THE LAL<!L __
OF
THE TERRITORIES.
PHILADELPHIA:
PRINTED BY C. SHERMAN & SON.
1859
a
4. *                        -,     5 A, 
-                                   1.
". I
4 
Entered, according to Act of Coogress, in the year 1e59,
BY C. SIIIERMAN & SON,
Jo tile Clerk's Office of tile District Court for tile Eastern District of PensylvaDia
a
0 
CONTENTS.
PAGE
PREFACE,.-.
THE TERRITORIES AND THE CONSTITUTION,.
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN THE TERRi1TORIES, 
a
V
25
87 
a 
PREFACE.
THEF first of the two essays in this volume was begun
with the intention of making it an article for the North
American and United States Gazette, of this city.  The
subject, however, expanded before the author as he advanced, and grew, as he followed its lead, to a size too
large for a newspaper.   The second essay, on "Popular
Sovereignty in the Territories," was published in the
above-named Journal, February 24th, 1858, with the
signature of Cecil, and formed one of a.series of essays
on Southern politics, for which the courtesy of the Editor of that paper allowed the author the use of his columns.
The two are now presented to the public in the present
shape, in the hope that, if the principles they assert and
attempt to explain are correct, they may be of some use
in guiding opinion on a subject of great importance, the
discussion of which is likely, at this moment, to excite
general interest.
Some weeks after the last written of these essays was
1*
a
I
-b 
PREFACE.
finished, an event occurred which has given increased significance to the topics they treat. A band *of some fifteen
to twenty desperate men surprised the village of Harper's
Ferry, seized on the United States Arsenal, made prisoners
of a number of prominent gentlemen in the neighborhood,
stopped the railway trains, and placed themselves, after
committing these outrages, in an attitude of defiance to
the law and its officers. This extraordinary feat was performed by fifteen white men and four negroes. As soon
as news of it could be known, troops were promptly sent to
the scene of action by the President of the United States,
by the Governor of Virginia, and by the State of Maryland. After a short conflict, in which, however, several
lives were sacrificed, the insurgents were captured and
taken to a town in Virginia for trial. Upon this trial
the eyes of the nation are now fixed. Its progress is
reported in every newspaper throughout the land. The
place where it is conducted is like a garrisoned town. The
wounded prisoner, the leader of the band, is escorted to
and fromn the court-house by a military guard.   Alarm
reigns throughout the State of Virginia and adjacent
country, whose citizens are arming spontaneously,'and
whose magistrates are holding counsel over the public
safety. That nineteen men, by conduct however violent,
should be able to excite such wide consternation and induce preparations so large and instant, may seem very
surprising. Our cities are, unhappily, often the scenes
0
a
vi 
PREFACE.
of conflicts as serious, which are dealt with by the local
police, and speedily forgotten. The fights and riots of
the rowdy clubs in Baltimore alone, appear more momen tous things in comparison. The excitement, the means
of defence employed, and the interest created at a dis tance, seem out of all proportion to the event, until its
true character  understood; but all surprise vanishes
the momen it is known that the purpose of this little
band of misguided men was to produce an insurrection of
the slaves. If the laborers in a powder factory were seen
to fly the building on the entrance of a single man, or to
rush on him with frantic haste to put him out, no one
would wonder at their conduct if told that he had a cigar
in his mouth. The affair at Harper's Ferry therefore reveals a danger inherent in Southern society. The danger
must be real, or such terror and active vigilance could
not have been excited in a community proverbially highspirited and brave, by a cause otherwise so insignificant.
The people of the South are like the crew of a ship of
war. They carry with them a magazine of explosive
matter, which must be carefully guarded from even a
casual spark.
But this event, in its causes and surrounding circumstances, has other meanings of grave national interest.
Deplorable in itself, it is by no means an isolated fact,
growing out of nothing and related to nothing. To regard
it as the mere desperate freak of a madman, the powerless
a
a
vii 
PREFACE.
conception of one crazed brain, would be greatly to mistake
its character.   It is connected with the  past, its true
nature is displayed in the facts by which it was accompanied, and in the scenes of the passing hour, and it is
connected, also, with the future, for good or for evil, as
it shall be managed, and as the lessons it teaches shall be
understood.
One important fact in the case is, that the motives and
purposes, the ideas and passions, which prompted the
extravagant enterprise of Brown, find sympathy and approval in a portion of Northern opinion. Whether he was
aided and abetted by Northern men of influence in this
particular deed, as asserted, remains to be seen; nor is it
of much consequence in a general point of view. The
startling and dangerous fact that, in some of the Northern
States, numbers sufficiently large  to have political and
social power, to form constituencies, to exercise the
sway of educated opinion, do, with more or less earnestness
and enthusiasm, approve, if not of his act, of the feelings
and principles that led him to act; do regard him as a
martyr in a just cause. and would have rejoiced had he
been successful, this fact is beyond dispute, and, hbwever painful or alarming, it is well to look it in the face.
Influential men, members of Congress, candidates for office,
conductors of widely-circulating journals; men representing and guiding, and able to inflame a portion of public
opinion, are among this number; and they are at this
a
viii 
PREFACE.
momnent engaged, by nightly lectures and harangues in
Northern cities, and by newspaper discussions, in appeal ing to the reason, the sympathies and passions of the
people.  It must be confessed that all this fire of feeling
and of rhetoric is no safe neighbor for the powder magazine.
No one can tell when or where or how a spark may be
blown into it, or the frenzy of fanaticism may be incited
to hurl a torch at it, as Brown did; or, indeed, whether
even the distant din and concussion of all this turmoil,
may not, by mysterious, electric sympathy, cause the spontaneous combustion of the sensitive, fulminating stuff
which forms the foundation of Southern society. It is
clear that it is-of vital importance for the Southern people
to have good neighbors; friends, not enemies; nay, if
possible, allies and brethren-shipmates, interested, like
themselves, in keeping the  powder  secure.   A  small
number of Northern enemies is no safe thing for them.
We have just seen that fifteen desperate men, their heads
full of the most absurd theories, their hearts full of the
wildest passions, were sufficient to strike no vain or weak
terror into the State of Virginia, and make her gird on
her sword in hot haste to meet a pressing danger.  Who
can say that had Brown been successful in rousing the
Negroes, had made a stand but for a single day, thousands
would not have crossed the border to join him, with what results of wide-spread mischief, is more easy than pleasant to
imagine? And if a handful of poor, ignorant, and lawless
ix
a 
PREFACE.
men, are able to cause such perils, what effect would an army
marching with legal banners, on a similar errand, produce?
Disunion is a word of fear. Is it not strange that it should
have been as yet pronounced only by the South?
The danger of insurrection and servile war belongs to
the nature of slavery. In a country thinly settled, of large
plantations and farms, and widely separated dwellings,
where six millions of one race hold four millions of another
race in subjection, and the two are interspersed and mingled
together, there is risk at all times. It is, perhaps, not too
much to assert, that the safety and tranquillity of Southern
society depend on the fact that the Northern people are
close at hand to aid in case of need, that the power of the
General Government is ever ready for the same purpose.
Four millions of barbarians, growing with tropical vigor,
and soon to be eight millions, with tropical passions boiling
in their blood, endowed with native courage, with sinews
strung by toil and stimulated by the hope of liberty and
unbounded license, are not to be trifled with. Take away
from them the idea of an irresistible power in the North,
ready at any moment to be invoked by their masters, or let
them expect in the North, not enemies, but friends and
supporters, which even now they are told every day by these
masters they may expect, and how soon might a flame be
lighted, which no power in the South could extinguish. If
the South could be separated, geographically, from the
North, standing armies and a complete military organization
a
0
x 
PREFACE.
would at once become essential for its safety, and even these
would be a doubtful protection from an insidious danger,
lurking in every home, and ever ready to be roused by the
very precautions taken against it. Slavery could not be
maintained in Cuba but for the power of Spain. Had
England withdrawn her protection from her West India
Islands, the negroes would have emancipated themselves.
When the government of France proclaimed opinions hostile to slavery, St. Domingo became Hayti. Withdraw from
the South the invisible support which Northern strength
gives to slavery, and Southern society would be in danger.
Convert this Northern strength into an enemy, and at once,
throughout the- fertile and peaceful regions of the South,
would arise a household horror, a fireside foe, a domestic
terror more dreadful than war. War has its laws, its
amenities, its mercies. It can be met in manful battle; it
can be stopped by honorable submission; it spares the young
and the aged, the sick and the feeble; it respects female
honor; it commits no useless devastation; it does not overthrow law and government. But a servile insurrection,
brute force unchained, brute passion stimulated by license
and revenge, the tropical fury of the negro, of the mere
animal man, let loose upon the wealth and refinement of a
civilized and polished community, who shall describe the
miseries, the manifold horrors of such a scourge? Almost
as great an evil as a servile war, is the constant dread of it.
When danger dwells under a man's roof, when his servants
a
a
xi 
PREFACE.
and laborers may be his enemies, whom it is unsafe even
to seem to distrust, the sense of security which governments and laws are intended to produce, is destroyed.   The
enjoyment of life vanishes, all plans, purposes, and thoughts
become absorbed in the one dominant idea of self-preservation, and society is ruled by a pervading terror. Such a
society cannot prosper, cannot live.  Industry, business,
wealth, require the shelter of peace and order, and confidence in the stability of these.  Capital, the most timid of
all things, which scents peril from afar, and "shuts its
coward gates on atomies," would quickly fly to safer regions for investment, and its owners would fly along with
it. Love- of country is strong, but love of life, love of
family, are stronger. All men who had the means would,
when the risk became serious, gather together what they
were able of their estates and escape from a danger, which
hovers over the hours of privacy and the scenes of domestic enjoyment, from an enemy with whom there can be no
combat or treaty of peace, and which, if not entirely subdued and subjected, threatens evils worse than death. At
length the white race, weakened, impoverished, dispirited,
and demoralized, would fall an easy prey to the Negro, Which
has struck its roots so deeply into our soil, and grows on
it with African vigor and luxuriance. It would be far
better in all respects for the South to emancipate the slaves
at once, and convert them into free laborers, working for
hire, than to live in fear of them. Emancipation would
xii
0
0 
PREFACE.
be a very doubtful experiment for both races, however gra dual and carefully guarded. Slavery with us is a mild in stitution and its yoke is easy.  Under its generally kind
and wholesome rule, the Negro flourishes, is industrious,
temperate, orderly, and well cared for, at least in physical
well-being. He could not take as good care of himself.
With it, too, the South increases in wealth and power, and
enjoys the blessings of peace and security. It would be
rash and foolish and wicked, in the hope of realizing ideal
visions, and to carry out to extreme conclusions the theories
of abstract reasoning, to risk so much actual, practical good,
so long as this state of things continues.  But ideas have
a subtle force, and find their way even into the mind of a
Negro. No laws or guards can keep them out, or prevent
their working after their kind, that is, producing action,
after they get in. Should the idea that he is wrongfully
a slave, and with it the spirit of insubordination, ever enter
that dim region, the Negro intellect, and pervade it; should
it ever happen that not love, not duty, not fidelity, but
simply fear, shall hold him in subjection, then this manmerchandise of the Supreme Court will prove that it is
human and linked by moral ties with humanity, by inspir
ing the distrust of which it is the object. No society can
be founded on fear. Not iron fetters, but the golden chain
of mutual confidence, of reciprocal benefit, is necessary to
secure the obedience even of the Negro, and make him, four
millions strong, a safe companion for the white race. The
2
4
ii.
X. I
0 
PREFACE.
moment he becomes really dangerous, emancipation would
be the only refuge for the South. Southern society could
exist, could enjoy tranquillity, might even prosper after
emancipation, just as the British West Indies have existed
after it, and, according to late accounts, have prospered.
If we may believe a recent article in the Edinburgh Review (April, 1859), the revenues of the islands have increased, the estates of the planters improved in productiveness and value, and the negroes, instead of becoming, as
generally anticipated and reported, lazzaroni or banditti,
fast relapsing into African barbarism, are now an industrious, orderly, contented, and thriving peasantry. If this
be true, the fact is most important, and of deep interest to
the moralist and social philosopher, though of no practical
value in the politics of our country, as the subject is beyond
the control of the Government. But there is no middle
course. The negroes must be either free or absolutely and
securely slaves. As the question of emancipation cannot
be tried or even discussed by our Government; as an illegal
attempt to make it would produce evils, compared with
which all the evils of slavery, real or imputed, are blessings, it may be stated as a condition absolutely essential to
the safety of the South and of all the vast interests that
depend on it, that slavery be there so established and
guarded, that it may inspire no dread; that the two races
may live together in this relation without suspicion or fear;
the one exercising just authority and kind protection, the
a
0
xiv 
PREFACE.
other yielding cheerful obedience and faithful service, con trolled moreover by a wholesome conviction that resistance
or revolt is hopeless.
Under this state of things the South has prospered.
Under no other is healthy life possible for it. It is im possible for the Southern people to hold four millions of
Negroes as slaves, with the North as an enemy. Civil
war would light the flames of servile war throughout the
South. Even without disunion, it is impossible that the
security and confidence essential to the industry, wealth,
and happiness of civilized society, can exist in the South,
if a considerable part of the Northern people are mischievously bent on exciting discontent, extravagant hopes,
and the disposition to rebellion, among the Negroes. The
spirit of insubordination is inconsistent with the feeling of
security.   Society cannot exist if palsied  by a vague,
indeterminate and constant dread of nameless horrors,
haunting the fireside.   It is a difficult thing to realize
the truth that this danger does now exist in our country.
It has been suddenly revealed by the tragedy at Harper's
Ferry. Every newspaper teems with the proof of it. It
is a fact, to be confronted and dealt with, that there is a
body of men in the Northern States, formidable for its
numbers, wealth, social influence, political power, talents,
and zeal, willing to diffuse among the negroes ideas and
aspirations inconsistent with their position as slaves; willing to afford them encouragement and sympathy, and the
a
xv 
PREFACE.
expectation of support, if not actual physical aid, in resistance and revolt. These men are able, if they cannot
be checked, to destroy the South,-to destroy the Nation.
It is, therefore, clear that the security of slavery, and
with it of Southern society, depends on the friendship of
the North, which is its close neighbor, and must ever
remain so, either as a friend or an enemy.   In other
words, slavery depends on the opinion which the Northern
people may have of it. If they thought about it as the
Southern people do, it would be in no danger whatever;
and the nearer the sentiments of North and South on this
subject can be brought together, the better for the interests
of slavery.  The extraordinary thing is, that notwithstanding this obvious truth, the conduct of Southern politicians
seems to have been purposely intended for some years past
to make the South and Slavery as odious as possible to the
Northern people.  The repeal of the Missouri Compromise
let loose the spirit of discord, which that wise and just law
had quelled. An exciting question which had been settled was opened, the demon of sectional passion was
needlessly roused from its repose, and Kansas was offered
to contending parties as an arena for their strife-Kansas,
whence slavery is banished by the laws of Nature herself.
The contest which then took place fixed upon that wild
and remote region the eyes of the Nation.   The whole
people sympathized with one side or the other, and followed the progress of the struggle with eager interest.
a
4
xvi 
PREFACE.
The real conflict was soon transferred from Kansas to the
elections throughout the country and to Washington. The
events occurring in Kansas were quickly merged in the
principles they involved; the quarrels and fights and re spective merits of the rude settlers and the ruder Missourians, lost their importance when compared with the
conduct of political parties and of public men.   Then
followed in rapid succession, the assault on Mr. Sumner, 
the invasion of Kansas by Missourians, the fraudulent ~
election of a Territorial Legislature, the infamous  laws 
of that Legislature, the decision in the case of Dred v
Scott, and, finally, the Lecompton Constitution, by which
an attempt was made  to force Slavery on the people
of Kansas against their consent;-all of these either
the acts of Southern politicians and their adherents,
Northern Democrats, or approved, applauded, ratified, supported and used by them for party and sectional purposes.
They were all violations of constitutional law, of settled
usage, of moral obligations, and of principles dear to the
American heart. They were all caused by Slavery. They
were all intended to gain power for Slavery and the South.
