Ti SPEECH OF THE Hon. Reyerdy Johnson, DELIVERED BEFORE THE POLITICAL FRIENDS OF Hon. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, %t a Reeling In Jfaiuuil gait, Joston, On Thursday, June 7, 1860. TO WHICH IS ADDED THE LETTER OF THE HON. RE VERDY JOHNSON, @fo tint ©hairman.flf the fuu^Ias Peeting \n Jjtero gorfc On the 22d of May, 1860. Baltimore . . Published by John Murphy &, Co. Publishers, Booksellers, Printers & Stationers, Marble Building, 182 Baltimore street. I860; SPEECH of HON. REYERDY JOHNSON, In Fanetjil Hall, Boston, June 1th, 1860. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of Massachusetts : The sensibility with which I feel this cordial reception, I want words to express. All that I can do is to say, that I most sincerely thank you, and that I shall ever gratefully remember it. The place too where it is given, imparts to it, if that were possible, an additional value. Faneuil Hali, ! What thoughts rush to the memory, at its very name? How , lost the soul, that can within' its sacred pre cincts, fail to be inspired by the impulse of a pure patriotism,, and an undying love ' of his whole country ? What names rise in their majesty before us? What times and issues and struggles? The very ground we stand upon is holy. Here, was Freedom's temple. Here did the, voices ring, that called a nation to arms, and echoing and . re-echoing through the entire extent of our land, made their way across the deep, carrying glad tidings to the oppressed of the world, and dismay and alarm to the oppressors. Then, no degrading sectional prejudices threatened disaster. Then, no thought was entertained of interfering with our respective social institutions. Each and all were patriotic. They knew but one country, that which included all the States. They knew but one freedom, that which was comprehensive of our whole land. They fought and bled for it, and achieved it not for one but for all, and believed, as I trust in heaven the result will prove that they justly believed, that by all and for ever it would be enjoyed under one Union against which to plot would be esteemed the world over the foulest treason ever harbored in human bosom. I. trust, that I shall .bear in mind the hallowing influ ences of this Hall, in all I am about to submit to you. if I was capable of wish ing to forget them, I feel that I could not in such a place as this. Could I be so lost any where, to patriotic duty, as to wieh to arouse sectional animosity to " endeavor to excite a belief that there is' a real difference of local interests and views," I should be awed into silence, — dumb from very shame, in this place sacred to liberty and to Union. ; ' Not forgetting, therefore, where I am, but guided, I hope, by the spirit of the place, I proceed to discuss the topics which more especially belong to the occasion that has convened the meeting. A Presidential contest is at hand. It involves matters of high import. From a conviction most honestly entertained, and adopted after, as I think a full and fair review of the whole ground, I came to the conclusion (the old Whig party being practically at an end, because of the practical termination of most of the measures of public policy, which gave it its national character,) that in the existing con dition of the country, that character belonged only to the Democratic party and could by that party only, be maintained. In this organization every State of the Union was included. It recognized no territorial limits. The equality of the States was one of its fundamental principles. It denounced all assaults on their respective domestic institutions — it conceded that of slavery to be a legal one, not only because of State laws, but because of its recognition by the constitution of the United States. It admitted the obligation of every State to pay implicit obedi ence to the clauses of that instrument containing such recognition, as implicit, as to any other of its provisions. This institution has become the sole cause of peril. It was disturbing the fraternity of feeling which our fathers entertained, and threat ened to involve us in social, if not revolutionary hostility. — Slavery had'so long existed in the Southern States, dating its origin to a period prior ;to the revolution, and was, and is, so intimately connected with all their pursuits and habits, that they have nothing that they value more highly, or deem more vital to their pros perity. All assaults upon it by citizens of other States, could not, therefore, fail to engender sentiments of ill will. Such assaults have, we know, been made for years, and with a bitterness almost insufferable, by many persons in the free States. 3 The politician, the ; press; that mighty engine for evil, as well as good to mad- kind, even the pulpit; which should ever be devoted: to the single service: of God, has been seen from day to day and year to year .hurling anathemas at 'the institu tion."' The result, if these are suffered to continue, nothing but wilful blindness can avoid seeing. Social separationrfirst follows— it now; indeed, in a great meas ure .exists— and this not only will 'be, but must be followed by political separation. This danger, and these its direful results; it seems to me, could be best averted by the policy in regard to it avowed by the Democratic party — announced especially in the compromises' of '150 and' of '54, and in 'the principles promulgated by the Cincinnati convention of '56, and recognized in the acceptance of President Buch anan of his nomination by that convention to the high office he now fills. That policy declared to the country in terms admitting of no possible doubt, was non- intervention- by Congress. Whatever differences existed,' as to the effect iof such non-intervention' upon the introduction of slavery into any .organized, terri tory, and its protection and continuance when there, hone was expressed or enter tained, as to the obligation growing out of these compromises, as. far as the Dem ocratic party was concerned ; at all times and under ail' circumstances in good faith to resist any and every kind of Congressional intervention. The subject was to be forever excluded from the halls of Congress. It was in those halls that what ever peril there might be in it was supposed mainly to dwell. It was there, and there only, that offensive intervention in the form of law against slavery in the Terri tories could be had. It was there that southern and northern men were to meet face to face. It was there that aspersions might be made* on the South that could but serve to fan into a flame the controversy and engulf trie Union, sooner or later, in an abyss of destruction. It was; therefore, agreed that from that arena the sub ject should be forever removed-. What might be the effect of this principle on- the South; what rights would remain to her in reference to the introduction of slavery into such a territory, were not then settled. 'As to these, conflicting.opinions we're held; but all agreed in the one great doctrine* that whichever of such opinions might -be correct, Congress wasnever again to interfere'with the subject. It. was hence forth to be submitted exclusively! as far as the Democratic party could accomplish it, to the people of the Territory; subject to no other limitation than the Constitu tion of the United States enjoined. The language of the Kansas and Nebraska act of the 30th May, '54, defining the legislative powers, is, "the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with Hie Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act." There being in^ the act no provision affecting the question, it will be seen that every proper sub-i ject of legislation, consistent with the constitution, is entrusted to the local legisla tive department. Whatever legislation can affect, not prohibited by the constitu tion, such legislature, it was agreed, should have the authority to affect: Subject tothat qualification alone, the entire sphere of legislation is submitted to the ter^j ritorial government. There no doubt did prevail at that time contrariety of view's, as to the operation of the limitation amongst the statesmen by whom the. act vy.as contrived and passed. Some were of opinion that the Constitution propria vigare, both against Congress -and the people of a Territorial