/ 
 
F 685 
 .T67 
 Copy 1 
 
 AFFAIRS IN KANSAS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 HON. ROBERT TOOMBS, OF GEORGIA, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 28, 1856. 
 
 The Sermt-3 having resmned tlie consideration of ih-e 
 motion to print ten thousand copies of the message of the 
 President of Fehfuary 18, with the accompanying docu- 
 ments, relative to llio affairs of the Territory of Kansas — 
 
 Mr, TOOMBS said: Mi\ President, as I desire 
 toexpi-ess my concurrence witli the policy adopted 
 by the President of the United States upon this 
 •question-, and as it will be necessary for me to 
 leave the city at an early day, I will avail myself 
 of the present moment to express my vi.e\vs briefiy 
 upon it, v/ithout asking for any delay. 
 
 The Constiiiition expressly grant:; power to 
 Congress to provide for calling forth the military 
 power of the United States, in order to "execute 
 the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, 
 repel invasions," and also to protect each State 
 ■against " domestic violence." In 1795, Congress 
 passed an act to carry into cflect these powers. 
 These were necessary, yet very delicate and dan- 
 gcro'ds powers, and ought therefore to be jeal- 
 ously watt^hed and closely guarded. The act of 
 1795 was drav/n with a full appreciation of tht?se 
 dangers and difficulties, and cautiously guarded 
 ilus extraordinary application of the military 
 .power in aid of the civil authorities and public 
 order. In the judgmeKt of the President, a case 
 failing witluu this law has lately ai'is'-Mi, and he 
 has taken the preliminary steps pointed out by it 
 for the exercise of the powers it confers by issu- 
 ing liis proclamation. The pow<;r is clear if the 
 case has arisen. The proclamation states the pre- 
 cise state of things contemplated by the act; it is 
 supported by the official documents before us, 
 and therefore stamps this action of the President 
 with unquestionable legality, and demands for it 
 the united support of all friends of law and order. 
 The act of the 2dth February, 1795, enacts that — 
 
 '• In case of ap. insBrrocrion in any State Rgainstthe Gov- 
 ernment thereof, it shall lie lawful i'w llie {'resident of the 
 IXnited States, on application of the I^egislature of such 
 State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot 
 be eonvcned,jtocall forth siicli nunAeroftlie militia of any 
 other State or States as may be applied for as he may judge 
 sufficient to suppress such insurrection." 
 
 "Sec. 2. Jind be it further enacted, That whenever the 
 Icuvs 9f the Uniteii States sUaJI be opposed . or tlie executJun . 
 
 thereof obstructed, in any State, by cosnhinations too pow- 
 erful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial 
 proceedings, or by the powers vested in theinarshals by this 
 act, it shall he lawful for the President of the United States 
 to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State 
 or States, to suppress such combinations, and to cause the 
 laws to be duly executed." 
 
 The act of 3d March, 1807, enacts— 
 
 " That in all cases of insarrection or ebstniction to the 
 laws, either of the L'^iiited States or ef any iiuliviriual State 
 or Territory, where it is lawful for the President of the 
 Fnited States to call forth the militia for the purpose of 
 suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be 
 duly execnted, it shall be iawfol for him to employ for the 
 same purpose such part of the land or naval force of the 
 United States as shall he judged necessary ; having first 
 observed all the prerequisites of the law in tiiat respect." 
 
 The Governor of Kansas (the Legislature not 
 being in session) officially informs the President 
 that the laws ef that Territory are obstructed — 
 that they are openly resisted by a large body of 
 armed men, who have rescued a prisoner from the 
 hands of the shorift'by force, murdered peaceable 
 inhabitants, burntuphouses, and openly declaring 
 a fixed purpose not to submit to the laws of the 
 Territory, and that this organization is too pow- 
 erful to be resisted by the civil authorities, or 
 even by the military power of the Territory, 
 which is available for that purpose. These facts, 
 thus officially comnranicated to the President, are 
 sustained by am]>le testimony — the testimony of 
 the sheriff who was resisted in the execution of 
 legal process, and that of a portion of the posse 
 whom he called to his aid, together with that of 
 other inhabitants of the Territory. These facts 
 bring the case fully within the provisions of the 
 acts of 1795 and 1807; and nothing ntore was 
 necessary. But this is not yet the whole case: 
 General Lane and Mr. C. Robinson — the first 
 styling himself " chairman of the executive com- 
 mittee of Kansas Territory," and the latter 
 "chairman committee of safety" — have under- 
 taken to notify the President that "an over- 
 whelming force was organizing on the border" 
 of the Territory " for the avowed purpose of 
 invading Kansas, demolishing the toivns, and 
 butcherir.g the unoffending free State citizens." 
 

