^^v/^vva/Vt/^^''^^ 
 
 /^ik^vvi-^^ 
 
 ^,J-^-^'"' '^^ ^ 
 
 r ^ 
 
Class ^ <^A 6 
 
 Book - H 'i 1 
 
J^DMISSIO]Sr OF K^ISrSA-S. 
 
 SPEECH OF HON. JAMES HARLAN, 
 
 OF IOWx\, 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 MARCH 27, 1856. 
 
 The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having 
 under consideration the Bill to authonze the people ot" 
 Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government pre- 
 puratory to their admission into the Union — 
 
 Mr. HARLAN said : 
 
 Mr. Pkesident : I encrage in the discussion of 
 tbe treneral snbject, which, it seems to me, lies at 
 the foundation of the varying opinions on Kan- 
 sas affairs whicli have been expressed hitherto 
 by other Senators on the floor of the Senate, with 
 rehictanee and embarrassment. The relation I 
 sustain to this body, the most angnst on earth, is 
 a new one — :he subject is one of overwhelming 
 magnitude — and I am surrounded by a disap- 
 pointed Senate and a crowded gallery, who have 
 been convened, by his high reputation for ability, 
 to listen to the honorable Senator from Vermont, 
 [Mr. Collam?:r,] in reply to the honorable Sen- 
 ator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas.] But, sir, I 
 nevertheless proceed, under a conviction that I 
 shall never, jirobably, be less in the way than on 
 the present occasion. 
 
 Before, however, proceeding to this debate, it 
 is no more than just to myself that T should say 
 that, although so long the theme of earnest dis- 
 cussion in and. out of Congress, I have never 
 hitherto attempted or desired to make a speech on 
 the perplexing subject of African Slavery as it 
 exists in the ITnited States. I had supposed its 
 discussion useless, mischievous, and even dan- 
 gerous to the perpstuity of the Union. 
 
 But, sitting here in this Chamber, I find there 
 are those who do not regard the discussion of 
 this subject as dangerous to the continuance of 
 this union of States. The highest officer known 
 to the Constitution seems to entertain no such j 
 fears. Early in the session, and in advance of | 
 the organization of the House of Representatives, 
 two voluminous Statfc papers were laid before 
 Congress and the country' by the Chief Magis- 
 trate of the nation, in which this question is 
 elaborately discussed : Historicalhi — commencing 
 with the origin of the Government, and proceed- 
 ing through all its varying vicissitudes, ',tp to the 
 date of these messages : Judiciil'i/ — portruying the 
 
 constitutional relations of Slavery to Freedom, of 
 the slave States to the free States in the Federal 
 Union, and of all the States to the common Ter- 
 ritories: I'oliticalli/ — placing \\\5 friend.'; all on the 
 side oi' Justice and lawj of the Constitution and of 
 the Union ; and his political opponents all in the 
 ivrong, in company with those who are said to be 
 plottinf/ treason againist the Government under u-hicli 
 they live. Since which, a third message, in obedi- 
 ence to a resolution of this body, and numerous 
 official papers from Kansas, out of which the 
 opinio'is of the President and his friends have 
 probably been in part formed, have been sent to 
 the Senate, eliciting the warm approval of those 
 who undertake to speak for him on this floor. 
 And, lastly, the Senate and the country have been 
 favored with a very voluminous report from the 
 Committee on Territories, followed by a long and 
 labored speech of its chairman, the honorable 
 Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] sustaining 
 the opinions of the President. 
 
 Congress may not now, therefore, avoid che 
 discussion of this subject without a manifestation 
 of great disrespect for the Chief Magistrate of the 
 nation, and his friends and supporters. 
 
 But in casting aside my previous prejudices 
 <igainst " agitation," and in following the Pres- 
 ident through these elaborate State papers, I find 
 their whole tenor and spirit at war with the im- 
 pressions made on my mind by my previous his- 
 torical, political, and legal reading. The repre- 
 sentations made by these Kansas papers now 
 under immediate consideration, including the ma- 
 jority report of the Committee on Territories, arc, 
 as I think, perverted, partip.l, and higlily colored. 
 
 I do not propose to enter into a general review 
 of all these facts ; but that large bodies of men 
 from an adjoining State did enter Kansas for the' 
 avowed purpose of controlling her elections, and 
 liy false sweating in some districts, and by intici- 
 i'iation and force in others, (with guns, and knives, 
 and revolvers, driving away the officers of elec- 
 tions and Free State voters when necessary for that 
 purpose,) did deposit votes in sufficient numbers 
 to determine the character of her first Legislature; 
 that this Legislature, thus elected by perjury, and 
 
Ha.s 
 
 violence, and fraud, did enact laws for the estab- 
 lishment of Slaverj, with severe and unusual pen- 
 alties, violating freedom of speech and of the 
 press ; and, to secure the execution of these odious 
 laws among an outraged people, rftc^ appoint local 
 oflBcers, from the number of their own friends, to 
 serve (not for three, or six, or nine months, until 
 the people could be called together at the polls to 
 elect them, but contrarj' to all precedent) for 
 periods of from two to five j'cars ; and that all the 
 difficulties in this Territory — the war, the arson, 
 the carnage and bloodshed — have been occasioned 
 by a perseveriug effort on the part of armed bands 
 of men, residing out of the Territory, to compel the 
 people to acquiesce in the consummation of this 
 high-handed outrage on their rights as freemen, 
 is a part of the history of the country which no 
 amount of learning, no strength of logic, and no fire 
 of eloquence, can ever obliterate. Honorable Sena- 
 tors may rise in their places and significantly in- 
 quire, as they inquired of the honorable Senator 
 from Massachusetts a few days since, for the 
 authorities on which these statements are made. 
 
 I respond by inquiring for the authority of the 
 world's conviction that Louis Napoleon was ele- 
 vated to the throne of uis imperial uncle " by 
 force and fraud." Every lip curled with scorn 
 when it was officially announced to the nations 
 that the people of France had voted almost unani- 
 mously in favor of the " empire." Everybody 
 knew that this gigantic fraud was secured by the 
 influence of a secret police, the threat of the guil- 
 lotine, and the arms of the imperial guards, who 
 hovered around the polls. But who could prove 
 this by other than oral testimouy and newspaper 
 articles, which honorable Senators here treat with 
 such contempt? None. Just so in the election 
 frauds of Kansas — its only parallel for audacity 
 in the world's history ! And here, sir, allow me 
 to say that I have been somewhat astonished to 
 find that the newspapers of England are in higher 
 repute in the American Senate than the public 
 journals of their own country. Honorable Sen- 
 ators complacently quote from the newspapers of 
 Great Britain — from the London Times and Tele- 
 graph, and others — on a different subject, without 
 rebuke, without a sneer, without an expression 
 of scorn from other Senators ; but when Senators 
 refer to newspapers of their own country, pub- 
 lished in a given locality, to sustain historical 
 ■facts transpiring around them, they are treated 
 with derision. How is this ? I desire to know, 
 sir, if, in the opinion of this Senate, a despotism 
 is more favorable to newspaper veracity than a 
 republic ? 
 
 But, Mr. President, oral testimony and news- 
 paper statements are sometimes very significant. 
 Let any one converse with the people of western 
 Missouri, and of western Iowa, as I have done — 
 having the honor to represent, in part, that State 
 on this floor for the time being — and with the 
 people of Nebraska, and the people of Kansas 
 herself, and read the newspaper articles on both 
 sides of this controverted subject, and they will 
 ascertain this singular condition of facts : that 
 the Free State men and the Free State papers all 
 charge the perjury, the force, the usurpation, and 
 the fraud, to which I have alluded, and charge 
 
 them to condemn, whilst th*; Pro- Slavery citizcng 
 of those various localities and the Pro-Slavery 
 papers admit the force, adroit the usurpation, but 
 seek to justify it. They say this was all neces- 
 sary for the purpose of protecting the institution 
 of Slavery in the State of iMlssouri. There is no 
 j denial by them of the leading facts connected 
 with this controversy ; and if these facts are 
 doubted or called in question by their friends on 
 this floor, it will be received by them as no com- 
 pliment; for they wear the success which has 
 hitherto attended the part they have performed 
 in the settlement of the institations of Kansas, aa 
 the tallest plume in their crown of honor. 
 
 They first resolved that Kansas should become 
 a slave State ; to secure this, it was necessary to 
 electa Pro-Slavery Legislature, and they marched 
 over and elected one ; deliberately using enough 
 force to secure this result. In obedience to their 
 will, this Legislature extended over the Territory 
 the slave laws of Missouri, and elected officers 
 among their friends to enforce these laws. And 
 it is for the purpose of cumpelling the people of 
 Kansas to recognise as legal, a Legislature which 
 they never elected — as valid, laws which they 
 never aided to enact — to obey local oflicers for 
 whom none of them ever voted — that the Presi- 
 dent has ordered out the United States troops in 
 that Territory. It never has been pretended, and 
 is not now pretended, that the people of Kansas 
 have ever refused to obey laws enacted by Con- 
 gress, or to respect process issuing from the courts 
 of the United States in the hands of the duly-ap- 
 pointed marshals. 
 
 But, Mr. President, to compel the people of Kan- 
 sas to obey these laws, thus made without their 
 sanction, is to establish Slavery in this Territory 
 by the strong arm of the Federal Government — 
 " squatter sovereignty " to the contrary notwith- 
 standing — not peacefully by Congress in these 
 Halls, but by the President, at the head of our 
 armies. But, believing Congress (if competent) 
 a more desirable tribunal for the establishment 
 of great questions of State than armed men on 
 the battle-field, I ask the indulgence of the Senate 
 while T inquire — 
 
 1. Whether the Congress of the United States has 
 power to exclude Slavery from her Territories. 
 
 2. Whether thU power ought to be exercised in the 
 organization of Territorial Governments where Sla- 
 very did not previously exist. 
 
 In support of these propositions, I desire to cite, 
 fiist, the declaratory acts of Congress following 
 each acquisition of territory by the United 
 States. 
 
 In the year 1784, previous to the adoption of 
 the Constitution of the United States, Virginia 
 ceded to the Confederacy all of her territory lying 
 northwest of the Ohio river. All other States 
 claiming any interest in this territory made a sim- 
 ilar conveyance, with a few comparatively unim- 
 portant reservations. This was the first, and com- 
 prised all the territory owned by the Confede- 
 racy. 
 
 In the year ITST, an Ordinance was adopted by 
 the thirteen old States, containing a provision 
 styled, " Articles of compact between the original 
 ' Slates and the people and States in the Northwest 
 
' Terrllori/^^ vrhicii, xmlcss changed by mutual 
 consent, was "to remain unalterable fortrtr." This 
 compact provides tiiat 
 
 " Tlu're shall be neither Slavery nor involun- 
 ' tary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise 
 ' than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the 
 ' party shall have been duly convicted." 
 
