h. :■• i ' 
 
 E438 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 00001734^08 
 
ST- ^ ** • 
 
 ^J-w r»^ • • • f ^S. 
 
 <*i»v 4.'' . \Li>w* ^ 
 
 <7V.« A <, -F.T* .0* ^VJ?P A A 
 
 
 
 

 *° V*' 
 
 
 VAO T 
 
 .♦^ 
 
 
 +*o< 
 
 
 °o 
 
 •bv 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 vv 
 
 <**% 
 
 r c *.^sit # % AiSafer\ o°*.^>>o /\t^ 
 
 
 
DESIGNS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, OF R. ISLAND. 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives, April 27, 1860. 
 
 The House being in Committee of the 
 Whole, and having under consideration 
 the bill to provide for the payment of out- 
 standing Treasury notes, to authorize a 
 loan, to regulate and fix the duties on im- 
 ports, and for other purposes — 
 
 Mr. ROBINSON said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman : Much has been said, in 
 the course of the debates in this House, of 
 the purposes and designs of the Republi- 
 can party. Bold and harsh accusations 
 have been made against it. It has been 
 specially charged with having violated, 
 and designing to violate, the Constitution 
 of the United States; and of intending to 
 use the administrative powers of the Gen- 
 eral Government, if it should obtain it, 
 to break down the rights of the Southern 
 States, and eradicate some of their social 
 and political institutions. The party is 
 charged with ignoring, upon the matter of 
 slavery, the true spirit and construction of 
 the Constitution. It is alleged that its 
 purposes and designs are treasonable, and 
 that it aids and abets the invasion of the 
 States. These charges are made with a 
 seriousness and persistency that forbids 
 us to distrust the sincerity of many, at 
 least, of our Southern friends who make 
 them. Their reiteration by the presses 
 and politicians of the North, however, are 
 perfectly understood to b-" for political 
 effect alone, upon men who are supposed 
 to be extremely sensitive and timid, and 
 to deter them from a free expression of 
 their opinions. Fortunately, however, for 
 
 the party charged with these grave politi- 
 cal offences, we are debating this matter 
 before an intelligent and patriotic people. 
 The schoolmaster and the press, the strong 
 types of our modern civilization, are 
 abroad, and have been for years; and 
 the people who have received their in- 
 structions will never believe that they 
 have not improved their pupils, and soft- 
 ened and refined the spirit of that barbar- 
 ous age, when learning was cramped and 
 confined ; when men of power could not 
 read, and made their marks, not with the 
 pen, but with the pommel of their swords. 
 
 We violate the Constitution! How? 
 Because we contend that "freedom is na- 
 tional, and slavery sectional;" that the 
 first is guarded and protected by the Con- 
 stitution, which announces in its pream- 
 ble its object to be " to form a more per- 
 fect Union, establish justice, insure do- 
 mestic tranquillity, provide for the com- 
 mon defence, promote the general wel- 
 fare, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
 ourselves and our posterity?" 
 
 All the provisions of that Constitution 
 were designed to carry out and perpetuate 
 the formula of glorious purposes set forth 
 in its preamble. It was framed for no 
 other Government than a Gorernment of 
 freedom. Had, however, any one unfa- 
 miliar with the designs of that instrument 
 listened to the arguments from the Demo- 
 cratic side of the House, they must have 
 thought that the iramers of the Constitu- 
 tion intended to protect, not freedom, 
 
but slavery ; to promote, not the general 
 welfare, but to pile up, if possible, the 
 means to keep the country in a state of 
 constant disturbance. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it strikes me as remark- 
 ably singular, if it were the design of the 
 Constitution to promote and extend sla- 
 very, that the word should not have oc- 
 curred in the instrument from its begin- 
 ning to its end. It is equally strange 
 that some of the soundest as well as most 
 brilliant statesmen of the Revolution 
 should have protested against the inser- 
 tion of the word, that the instrument 
 forming the basis of a glorious Confeder- 
 acy of free States should nowhere, in any 
 of its provisions, perpetuate the evidence 
 that there existed, in the land where that 
 fierce struggle for freedom was waged, so 
 glaring a solecism as that institution pre- 
 sents — so palpable a contradiction of the 
 political doctrines and rights set forth in 
 the Declaration of Independence. 
 