government,! gave the right to an owner of slaves to emigrate to the territory with his slaves and there to hfeld them. Some thought that Congress had the power to exclude the institution, but that it was inexpedient to exert it— it being better to submit it to those most con cerned, the people of the Territory — whilst others thought that though Congress had not the power; it-was inherent in such a people, when organized into a gov ernment, as incident and necessary to their social, political condition. Upon these contradictory views^ all concurred that Congress was not the proper forum to de cide.' Thos'ewho thought' that that body possessed the power to prohibit, consid ered that it was injudicious, because dangerous to the peace of the country to ex ercise it. Those who thought otherwise, and that the- territorial government would equally be without power, from the same patriotic1 motive agreed that the question should be excluded from Congress; whilst those who thought that there existed an inherent right in a territorial government to legislate upon the subject, with lake motive consented to abandon forever all Congressional interposition. But provi sion was made for an easy, an early and a. just solution of those several. difficulties. Slaves might be carried into the Territory, the right to hold them might be ques- sioned, either because of the non-existence of any local law establishing slavery, or because of such a law prohibiting it. The owners' right-in either, contingency could readily be made the subject of judicial controversy ; and for such a contro versy provision and ample provision was made; ' It was to be passed. upon, first by: the local courts;.and then, without regard to the actual value of the property in dispute,, or whether the, question arose in an ordinary case afcvlaw or on ille re- turn 'to a writ of habeas corpus, an appeal was granted to the Supreme Court of the U. S.; By the judgment of it hat tribunal on that very question — no other — it was as a democratic principle agreed that the party would thenceforward siand. On this principle the Convention of '56 acted ; by its aid and under its healing and just influence the canvass of that year was everywhere carried on, and resulted, as we know, in victory, and for a time in the assurance of peace and safety \o the country, and as it was hoped and believed, in : preserving in all its integrity, to meet all coming national, trials, the Democratic party. Divisions then on this ''before disturbing, but now supposed happily adjusted subject, were notdreamed of. The public verdict had sanctioned ihe policy as demanded bv the condition of the couniry of the, great national and conservative. doctrine of Congresswfifil non- mtervention, with slavery inan organized Territory., either in its establishment, exclusion or protection. The matter was solemnly agreed lobe referred to the -territorial; people:; wiih no other restraint than the Constitution of ihe Unued States. And if in time from ihe Operation of that principle a contest should arise, as 10 the extent of that restraint, and ihe- right which because of the resti aim, a ¦cifizen of the South owning slaves, had to lake ithem inlo such territory , that ..wasnorbe-decided .by the judgment of the Supreme Couri of. the United Stales. This compromise or party umlerslandina, so obviously fair in iisell'. and |S0 coni- mendedby ihe glorious triumph achieved. under its faith, received at ihe lime the general approval of the Democracy everywhere. And this vyaslhe more decided, because il promised a permanent and harmonious, termination of the only suhject which could 'possibly disturb the councils of the party. It rested on a national basis. It imputed no censure, moral or political, to any.seclion It countenanced no dishonoring blot on the South, but on! ihe contrary; erased from the slaiuie •"book one that had existed there for thirty-luur years. In a word, ii recognized the equality of rights of all, as resting on a constitution designed fur the protec tion jofall. What then has since occurred thai should, justly stir up dissensions incthe party, then so happily harmonized, on , ibis, before distracting topic? What has since occurred to arrest ihe healthful. operation 0f this parly aareje- mem? It is nol pretended that in the lerriiory embraced by ihe, act ol '54, or in any other, any member of the parly has proposed Congressional intervention. On the contrary, we know that such a proposition would receive the sternest i opposition of all. It is nol prelended, that in lhat Or in any olher territory, legis- . lalion hostile to slavery, or destructive or even unfriendly lo slave property, has been had. It is nol pretended that any case has occurred ,in which, ihe right (o such property has been, questioned. If there be such properly ihere, il is held ¦without contest ; no man disputes ihe tu.le; and if, there be none there, ii is because slave owners have not esteemed it to their advantage to lake il ihere. Ii is riotpreienled that doubts exist as to the, purity or intelligence of thelpeal judiciary, and still less is it 'prelended that all conlidencemay not be reposed in the integrity and ability of the Judges of the, Supreme Court of ihe United Slates. The question then, stipulated by ihe .compromise,. to be referred lo ihe judiciary has not arisen. ' .That question was not, whether Congress possessed the power to prohibit, establish or 'protect iheinstitution. It was a leading feature of the agreement, that Congress should not for any purposeor at any time, inierlere. lis right therefore to interfere, was not the one on which the courts were to decide, for;as no interference was. to be had, that qgeslioo of right could never arise. The very section of the act of 1820 called the Missouri Compromise, contain ing Congressional intervention was repealed, and: the authority to repeal it no one ihen,or since., has questioned. The case, therefore., embraced, within the ^agreement incorporated into the act of '54, has never presented itself. No Court has been called upon to decideit, or could have been called upon since the right to hold, such property in a territory, without or against its1 local legislation has never, in any case, been disputed.; Whether, therefore, the Constitution itself gives the right, or it is subject by the terms of the act, of '54 to, territorial legisla tive power, or whether such power embraces it* as inherent to its political organization, the only questions upon the subject agreed to besubrniued to judicial determination, are now as open as they were-when Ihe act was passed. Am I right in saying, that these only are the questions reserved for judicial determina tion? This, is evident; first,;('rofn'the provision in the, act giving a writ of error or appeal to the Supreme Court, without regard to the value in controversy or the form of the' proceeding "in all cases including title' to slaves," or a " question of personal freedom." ¦ > .. ., ' i. .. The Missouri prohibition being, as a part of the Compromise repealed, such. enquiries, onlv involve questions, arising under llie Constitution, ' orj territorial laws, common or legislative, and these have never been presented; the'fact not having occurred out of which only they could arise. But the 'proceedings and debates in both branches of Congress, whilsk thebill was pending and after wards, demonstrate it. 1 have but time to refer to some of these; On the 4th' January, '54, the Committee on territories, to whom the bill had been referred; made a report, in which, amongst oiher things adverting to the Compromise measures of '50, they said, that these " affirm and rest upon the following' propositions : first, that all questions pertaining to slavery" in the territories, and* in the States to be framed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein by their appropriate representatives to be chosen by them for that purpose. Second. That all cases involving title to slaves and questions of personal freedom are referred to the adjudication of the heal' tribunals, withtht right of appeal lo the Supreme Court of the Uniled States." The h>si principle and which forms a part of the act of '54, the withdrawal of the subject from Congress and its submission to the people, was warmly ap proved by almost every