REMA.RKS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HON. STEPHEN A.. DOUGLAS, 
 
 KANSAS, UTAH, 
 
 THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 Delivered at Springfield, Illinois, June 12th, 1857. 
 
 CHICAGO: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE DAILY TIMES BOOK AND JOB OFFICE. 
 
 SO. 48 LA SALLR STREBT, SECOND AND THIRD BTORIBS. 
 
 1857. 
 
University of California Berkeley 
 
KANSAS, UTAH, & THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 HON. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, 
 
 DKM7BXBI) AT THE >TATB HOITSK IK IPRINQFIBI.I), JUXB 12, 1W7. 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen : I appear before you to-night, at the 
 request of the Grand Jury in attendance upon the United States Court, for the 
 purpose of submitting my views upon certain topics upon which they have 
 expressed a desire to hear me. It was not my purpose, when I arrived 
 among you, to have engaged in any public or political discussion ; but when 
 called upon by a body of gentlemen so intelligent and respectable, coming 
 from all parts of the State, and connected with the administration of public 
 justice, I do not feel at liberty to withhold a full and frank expression 
 of my opinion upon the subjects to which they have referred, and which now 
 engross so large a share of the public attention. 
 
 The points which I am requested to discuss are 
 
 1st. The present condition and prospects of Kansas. 
 
 2d. The principles affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 
 the Dred Scott case. 
 
 3d. The condition of things in Utah, and the appropriate remedies for 
 existing evils. 
 
 Of the Kansas question but little need be said at the present time. You 
 are familiar with the history of the question, and my connection with it. 
 Subsequent reflection has strengthened and confirmed my convictions in the 
 soundness of the principles on which I acted, and the correctness of the course 
 I have felt it my duty to pursue upon that subject. Kansas is about to speak 
 for herself, through her delegates assembled in convention to form a constitu- 
 tion, preparatory to her admission into the Union on an equal footing with 
 the original States. Peace and prosperity now prevail throughout her 
 borders. The law under which her delegates are about to be elected is be- 
 lieved to be just and fair in all its objects and provisions. There is every 
 reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impar- 
 tially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet 
 
exercise of the 1 elective franchise. If any portion of the inhabitants, acting 
 under the advice of political leade* s in distant States, shall choose to absent 
 themselves from the polls and withhold their votes, with a view of leaving 
 the Free State Democrats in a minority, thus securing a pro-slavery consti- 
 tution in opposition to the wishes of a majority of the people living under it, 
 let the responsibility rest on those who, for partizan purposes, will sacrifice 
 the principles they profess to cherish and promote. Upon them and upon the 
 political party for whose benefit, and under the direction of whose leaders, 
 they act, let the blame be visited for fastening upon the people of a new State 
 institutions repugnant to their feelings and in violation of their wishes. The 
 organic act secures to the people of Kansas the sole and exclusive right of 
 forming and regulating their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject 
 to no other limitation than that which the Constitution of the United States 
 imposes. The Democratic party is determined to see the great fundamental 
 principles of the organic act carried out in good faith. The present election 
 law in Kansas, is acknowledged to be fair and just the rights of the voters 
 are clearly defined and the exercise of those rights will be efficiently and 
 scrupulously protected. Hence, if the majority of the people of Kansas desire 
 to have it a free State, (and we are told by the Republican party that nine- 
 tenths of the people of that territory are free State men, ) there is no obstacle 
 in the way of bringing Kansas into the Union as a free State, by the votes 
 and voice of her own people, and in conformity with the great principles of 
 the Kansas-Nebraska act provided all the Free State men will go to the 
 polls and vote their principles in accordance with their professions. If such 
 is not the result let the consequences be visited upon the heads of those whose 
 policy it is to produce strife, anarchy, and bloodshed in Kansas, that their 
 party may profit by slavery agitation in the Northern States of this Union. 
 That the Democrats of Kansas will perform their duty fearlessly and nobly, 
 according to the principles they cherish, I have no doubt; and that the result 
 of the struggle will be such as will gladden the heart and strengthen the hopes 
 of every friend of the Union, I have entire confidence. 
 
 The Kansas question being settled peacefully and satisfactorily, in accord- 
 ance with the wishes of her own people, slavery agitation should be banished 
 from the halls of Congress and cease to-be an exciting element in our political 
 struggles. Give fair play to that principle of self-government which recog- 
 nises the right of 4 the people of each State and Territory to form and regulate 
 their own domestic institutions, and sectional strife will be forced to give place 
 to that fraternal feeling which animated the fathers of the Revolution, and 
 made every citizen of every State of this glorious confederacy a member of a 
 mon brotherhood. 
 
