before the Constitution, and 
 the common construction requires us to admit, that all 
 in the former insti^ument, not consistent with the latter 
 was reconsidered and rejected. Nor do I think it safe 
 to infer from other generalities equally vague, touching 
 the rights of property, which, in the language of the Con- 
 stitution, slaves are not, that Congress is denied the pow- 
 er to exclude slavery from the territories, when such gen- 
 erality is found side by side with an implication quite as 
 potent as a direct enactment, which authorizes Con- 
 gress at once to prohibit the importation of slaves any- 
 where except into States exising at the time of the forma- 
 tion of the Constitution. I would that the eighth 
 resolution of the Chicago Convention were not in its 
 platform. It seems to be there for no other purpose 
 than to give opponents advantage in the argument. It 
 
18 
 
 is an abstraction, unless in every practical sense, as it is 
 false in fact and logic. 
 
 I know of but one case in which the normal question 
 can arise, namely : in a registered American ship at sea. 
 She sails or steams from Baltimore to New Orleans. Is 
 a slave on board this ship free as soon as he is beyond 
 the jurisdiction of any of the States ? And if he be, may 
 Congress change this rule by law ? Here is the normal 
 condition, with its attendant consequences, and here is 
 the only place in which I can conceive that the irrepres- 
 sible conflict can be kept up. It must be fought out on 
 shipboard — it can not live on land. Still I can consent 
 to let this abstract fallacy pass — reject the resolution and 
 support the nomination, for I have no doubt that Mr. 
 Lincoln, himself a sound lawyer, will esteem the Consti- 
 tution of the United States superior to this section of the 
 platform. It is impossible, without assumption, which 
 can be made on one side as well as the other, to rest the 
 admission or rejection of slavery in our present Territo- 
 ries on any other ground than that of its status when it 
 became part of the United States, or the subsequent Acts 
 of Congress, or territorial law afiecting it. Forced as- 
 sumptions and bold assertions will not avail — they con- 
 vince nobody that reasons — and the Constitution, which 
 speaks intelhgible language, and the law of nations 
 leave the question where I have found it. The status or 
 normal condition of Louisiana was that of a slave terri- 
 tory. The Missouri Compromise gave all of it north of 
 3G degrees 30 minutes to Freedom. The re[)eal of that 
 com[)romise left it subject to the laws of the territories 
 until they arc negatived by Congress. Hence the import- 
 ance of the original formation of the Republican party, 
 
19 
 
 and its maintenance on its original ground, and for its 
 original objects, until those objects shall be accomplished 
 — until it shall have fulfilled its destiny. Admitting 
 that the institution of slavery is equal for the welfare of a 
 State with that of freedom, which I do not think it is, 
 (others do, and I have no right to force my opinion on 
 them,) admitting this, we all know that the free and slave 
 labor will not mingle. The free white man will not work 
 with the negro slave in the same shop, or in the same 
 field, because in his opinion it degrades him. Labor 
 ceases to be honorable when it is especially the vo- 
 cation of slaves. Hence emigration goes only from a 
 free State, to a free state or territory. The new 
 slave States and Territories are, therefore, shut out 
 from immigration of free laborers as fuUy as the free 
 State and Territories from the slave. The lines are pass- 
 ed by a few, but such is the general fact. 
 
 Louisiana was the general property of the Union. Its 
 normal condition was that of slave territory, but it was 
 not right that it should all remain so. The different sec- 
 tions of the Union could not use and enjoy it together — 
 it was therefore, just, and wise, and proper, that it should 
 be divided between them so that each should enjoy his 
 part to the best advantage ; and the repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise broke up this just and well considered parti- 
 tion, which it is the mission of the Republican party ac- 
 tually or virtually to restore. The slave States have 
 their share of the Territory — it is most ample for their 
 wants. The free States must also have theirs. They 
 must have it, not because they are the stronger, and can 
 hold it — not because their institutions are better than 
 those of the South, and therefore the one and not the 
 
20 
 
 other ought to be extended — for to claim this in attempt- 
 ing a peaceful adjustment, were arrogance which would 
 ollend — not argument that would convince. But we are 
 entitled to it by original right as our just partition — we 
 are entitled to it by compromise and mutual agreement. 
 And our rights asserted firmly, with dignified courtesy, 
 will be much more readily conceded than if we mingled 
 with their assertion, contumely and reproach. This dis- 
 posed of — and I think we shall dispose of it amicably — 
 the irrepressible conflict will be repressed, for there will 
 be nothing remaining for which a conflict can be main- 
 tained. 
 
 Having fulfilled this its mission, the Republican party 
 can not possibly maintain itself as a general Anti-Slavery 
 party. The whole North was aroused to resist or redress 
 a wrong. Old Whigs, old Democrats — men almost with- 
 out respect to previous party distinctions, united in this, 
 and their united effort and full success was only prevented 
 by the fears of some that they meditated an opposite 
 wrong while redressing this. But when the end is attain- 
 ed, and the cause ceases, the organization must cease with 
 it, or it must be placed on some other and more perma- 
 nent basis. 
 
