UC-NHLF 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 HON. JOHN M. READ, 
 
 IN FAVOR OF 
 
 FREE KANSAS, FREE WHITE LABOR, AND OF FREMONT AND 
 
 DAYTON, AT THE EIGHTH WARD MASS MEETING, 
 
 HELD IN THE ASSEMBLY BUILDINGS, 
 
 ON 
 
 TUESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 30, 1856. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 1856. 
 
SI A? 
 
 i? 4 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. JOHN M, READ. 
 
 FELLOW CITIZENS: Was the Missouri Compro 
 mise constitutional ? Was iU nullification abroach 
 of national faith and a violation of national honor? 
 Is not its restoration called for by the truest in 
 tents of humanity and freedom? Shall Kansas 
 be sl.ivc or tree ? 
 
 These are the true issues involved in our coming 
 elections, ai>d can there bo a doubt that the people 
 of Pennsylvania will euli t in the great army of 
 freedom to carry free soil, free speech, a free press, 
 and free labor into invaded and subjugated Kan 
 sas. No man can speak, write, or even think his 
 true opinions upon the subject of slavery in Kan 
 sas as it is now governed, . y laws made by a, legis 
 lature, elected not by the resident voters of Kansas, 
 but by an. army of Border Ruffians from Missouri, 
 and supported by the President and army of the 
 United Stales, whose bayonets are used to stab 
 freedom to the heart. 
 
 These questions, the greatest that have occurred 
 since the formation of the Constitution, should be 
 discussed calmly and temperately, our object being 
 to convince all dispassionate men of all parties 
 that we are right. 
 
 We have on our side, the Constitution and its 
 uniform construction by its fmmers, the patriots 
 and sages of the revolution by the father of his 
 country the author of the Declaration of Inde 
 pendence aud by all the Constitutional lawyers 
 and statesmen of the Union. The proof of this is 
 to be found in the history of the Con.-litur.ion, of 
 the Ordinance of 1787, of the Compromise of 1820, 
 and of the uniform practice under them by all 
 departments of the government. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to say that all our revolu 
 tionary patriots were in favor of freedom, and op 
 posed to slavery as " a great political and moral 
 evil." Mr. Jefferson looked forward to a gradual 
 emancipation in the States by State authority. ! 
 think," said he * a change is already perceptible 
 since the origin of the present revolution. The 
 spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave is 
 rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the 
 way, I hope, preparing under the auspices of 
 Heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is 
 di.-posed in the order of events to be with the con 
 sent of the masters rather than by their extir 
 pation." 
 
 The articles of confederation were signed by 
 New Jersey, Delaware and Alary l.nd, with great 
 hesitation, and by the last not until Congress had 
 requested, and two States had actually ceded their 
 claims to Western Territory for the benefit of the 
 United Suites. 
 
 i,The resolution of the 10th October, 1780, con 
 templated the disposal by Congress of the unap 
 propriated lands ceded to the United States, and 
 their settlement and formation into distinct re 
 publican States. The several cessions were 
 made in due form by the States of New York, 
 
 Virginia and Massachusetts. The claims of these 
 Statt-s were founded originally on the terms of 
 their respective charters, and included not only 
 the soil and the right of pre-emption but as com 
 plete a jurisdiction and right of sovereignty over 
 the Territory and its inhabitants as if it had been 
 in the most densely populated part of their Atlau- 
 tic possessions. 
 
 When, therefore, these States, and particularly 
 Virginia, executed their deeds of ce&sion, they 
 parted with the soil the right of pre-emption arid 
 the sovereignty or jurisdiction which they claimed 
 to exercise within their charter limits, and the 
 whole vested in the United States of America. 
 No one could sell the lands, or yovern the peojjlein 
 those Territories but their recognised organ, the 
 Congress of the Confederation, ami we accordingly 
 find that both objects were separately the subjects 
 of distinct congressional legislation. 
 
 The government of the people was the first ob 
 ject, and the preparation of the ceded Territories 
 for their erection into republican States, which 
 should become sovereign members of the confede 
 racy. Accordingly, on the 19th of April, 1784, 
 Congress took into consideration the report of a 
 committee, consisting of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Chase, 
 and Mr. Howell, to whom was recommitted their 
 report of a plan for the temporary government of 
 the Western Territory. A motion was made by 
 Mr. Spaight, of North Carolina, seconded by a 
 delegate from South Carolina, to strike out this 
 paragraph : 
 
 " Thnt, after the year 1800 of the Christian era, 
 there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary ser 
 vitude in any of the said States otherwise than in 
 punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have 
 been convicted to have been personnlly ijuilty." 
 i* ; It was struck out, all the States north of Mason 
 and Dixon s line voting for it, as well as Mr. Jef 
 ferson and Mr. Williamson of North Carolina. 
 After some other amendments the resolution was 
 adopted on the 23d of April. This report, and 
 particularly this provision against the existence of 
 slavery in the new States, was understood to be the 
 production of Mr. Jefferson. 
 
 This resolution provided for the temporary go 
 vernment of the North Western Territory, and pre 
 scribed the size of the States aud the time and 
 manner of their admission, and the principles upon 
 which both the temporary and permanent govern 
 ments should be established. It is clear that nei 
 ther Mr. Jefferson nor any member of that Con 
 gress doubted the power of that body to acquire 
 territory and to legislate for it and its people, by 
 providing first a temporary government, and se 
 condly for the future formation of independent 
 sovereign States, which should be admitted into 
 the confederacy and still further, it is equally 
 clear that Mr. Jefferson and a real majority of the 
 States included the power to prohibit slavery as 
 
within th-3ir legitimate authority. Congress having 
 thus provided a plan for the temporary and pei- 
 manent government of the Territory, next direct 
 ed their attention to the sale of the public lands 
 within it to which the Indian titles had been ex 
 tinguished. 
 
 On the 7th May, 1784, a Committee, of which 
 Mr. JcfiVrson (who bad been the Chairman of tne 
 Committee on the plan for the government of the 
 Territories) Mas Chairman, reported "an ordi 
 nance for ascertaining the mode of locating and 
 disposing of lands in the Western Territory, and 
 for other purposes therein mentioned. This ordi 
 nance, as amended, passed on the 20th May, 1785, 
 and formed the ground-work of the present land 
 laws of the United States. 
 
 The Congress of the confederation, therefore, 
 exercised separately the two distinct branches of 
 their sovereign power over the Western Territory. 
 1st. By organizing governments for the people. 
 2d. By adopting a plan <>r ordinance for disposing 
 of the lat-ds in said Territory. 
 
 It was, however, deemed expedient to repeal the 
 Resolve of the 23d April, 1784, which was accord 
 ingly done by Congress, who, on the 13th July, 
 1787, passed the celebrated ordinai.ce for the go 
 vernment of the Territory of the United States 
 Northwest of the river Ohio. 
 
 It regulated the descent of intestate estates in 
 the Territory, and also devises by will and the 
 conveyance of real estate, with the mode of proof, 
 acknowledgment and record, and established also 
 the transfer of personal property by delivery, sav 
 ing to the French and Canadian inhabitants and 
 other settlers of the Kaskaskias, St. Vincents, and 
 the neighboring villages who had theretofore pro 
 fessed themselves citizens of Virginia, their laws 
 and customs then in force relative to the descent 
 and conveyance of property. 
 
 It then gave a temporary government to the 
 Territory or District, consisting of a Governor, Se 
 cretary, and three Judges, the Governor and 
 Judges being invested with legislative power until 
 the organization of a General Assembly, which 
 was to consist of the Governor, a Legislative 
 Council, appointed by Congress from the nornina 
 tinns made by the Representatives, and a House of 
 Representatives, which Council and House were 
 authorized, by joint ballot, to elect a Delegate to 
 Congress, who was to have a seat with the right of 
 debating, but not of voting, during this temporary 
 government. 
 
 Tiie second or permanent part of the ordinance, 
 established the principles in the shape of articles, 
 which were six in number, by which both the tem 
 porary and permanent governments should be for 
 ever regulated, and provided for the formation of 
 not less than three, nor more than five Stales in 
 the Territory, and their admission into the Union; 
 provided, the constitution and government to be 
 formed by such States, should be republican, and 
 in conformity to the principles contained in the 
 said articles. 
 
 The sixth of these articles which applied ex 
 pressly to the Territory, whether under the tem 
 porary or permanent form of government, declared 
 th? freedom of the noil by prohibiting forever the 
 existence of slavery icithin this favored region a 
 provision which was merely an enlargement of Mr. 
 Jefferton t favorite proposition in the Congress of 
 
 m4. 
 
 This article, which is one of those declared to 
 be unalterable, except by common consent, is in 
 these words : 
 
 "There ihall be neither slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in 
 the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall 
 
 have been duly convicted ; provided always, that 
 any person escaping into the same, from whom ia- 
 bor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the 
 original States, such fugitive may be lawfully re- 
 claimed and conveyed to the person claiming his 
 or her labor, or service as aforesaid." 
 
 This ordinance had been the subject of discus 
 sion in Congress ten months before its adoption. 
 Mr. Gorbaiu, Mr. King, Mr. Miidison and Mr. 
 Butler, who were members of the Federal Conven 
 tion, were also delegates in the Congress which sat 
 in New York. Mr. Madison was present in Con 
 gress whilst this ordinance was on second reading, 
 and we find his name on the Journal, on the 22d 
 April, 1787, and on the next, day he wrote a letter 
 to Mr. Jefferson, from New York, in which he says, 
 " the present deliberations oj Congress turn on, first, 
 the sale of the Western lands; tevondly, the go 
 vernment of the Western settlements within the Fede 
 ral domain, 
 
 On the 9th May, Corgress proceeded in the se 
 cond reading of the Ordinance, and it was ordered 
 to be transcribed, and the next day was assigned 
 for a third reading. On the 10th May, when it 
 came up in order, it was postponed, Messrs. Gor- 
 ham and King were then present, and voting, 
 as appears by the Journal. From the llth May to 
 the 6th July, Congress only met and adjourned, 
 there not being a quorum ; and on the llth July, 
 the Committee to whom it had been referred, re 
 ported the Ordinance, and it was read a first time 
 on the 12tb, and a third time on the 13th. 
 
 The passage of this Ordinance is mentioned in 
 the Pennsylvania Packet of the 21st July, 1787, 
 published in Philadelphia, by John Dunlap and 
 David C. Claypoole, and the whole appeared at 
 length in the August number of Matthew Carey s 
 American Museum for that \ear. 
 
 The Federal Convention adjourned on the 26th 
 July until Monday, the 6tli August, and on 
 Thur.-day, the 2d August, Mr. Pierce Butler ap 
 peared in Congress, in New York, and produced 
 his credentials as a delegate IVoin South Carolina. 
 
 Ou the 28th August, in the Federal Convention, 
 Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved, to require 
 fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered up like 
 criminals. TMs was opposed, because it would 
 oblige the Executive of the States to do it at the 
 public expense, and the proposition was with 
 drawn. On the next day Mr. Butler moved a pro 
 position which was evidently telsen from the sixth 
 article of the Ordinance of the 13th July, and 
 which in more compact phraseology forms the third 
 clause of the second section of the fourth article of 
 the Constitution. 
 
 After the adjournment of the Convention, on the 
 17th September, Mr. Gorham.Mr. King, Mr. But 
 ler, and Mr. Msidi.-on, took their seats iiiiain in 
 Congress, at Now York, and wo find the naines of 
 three first named gentlemen on the Journal, on the 
 the 24th September, and on the next, day that of 
 Mr. Madison also, who, on the 30th, wrote to 
 General Washington respecting the feelings of 
 Congress, and of tho people in relation to the act 
 of the Convention. Ou the 5th of October, General 
 St. Cl air was elected Governor, and Winthrop Sar 
 gent Secretary of the North- Western Territory. 
 