 hat we are steadily and rapidly approaching that result, I cannot doubt, 
 the slavery issue has already dwindled down into the narrow limits covered 
 by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott 
 case. The moment that decision was pronounced, and before the opinions of 
 the Court could be published and read by the people, the newspaper press, in 
 the interest of a powerful political party in this country, began to pour forth 
 torrents of abuse and misrepresentations not only upon the decision, but upon 
 the character and motives of the venerable chief justice and his illustrious 
 associates on the bench. The character of Chief Justice Taney and his asso- 
 ciate judges, who concurred with him, require no eulogy no vindication from 
 
me. They are endeared to the people of the United States by their eminent 
 public services venerated for their great learning, wisdom, and experience 
 and beloved for the spotless purity of their characters and their exemplary 
 lives. The poisonous shafts of partizan malice will fall harmless at their feet, 
 while their judicial decisions will stand in all future time, a proud monument 
 to their greatness, the admiration of the good and wise, and a rebuke to the 
 partizans of faction and lawless violence. If, unfortunately, any considerable 
 portion of the people of the United States shall so far forget their obligations 
 to society as to allow partizan leaders to array them in violent resistance 
 to the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal on earth, it will become 
 the duty of all the friends of order and constitutional government, without 
 reference to past political differences, to organize themselves and marshal 
 their forces under the glorious banner of the Union, in vindication of the con- 
 stitution and the supremacy of the laws over the advocates of faction and the 
 champions of violence. To preserve the constitution inviolate, and vindicate 
 the supremacy of the laws, is the first and highest duty of every citizen of a 
 free republic. The peculiar merit of our form of government over ail others 
 consists in the fact that the law, instead of the arbitrary will of a hereditary 
 prince, prescribes, defines, and protects all our rights. *fn this country the 
 law is the will Of the people, embodied and expressed according to the forms 
 of the constitution. The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the constitu- 
 tion, and created by the authority of the people, to determine, expound, and 
 enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest 
 judicial tribunal, aims a deadly blow at our whole republican system of gov- 
 ernment a blow, which if successful, would place all our rights and liberties 
 at the mercy of passion, anarchy, and violence.^ I repeat, therefore, that if 
 resistance to the dechijnsof the Supreme Court of the United States, -in a 
 matter, like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their 
 jurisdiction as defined by the constitution shall be forced upon the country as 
 a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends 
 and the enemies of the constitution the friends and the enemies of the 
 supremacy of the laws. 
 
 The case of Dred Sej&kwas an action of trespass, vi et armis, in the circuit 
 court of the United States for the district of Missouri, for the purpose of 
 establishing his claim to be a free man, and was taken by writ of error, on the 
 application of Scott, to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the 
 final decision was pronounced by Chief Justice Taney. The facts of the case 
 were agreed upon and admitted to be true by both parties, and were in sub- 
 stance, that Dred Scott was a negro slave in Missouri ; that he went with his 
 master, who was an officer of the army, to Fort Armstrong, on Rock Island ; 
 thence to Fort Snelling, on the west ba:;k of the Mississippi river and 
 within the country covered by the act of Congress known as the Missouri 
 compromise ; and thence he accompanied his master to the State of Mis- 
 souri, where he has since remained a slave> Upon this statement of facts two 
 important and material questions arose, besides several incidental and minor 
 ones, which it was incumbent upon the court to take notice of and decide. 
 The court did not attempt to avoid responsibility by disposing of the case 
 upon technical points without touching the merits, nor did they go out of their 
 way to decide questions not properly before them and directly presented by 
 the record. Like honest and conscientious judges ., they met and decided 
 
6 
 
 each point as it arose, and faithfully performed their whole duty and nothing 
 but their duty to the country, by determining all the questions in the case, 
 and nothing but what was essential to the decision of the case upon its 
 merits. The State courts of Missouri had decided against Dred Scott, and 
 declared him and his children slaves, and the circuit court of the United 
 States, for the district of Missouri, had decided the same thing in this very 
 case, which had thus been removed to the Supreme Court' of the United 
 States by Scott, with the hope of reversing the decision of the circuit court 
 and securing his freedom. If the Supreme Court had dismissed the writ of 
 error for want of jurisdiction, without first examining into and deciding the 
 merits of the case, as they are now denounced and . abused for not having 
 done, the result would have been to remand Dred Scott and his children to 
 perpetual slavery, under the decisions which had already been pronounced by 
 the supreme court of Missouri, as well as by the Circuit Court of the United 
 States, without obtaining a decision on the merits of his case. Suppose Chief 
 Justice Taney and his associates had thus remanded Dred Scott and his chil- 
 dren back to slavery on a plea of abatement, or any mere technical point not 
 touching the merits of the question, and without deciding whether under the 
 constitution and laws, as applied to the facts of the case, he was a free man 
 or a slave, would they not have been denounced with increased virulence and 
 bitterness, on the charge of having remanded Dred Scott to perpetual slavery 
 without first examining the merits of his case and ascertaining whether he was 
 a slave or not. 
 
 If the case had been disposed of in that way, who can doubt that such 
 would have been the character of the denunciations which would have been 
 hurled upon the devoted heads of those illustrious judges, with much more 
 plausibility and show of fairness than they are now denounced for having 
 decided the case fairly and honestly upon its merits? 
 
