E ci 5'<a- 
 
 
 ACCEPTANCE SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. NORMAN EDDY, 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATING CONVP^NTION. 
 
 Plymouth, Thursday, Axigusl 17, 1854* 
 
 Mr. Presidenty 
 
 and iJcnllemcn of the Convention: 
 'This nomination has been so suclilcnly and 
 imaniraously made, made too by acclamation, 
 that I confess myself standing before yon almost 
 unmanned. Something more than two years 
 ago, a convention of your predecessors, alike 
 representing the national Democracy of this 
 Congressional district, by as unanimous a vote 
 as that had this dav, nominated me for the 33d 
 Congress, the first session of which has just 
 closed. It also adopted a series of resolutions; 
 and that the position of the Democratic party 
 might be clearly understood and accurately de¬ 
 fined, adopted without qualification or amend¬ 
 ment, the resolutions passed at the National 
 Democratic Convention held in Baltimore the 
 May preceding. Among them ivas one recog¬ 
 nising and fully endorsing ivhat is termed the 
 compromise or adjustment measures of 1850, 
 and was passed, so far as I recollect, wdthout a 
 dissentient voice. 
 
 The old Democratic banner, which on four 
 several occasions had been carried by my im¬ 
 mediate predecessors, (who lam happy to see 
 present,) in honor and in triumph, that conven¬ 
 tion theu placed in my hands, and bade me in 
 the contest then began, t» carry it always with 
 me—always in sight: to carry it high, that the 
 principles it represented and typified (for it 
 was the flag of the Constitution and the Union) 
 could at all times and everywhere be seen. I 
 i(^6k it, and however unequal to the duty in 
 other respects,-! carried it fearlessly into the 
 contest, fetood by-it in-'all that, and the Presi¬ 
 dential canvass whro'b!btlow^d,*an'(i nev^ Jow- 
 ered it, under any menace 6» blandishment, to 
 foe or faction- I claim to have been feithfnl to 
 the trust; and I claim nothing more; I did my 
 duty as I understood it then, and Fubsequently 
 
 * Reported by A. E, Dfafiee. 
 
 in the Congress to which the suffrages of the 
 people sent me. 
 
 To-day this Convention, embodying an ag¬ 
 gregate of character and influence never sur¬ 
 passed by any convention of any party ever 
 held in this district, with a unanimity that 
 gratifies me beyond the expression of words, 
 and for which words cannot sufficiently thank 
 you, has nominated me for a re-election. 
 
 I can only promise now, that with that same 
 Democratic standard again in my hands, I will 
 go into the conflict before me, sustaining with 
 my might the time honored principles of our 
 political creed, and above all, maintaining the 
 doctrines of self government in all their strength 
 and vigor to all the extent of this vast repub¬ 
 lican empire. I will not permit myself to doubt 
 that a triumph awaits you and me—but if ia 
 the gathering storm which fusion, faction and 
 disunion are creating and concentrating to 
 overwhelm and destroy us, I should fall, that 
 same old flag shall be my Avinding sheet. I 
 should at least feel tho patriot’s consolation, 
 that among all my political supporters, from 
 those of rank and station to the unpretending 
 and unambitious voter, there is not one-«not 
 one but what while life lasted would “cling to 
 the Constitution and the Union as the maiiner 
 clings to the last plank when the night and the 
 tempest has closed in around him;”—not one 
 that has ever harbored the thought of disunion 
 or upon whose lips ever hung the hateful—the 
 treasonable word. I defy my competitor to say 
 as much. [Applause.] 
 
 It would be in vain, gentlemen, to address 
 yon at any Jength, upon the various questions 
 whieh'have engaged the attention of Congiess 
 during its recent session. I need not tell yAu 
 that it has been a long and a laborious One, I 
 think it has done the country muot •rs'r’dce; 
 
 ..... I f;} i-iioi'tnlMl'Uff 
 
 .t’n.*;,; ■; 'lo 'i; •If'*,/ 
 
 - I ' I • I. . . ^ ; .-GI . i<|M li • 11 M'k'f I' 
 
o 
 
 and much that 1 had hoped would be done, has, 
 
 I regret to say, been left undone;—whose fault 
 it is may be a subject of inquiry hereafter. 
 