democratic Senator and representative at the time and afterwards in '56. V Mr. Mason, of Virginia, on the 25th of May,1 '54, addressing the Senate,' said, "Then, Mr. President, where do we stand? Here is a bill repealing and for ever annulling a measure (the Missouri restriction) always odious to ihe South and Offensive to its honor, brought forward from a quarter where the majority resides; and is the South to reject it because it contains, also, an incidental pol icy or a different principle, which we do not approve? For once, sir, with a clear, unhesitating judgment, I answer, No." Again, "This hill is objeciio'n- able in some of its features, it is true, (t is objectionable in that feature of it^-for' one, lohich does not deny lo the people' the right to legislate on the- subject of' slavery. It is also objectionable in (hat clause of it which 'provides that' foreigners, those nol naturalized, shall participate in 'the political power of the territory. These, however, are' questions of expediency Alone. There is no prin ciple, far less any Constitutional law involved in them, and if1 we can set the other and higher principle established in your statute-book, that henceforth power is denied to the Congress of the United Slates to legislate for the exclusion of slavery, by yielding the question of expediency, I do' hot' think we* shall be rebuked for a bad bargain." Mr. Benjamin of Louisiana, on the same day, Speaking of the bill; stated, infer* alia: "It proposes lo announce to the People of the United States, that the gen eral government is not to legislate at all upon the question of slavery/ It is not to legislate to extend ii ; il is not to legislate to prohibit it : it is a forbidden subject j the flaming sword ought to be guard all access to it. No impious feet ought to endeavor to tread within its sacred precincts. That is the principle which I find in this bill and that is the principle which I wish to see established in the Coun try and when it shall havd been established it will be in vain for fanatics, either North or South, to endeavor to create, any permanent excitement in'thfemiiids of the American People. The alimentis gone, — you may light the flame, but the fuel may be wanting — it will die out of itself." Short sighted statesman— 'Short- sighted admirers, who heard or read thiseloquent patriotic effusion. Liuledidhe or they foresee, that the time would, come and in a few years, the 22d May 1860, when this very SenaioT would be found exerting in the'sarae presence, his ad mitted powers to disparagethe claims of the very author of thebill, the virtues of which heso glowingly depicted, to the confidence of the very partyand coun try he was:then said to be so greatly and signally serving. Little did he or iheyj imagine that he would soon be found expressing as against the author of the bill a preferencefor a Northern citizen now before the nation as a Candidate for'lhe highest office in its gift and known to be the original author of "the irrepressible' conflict," the'doci'rine, which beingalso maintained hy Gov. Seward was said to be so odious and offensive, if not destructive of Southern rights, that many of her sons, in Congressjand out of it, openly proclaimed that his election, how ever constitutional, would be just cause of revolution and should and. would pro duce it. Little could it then1 have been conceived, that that very Senator would be1 seen striving to create the Very "Excitement in the minds of the American People*' he then so warmly and patriotically deprecated — that he would be found furnishing the aliment "which fed it," and the "fuel," "wanting?' lo rekindle and maintain "the flame." I These, observations are made with no unkindness to Mr. Benjamin. No one better knows than I do or appreciates more his professional and -Senatorial abili^ ty or his personal qualities. His recent speech only serves to show that how ever gifted, by nature and improved-by cultivation, his mind is subject to human weaknesses; and that amongst these, as that occasion exhibited, are the prejudices of,personal feeling which wherever found, are certain to disturb the judgment and pervert the character. But to return. In the course of the same speech of 'Si, addressing himself 10 Northern Senators, he further said: "We ask of you the passage of no law; we ask of you the enactment of no statute, any further than to put us back just in that position occupied by our fathers when they acted upon the principle which. we now invoke, of leaving each section of the con federacy FREE TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN ITS OWN INTERNAL DOMESTIC IN STITUTIONS, and, promote its own happiness as it sees proper." Again, re ferring to the foundation of our Independence, he, declared that our revolutionr airy sires "first enunciated in the face of , the civilized world, in the face of the then almost omnipotent English Parliament, the principle that man hadi a right to self-government. They first declaredthat it. was against the inherent rights of mankindybr a government to legislate for the local interests of a distant depend ency," and added, " all thai is asked ilow is, the extension of the same principle to. the Territories of the United Stales." -The bill was maintained on the like ground by Messrs. Cass and Toombs in the Senate, and in the House, amongst others, by Mr. Stephens of Georgia, one, of the. brightest and purest men ever in the public councils, and still, I am glad to say, what his character guaranteed he would-he, .a, faithful adherent to all its stipulations.. . The second principle announced by the. Committee, the reference to the judi ciary of, all controversies as to slave property. or personal, freedom, also received the universal support of. Democralic members. As to the, expediency and per fect justice of this, there existed no difference of opinion., .As.to.the rights which the claimant of such prpperty would have in the territory, there' did prevail, as I have before told you, different views. It was this very difference that gave rise to the reference to the judiciary. i '* t, Mr. Toucey, the present Secretary of the Navy, adverting to the right, said in debate on the 2d July, '56, "that we cannot define — that is a question exclusively for tlw judicial tribunals." > Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, on the 24th of February, '54, after stating the terms ofc grant of legislative power lb the Territories, .said "and if they (the local legislature) should assume^powers which are thought not to be consistent with the Constitution, the Courts will decide-that question whenever it may be raised. There is a. difference of opinion among the friends of this measure as to the extent of the limits which the Constitution imposes upon the Territorial Legis latures, This bill, proposes to leave these differences to the decisions of the Courts. To that tribunal I am willing to leave this decision as it was once pro posed, to be left by the celebrated Compromise of the Senator from Delaware (Mr.1 Clayton) a measure which according to my understanding was the best Compromise which was offered upon this subject of slavery. I say then that I am willing to leave this point upon which the friends of the bill are at difference to the decision; of the Courts." I have not time and it would be a useless lax upon your indulgence if I had to cite further from the debates. What I have said is conclusive, on these points : First, that the subject of slavery in the Territories was as a policy of peace, to be permanently discarded from Congress. In no contingency was that body to interfere with it. To ihem was intrusted but the single duty of " non intervention." Second, That the subject was to be referred to the Territorial Legislatures,- with no- other qualification, than the Constitution of the United States established ; and Third, there being differences of opinion as lo the extent of such qualification; that these were to be referred solely to the judiciary when the occasion practically involving them, should arise. The condition of things giving rise to the.law, and, the object of the law, is also very clearly staled in another speech of Mr. Benjamin, delivered in the Senate on the 2d of May, '56; a speech, by the by, which seems to me to have been prepared as