 One side claims protection from insurrection from 
 within, the other from invasion from without; 
 both agreeing that " the laws are obstructed, and 
 that anarchy reigns supreme." It would be dif- 
 ficult to imagine a case calling more loudly for 
 the interposition of the Federal power, or a case 
 which would afford fewerpointaof criticism for its 
 application; yet, still the President is denounced 
 by some for usurpation, and taking sides against 
 the Abolitionists; and by others — among them the 
 Senator who has just taken his seat [x\Ir, Hale] 
 — for not doing it sooner, and in behalf of the 
 disturbers of the public peace. Whatever may 
 have been the disorders in that Territory before 
 these recent events upon which the President has 
 acted, the Senator cannot show, and did not 
 attempt to shov/, that these made any case coming 
 within the Constitution and acts of Congress 
 referred to, which is the sole authority upon 
 which the President can interpose public force 
 even to restore order. This is not a case of re- 
 sistance of the laws of the United States, but of 
 obstruction to the laws of a Territory. In the 
 Boston riot case there was resistance to the exe- 
 cution of the laws of the United States. The 
 President was officially informed of that fact, and, 
 with a promptness and energy which did him 
 infinite credit, he ordered the public force to aid 
 the patriotic citizens of Boston who took up arms 
 to maintain law, and the law was vindicated. 
 This action was in confonnity to law, and gave 
 great satisfaction to the patriotic people of all 
 sections of the country. The action now under 
 consideration, beingfounded upon the obstruction 
 to territorial laws, required other prerequisites. 
 When these were complied with, the President 
 then acted, and could not legally act before. 
 
 We are now told that at some former period 
 Kansas was invaded by iVIissourians; her ballot- 
 boxes seized, and representatives returned to her 
 Legislature by violence and against the will of her 
 peaceable inhabitants. If this were true, it would 
 not affect the propriety of the present action of 
 the President. But is it true ? It is very certain 
 that r.o such information has been officially com- 
 municated to the President. Governor Reeder 
 was at the time the Governor of the Territory. It 
 was his duty to prevent .9uch an outrage, if it had 
 happened, Ijy all the civil and military power of 
 the Territory; and if that failed, he was bound 
 by his official oath and duty to report it to the 
 President. He did not do so; and he is here to- 
 day, indorsed by these very complainants, (the 
 Free-Soil party of the Terntoiy,) who have sent 
 him here to represent them. Am I uncharitable, 
 then, in saying that this is a fraudulent after- 
 thought, gotten up to justify present excesses .' 
 This question has but one side; the President has 
 interposed Federal authority at the time, and in 
 the mode, and to the extent required by the laws 
 and the Constitution. To have done more or less 
 w^ould have subjected him to the just censure of 
 Congress and the country. Neither can the at- 
 tacks on Governor Shannon in any degree aid the 
 assailants of the President; whether he is a good 
 or a bad Governor, whether he be saint or sinner, 
 can in no wise affect the issue. The time for ex- 
 ecutive action provided for in the laws of the 
 Constitution has come, and the enemies of law 
 and order had better see to it that they do not 
 hring themselves under its penalties. If the 
 
 Executive has erred at all in this matter, it is by 
 embracing in his proclamation a warning against 
 the invasion of the Territory from without, be- 
 cause it is by no means clear that he had author- 
 itative evidence to act against any body of men 
 except the persons opposing the laws of the Teiri- 
 tory, described in Governor Shannon's demand 
 for assistance. If he had acted alone on the call 
 of persons without lawful authority who are act- 
 ing against the constituted authorities, it would 
 be difficult to justify such action. But I do not 
 complain of it, because I intend, to the uttermost 
 verge of the law, to sustain the supremacy of 
 law in that Territory. I will maintain its peace 
 at every cost. If traitors seek to disturb the 
 peace of the country, I desire iliat it shall be no 
 sectional contest — I do not see the end of that. 
 I prefer that the conflict should be between the 
 Federal Government and the lawless. I can eee 
 the end of that. The law will triumph and the 
 evil stop. And I tell the Senator from New 
 Hampshire that the first gun, which he so much 
 deprecates, will fire the moment th^laws of that 
 Territory are opposed by force and trodden down 
 by lawless violence, either from within or from 
 without. And the reverberation of its echoes 
 from the hills and valleys of the North or the 
 South will but summon every true man in the 
 Republic to the maintenance of the laws and the 
 preservation of the Republic. He may want a 
 sectional contest; he cannot get it. The President 
 has wisely and patriotically announced that the 
 contest shall not begin; that this design of frantic 
 malcontents shall be defeated; that there shall be 
 erected a national standard, around which to rally 
 patriots from all parts of the Republic, against 
 disorganizing agitators and lawless disturbers of 
 rightful authority; that he will resist insurrection 
 against the existiirggovernmentof Kansas, which 
 he decides to be lawful; that he will resist in- 
 vaders from without, if there be any such, as 
 alleged by his opponents; that the laws of the 
 Territory shall be maintained; that peace shall be 
 preserved against the dangers of sectional strife, 
 and that law, and not disorder, shall be king in 
 Kansas. This is the whole case. The policy 
 of the President, I repeat, commends itself, by 
 its wisdom, its justice, and its moderation, to 
 patriots everywhere. They will sustain it. 
 