 Early in the session, a bill for the. organiza¬ 
 tion of Nebraska Territory was introduced into 
 both Houses, and referred to the appropriate 
 committees on territories. Judge Douglas, 
 from the committee of the Senate, reported a 
 bill, upon the pendancy of which Mr. Dixon, a 
 Kentucky Senator, introduced an amendment 
 repealing in effect what has been termed the 
 Missouri Compromise line. According to my 
 recollection, and I only speak from recollection, 
 the bill and amendment was recommitted to 
 the same committee who through its chairman 
 reported back to the Senate an amended bill, 
 which after undergoing in that body §ome mod¬ 
 ification, provided among other things that, in¬ 
 asmuch as ‘Hhe Sth section of the act, prepara¬ 
 tory to the admission of Missouri into the 
 Union, approved March 6th 1820, was inconsis¬ 
 tent with the principles of non-intervention by 
 Congress with slavery in the states and territo¬ 
 ries, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, 
 commonly called the ‘•'compromise lueasiu’es,’’ 
 the same was made ‘“inoperative and void.’’— 
 The principle of “non-intervention,” leaving 
 the people of the territories “free to form aud 
 regulate their domestic institutions in their 
 own way, subject only to the constitution of 
 the United States, seemed so well founded in 
 right, so equitable in its application to ail the 
 unorganized territory of the Union, just and 
 equal to every state of it north and south, that 
 for a while although speculation was as usual 
 busy, there was no organized opposition—no 
 sectional clamor, and no imputed violation of 
 national honor or faith. But the calm was a 
 deceitful and a short lived one. An address to 
 the people of the Union north, was issued by 
 Slessrs Sumner,- ChasCj Giddiiigs and others, 
 denouncing the measure as a violation ef a sa¬ 
 cred compact, half as old as the constitution 
 itself, and a surrender of territory, as large as 
 the original thirteen Colonies to the blight of 
 slavery. 
 
 Dresses in their sympathy, and.presses in op¬ 
 position to the administration and the demo¬ 
 cratic party, echoed the charges with every ad¬ 
 dition that ingenuity could invent, whether in 
 the perversion or mis-statement of fects,, or in 
 the deliberate and shameless publication of 
 mendacious falsehoods. Abolition was doing 
 its fitting work—that of agitation. It was 
 upon its appointed mission, scattering in its 
 
 })ath distrust and di.'-may. Sectional prejudi¬ 
 ces were ;vrouse(l, and sectional pride appealed 
 to, by all the arts and appliances that could be 
 made to reach the passions or the self esteem 
 of the citizen. Seeking “to rule or ruin,” they 
 invoked aid from the ranks ot parties defeated, 
 and from factions and discontents in the mar¬ 
 ket, and therefore without principles to aban¬ 
 don, and all the isms that could be bought or 
 coa.ted, to confederate with it. The “fusion’’ 
 is now complete, and the cohesion of its dis- 
 cordent elements is attributable to the hope of 
 office, and the promise of the spoils. There¬ 
 fore gentlemen, the dangers that menace us 
 are neither few nor trifling; aud to be met suc¬ 
 cessfully, they should be estimated at their 
 strength, aud looked full in the face. The time 
 honered whig p®rty has been disbanded, and 
 its noble ship upon v hose quarter deck once 
 stood those great and lamented statesmen, 
 Webster and Clay, is now engiilphed in the 
 maelstroom of Abolitionism. 
 
 I believe there are members of that same old 
 party, spurning a coalition, alike repugnant to 
 their ancient political faith, and the preserva¬ 
 tion of our Constitutional Union, that will ab¬ 
 jure a connection so unnatural, and frinight 
 with cousequences so mischievous. They are 
 the Webster and Clay Whigs. National Whigs, 
 whose love of country is limited only by its 
 boundaries. 
 
 But that combination and fusion of factions, 
 whose declared band of Union, is the repeal of 
 a law that gives to the people of a territory 
 the right of self government—is a combination 
 that can never carry with it. either the confi¬ 
 dence or the support of the American people. 
 I know this “fusion” numbers, many friends of 
 both of the illustrious statesmen just named, 
 aud I am sorry for their delusion. But there is ^ 
 another portion of that same fusion,that would 
 mock their memories, aud insult their graves. 
 Such a party—a party of parties, with the 
 most impudent assurance, call themselves the 
 people’s party. The people’s party! Why the 
 people have been defeating them, under every 
 name and guise for the last 20 years. They 
 will perform that duty again. The people re- 
 pudiattf the dqcti'ine of selfgbyernment! n» sir 
 never. 
 
 I propose, gentlemen,now to examine briefly 
 the controverted provisions of the Kansas am 
 Nebraska law, especially that relating to th* 
 Missouri Compromise. 
 
 Was it a compact? for I say, if it was a com 
 
o 
 
 o 
 
 pact, if the faith of the nation was pledged in 
 it, then I admit that there \va3 no excuse for 
 rej»eal. If it was a compact lialf as old as the 
 Constitution, then I admit that those who vio¬ 
 lated it deserve to be placed on “a roll of 
 infamy.” But if I succeed in showing that 
 there is no compact or contract in the Mis¬ 
 souri act,—conceding that the principle of 
 self government is right—^you must say tluit 
 every one of the compromises of the national 
 Union remains in tacC and that none of them 
 h.ave been abrogated. 
 
 Let us look a little to tlie history of what is 
 called this compact of 1820. In 1819, Missouri, 
 then a Territory, had called a convention, 
 framed a State Constitution, and asked for ad¬ 
 mission into the Union. During the session of 
 1820, some of you as cotemporaries recollect— 
 most of you doubtless remember, from tradition 
 as wxll as reading, that Congress passed a law 
 for the admission of Missouri into the Union and 
 ])rohibiting Slavery north of 3GS 30' in alljthe 
 remaining territory. M'as this a compact? Let 
 ua see hov/ it was regarded in vai'ions sec¬ 
 tions of the Union. The Legislature of Jlissonri 
 accepted this condition, and came into Con¬ 
 gress the next year asking for admission a 
 second time. If it was a compact, let us see 
 who the parties were. When the hill for the 
 admission of Missouri Avas before the House of 
 Representatives almost CA'cry member from the 
 north voted against it. Did they then recog¬ 
 nize it as a compact? 
 