if by party1 request for the then approaching. Presidential contest. A fur referring, to strictures on t neral Cass? Ii is now, I believe, the fashion of some Southern gentlemen to treat this doctririe almost with contempt. It was not always so. In 'the speech of 'Mr. Benjamin, of 1854, before quoted; he not only considers it as entitled to all respect, but seems1 to' have been almost a convert lo it. These are his words: "The honorable Senator from .Michigan, (Mr. Cass.) in a speech replete with SOUND ARGUMENT AND TRUE REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES, TH E FORCE OF- WHICH IT would be difficult to answer, has ad'vocated in this Senate ihe doctrine ihat there is an inherent right under1 the Constitution of the United Stales, in the people of the territories lo govern, themselves. He denies the' constitutional power oT Congress 10 legislate forthese territories." Is that question closed by the case referred1 to? The principle was placed not upon the extent of Congressional power, but on the ground of inherent and par amount power Its advocate, the esteemed and eminent Secretary of State, de nied all power in Congress. This latter opinion the Court has sanctioned. They Have said .the power is not with Congress. Who knows, who can know, when the other question is before them that they will not also sanction Gen. Cass's other opinion, thai it is with ihe territorial people as a fundamental and inherent right. Gentlemen who differ with Judge Douglas and others, should, in good taste, be more diffident in the expression of their opihion on the point. Dog matically announcing its Correctness, they1 do not content themselves, as they did in 1854, and ever since, till Douglas's name towered high in the political horizon, threatening to obscure those of others, with meeting it in friendly argu ment, but they demand submission to their own opinion, and nol obtaining it, , act or advise secession from conventions, to be followed in the future, if con sistent with themselves, by attempted secession from the Union.. Secession frrnri the Union! How is so traitorous a wish to be accomplished? What will not be the dishonor of those who shall attempt it? I think I can hear the genius of this, Freedom's temple, in words of consuming fire, denounce it as treason to the hopes of the grpat and good men, who have so often lighted up its walls wiih the brilliancy of a patriotic national eloquence; I think I can hear her, in words of solemn import, imploring them against the endeavor, and warning thpm that whether successful or not, they will' thereafter be remembered only in the con secrated curses of mankind. But to return — is it not in the very spirit of the compromise of '54, that all should abide by all its terms, as well those in regard to the legal questions agreed to be referred to Judicial determination, as to the rest?- And if as to thesp, an honest difference'prevail in ihe party, should not all still agree to disagree as to that difference till its adjustment by the Courts is established beyond all doubt. That the Democratic party in the the frpe States, and who for the most part, it it believed are the friends of Judge Douglas, concur with the Judge in the opinion, that such questions have not been judicially settled, and that this opinion is sin cerely entertained, no just and unprejudiced mind can deny. Thai such opinion tool's correct' I, a southern man; entertain a perfect conviction. And I may, I hope, be excused for expressing it again with confidence, because of hiy profes sional connection with the case, in which it is asserted by some Southern Dem ocrats that these questions have been settled. The very principle of the Compromise was harmony as to all conflicting views. This harmony was to continue, till such conflict was closed by judicial arbitrament — and thep all were with equal harmony to support the principle, in thai mode, established. At the time rio case exited, involving the right to slave property, when denied by territorial local law. At this lime no such case exists. Why-then, should ihere now1 be, more than at that period, a necessity for the security of such property, of declaring, in advance of judicial decision, whal are its righto? On the contrary, is not the South and every well-wisher of our 10 happy Union more strongly invoked now than then, to guard against dissension in that party, which alone discards all fanatical opinions as to slavery, and avows a fixed purpose of standing by every right which the Supreme Court may decide belongs to it? Distraction now is full of peril to this national party, this heretofore consistent, zealous, powerful friend of the South. On its defeat, the almost certain result of their, dissensions, Republican ascendency ensues; every branch of the government will then in a short interval be under, Republican con trol. And then where will the nation be? Where the South, on this great question of Southern rights? Wilmot Provisoes, the abolition of slavery every where where it is maintained by that party theipower in Congress to abolish it exists, the prevention of what is called the domestic slave trade, and a supreme judiciary certain to affirm the constitutionality of such legislation. The Dred Scott decision,— what will be its authority ,then? it will be, derided, and trampled upon. All the security it justly throws around slave property will at the earliest moment be torn away. And these things happening, .what'is to follow? As sure as Heaven's clouds of fire and tempest carry desolation. in their train, so sure is it that this now peaceful and Happy land will be shaken to its very foundations, and the Union, the glorious Union of our noble ancestors, an inheritance to us more precious than was ever' conferred on, a people, will be tumbled into ruins, and the fondest hopes of the human race blasted forever. Is it possible that such calamities will be hazarded by my Southern brethren on a difference of opinion with their Northern, friends upon a mere legal question,' conceded to be at this time of no practical consequence because of no practical, operation, or on a mere difference as to the. fact whether such question has been passed upon by such a judicial decision as, it was agreed should conclude it? What, possible harm can result to either section of the party, or what, is of more importance to the country,, from suspending still, longer these,, conflicting opin ions, till a case clearly embracing the question arises, and is disposed of. It was suspended from '54, in fact from '50, till now, and what evil has. resulted to the South ? Has a single slave been lost to his owner by force of territorial law ; has an instance ever occurred wjjere his rjght as owner has been challenged ? None. The dispute, therefore, as to what the law will be found to be, when the case does occur, is as theoretical and abstract an inquiry, to use the words of the present Secretary of theTreasury, as "ever was proposed, for political discussion." If, gentlemen, what I am now addressing to you, should meet the eye of my Southern countrymen, who, I am sure, cannot doubt my friendship . for them, or my loyalty to all their constitutional rights, I hope they will pardon me for implor ing them, as due to their honor, to the faith pledged to their Northern brethren and to the peace of the cpuntry, that, .waiving for a period ithis now.idle, because the-, oretical dispute, they unite hand and heart with such brethren, in the approach ing contest, and with one great effort achieve a victory which will, perhaps for all time, terminate sectional agitation, and restore peace to a, now fearfully dis tracted land. There is nothing to! prevent this union, beside an abstract dispute on a mooted legal proposition, other than personal hostility to the statesman who is supposed to be the choice of the Democracy of the free States. To attribute such hostility to mere personal motives of jealousy or rivalry, would be to impute dishonor. That purpose, therefore, I disclaim. The Southern mind is, I am sure, top, generous and elevated to suffer so degrading a motive to sway its judg ment. The hostility must, therefore, where it is felt, rest upon other and higher grounds. And this can only be a doubt of Judge Douglas's views on the South ern right of slavery, or of his regard for the guarantees thrown around it by the Constitution. What warrant is there for such doubts 1 His life is before us. He entered Cpngress in 1843, and has been in it ever since, and ever distinguished by an enlarged -.patriotism, and especially by his unwavering support of Southern rights. No member from a Southern State was, in this respect, ever more true to her. He advised and mainly effected the repeal of the Missouri restriction, so odious to Southern sentiment. He was for this, accomplished too under the certainty of a storm of Northern indignation, warmly, gratefully applauded by the South. No words, of eulogy were too strong, then, with which to praise him. ' No words of gratitude were too exaggerated with which to thank him. The fury of the North he boldly met, and it succumbe* before him. In a word, on this sectional and agitating subject he has proved himself a statesman of unsurpassed ability,, of unflinching courage, and willing at all times oi his career to hazard his own politi cal existence in his own section, in order to preserve and maintain what he believed 11 to be the Constitutional rights of the South. What but prejudice can question the assurance of his justice to the South furnished by such a course. Can any fair and honorable Southern citizen, with this career-before him, say in his heart that he doubts Douglas on any single question which can arise touching the South ern right of slavery, in States or Territories. It is said that he believes, that pos sessing, as under the Kansas act, the right to manage their own institutions in their own way, a territorial. people may, practically, exclude the institution, by failing to pass laws necessary to its safety. Is not this true 1 Assuming that such laws are necessary, and that the power to enact them is with the territorial legislature, does it not necessarily follow that that power may not be used ? The very authority to legislate includes the power not to legislate. Policy and justice may demand its exercise, but, if refused or omitted, there is no authority to enforce it. No mandamus, or other proceeding, can be resorted to with that end. The power is in that regard omnipotent and exclusive. The only responsibility it is under is to the constituent body selecting it, and public opinion. But the view im puted to Judge Douglas as wrong and unjust to the South is not peculiar to him. It has been taken by Southern statesmen of great ability, and now and ever justly high in the confidence of their section. I have but time to refer to two. Mr. Orr, of South Carolina, in a speech in the House of Representatives, on the 11th December, '56, referring to what was called squatter sovereignty, said, "Although I deny that squatter sovereignty exists in the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska by virtue of this bill, it is a matter practically of little consequence whether it does or not; and I think I shall be able to satisfy the gentleman of that. The gentle man knows that in every slaveholding community of this Union we home local legisla tion and local police regulations appertaining lo that institution, without which the institution would not only be valueless, but a curse to the community ; without them the slaveholder could not enforce his rights when invaded by others ; and if you had no local legislation for the purpose of giving protection, the institution would be of no value. I Can. appeal lo every gentleman upon, this floor who represents a slave- holding constituency to attest the truth of what I have said. " Now, the legislative authority of a Territory is invested with a discretion to vote for or against laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every Territory when the Territory is open to settlement and slaveholders go there, to protect slave pro perty. But if they decline to pass such laws, what is the remedy? None, sir. If a majority of the people are opposed to the institution, and if they do not desire it engrafted upon their territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in the Territorial Legislature to prohibit it. Now I ask the gentleman what is the practical importance to result from the agitation and discussion of this question as to whether squater sovereignty does or does not exist? Practically, it is a matter of little moment." Col. Jefferson Davis, so long an ornament of the Senate of the United States, in a speech at Portland, Maine, in the fall or summer of 1858, now before me as revised by himself and published' in Baltimore in 1859, meets the charge against the South as to " The aggressions of the slave power" in extending Slavery into the Territories in this way, "The Territory being the common property of the States, equals in the Union, and bound by the Constitution which recognizes pro perty in slaves, it is an abuse of terms to call aggression the migration into that Territory of one of its joint owners, because carrying with him any species of property recognized by the Constitution of the United States. The Federal Gov ernment has no power to declare what is property anywhere. The power of each State cannot extend beyond its own limits. As a consequence, therefore, what ever is property in any of the States must be so considered in any of the Terri tories of the United States until they reach to the dignity of community indepen dence, when the subject matter will be entirely under the control>of the people and be determined by their fundamental law. " If the inhabitants of any Territory should refuse to enact such law and police regulations as would give security to their property or to his, it would be rendered more or less valueless in proportion to the, difficulty of holding it without such protection. In the case of property in the labor of man, or what is usually called slave property, the insecurity would be so great that the owner could not ordina^ rily retain it. ' Therefore, though the right would remain, the remedy being with held, it would follow the owner would be practically debarred by the circumstances, ot the case, from taking slave property into a Territory where the sense of the inhabitants was opposed to its introduction. So much for the oft-repeated fallacy of forcing Slavery upon any community." 12 Does any Southern' man question the1 Southern fealty of Messrs. Orr or Davis? Who doubts their faithfulness to the asserted southern right of taking slaves to a territory? No one. And yet thev had the good sense to see; and the frankness to avow the opinion, thai without friendly legislation, slavery. could not exist in a territory, and that this legislation was not to be expected, if a majority of the people were opposed to it. In such a contingency, they both held, that although the right existed it would be but a barren one, or to repeat the language, of Col. Davis, "though the right would remain, the remedy being withheld (proper police laws), it would follow that the owner would be, practica/ft/. debarred by the circum stances, of course, from taking slave property into a territory where the sense of; the inhabitants was opposed lo its introduction." Now, I state to you, gentlemen, with, confidence, that nothing has ever fallen from Judge Douglas, on this point, stronger than the doctrine of these gentlemen. He has- been assailed upon the ground, that he had advised against friendly legisla tion. Nothing could be more erroneous or more unjust. In all that he has said, he has but assumed the power of the Territorial Legislature to pass laws for the protection of slave property, and that having the power they might refuse to legis late, and because, if this last was actually done, that the practical effect on the- institution would be its exclusion. In a speech at, Jonesboro', in September; '58, ' the only one I have time to refer to, in replying to the present Republican candidate, Mr. Lincoln, in regard to the extent of the Dred Scott decision, he stated'' this — " My. doctrine is, that even taking Mr. Lincoln's view, that the decision recognizes the right of man to carry his slaves into the Territories of the United States, if he pleases,'? yet after he gets there, he Deeds affirmative law to make that right of any value. The same doctrine noton.y applies. to slave property, but all other kinds of property. Chief' Justice