 The material and controlling points in the case those which have been 
 made the subject of unmeasured abuse and denunciation, may be thus stated : 
 
 1st. The court decided that, under the constitution of the United States, a 
 negro descended from slave parents is not and cannot be a citizen of the Uni- 
 ted States. 
 
 2d. That the act of the 6th of March, 1820, commonly called the Missouri 
 compromise act, was unconstitutional and void before it was repealed by the 
 Nebraska act, and consequently did not and could not have the legal effect of 
 extinguishing a master's right to a slave in that territory. While the right 
 continues in full force under the guarantees of the constitution, and cannot be 
 divested or alienated by an act of Congress, it necessarily remains a barren 
 and a worthless right, unless sustained, protected and enforced, by appropriate 
 police regulations and local legislation, prescribing adequate remedies for its 
 violation. These regulations and remedies must necessarily depend entirely 
 upon the will and wishes of the people of the territory, as they can only be 
 prescribed by the local legislatures. Hence the great principle of popular sov- 
 ereignty and self-government is sustained and firmly established by the authority 
 of this decision. Thus it appears that the only sin involved in the passage of 
 the Kansas-Nebraska act, consists in the fact that it removed from the statute 
 book an act of Congress, which was unauthorized by the constitution of the 
 United States, and void because passed without constitutional authority, and 
 substituted in lieu of it that great, fundamental principle of self-government, 
 
which recognizes the right of the people of each State and Territory to form 
 and regulate their domestic institutions and internal affairs to suit themselves, 
 in accordance with the constitution. [Applause,] The wisdom and propriety 
 of the measure have been sustained by the decision of the highest judicial tri- 
 bunal on earth, and ratified and approved by the voice of the American people, 
 in the election of James Buchanan to the Presidency of the United States, 
 upon that naked and distinct issue. I am willing to rest the vindication of the 
 measure and my action in connection with it upon that decision and that ver- 
 dict of the American people. [Immense Applause.] 
 
 Passing from this, I will proceed to the discussion of the main proposition 
 decided by the court, which is, that under the constitution of the United States, 
 a negro, descended from slave parents imported from Africa, is not and cannot 
 be a citizen of the United States. 
 
 .We are told by the leaders of the Republican or Abolition party that this / 
 proposition is cruel, inhuman and infamous, and should not be respected nor *-""" 
 obeyed by any good citizen. In what does the objection consist ? Wherein 
 is the cruelty, the inhumanity, the infamy ? It is supposed to consist in depri- 
 ving the negro of citizenship, and consequently excluding him from the exercise 
 of those rights and privileges which are enjoyed in common, and on terms of 
 entire equality, by all American citizens, whether native-born or naturalized. 
 They quote the Declaration of Independence, which says, " We hold these tenths 
 to be self-evident that all men are CREATED EQUAL," and insist that this language 
 referred to, and was intended to include, negroes, as well as white men; that it 
 embraced men of all races and colors, and placed them on a footing of entire arid 
 absolute equality: and that the battles of the revolution were fought in defence 
 of the principle, and the foundations of this glorious republic were firmly planted 
 on the immovable basis of the perfect equality of the races. Hence they argue 
 that any law or regulation, whether under the authority of the State govern : 
 ments or that of the United States, in violation of this fundamental principl eo f 
 negro equality with white men, is not only cruel, inhuman and infamous, ^^ j s 
 subversive of the foundations of the government jtself, and therefore or^j lt not 
 to be respected or obeyed by any good citizen.? _ff we grant the tri; 4Cn O f their 
 premises it would be vain to resist the force of tneir reasoning or r j ne correctness 
 of their conclusions. Indeed, we would be compelled as hone^^e^ to acknow- 
 ledge and adopt the principle, and carry it out in good fa^ch in all our political 
 action, by modifying or repealing any legal or constitutional provision in con- 
 flict with that principle. Let us examine and see <vhat changes this principle 
 would require in the constitution and laws of this '.State, as well as of the United 
 States. Of course it would instantly emancipate and set at liberty every slave 
 in each State of this Union, and in every place under the American flag, and 
 within the jurisdiction of the federal constitution. Slavery being thus abolished, 
 the same principle would compel us to strike from the constitution of Illinois 
 the clause which denies to a negro, whether free or slave, the ri^ht to come and 
 live among us, and in lieu of it to open the door for the three millions of eman- 
 cipated slaves to enter and become citizens on an equality with ourselves. The 
 same principle would compel us to strike the word "white" from our constitution, 
 and allow the negro to vote on an equality with white men and of course out- 
 vote us at the polls when they become a majority. The same principle would 
 compel us to change the constitution so as to render a negro eligible to the 
 legislature, to the bench, to the governship. to Congress, to the Presidency, and 
 
8 
 
 to all other places of honor, profit or trust, on an equal tooting with white men. 
 When all these things shall have been done, and the principle of negro equality 
 shall have been fully carried out to this extent, still the requirements of the 
 Declaration of Independence will not have been satisfied, if it really means, what 
 the Republican or Abolition party assert it does mean, in declaring that a negro 
 was created by the Almighty equal to a white man. If their interpretation of 
 the Declaration of Independence be correct, and the prkciple of negro equality 
 be true, as supposed by the opponents of the Dred Suott decision, we shall cer- 
 tainly be compelled, as conscientious and just men, to go one step further 
 repeal all laws making any distinction whatever on account of race and color, 
 and authorize negroes to marry white women on an equality with white men. 
 [Immense cheering.] 
 