They were all prompted by Southern men for Southern'
interests and designs. They excited just and general indignation among the Northern people.  Is it surprising that
this feeling should, with many, be turned against Slavery
itself, against the South, which the authors and supporters
of these outrages professed to represent? Is it surprising,
2*
a
0
xvii 
PREFACE.
when the civil rights of Americans were violated for the
sake of Slavery, that Slavery should become hateful to sorme
of them? That, when the breaking of laws, when violence
and bloodshed, were aided and abetted and cheered by
Southern politicians for Southern purposes, resentment
should be directed to the South? By these misdeeds the
friends of the South were cooled and its enemies heated
throughout the North. The mouths of its advocates were
shut, and arguments not easily answered supplied to its foes.
Enthusiasts against Slavery became fanatics; moderate men,
enthusiasts, and the ranks of its ancient and faithful adherent,-the Democratic party,-were thinned by this
fatal and reckless course of passion and folly and crime,
which none could approve and few venture to defend.
This is the real origin and cause of the deplorable event
at Harper's Ferry. The desperate design of Brown was
conceived amid the border warfare of Kansas. It was
nourished and grew into a settled purpose and plan in the
atmosphere of passion there excited, and was stimulated
by the injuries he suffered. Revenge mingled with his
fanaticism and pushed it on to action. But he was not
alone in the feeling, though alone in the act. The sentiment which impelled him was shared by many in less
degree, and now, when he has failed and is sentenced to
death, his blind enthusiasm, his wild and extravagant
opinions and hopes, still animate thousands, who regret
his fate, sympathize in his principles, and  would  have
a
0
xviii 
PREFACE.
exulted in his success.  This dangerous flame of passion
and doctrine has been kindled by the treatment of Kansas,
and by the shameful decision in the case of Dred Scott,
by which slaves, contrary to the general practice and
sentiment of the South, are converted into mere property,
and classed in the scale of God's creation, not as men,
but things. The most repulsive aspect of Slavery is the
one which Southern politicians have thus chosen to offer
to the world and to the Northern people. The harangues
of the Abolitionists ring with these topics.  Chattel sla very, the outrages of the "border ruffians" in Kansas,
and the Lecompton Constitution, form the texts of their
inflammatory appeals at this moment, when the trial of
Brown is going on in Virginia, whose people are mustering in arms as though they expected invasion every hour,
and are thus teaching both to Negroes and Abolitionists
the secret of their power. Distant Kansas has stretched
out a long arm and struck the South a blow, feeble indeed, but sufficient to make it quiver and palpitate from
end to end.
The South is a great power, rich in territory, in resources, in wealth, in numbers, in the spirit, energy, and
intelligence of its people.  Through these it has always
influenced, and, for the most part, controlled the Government of this country.  It is covered all over with the
panoply of the Constitution, of laws, and of the vast interests of which it is the source and basis. The South
xix
a
4 
PREFACE.
rules the President, and Congress, and the Supreme Court.
It has all kinds of influence, social, commercial, political.
It dictates to Tammany Halls and to Empire Clubs, who
echo its opinions with eager unanimity, and fulminate its
decrees with active zeal. But, like Achilles, the South
has a vulnerable point which its enemies have found out.
They have aimed at this point a weak shaft by a feeble
hand, and, suddenly, the whole ingenious armament of
the Southern politicians, obedient Presidents, a submissive
Congress, a pliant judiciary, responsive Tammany Halls,
and active rowdy clubs, have become useless as the guns
of a ship that has sprung aleak; they cannot keep out
the sea, but may sink her into it, and the sooner they are
thrown overboard the better.
The affair at Harper's Ferry has, however, shed a strong
light upon a more cheering aspect of our affairs. If it has
proved that there exists in the North opinions and passions
which may become dangerous to the repose of Southern
society, it has also shown that the great body of the Northern people are true and loyal to their country, and to the
South as a part of it. There never was any reason to
doubt this, though it has been constantly and obstinately
denied by Southern politicians, who, to serve their own
narrow designs, have industriously represented the North
as united in hatred of Slavery, and bent on its destruction.
But the truth is, the Abolitionists, though they have recently increased in numbers and influence, are compara
a
xx 
PREFACE.
tively insignificant.   The real people, the conservative
classes, who control and manage the great interests connect ed                 with Commerce, Manufactures, and Agriculture, appre ciate too well the value of the Union, of Southern industry 
and production, to wish to see servile war, or the withering
dread of it, desolate or weaken or impoverish the South,
even if the higher motives of patriotism and humanity did
not influence them. Their sentiments are proved by the
unanimous burst of regret and indignation which the
atte mpt             made at Harper's     Ferry has drawn from the whole
country, with but few exceptions, without distinction of
party. The lovers of order and peace, of industry and its
rewards, of the-security of property and all vested rights,
a     r     e the true friends of th e South.  They are not the enem i e s of the cotton crop, or of the rice and sugar and tobacco
which freight their ships, or employ their mills, and build
up their cities; neither are they, or can they be, the enem    i e s of that system of labor on which these interests are
founded, provided they can honestly and conscientiously be
its friends. They are bound to the South by a thousand
sympathies and relations of interest and feeling, of commerce and marriage and friendship, and without these 
ties, stronger than the Constitution, the Union would be a
r o p e             of sand. Th ese classes are the true allies of the
planter. They are stronger than demagogues, or rowdy
cl ub        s, or the  m ob s    of cities. But though they are the
friends of the South, they will not be the tools of its politi
a
xxi 
PREFACE.
cians, nor can they behold, unmoved, the North insulted
and oppressed, the Constitution of their country trampled
in the dust, the principles of liberty and justice outraged,
or the power of the Nation usurped and employed to serve
the designs of mad and aggressive sectional ambition. They
feel that the strength of the Nation in numbers, wealth,
and intelligence is with them, and they are disposed  to
exert it, not for the North, or for the South, but for the
country.   Southern politicians have used the Democratic
party as an instrument to carry out their insane scheme of
governing the great North for exclusive Southern purposes.
They succeeded for a time, because of Northern apathy and
consciousness of strength, but they have gone too far.
They have disgusted the Democratic party, which is leaving,
them by thousands,-leaving them, the Southern politicians, not the South, its rights, or its true interests.
The excesses of Southern politicians have also stimulated,
encouraged, and inflamed into enthusiasm the Abolitionists,
strengthened their cause, added to their numbers, and put
weapons in their hands, which they know how to use with
skill and effect, and are using. The wicked and reckless
passions of partisan and sectional strife kindled a blaze in
Kansas not yet extinguished. A burning flame fromt that
fire was wafted so far as Harper's Ferry. When and where
the wild wind of fanatic fury may take another, no one can
say. All will agree, however, that the sooner the fire is
quite put out the better. All will agree that it would be
insane folly to kindle another.
a
0
xxii 
PREFACE.
It thus appears that the two enemies of the security of
Southern society, of the interests founded on Southern in dustry, and of the Union, which is the protecting bulwark
of both, are Southern politicians and Northern Abolitionists.
The whole power and strength of the latter comes from the
former. Do these politicians and the Northern Democrats
still in alliance with them, really represent Southern opi nion? Do the educated and conservative people of the
South approve of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise,
of the conduct of the present and the last administration to
the people of Kansas, of the doctrine that Slavery exists by
law in the Territories independent of the wishes of their
people or of the power of Congress, of filibustering expeditions to extend the area of slavery, and of the Dred Scott
decision, by which a slave is made mere property, and the
relation between him and his master pure ownership,-the
relation not of a man to a man, but of a man to a thing?
Are these the principles of the Southern people? If so,
they and we do not "live under the dome of the same
idea." A deep gulf lies between their moral state and
ours, and an "irrepressible conflict" already exists between
Southern weakness and Northern strength, representative
of another irrepressible conflict, never ending and still beginning, the eternal war between truth and falsehood, between right and wrong.  If this be so, cotton yarn, strong
as it is, cannot long hold us together.
But if the Southern people are content with the security
a
4
xxiii
I
I 
PREFACE.
of Slavery as a "domestic institution," guaranteed by
Northern power; if they are content with the right under
the Constitution, to extend Slavery into any Territory to
which it is suited by the conditions of soil and climate;
if they are content with their four millions of neg,roes, without African importations to barbarize and degrade still more
the industry of one-half the Nation, and increase the danger of servile war; if they are content to owe allegiance,
not to the South, but to the Union, to promote and share
in Northern prosperity, and to live with the Northern people, as one nation under one government, bound together
by duty and interest, and common happiness, hopes, and
destiny, to a common country, then there is a Northern
party ready to meet them. There is solid ground of principle on which both can stand, and the two together may
set Democrats and Abolitionists at defiance.
This is a long preface to a short book, but not too long
for the occasion, if what it contains be true. To the
Northern and Southern conservative party, yet to be organized, but whose union, there is reason to hope, is preparing in the minds and hearts of the people, this little
volume is addressed. The fanatics of Slavery, andt the
fanatics of Anti-slavery, are beyond the pale of argument.
November 12th, 1859.
a
xxiv
0 
THE LAW
OF THE
TERRI TORIES.
THE TERRITORIES AND THE CONSTITUTION.
" HouIses are built by rule and Commonwealths."
HERBERT.
TIE wily and witty Talleyrand was once asked
the meaning of the word non-intervention, so often
used in European diplomacy. "It is a word," he
replied, "metaphysical and political, not accurately
defined, but which means much the same thing as
intervention." The same word has been frequently
employed, of late years, in our politics, with the
same difference between its professed and its practical signification. It was introduced for the first
time in reference to the government of the Territories, when it became an object for the South to gain
3
4 
THE LAW
Kansas as a slave State.   Two obstacles were to
be overcome. One was the Missouri Compromise,
which was a solemn compact between North and
South to settle a disturbing and dangerous question;
the other was, a possible majority in Congress that,
it was feared, might prohibit slavery in the new territory. Southern politicians had, at the time, control of the Government, and they got rid of both
difficulties by repealing the Missouri Compromise in
the Kansas and Nebraska Bill. By necessary implication arising from the relation of the Territories
to the rest of the nation, by the language of the
Constitution, and by the uniform construction of it
and practice under it from the earliest period of our
history, the Territories had been subjected to the absolute control of the General Government. By the
Kansas and Nebraska Bill they were withdrawn
from that control. The principle of popular sovereignty, it was said, applied to them as well as to
the States, and this bill declared that the people of
the Territories should be perfectly free to choose
their own domestic institutions and regulate their own
affairs in their own way. Non-intervention by Con
gress was loudly proclaimed by all party-men and
party-organs as the constitutional right of the Territories. Kansas, it was thought, would be speedily
a
4
26 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
settled by Southern men, who would, of course,
choose slavery as one of their domestic institutions,
which would thenceforth be safe from Northern
majorities in Congress.
The result, however, was different. Nature intended Kansas not for slavery but for free labor.
Its temperate climate and fertile soil fit it for Saxon
enterprise and industry, for the home of the dominant race, which is carrying liberty, the arts, the
literature and science of civilization wherever, on
this continent, that race can live and work. Kansas
is not fitted for the Negro. As soon as its rich
lands were opened to emigration, they attracted
crowds of bold and hardy men from the North, who
went there to build up homes and fortunes for themselves and their children; who brought with them
love of freedom, aversion to slavery, and the fixed
determination that this fine Territory should, in fact,
belong to them and their children, and be cultivated
by them and for them, and not by and for the Negro.
Then commenced a struggle which forms a very deplorable and mortifying portion of our history-a
struggle between the North and South to get possession of this Territory, not so much for the sake of
its wealth as its votes.  It was a political contest,
and its object was power; party power, sectional
a
0
27 
THE LAW
power. As soon as it became apparent that the
majority of the settlers were opposed to slavery,
preparations were made to defeat them at the elections. Armed bands from Missouri invaded the
hustings and deposited their own votes. Blood was
shed. Sentinel guards were stationed on the routes
leading to the disputed Territory, to keep away all
emigrants from the North, and every species of fraud
and violence resorted to, to secure a legislature favorable to the wishes of the South. These measures
were successful. A legislature was elected by Missouri votes, and it immediately passed such laws to
establish slavery, as shocked even its advocates;
laws abolishing the civil rights of American citizens
for the sake of holding the Negro in bondage; laws
contradicting every principle of American or English liberty for the sake of sectional and party victory. A melancholy fact, full of gloomy meaning;
for what security do our institutions and our doctrines inherited from the past afford, when such
things can be done, and receive the sanction and
support of public men and powerful parties?
This victory achieved, Southern politicians and
Northern Democrats soon showed the meaning they
attached to the principle of non-intervention and
popular sovereignty announced in the Kansas and
a
28 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
Nebraska Bill, and ostentatiously paraded in messages, Congressional speeches, stump oratory, and
the partisan press.   The Legislature of Kansas,
though proved to have been elected by fraud and
violence, and by Missouri votes, was recognized as
legal and valid by Congress and the President; its
infamous laws were adopted and enforced by military
power; the whole weight of Executive influence, in
and out of the Territory, was exerted to defeat the
known wishes of its people, and these efforts were
continued until, at length, they culminated in the
attempt to force upon Kansas the hated Lecompton
Constitution, which introduced slavery against the
wishes and earnest protest of nine-tenths of its inhabitants. Such was the practical application of the
new doctrines of the Kansas and Nebraska Bill,
made by its authors and advocates.
But this scheme did not succeed in the end. It
was a struggle against physical laws which destine
all such regions as Kansas for free labor, and emigrants from the North poured into the Territory in
spite of border ruffians, partisan intrigue, and Presidential power. It was a struggle also against the
force of an idea, so rooted in the American mind as
to be a feeling or instinct rather than a political
doctrine,-the idea that all government is unjust and
3*
a
29 
THE LAW
oppressive which violates the opinions and sentiments
of the governed.
Two great facts were plainly visible through the
flimsy web of attorney logic and quibbling technicality, not very ingeniously woven to conceal them.
One of these facts was that the people of Kansas
were heartily and almost unanimously averse to
slavery; the other was that the Government was
trying by every means in its power to impose slavery
upon them. This violation by Democrats of the fundamental principle of Democracy, aroused the nation.
It was toQ gross even for the South, and was opposed
by some of its most eminent statesmen. It excited
general indignation in the North and thinned the
ranks of the Democracy. The popular sentiment
made itself felt in a way that could not be misunderstood or disregarded, and the Lecompton Constitution was virtually rejected by Congress, by the votes
of Southern men and of Democrats, in spite of
threats, denunciation, Executive patronage, and all
other arts by which power seeks to maintain its
abuses, and parties secure the fidelity of adherents.
It was clear, therefore, that the principle of popular sovereignty in the Territories, introduced by the
Kansas and Nebraska Bill, a principle before unknown to the law and practice of our Government,
0
0
30 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
would not suit the South. It appeared too proba ble that not only the people to inhabit all the terri tory north of 36'30, the old Missouri Compromise
line, but also much territory south of it, would, like
the people of Kansas, reject slavery if left to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.
What then were Southern politicians to do? Invoke the ancient and long-exercised, but now denied
and derided power of Congress over the Territories?
This might prove a dangerous weapon in the hands
of possible future  Northern majorities, when  the
question arose as to Southern territory possessed
and to be acquired. It was obviously necessary to
withdraw slavery alike from the control of Congress
and of the people of a Territory. Some ingenuity
was required for this.  The Kansas and Nebraska
Bill declares that the Constitution extends to the
Territories. This was not an entirely new doctrine.
It had been broached before by Mr. Calhoun, and
insidious attempts had been made to introduce it, but
were always defeated on the ground that the Constitution, by its language and the practice under it,
was made for States only, and that the Territories
were subject to the supreme control of Congress,-a
control that had frequently been exercised, not only
independently of the Constitution, but in a manner
a
4
31 
THE LAW
incompatible with it.  Nevertheless, this doctrine
was introduced, with other innovations, into the
Kansas and Nebraska Bill. After the passage of
that bill, the views of the South were enlarged; its
novel principles of constitutional law sanctioned,
and its plans of future action confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott.
According to that decision, the Constitution recognizes slavery as a national institution. It recognizes slaves as property; nay, as mere property,
differing in no respect from other merchandise.