 But as I have said, it cannot have success as a general 
 anti-slavery party. The anti-slavery feeling in the North 
 is strong enough and universal — no man wants slavery 
 with us or near us — but it is a feeling of resistance — 
 not of attack. We must be satisfied that there is an 
 attempt meditated to obtrude slavery upon our li-ee Terri- 
 tories in order to call that feeling into action, and make 
 it control the opinion and conduct of the mass of our 
 people. That the actual conflict is ended, I have no 
 doubt. Indeed the attempt to extend slaver}- into Kan- 
 
21 
 
 sas, even if it had been possible to effect it, was as unwise 
 as it was unjust. Slavery as an existing thing, can not 
 be taken into new Territories, without losing its hold on 
 border States, — and its extension into Kansas must have 
 greatly hastened emancipation in Missouri, which is only 
 a question of time. It was recently said by Stevens, of 
 Georgia, in a speech delivered in Augusta, that Slavery 
 can not be extended judiciously, to new Territories, with- 
 out re-opening the Slave Trade, to Avhich he declared him- 
 self opposed. The same opinion was also expressed, 
 though I do not now recollect the occasion, by Mr. Ham- 
 mond, of South Carolina. That impression is becoming gen- 
 eral in the South — it was therefore not their wise men who 
 devised the extension of Slavery into Kansas. I have 
 hence a right to conclude that the conflict is ended, so 
 far as it depends upon Southern aggression. I conclude 
 also, that the Republican party will within the present or 
 early part of the coming year have fulfilled its original 
 destiny, and must end also, or place itself on a basis of 
 snbstantial national policy. An effort to this effect is 
 made in the platform of the Chicago Convention, and 
 generally I like the direction to which it points. It contains, 
 however, one element useful perhaps for the present year, 
 but fatal if made to hold its place in the future — an incor- 
 poration of the general anti-slavery element in connection 
 with its many sound principles of national policy. This will 
 do while the attempt to force slavery upon a territory free 
 by contract is continued ; but when that is past, settled, 
 signed and sealed, it will then make it sectional. The 
 leaders of the party claim for it a dominion of twenty 
 years ; something more than one pohtical generation. They 
 are mistaken if they fasten to it this sectional fallacy — an 
 abstraction, false, useless, pregnant with evil — an apple of 
 
22 
 
 discord and disunion. It cuts off all possible support 
 from tlie Southern States and all the conservative support 
 in the North and West. Erase it — wipe it out, and the 
 party may live its twenty years ; retain it and it will but 
 just survive the election of its President. 
 
 I have little doubt of the election of INIr. Lincoln. He 
 is an old Whig. He has had his poUtical training in a 
 highly conservative party, of which he was a calm, con- 
 siderate and reasoning member. And though he has 
 passed through a fierce conflict — in which the aggression 
 of slavery was the subject of attack and defense — which 
 would naturally tend to deflect both expression and 
 opinion, and in which he has probably said some things not 
 strictly canonical, I doubt not that the feeling which that 
 conflict excited has passed away, and that from the first 
 to the last — in his inaugural address in which words will 
 be things, and in his final message he will show hunself 
 the President of the nation, not of a section or a party^ 
 Then if misfortune come upon the country, he and all of 
 us may feel that no uncalled for word or inconsiderate act 
 of his will have caused it. Portunately, he will not be 
 thrown upon an extreme party for support. The conser- 
 vative interest nominated, and that also will elect him. 
 
 Mr. Bell, if I mistake not, will have but small support 
 in the Northwestern States — not because he is less wor- 
 thy than Mr. Lincoln, but because he enters the canvass 
 with no prospect of success before the people ; and it is 
 the part of wisdom to attempt the good that is practica- 
 ble — not that which is impossible. Indeed, it were wise 
 for the especial liiends of jNIr. Bell to support Mr. Lincoln 
 here ; and show him that the conservative interest on 
 which he may rely is strong. But especially a contest 
 against him is unwise on their part. If the election go 
 
23 
 
 to the House, the chance of Mr. Bell for success 
 there were greatly improved, by the fact that he has 
 friends and well wishers among the supporters of Mr. Lin- 
 coln. 
 
 Such, fellow citizens, are some of the views which I 
 entertain of the condition of our country, and the coming 
 poHtical contest. Much has been said and done on both 
 sides of the Hne to educate our people for disunion — to 
 cultivate that mutual hatred and distrust which sets 
 nations to war against each other, dissolves States and 
 breaks up families. Of this we have everywhere too much, 
 but it is becoming less and less to the public taste. Still 
 I can not hope it will cease, for it is an inconceivably easy 
 mode of being virtuous ourselves to forget our own 
 faults, and attack and abhor the imputed vices of our 
 neighbors. There are, indeed, many on both sides of the 
 line who cry aloud for disunion ; but they are in all cases, 
 as far as I know, a safe distance from the hne of contest. 
 They are brave men who can, with unshaken nerves look 
 upon, or rather read of, the strife and bloodshed and ruin 
 and misery which such a conflict, if they can excite it, 
 must bring upon the more exposed portions of our people. 
 Some talk of a peaceful dissolution of the Union ; but 
 with a people such as ours, perhaps with any people, that 
 is impossible. The late terrible scenes in Kansas prove 
 it We are of a noble race, possessed in a high degree of 
 "vigor and energy and courage ; but once freed from the 
 restraints of law and social order, as fierce and cruel as 
 hons' whelps that have tasted blood. And if disunion 
 should come, it would not be peaceful, but bloody, and all 
 that is fierce and cruel in the land would meet in mutual 
 vengeance and rapine on the line of conflict. 
 
 But in my opinion the late imminent danger to 
 
' ^ 
 
 24 
 
 the Republic is passed. I feel that the subject of 
 controversy, all that is worthy of a statesman's regard 
 has passed and is about to pass away. Still, angry 
 feelings will exist; popular declaimers can not spare 
 a subject on which it is so easy to be eloquent 
 and on which all can be eloquent alike ; but that mutual 
 distrust and hatred which, more than all else, endangers 
 the union, will gradually subside, if the people elect their 
 President, and if wisdom and prudence control his official 
 actions.