 When the Republican or Abolition party shall have done all these things, and 
 thus have carried into practical operation the Declaration of Independence, as 
 they understand it, they will have laid the foundation for their organized oppo- 
 sition to so much of the decision of the Dred Scott case, as declares that a negro 
 is not a citizen of the United States. [Great Applause.] 
 
 If, on the contrary, the opponents of the Dred Scott decision shall refuse to 
 carry out their views of the Declaration of Independence and negro citizenship, 
 by conferring upon the African race all the rights, privileges and immunities of 
 citizenship, the same as they are or should be enjoyed By the white, how will they 
 vindicate the integrity of their motives and the sincerity of their profession ? If 
 the negro is the equal of the white man and was thus created by the Almighty, 
 what right have they or we to reduce him to a condition of inequality, by denying 
 to him the privilege of voting, holding office, rnairyiag the woman of his 
 choice, io short, withholding from him all political rights, and consigning him to 
 political slavery ? Perceiving the inconsistency between their professions and 
 their past action on this point, the leaders of the Republican^ or Abolition 
 party in the Legislature of New York } and some of the New England States, 
 and indeed in Wisconsin and in such other States as they think public sentiment 
 is prepared for the measure, have recently taken the preliminary steps to 
 amend the Constitution of their respective States, so as to allow negroes to vote 
 and hold office, and enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizenship on an 
 equal footing with white men. These movements have been initiated in those 
 States and will soon follow in others, upon the ground that the Republican 
 party was bound and pledged, by its creed and its professions as proclaimed 
 from the pulpit, from the stump, and through the newspaper press to carry 
 out the Declaration of Independence, as they profess to understand it, by 
 placing the negro on an equality with the white man, in all those States in 
 which they carried the Presidential election lust fall, and secured the absolute 
 control of all the departments of the St;.te government. It is not to be pre- 
 sumed that any step for changing the constitution of Illinois, so as to confer 
 the rights and privileges of citizenship upon negroes, will be taken until after 
 the next election, nor will any such purpose be openly avowed, but, on the 
 contrary, in the central and southern portions of the State it will be stoutly 
 denied, at the same time that all their orators, lecturers, and papers will con- 
 tinue to quote the Declaration of Independence to prove that the Almighty 
 created a negro equal to a white man, and consequently he has a divine right 
 to enjoy all the rights and privileges of the white man, and that all human 
 laws in conflict with that divine right must yield and give place to the "higher 
 
law." The time has not arrived when it is deemed prudent by the leaders of 
 the Republican party, in this State, to make a frank and honest confession of 
 faith, and proclaim it to the world in tones that can be heard and language 
 that can be understood to mean the same thing in all portions of the State, 
 But so long as they quote the Declaration of Independence to prove that a 
 negro was created equal to a white man, we have no excuse for closing our 
 eyes and professing ignorance of what they intend to do, so soon as they get 
 the power. 
 
 To show how shallow is the pretense that the Declaration of Independence 
 had reference to, or included, the negro race when it declared all men created 
 equal, it is only necessary to refer to a few historical facts, recorded in our 
 school books, and familiar to our children. 
 
 On the 4th of July, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was pro- 
 mulgated to the world, A frican slavery existed in each one of the thirteen 
 colonies. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence was elected by, 
 and represented, a slaveholding constituency. Every battle of the revolution, 
 from Lexington and Bunker Hill to King's Mountain and Yorktown, was fought 
 in a slaveholding State. 
 
 The treaty of peace, acknowledging and confirming the independence of the 
 United States, was made and signed on behalf of Great Britain of the one part 
 and of the thirteen slaveholding States on the other. 
 
 The 1 Constitution of the United States, under which we now live so happily, 
 and have grown so great and powerful, and which we all profess to cherish and 
 venerate, was formed, adopted, and put in operation by the people of twelv 
 slaveholding states and one free State slavery having disappeared from Mass* 1 
 achusetts about that time under the operation of the great fundamental prin- 
 ciple of self-government, which recognizes the right of each state and colony 
 to regulate its own domestic and local affairs. 
 