The Territories belong to the nation. Every citizen
has equal rights to them and in them. Why, therefore, may not a Southern man, as well as a Northern
man, go into them with his property? What right
has Congress to discriminate between North and
South, and place one under an ignominious ban of
restriction? What right have the people of a Territory to exclude their fellow-citizens from advantages
enjoyed by themselves, or to undertake to decide for
others what is and what is not property? The Constitution declares that slaves are property; that all
the States and the people have equal rights. The
Territories belong to all. Therefore, under the Constitution they should be enjoyed by all.
By this ingenious logic, the Kansas and Nebraska
a
a
32 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
Bill is made to contradict itself.  It first declares
that the Constitution extends to the Territories; in
other words, according to the doctrines of the
framers of the bill, slavery exists in them by force
of the Constitution, without reference to the will of
the people. It then says that the people of the Territories shall be "perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way."
In this manner, though by a fiat contradiction of all
the principles they had loudly proclaimed before,
Southern politicians got rid of the power of the
people of a Territory, as well as of Congress, over
slavery.  Slavery, they say, exists and has always
existed in all the Territories independently of their
people, or of Congress. Neither Congress nor the
people put it in, nor can they take it out.   All
legislation by Congress, therefore, on this subject,
from the Act of 1789, prohibiting slavery in the
Northwest Territory, down to the Missouri Compromise in 1820, was unconstitutional and is void.
Accordingly, the Missouri Compromise was repealed,
slavery now exists in all the Territories by virtue of
the Constitution, and will remain in them, under its
protection, safe from Abolitionists, safe from Congress, safe even from the people of the Territories,
33
a
6 
TIlE LAW
notwithstanding the promises of the Kansas and
Nebraska Bill.
But snares and perils beset the path of those who
depart from truth, or from well-settled principles of
law. Error, when logically carried out to its consequences, leads always to difficulty and embarrassment. It was soon discovered that this new scheme
of Southern doctrine and policy would not work.
Slavery is protected in the Territories by the Constitution, but what is the Constitution? It is the
written plan of the Government, by which power is
distributed among its departments and duties assigned to each. It is a declaration by the people of
the general principles on which the Government is
founded, and of the means by which those principles
are to be protected and applied. But the Constitution does not execute itself.  It contemplates and
requires action by the powers it has ordained, to call
into life and apply its principles. This is done by
means of laws. The Constitution provides for the
election of a President, but no President can be
elected unless Congress passes laws for the purpose.
It provides for the imposition of taxes, but without
revenue laws no taxes can be collected. It provides
for the capture of fugitive slaves, but without laws
to carry this provision into effect it would be inope
3'1
O
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
rative, and so in all other cases, the principles of
the Constitution are latent powers which can have
effect only by means of laws passed by Congress.
Of what practical use, then, is this new doctrine
that the Constitution extends to Territories and carries slavery along with it, unless either the Territorial Legislature or Congress make laws to carry into
effect this principle; laws to enable the master to
hold his slaves in bondage, and to compel their services. Such laws are necessary in the States. They
are equally necessary in the Territories. No such
laws are in the Constitution.
Here, then, was a new difficulty. With infinite
effort of logical subtlety and partisan management,
slavery had been withdrawn both from the power of
Congress and of the people of the Territories, and
committed to the care of the Constitution, when behold, the Constitution proves to be no protection at
all. It is absolutely powerless and a dead letter,
unless life be given to it either by Congress or the
Territorial Legislature. But both may refuse to act.
They may carry out the principle of non-intervention, so imperiously demanded by the South, and do
nothing, leaving slavery to the Constitution alone.
Slavery, then, is in the Territory theoretically; yet,
practically, there can be no slaves, for there are no
O
35 
THE LAW
laws by which a master can control a slave. The
moment one is brought into a Territory he is free.
In this dilemma Southern politicians have boldly
invented and proclaimed another new doctrine of
constitutional law. Congress is bound, they tell us,
to make laws for the protection of slavery in the
Territories. Slavery is in the Territories by the
Constitution, and it is the duty of Congress to
execute the Constitution.   Slaves  are property,
made so by the Constitution, and the first obligation of Government is to protect the property of its
citizens.  The South is thus obliged to eat its own
words, and flatly to contradict every one of those
principles, to maintain which it has embroiled the
country for so many years, and sown so widely the
seeds of sectional strife.  Its politicians are forced
to invoke the authority of Congress over slavery,
though they denied and attempted to abolish that
authority by the Kansas and Nebraska Bill; they
are obliged to deny the power of the people of a
Territory, though they asserted that power in the
same bill.   The people,  they now  say, have  no
power over their domestic institutions, but Congress
is supreme, and may impose slavery on a Territory
in defiance of its wishes or its votes.
It is not easy to see, however, in what way this
a
36 
OF TIIE TERRITORIES.
new doctrine is to help the South, unless it can be
sure always of a majority in Congress. New prin  ciples of law, especially when they overturn old
usage and well-settled opinions, do not meet with
ready assent. The power of Congress over the Ter ritories is no doubt supreme, and has heretofore been
exerted on many occasions, both to prohibit and to
permit slavery. It is the right of Congress to do
either, so at least we are taught by precedent and
the authority of wise men in times past. No new
dogpia, invented to serve a purpose, can impose a
new obligation on Congress or obtain universal con sent. Should it turn out that any future Congress
shall refuse to act in the matter at all, according to
one Southern doctrine, or leave slavery to the Ter ritorial Legislature according to another, what remedy has the South? What authority can it invoke
to coerce Congress? To what tribunal can it apply
for a writ of mandamus to compel Congress to perform its alleged duty? To impose a duty without a
penalty and without power to enforce performance,
is a nullitv. Such, however, is the new doctrine
unblushingly announced by Southern politicians and
their Northern adherents, though it contradicts
every line of the Kansas and Nebraska Bill, and is
a flat denial of all the opinions for which they have
4
37
a 
THE LAW
contended during the last three years of political
agitation and sectional hostility, created by those
opinions.
Consistency is a virtue both in men and parties
and governments. Without it they can inspire neither    confidence nor respect.    Conduct  must  be
guided, either by principles, or by selfishness with
ou      t    regard to principles.  To  assert one opinion
to-day to serve a purpose, and, when that fails, to
advocate an opposite opinion to-morrow, is to add
falsehood to selfishness. It would be more honest
to confess.the selfishness as the sole rule of action.
When principles are supported and abandoned by a
political party to suit emergencies, when they are
not regarded as guides applicable in all times and to
all cases, but as mere weapons of party warfare,
employed not because they are just and true, but
because they can attract adherents, cement alliances,
and conciliate interests, then party questions are
withdrawn  from the pale of argument, and must be
decided b      y      mere force of votes.  In such a contest,
selfish passions reign unchecked, reason is silenced,
violence and corruption contend together, until at
length moral anarchy, the frightful rule of no rule,
arises, which leads directly to civil and social anarchy.           Southern politicians, aided by Northern Demo
a
0
38 
OF TIE TERRITORIES.
crats, repealed the Constitution and overturned the
practice of the Government settled by the experi ence of sixty years and sanctioned by the conduct
and opinion of the wisest and best men of our coun try. They introduced a new doctrine and a new
law, and now, when that doctrine and law are found
unfit instruments for their purpose, they abandon
both and proclaim another principle inconsistent
alike with those they have thrown aside, and with
the Constitution they have violated. Is it not fair
to conclude that Constitution and laws and principles
are to them mere tools with which they hope to accomplish their objects. That they have one purpose
only and guide in all their action,-to gain power
for slavery and the South. That all principles are
to them alike, provided they serve this purpose; that
none are false and none true, none just or unjust,
but all are these by turns and all arc welcome, if
they serve the present need.   Such  a party can
never be overcome by argument, for its object is not
truth, but success. It abandons all the principles
for which it contended, without hesitation, the moment they become useless, thus acknowledging their
falsehood, and adopts another set, equally false, for
which it contends as zealously as it did for the first.
It is equally insincere in both. It is sincere only in
a
0
39
11 
THE LAW
one thing,-the attainment of its ends. Such a party
is very dangerous, for should its ends be unreasonable or unattainable, neither the law nor policy of
the country can ever be settled on a firm and durable basis. When no principle is considered too well
established to be questioned, and no compact so
solemn that it may not be broken, and when the
object of discussion is agitation, and, by means of
agitation, victory, how is it possible that a subject
so difficult and exciting as slavery can be withdrawn
from the contests of party and placed on secure
foundations. Nothing is secure but what is true,
and truth, not always to be got by seeking, is sure
to be missed when not the object of search.
But these abuses fortunately, in most cases, work
their own cure. Power under a free government,
leaves a party that habitually disregards the obligations of truth and justice. The mere selfish pursuit
of interest by one side, induces the same course by
the other in self-defence, and this is not government
but war, the last resort when argument and reason
fail. The law is the protection of all, and a party
that violates the law, to accomplish ambitious designs, attacks the security of all. The Southern
party has gone much too far. Elated by success
and power, it has become aggressive. It has re
a
40
I
4 
OF TIIE TERRITORIES.
moved ancient landmarks, it has introduced new
and false doctrines into our law, it has  it length
abandoned all principle whatever, and stands forth
the avowed champion of Southern interests only,
declaring that it will either rule the Union or break
the Union. It is difficult to believe that this party
really represents the enlightened opinion of the
South, or will be sustained by it. Unless public
sentiment be hopelessly corrupted, moderate men
abandon extreme ideas when strife reaches a certain
point of exasperation, invoke the influence of patriotic feeling and try to find some principles, just
for all and in which all can agree, to restore harmony and united action for the common good. Indications are not wanting to show that many in the
South are revolted by the monstrous doctrines and
exorbitant demands of Southern politicians. They
see in them neither truth, nor justice, nor safety.
Neither do they see these in the opinions and
schemes of Northern Abolitionists.  Between the
two extremes they would gladly find a path of
safety, and so also would the great body of the
Northern people. The South has lived and grown
in wealth and strength under the Constitution and
the laws made by its founders. They were made
for its protection, and they have protected it. They
4*
a
41 
THE LAW
were made for the happiness and security of the
whole country, and they have promoted these in
ample measure. It would be strange indeed, if the
time has now arrived when the safety of the South
demands that this Constitution be repealed, that
these laws be declared null and void, as founded in
error or injustice, or behind the age in which we
live. Southern politicians have hastily and rashly
decided this question. Perhaps they made a mistake. If it can be shown that the Constitution is
still sufficient for the protection of Southern interests, that the laws passed by the men who watched
over the infancy of the Government were just to
the South, and are so still, the decision of these
politicians may possibly be reversed by the Southern people.
Slavery is a very different thing now from what
i    t was sixty years ago.  It has grown with the
growth of the country into proportions far greater
than were dreamed of in the philosophy of the
founders of the Government. They looked forward
to the time when it could with safety and advantage
be abolished. They did not foresee that the number
of slaves would increase to four millions, and the
products of their labor become the basis of the com
O
42
a 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
merce and manufactures of the world. Slavery no
longer means the ignorant, indolent, expensive labor
of a barbarous race, brought by rapine from their
native land, unjustly held in bondage here, a moral,
social, and economical evil, to be got rid of as soon
as possible by emancipation or colonization or amalgamation, and the labor of the free white race substituted in its stead.  The times have changed since
there were seven hundred thousand slaves in the
South, worth from one hundred to two hundred dollars each, and since the creation of the cotton crop.
Slavery now means the industry of one-half the nation. It means Northern commerce and manufactures,
Northern cities, Northern wealth and progress. It
means rice, sugar, tobacco, cotton; commodities that
enter every household in the civilized world, and
constitute, in a greater or less degree, the necessaries, comforts, and luxuries of all nations.  Slavery
means also security to Southern society, safety to
their homes, peace, and order. It means, too, countless wealth, present and prospective, in the slaves
themselves, regarded as property, and in the produce of their labor, now so great, and which com
merce requires in larger quantities every year to
supply a demnand which increases with the progress
of the world in civilization and the arts. Slavery
a
6
43 
THE LAW
has, therefore, a meaning which it had not in 1789
or in 1820. It has become indissolubly connected
with great interests; it carries with it the fortunes
of a mighty future. It has moral, social, political
influences, of terrible significance. The Negro has
laid a grasp of iron on the country which cannot be
shaken off. Four millions of men, constituting and
producing hundreds of millions of wealth, and influencing all other wealth, is a commanding fact in the
economy of the nation. Four millions of an alien
race, with spiritual life in them, with passions and
affections; a race forever rooted in our soil, and
growing as fast as we grow, to be kept in subjection,
and governed for their good and ours, is another
commanding fact, imposing on us duties and responsibilities, not without risk. The Act of 1789 was a
Southern measure, so was the Missouri Compromise.
Both were approved by Southern men, and could not
have been passed without their consent. Both were
acts of Congress, and are repealable by Congress. A
change of circumstances necessarily leads to a change
o     f       counsels.   Since those acts were passed, slavery
ha       s    altered. I s it surprising that the opinions and
purposes            of Southern men  should alter with it?
Slavery ha        s  n ow an importance,  compared  with
which, in 1789, or even in 1820, it was insignifi
0
44
a 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
cant. It has also a future then unsuspected, but
now clearly revealed, opening vast vistas of power
and wealth, of difficulty and danger. Is it not the
part of wisdom for those who are the masters of that
wealth, for whom and whose children slavery is a
fate, to which they are bound, for good or for evil,
by chains stronger than the fetters of the slave himself; is it not their duty to protect that great present, to provide for that greater future?
Let us treat this subject with large and liberal
views, with impartial and candid judgment. It is
too big a thing for petty quibbling or technical argument, or narrow sectional or partisan intrigues and
management.   The  prosperity  and safety of the
South concern the Nation. They involve the Union,
and with it the happiness now and forever of the
whole people. The question is, Does the Constitution, as heretofore understood and construed, afford
protection and all reasonable scope and advantage
to the South in the altered condition of slavery
now?   It was intended to give such protection.
IIas it failed? The question is worth considering.
All governments are modified by time-and changing circumstances, and happy is that country where
political innovations are like those of time or the
a
45
0 
THE LAW
changes of the seasons, gradual and easy, not sudden and violent like the convulsions of Nature,-the
earthquake or the tornado. Government must represent the opinions of the day and meet its wants.
But the present of a Nation contains a portion of
the past and of the future. It combines among its
people old age, manhood, and childhood. Its loosening hold never entirely quits the previous age and
never completely grasps the coming, and to-day is
a moving point that scarcely divides the two. Government, therefore, to be really representative of a
progressive people, should yield slowly to new ideas,
but it should yield; holding to what is good in the
past, accepting with caution the offerings and promises of the future.
It is this reverence for age, for custom and prescription, this tough pliability, this thoughtful deliberation over novelties, and somewhat stubborn
resistance to change, that constitutes much of the
excellence of that noble growth of time, the English
Constitution. It has changed, but has been conservative in its changes, and resembles those ancient
rural castles that still remain in the island, where
are to be seen, blended in one harmonious whole, the
towers and donjon-keep of feudality, the baron's hall
of Queen Bess, and the modern drawing-room, filled
a
46
0
il 
OF THiE TERRITORIES.
with the latest inventions of Parisian upholstery;
armor worn by the Crusaders, portraits by Van Dyke
and Reynolds, and landscapes by Turner; a park,
shaded by oaks, the growth of centuries, surrounding
French flower-gardens, the creation of the last year.
There is great difference between the politics of Eng land and the action of its Government under Eliza beth and under Victoria, yet King, Lords, and Commons still remain; and the Englishman to-day appeals
to Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, and the Bill
of Rights, just as he did in 1215, in 1645, and 1688.
These great organic acts of Government, together
with usage and precedent, form the unwritten Constitution of England. They were merely declaratory of principles already established in the opinions
of the people, and revered by them as safeguards
of rights they had inherited.  The principles remain,
the rights remain, much of the outside form remains,
and what of the last has changed has slowly
changed, as portions became unfit to meet new
wants and new ideas. In like manner our Constitution was a formal declaration of the principles held
as true and just by those who made it, and which
they also inherited.  The Constitution created nothing except forms and an apparatus of Government, to give life, and force, and security, to those
a
47
I
I 
TIIE LAW
principles. It could create nothing else. A Con stitution that invested with power any principles
other than those which lived in the minds and
hearts of the people, would be a nullity,-could not,
indeed, have been made. Those principles are still
alive.  Nothing has been added to them, nothing
taken away, nothing has weakened them since the
Constitution was formed. If its shield was broad
enough to cover them then, it is broad enough now.
