^o* ••ate; «fev* :«&"•* *W •- • % A* * ^0 ***** **\.i'J*.* °°* ^y . . v^ ,<* ..i - J' ^. '-J- « a^^^. ,^ "^ .A V ^.. SPEECH JOSIAH KANDALL, ESQ., OF PHILADELPHIA, Delivered at Chambersburg, August 6, 1856, at the request of the Democratic State Convention, of Pennsylvania. In obedience to the request of the Democratic State Conven- tion, of Pennsylvania, I claim the attention of my fellow-citizens for a short time. I am aware that I have received this courtesy because I have heretofore been a member of the Old Line "Whig party. In 1824-5, the Democratic and Whig parties were separated by no principle, but were divided upon the question, whether Gen. Jackson was entitled to be elected President of the United States. In the progress of time, during the thirty years of the existence of the Whig party, several important principles were presented, and the two parties became distinct and independent of each other upon questions of public policy. These were : 1. The renewal of the Charter of the Bank of the United States. 2. The Sub-Treasury. 3. The Distribution of the Proceeds of the Public Lands. 4. The Tariff. A "National Bank" was abandoned by the Democratic party, under the veto of Gen. Jackson in 1832, and by the Whig party in 1844. " The Sub-Treasury," the cardinal measure of Mr. Van Buren, was opposed by the Whig party, has fought itself into public favor, and now no one wishes to disturb it. "The Distribution of the Proceeds of the Public Lands," has been superceded by the debt created by the Mexican war. " The Tariff" no longer remains either a political or geogra- phical question. During the last Congress, the "State Rights" men of the South and the Republican Abolitionists of the North, united against Pennsylvania, without distinction of party, to reduce the tariff below its present standard. I do not include in this category the question of Internal Im- provement by the Federal Government, or the Acquisition of New Territory. All parties in the West are in favor of the exercise of the first power ; the second was determined by the election of Mr. Polk in 1841, when a new feature in the Republic was developed, that our p3ople collectively are anxious to increase the public domain in the same manner as individuals are anxious to increase their private property. If there remains any practical disputable principle, which con- stituted an issue between the Democratic and the old Whig parties, I do not know it. The Whig party has performed its duty, and ha3 had its day. It has been prostrated by the organization of the American party, or the Kxow-Nothinj Order. They, and not the Old Line Whigs, have been the executioners. They have renounced their old cognomen, laid aside their old principles, and substituted in their place a new name and a new creed never before recog- nized by Clay, Webster, Sergeant, or their noble compeers. I know there are many intelligent and patriotic men who cherish the hope that the Whig party can again be resusciated, but the hope is delusive, and it is pernicious, because it deprives the country of a large portion of intellect and worth, which ought to be brought into public service. In the history of our republic, no party broken down has ever yet been re-organized. The fate of the Federal and Anti-Masonic parties establishes this fact. There is not, at this time, a Whig member of the popular branch of Congress elected by a Whig vote. There is not a member of the Legislature of Pennsylvania elected by a _ Whig vote. There is not a member of the Councils of the City of Philadelphia elected by a Whig vote. For the last two years, with but two exceptions, wherever the scattered members of the Whig party have met in council, they have felt their position, and have, therefore, wisely abstained from forming a ticket to be voted for at the polls. In New Hampshire and Massachusetts they rallied at the polls, and the result was paucity of numbers and total defeat. But what good would be derived from the re- organization and triumph of the old Whig party? They do not want a National Bank. They do not desire the repeal of the Sub-Treasury. The most ardent friends of the tariff do not ask for the re-establishmcnt of the high tariff of 1828, or even of 1842 ; but all they ask is, that the tariff shall stand where it was placed in 1846 by the casting vote of the Vice President, Mr. Dallas. All the old issues have been settled, and, as a natural consequence, new parties have sprung up, and new issues have been formed. The Order of Know-Nothings have violated the letter and spirit of the VI. Article of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." They have established secret societies, secret oaths and obligations. With these principles the Whig party, in its days of power and numerical strength, had no sympathy or affiliation, and there is no part of the Union where the Whigs were more inflexible in opposing these political heresies than in the State of Pennsylvania. In 1845, when the Whig party met in the City of Philadelphia, after the defeat of Mr. Clay, the duty of opening