 This was the act of the thirteen sovereign 
 States, While held tofrcther by Articles of Confed- 
 eration. It had all the moral force of a regular 
 treaty between independent nations. It was in 
 form a mere " law of Congress," subject to repeal 
 or modification at the will of the majority ; but 
 had all the moral elements of a " compact," a bar- 
 gain^ concluded, signed, and sealed, between high 
 contracting ])arties — unchangeable in its vorj^ na- 
 ture, without the consent of all the parties in in- 
 terest. And thus it was published and acqui- 
 esced in by the people of all the States and Territo- 
 ries. None were then found to complain of the 
 restriction, and to demand " the right to carry 
 their pro])erty " in men and women into these 
 Territories. So completely contented were all 
 the original States, North and South, with this 
 settlement of our Territorial polic}', that in the 
 formation of the Constitution ot the United States, 
 adopted in the year 1789, conferring on the cen- 
 tral Government all the essential elements of na- 
 tionality, nothing is said on this subject, only 
 that 
 
 "The Congress shall have power to dispose of, 
 ' and make all needful rules and regulations re- 
 
 * specting, the territory or other property belong- 
 ' ing to the United States." 
 
 The government of the Territories is not even 
 named. This had been provided for by the Ordi- 
 nance of 1787, a provision older than the Consti- 
 tution, which remained unchanged. 
 
 By an act passed at the First Congress, the Or- 
 dinance was modified, and declared to be in full 
 force ; and to its provisions all the subsequent 
 legislation of Congress quietly conformed for 
 more than thirty years. 
 
 I am aware that an objection to the conclusive- 
 ness of this declaratory act of Congress has been 
 urged with great ability by the honorable Sena- 
 tor from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] on tliis floor, a 
 few days since, and also in a speech recently de- 
 livered by him in Boston. That I may do him no 
 injustice, I read from the latter, because in it I 
 think his views are represented with more clear- 
 ness, precision, and strength, than in his recent 
 impromptu reply to the honorable Senator from 
 Kew Hampshire, [Mr. Hale.] He says : 
 
 '* From these facts it is clear that this legisla- 
 ' tioa for the Northwest Territory does not con- 
 ' flict with the principle I assert, and does not 
 ' furnish a precedent for hostile legislation by 
 ' Congress against Slavery in the Territories. 
 ' That such was neither the principle nor the 
 ' policy upon which this act of Congress in 1789 
 ' was based, is farther shown by the subsequent 
 
 * action of the same Congress upon the same 
 subject. On the 2d of April, 1790, Congress, by 
 
 * a formal act, accepted the cession by North 
 
 * Carolina of her Western lands, (now the State 
 ' of Tennessee,) with this clause in the deed of 
 t cession ; ' That no regulations made, or to be 
 
 ' made, by Congress, shall tend to emancipate 
 ' slaves' in the ceded Territory; and on the 26tli 
 ' May, 1790, passed a Territorial bill for the gov- 
 ' ernmcnt of all the territory claimed by the 
 ' United States, south of the Ohio river. The 
 ' description of this territory included all the 
 ' lands ceded by North Carolina, and it included 
 ' a groat deal more. Its boundaries were left 
 ' indefinite, because there were conflicling claims 
 ' to all the rest of the territory. But this act put 
 ' the whole country south of the Ohio, claimed 
 ' by tiie Federal Government, under this Pro- 
 ' Slavery clause of the North Carolina deed. The 
 ' whole action of the First Congress in relation to 
 ' Slavery in the Territories is simply this : it ac- 
 ' quiesced in a Government for the Northwest 
 ' Territory, based upon a pre-existing Anti-Sla- 
 ' verjf Ordinance, established a Government for 
 ' the country ceded by North Carolina in con- 
 ' formity with the Pro-Slavery clause in her deed 
 ' of cession, and extended this Pro-Slavery clause 
 ' to all the rest of the territory claimed by the 
 ' United States. This legislation vindicates the 
 ' First Congress from all imputation of having 
 ' established the precedent claimed hy the advo- 
 ' cates of legislative exclusion. On the 7th of 
 ' April, 1798, (during the administration of Pres- 
 ' ideut John Adams,) the next Territorial act was 
 ' passed; it was the first act of Territorial legis- 
 ' lation resting solely upon primary, original, uu- 
 ' fettered, constitutional power over the subject. 
 ' It established a Government over the Territory 
 ' included within the boundaries of ?• line drawa 
 ' due east from the mouth of the Yai'.oo river to 
 ' the Chatahoochee river, thence down that river 
 ' to the thirty-first degree of north latitude, thence 
 ' west on that line to the Mississippi, then up 
 ' that river to the beginning. This Territorj' was 
 ' within the boundary of the United States, as 
 ' defined by the treaty of Paris, and was held not 
 ' to bo within the boundary of any of the States. 
 ' The controversy arose out of this state of facts. 
 
 " The charter of Georgia limited her boundary 
 ' in the south by the Altamaha river. In 1763, 
 ' (after the surrender of her charter,) her limits 
 ' were extended on the south, by the Crown of 
 ' Great Britain, to the St. Mary's river, and thence 
 ' on the thirty-first parallel of latitude to the Mis- • 
 ' sissippi river. In 1764, it was claimed, that oa 
 ' the recommeadation of the Board of Trade, the 
 ' boundary was again altered, and that portion 
 ' of territory lying within the boundaries I have 
 ' described was annexed to West Florida, and 
 ' that thus it stood at the Revolution and treaty 
 ' of peace. Therefore, the United States claimed 
 ' it as common property, and in 1798 passed the 
 ' act now under review for its government. In 
 ' that act. Congress neither claimed nor exercised 
 ' any power to prohibit Slavery. The question 
 ' came directly before it — the Ordinance of 1787, 
 ' in terms, excluding the Anti-Slavery clause, 
 ' was applied to this Territory. This is a prece- 
 ' dent directly in point, and is directly against 
 ' the exercise of the power now claimed. In 
 ' 1802, Georgia ceded her Western lands, pro- 
 ' tecting Slavery in her grant, and the Federal 
 ' Government observed the stipulation." 
 
 The honcrable Senator argues against the coa- 
 
/ 
 
 clusiveness of the Ordinance of 1TS7, as a legisla- 
 tive precedent, by citing the organic law passed 
 in ITOO, for ibe territory south of the Oliio river, 
 to which the clause of this Ordinance excluding 
 Slavery was not applied; and, also, the organic 
 law of the Territory of Mississippi, approved in 
 1793, to which all this Ordinance was applied in 
 terms, except the clause excluding Slavery. 
 
 To this 1 reply, that the act of iTOO, although 
 general, applied iiractically only to the Territory 
 ceded by Xorth Carolina — now the State of Ten- 
 nessee. Tennessee was an inhabited country. 
 As early as 1785, she had made an effort to secure 
 a separate State organization. The relation of 
 master and slave had previously been establish- 
 ed, under the laws of North Carolina; who, in her 
 deed of cession, had stipulated tliat Congress 
 should enact no law emancipating slaves in the 
 ceded Territory. This in no %vay conflicts with 
 the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited the ;'«- 
 troduction of Slavery into new Territories under 
 the unrestricted control of Congress. 
 
 The sains was substantially true of the Terri- 
 tory of Mississippi, organized in 1708. It was 
 all claimed as a part of Georgia, whose bound- 
 ary, by virtue of her charter granted in l73li, ex- 
 tended to the ilississippi river. In point of fact, 
 however, the settlements on this river were under 
 the control of France until 17G.'i, when they were 
 formally ceded to Great Britain, and thus con- 
 tinued until 1783, when ail norih of the thirty- 
 first degree of north latitude became, by treaty, 
 the property of tlie United States, over which 
 Georgia asserted her previous rights. Slavery 
 had been established; the application of that 
 clause of the Ordinance which says, "there shall 
 ' be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in 
 ' the said Territory,'' would have been to abolish 
 Slavery, and not simply to prevent its establish- 
 Cicnt. 
 
 In the acquisition of Louisiana in 1803, and of 
 the Floridas in 1S19, the jurisJicfion of the Uni- 
 ted States was extended over vast territories in 
 which Slavery then existed by virtue of French 
 and Spanish laws. The right of the people to 
 hold slaves in these provinces, it was supposed. 
 Lad become vested, and was not unsettled by 
 . the treaties convejing them to our Government. 
 Hence, Slavery was silently sulfered to exist in 
 that part of these Territories in the actual occu- 
 pancy of slave propc-.rty. Congress enacted no 
 law on the subject. Here it was neither approved 
 nor discarded. But in the enactment of the 
 Missouri Compromise, in the year 1820, Congress 
 provided that neither Slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude should ever be permitted north of 
 thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes. The prin- 
 ciples of the Ordinance of 1787 were extended 
 over the territories now embraced within the 
 litnits of Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, and Nebras- 
 ka — then mostly uninhabited. From the history 
 of these transactions, the conclusion is irresisti- 
 ble, that Congress intended that all of the im- 
 jnense territoi'ies ceded by France and Spain to 
 this Government, not in the occupancy of slave- 
 holding communities, should remain forever free ; 
 ana here our Territorial policy again rested for 
 about a quarter of a century. 
 
 In the " joint resolution," passed by Congress 
 in the year 1845, "for annexing Texas to the 
 United States," it was provided that 
 
 "New States of convenient size, not exceeding 
 ' four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, 
 ' and having suliicient poiuilations, may hereafter, 
 ' and by the consent of said Slates, be formed out 
 ' of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled 
 ' to admission under the provisions of the Federal 
 ' Constitution. And such States as may be formed 
 ' out of that portion of s:),id territory lying south 
 ' of 3G° 30^ north latitude, commonly known as 
 ' the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted 
 ' into the Union with or without Slavery, as the 
 ' people of each State asking admission may 
 ' desire. And in such State or States as sliall be 
 ' formed out of said territory north of said 
 ' Missouri Compromise line. Slavery or involun- 
 ' tary servitude (except for crime) shall be pro 
 ' hibited." 
 
 In the event of the division of this vast domain 
 of Texas, it was provided that one or more of 
 these four new States should be absolutely free, 
 and that all the remaining States thus formed 
 might be admitted as free States, should the people 
 desire it. And here again the subject rested until 
 the year 1850. 
 
 But in the adjustment of the difficulties grow- 
 ing out of the acquisition of large territories from 
 Mexico, as trophies of war. Territorial Govern- 
 ments were established for Utah and New Mexico, 
 with a conditional provision for each : 
 
 "That when admitted as a State, the said Ter- 
 ' ritory, or an}- portion of the same, shall be re- 
 ' ceived into the Union with or without Slavery, 
 ' as their Constitution may prescribe at the lime 
 ' of their admission.'' 
 
 Here, for the first time, the Territorial policy of 
 the Government, settled and uniform for nearly 
 three quarters of a century, was changed. All 
 the machinery of the ship of State here began to 
 revolve in a ditferent direction. The Northwest 
 Territory, now embraced within the limits of tive 
 large and j)Owerful States, was originally slave 
 territory/, by virtue of the laws of Virginia, (and 
 other slave States ceding it to the Union,) as much 
 so as the Territory of Kentucky, once held as a 
 part of her dominions. But, by the Ordinance of 
 1787, it was all dedicated to Freedom. 
 