 If it had been the purpose of the Con- 
 stitution to extend slavery; if the institu- 
 tion itself were of so overwhelming im- 
 portance that it could form the only nu- 
 cleus about which the people of the orig- 
 inal States could gather, is it not surpri- 
 sing, is it not a glaring impeachment of 
 the intelligence as well as the patriotism 
 and honesty of its framers, that they left 
 this all-important, this now only disturb- 
 ing, element in our Government, almost 
 wholly and entirely to implication; that 
 its only recognition by them was not as 
 existing by the force of the Constitution, 
 but exclusively by virtue of State laws? 
 
 There was a time when our Southern 
 friends strenuously contended for the doc- 
 trine of strict construction. When we 
 urged upon them the necessity of protec- 
 tion to domestic industry, and the policy 
 of a system of internal improvements, they 
 turned to us with an air of triumph, and 
 asked us to point them to the authority 
 expressly given in the Constitution to 
 Congress to legislate upon these matters 
 as we desire. Can they blame us, who 
 earnestly believe that this policy does con- 
 tribute to the general welfare — does form 
 among the States a more perfect union 
 rendering it permanent and strong, pro- 
 moting intercourse among them, estab- 
 lishing the means of a common defence, 
 furnishing employment for a cheerful, 
 willing industry, as well as compensation 
 
 for its toil — can they blame us, when thev 
 claim that the right to extend slavery is 
 right under the Constitution — nay, supe 
 rior to it, and walks with an elephant tread 
 over all other purposes and designs of the 
 Constitution — that we turn upon them 
 with their favorite doctrine of strict con- 
 struction, and ask them to point us to any 
 recognition of such a purpose or design 
 in any of the provisions of the Constitu- 
 tion ? 
 
 VVe think the interrogatory a proper one, 
 and should be answered by some more 
 potent reply than denunciation. The Con- 
 stitution iiself, in that article which forms 
 the basis of the fugitive slave law, ex- 
 pressly disclaims the position contended 
 for by our political opponents. That sec- 
 tion provides that — 
 
 " No person held to labor or service in 
 ' one Slate, [under what ? Under the Con- 
 ' stitution of the United States? No.] 
 ' under the laws thereof, escaping into an- 
 ' other, shall, in consequence of any law 
 ' or regulation therein, be discharged fron 
 ' such service or labor, but shall be deliv 
 ' ered up, on claim of the party to whom. 
 ' such service or labor shall be due.'V 
 
 This section, if it applies to fugiuve 
 slaves, recognises the seivitude as existing 
 purely and simply by the laws of the State, 
 and therefore wholly local and sectional 
 in its character. If the framers of the Con- 
 stitution had entertained the idea that the 
 institution of slavery was a feature of the 
 Government, whose fundamental laws they 
 were framing, would they have left it with 
 no other support to the authority of the 
 master over the person of his slave ? Would 
 they have made no provision for those 
 cases where the exigencies of business or 
 the allurements of pleasure would induce 
 the master to take his chattel into a State 
 where the local law did not or might not 
 recognise the right of one man to own the 
 person of another? They were strangely 
 negligent of the high and responsible duties 
 imposed upon them, if they designed to 
 give to slavery an existence under the pro- 
 visions of the Constitution. They recog- 
 nised it simply as a State institution. The 
 person is held to service, not under the 
 Constitution, but under the laws of the 
 Slate from which he escapes. When the 
 master takes him beyond the limits of that 
 local law that binds him to servitude, then, 
 under the Constitution of the United 
 