the meeting and setting forth their principles was committed to me. I held in my hand at that meeting, the charter of Rhode Island, granted to Roger Williams, a Baptist minister, which contains the broadest and most comprehensive declaration of religious liberty and equal- ity ever yet penned. I read its eloquent and energetic platform and said', "this is the doctrine of the Whig party," and pointing to the ruins of the Roman Catholic Church of St. Augustine, burnt during the disgraceful riots of 1844, and which lay within a few yards of the place of meeting, I added, "there is its desecration." There is not a nook nor corner in the vast region of our country which does not contain old line Whigs who are willing to stand by the Constitution and the Union. But their numerical strength is far exceeded by their patriotism, talents, and public spirit. This is the body to which I have been attached, and I feel the deepest interest in the course tshey shall pursue. The Republican party is sectional, and its success must, in my judgment, lead to a severance of the Union. I do not believe that the great mass of that party anticipate this result ; but if it should be consummated, their regret will be no equivalent for the damning injury thereby inflicted upon this great Republic. I appeal to every old line Whig in the Union to avert this calamity. The South cannot and will not remain in the Union, unless their rights shall be guaranteed to them. If we were in the same situa- tion, we would demand our rights in tones as imperative and man- datory as those which are now used by ©u=r Southern brethrea. How is this great evil to be avoided ? I answer, by the elec- tion of Mr. Buchanan. Every vote given to him is a check to the progress of the Republican party. I know there are many Whigs who approve of the administration of Millard Fillmore, and are willing to trust him again. Every vote given to Mr.' Fillmore increases the danger of the success of Mr. Fremont. Every vote given to Mr. Buchanan potentially seals the fate of Mr. Fremont. But Millard Fillmore in 1848, '50, and '52, is _ not the Millard Fillmore of 1856. When he was elected Vice President in 1848, — when he became the acting President in 1850, — and when he was a candidate for re-nomination by the Whig Convention in Baltimore, in 1852, he professed to be a Whig — nothing more, nothing less. The Native American party at that time was in existence and proclaimed principles in terms far less exceptionable than those now avowed by the Know- Nothing party. But Mr. Fillmore then had neither part nor lot with them, he stood upon the ground occupied by Clay, Web- ster and Sergeant. What is he now? He has been initiated into the Order of Know-Nothings, taken upon himself its secret oaths and obligations, and this at a time when his friends were presenting his claims to be elected President of the United States. ^ He has since become the candidate and accepted the nomination of the American or Know-Nothing National Con- vention. In a correspondence between the Order of the United Americans of the State of New York and him, under the date of July 25th, 1856, they say : — "Both from your past official acts, and from the assurances and views expressed by you on many occasions, as having similar sentiments in reference to those subjects, to them of so much seeming importance, the successful establishment of these princi- ples, as the fundamental rules of our Government, they believe essential for its tranquillity, and a continued progress in the development of all its greatness." Mr. Fillmore in his answer, dated 29th of July, 1856, acquiesces in this statement and replies — " My position before the country is well known, admitting nei- ther of disguise nor equivocation. I am the candidate of the Ameri- can party." Mr. Fillmore here proclaims himself the American candidate, and adopts the creed, oaths and obligations of that party without "disguise or equivocation." In the Secret Lodge of the Order of Know-Nothings he has sworn that he will neither vote for nor ap- point a Roman Catholic to office. If elected and inaugurated Presi- dent of the United States, he would be compelled to swear that he would require " no religious test as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United Stat-ee." I ask, under auch cir- cumstances, which oath would he keep, and which oath would he violate ? I desire to treat Mr. Fillmore fairly, but all experience tells us, that in such cases, the candidate if elected will pre- serve his political allegiance and forget his Constitutional in- junction. Are the Old Line Whigs prepared to endorse Mr. Fillmore, thus presented by himself for their suffrages ? I know no difference between an individual joining the Order and giving his vote to sustain its candidate, except that the latter course is more effective in carrying out the tenets of this party. The friends of Mr. Fillmore have assailed Mr. Buchanan for his Ostend communication. Without admitting or denying the sound- ness of the doctrine therein contained, I would remark that the