 By a convention between the States of South 
 Carolina and Georgia, concluded at Beaufort, on 
 the 28th of April, 1789, South Carolina ceded to 
 the State of Georgia, all the right, title and claim, 
 which the said State of South Carolina had to the 
 government, sovereignty and jurisdiction in and 
 over the lands, west of the most northern Branch 
 of the Tugaloo River, and also the right of pre 
 emption of tho soil from the native Indians, and 
 all other the estate, property and claim which tho 
 
State of South Carolina had in or to the said j 
 lands, and on the 9th August, in the same year, 
 made a cession of soil and jurisdiction to the United 
 States, of what was apparently already ceded to 
 Georgia. 
 
 At the time therefore of framing the Constitu 
 tion, the settled policy of the United States was 
 clearly and distinctly defined and known to all the 
 members of the Federal Convention. It was 1. To 
 dispose of the public lauds ; this was the subject of 
 a separate system, which has always been kept by 
 itself, and forms the business of a distinct depart 
 ment of the Government. 
 
 2. To legislate for and to form temporary or 
 Territorial Governments, for the Territory belong 
 ing to the United States. 
 
 3. To provide for the admission of new States. 
 All these powers had been exercised, without 
 
 question, by Congress, and we have the highest 
 authority for saying, that the power of acquiring 
 territory, necessarily brings with it the power of 
 Legislation. Whilst in its territorial form it does 
 not appear to have been doubted that such a power 
 would exist without any positive provision in the 
 Constitution. 
 
 A provision was therefore made for the admis 
 sion of the new States, but in the original report 
 the Territories were entirely omitted. 
 
 Upon a suggestion, however, of Mr. Carroll of 
 Maryland, who was afraid that the claims of the 
 United States to the Western Territory might be 
 denied, if not mentioned in the Constitution, that 
 which now forms the second clause of the third 
 section of the 4th article was adopted. 
 
 The whole tuird section refers 1. To the admission 
 of new States. 2. To the disposal of the public 
 lands, which is included in the words "The Con 
 gress shall have power to dispose of the Territory, 
 or other property belonging to the United States," 
 the words being the same as those used in the Land 
 Ordinance of the 28th May, 1785, which says, "The 
 Territory ceded .-hall be disposed of in the follow 
 ing manner. 3. To the legislation for the 
 temporary government of the Territories which 
 are provided for in the words "Congress shall 
 have power to make all needful rules and 
 regulations respecting the Territory or other pro 
 perty belonging to the United States" using the word 
 Territory in its largest sense as understood in the 
 Deeds of Cession and in the Oidinance of 13th 
 July, 1787. This means Jurisdiction and Sove 
 reignty, and confers upon or recognizes in Con 
 gress the same power as tad been exercised by the 
 old Congross. 
 
 This is made more evident when we refer to the 
 concluding .voids in this clause, "and nothing in 
 this constitution shall be so construed as to preju 
 dice any claims of the United States or oi any 
 particular States." Now this means neither more 
 nor less than the claims of either to the jurisdic 
 tion, toil and sovereignty of the Western country. 
 
 The word Territory, in its largest sense, includes 
 lands, soil, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and as 
 the power lo t>ell includes the lesser power to inort- 
 gagu, so the power to dispose of Territory, suppos 
 ing it used in its most extended meaning, includes 
 the power to sell the public lauds agreeably to the 
 present system, which commenced before the adop 
 tion of the Constitution. 
 
 The cession of Virginia included in it Lake 
 Michigan, an inland sea, half of Lake Erie, Huron 
 and Superior, and a tract of country equal to many 
 of the kingdoms of the old world. How absurd, 
 tht-n, is it at this day to apply to a constitution for 
 an empire, a construction which would be reject 
 ed, not simply by statesmen of enlarged intellect, 
 but by the humblest lawyer that ever practiced 
 
 before a justice of the peace. 
 
 The words territory and territories as used in the 
 original charters, of the various colonies, in the 
 public documents preceding and succeeding the 
 articles of confederation in the cessions from the 
 various States and in the contemporaneous legisla 
 tion of the old Congress, included soil, land and 
 water jurisdiction domain and sovereignty. The 
 same meaning has been attached to them in our 
 treaties with foreign powers, in the Acts of Con 
 gress, and cve in the celebrated resolution for the 
 conditional admission of Texas, and in some cases 
 they have been used to designate the whole of the 
 United States, whether States or Territories. 
 
 The original title to a new country is founded 
 on the right of discovery, and it confers upon the 
 nation discovering it the sovereignty aud jurisdic 
 tion with the right of pre-emption of the soil irom 
 its aboriginal inhabitants. This right belongs to 
 it in its sovereign capacity, which enables it to ex 
 tinguish the Indian title and to perfect its dominion 
 ever the soil and dispose of it according to its 
 own good pleasure. 
 
 In the neAv territories therefore of America, dis 
 covery and the purchase of the Indian title, vested 
 in the government the soil, jurisdiction and sove 
 reignty of the country, and of course of its inhabi 
 tants. 
 
 In the second charter of Virginia, in 1609, the 
 words used are " lands, countries, and territories," 
 and in the second charter of Carolina, in 1677, 
 the grant is of "all that province, territory, or 
 tract of land," and " together vith all and sin 
 gular, the port?, harbours, bays, rivers, and inlets 
 belonging unto the province or territory aforesaid," 
 and in the charter of the province of Massachu 
 setts*, of 1091, the words Province arid Territory 
 are used as synonymous, aud in speaking of it it 
 is called by William and Mary " our said Pro 
 vince or Territory." 
 
 In the Georgia charter, in 1732, the grant was 
 of " all those lands, countries, and territories ;" 
 and the 7th Article of the definitive Treaty of Peuce 
 between Great Britain, France and Spain, con- ; 
 eluded at Paris on the 10th of February, 1763, 
 speaks of "tije limits of the British and French 
 territories on the continent of America," which; 
 are irrevocably lixed by that treaty. 
 
 By the 9th of the Articles of Confederation, fe 
 deral counts were directed to be constituted to set 
 tle disputes between two or more States, concern 
 ing boundary, jurisdiction or any other cause; 
 whatever, each judge of such courts was to be 
 sworn, and it was provided that "no State shall 
 be deprived of territory for f he benefit of the United 
 States." All controversies concerning the private 
 right of soil claimed under differe nt grants of two 
 or more States, whose jurisdiction, as they may re 
 spect such lands, had been adjusted, were to be 
 finally determined as near as might be in the same 
 manner as was prescribed for deciding disputes 
 concerning territorial jurisdiction between different 
 States. 
 
 In the provisional articles of peace of the 30th 
 November, 1782, the King of Great Britain ac 
 knowledged the independence of the United 
 States, and relinquished all claims to the Govern 
 ment propriety and territorial rights of the same, 
 and every part tberewf. 
 
 In Jay s Treaty, in the 9th Article, the words 
 " territories of the United States" are used in the 
 largest sense, comprehending both States and Ter 
 ritories, as also in the 14th Article, which secures 
 a reciprocal and perfect liberty of navigation and 
 commerce between all the dominions of the King 
 of Great Britain in Europe and the territories of 
 the United States. 
 
The 15th and 16th Articles use the word terri 
 tories in the same extensive sense, and tho 13th 
 relates to the admission of American vessels into 
 the ports and harbors of the British territories 
 in the East Indies." 
 
 The same extended meaning of territory and 
 territories is to be found in the law and other 
 treaties of the United states, as in the Louisiana 
 treaty, by which France ceded to the United Suites, 
 "forever and in full sovereignty ," the Territory of 
 Louisiana, in the treaty of Ghent, and in the Con 
 vention ot lS15, "to requisite the commerce betwt-en 
 the territories of the United Stites and his Britan 
 nic Majesty," in the Convention with Great Bri 
 tain of 20th October, 1818, which left open for ten 
 years the country west of the Stony Mountains, to 
 the vessels, citizens find subjects of the two pow 
 ers. In the treaty of 1819, by which the King of 
 Spain ceded to the United States, the Territories 
 of East and West Florida, and all his right to the 
 territories east and north of a line fixed by the 
 treaty, and by which we ceded the Territory of 
 Texas to Spaiu, in the 8th section of the Missouri 
 Act of 1820, and in the Convention with Great 
 Britain, of the 6th August, 1827, "with respect to 
 the territory on the north-west coast of America, 
 west of the Stony or Rocky Mountains in the 
 Convention betreen the Unitt d States and the Re 
 public of Texas, of the 25th April, 1838 in the 
 treaty with Great Britain, of the 9th August, 1842 
 in the joint resolutions for annexing Texas to 
 the Uniied States, and lastly, in the celebrated 
 treaty of the 15th July, 1846, which was "to ter 
 minate the state of doubt and uncertainty which 
 had hitherto prevailed respecting the sovereignty 
 and government of the territory on the north-west 
 coast of America, lying westward of the Rocky or 
 Stony Mountains. 
 
 So the words "rules and regulation" in the 
 language of that day, included all ordinary acts of 
 legislation, as well as the framing of temporary 
 governments for the people of the territo rie>. How 
 much has been done for the prosperity and happi 
 ness of our beloved country under the words, 
 " Congress shall have power to regulate commerce 
 with foreign nations, and among the several States 
 and with the Indian tribes." 
 
 This power to make needful rules and regula 
 tion was to be carried into execution by Congress 
 agreeably to the first article of the Constitution. 
 
 It is clear that the legislative body of the United 
 States, the Congress, had the power to govern the 
 territories, either directly or by the intervention of 
 a territorial form of government, whether that be 
 of the first or second grade, and this depends not 
 only upon necessity but upon the express terms of 
 the Constitution, which leaves not a shadow of 
 doubt upon the subject. Over the territories 
 within the limits of the Constitution the power 
 of Congress is supreme, and nil territorial 
 legislation is subordinate to it. The territo 
 ries belong to the United States, and its supreme 
 legislature, the Congress, has no restrictions 
 upon the legislation, and it can and it has, 
 whenever it pleased, prohibited slavery, ichich is a 
 mere municipal institution icithin their borders. 
 What other legislative body has any power within 
 their limits ? Certainly not the Legislature of any 
 State, for the present Territories, which are all 
 West of the Mississippi, never belonged to any 
 State in the Union, but are all acquisitions from 
 foreign powers. If the Legislature of one State 
 has *uch power, then the Legislatures of all the 
 other States have the same power, and, of course, 
 the Territories would be subjected to the disjointed 
 legislation of sixteen free and fifteen slave States. 
 This is too gross an absurdity to need refutation, 
 
 and it is equally absurd to say that each man car 
 ries with him the laws of his own State, for that 
 would be giving to a citizen a power which is de 
 nied to the Legislature of his State, and to the 
 State itself 
 
 These positions are entirely supported by the 
 whole legislation of Congress from 1789 to the 
 Kansas-Nebraska act. On the 7th August, 1789, 
 Congress passed an act to provide for the govern 
 ment of the Territory North-west of the river 
 Ohio, which, after reciting that, in order that the 
 Ordinance of the United States in Congress as 
 sembled, for the government of the territory North 
 west of the river Ohio, may continue to have full 
 effect, it is requisite that certain provisions should 
 be made, so as to adapt the same to the 
 present Constitution of the United States, 
 enacted that all communications which were 
 directed to be made by the Governor to Congress 
 or their officers, should be made to the President, 
 and that the officers which, by the Ordinance, 
 were to be appointed by Congress, should be ap 
 pointed by the President, by and with the advice 
 and consent of the Senate, and in cases where the 
 United States in Congress assembled might, by the 
 Ordinance, revoke any commission or remove from 
 any office, the President was to have the same 
 powers of revocation and removal; and in the case 
 of the death, removal, or necessary absence of the 
 Governor, the Secretary : was to perform all his 
 duties during the vacancy. This act was neces 
 sary in order to transfer the Executive powers, 
 which had been exercised by the Congress of the 
 confederation, to the Chief Magistrate, to whom 
 they were confided by the new Constitution. This 
 is a clear, unqualified recognition and ratification 
 of the Ordinance in its double character of a law 
 and a compact, and was made by a Congress of 
 which Mr. Madison and other delegates iu the 
 late federal Convention were members. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States has not 
 the word slave in it our ancestors would have 
 been ashamed to send it down to posterity as a 
 slave document, and there are but five places in. 
 the Constitution in which there is any allusion to 
 this class of persons. 
 