 More. In the interval, after the passage of 
 that laAV of Congress, and its acceptance by 
 Missouri, fhe Legis-lature of the State of NeAv 
 York instructed their Senators and requested 
 their representatives to vote against the ad¬ 
 mission of ^Missouri, unless, in her constitution, 
 she would inhibit Slavery. Y'ou remember, 
 gentlemen, that this was after the passage of 
 the law for the admission of Missouri> and after 
 slavery was inhibited In the territory north of 
 thirty-six thirty. And New York w’as not 
 alone. Tavo days afterAvards Y'ermont, and 
 Massachusetts some days later, followed in 
 their legiglativo resolutions; and those reso¬ 
 lutions Avere sent to their representatives in 
 Congress, instructing them to votoagaiosit the 
 adraiasiun (d‘Missouri, unless she wouhl con¬ 
 sent in her constitution to abolish slavery. 
 
 Take theselegislative instructions, in connec- 
 tion with the vote whicli was given upon the 
 qnestiou of the admission of Missour: -every 
 member from the north votingupainsl M6. w itfv 
 
 the exception, I think, of thirteen — and upon 
 wU.at pretence can men come up and talk about 
 tlie violation of a compact? That compact, it 
 one, AA'as passed in 1820, and yet, in 1821, the 
 same members voted against the admission of 
 Missouri, upon the ground that she tolerated 
 slavery. The compact existed then, if it exist 
 ed at all. 
 
 Gentlemen, I am a northern man, by birth 
 education and association,, and in vindication.c 
 the.north, I deny that it aa^os a compact in an , 
 sense—in any sense binding hpnorablo men. 
 
 What occurred afterwards?. The session av£ 
 draAving to a close, and I think it AA as the sLoi 
 session. Mr Clay, from a joint .committee, ii. 
 trodneed a resolution to the effect, that if Mh 
 souri should so construe her constitution as t 
 permit the citizens of other States to come i 
 Avithout loss of any constitutional right, sh 
 should be admitted upon notice given upon th 
 proclamation of the President of the Unite 
 Stales, It Avas at this time that Mr. Cla* 
 became connected Avith the Missouri Coinpri, 
 mise. 
 
 Gentlemen aaUI recollect, tliat, in the rcsolr 
 tion of 1821, not one Avord was said about tl 
 inhibition of slavery north of thirty-six thirty 
 It does not speak of any territory of the Unite 
 States; it speaks only of Missouvi, Mr..C.lay ri 
 ported this joint resolution from a joint comini; 
 tee of the tAvo Houses, AAduch had been rai.se. 
 on his motion. That resolution admitted Mis 
 souri into the Union, ajidiio-t the act of 1820. 
 
 In this asi^ect of tliQ g.a^c then, alkw-ill agree 
 AAith me, that it cannot be considered a com¬ 
 pact, and therefore there has been no violation 
 of any compact on the part of this Congress. 
 
 But again. Y'on wlU recollect that Ar¬ 
 kansas, (which Vvuui a portion of the Louisiana 
 purchase) in lS3d, applied for admission as a 
 State of the Union. What was the vote of 
 Massachusetts, (a State, Avith others, noAV claim¬ 
 ing the Missouri line as a compact?) I believe 
 every one of her delegation voted against Ar¬ 
 kansas because she tolerated Slavery. IVhy 
 did Massachusetts violate that compact, if a 
 compact? But Ylassachusetts A\ as not alone in 
 j this. Other States now talking of compacts, 
 voted with her. . Reineinber Arkun.sa.s Is south 
 of dG"' 30', and, if that line was a compact line, 
 she had a right to be admitted A\-{th slavery it 
 this claim of oompact .be tra.e. Thus, then, has 
 natMa'SsachnsetOC’ounecliout, ami other 8;(atts 
 Airtiially said it \\:m not a eoiiipicl? 
 
 Aabtlmr. fact. J"hn t.^uiuey Ad.uu;, in 
 
4 
 
 place, t'aid he thought Arkansas was entitled 
 to admission with or without slavery. He re 
 gretted that it was so. Why? because of the 
 compact of 1820, called the Missouri Com¬ 
 promise? No, he did not place it on that ground. 
 He told the country that it was because of a 
 stipulation in the treaty with France for the 
 purchase of Louisiana, which bound the honor 
 of the nation to admit her, without reference 
 to her condition in relation to slavery. Good 
 faith and treaty obligation required it. He 
 did not say one word about the violation of 
 the Missouri Compromise. 
 
 But, gentlemen, let us travel on a little fur¬ 
 ther. I think it was in 1845 that Florida was 
 admitted into the Union. True, she was not a 
 part of the Louisiana purchase; but it is equal¬ 
 ly true that Florida is south of the Missouri 
 Compromise line. Yet we find the then rep.*e- 
 sentative from this very district voting against 
 her admission upon the ground, I presume, that 
 she was coming in as a slave State; and 1 
 am not the man to charge him with a violation 
 of a compact. 
 