The spirit of our Constitution was republican. A
republic suited the existing condition of our people,
and therefore they demanded one. Anything but
the principles of a republic embodied in the Consti tution would not have satisfied their wishes, or been
in harmony with their opinions, and could have been
imposed on them only by physical force. This Go vernment, therefore, is a republic, formed by a union
of republican States. It so happened that in some
of those States, slavery existed when they met to gether to create a union. Slavery was a part of
their domestic and civil policy, deemed by them
essential to their prosperity and safety. It was
clear, therefore, that the new Constitution must con tain slavery and republicanism too, must give life
and protection to both, otherwise these States could
never accept it.  Therefore, although some of the
4
48
a 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
States were no friends or approvers of slavery, this
protection was granted, not as a favor, but a right;
not grudgingly, but fully and completely. It was
not yielded, but admitted as the just claim of equals
and brothers, engaged together in the noble work of
building up an empire of political liberty for the
great Saxon race, whose destiny it was to inherit,
and subdue, and cultivate, and adorn, a vast continent; whose energy and intellect were to fill its
wide borders with the arts and knowledge of civilization, and who should be bound together by the
same laws and.institutions, and by the stronger ties
of common principles, interests, hopes, and loyal
love of country, so that the jealousies and animosities which made Europe a battle-field, might never
have place among them.
Now one principle of republican Government is
equality before the law. Not equality of condition
or property,-a power stronger than republicanism prohibits that,-but equality of rights. The
circumstances attending the formation of the Union,
gave peculiar prominence to this principle, for it was
of necessity to be applied not to citizens only, but to
States. Accordingly we find the equality of both
amply provided for by the Constitution.  In the eye
of this great organic law, the States are equal, and
5
a
49 
THE LAW
the citizens are equal; nay, the people of each State
have the privileges of citizens in every other State, so
anxious were the founders to obliterate differences,
and to weld all parts into a harmonious whole.
We have then a Government made by slave States
and free States, acting together as equals, who
formed a Constitution which asserted and provided
for their equality, and at the same time recognized
slavery and gave it protection. Is it unreasonable,
therefore, that equality should be claimed by the
people of the slave States? Is it not true that they
have the same rights as the people of the North in
the Territories, which are national property, and
that these rights are violated, that the great principle of equality before the law is violated, if they
should be excluded from this domain, which is theirs
as well as ours? It may be said that Congress has,
on various occasions, prohibited slavery in the Territories. True, but with the consent and co-operation
of the Southern States. Without that consent it
could not have been done. Slavery has changed in
its scope and magnitude, its tendencies and prospects. When Southern men consented to its prohibition, they hoped and believed that the time would
come when it could be abolished altogether. Cotton
and commerce have altered their views. They now
a
0
50 
OF TIHE TERRITORIES.
seek to cherish slavery, and to extend it.  They see
in it the sources of wealth, and power, and progress.
The markets of the world demand from them products which slavery only can supply. Negro labor
is the key that unlocks for them the treasures of all
nations, which prevents their own land from be coming a wilderness again; and negro labor, in the
present state of Southern society, means slavery.
They therefore value it as we value our grain fields,
our coal and iron, and are determined to keep it.
They have as much right to these as to their former
opinions, and to have them represented in the Government.  Congress has plenary power over the Territories, often exercised on this subject of slavery;
but should Congress exercise its power to the injury
of the Southern people, should it make a distinction
between them and the North in regard to the national domain, then the great republican principle
of equality before the law would be violated.
Southern politicians have not strengthened, but
greatly damaged their cause, by introducing the
false and wicked dogma that slaves are mere property,-not men, but things; that the relation of
master to slave is the relation of man to merchandise, not of man to man; that the master has no
duties, the slave no rights, and exists not for his
a
51 
THE LAW
own happiness, but wholly for the mercenary benefit
of his owner.   This detestable doctrine, contradicted by philosophy, by religion, by morals, and
by the general sentiment and practice of the South,
is at once unnecessary and odious.    It revolts the
moral feeling of the world, and is of no use in the
argument. The truth is sufficient. To mix falsehood with it weakens its force. Slavery is sanctioned
by the Constitution. The people of all the States
have equal rights in the Territories. To exclude the
people of the slave States therefore, without their
consent, would be unequal and opposed to the spirit
and intent of the Constitution. This, however, is
what Congress has never yet done.
There is another principle of republicanism embodied in the Constitution, important as the first,
and as dear to those who framed it, and to the American people of the present time. That principle is,
that all just and free government must be founded
on the consent of the governed. On their consent,
not necessarily on their votes. Votes are merely one
means of expressing consent. This principle is the
very vital essence of republican liberty. The Constitution meant to assert and establish it, if it meant
anything. The whole structure of the Government
was planned for the purpose of subjecting power to
a
52
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
the will of the people, of making all authority repre sentative and responsible.   Congress has supreme
power over the Territories, and must have, because of
their relations to the Government. But this power
is not arbitrary and despotic. Though unchecked
by the provisions and language of the Constitution,
it is not therefore lawless, to be exercised without
the guidance of constitutional principles. Is there
nothing but the letter of the law? Do American
citizens cease to have rights when they step from a
State into a Territory, and is their government on
one side of a dividing line a Republic, and on the
other side a despotism, or do they carry with them
the living principles of the Constitution wherever
they dwell under the flag of their country? They
do not take with them the laws of the States, nor
any laws except those given to them by Congress.
They cannot go into the Territories at all, nor own
an acre of land in them, nor form a Territorial
Government, nor make a State Constitution, nor be
admitted as a State, without the consent of Congress.
But they take the principles of American liberty,
and if they live solely under the control of the
General Government, that Government is a Republic,
and bound to use its authority in a republican manner.  Republicanism is the law of its being, all its
5*
a
53 
THIIE LAW
powers are trust powers, and it is a trustee for all
who live beneath its sway.
What then is the rule of conduct, the unwritten
law, sacred as if written in the Constitution itself,
that should guide Congress in the exercise of its
power over a Territory? Is it the will of the North
or the South, of the majority of to-day, or to-morrow, or is it the interests, the wants, and the wishes
of the people of the Territory? Because Congress
has the legal control of the Territories, are they to
be used as the foot-balls of parties, as mere instruments and weapons in their strife, the property of
the faction that may happen for the time to have the
control of Congress? Have the people of the Territories no rights because they have no votes, and is
there no power but that of the ballot-box?   The
Territories are to become States. Their people were
American citizens before they went into them, and
are to become American citizens again. During the
interval do they cease to be Americans? Did they
leave behind them in the States their civil rights -nd
the principles of American liberty, and among these
the most important and most cherished of all, the
right of expressing their wishes to their own Government, and of having those wfishes respected? Their
wishes. The wishes of the people of the Territory,
a
0
54 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
honestly and fairly ascertained and deliberately expressed, not the passions or plans of the North or
the South, or of one or the other political party.
Congress is not the agent or delegate or representa tive of the Territories, but their guardian. During
their inchoate, immature condition, the rude settlers
are deficient in knowledge and capacity for self government, which come with wealth and numbers
and social progress.  They are not fit to be trusted
wholly with their own guidance or the destinies of
the future State.   As they advance, however, in
population, their opinions are entitled to more consideration, and a Territorial Government is provided
to be the organ of those opinions. The power of
Congress over the Territories has been likened to
that of a parent over a child. Is not this power
governed by duty and responsibility? Is a father
bound to regard the welfare of his child, or the
interests and designs of some other party? Are the
inclinations of his child, as he advances to maturity,
in reference to his plans of life, to the choice of a
business or profession, entitled to no respect, or is
the father to have no guide but his own arbitrary,
perhaps ignorant and prejudiced will? All power is
trust power. There is no such thing known to ethics
as power without duty and responsibility. The power
55
a
0 
THE LAW
of Congress over the Territories is coupled with the
duty of exerting it solely for their good in a republican spirit, because that is the vital, organic spirit
of Congress itself, of the whole framework of the
Government created by the Constitution.
It has been said that the Constitution was made
for the States, not for the Territories. That its
provisions apply therefore only to the States, and
the power of Congress over the Territories, not
being limited and defined in the Constitution, is
therefore unlimited and supreme. This is true, but
it.does not follow that Congress may rightfully disregard the fundamental principles of liberty which
the Constitution was intended to establish and protect; and though its language, and checks, and
limitations, do not extend to the Territories, its
spirit and intention do. There is a distinction, very
obvious, though lost sight of in the discussion of
this question both by Northern and Southern politicians, between the rightful possession of power and
the exercise of it. Legal power may be unjustly
and oppressively used. Constitutional power may
be unconstitutionally used, and is so, when constitutional principles, or the settled construction of
those principles, are violated, though the injured
party may have no legal redress, save an appeal to
a
56
a 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
the ballot-boxes of the nation. According to the
theory of the British Constitution, Parliament is
omnipotent. This and the maxim that the King can
do no wrong, mean merely that there is no positive
law to limit the power of Parliament, or to punish
the King for crime. Yet the authority both of Parliament and the Crown is bounded and controlled by
well-settled principles and rules, sanctioned by time
and the custom of ages, and the rights and liberties
of England are safe as if those principles were defined in a formal document, and will be safe so long
as love of liberty and reverence for right, live in the
hearts of the English people. Among these rights,
none is held by them more sacred, though they do
not use the ballot-box, than the right of self-government. This is the right of all Englishmen, at home
and abroad, wherever the jurisdiction of their Government extends. Mr. Burke, the most eloquent
and profound writer on the British Constitution,
whose opinions, too, were emphatically opposed to
democratic theories, asserts it, even when speaking
of the revolted Colonies of North America, over
whom the authority of Parliament was surely as
complete as that of Congress over the Territories.
In his letter to the sheriffs of Bristol he says:
"When I first came into a public trust, I found
a
57
a 
THE LAW
Parliament in possession of unlimited power over
the Colonies.  I could not open the statute book,
without seeing the actual exercise of it, more or
less...  I had very earnest wishes to keep
the whole body of this authority perfect and entire
as I found it, not for our own advantage only, but
principally for the sake of those on whose account
all just authority exists; I mean the people governed.
....  ~No legislative rights can be exercised,
without regard to the general opinions of those who
are to be governed.... In effect to follow, not
to force the public inclination; to give a direction,
a form, a technical dress, and a specific sanction to
the general sense of the community, is the true end
of legislation." Such was the language of this philosophic statesman as to the rights of English subjects in American  Colonies.   Are  the rights of
American citizens in American Territories less
worthy of respect?
Slavery exists in many States of this Union by
virtue of their laws and the sanction of the Constitution. These States have equal rights with the
others to the Territories, and the people of all the
States, when they go to the Territories, are subject
to the power of Congress. Should a Territorial
Legislature, fairly representing the people, make
a
58
0 
THE LAW
that the free labor of the white man suited their
soil and climate, that their wish was to keep their
land for their own race, and not for the Negro,
to keep it free from slavery for themselves and
their posterity?   Would  it not be  a monstrous
violation of the principles of republican government, should Congress reject such a demand, disregard the sober, matured, and known wishes of
the people, their moral sentiment and feelings of
right, their hopes and plans for themselves and
their children, and attempt to force slave labor
and a slave code upon them against their conscience
and honest conviction? Yet this is the duty of
Congress according to the last doctrine of the
South. Slavery is already in the Territory, it is
said, by virtue of the Constitution, and neither the
people nor Congress can take it out. Nay, because
slavery cannot defend itself, nor can the Constitution defend it without laws, Congress is bound to
pass slave codes for the Territories, in defiance of
the opinions and wishes of their people, and to'enforce these codes by the military force of the nation. Such are the principles now put forth by
Southern politicians, confirmed by the Supreme
Court, and offered by Northern Democrats to the
American people.
a
60
11 
THIE LAW
that the free labor of the white man suited their
soil and climate, that their wish was to keep their
land for their own race, and not for the Negro,
to keep it free from slavery for themselves and
their posterity?   Would  it not be a monstrous
violation of the principles of republican government, should Congress reject such a demand, disregard the sober, matured, and known wishes of
the people, their moral sentiment and feelings of
right, their hopes and plans for themselves and
their children, and attempt to force slave labor
and a slave code upon them against their conscience
and honest conviction? Yet this is the duty of
Congress according to the last doctrine of the
South. Slavery is already in the Territory, it is
said, by virtue of the Constitution, and neither the
people nor Congress can take it out. Nay, because
slavery cannot defend itself, nor can the Constitution defend it without laws, Congress is bound to
pass slave codes for the Territories, in defiance of
the opinions and wishes of their people, and to'enforce these codes by the military force of the nation. Such are the principles now put forth by
Southern politicians, confirmed by the Supreme
Court, and offered by Northern Democrats to the
American people.
a
0
60
I 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
If Congress be the government of the Territories,
its power must be exerted for the good of the
people who live in them, not to serve the designs
of people who do not live in them. The Territories
are, for a time, placed under the guardian care of
Congress for this very purpose. Under this pro tection the people of the States, when they go to
the Territories, meet on common ground, and the
two great principles of republicanism,-self-government and equality before the law,-work harmoniously together. All have an equal right to go to
the Territories, to vote when there for or against
slavery, to elect a Territorial Legislature, and to
ask and expect from Congress laws, or the approval
of laws, according to the will of the majority, fairly
and honestly ascertained.  This is true equality for
North and South; it is the equality that the people
enjoy in the States, and it is all that the law can
give. It cannot give equality of power any more
than it can give equality of population, on which
political power depends. When it shall happen
that a Territory in which there are slaves and
masters, and the masters are a majority of the
people, ask of Congress laws for the protection of
slavery, and their petition is rejected, then the
South will have reason to complain that its rights
6
a
61 
THE LAW
are violated. But this is a thing that Congress has
not yet done.
It is satisfactory to find the truth of these principles, and the justice and wisdom of the old law,
vindicated by the legislation of Congress on the
subject of slavery in the Territories, from the earliest period of our history, until the new doctrines
introduced by the Kansas and Nebraska Bill. The
duty of Congress to exercise its power for the benefit of the people of the Territories, and with a just
regard both to their wishes and to the equal rights
of the States, are principles which, sound in theory,
have been successfully applied in practice. They
have been at times denied, and serious dangers have
been caused by attempts to resist them, but principles of Government are strengthened and confirmed
by the shock of conflict, if they triumph; and these
have triumphed in every contest whenever opposed,
from 1789, when the first Congress assembled under
the Constitution, to 1854, when they were overthrown by the Kansas and Nebraska Bill; and that
bill has been the prolific source of agitation and discord ever since. Before the passage of that false
an     d   fatal law, the right of Congress to legislate for
the         Territories on all subjects was never disputed.
The only question that arose was, whether the exer                   a
62
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
cise of the right was expedient and just in the par ticular case, and so strong were the principles of
the Constitution, that they resisted every attempt
to prohibit slavery in any Territory, without the
consent and co-operation of the South, or against
the wishes of the people of the Territory. Slavery
was excluded from the Northwest Territory in 1789,
in conformity to the Ordinance of 1787. This was
a Southern measure, passed to execute a contract
made by the Government of the Confederation with
Southern States, and the prohibition of slavery was
part of that contract. All the provisions of the
Ordinance of 1787 were afterwards, in 1790 and
1802, extended to the Southwest Territory, except
the clause forbidding slavery, and this exception was
made because, in that Territory, slavery already
existed and was likely to continue, being suited to
its soil and climate. When Louisiana was acquired,
in 1803, Congress assumed absolute control over it,
by a bill drawn by Mr. Jefferson, and passed by
Southern votes. This bill did not abolish slavery,
because Louisiana was then, as now, inhabited by
planters and the owners of slaves, but absolute
power over the subject was claimed by Congress and
exerted.   Although  the foreign  slave-trade  was
then constitutionally lawful for the people of the
O
63
I' 
THiE LAW
States, it was prohibited to the people of this Territory. No slave imported since May 1, 1798, was
permitted to enter the Territory at all, the bill thus
anticipating the time when the slave-trade could be
prohibited to the people of the States, and showing
that the public men of the period, did not consider
the limitations of the Constitution applicable to the
Territories. The provisions of this act were applied
to the case of Florida in 1819 and 1822. In 1819,
an effort was made to prohibit slavery in the Territory of Arkansas while it remained a Territory, and
without reference to its future condition as a State.