 1. In the 3d clause of the 2d section of the first 
 article "Representatives and direct taxes shall 
 be apportioned among the several Slates which 
 may be included in this Union according to their 
 respective number*, which shall be determined by 
 adding to the whole number of free persons, in- 
 cl ding those bound to service for a term of years 
 and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of 
 all other persons. 
 
 2. In the fii>t clause of the ninth section of the 
 first article, which is obsolete, "The migration or 
 importation of sitchpcrsonx as any of the States now 
 existing shall think proper to admit shall not bo 
 prohibited by the Congress prior to tho year 1808, 
 but a tax or duty may he imposed on such persons 
 not exceeding ten dollars for each jjerson." 
 
 3. The fourth clause of the same section" No 
 capitation or other direct tax shall lie hi id unless 
 in proportion to the census or enumeration herein 
 before directed to be taken," referring to the tnird 
 clause of the second section already quoted. 
 
 4. The third clause of the second section O f the 
 fourth article- " No person held to service or la 
 bor in one St^te under the laws thereof escaping 
 into another shall in consequence of any law or 
 regulation therein bo discharged from sue hservice 
 or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of tho 
 party to whom such service or labor may bo due." 
 
 5. The fifth article relates to the amendment 
 and has a proviso which is now obsolete ." Pro 
 vided that no amendment which may bo made 
 
prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect 
 the first and fourth clauses of the ninth section of 
 the first article." 
 
 The 2nd and 5th of these paragraphs are ohso- 
 lete. but in all and every of them slaves are spoken 
 of as persons not things", as human beings and not 
 as chattels or property. The first relates to the 
 census and enumeration, for representatives and 
 direct taxation, and they are expressly called per 
 sons, are numbered and classed as a part of the 
 population of the United States, and are so counted 
 and considered,in relation to the other nations of the 
 world. For the purposes only of representation and 
 direct taxation, having no voice in electing the 
 one, or in lading the other, they are rated at 5 to 
 3 in order to reduce the power of the actual voters 
 in those States were they exist by force ef munici 
 pal law only. The 3d paragraph is inserted from 
 a wise caution, for if a capitation or poll tax had 
 been laid without this special reference of it to the 
 representative numbers, it would have been im 
 posed upon each head of the whole population, 
 whether white or black, slave or free, as a direct 
 tax means a tax assessed on real estate, as houses 
 and lands. 
 
 The 4th paragraph, which has been the subject 
 of so much controversy, is clear upon this point. 
 The fugitives from labor are called and treated as 
 persons only, and this provision has been held to 
 apply to white apprentices and other persons, who 
 are not called slaves, in any of the States of the 
 Union. 
 
 It is clear, then, that the Constitution imposes 
 no limit upon the power ot Congress over slavery 
 in the Territories or in the District of Columbia, 
 in .which la-% it is expressly empowered " to exer 
 cise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever." 
 
 But there have been repeated recognitions of the 
 validity of the Ordinance of 1787, since the adop 
 tion of the Constitution, and every new State 
 within the original limits of the United States, 
 with the exception of Vermont and Kentucky, has 
 been admitted by virtue and in pursuance of its 
 provisions. 
 
 The cession by North Carolina of her lerriiory 
 west of the mountains to the United States, on the 
 25rh of February, 1790, was made and accepted 
 upon the express condition that all the provisions 
 of the ordinance of 1787 should be extended to it 
 with the exception of the 6th article. 
 
 On the 24th of April, 1802, by articles of cession 
 and agreement, Georgia ceded to the United States 
 all her right to the jurisdiction and soil of the 
 lands within the boundaries of the United States, 
 south of the State of Tennessee, and west of the 
 Catachouchee, upon conditions similar to those in 
 the cession by North Carolina. Out of these two 
 grants have arisen three Territorial Governments, 
 all administered under the provisions of the great 
 Ordinance, and out of these three Territories, three 
 States have come into the Union, viz : Tennessee, 
 admitted on l.-t June, 1796; Mississippi, on 10th 
 December, 1817, and Alabama, on the 14th De 
 cember 1819. In their Constitutions, and in the 
 acts of admission, and in the two latter cases in 
 the sicts of Congress passed preparatory to tbeir 
 formation of Si.ate Governments, the Ordinance of 
 1787 is distinctly recognised and made tne basis 
 of both Congressional and State action. 
 
 It can therefore be truly and emphatically said 
 that Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama, are States 
 by virtue of the Ordinance of 1787, and thnt they 
 should be the very last in the Union to dispute the va 
 lidity or constitutionality of this celebrated compact, 
 to which they owe their independent existence as 
 component members of the confederacy. 
 
 Ou the 7th May, 1800, the North Western Ter 
 
 ritry was divided, and a new Territory crea 
 ted called Indiana, and on 3d February, 1809, 
 the Illinois Territory was also taken from Indiana. 
 All these acts of Congress established govern 
 ments in conformity to the Ordinance of 1787, 
 and the act of the 7tk August, 1789, and extended 
 the privileges secured to the people of the Terri 
 tory North West of the river Ohio by the Ordi 
 nance, to the inhabitants of these respective Ter 
 ritories. 
 
 The various acts enabling the people of Ohio, 
 Indiana and Illinois to form Constitutions and 
 State Governments preparatory to admission into 
 the Union the Constitutions, thus formed, and 
 the acts admitting them, recognised all tbe prin 
 ciples of the Ordinance in their fullest extent. 
 
 Ohio was admitted into the Union on the 19th 
 February, 1803, Indiana on the llth December, 
 1816, and Illinois on the 3d December, 1818. By 
 the Act of 19ih April, 1816, (which is a type of the 
 others,) providing for the admission of Indiana, it 
 is enacted that the Consiitution and State Goven- 
 ment, "whenever formed, shall be republican and 
 not repugnant to those articles of the Ordinance of 
 the 13th July, 1787, which are declared to be irre 
 vocable between the original States and the people 
 and States North-west of the River Ohio, except 
 ing so much of the said articles as relate to the 
 boundaries of the States thirein formed." 
 
 And by the preamble of the resolution of Con 
 gress, of the llth December, 1816, admitting In 
 diana, it is expressly declared that the "Constitu 
 tion and State Government so formed is Republi 
 can and in conformity to the principles of tbe arti 
 cles of compact between the original States and 
 the people and States in the Territory North-west 
 of the River Ohio, passed on the thirteenth day 
 of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty- 
 seven." 
 
 We are now to trace the Congressional history 
 of tbe legislation in relation to the Territory of 
 Louisiana, purchased by Mr. Jefferson from France. 
 
 By the act of the 31st October, 1803, all the 
 military, civil and judicial powers exercised by the 
 officers of the existing government of Louisiana 
 were temporarily vested in such persons, and to be 
 exercised in such manner as the President should 
 direct, for maintaining and protecting its inhabi 
 tants in the free enjoyment of their liberty, pro 
 perty and religion, and by the act of the 21st 
 March, 1804, it was divided into two Territories, 
 the southern part being called the Territory of 
 Orleans, and the residue of the ceded province was 
 named the District of Louisiana. The Orleans 
 Territory bad a Governor, Secretary, Judges and 
 Legislative Council, whilst the District of Louis 
 iana was to be governed by the Governor and the 
 Judges of tke Indiana Territory. The 7th section 
 contained stringent provisions against the impor 
 tation of slaves from other States, except under 
 particular restrictions, and all slaves imported con 
 trary to this act were entitled to their freedom. 
 ^On the 2d March. 1805, an act further providing 
 for the government of the Territory of Orleans 
 was passed, by which the President was author 
 ized to establish within that Territory a govern 
 ment in all respects similar (except as thereinafter 
 provided) to that then exercised in the Mississippi 
 Territory, and he was also to appoint all officers 
 necessary therein, in conformity with the ordi 
 nance of Congress, made on the 13th day of July, 
 1787, and the inhabitants of the Territory of Or 
 leans were to be entitled to all the rights, privi- 1 
 leges and advantages secured by the said ordinance, 
 and those enjoyed by the people of the Mississippi 
 Territory. 
 
 So much of the said Ordinance of Congress as 
 
 
8 
 
 relates to the organization and powers of a Gene 
 ral Assembly, were to be in force after the 4th of 
 July, 1805, and it was provided that the second 
 paragraph of the said Ordinance, which regulates 
 the descent and distribution of estates, and also 
 the 6th article of Compact, which is annexed to 
 and makes part of said Ordinance, were not to ex 
 tend to, but were excluded from, all operation 
 within the said Territory of Orleans 
 
 Whenever it should be ascertained by a census 
 taken by the proper authority, that the number of 
 free inhabitants amounted to 60,000, then they 
 were authorized to form for themselves a constitu 
 tion and State government, and be admitted into 
 the Union upon the footing of the original States, 
 in all respects whatever, conformably to (he pro 
 visions of the 3d Article of the Treaty concluded 
 at Paris, on the 30th day of April, 1803, between 
 the United States and the French Republic; 
 Provided that the Constitution so to be establish 
 ed shall be Republican and not inconsistent with 
 the Constitution of the United States nor inconsis 
 tent icith the Ordinance of the late Congress, JM seed 
 the 13th day of July, 1787, so far as the same is 
 made applicable to the territorial government there 
 by authorized to be established. 
 
 On the 3d March, 1805, Congress passed another 
 act providing for the government of the District of 
 Louisiana, which changed its name to that of the 
 Territory of Louisiana, vested the executive power 
 in a Governor and Secretary and appointed three 
 Judges, to whom and to the governor the Legis 
 lative power was given. 
 
 By an act passed 20th February, 1811, the in 
 habitants of the Territory of Orleans, within the 
 limits therein described, were authorized to form 
 a. State Constitution and Government under the 
 provisions, and upon the conditions thereinafter 
 mentioned. If the Constitution so formed was not 
 disapproved of by Congress at their next session 
 after its receipt, the State was to be admitted into 
 the Union. The Constitution was so formed in 
 pursuance of this act, and on the 8th of J.pril, 
 1812, Louisiana was admitted into the Union upon 
 the conditions expressed in that act, and the act of 
 1811. 
 
 Ou the 4th June, 1S12, Congress passed an act 
 providing for the government of the Territory of 
 Missouri, by which the Territory heretofore called 
 Louisiana was called Missouri, and was organized 
 by vesting the Executive power in a Governor, 
 with a Secretary and a Legislative power in a 
 general assembly, consisting of the Governor, a 
 Legislative Council and aHouse of Representatives, 
 and the citizens were authorized to elect a delegate 
 from the said Territory in Congress. This act tm- I 
 bodied some of the most important principles of the 
 Ordinance of 1787. 
 