 Colonel Benton, according to his own historic 
 showing and a more recent declaration in his 
 speech against the Nebraska Bill, came forward 
 in Congress with a proposition which took olf 
 the free territory north of 36® 30', a strip twice 
 as large as the State of Rhode Island and added 
 to it the slave State of Missouri. He says it 
 was done by northern votes. At all events, 
 seven large counties were thus converted from 
 free soil to slavery, without one w ord as to the 
 violation of a compact or compromise. 
 
 We come down to the Compromise Measures 
 of 1850. Our friend, the President of this con¬ 
 vention, W’as then a member of Congress, and 
 he well remembers that in the bill organizing 
 the Territory of New Mexico, and fixing the 
 boundary between that territory and Texas, by 
 the provisions of that bill, a portion of Texas 
 north of 36® (and which by the terms of 
 the annexation of Texas to the United States, 
 when formed into a State or States, Slavery was 
 to be prohibited therein, but which as a part of 
 Texas was Slave territory,) was added to New 
 Mexico, again altering the compromise line the 
 distance of near four degrees of longitude.— 
 Now, you will remember, that in organizing 
 the territory of New Mexico, Congress left it 
 free for the people of that territory to choose 
 for themselves either for or against slavery.— 
 The National Democratic Convention of 1852 
 and the Whig convention which met a few days 
 
 afterwards, both pledged themselves to stand 
 by the compromises of 1850, as a settlement of 
 the slavery question. Those acts had organized 
 two Territories and admitted one State upon the 
 principle of congressional hon-intervention— 
 California came into the Union, and New Mexico 
 and Utah were distinctly told: Do as you please 
 in regard to slavery. The Baltimore conventions 
 resolved to stand by this principle, as the set¬ 
 tlement of the whole question throughout the 
 whole country. 1 have already said to you 
 that the convention assembled here in the 
 same year, adopted the same principles, when 
 they first trusted their standard to my hand; 
 that I then felt myself colled upon to stand by 
 tliem—aye, and I will yet stand by them any¬ 
 where and regardless of all consequences;— 
 [cheers;] and I am rejoiced to-day, that this 
 convention has not only a})probated my cour.se 
 ill this respect, but reiterated the very princi¬ 
 ples which they declared two years ago. (Pro¬ 
 tracted cheering.] 
 
 I think, gentlemen, 1 have been able to 
 show, that the charge that we have violated 
 a compact is unfounded; that the Missouri act 
 was not a compact; that it was not so regard¬ 
 ed at the time; that it hag never Since been re¬ 
 spected as a compact. It is, now for me to 
 show that the repeal of that line was*demanded 
 and effected, upon a principle right in itself 
 and whatever is right in itself has always 
 received the support of the Democratic party, 
 [Cheers.] 
 
 Gentlemen, I can hardly go back far enougli 
 in American history without going to the be¬ 
 ginning, to show that this principle has always 
 been recognized in our country. It was not for 
 the first time claimed in our Declaration of In¬ 
 dependence which seperated ns from the mother 
 country,but it was contained in many of the char¬ 
 ters England gave to the old colonies. The Kan 
 sas and Nebraska bill, yon remember, gives to 
 the people, through their legislature, th'e regu¬ 
 lation of their own affairs, subject only to the 
 Constitution and the laws of the United "States. 
 Now permit me to read an extract from the 
 charter of William and Mary to Massachusetts 
 Bay, in the 18th year of their reign, taken from 
 the Parliamentry Re.gifter, an old English 
 book, 
 
 '‘And we further, for ns and onr heirs and 
 successors give and grant to the said Governor 
 and the great and general court or assembly of 
 our said province or territory for the time be 
 ing ftill poiver and authority from time to 
 time to make. Ordain arid cstahUsh all man- 
 
mr of. laws, statutes, and ordmaaces tiirec- 
 t'lQJis and instructions, either with or leithont 
 penaliies (i^o far as the same be not repiipoant 
 or contrary to the laws of Ibis our realm of 
 Kngland) as they shall judge to-lie lor llie goixl 
 and welfare of our said province or .territory, 
 agd for the government and ordering tliereoT, 
 and for the people inbabiiing, or who shall in¬ 
 habit the same, and tor the necessary"rnpport 
 and government thereof.'’ 
 