Taney, places it upon the ground that slave property is on an equal footing with other prop erty. Suppose one of your merchants should move to Kansas and open a liquor store; he has a right to take groceries and liquors there, but the mode of. selling them, and the circumstances under which they shall be sold, and all the remedies' must, he prescribed by local legislation, and if that is unfriendly, it will drive bim out just as effectually as if there was a constitutional provision against the sale of liquor. So the absence oflocal legislation to encourage and support slave property' ' in a Territory, excludes it practically just as effectually as if there was a^positive consiitutional provision against it. Hence I assert that under the Dred Scott deci sion, you cannot maintain slavery a day in a Territory where 'there is an unwilling . people and unfriendly legislation. If the people are opposed to it, our right is a barren, worthless, useless right, and if they are for it, they will support and encour age it. We come right back, therefore, to the practical question, if the people of a Territory want slavery, they will have it, and if they do not want it, you; cannot force it on them.' And this is the practical question, the great principle, upon which our institutions rest/ I am willing to' take the decision of the Supreme Court as it was pronounced by that august tribunal, without stopping to inquire whether 1 would deCfde that way or not." ¦': ¦'¦ His ground, it will be seen, is identical with that, of Messrs. Orr and Davis. ' The acutist casuist can detect no difference. If he, then, is false to the South, so are they. And yet,they are in full communion with the Southern 'Democracy, whilst some of the South seek to ex- communicate him. Gentlemen, there is so gross injustice in this, that t'he public, South and North, are forced- to the' conviction that it is persecution. It assumes the aspect of'mere — individual, politic'al'persecution. This conclusion, too, the past as well as the present conduct of the Executive — goes to confirm* . Never in the hirtory of parties has executive, power 'been so shamefully exerted against one man and his friends — even where they belonged to an opposite organization. The contest in Illirfois, which resulted in the return of Judge Douglas to the .Senate, was disfigured throughout by this bitter' executive hostility. The officers iii its service hy orders, as plain by implication as if given In words, were enlisted for the war. ' If refusal or want of zeal was manifested, they were removed and more pliant and willing instruments substituted. The success of the Republican party, if this warfare succeeded, was certain, — still it was persevered in till the executive and its- train-bands met at the hands of the true, independent Democracy of the State, an inglorious defeat. This should have Satisfied them how hopeless is the attempt, by patronage and power; to sway the conduct of a free people. How idle the effort to si i a-ke' their confidence in a statesman, who, though his whole life has given evidence of unwarying faithfulness, steadfast adherence to principle— unabated attachment 13 fito the policy of his party, all illustrated during a continued period of seventeen years of public service in the councils of the government, by an ability not only Concede.i, but emment, an ability which makes him in the judgment of the country, the ornament and pride of the body of which he is now a member. But there is in all countries a class of people, who, forgetting everything that they should not forget, remembering nothing that they should remember— learn nothing. ' Political .Bourbons. And to this class the Executive would seem lo belong. In the present Contest they are engaged, and with the same virulence in the same effort. What to the o is the popular voice? Theii prejudices aie against it, and these, at *ll est to the. party and country, must, if possible, be gratified. Down with Douglas— any body but Dougla.- — Lincoln even in preference, is their battle cry, and it is made to ring through the land as loud and potentially as their few followers can make it. Illinois again is made the scene of its violence, and what triumphant success has been the result. The delegation sent by its followers to Charleston was, to the general joy, iguo- rjiiuiously rejected — not permitted even to cross the threshold of the Convention. Nothing, however, is yet learnt. The same, ignorance of the public heart— the same selfish and personal influence continues every day. The press under their control heaps unmeasured and unmitigated misrepresentations on the head of Douglas, and as in the past he but grows in the public favor. When will the blindness of this temporary, short-lived power be removed 1 When will it awake to the true policy ol the country, and to the true duty of submission to the will of the majority? Perhaps, not until the 4th of March, 1861, when it shall see the object of its wrath in possession of the very power which itself now holds and so abuses, and wielding it be fore a rejoicing country to the pubhc good and honor. But in the Senate of the Uni ted States, the same hostility is manifested. With no legislative or other powers than are expressly conferred by the Coi stitnlion, with no solicitation from the Democratic people, to construct for them, in the coming contest, n, party political creed, with no intimation that they feel themselves incompetent to such a work ; on the contrary, with notice that the'heretofore approved body of representatives selected by them for that purpose, is i^boiit to assemble for that very end, these gentlemen, some of them strict constructionists, too, forsooth disciples of the resolution of '98, stepping be yond their constitutional sphere and duty, assemble as Senators, m secret caucus, Consisting of themselves alone, and with an assumed authority, promulgate what they say is the only true admissible Demorcatic platform, and threaten to denounce as rebels all who refuse to stand upon it. . No one esteems more highly than 1 do, the. gentlemen concerned in this volunteer labor, this usurped function. No one esti mate.-, higher their talents — past public services or patriotism, but I know nothing notwithstanding, iu their characters, or present relation to the party which gives their eipise dixit mi such a subject a claim of infallibility. On the contrary, there is so much in the history of the times, and the connection of some of them with it, tending to the belief, that the movement was more the result of personal motive than of a sense of public necessity, that almost all are inclined to exclaim that these are not the lights by which iu its present emergency the party can ex pect to be safely guided. But what enunciation of abstract principles have they given us. 1st. We are toki how the constitution was adopted, a mere historical inquiry, and in this they err, if the Supreme Court is right. 2nd. That the States are entitled to equality of rights under it. This no one denies, the only question being what is equality. 3rd. What amongst these is the right to take into and hold slaves in a Territory. 4th. The right to have protection in the Territories of all constitutional rights. This also no one disputes. 5th. That if this protection is not furnished by the Territorial laws or by the judiciary, in will be the duty of Congress to pass the necessary laws for the purpose. This is likewise unquestioned. It will be observed therefore that the only principle here announced which every one of the Democracy did not before admit or does not now, is the right to take and hold slave property in the Territories except in subjection to the Territo rial laws. And to this there prevails now as there did in '54 differences of opinion, and the.