 By an act passed the 2d March, 1819, the South 
 ern part of the Missouri Territory was erected into 
 a separate government, called Arkansas. The Exe 
 cutive power was vested in a Governor with a Se 
 cretary, the judicial in three Judges, and the le 
 gislative in the Governor and Judges, until the 
 organization of the General Assembly, which was 
 to take place whenever tbe Governor was satisfied 
 it was tbe wish of a majority of the freeholders, at 
 which time they were al>o allowed to elect a dele 
 gate to Congress. By an act relative to the Ar 
 kansas Territory, passed the 21st April, 1820, the 
 act of the 4th June, above quoted, as modified by 
 tbe act of the 29th of April, 1816, was to be con- 
 .sidered as applicable to she government of the Ter 
 ritory of Arkansas, and to have reference to the 
 proceedings of the said Territory in the organiza 
 tion of the second grade of the Territorial govern 
 ment, assumed by the said Territory, under the 
 
 said act of 2d March, 1819. 
 
 The narrative of the consistent and unvarying 
 legislation by Congress, both in regard to the ad 
 mission of States and the government ot Terri 
 tories, brings us to the Missouri question, which 
 terminated in the celebrated Compromise, which 
 pro-slm-ery })ohticians of the present day declare 
 to be unconstitutional. 
 
 By the purchase of Louisiana we bad acquired a 
 claim to what was called Texas, and our Western 
 boundary in that quarter, between us and Spain, 
 was unsettled and undefined. Spain owned the 
 Florida?, which, by a resolution and acts passed 
 in secret session in 1811 and 1812, but not pub 
 lished until 1818, Congress had determined should 
 not pass into any other hands than our own. 
 
 By the treaty of tbe 22d February, 1819, we ac 
 quired the Floridas, and ceded to Spain all our 
 claims to territory lyinsr South and West of a boun 
 dary line West of the Mississippi, beginning at the 
 mouth of tbe Sabine River in the Gulf of Mexico, 
 and termirating on the parallel of 42 N. latitude 
 in the South Sea, including in such cession the 
 province of Texas. 
 
 The people of the Missouri Territory applied to 
 Congress m the winter of 1818-1819, for the pas 
 sage of an act to enable them to form a Constitu 
 tion and State government, preparatory to their 
 admission into the Union as a State. Such an act 
 passed the House of Representatives, but with a 
 clause declaring that the further introduction of 
 slavery or involuntary servitude, except for the 
 punishment of crimes whereof the party shall 
 have been duly convicted, shall be prohibited, and 
 all chilqren born within the said Territory after its 
 admission into the Union as a State, shall be free, 
 but may be held to service until the age of twenty- 
 one years/ which was, however, negatived in the 
 Senate. 
 
 Their application was renewed at the next ses 
 sion. In the meantime the three great States of 
 New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, had unanimous 
 ly remonstrated against the admission of Missouri, 
 except with the restriction above mentioned. The 
 House adhered to its lormer determination, whilst 
 the Senate was equally obstinate, and complicated 
 the question by uniting the fate of Missouri with 
 that of Maine, which by the terms of tne act of 
 Massachusetts, must procure the assent of Con 
 gress before the 4th of March, 1820. In order, 
 however, to induce some of the majority of the 
 Hou ? e to give way. the Senate passt d what is now 
 the 8th section of the act of 6th March, 1820, pro- 
 hibitinr slavery in all the territory ceded under the 
 name of Louisiana, north of latitude 36 degrees 30 
 minutes and west of the State of Missouri. After 
 a very protracted struggle, the clause prohibiting 
 slavery in the State was lost by a vote of 90 to 87, 
 and the 8th section as it now stands was carried 
 by an overwhelming majority. This forms what 
 is called the Missouri Compromise, 
 
 The, whole real contest during the tioo sessions was 
 in relation to the prohibition of slavery in the Slate. 
 " On that occasion," says Jud_ce Story, " the 
 question was largely discussed whether Congress 
 possessed a Constitutional authority to impose sucTi 
 a restriction, upon the ground that the prescrib 
 ing of such condition is inconsistent with the sove 
 reignty of the State to be admitted, and its equali 
 ty with the other States. The final result of the 
 vote which mitborized the erection of that State 
 seems to establish the rightful authority of Con 
 gress to impose such a restriction, though u was 
 "ot then applied." 
 
 This is strictly true, and there is no doubt that 
 Misssouri never would have been admitted except 
 with this restriction or condition, but for the fact 
 
9 
 
 that the Senate connected it with the admission of 
 Maine, which gave the advocates of Missouri the 
 votes of the members from that district, as well 
 as of those of several other New England Con 
 gressmen. 
 
 The vote on the prohibition of slavery in the 
 Territory, in tbe 8th Section, was in the Senate 
 34 to 10, and in the House 134 to 42, and, de 
 ducting from the minority five votes, who 
 believed Congress bad the power, it made the 
 House vote really 139 to 37, majorities 
 showing the entire confidence of born bo 
 dies in the constitutionality, as well as 
 the expediency of extending the benefits of the 
 6th Article of tbe Ordinance to the Territories west 
 of the Mississippi. In pursuance of this act Mis 
 souri formed her constitution and asked for admis 
 sion; but she had, by a provision in it in relation to 
 free negroes, created another ground of opposition, 
 which, after various reports? and debates, was ter 
 minated by a resolution of the 2d of March, 1821, 
 admitting Missouri into the Union upen the fun 
 damental condition that this clause shall never be 
 construed to authorize the passage of a law, and 
 that no law shall be pa.-sed iu conformity thereto, 
 by which any citizen of either of tbe States in this 
 Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any 
 of the privileges and immunities to which such 
 citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the 
 United States, and upon the Legislature of Mis 
 souri declaring the assent of the State t this fun 
 damental condition by a solemn public act, to be 
 transmitted on or before the 4th of November, 
 1821, to the President, who, upon its receipt, 
 should by proclamation announce the fact, where 
 upon and without any further proceeding on the 
 part of Congress tbe admission should be consider 
 ed as complete. This condition was accepted by 
 the act of the 26th of June, 1821, and on the 10th 
 of August following the President issued his pro 
 clamation declaring the admission of Missouri 
 complete according to law. 
 
 General Washington, Mr. Adams. Mr. Jefferson, 
 Mr. Madison and Mr. Monroe had directly affirmed 
 the constitutionality of the Ordinance by approving 
 acts of Congress confirming or recognizing it, and 
 by the performance of various executive t unctions 
 devolved upon them by its provisions. In fact no 
 President in the early stages of the government 
 could hardly have passed a day without its being 
 brought before him, directly or indirectly, in some 
 way or other. Congress recognized its validity, 
 and six States had been, admitted into the Union 
 by virtue and in pursuance of its provisions, and 
 three of them within the original North-western 
 Territory, with articles against the existence of 
 slavery within their limits, in conformity to the 
 Ordinance and the acts of Congress enabling them 
 to form their constitutions and State governments. 
 
 The 8th section of the Missouri Act was a copy 
 of the 6th article, and was simply extending its 
 effect to uninhabited territory which had neither 
 slaves nor white freemen in it. Its intention was 
 to preserve the soil for a white homogeneous popu 
 lation, which the experience of our country has 
 proved to be the best, the happiest, and the strong 
 est. It took no man s property, and it injured no 
 man. 
 
 Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, Mr. Lowndes, of South 
 Carolina, and every eminent man from the South, 
 in the House of Representatives, were in favor of 
 the 8th Section, as constitutional, fair and just. 
 Mr. Sergeant, and the Northern phalanx, of course 
 believed it constitutional, and took it when de 
 feated in the restriction upon tbe State of Mis 
 souri, and Judge Baldwin, who was opposed to 
 the restriction on the State, voted for the restric 
 
 tion on the Territory as entirely constitutional. 
 
 The votes in the Senate prove the same state of 
 things there. There was, however, one gieat m n, 
 the most accomplished lawyer of his day, William 
 Pinkney, of Maryland, whose deliberate opinion 
 was exceedingly valuable. He bad been elected 
 to the Senate on the 23d December, 1819, and had 
 accepted with a view to the great, question of slave 
 restriction. On the 21st January, 1820, he spoko 
 three hours in favor of the admission of Missouri 
 without restriction, without finishing his argu 
 ment, and on the 24th resumed tLe remarks he 
 commenced on Friday and spoke nearly two hours 
 in conclusion. It was justly considered one of his 
 moct brilliant efforts, but it was never icported, 
 and we have only such parts of it as Mr. Wbeaton 
 was able to make out from Mr. Pinkney s note*. 
 These are preserved and inserted in bis life by 
 Mr. Wheatcm. Mr. Wbeaton, p. 612, says : 
 "after going through with that part of his argument 
 relating to this clause of the Constitution, which 
 I have not been able to restore from the imperfect 
 notes in my possession, Mr. Pinkney concluded his 
 speech by expressing a hope that (what he deemed) 
 the perilous principles urged by those in favor of 
 the restriction upon the new States would be dis 
 avowed or explained, or that at all events the ap 
 plication of them to the subject under discussion 
 would not be pressed, but that it might be disposed 
 of in a manner satisfactory to all by n prospective 
 prohibition of slavery in the territory to the north 
 and west of Missouri." 
 
 This synopsis of the conclusion of his speech is 
 shown to be perfectly correct by a letter of Mr. 
 Pinkuey to bis son-in-law, Mr. Cumberland D. 
 Williams, dated February, 1820. [Wbeaton, p. 
 167.] "The bill (writes Mr. Pinkney) for tbe ad 
 mission of Missouri into the Union (without re 
 striction as to slavery) may be considered as past. 
 That bill was sent back again, this morning, from 
 the House, icith the restriction as to slavery. The . 
 Senate voted to amend it by striking out the re 
 striction, (27 to 15,) and proposed, as another 
 amendment, which I have all along been an advo 
 cate of, a restriction upon the vacant territory to 
 tbe North and West as to slavery. To-night the 
 House of Representatives have agreed to both of 
 these amendments, in opposition to their former 
 votes, and this affair is settled. To-morrow we 
 shall, of course, recede from our amendments as 
 to Maine, (our object being effected,) and both 
 States will be admitted. This happy result has 
 been accomplished by the conference of which I 
 was a member on the part of the Senate, and of 
 which I prepared the report which has been made." 
 
 On the 25th January, 1820, Mr. King, of New 
 York, took his seat in the Senate, having been 
 elected on tho 8th January, and on the llth of 
 February spoke about two hours in support of the 
 right and expediency of restricting the contempla 
 ted State of Missouri from permitting slavery 
 therein, and yet tho author of the second life of 
 Mr. Pinkney (his neuhew) speaks. or Mr. Pinkney i 
 speech being an answer to Mr. King, and that 
 Mr. King was so struck by it that he never replied 
 to it. 
 
 The Missouri bill having been presented to tbe 
 President, Mr. Monroe, he requested the written 
 opinions of his cabinet upon two questions, the 
 first was whether Congress has the Constitutional 
 right to prohibit slavery in a Territory. The 
 second was whether the eighth section of the Mis 
 souri bill was consistent with the Constitution? 
 The answers to both were unanimously in the af 
 firmative. 
 
 The members of Mr. Monroe s cabinet were the\ 
 most distinguished statesmen and jurists of the 
 
10 
 
 day. Mr. Adams was Secretary of State, Mr. 
 Crawford Secretary of the Treasury, Judge 
 Thompson (afterwards of the Supreme Court wf 
 the United States) secretary of the Navy, Mr. 
 \Virt of Virginia, a profound )aw>er, Attorney- 
 General, and Mr. Calhoun Secretary of War, the 
 latter having been elected a member of the House 
 of Representatives during the war, and as such 
 continued until his appointment to the cabinet 
 on the 8th October, 1817. 
 