 • 'I’his was the second charter given to '\ras- 
 sachusett.s Bay, and 1 ask you if tlte principle 
 of self government, is not clearly recognised 
 in it. Look at the Kansas and Nebraska act 
 and see if the same powers are not tfelegaled, 
 the same rights conceded, to the peo]dc inlmb- 
 itlng those territorie.?, that were v ouchsalr-d 
 as a matter of grace by an Jhiglisb King and 
 Queeti two centuries ago. Jt monarchies can 
 be generous, surely republic.s shouhl be jinst. 
 The right ‘Ho life, libort}' and property’’, arc 
 declared to be “the inaliable right <)l .man.”-r- 
 Tell me if in these territories the Congress of 
 the United States should be the guardian or the 
 judges of those rights, or shall the people be left 
 to exercise for tliemselves those attributes of 
 American citizeushi[»? If it belongs to Con¬ 
 gress and should be exercised by Congress, then 
 they are not citizens—they are only subjects. 
 AVe then avow a Congressional supremacy as 
 despotic in its power as that claimed by Lord 
 North over the American colonies—the power 
 “to bind them in all cases whatsoever.” Is 
 this democratic doctrine? or whig, or Ameri¬ 
 can doctrine? Does it find a response any Avherc 
 in the American bo.som? I can answer for yon. 
 aud say, Nowhere, wnlc.s.s every lesson taught by 
 ouf revolutionary history is forgotten,or disre- 
 gar<l(‘d. 
 
 Wliea the Pilgr’mis of the May Mower land 
 cd nt iHymoutli Kpek, they adopted rules and 
 regulations for the government of tlic infant 
 colony. “Scpiatter sovereignly” was lirst estab¬ 
 lished then, by the puritan fathers of New 
 England—established after prayers to Heaven, 
 for light and wisdom to guide them; adopted, 
 sir, upon their knees, in tlip fear pf God, and with 
 open Bibles before them. principle 
 
 of self goverumenf.,, gjicj to no greatj.T extent, is 
 embodied in — 
 
 it is^of pilgrirp bir^h, ;md,^ro^w^th amf I ask her 
 descendants, if it is fitting that rights OyCf'cised 
 then shouldnot be exerciK.d by^U),e pjeople of the 
 territorie.j now?, 9 - 
 
 You w'ill have obf erred 1 hab both in the 
 charter, and Kansas law, there l-'C’a !?fi]mlation 
 ia the one, that legislation shall not tic repng- 
 
 uaut or couti ary to the laws of England, anvl in 
 the other, Ihat'Hhc corn titiiliou ami all laws of 
 the U. States whicli are not locally iha]>plica- 
 ble” shall Iia\ c the .'^ann; force ami eflect in .‘^nld 
 terrilorlos a.‘< (dsewluuv. The latter provision 
 in the dearth of substantial ol»j?ctiori to the bill 
 iias been assailed as inlerv’enilpn oh Hie part of 
 Congress. 1 have not time now to examine at 
 length the truth of Du's charge. I may doit 
 elsewlicre and upon other occa.sibns. It is sulli 
 cieut for my present purpose to say, that it is 
 contained in other laws lor the organizalion of 
 ti'rrltories, w'Aiioht objection tit Die lime of the 
 pas.sago of siicli hiw.s or .since, Dial llieyinter- 
 lerc with sjojrgovcrmm'nt no nioVo in Kansas 
 or Nebraska than with Indiaiifi—for Indiana 
 is in like manner subject to the ^aine cehstitu- 
 tion and hiws. The very fact Ih'aT the consti- 
 tutlon gives to Congrc.ss the p'dwer'^‘'‘^lo i^lsposo 
 of and make all needful rules and regulations 
 re.<^pecting Die territory or other pro]icrly be¬ 
 longing to the United Slates.” establishes Die 
 further fact that in that difposlDon ami in Die 
 making of these rules and rogulalion.s, Ihecon- 
 stitiition and the laws of Ihe,United States 
 must travel with them and cover Die territor}" 
 in which they arc apiilicalde. In other" words 
 territorial governments of the ^nited^tales. 
 must ill the very nature ol things, lie subject 
 to Die coiistitutloH and laws of the Unite.; 
 btates. 
 
 But I am ipt yet tlirough >,vUb the colonia 
 charters. I p.oxv call your.alieiitjoii to that i 
 Couuetlcut granted by Charles the IT I,L pro 
 vide.s, Bbvt; 
 
 “Th^,G(,)y,^hor, Dc]mly|Gpvcnor amba'^^istani 
 '.sli'all from ‘tlnie to time ihake, brdaiii and 
 tablish all luaiincrof AVhofditbTne and ‘reuMm 
 aldi‘ laws, statutes, ordliiuciFR dirccLions-nnd in 
 strijir^jpns, not contrary to Bielgwg of thm realm 
 of Biiglandj” 4 :c. 
 
 Do you recollect that, lylich Diis san^c char¬ 
 ter was attempted to be wrested froh Connec¬ 
 ticut l>y a’ Britlsli iiuuidaie .and at' Die point 
 of British beyonets. it \A a.s concealed ipian old 
 oak, and ^aiarded with vigil care ^as (Hi very 
 talisman of their libcrtic,s. The’'same ^Id oak 
 is yet,standing, known the ,\yo1’ltlVvcr , as thw 
 “Cb.arlcr Oak.” Old Conncctfcnt pf^servi's it 
 as a ,uxcmcnto of her early .shffcflngS, sacri 
 fices and patriotism. Long m.ay it live, ami 
 long may the priciples of self go'vcrnnient 
 as declared in that charter nn<l shelfcr am! 
 protcp.jjon beneath its ancleiii boughs. Hut 
 let her, in her pride of power and irt remember- 
 anee (>fher own histoi v loler.yfe 111 
 
'i or the Uiuievl States the same principles of 
 polltual freedom, which she maintained at 
 every hazM-d to herself when a colony—and in 
 recurrence to first principles, consent to leave 
 the people of such territories free, to ‘hniaiias’e 
 their own aflairs in their own way.'’ Let her 
 do this, and strike sedition and jinllifcation 
 from her statute hook, and she wall continue 
 worthy the precious heritage. 
 