-e by the Conipromiseof ttiat year, it was agreed to differ about until the point should be decided by the Suprme Court. As I have before told you, gentlemen, no such decision has as. yet been made, and the caucus resolution upon the subject is consequently but an interpellation into the compromise, and iu that particular a direct repudiation of it. But hoWjUiiworthy, in my judgment and with allmy South ern feelings alive within me I say so, is it for the South to solicit in anticipation Concessional intervention for her security. Has it come to this ! That the chival rous"? bold, defiant South, who herself has always heretofore asked only to be let alone, 14 tut to be permitted to take care of this territorial right as well as all others in her own way, and at her own time, to invoke in advance Congressional protection. Is sh'e ' not strong enough in her own might!' Has she now for the first time, oil -tire' eve -of a Presidential, contest, become so aroused to her;situation, and so alarmed at it, even ; before the exigency has occurred, or is threatened, that she invokes of' her Northern friends a promise to come to her aid, should the exigency ever happen, by Congres sional intervention, and to hazard the very existence of the Democratic party, which she admits is the only National party, if such promise is not granted. I cannot per mit myself to doubt that taking council of its sections courage, its historical firmness, the democracy of the South will reject so dishonoring a suggestion' and say again as they said and with one voice in '54 and in '56, all tha't they will ask; or require, or permit, is that upon this subject, there shall be for all time Congressional non- IKTEBVENTION. Gentlemen should remember too that the authority to protect, may well be con sidered, and certainly will be, as including the authority of Congress over the1 whole subject: Admit the one and it will be difficut to deny the Other. And if, hereafter, as will happen if the Republicans succeed in the coming contest, it is proposed to intervene to prohibit slavery, the strongest argument in its support, as far as the mere question of power is concerned, will be this Senatorial causus admission of the power to intervene to protect it. . Already we are notified of the nature of the hostility we are to expect should Republicanism gain the ascendency. I hope, gentlemen, I may not be esteemed as intending to disparage Massachusetts by alluding, as evidence of this, for a passing moment and with sincere regret to the speech made on Monday last in the Senate of the United States by one of her representatives. Disparage Massa chusetts! What American who remembers her past history, and who does not, could be so oblivious to national pride and gratitude as to seek her dishonor, and if he did, how vain would be the endeavor. Her fame is now but under a partial eel ipse. It will,T doubt not, soon emerge and be restored to its original brightness. Of the gross vituperations, the filthy, loathsome malignity of the speech I have not the heart in this' presence to say a word. Nor have I the wish to litter a syllable to toii'ch with renjorse did his insanity render that possible, the feelings of the'speaker. To leave him to the agonies of hi's own passiorJs, to the morbid mortification under which he has evidently suffered during the past four years from an occurrence which no one more regretted or depreciated than I did, and to the pity and contempt 'of the pure, and good of all parties is sufficient to satisfy the most extreme justice. — Btit Massachusetts ! What does, w hat must she feel when forced to look at her position on Monday and compare her then rank among' her sister States with that which she held when in days past, Webster's eloquence in the same forum made her name immortal. The only safe ground for the South, and the only one likely to promote the peace of the country, is absolute non-intervention, that policy so justly .commended to general approval by President Buchanan in his letter of ac ceptance of his 'nomination of the 16th of Juiie, 1856, as "founded on principles as ancient as free government itself," and which simply declares, " That the people of a Territory like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exisi'wiihin their limits." The principles thus authoritatively stated are true, and because true must be per manent. They know no change nor can the justice or universality of their operation cease to 'commend' them to the approval and sanction of the good and patriotic, because politicians high or low may seem to forget or seek to repudiate them. And gentlemen, it is at this time even ' more than ever of vital importance that they "be observed. Congressional intervention for the protection of slave property in the Territories is now asked by some Southern citizens. In declining to adopt this as a democratic doctrine, certain of the Southern delegates seceded from the Charleston Convention and the party is in danger of disruption from the same cause. Is the cause one that justifies or excuses a refusal to associate politically with Northern brethren? If it is, where will it lead? No sane man can believe that such Con gressional legislation can now be obtained. If not, the'remedy, and the only one left to the South, unless she is false to her professed conviction of duty, and acts the mere braggart, is secession from Congress,' and' of course from the Union. Is this mere theoretical, abstract question, the most abstract as truly said by Governor Cobb ever presented, for political discussion to sunder the ties which' have so long and gloriously'kept us together and made' us a nation, the wonder and admiration of the world? May the memory and spirit of our fathers forbid it! May the spirit of Wasbingtoti save us from it ! May the hopes of freedom throughout Christendom not be blasted by it ! May so 'foul a dishonor never be suffered to 15 tarnish the American name. Oh ! that Choate aiid Webster were living to animate the hearts of their countrymen, with their own patriotic fire, and invoke them as they surely would to gather around the Unioti and upon its altar swear perpetual allegiance to ». Oh ! that they were now here to fill these walls once more in this their country's trial, with their lessons of wisdom and duty and to commend them to national approval by their almost superhuman eloquence. But the hope is vain i^et us therefore, stimulated by the memories of the great dead, nerve ourselves to the struggle. Let us, standing by the rights of all under the Constitution, maintain those rights with untiring devotion and with scrupulous good faith. Let us dv> all we can to restore our aicient harmony, our former fraternity, and discarding all sectional prejudices, demonstrate, to the world that we recognize as countrymen the whole people of the United States, that we know but ope country, that which is now covered by one glorious ensign, of all the-stripes and the stars, and that we will now and forever support the government formed by our fathers, for the common defence and .general welfare, and to 'secure to them and their posterity, the blessings of liberty forever. ' Let us. in the words of a statesman, a native of your noble State, and whose whole life was distinguished by eniinent service, even in the very highest office in the gift of his countrymen, adhere to this our purpose with inflexible resolution, as to the horns of the altar. Instil its principle with unwearied perse verance into the minds of our children, bind our souls and theirs to the National Union, as the cords of life are centred in the heart, and we surely then will with rapid wing to the summit of human glory." soar LETTER OF THE HON. REVERJJY JOHNSON, To the Chairman of the Douglas Meetiny in New York, on the 22d of May, 1860. Washington, May 19, I860. Sir: I regret that I am unable to accept your invitation to the meeting to be held in your city on the 29d instant to approve the action of your State delegation in the Charleston Convention. Believing their course to have been right, it would give me pleasure to witness the sanction it is about to receive. On the issue now so sadly, if not perilously, distracting the country, I see no well grounded hope of meeting it successfully than by the selection of a candidate for the Presidency of a statesman whose opinion upon the subject is, under all circumstances, the most likely to challenge general 'assent, because, when fully understood, it will be found to be alike just to all sections of the nation. The compromises of 1850 and 1854, it was confidently predicted, would put to rest forever the slavery agitation which had for years so alarmingly convulsed the land. This great end was to be achieved by removing the subject altogether (torn the halls of Cbrtgress, and submitting it exclusively (subject only to such restraints as the Constitu tion imposes) to the people of the Territories when legally organized. By Southern and Nbrthern gentlemen, then and now justly high in the public coun cils and in the public confidence, differences of opinion were entertained as to the ex tent of the Territorial legislative powe^ and of the Territorial people over slavery. Some held that .its exclusion Could only be effected when a State constitution was adopted. Others, that the Legislature possessed "entire control over the subject," and was " competentJto establish, abolish, or protect it."