Arkansas was in the South, it was suited to slave
labor in soil and climate, slavery existed in it and
its people approved of slavery. The South opposed
the restriction, and Congress rejected it. No one
denied the power of Congress over the subject; on
the contrary, that power was expressly asserted and
admitted by Southern men during the debate. The
measure was resisted wholly on the ground that it
was inexpedient and unjust, both to the South'and
to the people of the Territory. In 1820 a bill was
introduced to prohibit slavery in all Territory north
of latitude 36~ 30'. The Territory of Missouri was
included in these limits. Its people approved of
slavery, were owners of slaves, and remonstrated
a
64
4 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
with earnestness against the bill. They were sup ported in their appeal by Southern members of
Congress.  After a severe and protracted contest,
Missouri was excepted from the operation of the
bill, and it became a law, and that law was the cele brated Missouri Compromise, passed by the votes of
Southern men, approved by a Southern President,
and by a cabinet, a majority of which was also from
the South.   Some  of these men were  the most
eminent for talents and virtue, then in the country.
It may be said that this law was a violation of the
equal rights of the Southern people, by excluding
them from a large portion of the national domain.
The answer is, not merely that this was done with
their consent, their representatives having approved
the law, but that the law did recognize their rights,
by dividing between them and the Northern people
all the Territory then possessed by the Government.
It may also be said, that by prospectively prohibiting slavery, the possible wishes of the future inhabitants of this vast region, then for the most part
a wilderness, were disregarded.   But what would
probably be their wishes was respected, and governed the selection of the line; else why not forbid
slavery south of it, and leave the north open?
Reason and experience both taught that the climate
6*
a
65 
THE LAW
and soil of the North are unfit for slavery; that the
Negro cannot thrive and work there, but the white
man can; and, therefore, the land would be occupied by the dominant race, to the exclusion of the
Negro. The law was a prediction, and the result
has proved its truth.  In none of the States into
which the Northwest Territory has been divided,
have the people ever desired to introduce slavery,
and as soon as Kansas was opened, though the restriction was removed, settlers from the North filled
it, as the surrounding air rushes into a vacuum. It
is to be remembered, also, that the law was a compromise, and something was to be surrendered by
each party. It was intended to restore peace at a
time when sectional strife threatened the repose of
the country and the safety of the Union, and it did
restore peace. Neither as a law nor a compromise
was it a fetter on the future.  Should altered circumstances and changed opinions render expedient
another arrangement, the law might be repealed. It
has been repealed; whether wisely or not, time has
already shown.
The power of Congress over slavery in the Territories was again exerted in the year 1845, when
Texas was admitted into the Union. The Missouri
Compromise was re-enacted. In all of Texas north
66
a
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
of 36~ 30', slavery was prohibited; in all south of
that line, slavery was permitted, if the people should
desire it. This law was accepted by Texas, which
was an independent sovereignty, annexed by com pact to this country, and this compact also passed
by Southern votes and was approved by a Southern
Cabinet, of which Mr. Calhoun was Secretary of
State. It was also emphatically approved by Mr.
Buchanan,  because "it went to re-establish the Missouri Compromise, by fixing a line within which
slavery was in future to be confined." He declared
that when tha       t      Compromise was made, he "had set
his foot on the solid ground then established, and
there he would let the question stand forever." Four
years after, the Missouri Compromise was again
sanctioned, when a Territorial government was organized  for Oreg    on,in   1848.  The result of the war
with Mexico was the acquisition of a large domain
from that country. It became necessary to divide
this region into Territories, and to organize its
people into Territorial governments. A dispute at
once arose between North and South for the possession of these Territories, rivalling in violence and
bitterness the contest which was closed by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. In the year 1849 an
attempt was made to extend the Missouri Compro
a
67
0 
THiE LAW
mise line to the Pacific, with a provision expressly
recognizing slavery south of that line; in other
words, to introduce slavery, not merely where it
did not exist, but where it was opposed by the habits
and opinions of the inhabitants, and by the conditions of soil and climate. Now it so happened that
in these Territories, California, New Mexico, and
Utah, slavery was excluded by law at the time of
the acquisition. Congress respected that law as an
expression of the wishes of the people, and refused
to legislate on the subject at all.  It would not
prohibit slavery, because it was already prohibited;
it would not establish it, because it was not suited
to the wants or wishes of the people. These reasons
were embraced by Mr. Clay in the Compromise
measures of 1850, in these words:
"Resolved, That, as slavery does not exist by law
and is not likely to be introduced into any territory
acquired by the United States from the Republic of
Mexico, it is inexpedient to provide by law, either
for its introduction into or exclusion from any part
of the said territory; and that appropriate Territorial Governments ought to be established by Congress in all of the said territory, not assigned as
the boundaries of the proposed State of California,
without the adoption of any restriction or condition
O
0
68 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
on the subject of slavery."  This bill was  also a
compromise of the pretensions of parties, like the
Missouri Compromise, for the sake of peace. It
yielded no principle, but on the contrary affirmed
and was founded on all those by which the legislation of the country had been guided since 1789.
The power of Congress was implied by the declaration that to exercise it in the particular case was
"inexpedient." The present and probably future
wishes and interests of the people of the Territories
were respected, and, as to the equal rights of South
or North, the only rights their citizens had, was to
go into the Territories if they chose, and, when
there, to obey the laws if they could not change
them by their votes.  This measure had also the
merit of settling the question of slavery as to all
the territory then belonging to the Government,
and thus withdrawing a cause of dangerous excitement from the politics of the country.
It appears, then, that up to a period so late as
1850, the uniform practice of the Government had
established the rightful power of Congress over the
Territories, unlimited by any provisions of the Constitution, and had established also, that this power
ought to be so exercised as not to violate the rights
of the States or of the people of the Territories.
69
a 
THE LAW
These principles have also been exemplified in the
organization of the Territorial Governments. The
Territories are treated as infant republics, the wards,
until they attain their majority, of a mature republic; inchoate States, trusted under watchful care,
until they learn how to use them, with political
power and the apparatus for applying it, as children are trusted with guns and horses. They have
Governors, Judges, Marshals, but these are appointed by the President, and are removable by
him. They are his agents, whose duty it is to administer his authority and to advise him as to the
condition of the Territory. There are Territorial
Legislatures, elected by the people, but all the laws
are subject to revision and repeal by Congress.
They are not so much laws, therefore, as petitions,
informing Congress of the needs and desires of the
people. A Territory also sends a delegate to Congress, but he has no vote. His office also is to give
information and to represent, not the sovereign will,
but the opinions and sentiments of the people, and
to explain to Congress their circumstances and interests. In all these provisions, whilst the supreme
authority of Congress is asserted, ample care is
taken that' it may be exerted for the good of the
Territory, and that those subjected to it shall have
a
a
70 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
the means of making their wishes known. They
have not the means of making their will obeyed,
and, should they be oppressed and governed arbitrarily, not for their own benefit, but to serve the
designs of other parties, they have no remedy but
an appeal to the sympathy and justice and ballotboxes of their countrymen. This appeal was made
in the case of Kansas, and not in rain.
Under the old law and practice, therefore, slavery, until the year 1850, had not only been safe,
but had steadily and rapidly grown in power and
extent. It had grown indeed into gigantic proportions; and the law was not an iron ring, but an
elastic band, like the bark of a tree, and permitted
its growth. In fact, the law restrained slavery
only where it was restrained by the superior laws
of nature. Wherever soil and climate were adapted
to it, it was free to go; it was restricted only where
it could not go or could not remain. The law therefore gave to slavery all that, from its own nature, it
can ever attain, the privilege of seeking a congenial home wherever, in our broad territories, it
can find one. No change has taken place or ever
can, in the position of slavery, to require a different law.   The  line of the Missouri Compromise
was wisely chosen.   Slavery can never go north
71
O 
THE LAW
of that line; on the contrary, from the operation
of general causes, stronger than party "platforms,"
it is gradually receding to the south of it.
But, to possess every advantage and scope not
denied by the laws of nature did not satisfy
Southern politicians. In the year 1854, aided by
Northern Democrats, they succeeded in passing the
Kansas and Nebraska Bill, by which the well-settled principles of the Constitution, ancient usage,
and a solemn compact, were alike overthrown.
How cautiously, insidiously, and cunningly this
bill was concocted, by what intrigues, arts, menaces,
and party coercion it was introduced, and by what
frauds, machinations, and tyrannical abuse of power
it was passed, have been explained by Mr. Benton
in his "Examination of the Dred Scott Case."
These proceedings were not creditable to the South or
its adherents, but to dilate upon them is apart from
the purpose of this argument. The bill itself, so far
as it relates to the present question, is in these words:
"The Constitution and all laws of the United
States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have
the same force and effect within the said Territory
of Nebraska as elsewhere in the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the
a
72
a 
OF TIlE TERRITORIES.
admission of Missouri into the Union, approved
March 6th, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the
principles of non-intervention by Congress with
slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized
by the Legislature of 1850, commonly called the
Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative
and void; it being the true intent and meaning of
this Act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory
or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,
subject only to the Constitution of the United
States."
The contradictions, duplicity, and absurdity of this
law are obvious at once. The first sentence announces a change in the settled principles and policy
of the Government, else why declare that the Constitution shall extend to Nebraska, if it already extended there. It and the laws of the United States
are'to have the same force and effect there as "elsevhere."   Elsewhere can only mean States, which
are also put on the same footing with Territories in
other parts of the bill. What provisions of the Constitution are locally inapplicable to them, the bill
does not mention, but as the Constitution does not
give to their people a State Government or the right
7
0
73
1%
a 
THiE LAW
to vote for a President or for Congress, or subject
them to taxation or provide for them a Federal Judiciary; and as all its clauses, from beginning to end,
except that which invests Congress with absolute
control of the soil of the Territories, apply in express terms to States, it would be difficult to find any
other provision in it that does apply. Next comes
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The reason
given for this is, that it is inconsistent with the nonintervention by Congress with slavery recognized
in the Compromise of 1850. But this is a manifest
and most impudent falsehood, for that law declares
positively, that Congress does not intervene, because
in the particular case, it is "inexpedient" to do so,
and gives the reason why it is inexpedient, as before
stated. The power of Congress was asserted by Mr.
Clay who made the law, and the terms of it were
chosen for the very purpose of preventing any inference being drawn from it, against that power. The
bill goes on to declare that it does not intend to
"legislate sl     avery into any Territory or State, or to
exclude it therefrom." The meaning of this sen tence is not easy to find out. Why has the word
"State" a        place in it?  Does it mean that if the
intention of Congress were different, it has the power
to meddle with slavery in the States, either to intro
O
74 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
duce it or exclude it? If Congress has no such
power, how ca        n      it have any "intent" on the subject
at all? Power or no power, however, Congress on
this occasion does not exercise it, for the bill generously  declares, tha t it leaves "the people thereof,"
that   is of States a s     well as Territories, "perfectly free
to form and regulate their domestic institutions in
their own way." What else besides their "domestic
institutions," the Territories and States are free to
regulate, the bill does not say. Is slavery a domestic institution? At the time the bill was passed,
slavery was so considered, and from the context is
n      o        doubt meant t o be    included in that term.   But
since then, the case of Dred Scott has been decided,
by which slaves are declared to be mere merchandise.
So that it is a question whether the bill would now
apply to them. Marriage, however, is a "domestic
institution," which, it seems, Territories as well as
States may regulate in their own way, and the Territory of Utah took the liberty of doing so, even
without the previous sanction of this law. It is remarkable, too, that the bill, whilst declaring the perfect freedom of the Territories, should still have left
t h e m    subject to the power of the President, who, as
before, is permitted to appoint their Governor, Judges,
and Marshals, officers who are his agents, and with
a
75
q 
THE LAW
out whose sanction, the acts of the Territorial legislature can neither become laws, nor be construed and
applied nor executed. So that the will of the people
may be defeated, should it happen to be opposed to
the will of the President, as was seen in the case of
Kansas, the very case for which this new law was
intended. Why, therefore, was power given to the
Territories, and the means of exercising it limited or
withheld? How is it possible to put States and Territories on the same level, without giving to the latter
the power of States, not merely as to self-government, but as to representation in Congress and the
election of the President? The whole system by which
the Territories have been heretofore held in a condition of pupilage and preparation to become States
has been abolished by this law, which, nevertheless,
does not make them States. They are neither States
nor Territories, yet their inhabitants are Americans,
their country forms, geographically, a part of the
nation, and the General Government is the proprietor
of their soil, may sell it or refuse to sell it. What
then is their position? It would be difficult for the
inventors of the new law to define it.
But the word "State" was not used without a
purpose. It has a latent meaning in relation to the
clause by which the Constitution is extended to the
a
76
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
Territories. According to modern Southern doctrines, the Constitution carries slavery along with
it, and it was to fortify this doctrine that Territories are classed with States in regard to slavery.
It is true that the popular sovereignty clause might
defeat the plans of the South as to Northern Territory. The bill, however, was not intended only for
Kansas, but for future Southern acquisitions. It
was hoped and expected that the people of Kansas
would accept slavery, but it was deemed certain
that the people of Cuba and other Southern regions
yet to be annexed would accept it. The important
thing, therefore, was to get the subject beyond the
control of Congress. Two years afterwards the
Supreme Court gave to the South a higher ground
to stand upon, and its politicians have risen in their
demands. If the Dred Scott case be law, slavery
is in the Territories, though there be no slaves, independent of Congress and the people, waiting the
arrival of slaves, and no earthly power can take it
out.  Armed with this more efficient weapon, the 
Kansas and Nebraska Bill has become obsolete and
useless to the South, like the old-fashioned musket
compared with a Minie rifle, and has been thrown
aside.  It still remains, however, on the statute
book, a feat of legislation which, for mendacity
7*
0
77
a 
THlE LAW
contradictory doctrines, illogical statement, and
shortsighted cunning, is disgraceful to Congress,
and worthy of the scenes and practices by which its
enactment was surrounded and accomplished.
By abstract reasoning and by the evidence of
history, it thus appears that the principles of the
Constitution and the settled practice of the Government under it, have heretofore protected slavery,
and are sufficient for its protection in its present
state, and for its legitimate claims. Neither these
principles, therefore, nor the usage that has grown
out of them, should be changed. Not by the North,
because they are just and true, and the law; not by
the South, for the same reasons, and because they
give to it all that its people can, in reason, ask or
hope for, by means of any other principles or laws
which they can substitute. Nevertheless, by each
one of the three parties into which the country
seems likely to be divided, some or all of these
principles are denied, and their symmetry as a consistent whole is mutilated and marred. The extreme Southern and Democratic party violate them
all, by withdrawing slavery from the control both
of Congress and of the people of the Territories.
The rights of both these are thus disregarded, and
4
78
a 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
the rights also of the Northern States.  Their peo ple are perpetually excluded from the equal enjoy ment of the Territories, so loudly claimed by the
South, for they cannot carry into them their opinions
and moral convictions, which are more valuable than
property. They are to find in the Territories, if
Democracy and the South are to prevail, a slave
code, with or without slaves, made by Congress.
They are therefore to live under laws imposed on
them without their consent, and which violate their
sense of right. Against these laws their wishes,
though unanimous, cannot prevail. The South is
unjust. If its citizens have a right to take with
them into the Territories their property, surely
Northern men have an equal right to take with
them their consciences.