 The Charter of Lhode Island is equally ex¬ 
 plicit, hut I will not now take time to read it; 
 and the same thing will ho found in the char¬ 
 ters of Pennsylvania and ]\[aryland; and, I 
 think, in that of Georgia also. And yet, ihcie 
 principles, older than our government, em- 
 lialraed in the Declaration of our IndepcndencG| 
 and guarantied ^hy the Constitution of the 
 Union were assailed hy the late Fiisioii Con¬ 
 vention at Indianapolis, and still more rccciitly 
 hy a similar convention assemhled at Bradford, 
 in this District. 
 
 The question before us is, (Shall Congress pro¬ 
 hibit Slavery in the territories, or shall the 
 people of the territorias ho left to act for thom- 
 .selvcs upon this and all other suljjccts of domes¬ 
 tic policy. 
 
 Who are the best judges of their wants, ncce.s- 
 sities, interests? Is it a Congress of the United 
 States, not representing them, not knowing 
 them, and not responsible to tliem?' or is it a 
 legislature of their own, chosen hy themselves, 
 and from among themselves? Who hesitates 
 to say, that as the pco^do of those territo¬ 
 ries are tlic objects of such legislation, they arc 
 the proper judges of its nature and extent? 
 Why not, then, let them make their own hws, 
 as we make ours? But it is said hy the rnslonists 
 that they do not propose to intcrlcrc further 
 than to restore the old compromise line i)rohilj- 
 iting slavery nortli of a certain degree of lali- 
 lude; and that they do that, for the proteclion 
 of this new and free territory from the aggres¬ 
 sions of !he sl.ave power. My answer is that, 
 if the people of that ‘-free” territory, arc op¬ 
 posed to the introduction of slavery, then, the 
 riglit and the authority is with them to exclude 
 it, and they do not need the interference of 
 Congress or of the ‘•fnsionisis;” hut if timy want 
 it, and estahli.ch it, it is their act, and their 
 caianmity, and I do not know what hnsiness it 
 is to us. If .sucli people arc capable of legisla¬ 
 ting upon all questions a.Secting life, character 
 and property, deflning crimes and rnisdemennofo, 
 and providing the adetpmte penalties, if they 
 can regulate theii' domestic h-’girlatlon. and prO 
 
 tect personal rights, if they can elaborate a 
 system of law 2 in relation to the acquisition, 
 alienation and descent of property real and per¬ 
 sonal, I cannot for the life of me sec, why they 
 have not the capacity and the right to legis¬ 
 late upon all subjects locally applicable to 
 their territory, slavery included. 
 
 I know that I am talkijig to an audience 
 of a Avestern and a free State, whose repug¬ 
 nance to slavery found.utteraiico in the organic 
 law of the State, where it provides -‘that there 
 shall ho neither slavery, nor involuntary serv' 
 tudo within the State.” I share that feeling 
 with you, and I voted Avith you in the adoption 
 of that constitution Avjiich excludes it. With 
 you, I believe slavery to he a social and politi¬ 
 cal evil, and I think ayg decided the question 
 for ourselves Avisely and Avell. But should In¬ 
 diana by her vote in Congress decide it for 
 Kansas or Nebraska? for a foreign population, 
 he^mud our jurisdiction, and alien to our laAvs? 
 M'ho can claim such a right? Has Congress 
 this right? If it can prohibit slavery in a terri¬ 
 tory, may it not establish it? The .former in¬ 
 tervention may be for the best interests of tim 
 territory, tlio latter compatible aud in confer' 
 mity Avitli the Avishes of its inliabitants; aud 
 Avbile the inhibition of slavery by the act of th 
 territory, Avould be heuA'en’s justice to mau, the 
 exercise of this poAver by Congress for either 
 purpose Avoiild bo a violation of the fundamen¬ 
 tal principles of our republican system of gov'- 
 ernment. 
 
 I have said that Slavery is a social and polit¬ 
 ical Avrong. Intemperance rIso, is a Avrong t<> 
 society; it is dcsiructive of peace and good or¬ 
 der; and imbrutos and destroys the noblest fa 
 cnlties of man. But I would ask such of you 
 gentlemen us are in fuA or of principles of 
 tlic Maine La\A', whether the right is in the 
 Congress of the United States to extend that 
 Law over the territories of Kansas and Nebras¬ 
 ka? 1 venture to say, you liavc neAmr thought 
 of such legislation. Ilom-ovor anxious you may 
 be to prevent the use of iutoxicating beverages 
 in our territories you Avould nevtu* claim of 
 Congress such legislation. And yet you ean- 
 not fail to perceive, that if theia^ exists the 
 right to legislate by Congre.'^s in the one 
 case, it exists in others. 'SVe e.onld pass laws 
 upOii any subject of much or little importance. 
 We could amend existing laws or repeal them, 
 and indeed annihilate llie legi.'5lafive povers of 
 tine territories altogeBu'v. Ilemember, tliese 
 lerrUoricl? are no*, renredeuf'ul in the CongrefeS 
 
7 
 
 of the United States, They have no vote 
 there. They are powerless in that body, an<.l I 
 ask if Congress can better represeuk their will, 
 than their own chosen legislatures? 
 
 But further. '\Vhy take from the citizens of 
 a Territory any right secured by the constitu¬ 
 tion of the United States? I ixsk, is the citizen 
 of a Territory less qualified to cxerci«e his 
 judgment on the slavery question, than the 
 citizen of Indiana? One of our Secretaries 
 [Mr. Graham] was a member of the Convention 
 which framed our State Constitution; let him go 
 to Kansas and tell me what attribute of an Amer¬ 
 ican citizen does he lose by the chnnge. Upon 
 what principle is it claimed that the people of 
 Kansas and Nebraska shall not decide this ques¬ 
 tion for themselves, as we decided it for our¬ 
 selves. 
 
 I know it is asked, that, if it was really the 
 intention to give free governments to Kansas 
 and Nebraska, why constitute and appoint their 
 Governors, Secretaries, Judges, United States 
 Attorney and Marshal? 1 will endeavor to smswer 
 that question. The Governor of Kansas Terri¬ 
 tory, as.fin officer of the United States is the 
 Superintendent of Indian Affairs, makes trea¬ 
 ties with the various tribes, has the care to a 
 greater or less extent of the public lands, and 
 other property of the United States, beside# 
 performing other dutids pointed out in the law. 
 As the Executive of the territory it is his duty 
 to carry out the laAvs, and see that they are 
 executed and observed. The Secretary of the 
 Territory is chnrged Avith the disbursement of 
 the public money for the payment of the sala¬ 
 ries of territorial officers and other appropria¬ 
 tions made by Congress for such territories. 
 The Judges exercise the same functions there 
 Avhich the United States district judge for In¬ 
 diana exercises here, but their existence does 
 not prohibit the people through their legisla¬ 
 ture from creating other judges according to 
 the public Avants. The same may be said of the 
 territorial Attorney. Again, the duties of the 
 Marshal of the Territory are of the same char¬ 
 acter with those of the Marshal of any 
 State. With Avhat propriety then can it be 
 said, that we deny the right of self government 
 to the Territories because Ave appoint some of 
 their officers, since it is manifest that the gen¬ 
 eral government does the same thing, to a lim¬ 
 ited degree to be sure, for every State cf the 
 Union? As it becomes the duty of Congress to 
 establish “rules and regulations respecting the 
 territory and other property of the United 
 
 Slates,” there is a necessity Rt crcctiu;; ),*y 
 metes and Jjouiids the territory, and giv<- it an 
 organized existence. Congress must (b) it; for 
 it is the territory of tlic United States and 
 there is no one else to do it; and after author¬ 
 izing the people to elect their own legislature 
 and establish their oavii laAVS, then Congress 
 ceases to act, and self goveimra mt begins.— 
 Every law passed then is passed by the Ter¬ 
 ritory and is the voice of the people. Should 
 it be otherwise? 
 
 A remark or tA^o upon another subject, and 
 I Avill not detain you longer. 
 
 There is an institution in our midst, secret 
 in its chftractcr, Ijaring for its primary object 
 the disfranchisement of foreigners, and the pre¬ 
 sentation of a religious test, aFi a qualification 
 for office. It is the enemy of the democratic 
 party, and permit me to add of the country 
 and its constitution—We once met it as an 
 open enemy, and it Avas then knoAvn as the 
 “Native American party.” Noav it meets us 
 Avith a smiling lace and a friendly hand, and 
 AA’hilc Ave receivc|its greetings Avithout suspicion. 
 and in ignorance of its name and object, the 
 assassin’s dagger is plunged into our lAOsom.— 
 Its Avork is done, as it is fitting such work 
 should he done, under the pall of night. Oaths 
 of sccrcsy conceal their deeds, there is therefore 
 no detection, for no one can “knoAv nothing” 
 about it. 
 