 In view of these incontrovertible facts, can any sane man believe that the 
 signers of the declaration of independence, and the heroes who fought the bat- 
 tles of the revolution, and the sages who laid the foundation of our 
 complex system of federal and state governments, intended to place the negro 
 race on an equal footing with the white race ? If such had been their purpose 
 would they not have abolished slavery and converted every negro into a citizen 
 on the day on which they put forth the Declaration of Independence ? Did 
 they do it ? Did any of the thirteen States abolish slavery much less 
 place the negro on an equality with the white man during the whole revolu- 
 tionary struggle ? History records the emphatic answer No. Not one of 
 the original states abolished slavery during the revolution, nor has any one of 
 them, at any time since, extended to the African race all the rights and privi- 
 leges of citizenship on terms of an entire equality with the white man. 
 
 No one can vindicate the character, motives, and conduct of the signers of 
 the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis that they 
 referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared 
 all men to have been created equal that they were speaking of British sub- 
 jects on this continent being equal to British subjects bom and residing in 
 Great Britain that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and 
 among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The 
 declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists, in the 
 eyes of the civilized world, in withdrawing their allegiance from the British 
 
V 
 
 10 
 
 crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country. In this 
 point of view the Declaration of Independence is in perfect harmouy with all 
 the events of the Revolution, and the line of policy pursued under the articles 
 of confederation, and the principles embodied and established in the federal 
 constitution. The history of the times clearly shows that the negroes were 
 regarded as an inferior race, who, in all ages, and in every part of the globe, 
 and under the most favorable circumstances, had shown themselves incapable 
 of self-government, and consequently under the protection of those who were 
 capable of providing for and protecting them in the exercise of all the rigUs 
 they were capable of enjoying, consistent with the good and safety of society. 
 It is on this principle that in all civilized and Christian countries the govern- 
 ment provides for the protection of the insane, the lunatic, the idiotic, and 
 all other unfortunates who are incompetent to take care of themselves. It 
 does not follow by any means that because the negro race are incapable of 
 governing themselves that therefore they should become slaves and be treated 
 as such. The safe rule upon that subject, I apprehend to be this, that the 
 African race should be allowed to exercise all the rights and privileges which 
 they are capable of enjoying, consistent with the welfare of the community 
 in which they reside, and that, under our form of government, the people of 
 each State and Territory must be allowed to determine for themselves the 
 nature and extent of those privileges. [Applause.] 
 
 The whole history of our country clearly shows that our fathers acted on 
 this principle, not only in promulgating the Declaration of Independence, 
 but in laying the foundations and erecting the superstructure of our complex 
 system of federal and State governments. Whoever will take the pains to 
 examine the journals of the Continental Congress, will find that nearly every 
 colony, before it would authorize its delegates to assent to a Declaration of 
 Independence, placed on record an express condition, reserving to itself the 
 sole and exclusive right of regulating its own internal affairs, and domestic 
 concerns, and local police, without the interference of the general congress, or 
 of any other State or colony. The battles of the Revolution were all fought 
 in defence of this principle, and the constitution of the United States was 
 formed and adopted for the purpose of perpetuating it in all time to come ; 
 at the same time it combined all the people of the Union in one confederacy 
 with certain specified and limited powers for the common defence and general 
 welfare. 
 
 Under this system of government the rights and privileges of the African 
 race remain precisely as they were when the constitution of the United States 
 was adopted, dependent entirely upon the local legislation and policy of the 
 several States where they may be found. In my opicion, the policy of Illinois 
 has been a wise and just one in regard to this race, and ought to be continued, 
 only making such changes from time to time as experience shall prove to be 
 just and necessary. While Illinois hns the undoubted right, under the consti- 
 tution of the United States, to adopt and persevere in this line of policy, Vir- 
 ginia and each other State has a right equally clear and undeniable to pursue 
 a line of policy, on the same subject, directly the reverse of ours, and we have 
 no more right to complain of, or interfere with, the local and domestic concerns 
 of other States and Territories than they have with ours. [ Applause.] 
 
 The founders of our government did not deem it possible, nor desirable if 
 practicable, to maintain entire uniformity in the local legislation and domestic 
 
11 
 
 institutions of the different States, and for this reason each State was allowed 
 a separate and distinct legislature, with full powers over all internal and local 
 concerns, in order that each might shape and vary its internal policy, and adapt 
 it to the circumstances, interests and wishes of its own people. While there 
 was a diversity of opinion in regard to the extent of the rights and privileges 
 which could be safely entrusted to the African race in the different States, 
 they all repudiated the doctrine of the equality of the white and black races, 
 and concurred in that line of policy which should preserve the purity of each, /' 
 and prevent any species of amalgamation, political, social or domestic. They i / 
 had witnessed the sad and melancholy results of the mixture of the races ill V 
 Mexico, South America and Central America, where the Spaniards, from! 
 motives of policy, had admitted the negro and other inferior races, to citizen^ 
 ship, and, consequently, to political and social amalgamation. The demoralP, 
 zation and degredation which prevailed in the Spanish and French colonies,! 
 where no distinction on account of color or race were tolerated, operated as a I 
 warning to our revolutionary fathers to preserve the purity of the white race, I 
 and to establish their political, social and domestic institutions upon such a/ 
 basis as would forever exclude the idea of negro citizenship and negro equality./ 
 [Applause.] 
 