 The Senator from New Hampshire seems to 
 desire strife and agitation; he therefore travels 
 out of the record and the case before the Senate 
 to assail citizens of Missouri. I know not whether 
 the allegations he has made against them be true 
 or not; but I do know that the authority upon 
 which he relies is bad, and not to be depended 
 upon; it is not such as would influence my opinion 
 against any one — not the Senator himself. One 
 of the points which he makes against a gentleman 
 whom I well know, and whom I am happy to 
 number among my friends — the former President 
 of this body [Mr. Atchison] — is based uppn a 
 report of his speech which has found its way into 
 the New York Times ! That is the authority upon 
 which it rests. Let it rest there. But I again re- 
 peat, thatif we admit that the citizens of Missouri 
 are guilty of all the outrages charged against 
 them by the "free State men," it does but more 
 perfectly vindicate the wisdom and necessity of 
 the policy of the President. We who passed this 
 Kansas bill, both at the North and the South, 
 
intend to maintain its principles; we do not intend 
 to be driven from thorn by clamor, nor by assaults, 
 nor by falselioods, nor any other invention of its 
 faithless and impotent assailants. These princi- 
 ples we expound for ourselves. We intend that 
 the actual, 6o7irt ^rfe settlers of Kansas shall be 
 protected in the full exercise of all the rights of 
 freemen; that, unawcd and uncontrolled, thi;y 
 shall freely, and of their own will, legislate for 
 themselves to every extent allowed by the Con- 
 stitution, while they have a territorial govern- 
 ment; and when they shall be in a condition to 
 come into the Union, and may desire it, that they 
 shall come into the Union with whatever repub- 
 lican constitution they may prefer and adopt for 
 themselves; that in the exercise of these rights 
 they shal} be protected against insurrection from 
 within and invasion from without. The rights 
 are accorded to them without any referenr* to the 
 result, and will be maintained, in my opinion, by 
 the South and the North. I stood upon this 
 ground at the passage of the bill; I shall maintain 
 It with fidelity and honor to the last extremity. 
 The Senator from New Hampshire, seeming un- 
 able to comprehend the principles of the Kansas 
 bill, attempts to show that, in the opinions of many 
 of its supporters, the Territory would be a free 
 State under its action. That opinion was certainly 
 held by many of them, and is now held by many 
 of them. Though I expressed no opinion on the 
 subject, I thought then, and think now, that such 
 would most probably be its future destiny; though 
 the friends of that measure, both from the North 
 and South, placed their support of it upon no such 
 basis. They supported the bill without reference 
 to the result. Many of them believed the Mis- 
 souri restriction was unconstitutional; others be- 
 lieved it unwise and unjust; that it had been con- 
 demned by a very large majority of the people of 
 the United States, as evidenced by their support 
 of the acts of 1850, commonly called the compro- 
 mise measures; and that, therefore, it ought to be 
 repealed. If the Senator could show that their 
 opinions of the result of the effects of climate, 
 productions, and the laws of emigration were er- 
 roneous, he would not thereby progress an inch 
 in attacking the soundness, justice, and propriety 
 of the measure, nor in showing the least mcon- 
 sistency in those who supported it. They sup- 
 ported it because it was right, and left the future 
 to those who were to be affected by it. The great- 
 est unforeseen element to defeat these expecta- 
 tions has been sup])lied by the folly and madness 
 of that Senator's friends, who have attempted to 
 forestall and thwart the legitimate action of these 
 causes, by irregular and improper efforts to con- 
 trol them, and have thepibv introduced active and 
 energetic opposing elements in the contest. 
 
 Against ail these conflicting efforts and opin- 
 ions, the friends of the Constitution, justice, and 
 equality have hitherto held, and will continue to 
 hold, the scales of justice even and unshaken. 
 We still tell all the joint owners of this public 
 domain to enter and enjoy it, both in the North 
 and the South, with property of every sort; exer- 
 cise the full powers of American freemen; legis- 
 late for yourselves to any and every extent, and 
 upon any and every subject allowed by our com- 
 mon Constitution; the Federal Government will 
 protect you against all who attempt to disturb you 
 in the exercise of these invaluable rights; and 
 
 when you have become powerful and strong 
 enough to bear the burdens, and desire it, we will 
 admit you into the family of sovereigns without 
 reference to your opinions and your action upon 
 African slavery. Decide tLat question for your- 
 selves, and we will sustain your decision, be- 
 cause it is your right to make it. This is the 
 policy of tlic Kansas bill; it wrongs no man — no 
 section of our common country. But it is said 
 that one of our grounds of defense of the institu- 
 tion of slavery is, that it was forced upon us by 
 Old England and participated in by New Eng- 
 land ; and, therefore, we are not responsible for it; 
 therefore, we are called upon not to imitate the 
 example and force it upon Kansas. I will not; 
 the bill does not; it leaves the responsibility alone 
 and wholly with those to be affected by it. While 
 1 neither use nor approve the argument, yet its 
 force is not weakened by the point made by the 
 Senator. If it were true and sound, the obliga- 
 tion on New England would be just as great not 
 to war upon it in Kansas as in Georgia. If it 
 was here in their act, they would act as unjustly 
 and as inhumanly by restricting it to limits alike 
 destructive to the happiness and prosperity of 
 master and slave as by exterminating the race in 
 the States where it exists. We have never asked 
 the Government to carry, by force or in any other 
 way, slavery anywhere. We do not desire it. 
 We only demand that the inhabitantsof the Ter- 
 ritories shall decide the question for themselves, 
 without the. interference of the Government or 
 the intermeddling of those who have no right to 
 decide it. We have again and again reiterated 
 these principles. We have steadily acted on_ 
 them. The Senator does not attempt to answer 
 them, but seeks to mystify them and the true 
 issues by a rambling stump speech, perhaps de- 
 livered for the fiftieth time, filled with odds and 
 ends, " old saws and modern instances," bits and 
 scraps from party newspapers and party resolu- 
 tions reflecting on the livingand the dead. These 
 things may all answer very well for the political 
 canvass now going on in New Hampshire, for 
 which they were doubtless intended; but they 
 certainly do not elucidate any of the questions 
 under consideration in this debate, nor does his 
 effort to show that certain persons in New Hamp- 
 shire — probably his now political opponents — a 
 dozen years since, held opinions different from 
 ij those now entertained by them, contribute to that 
 I end. Ten years of argument, discussion, and 
 I! patriotic consideration of these questions have 
 ' changed the opinions of great numbers of able, 
 I honest, and patriotic men, including, perhaps, 
 I the very persons to whom he refers, upon the sub- 
 It ject of the power of Congress to prohibit slavery 
 I in the Territories; and great numbers of such pa- 
 I triotic men have been bold and honest enough to 
 ■ accept the truth for error, and act upon it, and to 
 jj leave their cast-off errors to the assiduous nursing 
 of the Senator from New Hampshire. 
 ! It seems exceedingly difficult to settle even a 
 