 These facts appear by the papers of Mr. Mon 
 roe, the Diary of Mr. Adams, and subsequent re 
 searches, and by the clear admissions of Mr. Cal 
 houn, made in debate in the Senate, in 1838. 
 
 Any reasona le man would have supposed that 
 this decision made with the assent of every con 
 stitutional jurist and statesman in the country, was 
 a final settlement of a question which would never 
 again be disturbed so long as the Constitution 
 itself was in existence. 
 
 It became the uniform rule under every succeed- 
 ing President, Mr. Adams, General Jackson and 
 Mr. Tyler the latter extending it in the most li 
 beral manner to the case of the annexation of 
 Texas. 
 
 TEXAS AND THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 
 
 The treaty for the annexation of Texas having 
 failed in the Senate, it was determined to eff. ct 
 the same object by a joint resolution of Congress. 
 This was undoubtedly tbe scheme of Mr. Calhoun, 
 who, as Secretary of State, and the Southern 
 leader, was the great master spirit. 
 
 On the 25th January, 1845, a joint resolution 
 for annexing Texas to the United States, upon 
 terms similar to the rejected treaty which had been 
 reported by Mr. C. J. Ingersoll from the Commit 
 tee on Foreiga Affairs, with an amendment offered 
 by Mr. Weller, and an amendment to the arm-nd- 
 ment offered by Mr, Douglas, were under cuuside- 
 ra ion in Committee of the Whole, and the hour 
 fixed for the termination of the debate bv the 
 House having arrived, the Committee proceeded to 
 vote on them and the several propositions subse 
 quently offered. 
 
 The amendment of Mr. Douglas to the amend 
 ment of Mr. Weller, and various others offered by 
 other gentlemen, were successively rejected, until 
 Mr. Milton Brown, of Tennessee, submitted an 
 amendment to it, striking out the amendments of 
 Mr. Wt-ller, after the word "resolved," and insert 
 ing what formed the real substance of the joint 
 resolution as it passed both branches of Congress. 
 
 Tho first section gave ttfe consent of Congress 
 to the erection of tho Territory belonging to the 
 Republic of Texas into a new State, to be culled the 
 State of Texas, with a Republican form of govern 
 ment, in order that the s>un may be admitted as 
 one of the States of this Union. 
 
 The second section, " Resolved, That the fore 
 going con.-ent of Congress is given upon the follow 
 ing conditions yK&di with the following guarantees, 
 to wit : 
 
 The third of which was in these words, "New 
 States of a convenient size, not exceeding four in 
 number, in addition to said State of Texas, and 
 having sufficient population, may hereafter, by 
 tho consent of said State, be formed out of the 
 Territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admis 
 sion under the provisions of the Federal Constitu- 
 ( tion, and such States as may be formed out of that 
 portion of said Territory, lying South of 30 30" 
 North latitude, commonly known as the Missouri 
 Compromise Line, shall be admittc l into the Union 
 rwith or without Slavery, as the people of each 
 State asking admission may desire." 
 
 Mr. Douglass (of Illinois) asked the gentleman 
 from Tennessee to accept the following as a modi 
 fication of his amendment, to come in after the 
 List clause: And in such States as shall be formed 
 o,ut of said Territory, North of said Missouri Com 
 promise Line, slavery or involuntary servitude, ex 
 cept for crime, shall be prohibited." 
 
 Mr. M. Erown accepted the modification, and 
 the amendment or substitute as modified, was 
 adopted, and the resolution in this shape finally 
 passed the House on the same day. 
 
 In the Senate another section was added, allow 
 ing the President, if he deemed it expedient, in 
 stead of submitting the foregoing resolution to the 
 Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of 
 the United States for admission, to negotiate with 
 that Republic upon the terms set forth in another 
 resolution. This was adopted by tbe Senate and 
 agreed to by the House, and the whole beeame a 
 law on the 1st March, 1845. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan (who was in a minority of one in 
 the Committee of Foreign Relations on this subject) 
 made a very able speech in their favor approving of 
 every part of them, and particularly of the Missou 
 ri Compromise line. Speaking of the ML-souri 
 Compromise itself, he said emphatically "who 
 could complain of the Compromise? It was then 
 settled that north of 36 deg. 30 min., slavery 
 should be forevex prohibited. The same line was 
 fixed Ui<on in the resolutions recently received from 
 the House of Representatives now before us. The 
 bill from the House for the establishment of a ter 
 ritorial government in Oregon excluded slavery 
 altogether from that vast country. How vain were 
 the fears enUrtained in some quarters < f the coun 
 try that, the sla.ve-holding States would ever be able 
 to control the Union !" 
 
 Nut, however^ vain fear at this day when we read 
 tlie Cincinnati Platfurm, of indefinite slavery ex- 
 tensior, rtnd-.ring all the Territories of tho United 
 States slave territories by force of its heretical dog 
 mas, and of course making all future Stat-s created 
 out of them slave States ; and when we al>o find 
 the eloquent and able Senator selected by the Con 
 vention as the exponent of these unconstitutional 
 doctrines. 
 
 It was supposed by those who were propitiated 
 by the 3d section inserted in the Senate, giving 
 the option to the President to negotiate, and whose 
 aid was necessary to carry the joint resolution, that 
 the choice of the alternatives would be left to Pre 
 sident Polk. Mr. Caihoun, however, determined 
 to clinch the nail before his power expired, and, on 
 the 3d of March, the last day of Presid- nt Tyler s 
 administration, he wrote a despatch to Mr. Donel- 
 son, instructing him, by the Pre.-ident s orders, to 
 prestrt to the government of Texas, as the basis 
 of its admission, the proposals contained in the 
 resolution as it came from the House of Represen 
 tatives : and, after discussing the feasibility of 
 amendments by Texas, he says: "But it is defined 
 by the President of great importance that the re 
 solution should be adopted without amendment." 
 
 President Tyler, Mr. Calhoun and all the. other 
 members of the Cabinet, including Mr. Mason and 
 that distinguished jurist, John Nelson, of Mary 
 land, then Attorney-General, approved and sanc 
 tioned the measure of applying the doctrine of the 
 Missouri Compromise to the future admission of a 
 State, to be carved out of slave territory and with 
 in whose limits, as an indispensable condition, 
 "slavery or involuntary servitude (except for 
 crime) shall be prohibited." 
 
 The Sth Section of the Missouri Act of 1820 af 
 firmed the power of Congress to prohibit slavery 
 in the territories o r the United States, tho 3d con 
 dition of the 2d Section of the Texas joint reso- 
 
11 
 
 the proposition distinctly made in it to the Gov 
 ernment of Texas, and then proceeds: " President 
 Tyler having thus determined to adopt the two first 
 of the series of resolutions, instead of the alterna 
 tive presented by the third, it became the duty of 
 the President to direct his attention to this im 
 portant question at as early a moment as possible. 
 This has been done, and his deliberations have 
 resulted in a clear and firm conviction that it would 
 be inexpedient to review the decision of his pre 
 decessors." 
 
 "The President prefers the two first resolutions, 
 because they will, in his judgment, the most 
 speedily and certainly secure the admission of 
 Texas into the Union." 
 
 "In every aspect in which the President has 
 viewed this subject, he believes that the paramount 
 question of admission can be best settled, and the 
 just rights of Texas can be best secured, by her 
 acceptance without qualification of the terms and 
 condition* proposed by the first two resolutions, 
 and he therefore confidently expects that you will 
 exert your well known ability and energy to secure 
 this auspicious result by every honorable means 
 iu your power." 
 
 On the 23d June, 1845, the existing government 
 of Texas gave their consent to all the provisions 
 of the joint resolutions of the American Congress 
 for annexing Texas to the United States, and a 
 convention of delegates to form a State Constitu 
 tion, to be held on the 4th July, 1845, was also 
 sanctioned. 
 
 This Convention met and passed an ordinance, 
 on the 4lh July, 1845, giving the assent of the peo 
 ple of Texas to the proposals conditions and gua 
 rantees contained in the first and second sections 
 of the joint resolution of the Congress of 
 the United States, as recited in said ordi 
 nance. This Convention, on the 27th August, 
 adopted a Constitution, by the 13th sec 
 tion of the schedule to which the aforesaid ordi 
 nance of the 4r.h July was attached, and formed a 
 part of the same. The people of Texas, at the 
 Dolls, accepted the tewas of annexation aad rati 
 fied the Constitution. 
 
 By a joint r* solution of the 29th December, 
 184a,reciting the joint resolutions of the 1st March, 
 and all the acts done by the government and peo 
 ple of Texas already stated, the State of Texas 
 was admitted into the Union. 
 
 President Polk carried out in full the plan adopt 
 ed by Mr. Calhoun, and be and all his Cabinet, 
 including Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Walker, who had 
 advocated the measure in the Senate, fully approv 
 ed and sanctioned the Constitutional power of Con 
 gress over slavery, so clearly asserted in the second 
 t-ecti >u of this celebrated joint resolution. 
 
 At the close ot his Presidential career, President 
 Polk, having on the 14th August, 1848, approved 
 the Oregon bill, AViiich, in its 14th section, con 
 tained an extension of the Ordinance of 1787 to 
 that Territory, seat a message to the House of Re 
 presentatives, stating his reasons for sigv ing it, in 
 whieli ho distictly affirmed the Constitutionality 
 and expediency of the Texas and Missouri Com 
 promise which I have just discussed. 
 
 Of our acquisitions from Mexico: 
 
 California was admitted into the Union as a free 
 Sta.e. Territorial governments were formed for 
 New Mexico and Utah, and the Northern bounda 
 ry cfthe State of Texas was settled with her con 
 sent. The Legislation of 1850 was confined entire- 
 Is to these Territories, and was not in any manner 
 extended to the Territory covered by the 8th sec 
 tion of the act of 1820, nor did any man dream 
 that it could be until it became necessary to find 
 an excuse for making Kansas a slave State. 
 
 lution of 1845, distinctly affirmed the power of 
 Congress to impose upon a State taken from slave 
 territory, as a sine qu<i non, that slavery should be 
 prohibited within its boundaries. 
 
 Upon the accession of President Polk, Mr. 
 Buchanan, as Secretary of State, writes on the 
 lOtn of March to Mr. DoneLsori, noticing th de 
 spatch of Mr. Calhoun of the 3d hist., and stating 
 
 By the treaty witb Spain of 1819, and the 8th 
 Section of the Missouri Act of 1820, r.he South got 
 three slave States Missouri, Arkansas and Flori 
 dacomprising all the then territory within the, 
 limits of the United States south of 36 de^-. 30 min. 
 with the exception of the territory reserved for the 
 Indians. The benefit to the free States and their 
 white freemen was prospective, and only one free 
 State, Iowa, has been admitted out of the territory 
 devoted to Freedom. The South have obtained 
 six Senators, Freedom only two. 
 
 After the accession of President Pierce, who 
 owed his nomination to Virginia and the slave 
 States, the South were encouraged to attempt a 
 destruction of the Compromise uuder the lead of 
 the Senator from Illinois. It was, however, ap 
 proached cautiously and warily, and with many 
 backings and fillings on the part of the projectors 
 and the Government organ. 
 
 New Mexico and California were free by the law 
 of nations, Slavery being prohibited by the laws 
 and constitution of Mexico, and of course would 
 remain so until altered by an act of Congress. 
 This was the opinion of Mr. Clay and all the emi 
 nent men in 1850. 
 