The extreme Northern, or Free-soil, or Abolition
party, on the other hand, is only less guilty than
the first, because it only violates two of the principles of the Constitution.   This party asserts the
legal authority of Congress, but declares that it is
the right and duty of Congress to exclude slavery
forever from all the Territories, without regard to
the wants, habits, condition, or wishes of their inhabitants, or to the requirements of climate and
soil. According to this party, the Territories are to
79
I
J
0 
THE LAW
be governed solely to suit its own ethics, and not
for the benefit, or according to the wishes of the
people who live in them. The rights of these peo          ple, the rights of the South, the republican principle
of equality before the law, the other republican
principle that political power is trust power, to be
exercised for the good and according to the opinions
of the governed, are thus alike contemned.
Between these two extremes, a third party has
arisen. This is the Popular Sovereignty party. Ac          cording to its doctrine, the will of the people of the
Territory is supreme, and wholly independent of Con          gress. Two important principles are thus disregarded:
the rightful authority of the General Government, and
the right of the people of the Territories to its just
and wise use for their benefit. They have a right to
this, as a child has a right to the superior judgment
of his father. It is for the child's advantage to be
restrained in his folly or vice,-to be guided in his
ignorance; it is for his advantage, too, that his men          tal bias, the tendencies of his character, the exigen          cies of his future position in life, should be considered
and provided for.  The settlers of a new Territory
~  ze
are often rude, ignorant, and turbulent adventurers,
unfit for self-government.  They require restraint, as
is proved by the example of Utah.  They require,
0
80
f-               -
O 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
also, just respect to their opinions and convictions,
to the hopes of their future, growing out of the con ditions of soil, climate, and population, as was shown
in the case of Kansas. The first was a case of law less vice, unrebuked; the second, of just and rea sonable demands tyrannically resisted. The one was
a weak abandonment of power, the other an oppres sive use of it; and each has borne its appropriate
fruits. The Territories are entitled to the fair and
honest exercise of the power intrusted to the General
Government,-to Congress and the President.   It
was given to them for the good of the Territories, and
it is their duty neither to abuse it nor to abdicate it.
We have not been told by this third party how far
their doctrine of popular sovereignty extends, or
whether it includes all the interests and affairs of a
Territory. If it does, a Territory is an independent
State, politically severed from the rest of the nation,
owing to it no allegiance, entitled to no protection,
and bound to it by no ties except such as are voluntary. If slavery only be included in this new doctrine, if on this subject alone the will of the people
of a Territory is supreme, and on all others the will
of Congress is supreme, some reason ought to be
given for making slavery an exception. Why are
the unity and symmetry of the system of Territorial
a
81
a 
THE LAW
government that has grown up under the Constitution and become consolidated by usage and experience, to be destroyed for the sake of slavery? Is it
because slavery is of so grave and deep an interest
to the welfare of the Territories? Why then in other
matters less important are they still subjected to the
power of Congress?  Is it because slavery is a "domestic institution?" Why then should not the will
of the people control all other domestic institutions?
Is it because slaves are "mere property?" Why
then not subject all other property, land included, to
popular coQntrol? Is it because the subject of slavery
is an exciting topic among the people of the States,
-because parties and sections have seized on it as a
means of agitation, in and out of Congress, dangerous to the tranquillity of the country, which can be
checked only by placing the subject beyond the
power of Congress and thus beyond the reach of
parties? The answer is, that Congress cannot abdicate its authority on the ground of expediency. Its
duty is to use its authority to overcome difficulty and
danger, not to recede before them. If it may give
up one power, it may give up any or all. Nor can
Congress delegate its power for the same reason.
Trust power from its very nature cannot be delegated. It is given to be used; and not to use it
a
0
82 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
when occasion requires, is to fail in the performance
of duty. To break down great principles, to set
aside ancient usage, to abandon legal authority, in
order to appease the contests of parties, is too great
a sacrifice. No true peace can come of it, only suppressed and adjourned war. The plain duty of Congress is, to maintain its constitutional authority, and
to exert it with such fairness, justice, and moderation, that all parties may be satisfied. If the time
has come when this cannot be done, then the time of
revolution has come; but the Government should not
begin with what would be the result of a successful
revolution, the abandonment of its rightful powers.
The South is sectional, and exacting, anlrevolutionary, in its doctrines and plans. Its public men
openly avow that Southern interests are their only
aim and guide, and that they owe allegiance to the
South first, and to the Nation afterwards, and only
so far as it serves and obeys the South.   They
deny protection to American industry, because its
benefits, they suppose, would be greater for the
North than for their own section; yet they contradict their own doctrines when, as in the case of
sugar, the advantage of protection inures exclusively to themselves. They claim all the Territories
0
4
83 
THE LAW
for slavery, without regard to the rights or opinions
of their inhabitants or of the Northern people.
They demand the aid of the Nation, by diplomacy
or war, to acquire new and vast regions for slavery,
and failing in that, they ask, by the repeal of the
neutrality laws, the privilege of making war them    selves for the same purpose, without the sanction
of Congress. Finally, they demand the repeal of
t he         law prohibiting the slave-trade.   Negroes are
wealth, and the means of wealth, and wealth is
power. When these purposes shall be accomplished,
then the last demand, of which they are the pre    liminary steps, will be made, and that is for sepa    ration; or, rather, it will follow as a natural
conseqeence. To build up a great, Southern, slave    holding Empire, inclosing the Gulf of Mexico, and
,   commanding           the mouth of  the  Mississippi,  and
founded on negroes, cotton, rice, sugar, and to    bacco, on the richest agriculture, supporting the
richest commerce in the world, with all nations for
tributaries, is the ambitious dream of the South,
o     r       of an influential portion of it.  Perhaps  the
realization of this dream may lie in the future. It
may be the result toward which events are irresisti    bly tending, the effect of world-wide causes, of
which Southern politicians and their sectional self
a
84
0 
OF TIIE TERRITORIES.
ishness are the unconscious instruments. But the
vision to see this clearly is given to few, and,
meanwhile, it is for us to do the duty that lies
nearest; and that duty clearly is, to maintain the
Union so long as it can be maintained, to defend
our national existence whilst defence is possible.
We can do this only by preserving in full life and
activity the Constitution and those principles of
political liberty which it was made to protect and
enforce. When these are destroyed, all will be lost,
-wealth, power, progress, peace, and happiness.
The three parties already mentioned are sectional
in their purposes and false in their doctrines. There
exists, however, in the sound opinion and patriotic
feeling of the great mass of the people, North and
South, a party unknown to politicians or to itself,
scattered everywhere, in counting-houses and workshops, in the streets of cities, in rural villages, on
plantations and farms; a party that is quiet, retired, unobtrusive, defensive rather than aggressive,
avoiding political activity, hating the base strife of
parties and demagogues, too intent, indeed, on private aims and enjoyments, but animated by loyal
and conservative public sentiment. This party is the
true people, the superior mind and moral feeling of
the Nation. It is inefficient because of the very
8
o
85
t  I,.' 
THE LAW
qualities that make it respectable. It does not go
to town meetings, nor belong to political clubs; it
is not represented at party conventions, nor is it
very busy at the hustings; preferring rather the
pleasures of domestic life, and content with the
active duties of conducting the commerce, the manufactures, and the agriculture  of the nation.   It
seldom rouses itself until danger is imminent. When
it can be fully roused it is all-powerful. It is inactive and unrecognized now, in the hurly-burly
of partisan politics.   Demagogues never dare to
address it.  The time has come when  this party
should arise -from its apathy and confidence, and
assert its rights and power. It wants organization,
self-knowledge, a defined plan of principles and
purposes, and a representative man.   Perhaps it
may want them too long.
a
86
lb 
OF TIlE TERRITORIES.
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN TIIE TERRITORIES.
"In this the antique and well-noted face
Of plain old form, is much disfigured."
KING JOHN.
THE practical working of a law, as of a machine,
discloses the truth or error of the principles on which
it is made, even to the unscientific, who cannot appreciate mere  abstract reasoning.   Tried by this
test, the absurdity of the new doctrine of Popular
Sovereignty in the Territories, introduced by the
Kansas and Nebraska Bill, clearly demonstrated at
the time it was passed by a priori argument, is now
made manifest by experience.   Under the law as
previously settled in opinion and practice, that the
Federal Government is the Government of the Territories, many States of this Union lived their Territorial life in peace and tranquillity, and at the proper time took their places in the Confederacy, without
opposition or excitement, either within or without
their borders. The Government of Congress, during
their period of probation, sufficed for their wants,
and their admission as States was effected by the
87
a
4 
THE LAW
same authority, without complaint on their part, and
often so quietly as scarcely to attract the notice of
the Nation.  Whether the people were" at liberty to
form and regulate their own domestic institutions in
their own way" or not, it is evident they got such as
they liked, for they have been satisfied.
The first case to which the new doctrine has been
applied, and for which, indeed, it was specially intended, is the Territory of Kansas, and it has produced a result in direct contradiction to the vaunted
principle which it professes to establish, and has
created such an excitement in Kansas and throughout the country, as to threaten, the President himself says, the stability of the Union. The people,
so far from being allowed to form their own institutions in their own way, have been subjected, from
first to last, to a government against which they
have protested, even to the point of forcible resistance. A legislature and laws were imposed on them
by a foreign power; a Constitution has been framed
for them by an insignificant minority, and, at this
moment, the President and his party in Congress are
attempting to force upon them that hated Constitution, in direct opposition to their known wishes and
earnest remonstrance.   This clear injustice; this
monstrous inconsistency between profession and
a
88
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
practice; this gross violation of the chief principle
of American and Republican Government, has revolted the moral sentiment and aroused the indignation of the country, and given to the affairs of
Kansas an interest and importance so great that
they   absorb the attention of Congress and the Nation,
and will continue to absorb it until right be done
and wrong redressed. But for these causes the very
existence of Kansas would scarcely be known to the
majority of the people, and its admission or rejection as a State would have passed, without attracting more attention than the routine business of the
legislature. It is clear the Kansas and Nebraska
Bill does not work well. Its practical result is, not
liberty but oppression; not the peaceful reign of
justice and law, but the rule of force and fraud,
assuming the forms of law; not the sovereign will
of the people, choosing and regulating their own
institutions in their own way, but the tyrannical
sway of a minority, and of a very small minority,
imposing,  with the aid of the President, upon the
people, institutions which they abhor, and against
which they have protested by every means in their
power; by voting and by refusing to vote; by argument and by entreaty; by appeals to the justice of
Congress, and by appeals to the sympathy and pa
8*
a
0
89
I 
THE LAW
triotic feeling of the whole country. They have got
nothing in reply from the Government but insults,
threats, and bayonets.
The cause of this is plain enough. The Kansas
and Nebraska Bill is a snare, a mockery, and a lie,
from end to end. Its ostentatiously paraded principle, the sovereignty of the people, it does not
carry out, but defeats. It emancipates a Territory
from the government of Congress, and declares that
its people shall be "perfectly free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their own
way." But they can do this only by means of laws,
and what control can they exert over the laws, unless they have also control over the powers by means
of which laws are made, construed, and enforced?
How can they "form and regulate their domestic
institutions," unless their political institutions are
the representatives of their opinions and their will?
For this the law does not provide. The executive
power is one of these political institutions, yet the
President appoints their Governor; the judiciary is
another, yet the President appoints their Judge; the
ministerial officers by which the decrees of courts
are enforced is a third, yet the President appoints
their Marshal.   What is left to the people?  Only
the Legislature, upon whose proceedings the Gover
90
a
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
nor has a veto, and whose laws are to be applied by
a Court and executed by a Marshal appointed by a
foreign power, and responsible only to that power.
Not merely, therefore, is there erected in the Terri tory legal authority over which the people have no
control, but the whole weight of official station and
influence comes to them from abroad. How absurd,
then, to talk about their sovereignty, when the in stitutions by which alone that sovereignty can be
exercised, are in the hands of another power, also
beyond their control.  Suppose that, in the State of
Pennsylvania, the President appointed our Governor, our Judges, and our Sheriffs. Would we be a
sovereign and independent State, free to make our
own laws and regulate our own affairs, or the subjects of the General Government,-nay, of the President alone?   Yet the people of Pennsylvania
have what those of a Territory have not,-a voice
in the election of a President.
The Kansas and Nebraska Bill is therefore a contradiction and a fraud.  It overturns constitutional
law and usage, coeval with the foundation of our
Government, and has not the poor merit of being
consistent with itself.  The  Territories are withdrawn from the power of Congress, they are subjected to the power of the President. In Congress
0
91
O 
THE LAW
there are always two parties, and there is public
debate. Over its action the opinion and sentiment
of the country have immediate, hourly influence,
and these are so many securities against unjust laws.
The President represents, practically, one party.
His counsels are or may be secret, in cases where
he is independent of Congress. To gain a partisan
or sectional object, he may be tempted to do things
he would not venture to submit to the open discussion and free vote of the Legislature, and may
therefore exert the whole force of his authority and
influence in opposition to the wishes of the people
of a Territory, who are subjected to his power without appeal, and are thus living, in fact, not under
a republic, but a monarchy, and a monarch, too,
not of their own choice. -Better, surely, for them,
the Government of Congress and the President,
provided by the Constitution, with the check and
balance of power this combination was intended to
create, affording thus to the people the security of a
Legislature before which their complaints could'be
heard, their cause argued, and where, should redress
be denied, the justice of their demands could be
made manifest, and bring to their aid the public
opinion and ballot-boxes of the nation, the ultimate
reliance of all, whether States or Territories.
a
92
f
0 
OF TIHE TERRITORIES.
The troubles in Kansas have been the result of
this contradiction between the promise and performance of the Kansas and Nebraska Bill, which gives
to the people only a Legislature subjected to a power
irresponsible to them; offers them the privilege of
managing their own affairs, yet imposes on them an
authority large enough to interfere in all their affairs; an authority above their reach, liable to be
directed by interests and designs foreign to them,
and wielded by persons sent to them from abroad.
Should the motives and plans of this foreign government harmonize with the wishes of the people, the
new law would work smoothly enough so long as the
harmony lasted. But should there be no harmony,
on the contrary discord, then it cannot work well.
"When two authorities are up,
Neither supreme, how soon confusion
May enter twixt the gap of both, and take
The one by the other."
This is just what has happened in Kansas.   Confusion, leagued with one authority, has taken the
other and led it captive. Thus the inconsistency in
the law has been reflected and represented by the
disorder whic       h       ha s  made Kansas a scene of agitation            from the first moment of its existence.  False
a
93
0 
THE LAW
hood of principle must always be followed by obstacles
and difficulties in practice, because facts are governed
by eternal truth, and from their nature obey truth
and resist falsehood.
From the first, a large and constantly increasing
majority of the people of Kansas have been opposed
to slavery. The President has been, during all that
time, desirous, not merely to protect slavery where it
exists, but to extend it. The people of Kansas desired to see their land cultivated by free labor, to
make their healthful and fertile country the home of
the Saxon race, their own race, which they prefer to
the African. The President was determined that it
should be cultivated by slaves, and that the Negro
also should make it his home. Hence arose, from
the beginning, a contest between the President on
one side, and the people of Kansas on the other.
The forces of the President were, the Governor, the
Judge, and the Marshal, their subordinates and official influence. Had the President really wished to
carry out the Kansas and Nebraska Bill, according
to its spirit and promise, by giving effect to the will
of the people, he would have appointed to these offices men opposed to slavery, because the great majority of the people were opposed to slavery. But
he did not do this. He selected pro-slavery men,
94
0
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
and sent them to the scene of action.   The people
ought to have had on their side, even according to
the lame and inadequate provision of the new law,
the Legislature. But unluckily for them, at the very
start, they lost even that defence. At the first election, the polls were invaded by armed bands from the
neighboring slave State, who came with baggage wagons and artillery, the equipment and drill of military
array. They came suddenly and unexpectedly, overpo     wered  the settlers, usurped the ballot-box, put in
their own votes, and triumphantly elected the candidates of the President and the South. They came
not to reside, but to vote and return to their homes
in Missouri. It was officially proved before a committee of Congress sent to investigate the facts on
the spot, that at this election only one-fifth of the
votes were legal and given by actual settlers. The
rest were all Missouri votes. The Governor of Kansas did not abrogate the Legislature thus elected,
which it was his duty to do, and which he might legally   have done, for fraud and duress vitiate all
transactions; but on the contrary, he recognized,
approved, and used it, and so did the President. It
is remarkable, also, that the President, in his late
messa ge   sent w     ith the Lecompton Constitution to
Congress, makes no allusion whatever to these no
a
a
95
I 
THE LAW
torious facts, though they were in evidence before
him, and form, indeed, part of the record in the
case.