 The territory now embraced within the limits 
 of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Kansas, was 
 doubtless slave territoiy, by virtue of French and 
 Spanish laws. But by the enactment of the Mis- 
 souri Comjiromise it was dedicated to Freedom. 
 
 All the vast domain of Texas was, without dis- 
 pute, slave territory, by virtue of her own laws, 
 enacted and enforced during her nationality. But. 
 by the legislation of Congress admitting her into 
 the Union, a large part of this, too, is prospect- 
 ively dedicated to Freedom. But the Territories 
 of New Mexico and Utah were, by virtue of 
 Mexican laws, at!sohtely free, when, by the 
 legislation of the Congress of the United States, 
 they were thrown open to Slavery. 
 
 But this revulsion in the Territorial policy ct 
 the Government in 1850 ; this conditional conver- 
 sion of free territory to the uses of Slavery, m 
 violation of tlie settled policy of the country, 
 
growitjff out of whalliad been supposed to bo "the 
 compromises of the Coustiiutioii," and in viola- 
 tion of the moral iVeiings ntid clear convictions of 
 right of an overwhelmiug mujority of the Amer- 
 ican people, was secured, not by denying the power 
 of Congress to exclude Slavery, but in the name 
 of concussion and conq^ronihe, i»nd as a condition 
 for the admission ot California u-ilhoiU Slduerij, 
 although prcviuud;/ fr<>e by force of Mexican laws, 
 and by virtue of her oivn C'vnutilitiion at the time 
 of her aj)plicutioa — in connection with the enact- 
 ment of laws for the modiiicatiou of the boundary 
 of the State of Texas, the abolition of the slave, 
 trade in the District of Columbia, and the returu 
 of fugitives from labor. 
 
 The pixssage of these organic laws for Utah 
 and New Mexico completed the settlement of the 
 question of Slavery in all the Territories of the 
 United States. Slavery was notprohibited in Utah 
 and New Mexico by the laws of Congress ; but 
 in all that vast region, including Minnesota, Kan- 
 sas, Nebraska, Oregon, and Washington, Slavery 
 was still prohibited. This adjustment, obtained 
 through the influence of such men as Clay and 
 Webster — now passed to their final reward — and 
 men that I see around me, with the legislative ex- 
 perience of half a century crowning their brows, 
 was said to be final. Reposing confidence in the 
 wisdom and patriotism of statesmen who had 
 stood firmly by their country's flag and the Con- 
 stitution during the darkest hours of our national 
 history — who had been defenders of liieir homes 
 and their rights while the majority of them were 
 still in their mothers' arms, the people peaceably, 
 though in many instances restlessly and reluc- 
 tantly, acquiesced in this supposed " finality." 
 The admission of Slavery into Utah and New 
 Mexico was not claimed as a constitutional right; 
 it was asked as an element of compromise. No 
 one is sutiiciently reckless to pretend that the 
 Compromise Measures of 1850 could have received 
 the approval of Congress, much less of the peo- 
 ple, with the understanding that this enactment 
 opened all the Territories of the Union to the oc- 
 cupancy of slaveholding communities. 
 
 In support of the proposition stated, I desire, 
 in the second place, to cite the legislation of Con- 
 gress in the organization of Territorial Govern- 
 ments and in the admission of States formed out 
 of territory previously free. 
 
 From these citations (I remark, in passing) it 
 will be seen that the President is in error when 
 he says, in his annual message, in relation to the 
 prohibition of Slavery in the Northwest Territory 
 by the Ordinance of 1787, that 
 
 " Subsequent to the Constitution, this provision 
 ' ceased to remain as a law, for its operation was 
 ' absolutely superseded by the Constitution." 
 
 In the year 1789, the very first Congress con- 
 vened under the provisions of the Constitution 
 passed a law transferring certain duties imposed 
 by this Ordinance on Congress to the President of 
 the United States, (as is expressly stated in the 
 preamble to this law:) 
 
 " In order that the Ordinance of the United 
 ' States in Congress assembled for the govern- 
 ment of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio 
 
 ' may continue to have full effect. " — {Statutes ai 
 Large, vol. 1, p. .''»0.) 
 
 In theye.ar 1800, Congress declared, in the or- 
 ganic law ot the Territory of Indiana, 
 
 " That there shall be eslablished v.'ithin said 
 ' Territory a Government in all respects similar to 
 ' that provided by the Ordinance of Congress pass- 
 ' ed on the 13lh day of July, 1787, for the govern- 
 ' meiit of the Territory of tlie United States north- 
 ' west of the river Ohio ; and the inhabitants 
 ' shall be entitled to and enjoy all and singular 
 ' the rights, privileges, and advantages, granted 
 ' and secured to the people by the said Ordi- 
 ' nance." — [Statutes at Larffe, vol. 2, p. 59.) 
 
 In 1802, (Ajiril 30.) Congress passed a law t-o 
 enable tlje people of Ohio to form a State Consti- 
 tution, ill which it is provided that said Constitu- 
 tion shall not " be repugnant to the llrdinance of 
 the 13th July, 1787, between tiie original States 
 and the people and States of the Territory north- 
 west of the river Ohio." — (Statutes at Large, vol. 
 2, p. 174.) 
 
 In 1809 (February 3,) Congress incorporated 
 the same provision in the organic law of Illinois 
 that was made a part of the organic law of Indi- 
 ana. — (Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 515.) 
 
 In 1805, the same provision was made in the 
 organic law of Michigan. — [Statutes at Large, vol. 
 2, p. 309.) 
 
 In the year 181 G, (April 19,) Congress passed 
 a k'W authorizing the people of Indiana to form 
 a State Constitution, in wiiich it is provided 
 
 " That the same, whenever formed, sii.'.il be re- 
 ' publican, and not repugnant to those articles of 
 ' the Ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, which 
 ' are declared to be irrevocable between the orig- 
 ' inal States and the people and States of the 
 ' Territories northwestof the Ohio river." — [Stat- 
 utes at Large, vol. 3, p. 290.) 
 
 In 1816, (December 11,) Congress passed a 
 resolution declaring, among other things, that 
 " whereas the Constitution formed by the j^eople 
 ' of the Territory of Indiana is republican, and ia 
 ' conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance" 
 above recited, " the said State is admitted into 
 the Union. " — [Statutes at Large, vol. 3, p. 399.) 
 
 In 1818, Congress authorized the people of Illi- 
 nois to form a State Constitution, conditioned that 
 it should conform to the provisions of the Ordi- 
 nance of 1787. — [Statutes at Large vol. 3, p. 
 430.) 
 
 On Decembers, 1818, Illinois was by resolution 
 admitted into the Union as a sovereign State, oa 
 the ground that her Constitution, thus formed, 
 did conform to the provisions of the Ordinance of 
 1787. — [Statutes at Ljurge, vol. 3, p. 53G.) 
 
 In the year 1820, as we have before stated, 
 Congress declared, in the law providing for the 
 admission of Missouri into the Union, 
 
 "That in all that territory ceded by France to 
 ' the United States, under the name of Louisiana, 
 ' which lies north of thirty -six degrees and thirty 
 ' minutes, not included within the limits of the 
 ' State contemplated by this act, Shiverg and in- 
 ' voluntary servitude, otherwise than in the pun- 
 ' ishment of crimes, • whereof the parties shall 
 ' have been duly convicted, shall be, and is here- 
 
'by, forever prohibited." — (Statutes at Large, vol. 
 3, p. 548.) 
 
 In 1836, in the passage of the organic law of 
 the Territory of Wisconsin, which embraced 
 what is now the States of AVisconsin and Iowa 
 and the Territory of Minnesota, Congress again 
 extended and applied the provisions of the Ordi- 
 nance of 1787 to an immense country beyond the 
 limits of the Northwest Territory. — (Statutes at 
 Large, vol. 5, p. 15.j 
 
 In 1 838, Congress again endorsed this Ordinance 
 of 1787, in the passage of the organic law of 
 Iowa, by extending to the people of this Territory 
 " all the privileges, rights, and immunities, hith- 
 erto enjoyed by the people of Wisconsin." — (Stat- 
 utes at Large, vol. 5, p. 2.39.) 
 
 In 1845, Congress declared, (as we have before 
 stated,) in the act providing for the admission of 
 Texas as a member of the Union, that Slavery 
 should be prohibited in any State or States there- 
 after to be formed out of the territory north of 
 the Missouri Compromise line established in 
 1820. — (Statutes at Large, vol. 5, p. 798.) 
 
 In 1848, (March 3,) Congress extended the pro- 
 visions of the Ordinance of 1787 to all the terri- 
 tory of the United States west of the Rocky 
 Mountains, north of the forty-second degree of 
 north latitude, known as the Territory of Ore- 
 gon, in the following words : 
 
 " And be it further enacted. That the inhabitants 
 
 * of said Territory shall be entitled to enjoy all 
 ' and singular the rights, privileges, and adv.an- 
 ' tages, granted and secured to the people of the 
 ' Territory of the United States northwest of the 
 ' river Ohio, by the .articles of compact contained 
 ' in the Ordinance for the government of saiii Ter- 
 ' ritory, on the 13th of July, 1787 ; and shall be 
 ' subject to all the conditions, and restrictions, 
 ' and prohibitions, in said articles of compact 
 ' imposed upon the people of said Territory." — 
 (Statutes at Large, vol. 9, p. 329.) 
 
 This embraced both Oregon and Washington 
 Territories. In 1849, the same provision enacted 
 in regard to Iowa was incor]:)orated into the 
 organic law of Minnesota. — (Statutes at Large, 
 Tol. 9, p. 407.) 
 
 But all this mass of consecutive legislation, ex- 
 cept the act of 1820, is ignored by the President. 
 He tells us that this provision of the Ordinance of 
 1787 ceased to remain as a law, being ahsolutebj 
 superseded by the Constitution. It is unfortunate 
 for the correctness of this statement, that the Stat- 
 utes at Large of the United States have been pub- 
 lished from session to session by authority of 
 Congress, and scattered broadcast over these 
 States ; it is unfortunate for its credence, that so 
 many millions of the freemen of this Republic 
 can read plain English ! 
 
 But the honorable Senator from Georgia 
 takes precisely the opposite tack. He denies the 
 position of the President, and says that this Ordi- 
 nance 
 
 " Purported on its face to be a perpetual com- 
 
 * pact between the State of Virginia, the people 
 
 * of the Territories, and the then Government of 
 
 * the United States. It was unalterable except by 
 ' all the parties. The division of that Territory 
 ' was provided for in the Ordinance ; at each 
 
 ' division, the whole of the Ordinance was ap- 
 ' plied to each of its parts. Congress did not 
 ' assert or exercise the right to alter a compact 
 ' entered into with the former Government, (the 
 ' old Confederation,) but gave its assent to the 
 ' Government already established, and provided 
 ' for in the compact. If the original compact 
 ' was void for want of power in the old Govern- 
 ' ment to make it, as Mr. Madison supposed, Con- 
 ' gress may not have been bound to accept it — it 
 ' certainly had no power to alter it." 
 