 They understood that great natural law which declaims that amalgamation, 
 between superior a/id inferior races, brings their posterity down to the lower 
 level of the inferior, but never elevatss them to the higher level of the superior 
 race. I appeal to each of those gallant young men before me, who won im- 
 mortal glory on the bloody fields of Mexico, in vindication of their country's 
 rights and honor, whether their information and observation in that country, 
 does riot fully sustain the truth of the proposition that amalgamation is degra- 
 ding, demoralizing, disease and death ? Is it true that the negro is our equal 
 and our brother? The history of the tirnes,clearly show that our fathers did 
 not regard the negro race as any kin to them, and determined so to Jay the 
 foundations of society and govern merit that they should never be of any kin 
 to their posterity. [Immense applause.] 
 
 But when you confer upon the African race the privileges of citizenship, and 
 put them upon an equality with white men at the polls, in the jury box, on the 
 bench, in the executive chair, and in the councils of the nation, upon what 
 principle will you deny their equality at the festive board and in the domestic 
 circle. 
 
 The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that, under the consti- 
 tution, a negro is not and cannot be a citizen. 
 
 The Republican or' Abolition party pronounce that decision cruel, inhuman 
 and infamous, and appeal to the American people to disregard and refuse to 
 obey it. Let us join issue with them and put ourselves upon the country for 
 trial. [Cheers and applause.] 
 
 Mr. President, I will now respond to the call which has been made upon 
 me for my opinion of ' he condition of things in "Utah, and the appropriate 
 remedy for existing evils. 
 
 The Territory of Utah was organized under one of the acts known as the 
 compromise measures of 1850. on the supposition that the inhabitants were 
 American citizens, owing and acknowledging allegiance to the United States, 
 and consequently entitled to the benefits of self government while a territory 
 and to admission into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States 
 
 \ 
 
12 
 
 so soon as they should number the requisite population. It was conceded on 
 all hands, and by all parties, that the peculiarities of their religious faith and 
 ceremonies interposed no valid and constitutional objection to their reception 
 into the Union, in conformity with 'the federal constitution, so long as they 
 were in all other respects entitled to admission. Hence the great political 
 parties of the country indorsed and approved the compromise measures of 1850, 
 including the act for the organization of the Territory of Utah, with the hope 
 and in the confidence that the inhabitants would conform to the constitution 
 and laws, and prove themselves worthy, respectable and law-abiding citizens. 
 If we are permitted to place credence in the rumors and reports from that 
 country, (and it must be admitted that they have increased and strengthened, 
 and assumed consistency and plausibility by each succeeding mail,) seven years 
 experience has disclosed a state of facts entirely different from that which was 
 supposed to exist when Utah was organized. These rumors and reports would 
 seem to justify the belief that the following facts are susceptible of proof: 
 
 1st. That nine-tenths of the inhabitants are aliens by birth, who have 
 refused to become naturalized, or to take the oath of allegiance, or to do any 
 other act recognizing the government of the United States as the paramount 
 authority in that Territory, 
 
 2cL That all the inhabitants, whether native or alien born, known as Mor- 
 mons, (and they constitute the whole people of the Territory,) are bound by 
 horrid oaths and terrible penalties to recognize and maintain the authority of 
 Brigham Young, and the government of which he is the head, as paramount 
 to that of the United States, in civil as well as religious affairs ; and that they 
 will, in due time, and under the direction of their leaders, use all means in 
 their power to subvert the government of the United States, and resist its 
 authority. 
 
 3d. That the Mormon government, with Brigham Young at its head, is now 
 forming alliances with the Indian tribes of Utah and the adjoining Territories 
 stimulating the Indians to acts of hostility and organizing bands of his own 
 followers, under the name of " Danites or Destroying Angels," to prosecute a 
 system of robbery and murder upon American citizens, who support the author- 
 ity of the United States, and denounce the infamous and disgusting practices 
 and institutions of the Mormon government. 
 
 If, upon a full investigation, these representations shall prove true, they will 
 establish the fact that the inhabitants of Utah, as a community, are out-laws 
 and alien enemies, unfit to exercise the right of self-government under the 
 organic act, and unworthy to be admitted into the Union as a State, when 
 their only object in seeking admission is to interpose the sovereignty ot the 
 the State as an invincible shield to protect them in their treason and crime, 
 debauchery and infamy. [Applause.] 
 
 Under this view of the subject, I think it is the duty of the President, as 1 
 have no doubt it is his fixed purpose, to remove Brigham Young and all his 
 followers from office, and to fill their places with bold, able, and true men, and 
 to cause a thorough and searching investigation into all the crimes and enor- 
 mities which are alleged to be perpetrated daily in that Territory, under the 
 direction of Brigham Young and his confederates; and to use all the military 
 force necessary to protect the officers in the discharge of their duties, and to 
 enforce the laws of the land. [Applause.] 
 
 When the authentic evidence shall arrive, if it shall establish the facts which 
 
13 
 
 are believed to exist, it will become the duty of Congress to apply the knife 
 and cut out this loathsome, disgusting ulcer. [Applause.] No temporizing 
 policy no half-way measure will then answer. It has been supposed by those 
 who have not thought deeply upon the subject, that an act of Congress pro- 
 hibiting murder, robbery, polygamy, and other crimes, with appropriate penal- 
 ties for those offences, would afford adequate remedies for all the enormities 
 complained of. Suppose such a law to be on the statute book, and I believe 
 they have a criminal code, providing the usual punishments for the entire 
 catalogue of crimes, according to the usages of all civilized and Christian 
 countries, with the exception of polygamy, which is practiced under the sanc- 
 tion of the Mormon church, but is neither prohibited nor authorized by the 
 laws of the Territory. 
 
 Suppose, I repeat, that Congress should pass a law prescribing a criminal 
 code and punishing polygamy among other offences, what effect would it 
 have what good would it do? Would you call on twenty-three grand jury- 
 men with twenty-three wives each, to find a bill of indictment against a poor 
 miserable wretch for having two wives ? [Cheers and laughter.] Would you 
 rely upon twelve petit jurors with twelve wives each to convict the same 
 loathsome wretch for having two wives ? [Continued applause.] Would you 
 expect a grand jury composed of twenty-three "Danites" to find a bill of 
 indictment against a brother "Danite" for having, under their direction, 
 murdered a Gentile, as they call all American citizens ? Much less would you 
 expect a jury of twelve 4< destroying angels" to find another "destroying 
 angel " guilty of the crime of murder, and cause him to be hanged for 110 
 other offence than that of taking the life of a Gentile ! No. If there is any 
 truth in the reports we receive from Utah, Congress may pass what laws it 
 chooses, but you can never rely upon the local tribunals and juries to punish 
 crimes committed by Mormons in that Territory. Some other and more 
 effectual remedy must be devised and applied. In my opinion the first step 
 should be the absolute and unconditional repeal of the organic act blotting 
 the territorial government out of existence upon the ground that they are 
 alien enemies and outlaws, denying their allegiance and defying the authority 
 of the United States. [Immense applause.] 
 
 The territorial government once abolished, the country would revert to its 
 primitive condition, prior to the act of 1 850, " under the sole and exclusive 
 jurisdiction of the United States," and should be placed under the operation 
 of the act of Congress of the 30th of April, 1790, and the various acts sup- 
 plemental thereto and amendatory thereof, "providing for the punishment of 
 crimes against the United States within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, maga- 
 zine, Or ANY OTHER PLACE OR DISTRICT OF COUNTRY, UNDER THE SOLE AND EXCLU- 
 SIVE jurisdiction of the United States. All offences against the provisions of 
 these acts are required by law to be tried and punished by the United States 
 courts in the States or territories where the offenders shall be " FIRST APPRE- 
 HENDED OR BROUGHT FOR TRIAL." Thus it will be seen that, under the plan pro- 
 posed, Brigham Young and his confederates could be *' apprehended and 
 and brought for trial" to Iowa or Missouri, California or Oregon, or to any 
 other adjacent State or territory, where a fair trial could be had, and justice 
 administered impartially where the witnesses could be protected and the 
 judgment of the court could be carried into execution, without violence or 
 intimidation. I do not propose to introduce any new principles into our 
 
14 
 
 jurisprudence, nor to change the modes of proceeding or the rules of practice 
 in our courts. I only propose to place the district of country embraced within 
 the territory of Utah under the operation of the same laws and rules of pro- 
 ceeding that Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, and our other Territories were 
 placed, before they became, organized Territories. The whole country embraced 
 within those Territories was under the operation of that same system of laws, 
 and all the offences committed within the same, were punished in the manner 
 now proposed, so long as the country remained " under the sole and exclusive 
 jurisdiction of the United States ;" but the moment the country was organized 
 into territorial governments, with legislative, executive arid judicial depart- 
 ments, it ceased to be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United 
 States, within the meaning of the act of Congress, for the reason that it had 
 passed under another and a different jurisdiction. Hence, if we abolish the 
 territorial government of Utah, preserving all existing rights, and place the 
 country under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, offenders 
 can be apprehended, and brought into the adjacent States or Territories, for 
 trial and -punishment, in the same manner and under the same rules and 
 regulations, which obtained, and have been uniformly practiced, under like 
 circumstances since 1790. 
 
 If the plan proposed shall be found an effective and adequate remedy for 
 the evils complained of in Utah, no one, no matter what his political creed or 
 partizan associations, need be apprehensive that it will violate any cherished 
 theory or constitutional right, in regard to the government of the Territories. 
 It is a great mistake to suppose that all the territory or land belonging to the 
 United States, must necessarily be governed by the same laws and under the 
 same clause of the Constitution, without reference to the purpose to which it is 
 dedicated or the use which it is proposed to make of it. "While all that portion 
 of country which is or shall be set apart to become new States, must necessarily 
 be governed under and consistent with that clause of the Constitution which 
 authorizes Congress to admit new States, it does not follow that other territory, 
 not intended to be organized and .admitted into the Union as States, must be 
 governed under the same clause of the Constitution, with all the rights of self- 
 government and State equality, For instance, if we should purchase Vancou- 
 ver's Island from Great Britain, for the purpose of removing all the Indians 
 from our Pacific Territories, and locating them on that Island, as their perma- 
 nent home, with guarantees that it should never be settled or occupied by 
 white men, will it be contended that the purchase should be made and the 
 island governed under the power to admit new States when it was not acquired 
 for that purpose, or intended to be applied to that object? Being acquired for 
 Indian purposes, is it not more reasonable to assume that the power to acquire 
 was derived from the Indian clause, and the island must necessarily be gov- 
 erned under and consistent with that clause of the Constitution which relates 
 to Indian affairs. Again, suppose we should deem it expedient to buy a 
 small island in the Mediterranean or Carribean sea, for a naval station, can it 
 be said, with any force or plausibility, that the purchase should be made or the 
 island governed under the power to admit new States ? On the contrary, is it 
 not obvious that the right to acquire and govern in that case is derived from 
 the power "to provide and maintain a. navy," and must be exercised consistent 
 with that power. So if we purchase land for forts, arsenals, or other military 
 purposes, or set apart and dedicate any territory, which we now own, for a 
 
15 
 
 military reservation, it immediately passes under the military power, and must/ 
 be governed in harmony with it. So, if land be purchased for a mint, it mus< 
 be governed under the power to coin money; or, if purchased for a post-offic6, 
 it must be governed under the power to establish post-offices and post-roads; 
 or, for a custom house, under the power to regulate commerce ; or, for a court 
 house, under the judiciary power. In short, the clause of the Constitution 
 under which any land or territory, belonging to the United States, mu/st be 
 governed is indicated by the object for which it was acquired and the purpose 
 to which it is dedicated. So long, therefore, as the organic act of Utah shall 
 remain in force, setting apart that country for a new State, and pledging the 
 faith of the United States to receive it into the Union so soon as it should have 
 the requisite population, we are bound to extend to it all the rights of self-gov- 
 ernment, agreeably to the clause of the Constitution, providing for the admission 
 of new States. Hence the necessity of repealing the organic act, withdrawing 
 the pledge of admission, and placing it uuder the sole and exclusive jurisdiction 
 of the United States, in order that persons and property may be protected, 
 and justice administered, and crimes punished under the laws prescribed by 
 Congress in such cases. 
 
 While the power of Congress to repeal the organic act and abolish the 
 Territorial government cannot be denied, the question may arise whether we 
 possess the moral right of exercising the power, after the charter has been 
 once granted, and the local government organized under its provisions. This 
 is a grave question one which should not be decided hastily, nor under the 
 influence of passion or prejudice. In my opinion, I am free to say there is no 
 moral right to repeal the organic act of a territory, and abolish the govern- 
 ment organized under it, unless the inhabitants of that territory, as a com- 
 munity, have done such acts as amount to a forfeiture of all rights under it 
 such as becoming alien enemies, outlaws, disavowing their allegiance, or resist- 
 ing the authority of the United States. These and kindred acts, which we 
 have every reason to believe are daily perpetrated in that Territory, would 
 not only give us the moral right, but make it our imperative duty to abolish 
 the territorial government and place the inhabitants under the sole and exclu- 
 sive jurisdiction of the United States, to the end that justice may be done, 
 and the dignity and authority of the government vindicated. 
 
 I have thus presented plainly and frankly my views of the Utah question 
 the evils and the remedy upon the facts as they have reached us, and are 
 supposed to be substantially correct. If official reports and authentic in- 
 formation shall change or modify these facts, I shall be ready to conform 
 rny action to the real facts as they shall be found to exist. I have no such 
 pride of opinion as will induce me to persevere in an error one moment after 
 my judgment is convinced. If, therefore, a better plan can be devised one 
 more consistent with justice and sound policy, or more effective as a remedy 
 for acknowledged evils, I will take great pleasure in adopting it, in lieu of the 
 one I have presented to you to-night. 
 
 In conclusion, permit me to present my grateful acknowledgments for your 
 patient attention and the kind and respectful manner in which you have re- 
 ceived uiy remarks. 
 

 RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 TO ^ 202 Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. 
 
 Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 . 
 
 j 
 
 
 AI TO DISC CIRC 
 
 P^W VED 
 
 
 SEP 01199 
 
 J AUG 7 1996 
 
 
 
 CIRCUUTK5NOEPT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OCT 3 1S25 
 
 
 
 IRCULATION DEPT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J'JLl? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 FORM NO. DD6 BERKELEY, CA 94720