Behold, then, the people of Kansas deprived of
all the means by which it was possible for them " to
choose and regulate their own institutions, in their
own way." The Executive, the Judiciary, and the
Legislature were all in the hands of their enemies.
They found themselves fettered, hand and foot. The
Governor, the Judge, the Marshal, were the agents
of the President and the South. The Legislature,
which even the new doctrines of constitutional law
introduced by the South, meant to be the representative of their will, was elected not by them, but by
the people of Missouri, and represented the opinions
of that people, as was speedily shown. At its first
session, it proceeded to pass laws for the purpose of
forcing slavery into the Territory; laws so monstrous,
so iniquitous, so subversive of every principle of
liberty and justice, that they drew forth indignant
rebuke even from Southern Senators in Congress.
Laws made for Kansas by Missouri. It was the
duty of the Governor to veto those laws. He had
the power, but he did not exert it; on the contrary,
they were approved by the Governor, and received
the sanction and support of the President, who nomi
a
4
96 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
nated the Governor. To the infamous character of
these laws the President has made no allusion in his
late Message. In this fashion was it that the people
were left perfectly free to choose their own institutions and regulate their affairs in their own way.
They would have been false to all the traditions
and sentiments of their race and country, had they
remained content and submissive under such thraldom. But they were far from being content, and
they displayed a spirit not unworthy their "blood
fetched from fathers of war-proof," and showed "the
mettle of their pasture."   They  denounced  the
wicked fraud that had been practised upon them, the
brutal violence to which they had been subjected.
They remonstrated, they expressed their indignation
in public meetings, through the press, in some cases
by forcible resistance, and at last by calling a Convention at Topeka, that should really represent their
wishes and form a Constitution for their future
government.
This Convention certainly wanted the forms of
law, but only the forms. In substance, in motive, in
spirit and intention, it was American and Republican,
whilst the Territoral Legislature was destitute of all
these merits, and had nothing but form to recommend it. The people had been cheated out of their
9
a
97
4 
THE LAW
Legislature, promised them even by the new law.
Was it extraordinary that they should make, even
an irregular effort, to get a Legislature that should
represent, not the people of another State, but themselves? They had been told, by that same law, that
they should be "perfectly free to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way." They
adopted this "way" of choosing the Topeka Convention and the Constitution made by it and free labor, as
their "institutions," because the Missourians and the
President had stopped up the regular and legal way,
which they would have preferred.   Their conduct
was not technically correct, but being a rude people,
in a wilderness, they were probably not well versed
in legal forms, and may be excused for mistaking
the Kansas and Nebraska Bill for constitutional law.
Their betters have made a similar blunder. Russian
or Austrian despotism might censure them harshly,
perhaps, but surely the instincts and feelings, if not
the judgment, of the American people will pardon
their error. In truth they displayed in this very
act, the combined love of liberty and law, which, in
all ages, has distinguished their race: their love of
liberty, by resisting oppression; their love of law,
by resisting it, with order, deliberation, and regularity. The President has described the Topeka Con
98
0 
OF TIlE TERRITORIES.
vention as revolutionary. Perhaps it was so, and a
government that "decrees iniquity by law," must
expect a revolution. The first Congress that set in
this country was revolutionary, and it grew out of
the very same cause that created the Topeka Con vention; an attempt to enforce obedience without
representation. The President could have prevented
this Convention by doing justice to the people; but
instead of this, he joined the Missourians. I-e even
enrolled them as a posse eonmitatus to enforce the
laws of the Territorial Legislature, arming their
ferocity and excited passions with his own legal
authority.  The President, in his late Message, has
condemned in strong language, the Topeka Convention, its acts and the people who supported it, but he
has forgotten to mention any of the circumstances
that go far to palliate their conduct, if indeed they
do not wholly excuse it.
At this point of their history, the people of
Kansas were made acquainted with another ally
of the President,-the Federal army. They were
told that the Legislature elected by Missouri votes
was a valid Legislature, because according to legal
form. That its laws must be obeyed. That the
President could not go behind the legal form of that
Legislature and those laws to inquire into their
*            -..''
99 
THE LAW
origin, but must sustain the one and execute the
other, as he found them. Accordingly the Legislature and its laws, abhorred by the people, were
forced upon them by the troops of the United
States,-of that Government which demanded obedience from them, but refused them protection.
What then could the people do? If they appealed to the President, he was the agent of their
enemies, and pointed to the law and his bayonets.
If they appealed to Congress, they found its doors
barred and bolted against them by the Kansas and
Nebraska Bill. Congress had no power to meddle
in the matter, they were told, because they were at
perfect liberty to manage their affairs in their own
way. So far as Congress was concerned, they were
an independent people. Congress did not approve,
indeed, of the border ruffians or the Territorial
laws, neither did it of Austrian tyranny in Italy;
but what of that? It had no right to interfere in
either case. They must help themselves, and get
out of the scrape as best they could; only, they
must obey the President.
The people of Kansas thus found themselves
caught in a trap; wound round and entangled in
the meshes of a net of sophistry and falsehood,
woven for them by the cunning craft of Southern
..:  *.....:
a
100 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
statesmanship. They were subjected wholly to authority either foreign or usurped, or both, over
which they had not the slightest control. All the
government they had, came to them either from
Washington or Missouri, was neither derived from
them nor responsible to them, yet, so ingeniously
had it been contrived, that, though to submit to it
was base and slavish, to resist it would be treason
and civil war. In this difficult emergency they
adopted a line of conduct so temperate and prudent, and, at the same time, so honorable and firm,
that it should excite the sympathy and admiration
of all lovers of conservative liberty, and deserves a
place in the annals of the country. They determined to be true at once to the Government which
had cast them off and to themselves. They submitted to unjust power, clothed in the forms of law,
out of deference to the law; they refused, by any
voluntary act, to recognize or ratify that power.
They gave to Coesar what was due to Caesar, and
no more They kept to themselves what was due
to their own conscience,-the right of protest, the
right of refusing to say that a lie was the truth.
The new Constitutional law enacted by Congress
had left them and could not deprive them of at
least one privilege,-the privilege of not voting.
9*
a
101
0 
THiE LAW
Neither the South nor the President, their subtle
machinations or their obedient bayonets, could
oblige them to degrade the ballot-box. If they
could not resist tyranny, they could at least refuse
to sanction it, to fasten the yoke on their own
necks, to kiss the rod of their oppressors. They
resolved, therefore, that they would not vote at
any election under the Territorial Legislature, because, by voting, they would impliedly acknowledge
its legal authority.   They  have consistently adhered to that resolution through all temptations
and trials, in defiance of menace, entreaty, and
vituperation. Whenever they could vote without
compromising this honorable position, they have
voted, and thus demonstrated the insignificance of
the minority which, aided by the President and
Missouri, has ruled over them. They might, on
one occasion at least, have obtained a victory over
this minority, but they abstained, preferring truth
to  expediency.   The  question of  slavery  soon
ceased to interest them. Nature and events had
decided that question at a very early period of
their history, and it had become merged, as soon
as the Territorial Legislature assembled, in a far
deeper and graver question, involving the great
principles of law and liberty and civil rights,
4
102 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
which the Constitution of this country was made
to protect.   They  knew  well that this question
would stir the mind and heart of the Nation from
their depths; that the honest feelings of the people
would rise and swell responsive to their mute ap peals; that the long roll of those deep waters
would surely float them off from their barren rock
of desolation; and they determined to wait for it,
as the stranded mariner waits for the returning
tide. Events are showing that they were not mis taken. The President has denounced them as dis affected rebels and as traitors to their country.
History will tell a different story.
They adhered to their resolution to vote only
when they could do so without giving their sanction
to a fraud and a lie. The Territorial Legislature
appointed an election for a Convention to frame a
Constitution  for the future  State.   They  could
easily have carried that election, but they refused
to vote, because they would thus have recognized
the spurious and hated Legislature. The Convention was thus the choice of a small minority. At
this stage of the business, the President, moved by the
ominous and extraordinary spectacle of a majority
of the people standing aloof as silent spectators at
an election, came forward with a proposition, which
a
103
4 
THIE LAW
was eagerly hailed as a harbinger of peace. He
promised that whatever Constitution the Convention
made, should, before being presented to Congress,
be first submitted to the people, to be accepted or rejected by them. The people then consented to vote,
because they could, by rejecting the Constitution,
get rid at once and forever of the Convention and
its work, and the chief work that the Territorial
Legislature was intended to accomplish. The Constitution was made, but it was not submitted to the
people.  It was offered to them in such a way that
no man could vote against it. Two tickets were
formed: one was "For the Constitution with Slavery;"  the other, "For the Constitution without
Slavery;" in either case, the Constitution. What
the people of Kansas desired and expected was, an
opportunity to condemn and spurn from them any
Constitution made by a Convention that was the
creature of a usurping and tyrannical Legislature,
elected, not by them, but by Missourians.   This
opportunity they were promised by the President,
and by the Governor appointed by the President.
They cared nothing about slavery, which they well
knew could never trouble them. What they did
care about was, to get rid of a tyrannical Government which had been forced on them by fraud
a
104
a 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
and violence.   But even the question of slavery,
professedly submitted, was not submitted at all.
By a transparent trick, inconceivably paltry and
base, it was so contrived that however they might
vote, they must still sanction slavery in the Territory. Is it surprising that the people of Kansas
refused to vote at such an election?  That they felt
they had been trifled with, cajoled, and cheated, by
the President and by the Convention? When, subsequently, this same Constitution was really submitted to their votes by a Legislature elected by
themselves, they gave sufficient proof of their sentiments in relation to it.  They rejected it by more
than ten thousand majority.
This Constitution has been presented to Congress
by the President, notwithstanding his promise. He
has sent it with a message urging Congress to
accept it. Hiis chief argument is, that immediately
after the admission of Kansas as a State, with this
Constitution, the people can abolish it, notwithstanding the provision it contains, that it shall not
be altered for seven years.   This doctrine is a
thousand times more revolutionary than the Topeka
Convention. It will be good news for the Abolitionists, who have long cherished a wild scheme of
" amending," as they call it, the Constitution of the
a
105
0 
THE LAW
Union on the subject of slavery. They have heard,
no doubt with joy, that this can be done, at any
time, by a mere majority of Congress and the
people, instead of requiring, as that instrument
provides, two-thirds of Congress or of the States
to propose amendments, and a vote of three-fourths
of the States to ratify the amendments when proposed. The principle announced by the President
is precisely that on which Dorr, of Rhode Island,
assisted by a rabble rout of followers, some years
ago, undertook to overturn the government of a
populous and flourishing State, under which its
people had lived in peace and prosperity for more
than a century. On the plea of an alleged majority
(which turned out to have been fabricated), and an
election unauthorized by law, he had the audacity
to demand of the public officers to abdicate their
power, and to deliver to him and his Jacobin club
the treasury and the archives of the commonwealth.
His doctrine is the same as that of French Red
Republicans and English Chartists, and once established, would place every Constitution in the country, State and Federal, at the mercy of demagogues,
mobs, and adepts in ballot-box manipulation. The
President has given to the radical and dangerous
principles of Dorr, the sanction of official authority.
O
106
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
He has proclaimed them as law in a formal and
solemn State paper.   Conservative men have not
been pleased to find them in such a place, or revived
at all.  Fortunately, however, the dictum of the
President has not yet become a decision of the
Supreme Court, though after the opinion given in
the case of Dred Scott, there is no knowing how
soon it may assume that shape. The President
advises Congress to accept the Lecompton Constitution on the ground of expediency. To impose it
on the people of Kansas, against their wishes, will,
he thinks, restore peace to that distracted Territory
and to the whole country. But it is dangerous, as
well as morally wrong, to sacrifice the true and the
just for the sake of the expedient.   Perhaps the
President may be mistaken.   The same party in
Kansas and out of Kansas, who made this Constitution, will still exist to support it after it is accepted.
To maintain it would secure two Senators and a
triumph for the South and the Democratic party.
They would not be likely to relinquish any legal
advantage. They would claim, and have a right to
claim, that the Constitution be obeyed; that it be
altered or abolished only in the way provided by
itself. They would demand, also, from the President, and with legal right, assistance to compel
a
107
q 
THE LAW
submission to the Constitution; and thus would the
old controversy be renewed. Nor would the agitation which this subject causes throughout the country, cease.  It would still be a sectional struggle.
The parties would be the same, the principles the
same; and it is for the sake of these principles, not
for the sake of Kansas, that the people are excited.
Kansas is not as yet of much material value in the
country.   Its population is small, its business is
small.   It does not contribute  many  dollars to
enrich our trade.  Not one in a thousand of the
people cares much whether it be a slave State or
a free State; but millions do care, most deeply,
whether slavery is to be forced upon it against the
wishes of its people; whether the Constitution of
their country is to be repealed for the sake of slavery; whether their Government is to be used as an
instrument to accomplish the schemes of sectional
ambition in violation of the obligations of truth and
justice. It is creditable to the people that they can
be thus moved, and by such questions-by the ideal
and the moral, the distant and the future; and all
the more creditable, because the occasion is insignificant; for this proves that their feelings are excited
only by the great principles involved. Whenever
the contest is between right and wrong, these give
O
108
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
importance to trifles, invest things valueless in themselves with a higher and nobler interest than any
value could impart, and shed a lustre on any scene
of action, however remote or humble.
"Rightly to be great,
Is not to stir without great argument;
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw,
When honor's at the stake."
It is worthy of remark, that the President, in
offering to Congress the Lecompton Constitution,
confines his censure to those who opposed it. All
the crimes to which that instrument owes its ex istence, he passes by without condemnation. Yet
they are of a character peculiarly worthy the notice
of a Chief Magistrate, for they affect the purity and
value of the elective franchise. Their tendency is
to dethrone the ballot-box, to make our elections a
mockery, to substitute for the will of the people the
decisions of party cabals and the designs of party
leaders. If by false returns, fictitious votes, and
the arbitrary arithmetic of officers of elections, the
ballot-box be made to say one thing, whilst the people mean another, the sooner that ingenious little
machine is abolished the better. The English viva
voce plan, or mere virtual representation, without
10
a
109
6 
THE LAW
any voting at all, would be safer and far more
honest.   Yet by these fraudulent arts the politics
of Kansas have been managed, from the Missouri
election of the first Territorial Legislature, to the
vote on the Lecompton Constitution. All this was
in evidence before the President. The very men he
successively appointed to carry out his policy in Kansas, told him of it, and proclaimed it to the world.
Nevertheless, the Territorial Legislature and its
laws, the Lecompton Constitution and the vote by
which it was passed, are all upheld by the President, sanctioned, approved, and presented to Congress for ratification. Violence and fraud and ballotbox gambling are thus justified by the highest authority in the nation. It is an evil thing for any
one to withhold praise or blame where either is
due, because it is unjust, and because these are
powerful influences to repress crime and encourage virtue.  Still worse is it to give to crime that
approval and support which belong of right only to
virtue; and this should more especially be avoided
by those whose high station adds weight and importance to their opinion, more sometimes than it deserves. Therefore a wise king, who well understood
the duty and responsibility of his office, has written:
"He that saith unto the wicked, Thou  art right
a
110
0 
OF TIIE TERRITORIES.
eous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor
him."
Nevertheless, one argument used by the President
is conclusive. He says that he is in favor of admit ting Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution, be cause " This will carry out the great principle of
non-intervention, recognized and sanctioned by the
organic act, which declares in express language in
favor of the' non-intervention of Congress with slavery in the Territories,' leaving the people'perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions
in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of
the United States.' " This is true. If the Kansas
and Nebraska Act be the law of the land-and such
it is till repealed, or declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court-Congress is bound to accept the
Lecompton Constitution. That act places the Territories beyond the power of Congress, and wholly
under the control of the local Legislature and the
President. Kansas presents herself with a Constitution, which, the President declares, was made according to law, by the regularly constituted authorities of the Territory. The Convention was legally
elected, he says; the Territorial Legislature was a
genuine and valid Legislature. What right has Congress then, which has abdicated all authority over
a
111
i.-.