 The honorable Senator from Georgia arrives 
 at an erroneous conclusion, only because his 
 premises are untrue. This Ordinance does not 
 purport on its face to be a compact between Vir- 
 ginia and the people of the Territories, and the 
 United States, but a "compact between the origi- 
 ' nal States, and the people and States in the said 
 ' Territory." Virginia was no party to the bargain, 
 "on its face;" nor v\-ere the people and States in 
 said Territories contracting parties. There were 
 no States in the said Territory; the people had 
 no organization ; they had do power to bargain 
 until after the Ordinance was passed ; and the 
 Ordinance bears the signature of no representa- 
 tive of Virginia, nor of the Territory — and of no 
 one but " William Grayson, chairman " of Con- 
 gress, and " Charles Thompson, Secretary." In 
 other words, it was a law of the United States, 
 passed in the usual form, containing a solemn 
 declaration of the future policy of the Govern- 
 ment on the subject of Slavery in her Territories. 
 It was no more irrepealablc than the Missouri 
 Compromise. Like the latter, it had all the 
 moral elements of a perpetual covenant; but, 
 legally, " it was a mere law of Congress ; " and 
 that, too, of a Congress under the Confederation, 
 with fewer elements of sovereignty, with less 
 power to bind the individual States, than is now 
 possessed by Congress under the Constitution. 
 Hence, if Congress had the power to repeal the 
 Missouri Compromise, which literally means an 
 agreement, a bargain, a " compact," it had the 
 power to repeal the Compromise of 1787. They 
 were both declaratory acts of Congress — nothing 
 more. The veracity and honor of the nation 
 were at stake. She had solemnly declared that 
 Slavery should not be permitted in the Northwest 
 Territory; and that in the Louisiana Territory 
 north of 36'' 30^ Slavery should he forever prohib- 
 ited. This was the voice of the supreme power 
 of the United States, s;>oken in the presence of 
 the enlightened nations of the earth. But it was 
 " a nude compact" — it bound no one but herself. 
 If she chose to violate her plighted faith with 
 her own citizens, and to stand a giant liar among 
 the nations, she doubtless had the power. 
 
 But be this as it may, these legislative prece- 
 dents are not confined to subdivisions of the 
 Northwest Territory. They have constantly fol- 
 lowed the progress of population in the free ter- 
 ritory. It was first applied to Ohio ; when the 
 tide of population rolled across the Miami, it was 
 applied to Indiana; when it crossed the Wabash, 
 it was applied to Illinois ; when it surged up to 
 the Northern lakes, it was applied to Michigan; 
 when it hugged the western shore of the lakes 
 up to the British possessions, and dashed across 
 
the great Father of Waters, it was applied to Wis- 
 consin, including Iowa and Minnesota, both of 
 which were beyond the boundaries of llie North- 
 west Territory ; and when it overleaped the Rocky 
 Mountains, tliis great vertebral column of the 
 world, it was applied to Oregon and Washington, 
 boundeil by the Pacific Ocean. These consecutive 
 legislative precedents, commencing in 1787, and 
 continuing to 1854, stand unimpcached and un- 
 impeachable by anj' conclusive reasoning. 
 
 I observe, in the third place, there is no adverse 
 decision of the Supreme Court. 
 
 In 1854, Congress repealed the Missouri Com- 
 promise, on the ground of its unconstitutionality. 
 The power of Congress to exclude Slavery from 
 the Territories was then for the first time (lenied. 
 
 The President has also declared these laws to 
 be unconstitutional. He says, on the subject of 
 the organization of the Territories of Utah and 
 New Mexico : 
 
 " In the councils of Congress, there were man- 
 ' ifested extreme differences of opinion and action 
 ' between some Representatives, who desired the 
 ' unconstitutional emploj'raent of the legislative 
 ' powers of the Government to interfere in the 
 ' condition of the inchoate States, and to impose 
 * their own social theories upon the latter, and 
 ' other Representatives, who repelled the interpo- 
 ' sition of the General Government in this respect, 
 ' and maintained the self-controlling rights of 
 ' the States. 
 
 " Once more the Constitution of the United 
 ' States triumphed signally ; the new Territories 
 ' were organized without restrictions upon the dis- 
 ' puted point, and were thus left to judge ki that 
 ' particular for themselves." 
 
 Those who desired Congress to exclude Slavery 
 from the Territories were said " to desire the 
 exercise of unconstitutional power ; " and when 
 Congress enacts laws throwing open territory', 
 before free, to the occupancy of Slavery, he tells 
 us " that the Constitution of the Union triumphed 
 signally." 
 
 But, Mr. President, I desire here to inquire 
 whence the President of the United States derived 
 the power to adjudicate the constitutionality of 
 laws which had previously passed through all 
 the usual forms of legislation? I had supposed 
 that such adjudications more fitly belonged to 
 another department of the Government. The 
 framers of the Constitution originally conferred 
 this power on the Supreme Court. 
 
 Under the Constitution, Congress may enact 
 laws, the courts may adjudicate them, and the 
 President may execute them. These three de- 
 partments of the Government should remain dis- 
 tinct, because their union forms a despotism. 
 
 But if neither the President nor Congress may 
 expound the laws without a usurpation of powers 
 never conferred by the Constitution, I inquire for 
 the opinions of the Judiciary on which the dec- 
 larations of the President and of Congress are 
 based. For if these laws were in fact unconsti- 
 tutional, it would be strange if none of the courts 
 of the country, State or National, in all the com- 
 plicated adjudication that has arisen since 1789, 
 have had occasion to pronounce them void. The 
 President pronounces these laws unconstitutional. 
 
 Senators say they were unconstitutional. Congress 
 repealed the Missouri Compromise because it was 
 unconstitutional; and all who opposed this repeal 
 are deuouuced as enemies to the Constitution. 
 And yet ihacourls, the only coiuiitulionoL tribunals 
 on earth that have the right to adjudicate such 
 questions, have never, I believe, even intimated 
 such an opinion I 
 
 If I am in error in this, let old and experienced 
 Senators here, whose knowledge must be perfect 
 on this subject, correct me. Does no one answer ? 
 I hear no reply. Then I infer there are no such 
 decisions, well authenticated, of any court of the 
 country, State or National. Then, sir, what be- 
 comes of these charges of " treason against the 
 Constitution and the Union," so liberally fulmi- 
 nated against the opponents of Slavery in Kansas? 
 Before I am condemned as an enemy of my coun- 
 try, as a political traitor to her fundaoiental law, 
 I desire to know that some court of competent 
 jurisdiction has decided that my opinions are in 
 conflict with the Constitution. 
 
 I will not detain the Senate with the presenta- 
 tion of judicial opinions sustaining the constitu- 
 tionality of the uniform legislation of Congress, 
 which I have cited. The honorable Senator from 
 Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] discussed this point to 
 some extent a few days since. It is not necessary 
 for ray argument ; for the entire absence of any 
 judicial opinion, State or National, in conflict with 
 the constitutionality of these laws, in all the adju- 
 dication that has arisen during nearly seventy 
 years, amounts to a negative pregnant, as potent 
 in its convincing efficacy as the most elaborate 
 adjudication. 
 
 In the next place, I argue the existence of power 
 in the Congress of the United States to legislate 
 on the subject of Slavery in the Territories, from 
 the relation which they sustain to the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 In each of the States of the Union, the power 
 of the General Government is restricted. Here 
 the sovereignty is divided between the State and 
 the United States. The powers of the United 
 States are all derived from the State; but the 
 powers of Congress in the Territories are not thus 
 derived from a local Government — the order is 
 reversed, and the Territorial Government derives 
 all its powers from the Government of the United 
 States. 
 
 The Government of the United States acquired 
 all her rights in the Northwest Territory, not by 
 grant of all the old thirteen States through the 
 Constitution, but by deed from Virginia ; in the 
 Territory of Tennessee, from North Carolina ; 
 in the Southwest Territory, including Mississippi 
 and Alabama, from Georgia and Great Britain ; 
 in the Floridas, from Spain; in the Louisiana 
 Territory, from France. The United States was 
 the successor of each of these; and it is a well- 
 settled principle of national law, that whatever 
 the original sovereign of each of these might 
 have done within its limits, while a part of his 
 dominions, might be done by his successor. 
 
 Prior to the year 1803, I suppose, full, com- 
 plete, and exclusive sovereignty in the Louisiana 
 Territory (including Kansas and Nebraska) was 
 vested in France. The Governmeot of the United 
 
8. 
 
 States, 03- a direct purchase, succeeded to all the 
 rights and sovereignty origiually possessed by 
 the grantor : and lience became the actual, full, 
 complete, and exclusive sovereign of the Terri- 
 tory. I suppose no one of the old thirteen States 
 ever had any right, title, claim, or interest, in or 
 to any part of the Louisiana Territory. No one 
 of them had ever exercised any jurisdiction over 
 it. It was a part of the dominions of France; 
 she was its absolute sovereign. Hence the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States must have suc- 
 ceeded to the same unrestricted rights, and may 
 hold, exercise, and enjoy them, until she chooses 
 to confer them on another sovereignty. If France, 
 previous to the cession, could have excluded 
 Slavery from Kansas and Nebraska, this Govern- 
 ment may do so now, suljject only to the pro- 
 vision in the Constitution which says that Congress 
 may make all nei'dftil rules and regulations re- 
 specting the Territories. The necessity of every 
 rule and regulation is a fit subject for legislative 
 discretion, for the exercise of which Congress is 
 responsible to the people of the whole country, 
 and not to the people of any individual State. 
 
 I will not here stop to argue the question of 
 the constitutional right of the United States to 
 acquire foreign territory. Mr. Jefl'erson and others 
 have doubted the existence of this power under 
 the Constitution. But with the power to acquire 
 must follow the right to govern. 
 
 I argue the power of Congress to exclude 
 Slavery from the common Territories, from the 
 undisputed right to pass the Kansas-Nebraska 
 act, conferring on the people " the right to regu- 
 liite their own domestic institutions in their own 
 way." 
 
 If Congress had no power under the Constitu- 
 tion to regulate the domestic institutions of Kan- 
 sas — to regulate the rights of person and of 
 property — it could uot confer this right on the 
 people of the Territory. The grantor cannot 
 cpnvey rights and prerogatives which he never 
 possessed. The grantee tan never take more than 
 the grantor himself held. It is absurd to suppose 
 Congress capable of transferring to the people of 
 Kansas rights, and privileges, and prerogatives, 
 which Congress never possessed. The grant 
 is worthless, if the original holder had no title. 
 Hence the advocates of "squatter sovereignty" 
 are driven to admit that all the rights, and privi- 
 leges, and power, of the Territorial Legislature of 
 Kansas, were previously vested in the Govern- 
 ment of the United States. But if this Govern- 
 mentoriginally possessed the right to legislate for 
 this Territory, and has since intrusted its exercise 
 to a local Legislature, she is still responsible. The 
 principal is responsible for the acts of the agent 
 within the limits of his instructions. What a 
 man does by an agent, he does by himself. Hence, 
 what this Gorerjiment does by another, she does 
 by herself. What she does by the " spurious " 
 Legislature of Kansas, is her own act. The real 
 sovereign can never avoid the responsibility of 
 governing, by interposing a subordinate. Hence, 
 these Kansas laws, enacted by her " Rump " 
 Legislature, establishing Slavery, appointing offi- 
 cers for a period of from two to five years, abridg- 
 ing " freedom of speech and of the press," and 
 
 making it a penal ofifence to deny the validity of 
 such laws, are the laws of Congrcg.i. By recog- 
 nising them, and snfl'ering the President to enforce 
 them, you make them your own. 
 
 This conclusion can only be avoided by sup- 
 posing Congress to have transferred this sover- 
 eignly to the jjeople of the Territory, without 
 reservation — without the right of review and repeal. 
 But if this right to make all local laws regulating 
 the relations of husband and wife, parent and 
 child, guardi;in and ward, master and slave, as 
 well as the rights of person and property, waa 
 transferred absolutely, and irrevocably vested in 
 the people of the Territories of Kansas and Ne- 
 braska by the law of 1854, Congress in thai cct 
 created two Stales. Something less then a sov- 
 ereign might intei-pret and applj' a law, sometliirg 
 less than a sovereign might enforce its provisions ; 
 but nothing less than "the supreme power in a 
 State" can make a law. If, then, the people of 
 Kansas have power, under the Constitution of 
 the United States, to legislate on all tit subjects 
 of lagishition, as perfectly as Virginia, or Iowa, 
 or New York, independent of Congress, she is 
 NOW A State I — and she became a State the mo- 
 ment this supreme power to make all needful 
 laws was conferred. 
 
 It may be said, however, that these organic 
 laws do not confer power on the Territorial Legis- 
 latures ; that they are merely declaratory of " great 
 principles of government;" that the right to 
 govern is inherent in the people : that it is not 
 the subject of transfer ; that it is an inalienable 
 right ; that it follows American citizens wherever 
 they may go within the jurisdiction of the United 
 States ; that the right of self-government, held as 
 citizens of a State, is carried by the people to the 
 Territories ; that it is never lost ; that to take it 
 away is an act of despotism. 
 
 But this does not change the conclusion. It mat- 
 ters not ichence the power is derived — whether from 
 Congress or from nature; whether from the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States or from Jehovah 1 
 Does the power to make all needful laws exist in 
 the Territory? Is it absolutely vested in the peo- 
 ple of Kansas ? You say in the Kansas-Nebraska 
 act that it is thus vested ; and being so vested, that 
 Congress is released from all responsibility grow- 
 ing out of the character of these laws. But if the 
 people of Kansas have the absolute right to make 
 all needful laws for their own government, they 
 may create offices and fill them ; they may establish 
 courts, appoint judges and executive ofiBcers. 
 The power to make laws, without the power to 
 interpret and applj' them, is worthless. The 
 power to make and adjudicate laws, without the 
 power to execute, is perfectly nugatory. It is a 
 mere pretence — a shadow — a name — a mockery. 
 
 The appointment of a temporary Governor, and 
 judges, and marshals, to put the machinery of 
 State in motion, maj' have been well ; but when 
 these utterly fail to effect the object of their ap- 
 pointment, and bring about anarchy and civil 
 war, the people — if sovereign, clothed with the SU' 
 preme power of a State, the power to make all need- 
 ful laws — would be unworthy the honor of the 
 American name, should they neglect to provide 
 for themselves. And it is marvellous that the 
 
snthors of the Kansas-Nebraska act — the authors 
 of the doctrine of squatter sovereignty in Kansas — 
 should complain that her people have organized 
 a Slate Government. As well might the old 
 heathen deity, whose prolific brain gave binh to a 
 Minerva, when confronted by his own olfspring, 
 complain that he had created a god. 
 
 But if Kansas is not a State — if she does not 
 possess the power to make laws, "\vhich is defined 
 to be "the nuprenu: power inaStiite" — if this 
 right of self-government w^a.s' not carried by the 
 people from the States to this Territory — and if 
 Congress did not confer on the people of Kansas 
 the right to enact all needful laws, and to regu- 
 late their own domestic institutions in their own 
 way — if the squatters are not novereign — then this 
 supreme power must be vested in the Government 
 of the United States. Her will, legitimately ex- 
 pressed, is the law. She has the full and com- 
 plete power, in legislating for her Territories, ''to 
 command what is right, and to prohibit what is 
 wrong." 
 
 The power of Congress to exclude Slavery from 
 all the Territories of the United States, not em- 
 braced within the limits of any State, being estab- 
 lished or conceded, I inquire, secondly, whether 
 this power ought to be exercit<ed in the establishment 
 of Territorial Governments where Slavery did not pre- 
 viously exist. 
 
 In the discussion of this proposition, I desire 
 to probe the subject to the core. I prefer to brush 
 away the surface rubbish, and to lay the founda- 
 tions of the superstructure on the solid rock. 
 
 1. Is Slavery right? Is it in accordance with 
 the principles of natural justice ? The time has 
 been, when very few in the country defended the 
 moral right of one man to hold another in perpetual 
 bondage. Its continuance hitherto has been 
 defended by citing the difficulties that surrounded 
 the question of emancipation. But the passage 
 of the Kansas-Nebraska law has wrought a sad 
 change, I fear, in the moral tone and temper of 
 this discussion. Members of Congress now tell 
 you that the enslavement of the African race by 
 the Anglo-Sa.\on is no evil; that it is a blessing; 
 that it is the natural condition of the two races ; 
 that an enlightened philanthropy requires the 
 enslavement of the African ; that he belongs to an 
 inferior race; that he cannot endure the shock of 
 contact with his superiors ; that annihilation or 
 servitude is the only alternative. 
 
 As the African is presented to my mind by the 
 traveller and the historian, and by tny personal 
 observation, I am compelled to admit the inferi- 
 ority ; but, if the right of the Anglo-Saxon to 
 enslave him dejjends on his manifest inferiority, 
 it becomes the duty of every Senator to examine 
 closly the nature of that inferiority. Is it the 
 result of the enslavement of his ancestry for more 
 than a thousand years, or is if a natural, specif c 
 difference, dfi'cloprd in an analyxis of the elementary 
 la/ivs of matter and of mind? 
 
 In laying the foundations of new States, this 
 problem is worthy of the careful attention of the 
 proudest and wisest statesman on the floor of the 
 American Senate ; for in its solution he legislates, 
 by its influence, for the whole human race — not 
 only for the one thousand millions of people that 
 
 now live, but for these teeniing millions, as they 
 shall continue to come and go while time shall 
 last. 
 
 That each may arrive at a correct decision of 
 the nature of the admitted inferiority of the Afriara 
 to the Anglo-Saxon, I request Senators to allow 
 me to refer them to their eurly elementary read- 
 ing — to a succinct view of this subject, derived 
 from standard writers on physical, mental, and 
 mt)r.al ;^cieuce — from such works as are used in 
 colleges, academies, and seminaries of learning, 
 all over the country — such works as are placed 
 in the hands of the student of law, of medicine, 
 and of theology. 
 
 Piiysiologists tell us that there is no speviftr 
 difference in the physical structure of the two 
 races ; that the solid parts of their bodies are 
 constituted of the same number of liones and 
 joints, similarly located and distributed; that 
 there is not a muscle, or tendon, or ligament, or 
 vein, or artery, or secretion, or absorbent, or 
 nerve of motion or of volition, found in the or- 
 ganism of one, that does not exist in the other ; 
 that each possesses the same senses of sight, of 
 touch, of taste, of smelling, and of hearing ; that 
 each possesses the same specific means of masti- 
 cation, digestion, and procreation. There are, how- 
 ever physical dill'erences. The skin of one is 
 black — of the other, white; the hair of one, fine 
 and knotted — of the other, coarse and straight ; 
 the lips of the one, thick and protruding — of the 
 other, thin and compressed ; and the perspira- 
 tory exhalations of the one are said to be more 
 odorous than of the other. But these are all said 
 to be but superficial modifications of the same 
 specific faculties and functions. No specific or- 
 gan has been omitted or added. 
 
 We are told, by writers on mental science, that 
 the natural sensibilities are aroused in both by 
 the use of the same organs ; that the African 
 and Anglo-Saxon alike experience pleasure in 
 the mastication of food, in the inhalation of fra- 
 grant odors, in the exercise of the sense of touch, 
 in gazing at the beauties of creation, and in listen- 
 ing to the melody and harmony of sounds ; that 
 the same sounds, and colors, and motions, and 
 heights, and depths, and expanses, and manifest- 
 ations of power, that elevate tlie feeiings of one 
 to a key of grandeur or sublimity, overwhelm the 
 other with kindred emotions. Tiiey tell us that 
 in each they find the same specific desires, in- 
 stincts, appetites, and passions ; that each may 
 love, and hope, and fear, and hate — may be en- 
 vious, jealous, and revengeful ; that in each they 
 discover the faculty of percejition, of conception, 
 of memory, of imagination, of belief, and of will j 
 that each exjieriences paternal, fraternal, and fil- 
 ial affection ; that each ex[)eriences emotions of 
 humanity, of patriotism, and of piety. 
 
 From this physical and mental analysis, it will 
 be perceived that each organ may be v;caker in 
 one race than in the other; but that in other re- 
 spects they do not materially differ. The anato- 
 my of the one is the anatomy of the other ; the 
 mental science that describes the laws of mind of 
 the one, delineates the spiritual nature of the 
 other ; the moral philosophy that analyzes the 
 moral emotions of the one, reveals the moral fac- 
 
10 
 
 ulties of the other. All the laws of health and 
 culture applicable to the one, are applicable to 
 the other. The same physician that prescribes 
 for the African slave in his hovel, ou a bed of 
 straw, prescribes with equal success for his mas- 
 ter, in a stately mansion, on a couch of down. 
 The same minister of righteousness who soothes 
 thesorrows and assuagts the griefs and energizes 
 the hopes of the slave, when the shadows of 
 death hover around him, administers with equal 
 success the consolations of the same Gospel to 
 the man of whiter skin. 
 