correspondence of Mr. Everett, as Secretary of State under Mr. Fillmore, after the death of Mr. Webster, relative to Cuba, _ is more offensive, and ought to be more obnoxious to the criti- cism of conservative men than the Ostend Letter ; and it should be remembered that the diplomatic manifesto of Mr. Everett was issued under the immediate supervision of Mr. Fillmore and his Cabinet. . . Mr. Everett is probably the best educated statesman now living ; he is an erudite scholar and a sound patriot. When in Congress, he took higher ground in favor of the South on the subject of slavery, than any Northern statesman had ever done before, or has ever done since. One thing is certain, any opinion upon International Law promulgated by him, is entitled to respect. Mr. Buchanan has been in public life upwards of forty years, he has filled the highest offices which his own State could confer upon him. He has occupied the first seat in the Cabinet during a most eventful epoch ; and he has twice represented his country at the Courts of the two first nations in Europe. His private character stands without blot or blemish and beyond rebuke or reproach ; and it is a high eulogium upon his public life, that the " Ostend Letter' is the only act which is designated by his opponents as the ground of attack. On the subject contained in these diplomatic documents, I have not changed my former sentiments. I desire, ardently, the acquisi- tion of Cuba ; no child can look at the map without seeing it ought to belong to those who own the Gulf of Mexico ; but unless we can honestly obtain it, I would leave it where it is. We have paid for every foot of ground that we have ever acquired, and unless Cuba can be obtained in the same manner that Louisiana, Florida, the recentlv acquired Territory from Mexico, and Texas, I am utterly opposed to any other mode of bringing it into the Union. The mother country who taunts us with the charge of being anxious to increase our Territory, is the most insatiate cormorant among the nations of the earth, has never paid for a foot of ground that she ever held, but has always wrested it from the weak and powerless who have been unable to protect their dominions. There are many Old Line Whigs who are attached to their cog- nomen, and dislike changing it — this is an overscrupulous nicety. They must change their name — they must recognize the title of an American Know-Nothing, Republican, or a Democrat. If they refuse to elect either of these names, they must retire from all participation in public affairs. Gov. Seward is reported to have said in caucus, during the present session, of Congress, that he cared nothing for names, but that he looked to principles alone. This remark showed he had a clear head and a sound judgment, and was worthy of a better cause. I hold that the Territory ceded to us by Mexico was purchased by common treasure. The fifteen Slave States contributed their portion of the fund as well as the then fifteen Free States. Terri- tory should stand on the same footing as admitted States, and the right of the people to hold Slaves or not, as they please, in the Territory, ought to be commensurate with the right of the people as they exist in the thirty-one States. There can be no just ground for any discrimination between the two cases. New Territory is surely not more sacred than the old thirteen States, or the present thirty-one States. The will of a majority prevails in the cases last enumerated, and the same orthodox principle should prevail in the newly-acquired Territory. What is the doctrine of the Wilmot Proviso ? It is the sixteen Free States declaring to the fifteen Slave States — you are part owners of this Territory ; you have shed your blood and expended your treasure in acquiring it, but you shall have no share in its enjoyment or profits. Strip it of its trappings, and it amounts to this : there are thirty-one stockholders in a cor- poration, and sixteen say to fifteen, it is true you are part owners and have contributed to the purchase of our common property, but you shall have no share in the enjoyment of its privileges or the receipts of its profits. Such a doctrine is subver- sive of every principle of justice and equality, and cannot be sustained. I am not the advocate of opinions that are new to the Whig party of Pennsylvania. At a Whig meeting held in September, 1850, at the Chinese Museum, in Philadelphia, I offered a resolu- tion congratulating the Nation upon the restoration of peace and quietude to the country by tVe passage of the Compromise Acts of that year. It was unanimously adopted, and I then laid down the same principles •which I am now endeavoring to inculcate. In November, 1850, the great Union Meeting was held at the same place, over which John Sergeant presided. Among others, I again enforced the same principles. On the 27th of February, 1851, a pure Whig meeting was called to request the repeal of the Act of the Legislature of 1847, which closed the public jails of this Commonwealth against the custody of Fugitive Slaves. At that meeting