 I question of historical fac^ with some gentlemen 
 1 upon this floor. We are now brought back again 
 
 II by th.e Senator to the question of the power of 
 '} Congress to prohibit slavery in the common Ter- 
 ritories; bull do not intend to argue it; I argued 
 
 'i it at the other end of this Capitol in 1850, when 
 i I supported what are known as the compromisa 
 \\ measures. 1 argued it iu the Senate two yeai!> 
 
4 
 
 ago, when the Kansas and Nebraska act was 
 passed; and I have recently argued it in another 
 place. I am, therefore, on the record, and 1 do 
 not intend now to go through the argument 
 again; but I wish to correct some statements in 
 regard to one or two questions of fact which 
 have arisen in the course of (his debate. 
 
 Tlie Senator paid a just tribute to one of the 
 most philosophic, calm, and patriotic men pro- 
 duced by the Revolution — Mr. Madison, a rnan 
 whom I regard as the model of a statesman. He 
 quotes him as authority in favor of the prohibi- 
 tion. Well, sir, Mr. Madison's opinion on this 
 subject, under his own hand, lias been before the 
 country ^or several years, in which he denies this 
 
 Eower to Congress. The letter referred to has 
 een printed for several years; it must, therefore, 
 have escaped the Senator's attention. I will read 
 what he said upon this subject. I have not the 
 book before me, but I have this opinion, quoted 
 in a speech which I delivered here two years ago, 
 when the Kansas and Nebraska bill was under 
 discussion. Mr. Madison, in his letter to Mr. 
 Monroe in 1820, says: 
 
 " ©n one side it naturally occurs that the light, being 
 given from the necessity of the case, and in suspension of 
 the great princii;le of self governnienf, ought not to be ex- 
 tended further nor continued longer than the occasion 
 might fairly require." 
 
 That was as to the clause in the Constitution, 
 giving Congress power to make " all needful 
 rules and regulations respecting the territory or 
 other property belonging to the United States." 
 But Mr. Madison goes further: 
 
 '■' The questions to be decided seem to be — 
 
 " 1. VVIietlier a territorial restriction be an a-ssumption 
 of illegitimate power; or, 
 
 "2. A misuseof legitimate power; and, if the latteronlyj 
 whether the injury threatened to the nation from an acqui- 
 escence in the misuse, or from a frustration of it, be the 
 greater. 
 
 " On the first point there is certainly room for difference 
 of opinion; though, for myself, I must own that t have 
 always leaned to the belief that the restriction was not within 
 the true scope of the Constitution." 
 
 This is an extract from a letter written by Mr. 
 Madison, in 1820, to Mr. Monroe, then President 
 of the United States, when the question arose, and 
 when, I assert, this independent power of prohi- 
 bition was seriously claiimed for the first time in 
 eitherbranch cf the Congress of theUnited States. 
 Therefore, while the authority of Mr. Madison is 
 quoted in support of this power, he himself, at 
 the very time when the power was asserted, and 
 excited the greatest amount of popular interest, 
 spoke for himself, and gave his clear and explicit 
 opinion against its constitutionality. 
 
 Again: the gentleman says that General Wash- 
 ington was in favor of this prohibition. He in- 
 vites us to go back to the fathers of the Republic. 
 It is wholly useless, I believe, to attempt to set 
 gentlemen right who do not intend to be set right 
 on a^question of historical fact. The act of August 
 7, 1789, which the Senator quoted, and .says that 
 Washing-ton signed, says not a word upon this 
 question of prohibition. It does not allude to it 
 in the remotest manner. The ordinance of 1787 
 bad been passed two years before; it had been ac- 
 cepted by the old Confederation. The government 
 of that Territory was in actual existence under 
 the old Confederation, M'ith the right secured to 
 Congress to appoint its officers. The new Con- 
 stitution was adopted, and Congress met in 1789. 
 
 By that Constitution Congress was bound by all 
 contracts of the old Government; and Congress" 
 passed this act : 
 
 " Whereas, in order that the ordinance of the United 
 States in Congress asjiMnbled, for the government of the 
 territory northwest of the river Ohio, may continue to have 
 full effect, it is rf quisitP' that certain provisions should be 
 made so as to adapt the same to the present (^■onstitution of 
 the United States." 
 
 That is what the bill proposed. To give effect 
 to the ordinance, to adapt it to the ]3resent Con- 
 stitution, they say it is necessary to pass this la^V, 
 and what was it.' — 
 
 "Be it enacted, l^c, That in all cases in which, by thfi 
 said ordinance, any information is to be given or corainuni- 
 cation made by tlie Governor of the said Territory to the 
 j United States in Congress assembled, or to any of their 
 officers, it shall be the duty of the said Governor to give 
 such information, and to made such communication to the 
 Presideut of the United States, and the President shall 
 nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the 
 Senate, shall appoint all officers which by the said ordinance 
 were to have been appointed by the United States in Con- 
 gress assembled, and all officers so appointed shall be 
 commissioned by him ; and in all cases where the United 
 States in Congress assembled might, by the said ordinance, 
 revoke any commission, or remove from any office, the 
 President is hereby declared to have the same powers of 
 revocation and removal." 
 
 This section does nothing but confer the powers 
 which the contract gave to the old Government 
 to the new one, subject to the restrictions of the 
 Constitution. Again: in the second section we 
 find the following: 
 
 " Skc. 2. Jind he it further enacted, That in case of the 
 death, removal, resignation, or necessary absence of the 
 Governorof the said Territory, the Secretary thereof shall 
 be, and is hereby, authorized and required to execute all 
 the powers and perform all the duties of the Governor 
 during tfic vacancy occasioned by the removal, resignation, 
 or necessary absence of the said Governor. 
 
 "Approved August 7, 1789." 
 
 I have read every word of the act. 
 
 Mr. HALE. I wish to ask the Senator from 
 Georgia wliether he does not consider that the 
 ordinance of 1787 was as effectually reiinacted by 
 that Congress as if set owiin totidem verbis in ihaX 
 act.? 
 
 Mr. TOOMBS. I certainly do not. It was not- 
 reenacted at all. There was no effort to reenact 
 it. The ordinance purports on its face to be a 
 contract between the people of Virginia, the in- 
 habitants of the Northwest Territory, and the 
 Government of the United States, perpetual and 
 unalterable, except by the consent of all parties. 
 It was accepted by all three of the parties. It was 
 a contract executed. The first Congress found it 
 in existence. The Constitution had affirmed the 
 validity of contracts made under the Confeder- 
 acy. The original ordinance provided for the 
 appointment of officers by Congress. The act 
 which the Senator quoted, and which I have 
 read, simply made that provision conform to the 
 Constitution of the United States. How can the 
 first Congress be said to have adopted the ordi- 
 nance of 1787 by that action .' By what con- 
 struction can that be contended .' It is said they 
 accepted the grant with the prohibition of slavery. 
 They did not even do that. But that same Con- 
 gress, in which were Madison and the other great 
 men whom the Senator from New Hampshire 
 natned, did accept from North Carolina a grant 
 of the territory which now constitutes the State 
 of Tennessee, with a pro-slavery clause, and 
 carried that clause in the territoriar bilf. Your 
 
territorial act for Tennessee not only carried out 
 that provision, but extended it to all territory 
 claimed by the United States south of the Ohio 
 river. There was a tract of territory in tlie 
 southwest which the United States claimed inde- 
 pendently of any State control or authority; and 
 over that territory, in 1798, in the time of John 
 Adams, a territorial government was established, 
 and the act repeated the ordinance of 1787 in 
 words, excluding the anti-slavery clause. The 
 honorable Senator from New Hampshire wants 
 the practice of our fixthers. I will give it to him. 
 I say the prohibition of slavery cannot be found 
 on the statute-book, even impliedly, from the 
 establishment of this Government, under the 
 Constitution, until 1820; and I stand ready at all 
 times to make good the assertion, and demand 
 proof of a single statute to the contrary. Such 
 prohibition cannot be found in the statutes of the 
 United States. The right to prohibit the people 
 of the different States of this Union to go into the 
 common territories with iheir slave property was 
 never asserted by the Congress of the United 
 States from 1789 to 1820. The elder Adams of 
 Massachusetts signed a bill establishing a terri- 
 torial government over a country claimed by 
 independeit authority — the only foot of territory 
 which the United States claimed in their own 
 right, without grant, unfettered by the conditions 
 of any grant; and in regard to that territory they 
 struck out in words the sixth, or anti-slavery, 
 section of the ordinance of 1787, and extended 
 the residue of the ordinance to it. It is true that, 
 upon each division of the Northwest Territory, 
 the whole ordinance was applied to each of its 
 parts, but that was in pursuance of the contract 
 with the old Confederation. 
 
 In 1803, under the administration of Mr. Jef- 
 ferson, we established the territorial governments 
 of Orleans and Louisiana, and subsequently in the 
 same region the Territories of Missouri and Ar- 
 kansas. In 1819 we obtained a cession of Florida 
 from Spain, and established a territorial govern- 
 ment there. In all these cases there was no pro- 
 hibition of slavery. No such prohibition was 
 enacted until 1820, upon the proposition to admit 
 Missouri as a State. The Congress of 1820 was 
 tlie first that ever assumed and exercised such a 
 power. Thirty years had then elapsed since 
 the formation of the Constitution. Almost all 
 the fathers of our Government had gone to their 
 graves. Then it was that ambition, defeated 
 hopes, blasted political prospects, brought strife 
 and mischief into the public councils; then it was 
 that the equitable and just policy of our fathers 
 was abandoned; then we "sowed the wind," and 
 are now " reaping the whirlwind." Then it was 
 a former distinguisind citizen of Alassachusetts, 
 though at that time a Senator from New York, 
 Rufus King, inaugurated the policy of prohibi- 
 tion. It had no support, no pretense of founda- 
 tion, in the practice of the fathers from 1789 to 
 1820. Eight territorial governments were set in 
 operation by Congress, bjr the fathers of the Re- 
 public, without the assertion in any of them of 
 this power of prohibition. When it was then 
 
 Kroposed, those of the fathers who were living, 
 Ir. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, and others, came 
 forward and put their condemnation upon that 
 assumption of unconstitutional authority. 
 
 I am very happy to observe the tone of moder- 
 
 ation expressed by the Senator from New Hamp- 
 shire upon the general question. I cordially 
 reciprocate it. If he only desires, as he asserts, 
 that there shall be no aggression on either side, 
 I will strike hands with him, and let the ques- 
 tion be settled on that basis, now, finally, and 
 forever. The country will respond to the senti- 
 ment. Let there be no legislative aggression on 
 either side. Look through the records of the 
 country, and show a single act, from the begin- 
 ning of the Government to this hour, where the 
 South have perpetrated any aggression on the 
 North, and I would claim it as a privilege to 
 strike it from the statute-book. Nor do I com- 
 plain of any on the other side until 1820; but I 
 do affirm, that the moment when you said we 
 should be shut out from the common territories 
 of the Union unless we abandoned our slave 
 property, it was aggression. It is aggression to 
 exclude fifteen States of this Union from the com- 
 mon territories purchased by the common blood 
 and common treasure. We think no fair man 
 can deny that proposition. This wrong was sub- 
 mitted to by the South for above thirty years, 
 when similar questions, in the march of events, 
 again arose in the ' national councils. Acqui- 
 escence was claimed as not only sanctifying the 
 old wrong, but as a precedent for infiiciing new 
 ones. The country was aroused; the question 
 spread from the halls of legislation to the homes 
 of the people; and, upon a full and fair hearing, 
 the patriotic men of the North pronounced agaiast 
 the usurpation, and united with us to defeat the 
 attempted repetition of the wrong, and to bring 
 back the legislation of the country to its ancient 
 landmarks, by the repeal of the Missouri restric- 
 tion; therefore, upon this most important and 
 dangerous of all the forms in which the slavery 
 question can be presented, we are now without 
 aggression on either side. If the Senator from 
 New Hampshire is sincere, he will stand there. 
 The common property is open to the common 
 enjoyment of all: let it remain so; and let us unite 
 and firmly support those measures which will 
 protect all alike in the peaceable enjoyment of 
 tlieir rights. This was not achieved by the South. 
 She could not do it. The patriotic men of the 
 North magnanimously struck for the right — for 
 equality under the Constitution. 
 
 Sir, (addressingMr. Hale,) you may denounce 
 them for it, but you cannot make your cause the 
 cause of the North. It is not a question of sec- 
 tions. Thousands of men upon both sides of 
 Mason and Dixon's line are patriotic enough to 
 treat it as it deserves to be treated, as a question 
 of the Constitution, and they have done so. You 
 have not driven that great j)lialanx of true-hearted 
 national men from the public councils by de- 
 nouncing them as " dough-faces." 
 
 I regretted exceedingly to hear the Senator from 
 New Hampshire, a few days since, say that the 
 North had always been practically in a minority 
 in Congress, because we of the South bought up 
 as man}'^ northern men as we wanted ! The peo- 
 ple of the Soutli — one third only of the white pop- 
 ulation of the United States — are thus deliberately 
 charged by a northern Senator with ruling the 
 Republic, and putting the North in a practical 
 minority for fifty years by purchasing up his 
 countrymen. Sir, I sumd here to-day, in behalf 
 of the North, to repel the accusation. 
 
6 
 
 Mr. HALE. Who made it ? 
 
 Mr. TOOMBS. You said it; I have it before 
 mc in your printed speech; I heard it delivered, 
 and you are correctly reported. I deny it; it is 
 a slander on my countrymen. Northern states- 
 men have sold themselves out in quantities to suit 
 f)urchasers for fifty years ! New Hampshire sell 
 ler honor and her interest to "southern slave- 
 drivers!" If it had been true, it would rather 
 become her own son to have thrown the mantle 
 over her shame, and concealed it from all eyes, 
 even his own, than to have become her accuser. 
 I think the Senator may search in vain, even in 
 the bitterest tirades of abuse and villification ever 
 uttered by those whom ho terms "border ruffians," 
 for any language so strong, any accusation so dis- 
 graceful, as that made by liimself against his own 
 countrymen. 
 