* Others, again, said it was not "a matter of essential importance at what time the power may be exercised by the people of the Territories," it being "of infinitely more 'importance, both to the South and the Union, that the power be left to the Territories, instead of the Federal' Gov ernment. "f The present distinguished Secretary of the Treasury maintained that the question itself on which these various vie.ws were held involved but a "purely theoret ical issue"—" the purest abstraction, in a political point of view, that ever was proposed for political discussion ;" for that, dfi either of the hypothesis contended for, " the majority af the people, by the action of the Territbria! Legislature, will decide the question, and ali must abide the decision when made." ' Such were the conflicting but the then harmonious practical interpretations of these comprdmises. To such compromises Judge Douglas, at the imminent hazard of polit ical i'uin in his own State and section, and from a deep sense of the coristitutional rights of the South, has'boldly and faithfully adhered. The perils with which they encom passed him, and which, with such manly fortitude and consummate ability, he-met and overcome, would, I doubt not, havfe carried dismay to many who, now forgetful of his services, and loyalty to the South,'a're practically leagued with Northern and Southern foes to accomplish his downfall. Nqt one opinion on the question avowed by him * Gov. Bigler. t Hon. Mr. Iverson. da Ou ,16 during the debate on the convpromises has he, changed, or in the slightest particular modified.' Who,'then,' has' changed ?' Lei the "record of the past anlaKfer. '! The vindication for ihe admitted apparent 'change, and the' 'excuse' for the grossly unjust aiid suicidal warfare on « ouglasand his friends, waged by gentlemen of the section for whose rights he hazarded so much and so much contributed to uphold^ is, that the question of Territorial power 'has been decided by the Supreme Court. This is asserted daily by many who, perhaps, never even read the Dred Scoit judgment, >'or, from, their pursuits are incompetent lo |>ass upon it. Having argued the case twice, as the friend of the South, and bestowed upon all trie questions it involved, the most careful study I coujld, I stale with perect confidence that the.question was not only not decided by i(ie court, by! was neither argued no'r in ahy' way' presented fo'r decision!' Tlie single inquiry in this connexion was,' had, Congress' the power to prohibit Slavery In'a I'eni- tory? When organized into a goveriimeiH.Vlial' thfe Territorial Legislature could do was not b -fore the couri, either directly or indirectly. 1 maintained, however, then, as . 1 think now, that the powerwas with such aitLegislaturev My proposition was-nand it wis staled as a reisrm against 'ihe existence of ihe Congressional power— that, slavery could i" neither be established nor prohibited ,by congress," but that the people, of a Territory, "when organized tpy Congress, can establish or prohibit it." Mr. Justice Curtis, in'his opinion, so gives my proposition. I certainly never supposed that there existed in any part of the civilized world a government where slavery existed in which there was not somewhere authority to abolish it..' .Such a proposition to my mind is perl'eiitlv incomprehensible, ,tnJ a libel on' the great and good men to whom we are litjebted fur our admirable political institutions There is not a word in the opinions of either of the Judges even tending to prove thait the Court, or! any Judge, intended1 to pus up hi ihe question or esteemed it before them-'iTbey examined only the power of Congress, ihe sole one presented for judgment. Inferences for or against the Territorial power from the court's judgment negativing the-Congressional power may be drawn, but us m ihese there are honest differences of opinion. The passage in the opinion of the Chief Justice relied upon as denying the power, warrants no such -conclusion. He is there dealing with the express restrictions of ihe Constitution on the power of the Government. His remarks embrace every part of the United Slates over which Con gress can act at all. His purpose is to show thatalthough the Territories are in s'ome particulars and lor some purposes under die government of Congress, they are under it only in subordination to such restrictions. He applies what he says as well to the District of Columbia as to the Territories generally. And yet it will scarcely be main tained that he designed to assert ihai, Congress, subject ,to the restrictions referred to, has not ihe power to prohibit slavery in the District, under the authority "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District." - The exercise of such a pow-r would be rash, and grossly inexpedient in the existing state of the country; hut of the mere power there can be no well founded doubt. I do not believe that the authority of ihe rerritorial . Legislature was in the mind of the Chief Justice, certainly the question was not before him, nor alluded to, except as an argument/against the Congressional power. Nor'was it even referred to, as in thecase, by any other Judge It is, therefore, idle to consider it as'decided,. ¦ If this be so, and th-.se who- so think are as honest, and perhapstas capable of forming an opinion upon the subject as gentlemen having a different view, why should it not be esieemed now an open question as 'it was when the compromise of '54 was passed? Why should ihe South not continue to agree, as she did then, to abide in good faith by the words of that act? Of their meaning it is impossible lo doubt. The question of constitutional power is undecided. So think nearly all their associates, and friends in ihe free States — men who, with steadfast firmness and unflinching courage, stood by them in all their past Btrugglea> So think thousands and thousands of Southern men as devoted to the rights ,, of their section as any of their brethren, bound to it by the common ties of, country, * and nativity, and conviction. Harmony now, North and i South, of the friends of ihe Union (for the most part, as I believe, to be found in the, Democratic organization) is demanded more.than ever for the very existence of our comrnqn Government. Shall that be hazarded upon what Gov. Cobb justly terms "the purest abstraction that was ever proposed for polit|cal'discussion?" : r:i , . , Imagine, the Union broken to atoms upon this admitted .abstraction. Imagineilie Republican Lincoln, reeking, with the grossest heresies of political Abolitionism, the true author of "the irreconcilable conflict;'', elected to the Presidency because of poli ticians disputing on this "pure abstraction," started and fanned into, a flame from per- L .haps personal rivalry or ambition, and ihen try if you can to conceive the fate of the men to whose machinations the dreadful calamity .will,'. by the universal voice, be referred. 1 trust in, heaven no such direful catastrophe is. in store, for us; but that, uniting as a band, of brothers, owing a common ioyaliy.and pledged, as in the past,,to stand by the compromises of '54, we will do so with unshaken honor, apd achieve a victory, as in that case we can, which will for years, if not for allitime,;lprrhinate/lhe troubles of the South, and place the Government upon a footing of security which will cause. the hearts of .patriots everywhere to throb with delight and gratitude. . ; With respeel, your obedient .-ervant, , REVERDY JOHNSON. Johv Clancy, Esq , Chairman, Ac , New York. . L Iii. , i Fruited and Sold at $1U per J ,UUU, /»¦ Mhuphv a Co., 182 Baltimore street, Baltimore. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 08866 1484