 The manifest inferiority of the African to the 
 Anglo-Saxon does not consist in a generic or 
 specific ditJerence. It is that kind of inferiority 
 which, doubtless, the enlightened statesman 
 would e.\pe(;t to find among the descendants of 
 those who had been doomed to absolute servi- 
 tude, from time immemorial. His body is less 
 eymmetrical; his face less beautiful; his appe- 
 tites, passions, instincts, and desires, less man- 
 ageable ; his perceptions less acute ; his concep- 
 tions, less clear; his memory, consciousness, be- 
 lief, powers of reasoning and will, more feeble ; 
 his love of parents, of offspring, of man, of coun- 
 try, of truth, of honor, of justice, and of God, less 
 reliable. But is any one of these absent? If so, 
 what element of manhood has been omitted ? 
 None ; not one ! 
 
 But if" he is inferior to the white man" in this 
 sense — if his body w weak, his mind feeble, his 
 moral sensibilities obtuse — does that confer the 
 right on the man of strong body, of vigorous 
 intellect, and of acute moral sensibilities, to seize, 
 overawe, and enslave him ? Is it miffht that deter- 
 mines the right? Because you have the jROKer, 
 may you of rii^ht enslave your fellow-men ? Is 
 this the voice of Northern gallantry and of South- 
 ern chivalry? 
 
 It might do for Louis Napoleon, as he sits on 
 a usurped throne, to claim the ric//it, because he 
 has the poiver, to control the destinies of other 
 men. It might do for Ale.vander, the Czar of Rus- 
 sia, as he sits enthroned where the old Wizard of 
 the North spirited away the liberties of Europe, 
 to make miffht the measure of ri(/ht. But will it do 
 for the American Senate to endorse and defend this 
 doctrine of tyrants, discarded by our fathers — 
 to place this country, in the eyes of the civilized 
 nations, on the platform of the despots of the Old 
 World, which has so long been the object of our 
 ridicule and scorn ? If not, you must return to 
 the doctrine of the fathers of the Republic, and 
 defend the weak agiiinst the aggression of the res- 
 olute and powerful. It will not do to deny the 
 privilege of Freedom to all who are your inferiors 
 in physical, mental, and moral strength. Adopt 
 this doctrine, and the Anglo-Saxon must proceed 
 to enslave the world ; for he is now, doubtless, 
 the strongest race on the globe. 
 
 This modern doctrine of Kansas Democracy — 
 the right of the sirontj to enslave the iveak — is at 
 war with the original reason for civil society. He 
 who is able to defend his own rights and to avenge 
 his own wrongs needs not the interposition of 
 the strong arm of the law for his protection; but 
 to defend the weak and to protect the defenceless 
 Is the imperative duty of the State. — Sir, may I 
 
 interpret that smile of an honorable Senator? Is 
 it the satisfied spirit contemplating great political 
 truths, that thus illuminates a dignified counte- 
 nance? or does it bear the tinge of a sneer? Is it 
 the Senatorial mode of discarding fundamental 
 truths as "mere abstractions?" Am I thus told 
 that " such political abstractions might do in the 
 original formation of society," but that the sys- 
 tem of Slavery has long since been established, 
 and that it cannot now be suddenly removed with- 
 out danger to the welfare of the slave, as well aa 
 the safety of the master? If this be the purport 
 of that meaning smile, its truth is granted. I be- 
 lieve it, every word. Its truth is conceded by the 
 mass of the people of the North and of the West. 
 The difficulty of the immediate emancipation of 
 large bodies of slaves, in States where it has been 
 long established, is as fully understood and as 
 freely admitted by the people of the free States 
 as by the people of the slave States. 
 
 But, sir, this is not a mere abstraction, when 
 applied to Kansas. There, the question is a new 
 one. You go there, not to defend old institu- 
 tions, but to organize society — to lay the founda- 
 tions of a republic de novo. There, you arc free 
 from every embarrassment attending the question 
 of emancipation in the old States. You go there, 
 in advance of organized society, to plant the pil- 
 lars of a State, where your will is supreme — where 
 you may either approve or prohibit Slavery, as 
 your hearts may prompt and your consciencea 
 approve. 
 
 Then, if my argument is conclusive as an ab- 
 straction, it is equally conclusive when applied to 
 the practical question of the introduction of Sla- 
 very into all the Territories of this Union where 
 it has not previously existed. If the oppression 
 of the weak by the strong is wrong in the first 
 organization of civil society, and should be pro- 
 hibited by law, it should be prohibited in Kansas, 
 in Nebraska, in Utah, and in New Mexico, as it 
 was prohibited in the Northwest Territory, and 
 as it is now prohibited in Minnesota and Oregon. 
 It should be prohibited wherever you go to lay 
 the foundations of a State — to build up a new 
 republic. 
 
 There is an apology for the existence of Sla- 
 very in the old thirteen States. When they were 
 severed from Great Britain, they inherited the 
 institution of Slavery. You found it pre-existing 
 in the Territories of Louisiana and the Floridas. 
 You acquired it with Texas, in her reception into 
 the Union. But it was not acquired with Utah 
 and New Mexico. And, in 1854, it had no prac- 
 tical existence north of 3G° 30'' in any of your 
 Territories. In the great unoccupied Northwest, 
 this institution was no part of your inheritance. 
 There it can have no existence, unless planted and 
 sustained by the strong arm of this Government. 
 I will close this point of the discussion by quoting 
 an opinion of Hon. John McLean, one of the Jus- 
 tices of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
 When interrogated on this subject, this learned 
 jurist said : 
 
 "Without the sanction of law, Slavery can no 
 ' more exist in a Territory than a man can breathe 
 ' without air. Slaves are not property, where 
 
11 
 
 ' tbey are not made so by municipal law. The 
 ' Legislature of a Territory can exercise no power 
 ' whicli is not conferred on it by act of Congress." 
 
 If Congress lias power to proliil)it Slavery in 
 ftU of her Territories, if natural justice requires 
 its prohibition wherever the question is unem- 
 barrassed bj' its pre-existence under local legisla- 
 tion, it should be prohibited in Kansas without 
 delay. There are imperative reasons for the im- 
 mediate action of Congress, growing out of the 
 peculiar circumstances of its iutrt)duction and 
 protection in that Territory. In its introduction, 
 violence has attended it at every step — the right 
 to the peaceful exercise of the elective franchise 
 has been violently overthrown — freedom of speech 
 and of the press has been ingloriously trampled 
 under foot — legislation has become a mockery — 
 the towns of Kansas have been besieged by bel- 
 ligerent armies — her plains have been stained by 
 the blood of her murdered citizens — the widows' 
 wail and the orphans' moan over slaughtered 
 husbands and fothers have driven the Goddess of 
 Liberty from her temples, while the armies of the 
 United States are compelling her freemen to lick 
 the dusi at the feet of usurpers. It was intro- 
 duced by violence^ and is sustained by furcc. 
 
 Nor has Congress any assurance that this war 
 is ended. The people of Missouri are secretly 
 marshalling their forces for the conflict. They 
 have resolved to continue Slavery in the Territory 
 by force. The shadow of the arm of the General 
 Government may be used for this purpose ; but i 
 the propelling power is in Western Missouri. | 
 The people there seem to be laboring under the : 
 strange delusion, that the safety of their slaves 
 would be greatly endangered by the re-establish- j 
 meut of Freedom in Kansas, not reflecting that 
 Iowa bounds her on the north by an open line. 
 No Chinese wall separates these sister States. 
 The people of both States live by each other in 
 peace and quiet. No fears seem to be entertained 
 that the people of Iowa will steal their slaves, j 
 But a strange infatuation seems to have seized 
 them in regard to the people of Kansas ; as if the 
 more direct route to Canada were by the Rocky 
 Mountains. 
 
 The people of western Missouri are not alone; 
 the people of the Southern States are contributing 
 allies — they are sending men and money to defend 
 Slavery in Kansas. The people of the Northern 
 States are marshalling opposing armies for the 
 same field of strife. Shall Congress sit idly here, 
 and await the result of the shock of arms — if, 
 indeed, that shall happen — until a fraction of the 
 people of this great nation shall settle a great 
 question of State policy, on the battle-field, in 
 human gore? It is useless to denounce the peo- 
 ple of Kansas as traitors to the Union, for dis- 
 carding the spurious laws of a spurious Legisla- 
 ture. It will be vain to attempt to produce peace 
 and quiet, by compelling freemen to submit to 
 laws which they never sanctioned. The icill of a 
 freeman will not so easily bend. 
 
 But Congress can settle these disturbances in 
 a single day, either by suffering Kansas to be- 
 come a State, in pursuance of " the true intent 
 and meaniny" of the organic act that conferred on 
 the people " the right to regulate their own in- 
 
 stitutions in their own waj'," or by amending 
 this organic act so as to exclude Slavery from the 
 Territory. And I fear it can be settled peacefully 
 in no other mode ; for it is now clear, that 
 if the citizens of Kansas should finally succeed 
 in triumphing over all opposing influences — force, 
 fraud, perjury, spurious legislation, and I fear t 
 may safely add, the influence of this Adminis- 
 tration — and exclude Slavery by a direct vote, 
 they have no assurance of peace and quiet ; for 
 the same statesmen that deny the power of Con- 
 gress to exclude Slavery from the Territories, also 
 deny the i)Ower of the Territorial Legislature to 
 exclude this species of property. They tell us 
 that such legislation by Congress and by Terri- 
 torial Legislatures is alike unconstitutional and 
 void ; that slaveholders have the right to take 
 their slaves into any and all of the Territories 
 purchased by tlie common blood and treasure; 
 that the Constitution guaranties this right, and 
 that all laws excluding them are in bad faith. 
 
 Hence this " squatter sovereignty " doctrine, 
 which declares that " the people of a Territory 
 shall be left free to regulate their own institutions 
 in their own way, is a fraud on the free States. 
 When properly understood, it means that the 
 people may establish Slavery in the Territories 
 if they choose, and that they shall be compelled 
 to do so if they refuse ! Nothing more — nothing 
 less. It has been introduced into Kansas by 
 force, and is now defended by the armies 
 of this Government. And the country is dis- 
 tinctly notified, that if this defence of Slavery 
 in the Territories should be discontinued, that 
 the Union of these States shall be dissolved. 
 
 The honorable Senator from South Carolina, 
 [Mr. Butler] — ^justly admu-ed for his great tal- 
 ents, and venerated tor his candor and integrity — 
 a few days since, in a very able speech then 
 delivered on this sutije-ct on the floor of the Sen- 
 ate, made the impressive and startling declaration, 
 "That he wished to be understood — he did not 
 ' speak rashly — his words were measured — but 
 ' unless the equality of the States could be pre- 
 ' served in Territorial legislation, he would advise 
 ' the people of South Carolina to go out of the 
 ' Union." This may not be the exact wording of 
 the Senators proposition, but it does no violence 
 to the sense. He said " deliberately," (and called 
 the Senate to note the deliberation) — " with 
 measured words " — " that unless the equality of 
 the States could be presen-ed in Territorial leg- 
 islation, he would advise the people of South 
 Carolina to go out of the Union.' 
 