Samuel Breck, second to no man in the country in intelligence and patriotism, presided. I again promulgated the same doctrines, and they were again endorsed by the Whig party assembled on that occasion. In 1819-20 when the Missouri Compromise was adopted, the North, without distinction of party, held diiferent sentiments. There is no real discrepance between the two attitudes when rightly understood. In 1820 the South adopted the Missouri Compromise, and never abandoned it until after 1850, when it was abrograted by what is generally understood as the Compromise Acts of Congress of that year. During the dis- cussion of those measures, the South upon the amendment of Mr. Turney, of Tennessee, endeavored to continue that Compromise, by extending it to the Pacific, but the North rejected it. On the other hand, the Free-soil party have never abided by the Compromise of 1820. They opposed in 1821 the admission of Missouri, and in 1825, the admission of Arkansas. They now go back, and pro- claim the Wilmot Proviso as their standard, which is a direct abroga- tion of the Missouri Compromise, and declares all territory whether North or South of 36 degrees 30 minutes, shall be free. If the' South were now willing to prohibit Slavery in the newly- acquired territory, I would rejoice at the declaration ; but they are not willing. They assert their rights, and I am in favor of an en- re and cordial recognition of those rights. If Maryland or any o ther Slave State should abolish slavery, it would give me unal- loyed pleasure ; but it does not follow, that I would therefore be in favor of compelling such Slave States against their will to abolish it. These are some of the reasons why I invoke every Old Line Whig in Pennsylvania to support Mr. Buchanan. The triumph of the Democratic party in Pennsylvania, in October next, would place his election beyond doubt. It would remove the last glim- mering hope of the opposition, restore peace and quietude to the country, and for one generation at least, put at rest the present agitation on the question of slavery. The Old Line Whigs of Pennsylvania possess the power to accomplish this great result ; the responsibility rests upon them, and I have no doubt but that 8 the [draft which is made upon their patriotism will be promptly accepted, and that the great Keystone State will once more come to the rescue, and do as she has done heretofore, put down all sec- tional feeling, and at the ballot-box perpetuate the Union, which has so long been the pride and admiration of every friend of civil and religious liberty throughout the world. IN SENATE. Tuesday, August 6th, 1850. Admission of California. Mr. Turney moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert as follows : " When it shall be made to appear to the President of the United States, by satisfactory evidence, that the people inhabiting the Territory of California, (or so much of said Territory, as is comprised within the limits proposed by this bill as the boundaries of the State of California,) assembled in Convention, have agreed to a line not further South than the parallel of 36° 30' North latitude, as the Southern boundary of said State, and limited the representation of said State to one Representative until after the next census of the inhabitants of the United States, the said State of California may be admitted into the Union, upon the Proclamation of the President, upon an equal footing with the original States. " Sec. — . And be it further enacted, That the line of 3Go 30' of North latitude, known as the Missouri Compromise line, as defined by the eighth section of an Act, entitled 'An Act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories,' approved March 6th, 1820, be, and the same is hereby declar- ed to extend to the Pacific Ocean : and the said eighth section, together with the Compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in full force and binding for the future organization of the Territories of the United States, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted." The question was stated to be upon the amendment of Mr. Turney, and, being taken by yeas and nays, was rejected by the following vote : Yeas — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis, of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, and Yulee — 24. Nays — Messrs. Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Clarke, Cooper, Davis, of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickenson, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Dodge, of Iowa, Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, Wales, Walker, Whit- comb, and Winthrop — 32. Congressional Globe, 1st Sess. 31st Cong., Vol. 21, Part 2nd, page 1532. When this vote was taken Mr. Clay was absent from indisposi- tion, Mr. Webster had been appointed Secretary of State and Mr. Winthrop was substituted in his stead. Both Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster had acted with the majority, and from their known sentiments would, if present, have voted against Mr. Turney's amendment. W46 %<* \S 1