 Small men carped at the docrine, and the acts 
 for the Territorial governments of Utah and New 
 Mexico did not decide it. 
 
 The Missouri Compromise was fixed by an act 
 of Congress, which must stand until repealed] for 
 it was a clear absurdity to call it unconstitutional. 
 The Committee on Territories, however willing to 
 escape from the odium of direct repeal, thought 
 there was a resemblance between the two cases, 
 and they accordingly said in their report to the 
 Senate on the 4th January, 1854, "your committee 
 are not prepared to recommend a departure from 
 the course pursued on that memorable occasion, 
 either by affirming or repealing the 8th section of 
 the Missouri Act, or by any act declaratory of the 
 meaning of the Constitution in respect to the le 
 gal points in dispute." 
 
 The Committee were, however, by the outside 
 pressure, and the manly declaration of Mr. Dixon, 
 of Kentucky, that he would move a direct repeal, 
 forced at last into an indirect nullification of the 
 8tu section, as it appears in the 32d section of the 
 act to organize the Territories of Nebraska a.nd 
 Kansas. Mark the words: 
 
 "That the Constitution and laws of the 
 United States, which are not locally inappli 
 cable, shall have the same force and effect 
 within the said Territory of Kansas as 
 elsuwtiere within the United States, ex 
 cept the 8th section of the act preparatory to 
 the admission of Missouri into the Union, ap 
 proved March 6th, 1820, which being inconsistent 
 with the principle of non-intervention by Con 
 gress with slavery in the States and Territories as 
 recognized bv the legislation of 1850, commonly 
 called the Compromise measures, is hereby de 
 clared inoperative and void, it being thj true 
 intent and meaning of this act not ti lo^islare 
 slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude 
 it therefrom, but to leave the- people thereof per 
 fectly free to form and regulate thinr domestic in 
 stitutions in their own way, subject only to the 
 Constitution of the United States. Provided, that 
 nothing herein contained shall be construed to re- 
 
12 
 
 vive or put in force any law or regulation which 
 may have existed prior to the act of 6th of March, 
 1820, either protecting, establishing prohibiting or 
 abolishing slavery." 
 
 ^.It is perfectly clear from this clause 1. That the 
 Compromise measures of I860 did not touch or 
 in any manner reach the Territory covered by the 
 prohibition in the 8 h section of the act of the 6th 
 March, 1820. 2. That the Compromise of 1850 
 related to new acquisitions, whilst the Compromise 
 of 1820 related exclusively to territory then owned 
 by tne United States, and the subject of division 
 at the time into slave andfree Territory by mu 
 tual agreement. 
 
 o. That the reason assigned for declaring the 
 8th suction inoperative and void is not founded in 
 fact, tor no sane man in 1850 dreamed of affecting 
 the Compromise of 1820, which stood on its own 
 merits, and applied to entirely different territory, 
 differently circumstanced, and on the fai h of 
 which Compromise the three slave States of Mis 
 souri, Arkansas and Florida had been admitted 
 inio the Union. 
 
 4. That the disclaimer of legislation looks ex 
 ceedingly as if Congress thought they possessed 
 the power to deal with slavery in the Territory, 
 particularly when they give authority to the 
 people to act upon it. If the people of the Teai- 
 tory derive their power from the section to admit 
 or exc ude slavery, then Congress, who vt-st them 
 with it, must undoubtedly have the same power, 
 and can prohibit slavery whenever such is their 
 pleasure. 
 
 5. That the 8th section of the act of 1820, like 
 the 6th article of the Ordinance of 1787, and the 
 last clause in the 3d condition of the 2d section of 
 the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the 
 United States, is constitutional. 
 
 From the review of the Constitution, and Terri 
 torial le^i.-lation of the United States, it is abun 
 dantly certain that the Gth article of the Ordinance 
 of 1787, and the Missouri and Texas Compromises, 
 which were but extensions of it, were clearly Con 
 stitutional measures, and intended to work out the 
 greatest good for the greatest number. 
 
 From the earlier provisions have sprung the six 
 great free States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michi 
 gan, Wisconsin and Iowa, which number no doubt 
 at this hour as many white free inhabitants as the 
 whole fifteen slave States put together. 
 
 I should not have pursued the argument to this 
 extent, if the Cincinnati Convention, in their plat 
 form, had not expressly declared that Congress had 
 no power to interfere with slavery in thw Territo 
 ries, or in the District of Columbia. I think I 
 hay^e shewn conclusively that they have the power 
 over slavery in the Territories, and have exercised 
 it Irom the commencement of the government, and 
 this is the real inane in this cavipuiyn. The power 
 over slavery in the District of Columbia, I have 
 never heard doubted by any sound jurist or 
 statesman, and it is obvious to any one who will 
 read the plain words of the Constitution. The 
 Congress shall have power " to exercise exclusive 
 legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such Dis 
 trict;" and singular as it may appear to the mem 
 bers of the Cincinnati Convention, one of the ce 
 lebrated compromise measures of 1850, was an 
 act to suppress the slave trade in the District of 
 Columbia," which under this new reading of the 
 Constitution, should be instantly repealed. The 
 expediency of further interference has been doubt 
 ed by very able men, and as it is not one of the 
 issues at the ensuing election, I dismiss it with 
 these few observation?-. 
 
 Both of these planks in the platform are rotten, 
 and the candidate who stands upon them, must 
 
 fall to the ground. 
 
 I can say, therefore, with perfect freedom and 
 entire truth, that this actual repeal of the Mis 
 souri Compromise by the Nebraska-Kansas Act, 
 was a breach of national faith and violation of na 
 tional honor, which was rebuked by the people in 
 1854, and will be still more severely punished in 
 1856, when the crimes against Kansas and its un 
 offending free citizens have been made known to 
 the whole civilized world in the most authent : c 
 form. 
 
 KANSAS. 
 
 The apparent plan of the Kansas Bill was to leave 
 the people of the Territory perfectly free to form and 
 regulate their domestic institutions in thtir own 
 way. 
 
 This clearly meant that this was not to be done 
 by the people of Missouri, but by those who made 
 the territory their home and not a mere place of 
 transit or temporary sojourn. There was another 
 difficulty, under the Constitution the slaveholder 
 claims a right to enter any territory with his slaves 
 and assumes as a principlo that all the territory of 
 the United States is slave territory and that no 
 territorial legislature can exclude him and his 
 human chattels. The territory under this construc 
 tion necessarily becomes slave territory, and 
 therefore the other provision of the Kansas Bill 
 that when admitted as a State it shall be received 
 into the Union with or without slavery as the Con 
 stitution may prescribe, is a mere nullity and an 
 absolute farce, as a slave territory must always be 
 come a slave State. 
 
 Into these difficulties has the criminal violation 
 of a solemn compromise led the apparent friends 
 but real enemies of popular sovereignty, and the 
 practice under the organic laws of Kansas, is the 
 best proof of the soundness of the Constitutional 
 doctrine of the supreme and exclusive power of 
 Congress over the territories in their territorial 
 form. 
 
 Who can protect an infant Territory and its citi 
 zens against the invasion of the hordes of an k ad- 
 joining State but Congress? The Territory, spars. :ly 
 settled cannot resist a foreign invasion, and a popu 
 lous State can easily conquer and subdue its few in 
 habitants. 
 
 Under such theories and practice every new Terri 
 tory must belong to the next Stitc and become its 
 prey, and, instead of all the citizens of the thirty- 
 one States having any lot or part in it, it must be 
 come the property of the one State which cuts it 
 off from all communication with any others. 
 
 Now this has been exactly the case of Kansas. 
 The access to her is through the State of Missouri 
 and by the Missouri river. No free State man 
 could travel with his family by land or water with 
 out being stopped, robbed of his property, his arms 
 (if he had any) taken from him and confiscated to the 
 use of his plunderers ; and, if not tarred and lea 
 thered or shot and scalped, turned back and direct 
 ed to leave the State and not to attempt to enter 
 Kansas. In and out of Kansas unoffending men, 
 Methodist ministers, members of the Society of 
 Friends, merchants, tradesmen, mechanics and far 
 mers, with their wives and families, have been ex 
 posed to all kinds of ill treatment because they 
 preferred freedom to slavery and wished Kansas 
 to bo a free Territory and a free State. Fur all 
 these outrages and murders not. one single indivi 
 dual has had any redress, nor has one single guilty 
 person ever been punished. 
 
 It would be a dangerous matter for any one to 
 complain of such acts to any tribunal or officer, 
 eitiier in Kansas or Missouri. This is no exag 
 gerated picture, but is far below the truth, ihe 
 
13 
 
 policy of the Border Ruffian party has been to 
 prevent all free white citizens, who were not de 
 voted to slavery, Iroui entering Kansas by any 
 route, and if they reached the Territory to drive 
 tbem out by threats of violence, or the applica 
 tion of a direct force, in its most dangerous form. 
 
 I have examined with care the report of the 
 Committee of the House of Representatives, ap 
 pointed to investigate the troubles in Kansas, and 
 fully agree with them in the fjicts and conclusions 
 which they regard as established by the testimony. 
 They are to be found at page 67 of the Report 
 No. 200, 34 Congress. 1 session House of Repre 
 sentatives. Amongst them are: "First, that each 
 election in the Territory, held under the organic 
 or alleged territorial law, has been carried by or 
 ganized invasion from the State of Missouri, by 
 which the people of the Territory have been pre 
 vented frum exercising the rights secured to them 
 by the organic law." 
 
 " Second, That the alleged territorial legislature 
 was an illegally constituted body, and had no 
 power to p>ss valid laws, and their enactments are 
 tin rolore null and void." 
 
 " Third. That these alleged laws have not been, 
 as a general thing, used to protect persons and 
 property and to punish wrong, but for unlawful 
 purposes." 
 
 Ttie election for members of the Territorial Le 
 gislature was held on the 30th March, 1855, audit 
 is proved by incontestible evidence that by <m or 
 ganized movement which extended over a large 
 portion of the border counties of Missouri, com 
 panies of men were arranged and sent into every 
 council district in the Territory, and intoeverjt Re 
 presentative district but one, and the numbers 
 were so distribute as to control the election in 
 each district. They went to vote and with the 
 avowed design to make Kansas a slave State, and 
 were generally armed and equipped and carried 
 \vitu them their own provisions. They succeeded 
 by force, fraud, imimidatioa and violence, and re 
 turned pro-slavery members of the Territorial Le 
 gislature, elected by the citizens of the S ate of 
 Alis.-ouri, who, to the number of nearly 5,000, had 
 voted in the several election districts. 
 
 It was, in fact, a Missouri, not a Kansas elec 
 tion, and the Legislature was a Missouri, and not 
 a Kantas one. 
 
 A parallel to such an outrage eould only be 
 found in supposing that we should send 20,- 
 OCO armed men into the State of Delaware 
 who should take possession of the polls, elect a 
 Governor, a Legislature, and all the State and 
 county officers, and then ask the people to submit 
 to cruel and infamous laws passed by this spurious 
 legislative body, and the whole should be recog 
 nised by the President of the United States as the 
 regular government of Delaware, and all opposi 
 tion to it put down by the army of the United 
 States. 
 
 These pretended laws of Kansas are, for the 
 most part, transcripts of the Missouri laws, from 
 the Digest of 1845, and form additional evidence 
 of its being solely a Missouri legislature. 
 
 These laws assume that slavery exists in Kansas. 
 There is no act establishing slavery, or declaring 
 human beings to be property, but, all the enact 
 ments proceed upon the principle that, by the Ne 
 braska-Kansas act and the Constitution of the 
 United States, this is one of the original domestic 
 institutions of the Territory. According to this 
 doctrine it was slave territory before any Legisla 
 ture was elected, or any Governor or Judges were 
 appointed. 
 