 The character of that '• equality " which must 
 be maintained for the States, to prevent a disso- 
 lution of the Union by the Southern States, is 
 more elaborately expressed by the honorable Sen- 
 ator from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs.] That I may not 
 seem to do him injustice, I quote first from his 
 recent speech delivered in the Senate. He says : 
 
 " We intend that the actual bona fiJe settlers of 
 ' Kansas shall be protected in the full exercise of 
 ' all the rights of freemen; that, unawedand un- 
 ' controlled, they shall freelv and of their own 
 ' will legislate for themselves to eveiy extent al- 
 ' lowed b}' the Constitution, while they have a 
 ' Territorial Government; and when they shall be 
 
12 
 
 * in a condition to come into the Union, and may 
 
 * desire it, that they shall come into the Union 
 ' with whatever republican CoiiEtitutionthcy maj- 
 ' prefer and adopt for themselves; that in the ex- 
 ' ercise of these rights they shall be protected 
 ' against insurrection from within, and invasion 
 ' from without. The rights arc accorded to 
 ' them without any reference to the result, and 
 ' will be maintained, in my opinion, by the South 
 ' and the North." 
 
 Ag;aa : 
 
 '• 1 know that many gentlemen with M-hom I 
 ' have corresponded, and from whom Ihaveother- 
 ' wise heard, in western Missouri, General Atch- 
 ' ison among them, asked for nothing more. 
 ' They simply demand that the actual settlers 
 ' who go to that couutry shall have a fair oppor- 
 ' tunily to establish those domestic institutions 
 
 * which they may think proper. Geueral Atch- 
 ' ison took this ground in the Senate. I am 
 ' very sure he stands upon it now." 
 
 Again : 
 
 '• Against all these conflicting efforts and opin- 
 ' ions, the frieudsof the Constitution, justice, and 
 ' equality, have hitherto held, and will continue 
 ' to hold, the scales of justice even and unshaken. 
 ' We stiil tell all the Joint owners of this i)ublic 
 ' domain to enter and enjoy it, both in the North 
 ' and the South, ^\■ith property of ever}^ sort; ex- 
 ' ercise the full powers of American freemen ; leg- 
 ' islate for yourselves to any and every extent, 
 ' and upon any and every subject allowed by our 
 ' common Constitution : the Federal Government 
 ' will protect you against all who attempt to dis- 
 ' turb you in the exercise of these invaluable 
 ' rights ; and when you have become powerful 
 ' and strong enough to bear the burdens, and de- 
 ' sire it, we will admit you into the family of sove- 
 ' reigns, without reference to your opinions and 
 ' your action upon African Slavery. Decide that 
 ' question for yourselves, and we will sustain 
 ' your decision, because it is your right to make 
 ' it. This is the policy of the Kansas bill ; it 
 ' wrongs no man — no section of our common 
 ' country." 
 
 But this is the pleasant spicing to an unpleasant 
 dish. It is a kind of sophistry which deceives by 
 its apparent fairness, and which is so finely' ex- 
 pressed as to create a desire to leave its beauty 
 nnmarred. But how is its logic affected by the 
 following, from the honorable Senator's Boston 
 speech ? 
 
 " The constitutional construction of this point 
 ' by the South works no wrong to any portion of 
 ' the Bepublic, to no sound rules of construction. 
 ' and promotes the declared purposes of the Con- 
 ' stitution. We simply propose that the common 
 ' Territories be left o[)eu to the common enjoy- 
 ' ment of all the people of the United States, that 
 ' they shall be protected in their persons and 
 ' property by the Federal Government until its 
 ' authority is superseded by a State Constitution ; 
 ' and then we propose that the character of the 
 ' domestic institutions of the new State be de- 
 ' termined by the freemen thereof. This is just- 
 ' ice — this is constitutional equality." 
 
 Here, sir, v.hat 1 have shown to be true, as a 
 logical sequence from the denial of power in 
 
 Congress to exclude Slavery from the Territories, 
 is distinctly avowed. The honorable Senator 
 from Georgia [Mr. Toomus] declares this to be 
 "the constitutional construction of this point by 
 the South." He says : 
 
 " We still tell all the joint-owners of this pub- 
 ' lie domain to enter and enjoy it, both in the 
 ' North and in the South, with property of even/ 
 ' ^ortJ' '• That, unawed and uncontruUed, they 
 ' shall freely, and of their own will, legLsiate for 
 ' themselves to every extent allowtd bj" the CoN- 
 ' STiTUTioN, tvhilc tkcy have a Territorial Govtrn- 
 ' ment." 
 
 But the "construction" of their "constitution- 
 al " powers " by the South," he tells us, is . 
 " That the common Territories be left open to tlie 
 ' common enjoyment of all the people of the United 
 ■ States," "with their property of even/ yorl:" that 
 this properly shall be protected " by the Federal 
 ' Government, until iVa authority is superseded by 
 ' a State Constituiton ; " and that then, not b(/ore, 
 " the domestic institutions of the 7icu; State may 
 ' be determined by the freemen thereof." Yes, 
 sir, this is "the equality of the States," which, 
 we are gravely told by able Southern Senators, 
 "in measured words," th.it mtist be preserved in 
 the national Territories, if you would perpetnate 
 the Union. You must continue Slavery in all the 
 Territories, and protect it by the strong arm of 
 the Federal Government as long as these Terri- 
 torial Governments continue, or the honorable 
 Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] will 
 advise the people of that State to dissolve the 
 Union. 
 
 From this we may readily infer why those who 
 have resolved to make Kansas a slave State will 
 resist her admission into the Union until her pop- 
 ulation shall have reached ninety-three thousand. 
 Slavery is to be continued by force as long as the 
 Territorial Government lasts ; but when that 13 
 superseded by a State Government, her people 
 are to have the gracious privilege of determining 
 for themselves tlie character of their domestic 
 institutions ! This is a feature of " self-govern- 
 ment" for Kansas, which the jieople of the NortJi 
 and of the West have not hitherto fully under- 
 stood. They supposed their free sons, though 
 poor in worldly wealth, might go to Kansas with 
 nothing but hard hands, with strong arms, with 
 sane minds, and with honest hearts, and hy their 
 own votes settle the question of Slavery at onc-e 
 and forever. But in this they were grievously 
 deceived. The equality claimed by Southern 
 States requires that Slavery shall continue, and 
 receive the protection of the strong arm of the 
 Federal Government, in all the common Territo- 
 ries, until superseded by State Governments ; that 
 then they may abolish it or continue it, at discre- 
 tion. This is the equality tendered to the North; 
 this is the equality claimed by the South — the use 
 and occupancy of all your Territories by slave- 
 holding communities during the entira period of 
 the continuance of Territorial Governments ! This 
 modest demand sounds to my ear very much like 
 the claim of the lion's share. And men are de- 
 nounced on the floor of the Senate as fanatics, 
 i as disunionists, as Black Republicans, and as 
 i traitors to the Government, who discard such a 
 
13 
 
 cor-'fnr.c'.'r'fi of tlie p'oM ihn-!er of Freedom — the 
 (.■o:)s:itutiun of ihv Uiiii,ed Stuies. 
 
 Sir, it is (tpiuiront lo the least observant, that 
 if vo'.i osta!)li;;h vSiavci-y iu Kansas, and dufonJ it 
 wit,h i lie. armies of the nation, iis you are now 
 dojn;;, uivtii hoc |)0(jul;'.iiou sLiall ixMch uinely- 
 thiV'n ciii"ii;-.d,:;d. it will Imve Ijoxome so tirmly es- 
 tabiisliL'd. ;ind so deeply rooted a,nd interwoven 
 M'ith the frame-work of society, as to render its 
 removal a, pracl.ieiU impossibility; as much so as 
 it now is in Missouri, Kentucky, or Louisiana. 
 Slarery has never been pemoved from any one 
 (rfthe new States admitted into the Union. 
 
 'Sir. President, this " equality of States " in the 
 Territories, which permits and defends Slavery in 
 (ill of the Territories, crumbles under a careful 
 analysis, as readily as the doctrine of "squatter 
 sovereignty." The doctrine, "that the people of 
 ' all the States may enjoy the common Q'errito- 
 ' ries, with their property of ever;/ sort, as a baud 
 ' of brothers, until their pni)ilage is terminated by 
 ' a State Government, and that then they may 
 ' frame such institutions as they desire," seems 
 so plausible in fact, and so beautiful in theory, 
 as to almost palsy the tongue and bewilder the 
 brain of him who disputes its truth. Nothing- 
 was ever more false, that seemed so fair. Tho es- 
 tablishment and continuance of Slavery in the 
 Territories not only predetermines the question 
 for the future States, but it violates the very 
 equality which it pretends to foster and protect. 
 
 The millions of hardy laborers of the North 
 and Northwest will not live in a slaveholding 
 community. I need not answer "why?"' A 
 thousand reasons are on their tongues. To you 
 it may seem to be the result of a sickly scntlraent- 
 alism. To them their conclusions seem to be the 
 result of the clearest reasoning, sustained by the 
 strongest sense of moral duty. If, then, you es- 
 tablish. Slavery in the Territories, yon exclvdc them 
 from the enjoyment of this common heritage. 
 The thousands and tens of thousands of men and 
 women of the ^ree North who migrate to the 
 "West are laborers. JIany of them go to your new 
 Territories with no capital except industrious 
 habits, strong arms, generous hearts, and lofty 
 purposes. They go to form new communities 
 and a nev,r society, where labor is honorable: vrhere 
 he who is too proud to work is discarded ; where 
 lie who refuses, by his own toil, to add something 
 to the solid capital of the country, is disgraced ; 
 where the industrious, the vigilant, and the fru- 
 gal, are honored and promoted ; where, in time, 
 nearly all live in theirown houses, cultivate their 
 own soil, and run their own machinery. They 
 live on a common platform of equality, because 
 all are willing to labor for a living. Such men 
 will never so degrade theniselvea as to labor in the 
 fields, side by side, with Southern slaves. 
 
 Estiiblish Slavery in the common Territories, 
 av.d you exclude the working men of the North ; 
 prohibit Slavery in the Territories, and you ex- 
 clude slaveholders. Which is the greater " ine- 
 quality?" The white population of the United 
 States was reported by the officers of the Gov- 
 ei'nment in 1850 at about twenty millions ; the 
 number of slaveholders, at less ih^n. one quarte:- 
 '^f a million. If this be true, the enactment of 
 
 laws excluding Slavery from the Territories 
 would deprivi! less than a quarter of a mdlion or 
 the citizens of the country of the right to hold 
 a species of properly there, which nineteen mil- 
 lions seven bun^lrtd and fifty thousand of their 
 fellow-couuirymeu discard. Nineteen and three 
 fourths millions of the people of the United States 
 may still go to Kansas wiih their " property of 
 every kind." The quarter of a million may go 
 on equal terms. To make room for the t-lnves of 
 the one quarter of a million, yon are reciuired to 
 exclude tlie free millions of the North ; for, by 
 establishing Slavery in the Territories, }'0U prac- 
 tically exclude free laborers, who are too proud 
 to become the companions of slaves. Is this 
 right? Is it just? Is that constitutional equal- 
 ity ? 
 