 Sxchange 
 West. Res. Hlrt. Sec 
 
tttes, and in absence of local law, his 
 $nhood can assert its right, and the 
 ;.ve stands " disenthralled," by the 
 ■emancipating genius" of the Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 But it is not only from this provision of 
 the Constitution that we think we prove 
 conclusively that the institution was recog- 
 nised simply as an institution of a State, 
 existing by force of its own local law, but 
 by the cotemporaneous construction given 
 to that instrument by the framers of it. 
 That ordinance, which forever debarred 
 the entrance of slavery into the glorious 
 Northwest Territory, where giant States 
 are now rejoicing in freedom, and busily 
 engaged in a noble competition in agri- 
 culture, science, and art — in all that digni- 
 fies and adorns our nature, and makes 
 us reverence the institutions of freedom — 
 is a lively commentary upon the text and 
 principles of that Constitution they framed 
 a'nd so grandly set in operation. 
 • Its results there are the embodiment of 
 Stt the purposes its sublime preamble con- 
 suls ; not mere '* glittering generalities," 
 K r# the natural as well as substantial de- 
 pments of the political genius of the 
 Government. 
 
 Did our revolutionary statesmen in that 
 ordinance "exorcise the Constitution of 
 its spirit?" or did they not display its vi- 
 tality and power? And now, has that 
 Constitution, having attained the years al- 
 lotted to man, become weakened and de- 
 cayed ? Has it lost its manly proportions, 
 its vigorous spirit and power, and become 
 dwarled and decrepit? If it has, its decay 
 results, not from any inherent weakness 
 or defect in its original formation, but be- 
 cause we have experimented upon it — 
 have administered to it political medicines 
 which eat out its original fibres, and de- 
 stroy its early manliness. Is it necessary 
 to repeat, apart from this commentary of 
 our political fathers, which this ordinance 
 presents, the opinions they entertained of 
 that institution — that modern idol which 
 all candidates for political honor are com- 
 manded to worship, or be shut out from 
 political promotion ? Those opinions are 
 a portion of our political history, and it is 
 not in the power of party Conventions to 
 falsify or obliterate them. They will in 
 future years, as they do now, inspire with 
 untiring zeal the advocates of a noble and 
 exalting freedom. This institution was re- 
 
 garded, not as an element of power, but of 
 weakness, trammelling our political prog- 
 ress, and retarding the development of 
 the national power. Nor were these opin- 
 ions confined to the age in which our fa- 
 thers lived. Their descendants adopted 
 their views upon this grave matter. A 
 little more than a quarter of a century ago, 
 the same opinions were as freely expressed 
 in the Slate that now prides itself as the 
 home of Washington and JefTerson. 
 
 A new light, however, has broken in 
 upon us. A new analysis of the Consti- 
 tution has been made by the political ex- 
 perts of the day; and, to the surprise of 
 all, it is announced that, instead of free- 
 dom, slavery is its inspiring genius, and 
 constitutes its strength and preserving 
 power. The stars of our flag no longer 
 shine over the pathway of liberty, but 
 twinkle dimly and darkly over the mists 
 of human servitude. We, who follow the 
 statesmen of the Revolution, the great 
 apostles of human freedom; we, who 
 struggle in our national legislation to per- 
 petuate the spirit of the oidinance of 1787, 
 the first-born of the Constitution, are stig- 
 matized as disorganizers and sectional- 
 ists. If the struggle of -principle against 
 power — a contest for a strict construction 
 of the Constitution, where human freedom 
 is involved — against an absolute perver- 
 sion of its provisions for the purpose of 
 extending human servitude, makes us dis- 
 organizers and sectionalists, we must bear 
 the charge. An appeal to history will 
 fasten these epithets upon those who so 
 freely apply them to us. 
 
 Why, Mr. Chairman, who threaten to 
 disorganize the Government? Who look 
 to a disruption of the Union for relief for 
 any political grievances they suffer, or im- 
 agine they suffer? Who would bring upon 
 the American people the greatest of all 
 political calamities, in the vain hope of re- 
 dressing some imaginary political injury? 
 Have the Republican party made any such 
 threat? In the wild and stormy debates 
 which preceded the organization of this 
 House, did that party proclaim on this 
 floor their success in the coming Presi- 
 dential contest the condition upon which 
 they would stay in the Union ? Did they 
 appeal to the firm attachment ofthe Ameri- 
 can people to the Union, and attempt to 
 alarm their fears for its safety, for the pur- 
 pose of frightening them into casting their 
 
G 
 
 years, so frequently and earnestly de- 
 clare — a social and political blessing, the 
 practical development of a political phi- 
 lanthropy regarding and working out the 
 best good and highest interest of both the 
 white and black raee, and solving the po- 
 litical problem of combining the welfare 
 of both in one social system, we are will- 
 ing and anxious that all the good educed 
 from it shall be enjoyed and confined to 
 the States where the system now exists. 
 We ask not to be the recipients of the 
 blessing it promotes, and assure these 
 States that no act or effort of the Repub- 
 lican parly will disturb them in the enjoy- 
 ment of it. 
 
 We do, however, claim the right to de- 
 termine, under the Constitution, whether 
 the system shall be extended into Terri- 
 tories where no law exists to establish it; 
 or, in other words, we protest in the name 
 of the hardy laborers of the country against 
 being compelled to receive its dubious 
 good. It is now said, the true principle 
 is, that the negro, a slave in the States, 
 upon his introduction into the Territories 
 continues a slave ; that the Constitution, 
 propria vigore, extends over him and con- 
 tinues his servitude — a proposition at war 
 with the earliest legislation adopted by the 
 fathers of the Constitution, and suggestive 
 of some very significant queries. The 
 position assumes the absence both of Ter- 
 ritorial and Congressional legislation. It 
 will not be contended that the Constitu- 
 tion contains in itself any provision for 
 the protection of slavery in the Territories. 
 It pronounces no penalties against any 
 infraction of this right of property in man. 
 How, then, is this claim of property to 
 be protected in the absence of any legis- 
 lation ? It is a claim not recognised by 
 the common law. If it has any founda- 
 tion whatever, it must be by virtue of 
 some local law. Will the slaveholder in 
 the Territory look to the law of the State 
 from which he emigrated for the means 
 to control and regulate his claim to this 
 anomalous property? Will the Constitu- 
 tion transfer into the Territories as many 
 slave codes as there are slave States from 
 which owners of slaves may emigrate, and 
 vindicate and protect the rights founded 
 upon these various codes ? 
 
 In one State, the slave code carefully 
 prohibits emancipation, while it may be 
 permitted in another. Will the person 
 
 emigrating from the first be prohibited 
 from giving freedom to the slave, while 
 the slaveholder from the second will be at 
 liberty to emancipate ? Will the relation 
 of master and slave, their rights, duties, 
 and responsibilities, be affected as the 
 legislation of the State may vary from 
 which they emigrated? 
 
 Again : it is now deemed in many of 
 the slave States a necessary safeguard of 
 their institution to expel the free negro, 
 or to reduce him to slavery. Will the 
 Constitution of the United States of itself 
 carry this protective legislation into the 
 Territories as a general law, controlling 
 all parties ; or will the emigrant from a 
 slave State, whose local law expels the 
 free negro, or reduces him to slavery in 
 case of disobedience to the law, have 
 power to put in force this local law, to 
 drive out the free negro, or sell him into 
 servitude, while the emigrant from a State 
 having no such law will possess no such 
 power ? 
 
 All this political and legal chaos ap- 
 pears to be the legitimate result of the 
 theory that the Constitution of the United 
 States carries slavery into the Territories. 
 If it carries it there, it should protect it ; 
 and to protect it without Congressional 
 legislation, creates this confusion. 
 
 We are told that, if it had not been for 
 the provision of the Constitution for the 
 rendition of fugitive slaves, it never would 
 have been adopted. If this be true, can 
 we believe that the framers of the Consti- 
 tution, who certainly understood its pro- 
 visions, who so sedulously excluded the 
 words "slave" and "slavery" from it, 
 and who embraced the first opportunity 
 to exclude slavery from a large portion of 
 the common territory, would have adopted 
 it, if they had believed it susceptible of 
 the construction which is now attempted 
 to be put upon it ? 
 
 Again, our forefathers discussed the sub- 
 ject of slavery with as much freedom as 
 any other upon which they were called to 
 act. It was to them not a forbidden topic. 
 If the Constitution carries slavery into the 
 Territories, will the same freedom of dis- 
 cussion be permitted there? or will the 
 immigration of the slaveholder, with his 
 chattels, of itself restrain this freedom of 
 debate? Will a person, from a free or 
 slave State, who may have some doubt of 
 the policy of slavery, or who, leaving the 
 
mere question of policy, takes a higher I 
 stand, and denies its rightfulness, be de- 
 barred the freedom of speech or discus- | 
 sion, be prevented from expressing freely [ 
 and fully his opinions? If a newspaper is 
 established, will that be subject to censor- 
 ship, and all articles it may contain, freely 
 examining the social and political influ- 
 ences of the institution, be deemed incen- 
 diary, while the editor will be consigned 
 to the prison, or handed over to the " un- 
 friendly legislation " of a mob ? We know 
 that great latitude of discussion, in some 
 of the slave States, is not allowed to those 
 who debate this subject, and express opin- 
 ions hostile to the expediency or justice 
 of slavery. To those whose social and 
 political institutions are of so strong a 
 texture that they will bear the closest ex- 
 amination and fullest range of debate, 
 these queries are important. Accustomed 
 to think freely, and to express aloud their 
 thoughts upon all matters in which they 
 feel an interest ; to examine with scrutiny 
 thf.'ir bearing upon their social and politi- 
 cal prosperity ; in fact, to discuss all sub- 4 
 
 jects they choose to discuss with the full- 
 est freedom, and to give to their opinions 
 the freest expression, the citizens of the 
 free States doubt the propriety of extend- 
 ing an institution which, in this age of 
 progress, requires to bespoken of tender- 
 ly and carefully, even where it has all the 
 prejudices of birth, the strength of habit, 
 and force of education, to sustain it. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, we have lately paused in 
 our legislative duties to inaugurate the 
 statue of Washington. His life was again 
 passed in review before us, and the hearts 
 of Americans beat joyfully as they recurred 
 to his early toils and patriotic struggles. 
 We challenge the world to produce his 
 parallel. His triumphs in the field, and 
 his success in the Cabinet ; his devotion 
 to the cause of freedom, wherever called 
 by duty to act, are to us a subject of ex- 
 ultation and delight. The Republican 
 party, while ihey pay homage to his prin- 
 ciples, will prove the sincerity of their re- 
 spect, by attempting to bring back the 
 administration of the Government to the 
 policy he so nobly sustained while living. 
 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1860. 
 
 REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. 
 
 HON. PRESTON KING, N. Y., Chairman. 
 " J. W. GRIMES, IOWA. 
 " L. F. S. FOSTER, CONN. 
 
 On the part of the Senate. 
 " E. B. WASIIBURNE, ILLINOIS. 
 
 HON. JOHN COVODE, PENN., Treasurer. 
 " E. G. SPAULDING, N. Y. 
 " J. B. ALLEY, MASS. 
 " DAVIQ KILGORB, INDIANA. 
 " J. L. N. STRATTON, N. J. 
 
 On the part of the House of Reps. 
 
 m During the Presidential Campaign, Speeches and Documents will be supplied at the follow- 
 ing reduced prices : 
 
 Eight pages, per hundred $0 50 
 
 Sixteen M " 100 
 
 Twenty-four u /-« 
 
 Address either of the above Committee. 
 
 GEORGE HARRINGTON, Secretary. 
 
 5 
 
 '■ ; 
 

 ^* : 
 
 j .>% 
 
 .#*%_ 
 
 
 
 k v • • • _ «*i <*> 
 
 
 •7E*V 
 
 **\ 
 
 
 
 A>*^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • •• 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
& »ftk •« 5* ,*y -^ VK <£ 
 
 
 
 V^ B 
 
 
 .v.g^ v^v <*•-—*>* v^V 
 
 **** 
 
 
 
 
 V *.T*> <? 
 
 
 "©. **?M # * *P 
 
 ^•afcA ^-^\> o°.-;Sfc* /•]# 
 
 *0« 
 
 by 
 
 
 "W 
 
 ^ 
 
 (6 »Ci 
 
 
 
 ■ AiiafeA o^-jSaJi.^ AsiatS. <? -^i 
 
 
 v