I  
TIIE LAW
the Territories, to disregard, to discredit, these official declarations? What the President says, moreover, is true. The Legislature, the Convention, the
Constitution, are all invested with legal form. It is
true also, indeed, that this legal form is mere form,
-sheep's clothing, beneath which there is a wolf.
It is true also, that this Constitution is no more the
act and will of the people of Kansas than of the
people of England; that the Territorial Legislature
represented not them, but Missouri; that the Convention was the mere tool of the South; that from
first to last, every step in this shameful history was
vitiated by fraud, tainted with corruption, often
stained with blood. But what is that to Congress?
The new law declares that the people of a Territory
shall be "perfectly free to form and regulate their
own institutions in their own way;" and the President, a constituent part of the government of the
Territories, declares officially, that the Lecompton
Constitution and Slavery are the institutions the people of Kansas have chosen to form, and in a "way"
that is at once legal and their own. He asserts,
moreover, that all those who opposed those "institutions," and that "way," are disaffected persons,
rebels, and traitors, unworthy notice or regard. How
then can Congress interfere? It may be said by
0
112
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
some, that the Constitution of the United States has
in it these words: "New States may be admitted by
Congress into this Union," and that the word "may"
would-seem to imply some discretionary power over
the subject in Congress,-some right to deliberate,
to inquire into facts, to look through forms into substance, to disregard technicalities for the sake of
merits, and finally to reject. But the answer to this
is obvious. The Kansas and Nebraska Bill has altered this clause of the Constitution, and for "may,"
substituted "shall."  For all the troubles in Kansas,
therefore, the responsibility rests on the President,
not on Congress; for he had legal power to prevent
them, from the beginning, which Congress, by the
new law, had not. He could have annulled the first
Legislature, he could have vetoed its laws, he could
have exerted his official influence in accordance with
the wishes of the people, and, finally, he could have
refused to present the Lecompton Constitution to
Congress, in accordance with the promise made by
himself and by the Governor appointed by him.
Such is the result of the first experiment in Territorial self-government and the practical effect of
the conflicting principles of the new constitutional
law, manufactured by the South. To be consistent
with its promises and professions, this law should
10*          7      a.!   -
e       -~~~~~~..~~~  --
4
113 
THE LAW
enable the people of a Territory to select their own
Governor, Judges and Marshals, and thus have complete control over their political institutions, for in
no other way can they be at liberty to form and regulate their domestic institutions. Had this been done,
the Territories would be sovereign indeed, but their
position would be so anomalous and absurd as to defy
any ingenuity to define and understand it.  Not
States, with a complete apparatus of government for
the management of their domestic concerns, and at
the same time a proportionate power over the General Government, to which they are also subjected,
they would be Independent Sovereignties, whose
people formed part of another sovereignty, to which
they owed no obedience, yet from which they would
be entitled to claim protection. Independent Sovereignties, whose very soil was the property of another
government, from which their people must buy and
derive title to their land, which might therefore
withhold it, and must "make all needful rules and
regulations" respecting it. Being neither States nor
subject to the Federal Government as Territories,
they would, of course, have power to coin money, to
lay imposts, to make treaties and war, to maintain
an army and navy, and to establish any form of
government they pleased, aristocracy, monarchy, or
114
I,...
0
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
theocracy; or any domestic institutions they pleased,
matrimony, slavery, polygamy, or socialism; or any
religion they pleased, Christianity, Mahometism,
Mormonism, or the worship of Juggernaut. They
might also stay out of the Union, and maintain their
independent position so long as they pleased, however
populous and powerful they became. Of all this,
Utah is an example. Its people are truly sovereign,
according to the meaning of the Kansas and Nebraska Bill. They do really "form and regulate
their own institutions in their own  way."   They
have their own Governor and Legislature, and have
expelled the Judges sent to them by the President,
and thus they have been able to choose polygamy
and theocracy, as their domestic institutions. In flagrant violation of the true principles of that bill, the
President has sent bayonets to reduce them to obedience, just as he sent bayonets to reduce the people
of Kansas to obedience. He has a right to do this
as the bill now stands, because he is an important
part of the Government of the Territories; but he is
an institution they did not choose, and over which
they have no control, and his power is inconsistent
with the spirit of the law, which, if meant to be carried out fairly, should be altered to conform to that
spirit.
a
115
0 
THE LAW
It would be better, however, to repeal it altogether.
The old law worked well. Under it there was no
complaint. Under it many flourishing States have
been admitted into the Union without trouble or disturbance, in or out of Congress. It is undoubtedly
true that Congress might, if disposed to abuse its
power, vexatiously interfere in the affairs of a Territory, or unreasonably refuse to admit it as a State.
So might Congress, by a similar abuse, misgovern
and oppress the District of Columbia. Yet the people of the District, as well as of the Territories,
have, on the whole, been satisfied. They have, on
the whole, been governed justly.   Their interests,
their wishes, their feelings have been considered and
respected.   But what is the security, it may  be
asked, that this shall continue? The best security
the case admits of, and the only one: the principles
of liberty on which our government is founded, and
the public opinion of the country. Change these,
and the security vanishes for the District, the Territories, and the States. So long as the people are
animated by a republican spirit, Congress will represent that spirit, and govern the Territories in a republican manner; that is to say, according to the
wishes of their people. The people of the Territories,
though not represented in Congress directly, are vir
116
O
0 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
tually represented, because the great constituency of
the country has rights, interests, and hopes similar to
their own, and should these be injured by Congress,
would make common cause with them, and through
the press and the ballot-box, exercise its power to
redress the wrong, as it is doing now. Power is from
its very nature liable to abuse. If surrounded by
too many restraints to prevent misgovernment, it
ceases to be power. The chances of abuse are not
diminished but increased, by placing the control of
the Territories in the hands of the President, to
whom the Kansas and Nebraska Bill gives it, instead
of leaving it in Congress, to whom it was intrusted
by the Constitution.
The just and wise management of the Territories
in accordance with their wishes and their true interests, is the object to be attained, all will agree.
It can only be attained by some sort of government.
That which the Constitution provided and heretofore in use, gave to the Territories executive and
judicial officers, appointed by the President, a local.
legislature, whose acts were subject to the revision
of Congress, and a delegate in Congress, to make
known the wishes of the people. This government
was symmetrical and consistent. The Territories
were subjected to a government which represented
117
a
0 
THE LAW
the sentiment and opinion of the Union, whilst
am ple   means  were provided for the expression of
their own sentiment and opinion. Even to this
mild control they were subjected only for a short
time. This government was successful. The Territories have not complained, neither has the District of Columbia, placed under a more rigid rule,
and           placed under it forever.   The  Kansas  and
Nebraska Bill has abolished this government. It
professes to erect in its stead the absolute sovereignty of the Territories, it promises to their
people self-government, yet it does not perform its
promise. It withdraws them from the power of
Congress, yet leaves them to the power of the
President. It takes away from them republican
and gives them monarchial government. This government has also been tried, but it has not succeeded. On the contrary, the President is now,
and has been for more than a year, employed in
compelling the people, and by military force, to
submit to laws and to accept institutions against
their earnest protest and remonstrance. To carry
out the meaning and fulfil the promise of the new
law, the power of the President should also be
withdrawn from the Territories. They would then
be really sovereign, but they would also be inde
0
0
118 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
pendent nations; a position wholly inconsistent with
the ownership of their soil by the Government of
the Union, and with the fact that they form part
of this Nation.   This plan has also been tried,
practically though not theoretically, and the result
has been, Brigham Young and the rebellion in
Utah, and another occasion for the President to
employ soldiers to enforce his authority. Which
then of these three plans ought to be preferred,
the one sanctioned by time, success, and the Constitution, or either of the two which have failed?
Had the Constitution remained unaltered there
would have been no trouble in Kansas. It would
not have been thrown open as an arena for sectional
strife. Its Legislature would not have been elected
by Missouri votes, or, if it had, Congress would
have declared the election void.   The  infamous
Kansas laws would never have been enacted, or,
if they were, Congress would have repealed them.
The people would have voted for the Convention
that made the Constitution, and Kansas would
have been admitted as a Free State, without opposition or excitement, because its soil and climate
fit it for free labor, and because its people prefer free labor. Why then was the Constitution
altered? For the sake of the Territories? They
O
119
0 
THE LAW
did not ask for the change. It was not at the
instance of the people of Kansas that the Kansas
and Nebraska Bill was passed. All the Terri
tories were tranquil and content under the old
law. The change was made by the South, with
the aid of the Northern Democracy, for Southern
objects. Its purpose was to make Kansas a Slave
State,-an impossibility; as a means of realizing
the Southern dream of equality with the North,another impossibility. It was obvious, from the first,
that Kansas never could become a Slave State, and
it is still more obvious that the power of the South
in this Ulnion can never equal that of the North.
Political power depends on wealth, numbers, and
the diffusion of comfort and education among the
masses.  In all these conditions, the superiority
of the North, already so vast, is growing rapidly
greater every day.   Hopelessly and so long as
this Union lasts, the South is doomed to be a
minority, but not on that account to weakness or
degradation. Destroy sectional animosity, banish
the mischievous idea that there is a North or a
South, and the inferiority disappears. So long as
the South is able to secure the friendship and support of a great party in the North, and this it has
always done, it may defend its rights and often
0
120
a 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
control the Government, as it now does. It con trols, at this moment, the Executive, the Legisla ture, the Judiciary,-the sword and the purse of the
Nation,-and this, too, in the midst of sectional
excitement and division.  Weak  and a, minority
though it be, it is defended by the Constitution,
by the Northern Democracy, and not by it alone,
but by the national sentiment of the great mass
of the Northern people.  Through these it is safe,
it is triumphant, it reigns. Without these it is
feeble, defenceless, dependent. With these, though
it may not always rule, it must always be secure;
without them it must submit to be governed and
perhaps oppressed. Disunion would be no remedy.
Disunion is not separation. The South cannot put
an ocean between its weakness and the powerful
North, which must ever remain at its side, either
in the Union or out of the Union, either a friend
or an enemy; and, if an enemy, one that would
find an ally on every farm, on every plantation, at
every fireside in the South. The Union, the Constitution, and the friendship of the North; these
are the pillars on which rest the peace, the safety,
the independence of the South. Destroy them and
the South may read its fate in the history of the
11
a
121
0 
THE LAW
Italian Republics, which is a history of Southern
weakness, opposed to Northern strength.
The extraordinary thing is, that for some years
past, the South has been and now is sedulously
employed in undermining this triple foundation of
its power and safety.  Its extravagant pretensions,
its excesses, its crimes, are rapidly cooling the
friendship of the North, converting it, indeed, into
positive enmity.   Its leading politicians are ever
plotting and threatening disunion. The time may
come when disunion will be proffered to them from
the North, not as a vague and passionate threat,
but as a positive and well-considered plan, backed
by a force of public opinion which nothing can
resist. They are also repealing the Constitution,
introducing new doctrines into our national lawdoctrines contrived to serve a special and immediate
purpose, but which, once established, may plague
their inventors. Ideas, principles, are sharp tools
to play with, and he who uses them has need of a
mind that can see far into the future and calculate
remote consequences. This sort of mind was possessed by those who framed our Constitution for
the union and safety, the happiness and prosperity,
the greatness and glory, of both North and South.
The principles they established have proved their
a
4
122 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
long-sighted wisdom, both in the success which has
attended the observance of those principles and the
disasters which have followed a departure from
them.   The  Southern politicians who have since
dared to meddle with the work of these sages, have
not improved it; and the new doctrines they have
established as instruments to carry out their narrow
views and sectional policy, will be turned against
them with fatal effect. This very Kansas and Ne braska Bill is a case in point, to show how an
unskilful engineer may be hoisted by his own PCtard.  Its immediate object was to make Kansas a
slave State, and thus gain two Senators for the
South.   It was expected that a majority of the
people of Kansas would be in favor of slavery; it
was feared that a majority of Congress might be
opposed to slavery. If, therefore, Kansas could be
freed from the control of Congress, all would be
safe. But the event turned out exactly the reverse
of this, and for such a contingency the artificers of
the bill forgot to provide. As a consequence, they
found that their machine would not work.   But
though defeated, they  are not overcome.   Two
Democratic Senators can be secured by forcing
upon Kansas the Lecompton Constitution.  They
have the President, his message, and his patronage,
a
4
123 
THE LAW
and their hitherto faithful and well-drilled phalanx
of Northern  Democrats  in Congress.   But here
another unexpected misfortune has occurred, the
consequence of another blunder. They left entirely
out of their calculations the fact that men, even
Northern Democrats, have a conscience; a mistake
never made by those who framed the old law.
Northern Democrats have long been growing lukewarm to the cause of the South, disgusted by late
outrages, and this disgust has at length shown itself
in open revolt. The very author of the Kansas and
Nebraska Bill itself, so lately a trusted and chosen
leader among Southern politicians, he who had
" Spoke like thunder on their side,
Been sworn their champion, bidding them depend
Upon his stars, his fortune, and his strength,"
has suddenly deserted them and joined their enemies.   His example has been followed by other
chiefs high in influence and renown, whilst the
Democratic party throughout the North is leaving
them by thousands; and it is manifest that this
great ally, with whom they have so often marched
to victory, can no longer be depended on. Ere
long the South is likely to be left with no other
a 
a
124 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
defence but the Union it has weakened and the
Constitution it has mutilated and defaced.
But the Kansas and Nebraska Bill was not in tended merely to put slavery into Kansas. It is a
weapon fashioned for other and richer fields of con quest. Texas is to be divided, so as to make more
Southern States and Senators; Nicaragua is to be
annexed; and already, in the vivid and creative
imagination of the South, Cuba looms up above the
horizon, rich in negroes, in the countless treasures
of an exuberant soil, and in votes. In all these,
slavery is already planted and growing with tropical
luxuriance, not as a mere abstract right, existing
only in contemplation of Dred Scott case law, but
as an actual fact. Slaves are there and masters,
and these masters, if allowed "to form and regulate
their own domestic institutions in their own way,"
will choose slavery and slaves, beyond a doubt. But
"whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein, and he that
setteth a trap shall be taken therein." Even here,
it may and most probably will happen, that the
Kansas and Nebraska Bill will disappoint its inventors. When the day comes for the division of Texas,
for the annexation of Nicaragua and Cuba, the
chances are, that the President of the United States
will be a Northern man, not with Southern, but
a
125
a 
THE LAW
Northern principles. By the new law, the President
is a part, and a most influential part, of the government of a Territory, and what has occurred in Kansas, may again occur; the people on one side, the
President, his patronage, and his army on the other,
and we may then see the instructive drama of the
present moment repeated. A minority of the people, supported by the President, presenting to Congress a Constitution prohibiting slavery; that Constitution being the work of a packed Convention,
and a Legislature elected by fictitious votes, and
bolstered up by Executive corruption. A minority
insisting on legal forms, and demanding instant admission as a free State, though nine-tenths of the
people who are not slaves are masters of slaves, and
earnestly insist on their right to choose their own
institutions, earnestly appeal to a fettered and powerless Congress for justice and protection.   What
would the South say to that? And what would they
say to a President who should urge upon Congress
to accept such a Constitution, who should denounce
this protesting majority as rebels and traitors, and
ask for troops, to enable him to force upon them a
free Constitution against their will.
The makers of the Kansas and Nebraska law
were clumsy workmen. They forgot to provide for
126
I
a
4 
OF THE TERRITORIES.
the case of an Anti-slavery President. They will,
perhaps, learn wisdom by experience.
"To wilful men,
The injuries that they themselves procure,
Must be their school-masters."
Those who framed the Constitution, and laid the
foundation of this Union, understood their business
better. That Constitution was intended to protect
the South, and has protected it.  Southern politicians cannot improve it. For their own sakes, they
had better let it alone. 
CECIL.
0
0
127 
a
lb 
a 
a
4