 Thus, in the first section of tho act (ch. 131) 
 to punish offences against slave property, it was 
 
 enncted "That every person, bond or free, who 
 shall be convicted of actually raising a rebellion 
 or insurrection of slaves, free negroes, or mulat- 
 toes in this Territory, shall suffer death;" which 
 means that the citizen who believes this to be a 
 free Territory is to be hung. 
 
 " Sect. 12. If any free person, by speaking or 
 by Avritin<r, as-ert or maintain that persons have 
 not the right to hold slaves in this Territory, or 
 shall introduce into this Territory, print or pub 
 lish, write, eirculate, or cause to be introduced 
 into this Territory any book, paper, magazine, 
 pamphlet or circular containing any denial of the 
 right of persons to hold slaves in this Territory, 
 such persons shall be deemed guilty of felony, and 
 punched by imprisonment at hard labor for a 
 term of not less than two years." 
 
 This is clearly on a par with Mr. Sherwood in 
 Texas being prohibited by a public meeting from 
 addressing his constituents in defence of his course 
 in the Legislature, unless he omitted all allusions 
 to slavery, his offence being that he had asserted 
 the power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the 
 Territories, in other words, to pa*s the Missouri 
 Compromise Act ; or with Mr. Underwood, being 
 exiled from his home in Virginia because he was 
 a member of the Republican Convention in this 
 city; or with the two honest Irishmen, Malone 
 and Colwell, being sent away from South Caro 
 lina and advertised like runaway slaves, or crimi 
 nals escaped from the penitentiary, because one of 
 them said he was in favor of Free Kansas ; with 
 the expulsion ef the booksellers from Mobile, and 
 the outrages upon free speech at Wheeling and 
 Baltimore ; and the still greater outrage upon the 
 freedom of debate by the brutal attack upon Mr. 
 Sumn^r, which has disgraced the country in the 
 eyts of the whole civilized world. 
 
 But thero is still another section, under which 
 any conscientious free State man, who eveu hands 
 to his neighbour this speech or any other harangue 
 delivered in the free States upon the coming elec 
 tions, may be visited with a much severer punish 
 ment, for it is only pro-slavery juries and judges 
 who can try him by the laws of Kansas. 
 
 " Sect. 11. if any person print, write, introduce 
 into, publish, or circulate, or cause to be brought 
 into, printed, written, published or circulated, or 
 shall knowingly aid or assist in bringing into, 
 printing, publishing, or circulating within this 
 Territory any book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, 
 hand-bill, or circular, containing any statements, 
 arguments, opinions, sentiments, doctrine, advice 
 or inuendo, calculated to produce a disorderly, 
 dangerous or rebellious disaffection among the 
 slaves in this Territory, or to induce slaves to es 
 cape from the service of their masters or to resist 
 their authority, he shall be guilty of felony and be 
 punished by imprisonment at hard labour for a 
 term of not less than five years." 
 
 From these enactments it is certain that a speech 
 in favor of Fremont in Kansas would place the 
 speaker in the penitentiary, or rather condemn him 
 to the ball and chain. 
 
 Under such laws no man cculd advocate any 
 candidate upon the ground either that he was op 
 posed to slavery in Kansas and would so vote in 
 the Legislature, or if in a convention to form a 
 State government, would vote for the prohibition of 
 slavery jn the constitution. These laws, in fact, 
 nullify all the provisions of the organic law. 
 
 The provisions as to Attorneys-at-Law, Jurors 
 and voters are all intended, by prescribing oaths 
 which cannot be taken by free State men, to throw 
 the whole power of the legLlative and judicial 
 branches of Government into the bands of pro- 
 slavery men of the Border-ruffian stamp, which, 
 
14 
 
 with the appointments by the executive at Wash 
 ington, givo the whole power in Kansas to the 
 Missouri invaders. 
 
 No matter, therefore, what may be the majority 
 of free State men iu Kansas, under such laws 
 they are powerless. 
 
 Ihtie is every reason, therefore, that being null 
 and void, these laws should be nullified forever by 
 a change in the administration at Washington, 
 which can be done by an united effort of the friends 
 of freedom in Pennsylvania in favor of Fremont 
 and Dayton. 
 
 These crimes in Kansas and Missouri, the acts 
 of fraud and violence committed by the iJor- 
 der Ruffians in both, the acts I have already 
 enumerated, and not the least the killing of 
 the nnocent and unoffending Keating, not 
 one of which crimes have ever been, or ever 
 will be, punished, by the authorities iu the slave 
 States, ciinonly be accounted for by the deliberate 
 opinion of Thomas Jefferson, of the dreadful effect 
 Oi slavery upon the masters : " There must doubt 
 less, be," said this eminent patriot, " an unhappy 
 influence on the manners of our people, produced 
 by the existence of s-bivery among us. The whole 
 commerce between master and slav> is a perpetual 
 exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most 
 unremitting despotism on the one part, and de 
 grading submission on the other. Our children 
 see this and learn to imitate it; for man is an imi 
 tative animal. This quality is the germ of all 
 education in him. From bis cradle to his grave 
 he is learning to do what he sees others do. 
 If a parent could find no motive either in his 
 philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining 
 the intemperance of passion towards bis slave, it 
 should always be a sufficient one that hi.-- child 
 is present. But generally it is not sufficient. 
 The parent storms, the child looks on, catches 
 the lineament* of wrath, puts oa the same airs in 
 the circle of Mnailer slavtv, y-j>e a loose to his 
 worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated and 
 daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped 
 by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be 
 a prodigy who can retain his manners and mo 
 rals undepruved by such circumstances, and with 
 what execration should the utateisman be loaded who, 
 permitting one half of the citizens thus to trample on 
 theri ihts of the other, transforms those int< despots 
 and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one 
 part and the amor patriot} of the other !" 
 
 Aitt-r perusing this painful picture by the au 
 thor of the immortal Declaration of Independence, 
 what true-hearted son of Pennsylvania can refuse 
 to vote for free Kansas. 
 
 The judicial department in Kansas appears to 
 be on a level with the Legislature, if the accounts 
 of the charges and decisions of the Judge be cor 
 rect. It was supposed that the Treason Trials at 
 Philadelphia had disposed of the whole doctrine 
 of constructive treason, by showing that the Eng 
 lish decisions in Messenger and Damaree and Pur 
 chase s cases were not regarded as good law, even 
 in England, the first being the miserable opinion 
 of one of the most contemptible judges that ever 
 disgraced the bench of a court of justice, and the 
 other being founded upon it. 
 
 It appears, however, that the Chief Justice of 
 Kansas believes in constructive treason, and that 
 it eonsii-ts, in his opinion, in an opposition to the 
 Territorial laws, which, being passed under the 
 authority of the Nebraska-Kansas Act by the Ter 
 ritorial Legislature, he says become laws of the 
 United Stales, and, therefore, it is treason against 
 the United States! 
 
 This is upon a par with the Grand Jury of his 
 Court finding a printing press and hotel, in Law 
 
 rence, nuisances, and their abatement in conse 
 quence of these findings, by the officers of justice, 
 at the head of a body of armed ruffians, cannon 
 ading and burning the one, and destroying the 
 other. 
 
 If General Jackson had been President instead 
 of Gem ral Pierce, not one of these crimes against 
 Kansas would have been committed, the Missouri 
 Compromise would never have been repealed, the 
 Border Ruffians nevtr would have invaded and 
 taken military possession of the Territory, nor 
 would the access by the great highway of the Mis- 
 souri have been closed against the free citizens 
 of the free States for a single hour. Every man 
 who hears me knows and feels this to be true. 
 His name alone would have awed the fiercest 
 spirits into submission to the majesty of the law. 
 
 CUBA AND THE OSTEND MANIFESTO. 
 
 I spent some weeks in Cuba, this spring, for the 
 benefit of the health of a near relative, who re 
 quired the change t<> a milder climate. Our party, 
 none of whom spoke the Spanish language, after 
 staying some days in the picturesque city of Ha 
 vana, crossed to the south side, and remained for 
 some time on one of the finest sugar plantations 
 in the island, belonging to a friend. During our 
 whole visit we found the authorities of the island 
 very friendly, and particularly attentive to Ame 
 ricans, whilst we were received and treated by all 
 the inhabitants we saw in the course of our travels, 
 with a politeness, kindness, and courtesy peculiar 
 to the Spanish nation. 
 
 I am unable, therefore, to appreeiate the mo 
 rality or justice of taking Cuba by force if Spnin 
 will not sell it, and to look with coolness on the 
 devastation and ruin which must await this delight 
 ful island and its inhabitants if invaded by the 
 army and navy of the United States. 
 
 It was to be hoped That the celebrated Ostend 
 manifesto would have sunk into oblivion: but as it 
 has been made one of the planks of the Cincinnati 
 platform, by language which will be interpreted to 
 suit the occasion, it is but proper and right to ex 
 press our disapprobation of the doctrines and prin 
 ciples contained in it. 
 
 The almost fabulous sum which has been offered 
 for the Island could be much better applied to the 
 construction of tbe great railroad to the Pacific, 
 which will be carried through Kansas if free, and 
 which will give us a certain and swift line of com 
 munication within our own Territories between the 
 two oceans without embroiling ourselves with fo 
 reign nations. 
 
 FREE LABOR. 
 
 I should not have said another word on the evils 
 of slavery except for the constant and unremitting 
 attacks of Southern politicians and of the Southern 
 press supporting the Cincinnati platform and its 
 nominees, upon the free white citizens of the North, 
 with their wives and families, who lire by the 
 honest labor of their own hands. 
 
 Slavery is declared to be a patriarchal institution 
 necessary for the advancement of the human race, 
 and that it includes from necessity both whites and 
 blacks. "The South maintains that slavery is 
 riyht, natural and necessary, and does not depend 
 upon difference of complexion. The laws of the 
 slave States justify the holding of white men in 
 bondage." Richmond Enquirer. 
 
 " Slavery is the natural and normal condition of 
 the laboring man, whethtr white or black. The 
 great evil of Northern society is that it is bur- 
 thened with a servile class of mechanics and la- 
 
15 
 
 borers, unfit for self-government, and yet clothed 
 with the attributes and powers of citizens." 
 
 "We have got to hating everything with the 
 prefix free, from free negroes down and through 
 the whole catalogue, free farms, free labor, free 
 society, free will, free thinking, free children and 
 free schools, all belonging to the same brood of 
 damnable isms." (South Side Democrat.) 
 
 "Free Society ! we sicken of the name what is 
 it but a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, 
 filthy operatives, small fisted farmers, and moon 
 struck theorists." (Muscoyee Herald.) 
 
 These nre true extracts from the Southern papers 
 all advocating the Cincinnati platform, and ex 
 hibiting the real views of the Southern apostles 
 who are wandering hrough our State to teach the 
 people of Pennsylvania to prefer slavery to free 
 dom, to prefer being "owned" instead of being 
 hired. 
 
 In the Southern States there are upwards of 
 three millions of people without the divine institu 
 tion of marriage, who have neither wives, husbands, 
 nor children, except as the ftal follows the mare. 
 All, from infancy to old age. without distinction of 
 sex, or even of color (for the shades are from black 
 to white,) are liable to whipping cruel and im 
 moderate whipping in private by their masters, 
 provided it does nor affect life or limb. The infant 
 may be separated from its mother, and be sold into 
 distant slavery, at the will or caprice of the master, 
 or hy the iron hand of the law. Three millions of 
 souls in a Chii.-tian land, whether slave or free, are 
 forbidden to learn to read or write, and of course 
 forbidden to read the Bible; whilst free white wo 
 men are punished with -fine and imprisonment for 
 doing what, on the const ot Africa, would be con 
 sidered tiie chief end of mit>siouar.v labor. The vices 
 and degradation of slavery need no enumeration; 
 and their effect on the white races has been 
 graphically portrayed by Col. Mason, of Virginia. 
 "Christians," fays a Southern Judve, "how can 
 we justify it that a sluve is not to be allowed to 
 read the Bible?" 
 