 What proof is olTered us in support of this 
 accusation? The Senator pointed us to the an- 
 nexation of Texas. "Perhaps," said he, in this 
 connection, " that was a northern aggression." 
 The question of the annexation of Texas was 
 first brought before this body in a treaty made 
 by President Tyler; it was rejected by a large 
 majority, composed of a majority of the South, 
 as well as the North. It was adopted as a party 
 measure by the Democratic convention, in 1844, 
 which nominated Mr. Polk. It was openly and 
 fairly jaut before the people of the United States; 
 everywhere discussed and cq,mmen led upon; em- 
 blazoned on every Democratic banner through- 
 out th.e Union, and decided by the people in 
 favor of annexation. It was carried by a great 
 majority in New Hampshire — I presume against 
 the Senator's eloquence, who, if I mistake not, 
 was turned out of his old party for opposing it. 
 Were the people who supported this measure 
 boiil^ht by the South? Wlio bought the hardy, 
 intelligent sons of New Hampshire? What pay 
 did they receive? Who was rich enough to buy 
 thejn.^ Sir, I remember to have seen it related 
 of one of the poorest of her sons, Ethan Allen, 
 that, when it was attempted to seduce him from 
 his fidelity to his country, he indignantly replied: 
 ■■' Poor as I am, the King of England is not rich' 
 enough to buy me." [Applause.] Sir, whether 
 the story be true of him or not, I doubt not that 
 there are thousands and tens of thousands of the 
 incorruptible patriots of the land of Ethan Allen 
 who would proudly have made the same reply to 
 the same temptation. These men have not been 
 bought, nor can they be either cajoled or intimi- 
 dated by the Senator from New Hampshire. 
 They supported the annexation of Texas because 
 they believed it was to the public interest — that it 
 was a measure of sound policy. It was proposed 
 by the party with whom they acted; they approved 
 and adopted it. It was everywhere a party, and 
 not a sectional, issue. Nearly one half of the 
 South opposed it, but a majority of both sec- 
 tions approved it. It is not true that those gal- 
 lant and patriotic statesmen of New Hampshire, 
 who supported this measure at home and here, 
 were " bought" and bribed to support this meas- 
 ure, or in any way to betray their State or their 
 section. Many of them were known and revered 
 by friends and opponents throughout the Union. 
 Some of them now are gathered to their fathers, 
 fill honorable graves, and around whose tombs 
 cluster pleasant memories, untainted by dishonor. 
 
 Woodbury, Atherton, and Norris, long known 
 and honored by New Hampshire, have thus 
 passed away. Who bought them ? In the name 
 of truth, of justice, of my country, and for New 
 Hampshire, I repel the charge. 
 
 New York supported that measure. Who 
 bought her Representatives ? Who bought Penn- 
 sylvania? Who bought the men of the great 
 West? They supported it. Wlio bought and 
 who paid for Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan? 
 They supported that measure. These whole- 
 sale, baseless, and unfounded charges will not 
 intimidate, but they ought to arouse the men 
 of the North to vindicate their honor, by in- 
 dignantly repelling their libelers from their 
 councils. 
 
 The northern men who support and maintain 
 their own opinions on great constitutional ques- 
 tions, and have the fearless independence to follow 
 their convictions of duty, in tlie elegant vocabu- 
 lary of the " friends of humanity," are usually 
 termed "dough-faces" — "dough-faces" bought 
 up by the South to betray the North. Who bought 
 the Nestor of the Senate, [Mr. Cass,] who with 
 patriotic firmness maintained his constitutional 
 opinions, and voted against restriction, amid the 
 yells and shrieks of his Abolition detractors ? He 
 is commonly represented by this class as the chief 
 of " dough-faces." Did the fourteen Senators 
 from the non-slaveholding States who voted for 
 the Kansas bill sell out themselves and their coun- 
 try? It is true that some of them have fallen 
 victims to temporary causes. The Abolitionists 
 and the dark-lantern conspiracy in some States 
 fraternized, and succeeded in cutting some of them 
 down. Such things are to be expected in all free 
 countries. We cannot be wholly exempt from 
 errors and delusions. Madness will sometimes, 
 but only for a time, "rule the hour." We must 
 take the good with the evil, with the firm trust 
 that popular intelligence and patriotism will finally 
 vindicate themselves, and come to the support of 
 the right. 
 
 The Senator seeks every occasion to ally him- 
 self and his cause with the North; hence he art- 
 fully defends the Puritans frorn imputations which 
 my friend from Tennessee [Mr. Joxes] had never 
 cast upon them. He told us the North would 
 fight. I believe that nobody ever doubted that 
 any portion of the people of the United States 
 would fight on a proper occasion. Sir, if there 
 shall ever be civil war in this country, when 
 honest men sjiall set about cutting each other's 
 throats, those who are least to be depended on in 
 a fight will be the people who will set them at it. 
 There are courageous and honest men enough in 
 both sections of the Union to fight. You may 
 preach in your pulpits in favor of sending Sharpe's 
 rifles to Kansas, and you may succeed in getting 
 courageous men to go there to use them. Not 
 the least misfortune resulting from it will be, 
 that those who stir up the strife are not apt to be 
 found even within the reach of a far-sliooting 
 Sharpe's rifle. No, sir; there is no question of 
 courage involved. The people of both sections 
 of the Union have illustrated their courage on too 
 many battle-fields to be questioned. They have 
 shown their fightingqualities shoulder to shoulder 
 together whenever their country has called upon 
 them; but that they may never come in contact 
 with eaclt otlier in fraternal v/ur should be the 
 
ardent wish and earnest desfre of every true man 
 and honeet patriot. 
 
 With reference to that portion of the Senator's 
 argument justifying the "emigrant aid soci- 
 eties" — whatever may be their policy, whatever 
 may be the tendency of that policy to produce 
 strife — if they simply aid emigrants from Mas- 
 sachusetts to go to Kansas, and to become citi- 
 zens of that Territory, I am prepared to say that 
 they viokite no law; and they had a right to do 
 it, and every attempt to prevent them doing so 
 violated the law, and ought not to be sustained. 
 But if they have sent persons there furnished 
 with arms, with the intent to offer forcible resist- 
 ance to the constituted authorities, they are guilty 
 of the highest crime known to civil society, and are 
 amenable to its penalties. I shall not undertake 
 to decide upon their conduct. The facts are not 
 before me, and I therefore pass it by. 
 
 I shall be pardoned, T trust, for not going into 
 crimination or recrimination as to the matters in 
 dispixte between the emigrants sent out by the aid 
 societies and the inhabitants of Missouri. It is 
 wholly immaterial to this issue who is right and 
 who is wrong. If wrongs have been committed, 
 apply the law to such as come within its provis- 
 ions. If the law is too weak, apply force in aid 
 of its execution, and to any extent necessary to 
 its execution, and no further. 
 
 I know that many gentlemen with whom I have 
 corresponded, and from whom I have otherwise 
 heard, in western Missouri, General Atchison 
 among them, ask. for nothing more. They simply 
 demand that the actual settlers who go to that 
 country shall have a fair opportunity to establish 
 those domesticinstitutions which they may think 
 proper. General Atchison took this ground in 
 the Senate. I am very sure he stands upon it 
 now. 1 shall, therefore, dismiss the anonymous, 
 unsupported charges against him. He is ready, 
 at all times, to answer for himself; and, I am sure, 
 in every contingency he will maintain that lofty 
 character which he lias always sustained. 
 
 Mr. HALE. I made no charge against him. 
 I disclaimed any such purpose. I simply read 
 tlie extracts, and gave my authority for them. 
 
 Mr. TOOMBS. If the Senator made no charge 
 I must say that I cannot commend the good taste 
 or fairness of retailing against an honest man 
 rumors or charges derogatory to his character, 
 picked up in the streets, or in irresponsible news- 
 papers. I doubt not the Senator did that wrong 
 unintentionally. I think, in that respect, the Sen- 
 ator erred — more especially as the conduct of Mr. 
 Atchison is not called in question, and can in 
 nowise affect the questions under consideration. 
 
 The Senator alluded to the Dorr rebellion in 
 Rhode Island, and went back twelve or thirteen 
 years, and presented us with the views then en- 
 tertained by President Pierce on what he calls 
 "squatter sovereignty." Many of the resolu- 
 tions which he read, as having been offered by the 
 President, I approve. A large portion of them 
 I approve; they announced some sound constitu- 
 
 tional truths. Some of them I am not prepared 
 to say I wholly approve. But I do approve, to 
 the fullest extent, everything the President haa 
 done in this matter, and I cannot suffer the Sena- 
 tor to sot off one against the other; and I see no 
 other reason why those resolutions are brought 
 here. But I can see no discrepancy between the 
 President's opinions now and then. The com- 
 plaint in Kansas is not against organic law, but 
 against ordinary legislation, remediable at any 
 time by the ballot-box. It is to enforce these 
 laws while they exist, and to protect the free ex- 
 ercise at the ballot-box of the right to change, 
 and at the instance of both parties, that the Pres- 
 ident feels it incumbent on him to prepare to 
 bring the military in aid of the civil authority. I 
 know there is a government in Kansas which was 
 put there by the authority of the United States. 
 I know there is a Governor, and Legislature, and 
 laws, providing for the administration of justice. 
 These are lav/lessly assailed; it is his duty to 
 protect them. 
 
 The Senator has read, with many facetious 
 comments, a law passed by the Legislature of 
 Kansas for the punishment of those who incite 
 insurrection among the slaves of the Territory. 
 I approve such a law. All Governments claim 
 and exercise the right to prevent anybody from 
 inciting insurrection among them, whether they 
 have Africans among them or not. He who goes 
 into a society, disregards its laws, and attempts 
 to excite insurrection and subvert society, de- 
 serves not only the punishment inflicted by the 
 law which the Senator read, but probably even 
 that suggested by the Senator from Tennessee, 
 [Mr. Jones.] Sir, insiirrection is the highest 
 crime against society. When a citizen goes into 
 Kansas from Georgia or Massachusetts, and finds 
 laws in existence passed by the lawful authority, 
 he owes obedience to those laws until they are ab- 
 rogated. Let him endeavor to change tliose laws 
 if they are bad, but let him take care to do it in 
 a legal and proper manner. That is legitimate; 
 that is proper; but let him not attempt to incite 
 insurrection among any class of inhabitants, 
 white or black. We have such laws in Georgia, 
 and I approve them; nobody but bad men and 
 vicious intermeddlers complain of them. They 
 exist not only in the slave States, but also in the 
 free States. It was well remarked by a learned 
 English author. " that he who goeth about teach- 
 ing the people that they are not so well governed 
 as they should be, will not fiiil to find many atten- 
 tive listeners," whether the Government be good 
 or bad. As long as you are within the law, you 
 may change your Government; but whenever 
 you attempt to do it by force and bloodshed, you 
 are usually hold to be an enemy of society, and 
 must take the chances of revolution. Gentlemen 
 had better make up their minds not to risk insur- 
 rection in Kansas; they might find it costly po- 
 litical capital to their active agents, and dangerous 
 to themselves. The supremacy of the law will 
 be upheld. 
 
 Printed at the Office of the Coiigressional Globe. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRE 
 
 016 094 442 C