 For myself, sir, I am free to admit that I am 
 one of the number practically e.'icluded. I 
 esteem it no disgrace to say, sir, in the Senate 
 of the United States, that from childhood I have 
 been taught to labor. The sweat of my brow 
 has been my only capital. I have been required 
 to fullill the edict pronounced by the Almighty, 
 in the original formation of the human family, 
 " that by the sweat of his brow he shall earn his 
 bread." 
 
 On a platform of equality, I have never been 
 disposed to shrink from an honorable competition 
 with the most favored in life's ever-recurring con- 
 flicts ; but, sir, I never will, by act or vote of mine, 
 place myself in a condition to struggle for posi- 
 tion in social life with those whose slaves are the 
 companions of my daily toils. If I would not 
 thus stultify myself, I will not thus wrong my 
 child. I would be equally pleased to see him com- 
 pete, in the school-room, at the black-board, 
 in the lecture-room, on the rostrum, in the 
 field, or in the shop, with the son of the South- 
 erner as well as the son of the Northerner. But, 
 sir, I never could feel a father's pride in wit'.jess- 
 ing his struggles for position in the polite circles, 
 while I had, by vote of mine, made him the cora- 
 ])anion of slaves at his daily labor. Rather than 
 sec him reduced to a practical inequality of this 
 kind, I would prefer to seB his eyes plucked out 
 and given to the eagles, and his heart snatched 
 out and given to tlie vultures. Place him on a 
 platform of e(juality — let him labor in the same 
 sphere, with the same chances of success and pro- 
 motion — let the contest be exactly equal bctM-een 
 him and others; and if, in the conflict of 
 mind with mind, he should sink beneath the bil- 
 low, let him perish ! — but by no vote or act of 
 mine will I give him an unequal battle. If I could 
 not thus wrong my own child, I will not, as a Sen- 
 ator representing in pait one of the St:ites of this 
 Union, by any official act of mine, either exclude 
 her free citizens from the enjoyment of our com- 
 mon Territories, or [ilace them in companionship 
 with the field-hands of Southern planters. 
 I It is this claim of Southern statesmen to the use 
 I of all the Territories for slavcholding communi- 
 j ties, that is upheaving the elements of society, and 
 I dissolving old parties. North and West. The crj 
 of Black Republicanism, nor the threat to dissolve 
 I the Union, will stay the swelling wave. The cry 
 i of Abolitionism will be equally impotent. 
 
14 
 
 " Abolitionist," with its original meaning, was 
 exceedingly odious in the North and West, as 
 well as South. When it meant an oiticious inter- 
 meddling of the people of one State with the do- 
 mestic affairs of another — when it was said to 
 mean social equality and amalgamation of the 
 two races, there were but few to approve it; and 
 I, sir, was ne\-er one of tliat number. While I 
 saw no generic distinction between the two 
 races, it has always seemed to me that something 
 was due to the common instincts, affinities, and 
 decencies of lite; all of which were so flagrantly 
 violated by the great Democratic part}', in 183G, 
 by elevating a practical amalgamationist to the 
 second office in the gift of the nation, and again 
 in 1840, by attempting to repeat the outrage. I 
 never acted with such a party ; I never consulted 
 them, advised with them, nor voted for them. 1 
 have always defended the right of the people of 
 the Southern States " to regulate their own do- 
 mestic institutions in their own way." But, sir, 
 I claim an equal right for the people of the whole 
 country, by their representatives in Congress, to 
 regulate the domestic institutions of all the Terri- 
 tories belonging to the United States. This is 
 constitutional equality, as I understand it. Let 
 each ^tate contTol its own domestic affairs, within 
 its own jurisdiction; and let Congress control the 
 domestic affairs of the nation, wherever her sov- 
 ereignty is unrestricted by an existing State Gov- 
 ernment. And I shall not be deterred from the 
 defence of this position by the cry of Abolition- 
 ism. 
 
 And now, Mr. President, I conclude these desul- 
 tory remarks by recapitulating the argument. I 
 conclude that the Congress of the United States 
 has power to prohibit Slavery in the Territories 
 of the United States — 
 
 1. Because Congress has exercised this power 
 by declaratory acts following the acquisition of 
 the Northwest Territory, the Louisiana Territory, 
 the State of Texas, and Oregon. 
 
 2. Because Congress has prohibited Slavery in 
 the organization of Territorial Governments, and 
 in the admission of States formed out of all terri- 
 tory where Slavery did not previously exist, em- 
 bracing all that vast country north of the Ohio 
 
 I river and 36«' 30'' of north latitude, extending 
 ' from the eastern line of Ohio to the Pacific Ocean — 
 
 embracing a period of time commencing with 
 
 1787, and reaching to 1850. 
 
 3. Because there is not on record, in all the 
 adjudication of all the courts of the country, 
 State and National, extending from the foundation 
 of the Government to the present moment, a 
 single adverse decision. 
 
 4. Because, in the acquisition of the Territories, 
 the Government of the United States acquired full, 
 complete, and exclusive sovereignty over them, 
 as the successor of the sovereigns from whom 
 they were procured, of which she cannot divest 
 herself until she transfers this sovereignty to State 
 Governments. 
 
 5. Because this power is indirectly asserted in 
 the Kansas-Nebraska act. conferring on the peo- 
 ple of the Territories the power to legislate on all 
 suitable subjects of legislation, and to regulate 
 their own domestic institutions in their own way — 
 since a power could never be transferred, which 
 was not previously held by Congress. 
 
 Secondly, I conclude that this power ought to 
 be exercised in the organization of Territorial 
 Governments where Slavery did not previously 
 exist — 
 
 1. Because natural justice, as interpreted by 
 the fathers of the Republic, demands it. 
 
 2. Because the supposed or real inferiority of 
 the African race increases instead of diminishes 
 the obligations of civil society to protect him from 
 the oppression of the strong and powerful. 
 
 3. Because equality among the people of all the 
 State? requires it: the permission of Slavery in 
 the Territories practically excluding an over- 
 whelming majority of the American people from 
 their occupancy. 
 
 4. Because the peace and quiet of the Territo- 
 ries requires that this, and all great questions of 
 State, should be settled by the supreme legisla- 
 ture. 
 
 And, lastly, because its speedy exercise seems 
 to be the only means for restoring to the people 
 of Kansas the rights of freemen, of which they 
 have been deprived by violence. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 
 
 1856. 
 
TO THE OPPONEM\S OY SLAVEllY-EXTEIsSIO: 
 
 A J'residential Canvass of uviu.vual siprnifieance is about to open — one of wliioli 
 th<i result must go far to dct^ernnne whether Liborty or Shivery is to bo the puio- 
 ttar of our National course — whether tlic vast unpeopled regions, confided by 
 l-*rovidonco to our keeping!;, shall be subdued and cultivated by intelligent, happy 
 fr(>enieii, or by lashed and blinded slaves. It is most i'.nportant that the tr\ie 
 bearings of this contest be set forth and ditTused. not in the heat of the struggle, 
 after every one shall have taken his position and resolved to maintain it, but 
 DOW, while the popular mind is measurably calm and unprejudiced. In view of 
 t!i<\«e considerations, the National Publishing Committee have issued, and will 
 continue from time to time to publish, the most important Speeches and Essays 
 which have appeared and shall appear on the side of Free Labor and Human 
 llights, which, we trust, those who love the cause will purchase for gratuitous 
 circulation among their friends and neighbors, with an eye to the struggle bc- 
 ft)re us. 
 
 Eight page documents vnll be furnished at the rate of G2cts. per 100 copies, 
 and 10 page documents at $l--5 per 100 copies, free of postage. "Where 500 
 or more copies are ordered of any oiie docun.ent, a discount of liO per cent, will 
 be made; from these rates. 
 
 In order to facilitate their circulation, no exfra charge will be made for en- 
 veloping and directing them to such nances as may be furnished. 
 
 The very low price at which these documents are furnished, puts it within the 
 reach of evejy one to aid in their distribution. 
 
 Address, L. CLEPHANE. 
 
 Sccretc!i\i/, Viashington, D. C. 
 
 LIST OF DOCUMENTS AI.PEADY PUBLISHED. 
 
 At (yl rents per 100 roping — i/'''-'^ of pm^tagr.^ 
 
 Dof'nce of Kansas. By llev. rl. "\V. j Reasons for Joining the Bepublican 
 
 I^L-eclRT. I P.-irtr. By Judpe Foote of Kc.v York. 
 
 Letter of Francis P. Blair to the Be- 1 Kansas Contested Election. Speech of 
 
 puhliufin Associiilion. | Hon. .John A. Bing:n;im of Oliio. 
 
 The Poor Yv'hitcs of the Soutii. By \ Kansas Contested Election. Speech of 
 
 (;oo. M. Weston of Maine. j Hon. John Hickman of Pa. 
 
 Southern Slavery lleduces Northern i Kansas Contested Election. Speech of 
 
 W'A'ivi. Address by Geo. M. Weston, de- j Hon. J. Wr.shbr.rn, Jr. of .\fc. 
 
 livertd in Washington City. | Kansas Afrairs. Speech of Hon. 11. 
 
 Circular Accompanying the Call of the I Waldron of Micliigan. 
 
 National Coramittte appointed at the Pitts- | The Slavery Question. Speech of Hon. 
 
 burv;h Convention. J John Allison of Fa. 
 
 At ^l.'lb per 100 copies — (free of postage.) 
 
 Address of the Pittsburgh Bepublican j The Dangers of Extending Slavery, and 
 Conv;;ntion. the Contest and the Crisis. Tvco Speeehes 
 
 Organization of the Free State Govern- } of lion. W. H. Seward. 
 
 nientin Kansas and Inaugnral Address and i Imine<:iate admission of Kansas into the 
 Message of Gov. Robinson. | Union. Spceeh of Hon. W. H. Seward 
 
 Judge (3ollanicr's Minority Report on 
 
 Kansas Atfuirs. 
 l)r;ition at Plymouth. By Hon. TYm 
 
 H. Se>vavd 
 
 Admission of Kansas. Speech of Hon. 
 
 Jas. Harlan of Iowa. 
 The A\'roni!:s of Kansas. Speech of Hon, 
 
 John P. Ha'.c. 
 
 Aifaiis in Kan.sas Tcr.-itory. Speech The State of Affairs in Kansas. Speech 
 of Hon. L. Trionbnll of 111. ' of Hon. Chas. Sumner. 
 
 IN THE GERMAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 Letter of Francis P. Blair to the Re- j The Contest and the Crisis. Speech of 
 publif-an Association. I Hon. W. H. Sev.r.rd. 
 
 Address and Dech\ration of Principles i The Dangers of Extending Slavery, 
 of the Pittsburgh Convention. I Speech of Hon. "W. H. Seward. 
 
n 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 136 026 7 
 
 ri 
 
 .!&"■