 “'Secret path marks secret foe;’’ I 
 
 and these scefet conclaves of “Know Nothings,” I 
 shunning the light of day, and the presence ofl 
 their felloAv men, as plainly mark, no raiB-| 
 sion of good, or of public AA'ea). If even the! 
 grievances existed AA'liich are alleged in rela-l 
 'tion to our adopted citizens, and to Catholi-I 
 cism, if the evil had become so great, that ill 
 could be reached only in derogation of UilI 
 constitution both of this State, and of th>l 
 United States, and if to cure it, wo arc to IramB 
 pie under foot Avithout thought or reraorseB 
 Avhat h;vs heretofore been regarded as a sacrciB 
 principle of our GoA’crnmcnt and Avhich hal 
 constituted a proud national boast, “religiouH 
 freedom,” in Heaven’s name let it be done AvitB 
 the courage and independence l)efitting thH 
 American character, done openly—done Avitb H 
 manly avowal of cause and purpose, and aaH 
 could then although abhoring their principle* 
 have a decent respect for their boldness. H 
 speak of A\ hat I understand to be their doctrinH 
 and its tendencies—I have nothing to do 
 the motives of its members. H 
 
8 
 
 That there nr(; ^vorthy men amotig them J 
 to odmit—men misled hy appeals 
 to their prejudices and their i)ride, and made 
 to Indicvo in the first instance tliat there was 
 no party object to subserve, but simply apoli¬ 
 tical wrong to remedy. Such I would adjure, 
 by every consideration of justice, and love of 
 country, to abandon an organization-, where 
 bigotry and treason, are made the cardinal ar¬ 
 ticles of its faith. Let me also warn my dem¬ 
 ocratic friends to beware of the seductive wiles 
 thrown around them to inveigle them in its em¬ 
 brace. Its serpent tongue often whispers in 
 your ear, and its syren song breaks upon your 
 path in the stillness «f the 'night. It is done 
 to beguile, to draw you cautiously but surely 
 within its folds, and then, manacled with 
 oaths, you arc the slaves of its will. 
 
 Wc are to meet it; no sir, I will correct my¬ 
 self and say, wc are to feel it, in the coming 
 canvass, for traveling in darkness with a stel- 
 thy and coward step, wc shall not sec its 
 face. It becomes us then to keep “watch and 
 guard” at every post, and block every avenue 
 to its iiisiduons approach. Democrats choated 
 into fellowship with it, tliongh but a small ])art 
 of the aggregate number, will, if they do Urn 
 work assigned them, be made to slick the knife 
 deep into the hearts of their friends and politi¬ 
 cal brethren. They were initiated into the 
 order for that very purpose. Will they heed 
 its mandates? May we not, on the contrary 
 hope that.when reflection and observation have 
 (lisclosed its design, they wdll leave its secret 
 chambers, and again rally around their old 
 staedard, which never deceived them, and where 
 under its broad folds they, and every interest 
 of the country, will always find ample protec¬ 
 tion. 
 
 From the first hour of the government to 
 the present we have invited the oppressed of 
 all nations to our republican asylum, and point¬ 
 ed them to that glorious page in our constitu¬ 
 tion which declared that “Congress should 
 make no law', respecting an establishment of 
 religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there¬ 
 of.” The framers of that Constitution were 
 not unmindful that in the struggle for indepen¬ 
 dence Lafayette poured out his treasure and 
 
 1 his youDg blood, like water, to achieve it.— 
 .Montgomery, a noble son of Ireland, fell at 
 Quebec before that independence was declared, 
 and fell a rebel to England, and a patriot to 
 America; and well might England's Parliament 
 say, “a curse on his virtues, he has undone his 
 country.” 
 
 Need I speak of Pulaski, the gallant Pole, 
 wlio found an early grave on another of our 
 revolutionary battle fields, or of Steuben, of De 
 Kalb and Ko.scinsko, who, all of them, devoted 
 every faculty and energy of life to our aid. Yet 
 remembering all this, and teaching it to our 
 children, shall w'e turn to the descendants and 
 countrymen of these great men, and say: come 
 among us if you wdll, but if you come, it shall 
 be as a cast—not as citizens—a population to 
 look down upon, and not to look to, as erpials. 
 If you come, you shall come and stay among us 
 disrobed of every right of the freeman, except 
 the right to live, to delve, to sell and buy in 
 marts—in that wc will protect you, for in that 
 you may minister to our wants. 
 
 Should this be our language? Was it the lan¬ 
 guage of the revolution? AVhy .should they not 
 vote or hold oflice, if they are capable and hon¬ 
 est mid faithful to their adopted country?— 
 General Shields, who now so well represents 
 our sister State of Illinois in the Senate of the 
 United Statc.s, is he Ic.ss worthy because Ire¬ 
 land was his birth place instead of America. 
 Mark hi.s wearied look, his languid step, that 
 quick and anxious respiration. What causes this? 
 I ivcll tell you. lie fell at Cerro Gordo, while 
 gallantly leading a charge, his chest riddled 
 w'ith R musket ball. The tide of life ebbed 
 rapidly; Mwas said it’s a mortal w'ound; but he 
 lived Rud carried the flag of bis adopted coun¬ 
 try into other battles, and always in triumph* 
 Tell me, tell any body, that he is an alien, and 
 therefore deserves neither office or citizenship! 
 I wdll go no further, nor follow longer, this 
 lineal descendant of the federal Alien law.— 
 We must not only rebuke it for its intrusion 
 but drive it from among us. If it retains a foot¬ 
 hold now it will struggle for a supremacy, and 
 if that direful event should ever overtake us, 
 we may close the book of American history in 
 sorrow and in shame. 
 
 ■ I 
 
 Printed at the jSI. Joseph County Forum Of&ce, South Bend, Indiana.