 In the South, no large cities call for free white 
 mechanical or other labor, ami the interior is vir 
 tually closed to ah free white labour by the weal 
 thy slave owner, who employs only his white over 
 seers and his black slaves, whether in the labor of 
 the field, the house, the shop and even in the ma 
 nufactory. 
 
 lu a Southern State all free white male, (and 
 in some places female; inhabitants are liable to do 
 patroi duty, that is to watch over the slaves of their 
 rich neighbors, and they are called out at least 
 once a fortnight, and may correct with stripes, all 
 slaves infringing the slave regulations in the 
 slightest particular. 
 
 Does any free white man, with his family and 
 their labor, think of going to South Carolina, the 
 head quarters of Southern slavery? If this be so, 
 why should such a system be tolerated for a mo 
 ment in territory now free, and thus exclude the 
 native Pennsylvanian, or the hardy emigrant from 
 Europe tor sett ling in the far West. The intro 
 duction of slavery is tbe permanent exclusion 
 of the white freemen and free white labor. 
 
 I have not thought it worth while to paint the 
 true state of society in the North, with its mani 
 fold blessings, for they are known and felt by all 
 of us. So great are our improvements that I was 
 assured by a gentleman intimately acquainted 
 with both the North and the South, that the re 
 spectable mechanics of Philadelphia had better 
 accommodations, and enjoyed in fact more real 
 comforts than the Georgia planter did on his plan 
 tation. 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 UPON THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY. FROM TIIE ACT OF 1780 TO 
 LHE PRESENT TIME. THE LEGISLATIVE Of PENNSYLVANIA 
 IN FAVOR OP FREEDOM 
 
 In the year 1819, Mr. Buchanan was one of a 
 committee who reported resolutions to a meeting, 
 held at Lancaster, requesting their Representatives 
 in Congress to use their utmost endeavors to pre 
 vent the existence of slavery in any of the Terri 
 tories or States which may be erected by Congress. 
 In the same year were passed unanimously by trie 
 Legislature, the celebrated preamble and resolu 
 tions, offered by Mr. W. J. Duane, against the ad 
 mission of Missouri as a slave State. It was 
 signed by Governor Findlay, and it spoke the sen 
 timents of the whole State. 
 
 On the 23d January, 1829, a resolution was 
 passed unanimout-ly in the Senate, and by a vote 
 of 81 to 8 in the House, "That the Senators of this 
 State, in the Senate of tbe United States, be and 
 they are hereby instructed, and the Representa 
 tives of this State in Congress be and they are 
 hereby requested to procure, if practicable, the 
 passage of a law to abolish slavery in the District 
 of Columbia, in such a manner as they may con 
 sider consistent with the rights of individuals and 
 the Constitution of the United Spates." 
 
 It was signed by the pre ent Treaj-urer of the 
 Mint, as Speaker of the Seriate, and approved by 
 Governor Shulze, and it was voted for in the Senate 
 and the House by two gentlemen who were after 
 wards members of Governor Shunk s Cabinet. 
 
 On the 22d January, 1S47, a resolution, offered 
 by a Democratic member, passed the House unani 
 mously and the Senate wittj only three dissentients, 
 requesting our Senators and Representatives to 
 vote against any measure by which Territories 
 may accrue to the Union, unless, as part of the 
 fundamental law upon which any compact or trea 
 ty for this purpose is based, slavery or involunta 
 ry servitude, except for crime, shall bo forever 
 prohibited. This met the approbatioH of Gover 
 nor St unk. 
 
 On the 3d of March, 1847, an A"t was passed 
 and approved by Governor Shunk, abolisiriug the 
 last remnant of slavery within our own limits so 
 that every man, except a fugitive from labor, upon 
 touching the soil of Pennsylvania became a tree 
 man. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan wrote a letter to the Democratic 
 citizens of Reading, at their celebration on the 
 4th of July, 1847, recommending the Missouri 
 Compromise Line. 
 
 On the 4th of July, 1849, a resolution was passed 
 unanimously ai the Democratic State Convention, 
 held at Pittsburgh, against the extension of slave 
 ry to the Territories, and it-< nominee for Canal 
 Commissioner, Mr. Gamble, wrote a letter recog 
 nizing, in the strongest terms, the power of Con 
 gress to prohibit slavery in the Territories, and 
 the propriety ot doing so. Mr. Gamble was elect 
 ed by a large majority. 
 
 THE PLATFORMS. 
 
 Of late years the South have adopted the policy 
 of nominating Northern men with Southern prin 
 ciples, and to them has virtually been jjiven the 
 privilege of selecting the candidate, at.d announc 
 ing ibe principles upon whicn his admini.-trution 
 is to be conducted. 
 
 Thus, though in a decided minority, by always 
 acting as an unit, d force, they have secured to 
 themselves the whole power of shaping the policy 
 of tbe government. 
 
 Ibe South it>elf, against its will, is governed by 
 a small body of slaveholders, who, founding their 
 
16 
 
 power upon their ownership of human beings, are 
 constantly engaged in plans to enl.-irge the area of 
 slavery so as to afford a larger innrkec for thuir hu 
 man chattels. The effect of this is to place the 
 government in the possession of a privileged class, 
 a sort of slave nobility, and the President becomes 
 a puppet in the bands of irresponsible and inte 
 rested advisers, who force him into measures 
 which his better nature would shrink from. 
 
 As their policy has prospered so has their au 
 dacity increased, until at last, at Cincinnati, it is 
 developed in a form which will leave little more to 
 be done in favor of slavery by the next Conven 
 tion, which meets at Charleston, the hot-bed of 
 Southern slave fanaticism. 
 
 The Cincinnati Platform, in plain words, nega 
 tives all power in Congress over slavery in the 
 Territories, and, as a corollary, refuses it to the 
 people of the Territory, who cannot have what 
 Congress has net, and which, of course, it cannot 
 delegate to another. The result is the adoption 
 of the new-fjngled Southern theory, spun out of 
 brains of men who profess to believe slavery to be 
 a divine institution, intended for the benefit of 
 man in his most progressive state, that any slave 
 holder has a right to take his slaves into any of 
 the Territories of the United States, and to hold 
 them there as he would in the State from which 
 he emigrated. The effect of this monstrous doc 
 trine is to change all the territory of the United 
 States, whether Oregon, Washing toe, Minnesota, 
 New Mexico, Utah, Kansas or Nebraska into 
 slave territory. 
 
 The effect of this would be to surrender 842,- 
 119,040 acres to 347,225 slaveholders, and to ex 
 clude the remaining 19,205.843 free white inhabi 
 tants of the United States from a.il enjoyment of 
 them, or any participation in their government, 
 and finally to erect them into an indefinite number 
 of slave States. 
 
 The Convention at Charles on, in 1860, can only 
 add to this degradation office white men and free 
 white labor, and the entire prostration of free 
 speech and of a free press; the re-establishment of 
 the African slave trade, which we have denounced 
 in the face of the civilized world as a crime against 
 the law of nature and abuorrentto humanity, stig 
 matized it as piracy, and punished it with death. 
 There is, however, one thing further, which the 
 slaveholders have already practically asserted, 
 and which may be, and no doubt will be, inserted 
 in the Charleston platform, their inherent right to 
 curry into and hold their slaves in the free States 
 against the expr-ss prohibitions of their constitu 
 tions and their laws. 
 
 These Southern heresies thus publicly an 
 nounced by regular Conventions of the party, if 
 not resisted and put down at the outset, not only 
 enter into the. policy of the Executive Government, 
 but finally make their appearance in the judicial 
 decisions of the country. In the Southern States, 
 where all the judges are slaveholders, the original 
 line of decision, which in conformity with the com 
 mon law was always in favor of freedom and 
 against slavery, has been entirely reversed, and 
 the contrary rule is now firmly established. 
 
 These dogmas thus made law by interested and 
 prejudiced Courts, are finally used in the highest 
 tribunal of the nation as binding authorities, al 
 though contrary to all the received doctrines of 
 the Common Law, and the old established princi- 
 
 ples of American Liberty. In fine, the result and 
 the true object of the Cincinnati Platform is to 
 make Kansas a Slave State. 
 
 Upon this Pro Slavery Platform stand its nomi 
 nees, James Buchanan and John C. Breckinridge, 
 the Litter gentleman agreeing in opinion and feel 
 ing with all its doctrines, and the first bound to 
 carry them out to their fullest ext ut by his un 
 qualified acceptance of the nomination and of the 
 principles upon which it was made. 
 
 Of the three proposed candidates of the Demo 
 cratic party I preferred Mr, Buchanan, and if he 
 h;id been placed beiore the country upon princi 
 ples which I could have approved, he would un 
 doubtedly have received my vote at the ensuing 
 Presidential election. 
 
 But the platform on which, he stands renders it 
 impossible for me to vote for him, and I am there 
 fore obliged to look for my candidate in some 
 other Quarter. 
 
 I have carefully studied the Republican plat 
 form, and its principles meet my most cordial ap 
 probation. I disapprove of polygamy in Utah as 
 I do of slavery in Kansas, for both are against the 
 natural and revealed law, the one in allowing a 
 man to have forty wives and the other in not per 
 mitting him to have any at nil. I am against seiz 
 ing Cuba under any pretence whatever, and in 
 favor of devoting the money intended for the pur 
 chase of a slave colony and a slave State to the 
 erection of the great Pacific Railroad, terminating 
 on the shores of the western ocean. 
 
 I am iu favor of the restoration of the Missouri 
 Comoromise, of Kansas being a free territory and 
 a free Stale ; and to obtain all the^e great objects I 
 have no other option left than to vote for John 
 Charles Freeraont of California and William L. 
 Dayton of New Jersey as President and Vice 
 President of the United States. 
 
 Colonel Fremont is in the prime of life and near 
 the same age as General Washington was, when he 
 accepted the command of the American armie.->and 
 surprised the British at Trenton, oue of his niuat 
 brilliant exploits. 
 
 Colonel Fremont is a man of great natural saga 
 city, and possesses a calm, clear judgment, im 
 proved by t-tudy and a large experience, of human 
 nature in all its forms, whether of savage or civil 
 ized life. He is unassuming in his manner:-, with, 
 a striking personal appearance aud a remarkably 
 fine eye, strongly indicative of a prominent fea 
 ture in his character, a firm and vigorous will. 
 
 His administration will bring back those good 
 old days when the incumbent of the White House 
 was the actual President, and governed his Cabi 
 net as well as the people of America. 
 
 William L. Dayton is the ablest lawyer of his 
 native State, distinguished as it always has been 
 for its eminent jurists, and in the Senate of tiio 
 United States was conspicuous for his talents, his 
 eloqu nee, and his statesmanlike views, lie is dig 
 nified and courteous in his bt-aring, and will make 
 an admirable presiding officer in the Senate of the 
 Union. 
 
 What then, fellow-citizens, are we to do, who are 
 in favour of Free Kansas and Free Territory and 
 Free Labour at the coming elections ? 
 
 There can be but one answer, to vote for 
 FREMONT AND DAYTON. 
 
II 
 
YC 08704 
 
 M160480 
 
 *1 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY