[AUTHORIZED EDITION.] 
 
 LIFE 
 
 OP 
 
 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, 
 
 UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. 
 
 ITII 
 
 His most Important Speeches and Eeports, 
 
 BY H. M. FLINT. 
 
 USTEW YOIfcK: 
 DERBY & JACKSON, PUBLISHERS, 
 
 18GO. 
 
ENTEHKI according to Act of Congress, in ,he year 1350, by 
 DERBY & JACKSON, 
 
 lathe Clerk s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Sontheiu Disk let of 
 New York. 
 
 \V II. TI.NSON, Stereotyper. OEO. RUSSELL & Co , Print*--* 
 
THE proofs of this work having been submitted to 
 several of Mr. Douglas most judicious friends, it is 
 believed by them to be a true and faithful exposition 
 of the leading incidents of his career, and is bj them 
 cordially recommended as authentic and reliable. 
 
 4962 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAQB 
 
 INTRODUCTORY, 10 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Parentage, Birth, and early Life of Stephen A. Douglas He Studies Law 
 Goes to the West Teaches School Admitted to Practise Law His 
 Success as a Lawyer, and the Causes of it Becomes Attorney General 
 of Illinois Elected to the State Legislature Electioneers for Martin 
 Van Buren for President, in 1840 Makes 207 Speeches in that "Year, 
 a v .d carries Illinois for the Democracy Becomes a Judge of the 
 Supreme Court Is Elected to Congress in 1843, . . . . lt> 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Mr. Douglas First Session in Congress His Speech upon the Improve 
 ment by Congress of Western Rivers and Harbors His Great Speech on 
 the Bill to Refund General Jackson s Fine General Jackson s Opinion 
 of the Speech Mr. Douglas Reflected to Congress, . . . 20 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Speech in Favor of the Re-Annexation of Texas Mr. Douglas reports Joint 
 Resolutions, declaring Texas to be one of the United States Texas 
 Annexed, . . T - . . . .. . 25 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Speech in Vindication of the Administration Mr. Douglas elected to Con 
 gress a third time, ; . . 28 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Mr. Douglas Elected to the United States Senate He opposes the Wllmot 
 Proviso Speech on the Ten Regiment Bill Bill for the Establishment 
 of the Territory of Nebraska Pass to Gen. Santa Anna Exertions of 
 Mr. Douglas in procuring Grants of Land to the Illinois Central Railroad 
 He endeavors to extend the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific 
 Ocean The Design defeated by Northern Votes Bill for the Admission 
 of California Indian Titles in the North-west Protection to Emi 
 grants, 32 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Mr. Douglas supports the Compromise Measures of Henry Clay Great 
 Speech on the 13th and 14th of March Speech in favor of the Omnibus 
 Bill, June 3 The Nicholson Letter of General Cass Mr. Douglas re 
 turns to Chicago He is Denounced by the Local Authorities He 
 beards the Lions in their Den Speech to the Citizens of Chicago Its 
 Effect, . . . . . . ... . .39 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Speech in favor of making Gen. Winfield Scott a Lieutenant-General 
 Speech on the Fugitive Slave Law Speech on the Foreign Policy of the 
 United States Retrospective View of the Course of Mr. Douglas in 
 Congress up to this Time (1852) Mr. Douglas the real Author of the 
 Compromise Measures of 1850 Bill for the Organization of the Territo 
 ries of Kansas and Nebraska Mr. Douglas opposes the Oregon Treaty 
 with England Opposes the Peace Treaty with Mexico Speech on the 
 Clayton and Bulwer Treaty Report on the Organization of Nebraska 
 and Kansas The Nebraska Bill Debate on it The bill passed, . 47 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 Mr. Douglas at Chicago, 1854, . 65 
 
CONTENTS. Ml 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Report of Mr. Douglas on the Territorial Policy of the Government- 
 Speech in Reply to Trunibull, and in Support of the Bill authorizing the 
 People of Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government Speech 
 in Reply to Mr. Collamer The Bill passed by the Senate Report of 
 Mr. Douglas on the House Bill, 72 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 A Retrospect Origin and Causes of Disagreement with the President 
 Not Provoked by Mr. Douglas Mr. Buchanan owes his Nomination at 
 Cincinnati to Mr. Douglas Telegraphic Dispatches His Efforts to Elect 
 Mr. Buchanan in 1856 Speech at Springfield in 1857, defending the 
 Administration President s Instructions to Governor Walker Consti 
 tution to be Submitted Executive Dictation Differences of Opinion 
 tolerated on all Subjects except Lecompton Mr. Douglas Propositions 
 for Adjustment Resolutions of Illinois Democracy Controversy termi 
 nated by the English Bill War Renewed by the Administration Coali 
 tion between the Federal Officeholders and the Abolitionists Mr. Dou 
 glas last Speech in the Senate preparatory to Illinois Canvass, . 80 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 New Aspect of Affairs at the Federal Capitol Mr. Douglas calls OD 
 the President for Information in regard to Affairs in Kansas Great 
 Speech of Mr. Douglas against the Lecompton Constitution Speech in 
 Favor of the Crittenden-Montgomery Amendment Speech on the Eng 
 lish Bill Speech in favor of conferring on the President Power to pun- 
 iih British Outrages, . . . . . . . .93 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Mr. Douglas returns to Chicago Brilliant Reception Makes his Speech 
 opening the Campaign Lays down Principles on which he conducted 
 it, 104 
 
V121 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Mr. Douglas leaves Chicago for New Orleans Received at St. Louis aud 
 Memphis Brilliant Reception at New Orleans. ..." 142 
 
 CHAPTER XY. 
 
 Mr. Douglas again in Washington Experiences a Change of Atmosphere - 
 Scene shifts Removed from Post of Chairman of Territorial Commit 
 tee His Services as Chairman Pretext of Removal Freeport Speech 
 Letter to California in reply to Dr. Gwin, 144 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Letters to Dorr and Peyton Speeches in Ohio, and Cincinnati Platform 
 Charleston Convention Presidental Aspirants The Harper Article 
 Black s Reply Appendix of Attorney General Rejoinder of Senator 
 Douglas The Chase and Trumbull Amendments Consistency of Sena 
 tor Douglas, 168 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Great Speech of Mr. Douglas on the Harper s Ferry Invasion Anxiety to 
 hear him His Speeches in Reply to Senators Fessenden, Jeff. Davis, 
 and Seward The Caucus of Senators Their Utopian Platform, . 189 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 Conventions of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and 
 Michigan ; also of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and 
 New York Claims of the North-west Conclusion, . . . 205 
 
OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 
 LIFE AND SPEECHES 
 
 OF 
 
 STEPHEN A. DOUG-LAS, 
 
 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 THE object of the author of this book is to present to the 
 people of the United States a truthful delineation of the 
 character and qualities of the greatest American statesman 
 now living. 
 
 The public life of Mr. Douglas naturally divides itself into 
 five periods. The first, from his entrance into Congress in 
 1843, to the close of the war against Mexico, in 1848. 
 Second, from the close of the Mexican War to the passage of 
 the Compromise measures of 1850. Third, from the passage 
 of the Compromise of 1850, to the passage of the Nebraska 
 Bill in 1854. Fourth, from the passage of the Nebraska Bill, 
 to the third election of Mr. Douglas to the Senate, in the fall 
 of 1858. Fifth, from the commencement of his third Senate 
 rial term, in March, 1859, to the meeting of the Charleston 
 Convention in April, 1860. 
 
 During the first period, Mr. Douglas appears among the 
 most active and influential friends of the re-annexation of 
 
 1* 
 
10 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Texas to the United States, and causes to be run through 
 Texas the Missouri Compromise line of 36 30 ; and when 
 the war with Mexico breaks out, he is found among the 
 ablest supporters of the administration, and one of the fore 
 most of our statesmen in upholding the honor of our flag 
 and in prosecuting the war with a vigor and prudence that 
 led to an honorable and satisfactory peace. In this period, 
 too, Mr. Douglas is seen endeavoring to cany out in good 
 faith the principles of the Missouri Compromise, by extending 
 the line of 36 30 westward through our acquisitions from 
 Mexico to the Pacific Ocean ; in which attempt he was frus 
 trated by northern Freesoilers. 
 
 GKEAT MEASURES OF ME. DOUGLAS. 
 
 The second period was one of the most important in the 
 whole life of Mr. Douglas. He is seen at this time, shaping 
 and molding for the territories of the United States, those 
 institutions of government upon which his fame as a states 
 man rests, and upon which depend the happiness of millions 
 of American citizens, and the prosperity of a dozen new 
 States. In treating of this period of the life of Mr. Douglas, 
 I have shown that he is the real author of the Compromise 
 measures of 1850, so generally attributed to Henry Clay. 
 In this period, too, we see Mr. Douglas coming home to his 
 constituents, and in the presence of an infuriated mob, pro 
 claiming the propriety and expediency of those measures 
 with such matchless eloquence, that the voices of faction and 
 fanaticism were hushed, and the citizens of Chicago passed 
 resolutions declaring their adherence to those very measures 
 which they had the day before denounced. 
 
 Toward the close of the third period, we see Mr. Douglas 
 bringing forward the details of his great plan for the gov 
 ernment of the territories, in the shape of the Kansas and 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. H 
 
 Nebraska bills; explaining and elucidating the principles 
 upon which they are based, and urging their adoption by 
 Congress. And when these measures were passed, we see 
 him coming home to a constituency that refused to hear him 
 vindicate their justice and propriety. 
 
 During the fourth period, we see the evils that resulted in 
 Kansas, from attempts to evade or disregard the principles 
 of the Nebraska Bill. We see the President of the United 
 States exerting the whole strength of his administration in 
 attempting to force a constitution repugnant to their wishes 
 on the people of Kansas ; and Mr. Douglas energetically and 
 with all his might resisting the tyrannical proceeding, and 
 vindicating the right of the people of the territories in all 
 time to come, to form and regulate their domestic institutions 
 in their own way. When the British also, in 1858, attacked no 
 less than thirty-three of our vessels in the space of four weeks-, 
 and when the Senate were about to pass the customary 
 resolutions, declaring that such acts were very annoying tc 
 the United States, and ought not to be committed, we see 
 Mr. Douglas urging upon Congress the instant adoption of 
 such energetic measures on our part as should compel Great 
 Britain not only to cease such outrages in future, but also to 
 make reparation for those she had committed. 
 
 "THE KETUEN FROM ELBA." 
 
 During this period also, we see the great campaign in the 
 autumn of 1858, the election of a senator from Illinois for 
 the next six years, the gallant stand made by Mr. Douglas, 
 and the unscrupulous efforts made by federal officials and 
 Abolitionists to crush him. Like Napoleon on his return 
 from Elba, Mr. Douglas, on his return to Illinois, in 
 spired his numerous friends with unbounded enthusiasm. 
 We see the momentous struggle between Mr. Douglas and the 
 
12 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 Democratic party on the one side, and the allied forces 
 of the Republicans, Abolitionists, and office-holders on 
 the other. We see the battles and skirmishes of the cam 
 paign ; in every engagement, we see the utter discomfiture 
 of the unholy alliance, and the triumph of the right and 
 always, in the forefront of the battle, we hear the clarion 
 voice of the great leader of the democracy. Finally, we see 
 his victory over all his enemies, and witness his triumphant 
 return to the Senate, bearing high aloft the glorious banner 
 of the Democracy, unstained and untarnished. 
 
 During the last period, we see the hostility of the Executive 
 manifested in the removal of Mr. Douglas from the chair 
 manship of the Committee on Territories ; the war of the 
 pamphlets ; the Senate proceedings following the horrible 
 plot of John Brown; and the ridiculous attempt on the part 
 of a few senators to make a platform for the Charleston 
 Convention entirely incompatible with the known principles 
 of Mr. Douglas. We see the uprising of the people all over 
 the nation in favor of Mr. Douglas for the Presidency, the 
 proceedings of the several State conventions, and their 
 unanimity in designating Mr. Douglas as their choice above 
 all other men. Finally, we see the meeting of the Charleston 
 Convention ; and we may reasonably hope to see the nomi 
 nation of Judge Douglas for the Presidency, and his triumph 
 ant election. 
 
 PERSONAL APPEARANCE. 
 
 The Rev. Win. H. Milburn, the blind preacher, in his 
 interesting book, " Ten Years of Preacher Life," gives the 
 following graphic sketch of his impressions of Mr. Douglas : 
 
 " The first time I saw Mr. Douglas was in June, 1838, standing on the 
 gallery of the Market House, which some of my readers may recollect as 
 situate in the middle of the square of Jacksonville. He and Colonel John 
 J. Hardin were engaged in canvassing Morgan County for Congress. He 
 
STEP II EN A. DOUGLAS. 13 
 
 tvas upon the threshold of that great world in which he has since played 
 so prominent a part, and was engaged in making one of his earliest stump 
 speeches. I stood and listened to him, surrounded by a motley crowd of 
 backwood farmers and hunters, dressed in homespun or deerskin, my 
 boyish breast glowing with exultant joy, as he, only ten years my senior, 
 battled so bravely for the doctrines of his party with the veteran and ac 
 complished Hardin. True, I had been educated in political sentiments 
 opposite to his own, but there was something captivating in his manly 
 straightforwardness and uncompromising statement of his political prin 
 ciples. He even then showed signs of that dexterity in debate, and vehe 
 ment, impressive declamation, of which he has since become such a master. 
 He gave the crowd the color of his own mood as he interpreted their 
 thoughts and directed their sensibilities. (His first-hand knowledge of the 
 people, and his power to speak to them in their own language, employing 
 arguments suited to their comprehension, sometimes clinching a series of 
 reasons by a frontier metaphor which refused to be forgotten, and his de 
 termined courage, which never shrank from any form of difficulty or dan 
 ger, made him one of the most effective stump-orators I have ever hear^.J 
 
 u Less than four years before, he had walked into the town of Winches 
 ter, sixteen miles southwest of Jacksonville, an entire stranger, with 
 thirty-seven and a half cents in his pocket, his all of earthly fortune. His 
 first employment was as clerk of a Vandu, as the natives call a sheriff s 
 sale. He then seized the birch of the pedagogue, and sought by its aid 
 and by patient drilling, to initiate a handful of half-wild boys into the sub 
 lime mysteries of Liudley Murray. His evenings were divided between 
 reading newspapers, studying Blackstone, and talking politics. He, before 
 long, by virtue of his indomitable energy, acquired enough of legal lore to 
 pass an examination, and to stick up his shingle, as they call putting up 
 a lawyer s sign. And now began a series of official employments, by 
 which he has mounted within five and twenty years, from the obscurity of 
 a village pedagogue on the borders of civilization, to his present illustrious 
 and commanding position. In the twelve or thirteen years that had 
 elapsed from the time of his entering the State, a friendless, penniless 
 youth, he has served his fellow-citizens in almost every official capacity, 
 and entered the highest position within their power to confer. 
 
 "No man, since the days of Andrew Jackson, has gained a stronger hold 
 upon the confidence and attachment of his adherents, or exercised a more 
 dominating authority over the masses of his party than Judge Douglas. 
 Whether upon the stump, in the caucus, or the Senate, hispow-er and suc 
 cess in debate are prodigious. His instincts stand him in the stead of 
 imagination, and amount to genius. 
 
14 THELIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 " Notwithstanding the busy and boisterous political life which he has led 
 with all its engrossing cares and occupations, Mr. Douglas has, neverthe 
 less, by his invincible perseverance, managed to redeem much time foi 
 self-improvement. He has been a wide and studious reader of history 
 and its kindred branches. Contact with affairs has enlarged his under 
 standing and strengthened his judgment. Thus, with his unerring sagacity, 
 his matured and decisive character, with a courage which sometimes ap 
 pears to be audacity, but which is in reality tempered by prudence, a will 
 that never submits to an obstacle, however vast, and a knowledge of the 
 people, together with a power to lead them, incomparable in this genera 
 tion, he may be accepted as a practical statesman of the highest 
 order. 
 
 The correspondent of the New York " Times " describes 
 *\ Douglas as follows : "The Little Giant, as he has been 
 weir-styled, is seen to advantage on the floor of the Senate. 
 He is not above the middle height ; but the easy and natural 
 dignity of his manner stamps him at once as one born to 
 command. His massive head rivets undivided attention. It 
 is a head of the antique, with something of the infinite in its 
 expression of power : a head difficult to describe, but better 
 worth description than any other in the country. Mr. Doug 
 las has a brain of unusual size, covered with heavy masses of 
 dark brown hair, now beginning to be sprinkled with silver. 
 His forehead is high, open, and splendidly developed, based 
 on dark, thick eyebrows of great width. His eyes, large and 
 deeply set, are of the darkest and most brilliant blue. The 
 mouth is cleanly cut, finely arched, but with something of 
 bitter and sad experience in its general expression. The 
 chin is square and vigorous, and is full of eddying dimples 
 the muscles and nerves showing great mobility, and every 
 thought having some external reflexion in the sensitive and 
 expressive features. Add now a rich, dark complexion, clear 
 and healthy ; smoothly shaven cheeks; and handsome throat; 
 small, white ears ; eyes which shoot out electric fires ; small 
 white hands ; small feet ; a full chest and broad shoulders ; 
 

 STEP II EN A. DOUGLAS. 15 
 
 and with these points duly blended together, we have a pic 
 
 tup of the Little Giant. ^ 
 
 ^^..^iMc^a speaker^" Air. Douglas seems to disdain ornament, 
 and marches right on against the body of his subject with 
 irresistible power and directness. His rhetorical assault has 
 nothing of the cavalry slash in its impressiveness, rather 
 resembling a charge of heavy infantry with fixed bayonet, 
 and calling forcibly to mind the attack of those six thousand 
 English veterans " immortalized by Thomas Davis ^ 
 
 " Steady they step adown the slope, 
 
 Steady they climb the hill ; 
 Steady they load steady they fire 
 Marching right onward still. 
 
 His voice is a rich and musical baritone, swelling into occa 
 sional clarion-blasts toward the close of each important 
 period. He is heard with breathless attention, except when 
 now and again the galleries feel tempted to applaud these 
 demonstrations appearing to give particular uneasiness to the 
 Administration, Secession, and Republican senators." 
 
 Mr. Douglas has been twice married. He has two little 
 sons, the children of his first wife., who was a southern 
 lady. In 1857, he married Miss Adele Cutts, daughter of 
 James Madison Cutts, Esq., second Controller of the Trea 
 sury, a beautiful and accomplished woman, and well known 
 in Washington for the amiability of her disposition, and the 
 goodness of her heart. He has had one child, a daughter, 
 fimce his second marriage. 
 
16 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Parentage, Birth, and early Life of Stephen A. Douglas He Studies Law 
 Goes to the West Teaches School Admitted to Practise Law His 
 Success as a Lawyer, and the Causes of it Becomes Attorney General 
 of Illinois Elected to the State Legislature Electioneers for Martin 
 Van Buren for President, in 1840 Makes 207 Speeches in that Year, 
 and carries Illinois for the Democracy Becomes a Judge of the 
 Supreme Court Is Elected to Congress in 1843. 
 
 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS was born in the town of Brandon, 
 Vermont, on the 23d day of April, 1813. His father was a 
 native of the State of New York, and a physician of high v 
 repute. His grandfather was a Pennsylvanian by birth, and 
 a soldier in the Revolutionary War. He was one of those 
 soldiers of Washington who passed that terrible winter at 
 Valley Forge, and was present at the surrender of Lord Corn- 
 wallis. His great-grandfather was also an American by birth, 
 but his ancestors came originally to this country from Scot 
 land. Dr. Douglas died when his little son Stephen was only 
 three months old. From the age of ten to that of fifteen 
 years, Stephen was sent to the common schools of the neigh 
 borhood. During the last two years of this term, he was 
 noted for remarkable aptitude for his studies, and was ex 
 tremely diligent and attentive. His quick perception, excel 
 lent memory, and determination to excel in his studies, wore 
 subjects of remark by his teachers, even at that early period. 
 His disposition was amiable and kind, of which fact there 
 are numerous instances related bv those who were his school 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 17 
 
 fellows. His temper, however, was naturally quick and 
 vivacious. 
 
 At the age of fifteen, he expressed to his mother his 
 earnest desire to prepare for college ; but it w^as decided at 
 a family council that the expense of a collegiate education 
 would make that idea impossible. " "Well, then," said 
 Stephen, " I will earn my own living ;" and he immediately 
 engaged himself as an apprentice to the trade of cabinet- 
 making, which was then an excellent and lucrative business. 
 He worked at this trade for eighteen months, and then 
 abandoned it altogether, as it proved entirely too severe for 
 his constitution. His master has since jocularly remarked, 
 that during the time Stephen was with him, he displayed 
 his greatest ingenuity in the construction of bureaus, cabi- 
 nets, and secretaries. At the age of seventeen, he entered 
 the academy at Brandon, and pursued his studies there for 
 more than a year. His mind was extremely active at this 
 time, and he made rapid advancement in those branches of 
 learning to which he directed his attention. When the 
 family removed to Canandaigua, New York, he attended the 
 academy there as a student. Having decided to make the 
 law his profession, he entered the office of Mr. Ilubbell, and 
 studied law till 1833. 
 
 EAELY LIFE. 
 
 In the spring of that year he went to the West, in search 
 of an eligible place in which to establish himself as a lawyer. 
 He went to a number of cities and towns in the West, 
 among them Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, and Jackson 
 ville, Illinois. At Winchester, a little town sixteen miles 
 from Jacksonville, he found there was no school, and imme- 
 mediately opened one. He obtained forty pupils without 
 any difficulty, whom he taught for three months, at $3 00 pci 
 
18 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 quarter. He devoted his evenings, during this time, to tho 
 prosecution cf his law studies. In March, 1834, lie was 
 admitted to practise law, by the judges of the Supreme 
 Court of the State. He at once opened a law office, and 
 "became remarkably successful as a legal practitioner. 
 
 Within a year after his admission, and while not yet 
 twenty-two years of age, he was elected by the legislature 
 of Illinois, attorney-general of the State. In 1836, he wag 
 elected to the legislature by the Democrats of Morgan 
 County, and resigned the office of attorney-general. At the 
 time he took his seat in the legislature, he was the youngest 
 member of that body. In 1837, he was appointed by Presi 
 dent Van Buren register of the land-office at Springfield, 
 Illinois. In November of the same year, he received the 
 Democratic nomination for Congress, although he was then 
 under twenty-five years of age, and consequently ineligible. 
 He attained the requisite age, however, before the day of 
 election, which was in August, 1838. At this election 
 upward of 36,000 votes were cast, of which Mr. Douglas re 
 ceived a majority. About twenty votes were rejected "by the 
 canvassers, because in them the name of Mr. Douglas was 
 spelled incorrectly. The quibble was a most unworthy one, 
 and would not stand at this day. As it was, the Whig can 
 didate was declared to be elected by a majority of only five 
 votes; and the election was everywhere regarded as a 
 triumph of Mr. Douglas. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS AS A LAWYER. 
 
 Retiring now from political life, Mr. Douglas devoted 
 himself with assiduity to the practice of his profession. He 
 was an able and successful lawyer, and his business increased 
 rapidly. There are many persons now living, who were 
 clients and neighbors of Mr. Douglas at this time, and who 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 19 
 
 remember well his demeanor as an advocate. He was noted, 
 among other things, for the careful preparation of his cases, 
 and for his tact and skill in the examination of witnesses, 
 He never went into court with a case until he thoroughly 
 understood it in all its bearings. His addresses to the jury 
 were generally plain and clear statements of the matters of 
 fact, the arguments logical and conclusive, and his manner 
 earnest and impressive. He rarely failed to enlist the feel 
 ings and sympathies of a jury. 
 
 In the year 1840, Mr. Douglas entered with ardor into the 
 celebrated "Hard Cider and Log Cabin" campaign, and 
 threw the whole weight of his influence in favor of Martin 
 Van Buren, the democratic candidate for President, and 
 against the " Tippecanoe and Tyler too " candidates of the 
 Whig party. During seven months of that year, he tra 
 versed the State of Illinois in all directions, and addressed 
 207 meetings of the people. General Harrison was elected 
 President, but Illinois was carried for the Democratic candi 
 dates, and Mr. Douglas was mainly instrumental in bringing 
 about this result. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS ELECTED TO CONGRESS. 
 
 In December, 1840, Mr. Douglas was appointed secretary 
 of state of Illinois. In February, 1841, he was elected by 
 the legislature a judge of the Supreme Court of the State. 
 This was only seven years after he had received, from the 
 judges of that court, his license to practise law. He re 
 mained upon the bench of the Supreme Court for three 
 years. In 1843 he was elected to Congress by 400 majority ; 
 and in 1844 by a majority of 1,900 votes. He was elected a 
 representative a third time in 1846, by a majority of 3,000 
 votes. 
 
20 THE LIFE ANU SPEECHES OF 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Mr. Douglas First Session in Congress His Speech upon the Improve 
 ment by Congress of Western Rivers and Harbors His Great Speech on 
 the Bill to Refund General Jackson s Fine General Jackson s Opinion 
 of the Speech Mr. Douglas Reflected to Congress. 
 
 ON taking his seat in Congress, Mr. Douglas did not at 
 once rush into the debates of the House. He was perfectly- 
 informed concerning the interests of his constituents, over 
 which he exercised a watchful care. But for the first session 
 or two of Congress, he spoke rarely, and briefly ; familiariz 
 ing himself, by study and observation, with the rules of 
 debate, and the usages of parliamentary bodies. When he 
 did rise to address the House, it was on some practical 
 question ; and his remarks were always forcible, and to the 
 point. 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF WESTERN ELVERS. 
 
 His first speech in Congress was upon the improvement of 
 western lakes and harbors, delivered December 19, 1843. 
 lie had moved that so much of the President s message as 
 referred to that subject, be referred to a select committee. 
 He insisted upon a select committee, " because the question 
 involved important interests requiring an accurate know 
 ledge of the condition of the country, its navigable 
 streams, and the obstructions to be removed. A thorough 
 examination of subjects so various, extensive, and intricate, 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 21 
 
 and requiring so much patient labor and toil, could not be 
 expected from those who reside at a great distance. He 
 desired a full, elaborate, and detailed report from those 
 whose local positions would stimulate them. Let this be 
 granted, and the friends of the measure would be content to 
 leave its policy and propriety to the judgment of the 
 House." While Mr. Douglas has never ceased to take a lively 
 interest in river and harbor improvements and the protection 
 of inland navigation, experience soon convinced him that the 
 practice of appropriating from the federal treasury for such 
 purposes had utterly failed to accomplish its object, and 
 that a system of tonnage duties which he matured, and on 
 several occasions has introduced into the Senate, should be 
 substituted for Congressional appropriations. Since the sys 
 tem of tonnage duties has been elaborated in Congress, and 
 is becoming understood by the public, the most enlightened 
 friends of the navigating interests are becoming satisfied that 
 the substitute proposed by Mr. Douglas would prove not 
 >nly more economical, but more effective and beneficial in 
 .he accomplishment of their views. 
 
 In connection with this subject, it should be added, that 
 Mr. Douglas was mainly instrumental in securing the passage 
 of the law by which the maritime and admiralty jurisdiction 
 of the federal courts was extended over the northern lakes. 
 
 SPEECH IN FAVOK OP REMITTING GEN. JACKSON S PINE. 
 
 On the 7th of January, 1844, he delivered an eloquent 
 speech on the bill to refund to Gen. Jackson, the fine unjustly 
 imposed on him by Judge Hall, of New Orleans. From 
 tliis speech we make the following extracts : 
 
 " I maintain," said Mr. Douglas, " that in the exercise of 
 the power of proclaiming martial law, Gen. Jackson did not 
 violate the Constitution, nor assume to himself any authority 
 
22 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 not fully authorized and legalized by his position, his duty, 
 and the necessity of the case. Gen. Jackson \ras the agent 
 of the government, legally and constitutionally authorized to 
 defend the city of Xew Orleans. It was his duty to do this 
 at all hazards. It was then conceded, and is now conceded, 
 that nothing but martial law would enable him to perform 
 that duty. His power was commensurate with his duty, and 
 he was authorized to use the means essential to its perform 
 ance. This principle has been recognized and acted upon by 
 all civilized nations, and is familiar to all who are conversant 
 with military history. It does not imply the right to suspend 
 the laws and civil tribunals at pleasure. The right grows 
 out of the necessity. The principle is, that the commanding 
 general may go as far, and no further than is absolutely 
 necessary to the defence of the place committed to his pro 
 tection. There are exigencies in the history of nations, 
 when necessity becomes the paramount law, to which all 
 other considerations must yield. If it becomes necessary to 
 blow up a fort, it is right to do it. If it is necessary to sink 
 a ship, it is right to sink it. If it is necessary to burn a city, 
 it is right to burn it." 
 
 ********* 
 Mr. Douglas then gave a graphic description of the state of 
 affairs at New Orleans in December, 1814, and January, 1815 ; 
 concluding thus : " The enemy, composed of disciplined 
 troops, four times as numerous as our own force, were in the 
 immediate vicinity of the city, ready for the attack at any 
 moment ; the city, filled with traitors, anxious to sur 
 render ; spies transmitting information to the enemy s camp. 
 The governor of the State, the judges, the public authorities, 
 and all the chief citizens, earnestly entreated Gen. Jackson to 
 declare martial law, as the only means of maintaining the 
 safety of the city. Gen. Jackson promptly issued the order, 
 and enforced it by the weight of his authority. The city 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 23 
 
 was saved. The country was defended by a succession of 
 the most brilliant military achievements that ever adorned 
 the annals of any country or any age. Martial law was con 
 tinued no longer than the danger existed. Judge Hall him 
 self had advised, urged, and solicited Gen. Jackson to 
 
 declare it." 
 
 ********* 
 
 " The last of the high crimes and misdemeanors imputed 
 to Gen. Jackson at New Orleans, is that of arresting Judge 
 Hall, and sending him beyond the limits of the city, with 
 instructions not to return till peace was restored. The 
 justification of this act is found in the necessity which 
 required the declaration of martial law, and its continuance 
 and enforcement until the enemy should have left, or the 
 treaty of peace be ratified. Judge Hall, who was by birth 
 an Englishman, had confederated with Louallier s band of 
 conspirators. Their movements were dangerous. Gen. 
 Jackson took the responsibility, and sent the judge beyond 
 the lines of his camp. Was this a contempt of court ?" 
 ********* 
 
 " I envy not the feelings of the man who can calmly 
 reason about the force of precedents in the fury of tho 
 war-cry, when booty and beauty is the watchword. Talk 
 not to me of forms, and rules of court when the enemy s 
 cannon arc pointed at the door ! The man who could philo 
 sophize at such times, would fiddle while tho Capitol was 
 burning. There was but one form necessary on that occa 
 sion, and that was, to point cannon and destroy the enemy." 
 *********, 
 
 " I grant that the bill is unprecedented : but I desire, on 
 this day, to make a precedent that shall command the admi 
 ration, of tho world. Besides, sir, the government has 
 repeatedly recognized and sanctioned the doctrine, that in 
 cases of necessity, the commander is fully justified in super 
 
24: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the civil law: and that Congress will make remunera- 
 
 J O 
 
 tion, when the commander acted with the view of promoting 
 the public interests. The people demand this measure, and 
 they will never be satisfied till their wishes shall have been 
 respected, and their will obeyed." 
 
 JACKSON S OPINION OF THIS SPEECH. 
 
 The bill was passed, and the fine refunded. A year after 
 ward, Mr. Douglas, in company with several other members 
 of Congress, paid their respects to the venerable hero and 
 patriot, at the Hermitage. When Mr. Douglas was intro 
 duced, the old general grasped him warmly by the hand, and 
 requested him to step with him into a private room. There, 
 in the presence of two other gentlemen now living, and from 
 one of whom we have received this relation, the venerable 
 soldier, in a voice trembling with emotion, thus addressed 
 the young statesman : " Mr. Douglas, I read, with feelings 
 of lively gratitude, your speech in Congress last winter, in 
 favor of remitting the fine imposed on me by Judge Hall. I 
 knew when I proclaimed and enforced martial law, that I 
 was doing right. But never, until I had read your speech, 
 could I have expressed the reasons which actuated my con 
 duct. I knew that I was not violating the Constitution of 
 my country. When my life is written, I wish that speech 
 of yours to be inserted in it, as my reasons for proclaiming 
 and enforcing martial law in "New Orleans." 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 25 
 
 and requiring so much patient labor and toil, could not be 
 expected from those who reside at a great distance. He 
 desired a full, elaborate, and detailed report from those 
 whose local positions would stimulate them. Let this be 
 granted, and the friends of the measure would be content to 
 leave its policy and propriety to the judgment of the 
 House." While Mr. Douglas has never ceased to take a lively 
 interest in river and harbor improvements and the protection 
 of inland navigation, experience soon convinced him that the 
 practice of appropriating from the federal treasury for such 
 purposes had utterly failed to accomplish its object, and 
 that a system of tonnage duties which he matured, and on 
 several occasions has introduced into the Senate, should be 
 substituted for Congressional appropriations. Since the sys 
 tem of tonnage duties- has been elaborated in Congress, and 
 is becoming understood by the public, the most enlightened 
 friends of the navigating interests are becoming satisfied that 
 the substitute proposed by Mr. Donglas would prove not 
 
 >nly more economical, but more effective and beneficial in 
 
 he accomplishment of their views. 
 
 In connection with this subject, it should be added, that 
 Mr. Douglas was mainly instrumental in securing the passage 
 of the law by which the maritime and admiralty jurisdiction 
 of the federal courts was extended over the northern lakes. 
 
 SPEECH IN FAVOR OF REMITTING GEN. JACKSON S FINE. 
 
 On the 7th of January, 1844, he delivered an eloquent 
 speech on the bill to refund to Gen. Jackson, the fine unjustly 
 imposed on him by Judge Hall, of New Orleans. From 
 this speech we make the following extracts : 
 
 "I maintain," said Mr. Douglas, "that in the exercise of 
 the power of proclaiming martial law, Gen. Jackson did not 
 violate the Constitution, nor assume to himself any authority 
 
 2 
 
Zb THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 not fully authorized and legalized by his position, his duty, 
 and the necessity of the case. Gen. Jackson \ras the agent 
 of the government, legally and constitutionally authorized to 
 defend the city of Xew Orleans. It was his duty to do this 
 at all hazards. It was then conceded, and is now conceded, 
 that nothing but martial law would enable him to perform 
 that duty. His power was commensurate with his duty, and 
 he was authorized to use the means essential to its perform 
 ance. This principle has been recognized and acted upon by 
 all civilized nations, and is familiar to all who are conversant 
 with military history. It does not imply the right to suspend 
 the laws and civil tribunals at pleasure. The right grows 
 out of the necessity. The principle is, that the commanding 
 general may go as far, and no further than is absolutely 
 necessary to the defence of the place committed to his pro 
 tection. There are exigencies in the history of nations, 
 when necessity becomes the paramount law, to which all 
 other considerations must yield. If it becomes necessary to 
 blow up a fort, it is right to do it. If it is necessary to sink 
 a ship, it is right to sink it. If it is necessary to burn a city, 
 it is right to burn it." 
 
 ********* 
 Mr. Douglas then gave a graphic description of the state of 
 affairs at New Orleans in December, 1814, and January, 1815 ; 
 concluding thus : " The enemy, composed of disciplined 
 troops, four times as numerous as our own force, were in the 
 immediate vicinity of the city, ready for the attack at any 
 moment ; the city, filled* with traitors, anxious to sur 
 render ; spies transmitting information to the enemy s camp. 
 The governor of the State, the judges, the public authorities, 
 and all the chief citizens, earnestly entreated Gen. Jackson to 
 declare martial law, as the only means of maintaining the 
 safety of the city. Gen. Jackson promptly issued the order, 
 and enforced it by the weight of his authority. The city 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 27 
 
 was saved. The country was defended by a succession of 
 the most brilliant military achievements that ever adorned 
 the annals of any country t5r any age. Martial law was con 
 tinued no longer than the danger existed. Judge Hall him 
 self had advised, urged, and solicited Gen. Jackson to 
 declare it." 
 
 ********* 
 
 " The last of the high crimes and misdemeanors imputed 
 to Gen. Jackson at New Orleans, is that of arresting Judge 
 Hall, and sending him beyond the limits of the city, with 
 instructions not to return till peace was restored. The 
 justification of this act is found in the necessity which 
 required the declaration of martial law, and its continuance 
 and enforcement until the enemy should have left, or the 
 treaty of peace be ratified. Judge Hall, who was by birth 
 an Englishman, had confederated with Louallier s band of 
 conspirators. Their movements were dangerous. Gen. 
 Jackson took the responsibility, and sent the judge beyond 
 the lines of his camp. Was this a contempt of court ?" 
 ********* 
 
 " I envy not the feelings of the man who can calmly 
 reason about the force of precedents in the fury of the 
 war-cry, when booty and beauty is the watchword. Talk 
 not to me of forms, and rules of court when the enemy s 
 cannon are pointed at the door ! The man who could philo 
 sophize at such times, would fiddle while the Capitol was 
 burning. There was but one form necessary on that occa 
 sion, and that was, to point cannon and destroy the enemy." 
 ********* 
 
 " I grant that the bill is unprecedented : but I desire, on 
 this day, to make a precedent that shall command the admi 
 ration of the world. Besides, sir, the government has 
 repeatedly recognized and sanctioned the doctrine, that in 
 cases of necessity, the commander is fully justified in super 
 
28 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 seding the civil law ; and that Congress will make remunera 
 tion, when the commander acted Avith the view of promoting 
 the public interests. The people demand this measure, and 
 they will never be satisfied till their wishes shall have been 
 respected, and their will obeyed." 
 
 JACKSON S OPIXION OF THIS SPEECH. 
 
 The bill was passed, and the fine refunded. A year after 
 ward, Mr. Douglas, in company with several other members 
 of Congress, paid their respects to the venerable hero and 
 patriot, at the Hermitage. When Mr. Douglas was intro 
 duced, the old general grasped him warmly by the hand, and 
 requested him to step with him into a private room. There, 
 in the presence of two other gentlemen now living, and from 
 one of whom we have received this relation, the venerable 
 soldier, in a voice trembling with emotion, thus addressed 
 the young statesman : " Mr. Douglas, I read, with feelings 
 of lively gratitude, your speech in Congress last winter, in 
 favor of remitting the fine imposed on me by Judge Hall. I 
 knew when I proclaimed and enforced martial law, that I 
 was doing right. But never, until I had read your speech, 
 could I have expressed the reasons which actuated my con 
 duct. I knew that I was not violating the Constitution of 
 my country. When my life is written, I wish that speech 
 of yours to be inserted in it, as my reasons for proclaiming 
 and enforcing martial law in N"ew Orleans/ 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 KE-ANNEXATION OP TEXAS. 
 
 Speech in Favor of the Re-Annexation of Texas Mr. Douglas reports Joint 
 Resolutions, declaring Texas to be one of the United States Texas 
 Annexed. < 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS was among the earliest advocates of the 
 annexation of Texas ; on which subject he made an- able 
 speech on the 6th of January, 1845. In this speech he 
 showed that the Texas question was not at that time a new 
 one : that it did not originate with Mr. Tyler : that one of 
 first acts of the administration of Gen. Jackson had been to 
 re-open negotiations with Mexico for the annexation of 
 Texas: that Mr. Van Buren, then secretary of state, had 
 addressed a long dispatch to Mr. Poinsett, our minister to 
 Mexico, instructing him to endeavor to secure Texas, raid 
 directing him to give $5,000,000 for it : that the attempt 
 had been renewed by President Jackson in 1833, and again 
 in 1835. He showed by the authority of John Quincy 
 Adams, in his official letters, especially the one dated 
 March 12, 1818, that the western boundary of Louisiana 
 extended to the Rio del Norte : that the settlements made 
 between the rivers Sabine and Rio del Norte, by La Salle, 
 in 1685, under the authority of Louis XIV-, king of France, 
 together with those on the Mississippi and the Illinois, 
 formed the basis of the original French colony of Louisiana, 
 which was ceded to the United States in 1803 ; arid quoted 
 the language of Mr. Adams, " that the claim of the United 
 
30 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo del N" orte was as 
 clear as their right to the island of New Orleans." 
 
 He then went on to show that as the Rio del Norte was 
 the western boundary of Louisiana, and Texas was included 
 in the cession of 1803, all the inhabitants of that country 
 were, by the terms of the treaty, naturalized, and became 
 citizens of the United States ; and all who migrated there 
 between 1803 and 1819 went there under the shield of the 
 Constitution and laws of the United. States, and with the 
 guaranty that they would be forever protected by them; 
 and quoted from the treaty of cession as follows : " The in 
 habitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the 
 Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, 
 according to the principles of the Constitution, to the enjoy 
 ments of all the rights of the United States." 
 
 " To the fulfillment of these stipulations," said Mr. Doug 
 las, " the sacred faith and honor of this nation were solemnly 
 pledged. Yet, in violation of one of them, Texas was ceded 
 to Spain by the treaty of 1819. The American Republic 
 was severed by that treaty, a part of its territory joined to 
 a foreign kingdom, and American citizens were transformed 
 into the subjects of a foreign despotism. Texas did not 
 assent to the separation ; she protested against it promptly 
 and solemnly. The^protest and declaration of independence 
 of Texas, in June, 1819, says, The recent treaty between 
 Spain and the United States has dissipated an illusion, and 
 has aroused the citizens of Texas. They see themselves 
 abandoned to the dominion of Spain ; but, spurning the fet 
 ters of colonial vassalage, they resolve, under the blessing 
 of God, to be free and independent. 
 
 " Most nobly have they maintained that righteous resolve ; 
 first, against the despotism of Spain, and then the tyranny 
 of Mexico, until, on the plains of San Jacinto, victory estab- 
 ished their independence and made them free." 
 
STEP II EN A. DOUGLAS. 31 
 
 Mr. Douglas proceeded to enumerate the advantages that 
 would attend the annexation of Texas, and then went on to 
 show that it must be done in accordance with the principles 
 of the Constitution ; proving the doctrine to have been sane 
 tioned and settled, that foreign territory may be annexed, 
 organized into territories and States, and admitted into the 
 Union on an equal footing with the original States. In con 
 cluding his remarks upon this point, Mr. Douglas said, " The 
 conclusion is irresistible that Congress, possessing the power 
 to admit a State, has the right to pass a law of annexation. 
 I do not say that territory cannot be acquired in any other 
 way than by act of Congress. We may acquire it by con 
 quest, or by treaty, or by discovery. We claim the Oregon 
 Territory by virtue of the right of discovery and occupation. 
 But if we wish to acquire Texas without making war or 
 relying upon discovery, we must fall back upon the power to 
 admit new States, and acquire the territory by act of Con 
 gress, as one of the necessary and indispensable means of 
 executing that enumerated power. Our federal system is 
 admirably adapted to the whole continent ; and while I 
 would not violate the laws of nations, nor treaty stipulations, 
 nor in any manner tarnish the national honor, I would exert 
 all legal and honorable means to drive Great Britain, and the 
 last vestiges of royal authority, from the continent of North 
 America, and extend the limits of the Republic from ocean 
 to ocean. I would make tlnVan ocean-bound republic, and 
 have no more disputes about boundaries or red lines upon 
 maps." 
 
 The treaty for the annexation of Texas having failed in 
 the Senate, Mr. Douglas, among others, introduced joint 
 resolutions in the House of Representatives for the annexa 
 tion of Texas to the United States ; and at the next session, 
 being chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported 
 the bill by which Texas was declared one of the States 
 
3$ THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 of the Union, on an equal footing with the original States. 
 In this joint resolution there was inserted, at the instance 
 of Mr. Douglas, a provision extending the Missouri Com 
 promise line westward through Texas to the Rio del 
 Norte, its western boundary. The reasons which induced 
 Mr. Douglas to bring forward that provision are explained 
 by him in his speech on the Nebraska Territory, delivered 
 January 30, 1854, and which will be found in a subsequent 
 chapter of this work. 
 
 The joint resolution as passed is as follows : 
 
 JOINT RESOLUTION FOK ANNEXING TEXAS TO THE UNITED 
 
 STATES. 
 
 " Retolwd, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States in Congress Assembled, That Congress doth consent that the terri 
 tory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the Kepublic of 
 Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, 
 with a Republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of 
 said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of 
 the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one 
 of the States of this Union. 
 
 " SEC. 2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Con 
 gress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guar 
 unties, to wit : 
 
 " First, Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this gov 
 ernment of all questions of boundary that may arise with other govern 
 ments ; and of the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its 
 adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to 
 the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final 
 action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred 
 and forty -six. 
 
 " Second, Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the 
 United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports, and har 
 bors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all 
 other property and means pertaining to the public defence, belonging to 
 the said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, 
 and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due or owing said 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 33 
 
 .Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant or unappropriated laads 
 lying within its limits, to, be applied to the payment of tho debts and 
 liabilities of said Republic of Texas ; and the residue of said lands, after 
 discharging said debts and liabilities, to become a charge upon the United 
 States. 
 
 " Third, New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, 
 in addition to the said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, 
 may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory 
 thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provision of the 
 Federal Constitution; and such States as may be formed out of that por 
 tion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, 
 north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be 
 admitted into the Union with or without Slavery, as the people of each 
 State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall 
 be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, 
 Slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited. 
 
 [WALKER S AMENDMENT ADDED.] 
 
 11 And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States 
 shall, in his judgment and discretion, deem it most advisable, instead of 
 proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution to the Republic of Texas, 
 as an overture on the part of the United States, for admission, to negoti 
 ate with that Republic ; then, 
 
 " Be it resolved, That a State to be formed out of the present Republic 
 of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representa 
 tives in Congress, until the next apportionment of representation, shall be 
 admitted into the Union by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with 
 the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, 
 and the cession of the remaining Texan territory to the United States, 
 shall be agreed upon by the Governments of Texas and the Un led States. 
 
 " And be it further enacted, That the sum of one hundred tho-.^and dol 
 lars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of 
 missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and 
 cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to 
 be submitted 1o the two Houses of Congress, as the President may diru-.t. 
 
 "Approved, March 2, 1845." 
 
34: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 WAR WITH MEXICO. 
 
 Speech in Vindication of the Administration Mr. Douglas elected to Con 
 gress a third time. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS vigorously supported the administration of 
 President Polk, in the measures it adopted for the prosecu 
 tion of the war against Mexico; and on the 13th of May, 
 1846, made a long and able speech in favor of the bill making 
 appropriations for the support of the army. The object of 
 this speech was to vindicate our government, and to demon 
 strate that it had not been in the wrong, in the origin and 
 progress of the war. It will be remembered that the war 
 was denounced by the Whig party as unholy and damnable, 
 and the government of the United States was vilified and 
 traduced without measure, for taking the only course that 
 could be taken, in order to preserve the national honor. 
 Henry Clay, the great leader of the Whigs, did not, indeed, 
 join in this shameful cry. His eldest son, Henry Clay, jr., 
 fought gallantly in the war, and fell at Buena Vista : and tjie 
 old patriot was net one of those who gave aid and comfort to 
 the enemy. But Thomas Corwin, and others like him, de 
 clared in Congress that while the President could command 
 the army, they thanked heaven that they could command the 
 purse, and that he should have no funds to prosecute this 
 war ; and called upon the Mexicans to welcome the soldiers 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 35 
 
 of the American army, with " bloody hands and hospitable 
 graves !" 
 
 In reply to this, Mr. Douglas presented a mass of evidence 
 from official documents, showing that for years past we had 
 had ample cause for war against Mexico, and quoting the. 
 declaration of President Jackson s last special message, that 
 the wanton character of the outrages upon the persons and 
 property of our citizens, upon the officers and flag of the 
 United States, independent of recent insults to this govern 
 ment and people, would justify in the eyes of nations, imme 
 diate war. 
 
 MEXICAN OUTRAGES. 
 
 "Aside from the insults to our flag," said Mr. Douglas, 
 " the indignity to the nation, and the injury to our commerce, 
 not less than ten millions of dollars are due to our citizens, 
 for these outrages which Mexico has committed within the 
 last fifteen years. The Committee on Foreign Relations of 
 the U. S. Senate, said in their report in 1837, that they might 
 with justice recommend an immediate resort to war or re 
 prisals ; and the House Committee, at the same session, re 
 ported that * the merchant vessels of the United States have 
 been fired into, and our citizens put to death. It should be 
 borne in mind that all those insults and injuries were com 
 mitted before the annexation of Texas before the proposi 
 tion of annexation was ever seriously entertained by this 
 government. For offences much less aggravated, France 
 made her demand for reparation, and proclaimed her ultima 
 tum from the deck of a man-of-war off Vera Cruz. Redress 
 being denied, the French fleet opened their batteries on the 
 Castle of San Juan de Ulloa, compelled the fortress to sur 
 render, and the Mexican government to accede to their de 
 mands, and to pay $200,000 in addition, to defray the expenses 
 of enforcing the payment of the claim. Our wrongs aro ten 
 
36 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 fold greater than those of France, in number and enormity; 
 yet her complaints have been heard in tones of thunder from 
 the mouths of her cannon. 
 
 "When the question of annexation was recently agitated, 
 Mexico gave notice to this government that she would regard 
 the consummation of the measure as a declaration of war. 
 She made the passage of the resolution of annexation the pre 
 text for dissolving the diplomatic relations between the two 
 countries." 
 
 HOUSTON S TREATY WITH SANTA ANNA. 
 
 Mr. Douglas then briefly related the facts relative to Mr. 
 Slidell s appointment as minister to Mexico, the contemp 
 tuous reception that he met with there, and his final rejection 
 by the government of Paredes ; and also gave a brief sketch 
 of the early military operations on both sides. J5y references 
 to the documentary archives of the government, he proved 
 that the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Texas, and 
 cited the fact that immediately after the battle of San Ja- 
 cinto, Santa Anna proposed to General Sam Houston, com 
 mander of the Texan army, to make a treaty of peace by 
 which Mexico would recognize the independence of Texas 
 with the Rio del Norte as the boundary, and that such a 
 treaty w T as made, in which the independence of Texas was 
 acknowledged by the government de facto of Mexico, and 
 the Rio del JsToute recognized as the boundary. He showed 
 that according to the well-established principles of interna 
 tional law, the acts of the government de facto are binding 
 on that nation in respect to foreign states : and concluded by 
 a defence of the course pursued by President Polk, in order 
 ing General Taylor to occupy with his forces territory that 
 was as much ours as Florida or Massachusetts. 
 
 Mr. Douglas was prominent among those who, in the Ore 
 gon controversy with Great Britain, maintained that our 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 37 
 
 title to the whole of Oregon was clear and unquestionable. 
 He declared in the House of Representatives, that he would 
 never, now or hereafter, yield up one inch of Oregon, either 
 to Great Britain or to any other foreign government. He 
 advocated the policy of giving notice to Great Britain to ter 
 minate the joint occupation; of establishing a territorial 
 government over Oregon, protected by a sufficient military 
 force ; and of putting the country at once into a state of pre 
 paration, so that if war should result from the assertion of our 
 just rights, we might drive Great Britain and the last vestige 
 of royal authority from the continent of North America. 
 
38 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE WAR WITH MEXICO I/l 847-1 848. 
 
 Mr. Douglas Elected to the United States Senate He opposes the Wllmot 
 Proviso Speech on the Ten Regiment Bill Bill for the Establishment 
 of the Territory of Nebraska Pass to Gen. Santa Anna Exertions of 
 Mr. Douglas in procuring Grants of Land to the Illinois Central Railroad 
 He endeavors to extend the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific 
 Ocean The Design defeated by Northern Votes Bill for the Admission 
 of California Indian Titles in the Northwest Protection to Emigrants. 
 
 THE WILMOT PROVISO. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS had been reflected to Congress in 1846 ; but 
 before Congress met, the legislature of the State of Illinois 
 elected him a senator for six years from the 4th of March. 
 1847. 
 
 So far as the question of slavery was involved in the orga 
 nization of territories and the admission of new States, Mr. 
 Douglas early took the position that Congress ought not to 
 interfere on either side ; but that the people of each Terri 
 tory and State should be allowed to form and regulate their 
 domestic institutions in their own way. In accordance with 
 this principle, he opposed the Wilmot Proviso whenever it 
 was brought up. 
 
 SPEECH OX THE TEX REGIMENT BILL. 
 
 On the 30th of January, 1848, Mr. Douglas made a speech in 
 the Senate on the Ten Regiment Bill, which provided for the 
 
STEP II EN A. DOUGLAS. 39 
 
 raising, for a limited time, of an additional military force. In 
 this speech, Mr. Douglas alluded to the fact that the war with 
 Mexico had been in progress nearly two years. The campaign 
 of 1846 had resulted in the most brilliant victories that ever 
 adorned the annals of any nation. The States of California, 
 New Mexico, Chihuahua, New Leon, and Tamaulipas, besides 
 many towns and cities in other Mexican States, had been one 
 after another reduced to our possession. After a defence 
 of President Polk from the charge of changing his grounds 
 in regard to the causes of the war and the objects of prose 
 cuting it, he showed that the war was not one of conquest, 
 but of self-defence forced on us by Mexico ; and that the 
 declaration of the President, that the first blood of the war 
 was " American blood shed upon American soil," was the 
 simple truth. " That in order to compel Mexico to do us jus 
 tice, it was necessary to follow her armies into her territory, to 
 take possession of State after State, and hold them until she 
 would yield to our reasonable demands. Indemnity for the 
 past, and security for the future, was the motive of the war." 
 When Mr. Douglas rose to make this speech, his desk was 
 piled with original Mexican documents, all official, from 
 which he proved that the Rio Grande always was the western 
 boundary of Texas. After first defeating the Mexicans, the 
 Texans on the 2<I of November, 1836, adopted a declaration 
 of independence, and on 17th published their constitution. 
 In both of these documents, the Rio Grande was stated as the 
 boundary. After the memorable victory of San Jacinto, on 
 the 21st of April following, a treaty was made and ratified 
 May 12th, between Santa Anna on the part of the Mexican 
 government, and Gen. Houston on the part of Texas, which 
 prescribed the boundary of Texas, the Rio Grande being the 
 western line. 
 
 Mr. Douglas then proceeded to show that the war had 
 been commenced by the act of Mexico, and eited the official 
 
40 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 instructions from President Paredes to the Mexican genera) 
 commanding on the right bank of the Rio Grande, in which 
 he says, April, 18, 184G, "It is indispensable that hostilities 
 be commenced, yourself taking the initiative against the 
 enemy." In closing this speech, Mr. Douglas paid a glowing 
 tribute to the volunteers who had so gallantly rushed to the 
 standard of their country, and especially to the 7,000 volun 
 teers from Illinois. 
 
 PASS TO SANTA ANNA. 
 
 Gen. Santa Anna had been an exile from his country when 
 the Mexican War began ; and, desiring to return to Mexico, 
 he was permitted to pass through our squadron. This was 
 done in pursuance of orders from the War Department to 
 the commander of our fleet in the Gulf of Mexico. The 
 Government was violently assailed for having permitted this ; 
 Mr. Clayton of Delaware having charged the President, by 
 giving this pass to Santa Anna, with being guilty of a blunder 
 worse than a crime. On the 17th of March, Mr. Douglas, in 
 a brief, but comprehensive speech, defended the policy of the 
 administration in this matter, and showed that the admission 
 of Santa Anna, so far from being a blunder, was a wise and 
 politic measure. The results of the war proved that he was 
 right, and that Mr. Clayton was mistaken. 
 
 ILLINOIS CENTRAL KAILROAD. 
 
 The bill granting to the State of Illinois the right of way 
 through the lands of the United States, which had been 
 originally introduced into the Senate by Mr. Douglas, 
 April 10, 1848, was passed on the 31st of May : the measure 
 owing its success mainly to his exertions. The object of the 
 bill was to construct a railroad connecting Chicago and the 
 
STEP II EN A. DOUGLAS. 41 
 
 great lakes of the K"orth, with the Mississippi River at 
 Cairo. The road was built, and it has proved to be of incal 
 culable benefit, not only to the State of Illinois, but to the 
 whole country. 
 
 In the debate on the bill, Mr. Douglas explained that the 
 proposed road was to be the entire length of the State from 
 north to south, not far from 400 miles. The bill proposed 
 to grant the land in alternate sections, increasing the price 
 of the other sections to double the minimum price. It was fol 
 lowing the same system that had been adopted in reference U 
 improvements of a similar character in Ohio, Indiana, Alabama, 
 Iowa, and Wisconsin, by w r hich principle each alternate 
 section of land was ceded, and the price of the alternate 
 sections not ceded was doubled, so that the same price is re 
 ceived for the whole. These lands had been in the market 
 about twenty-three years ; but they would not sell at the usual 
 price of $1 25 per acre, because they were distant from any- 
 navigable stream. A railroad would make the lands salable 
 at double the usual price. The road was begun by tho 
 State of Illinois in 1836, and about a million of dollars were 
 expended upon it by the State. With the exception of the 
 county at the northern end of the road, more than one-hal f 
 of the whole of the lands along the line were then vacant ; 
 in most of the counties, it was so. Around the towns the 
 land was all taken up and cultivated, but there were large 
 prairies where the land was in all its original wildness. 
 
 ITS BENEFIT TO ILLINOIS. 
 
 It must be remembered that this was twelve years ago. 
 Illinois twelve years ago was very different from the Illinois 
 of to-day. There was then not a single mile of railroad in 
 the State; and the greater part of the line of the proposed 
 railroad passed for miles and miles without coming in sight 
 
42 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 of a house, or any other indication of civilized life. What a 
 contrast now ! The proposed road built, known even in 
 Europe as one of the most prosperous in America ; other 
 railroads crossing it in all directions ; the reserved alternate 
 sections of land nearly all sold, at prices ranging from two 
 dollars and a half to seven and a quarter per acre, thus yield 
 ing to the government a much larger sum for one half than 
 was before asked for the whole; the whole of the soil of 
 Illinois, acknowledged to be the richest in the world, re 
 deemed from its primitive wildness, blooming and blossoming 
 like a garden, and teeming with abundant harvests ; a mar 
 ket brought to every former s door ; and this prosperity 
 owing its origin and material progress to the exertions 01 
 Mr. Douglas in securing the passage of this bill. 
 
 It is but an act of simple justice to those illustrious states 
 men to add, that JoliH C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Danie 
 Webster, Thomas H. Benton, and Lewis Cass, seconded thfc 
 efforts of Mr. Douglas by able and eloquent speeches in 
 favor of this great measure. 
 
 MISSOURI COMPROMISE PtEPUDIATED. 
 
 In August, 1848, Mr. Douglas offered an amendment to 
 the Oregon Bill, extending the Missouri Compromise line 
 to the Pacific Ocean, in the same sense and with the same 
 understanding with which it was originally adopted in 1820, 
 and extended through Texas in 1845. The amendment was 
 adopted in the Senate, but was rejected in the House of 
 Representatives by northern votes. 
 
 It is important to mark well this fact. The first time that 
 the principles of the Missouri Compromise were even aban 
 doned, the first time they were ever rejected by Congress, 
 was by the defeat of that provision in the House of Repre 
 sentatives, in 1848. That defeat was effected by northern 
 
STEP II EN A. DOUGLAS. 43 
 
 votes with Freesoil proclivities. It was that defeat which 
 reopened the slavery agitation in all its fury, and caused the 
 tremendous straggle of 1850. It was that defeat which cre 
 ated the necessity for making a new compromise in 1850. 
 Who caused that defeat ? Who was faithless to the prin 
 ciples of the compromise of 1820? It was the very men 
 who in 1854, insisted that the Missouri Compromise was a 
 solemn compact that ought never to be violated. The very 
 men who, in 1854, arraigned Mr. Douglas for a departure 
 from the Missouri Compromise, were the men who success 
 fully violated it, repudiated it, and caused it to be super 
 seded. 
 
 CALIFORNIA, INDIAN TITLES, ETC. 
 
 By the time the next session of Congress assembled, Cali 
 fornia had been settled by an enterprising people, whose 
 numbers entitled them to admission into the Union as a State. 
 A bill " for the admission of California as a State into the 
 Union," was introduced by Mr. Douglas on the 29th of Jan 
 uary, 1849 ; but was not acted on till long afterward. 
 
 On the 18th of December, 1849, Mr. Douglas was reflected 
 chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, by 33 out 
 of 40 votes; a position to which he was constantly thereafter 
 reflected, until December, 1858. 
 
 The tribes of Indians which had, until a few years before, 
 occupied the lands in Minnesota, Oregon, California, and. "NTew 
 Mexico, had never been fully divested of their title to the 
 same ; and their constant presence there, and their depreda 
 tions on the settlers, were very annoying ; so much so that the 
 settlement of those new Territories was much impeded. 
 In order to remove the cause of all the trouble at once, Mr. 
 Douglas, on the 7th of January, 1850, offered a resolution 
 providing for the complete extinguishment of the Indian 
 
44 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 title in the Territories above named. The resolution was 
 debated at some length, but it was adopted ; and the mea 
 sures proposed have been faithfully carried out. Ample 
 provision was made for treating the Indians with fairness 
 and justice : and while their rights have been respected, and 
 their comforts secured, the vast regions which they occupied 
 have been secured for all time to come for the abodes of 
 civilized men ; and for the spread of those great fundamental 
 principles on which our national prosperity rests. 
 
 At the time that Mr. Douglas introduced his resolution, 
 however, the emigrants to those Territories, and especially 
 to those of Oregon and California, were annoyed and at 
 tacked to such an extent, by roving bands of Indians, that it 
 was considered positively unsafe for emigrants to go any 
 further west than the Missouri River. It was clearly the 
 duty of the Government to afford protection to its citizens 
 on its own soil ; and accordingly, on the 31st of January, 
 Mr. Douglas offered a resolution, instructing the committee 
 on military affairs to inquire into the expediency of provid 
 ing, on the usual emigrant line from the Missouri River to 
 the South Pass of the Rocky Mountains, a sufficient movable 
 military force to protect all emigrants to Oregon and Cali 
 fornia. 
 
 To the legislation growing out of this resolution, many 
 hundreds of families now living in comfort and even in afflu 
 ence in the smiling villages of Oregon, California, and Min 
 nesota, are indebted, not only for their safety, but their very 
 lives. The instances of emigrant trains saved from the at 
 tack and spoliation of the savages, by our gallant troops on 
 the frontier, from 1851 to 1857, are numerous and well 
 authenticated. The settlers in those new countries owe a 
 debt of gratitude to Mr. Douglas which they will not soon 
 forget. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 4:5 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 COMPROMISE OF 1850. 
 
 Mr. Douglas supports the Compromise Measures of Henry Clay Great 
 Speech on the 13th and 14th of March Speech in favor of the Omni 
 bus Bill, June 3 The Nicholson Letter of General Cass Mr. Douglas 
 returns to Chicago He is Denounced by the Local Authorities 
 He beards the Lions in their Den Speech to the Citizens of Chicago 
 Its Effect. 
 
 WHEN the Compromise measures of Mr. Clay were 
 brought forward in 1850, Mr. Douglas supported them with 
 zeal and vigor. On the 13th and 14th of March, he deli 
 vered a speech on the general territorial questions, which has 
 scarcely been surpassed by any of his subsequent efforts. It 
 was by far the ablest speech that had ever been delivered in 
 the Senate by any western man. It was in this speech that 
 Judge Douglas first enunciated the doctrine of which he has 
 ever since been the most distinguished advocate, that it is 
 the true Democratic principle in reference to the Territories, 
 that each one shall be left to regulate its own local and do 
 mestic aifairs in its own way. 
 
 In the beginning of this great speech, Senator Douglas 
 showed that all the acts of the Tyler administration in refer- 
 ,nce to the annexation of Texas (including the proposed 
 treaty with Mexico for that object, and the correspondence 
 between our secretary of state on the one part, and Mr, 
 King, minister to France and Mr. Murphy, charge d affaires 
 
4:6 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 in the republic of Texas, on the other part), had been indig 
 nantly and contemptuously rejected by the Senate ; and that 
 this had been done in order to repudiate and rebuke the ad 
 ministration of Mr Tyler, and in order that the Democratic 
 party might come to the support of the annexation of Texas 
 as they did come, and consummated the annexation upon 
 broad, national grounds, elevated far above and totally dis 
 connected from the question of slavery. 
 
 ORDINANCE OF 1787 HAD NO EFFECT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 A distinguished southern senator having said that the 
 South had been deprived of its due share of the territories, 
 Mr. Douglas responded, " What share had the South in the 
 territories ? or the Xorth ? I answer, none at all. The ter 
 ritories belong to the United States as one people, and are to 
 be disposed of for the common benefit of all, according to 
 the principles of the Constitution. "No geographical section 
 of the Union is entitled to any share of the territories. 
 What becomes of the complaint of the senator, that the 
 Ordinance of 1787 excluded the South entirely from that 
 vast fertile region between the Ohio and the Mississippi ? 
 That ordinance was a dead letter. It did not make the coun 
 try to which it applied, free from slavery. The States formed 
 out of the territory northwest of the Ohio, did not become 
 free by virtue of the Ordinance, nor in consequence of it. 
 Those States became free by virtue of their own will, re 
 corded in the fundamental laws of their own making. That 
 is the source of their freedom. In all republican states, laws 
 and ordinances are mere nullities, unless sustained by the 
 hearts and intellects of the people for whom they are made, 
 and by whom they are to be executed. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 47 
 
 SLAVES IN ILLINCIS. 
 
 "The Ordinance of 1787 did the South no harm, and thfc 
 North no good. Illinois, for instance, was a slave territory. 
 Even in 1840, there were 331 slaves in Illinois. How came 
 these slaves in Illinois ? They were taken there under the 
 Ordinance, and in defiance of it. The people of Illinois, 
 while it was a territory, were mostly emigrants from the 
 slaveholding States. But when their convention assembled 
 at Kaskaskia in 1818, to form the constitution of the State 
 of Illinois, although it was composed of slaveholders, yet they 
 had become satisfied, from experience, that the climate and 
 productions of Illinois were unfavorable to slave labor. They 
 accordingly made provision for a gradual system of emanci 
 pation, by which the State should become eventually free. 
 These facts show that the Ordinance had no practical effect 
 upon slavery. Slavery existed under the Ordinance ; and 
 since the Ordinance has been suspended by the State govern 
 ments, slavery has gradually disappeared .under the operation 
 of laws adopted and executed by the people themselves. A 
 law passed by the national legislature to operate locally upon 
 a people not represented, will always remain a dead letter, if 
 it be in opposition to the wishes and interests of those who 
 are to be affected by it. 
 
 " In regard to the effects of the Missouri Compromise on 
 the question of slavery, I do not think that it had any prac 
 tical effect on that question, one way or another : it neither 
 curtailed nor extended slavery one inch." 
 
 A GLANCE AT THE FUTUKE. 
 
 " We recognize the right of the South, in common with 
 our right, to emigrate to the Territories with their property, 
 
48 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 niid there hold and enjoy it in subordination to the laws in 
 force there. The senator from South Carolina desires such 
 an amendment to the Constitution as shall stipulate that in 
 all time to come, there shall be as many slaveholding States 
 in the Union as there are States without slaves. The adop 
 tion and execution of such a provision would be an impossi 
 bility. We have a v r ast territory which is filling up with an 
 industrious and enterprising population, large enough to 
 form seventeen new States, one-half of which we may expect 
 to see represented in this body during our day. Of these, 
 four will be formed out of Oregon, five out of our late acqui 
 sition from Mexico, including the present State of California, 
 and two out of Minnesota. Each of these will be free Terri 
 tories and free State s, whether Congress shall prohibit slavery 
 in them or not. Where are you to find the slave territory 
 with which to balance these seventeen free Territories ? In 
 Texas ? If Texas should be divided into five States, at least 
 three of them will^in all probability be free." 
 
 ADMISSION OF CALIFOENIA. 
 
 Mr. Douglas then proceeded to advocate, at great length, 
 the immediate admission of the State of California under 
 her constitution ; and concluded his speech by declaring that 
 " this nation owes to the venerable senator from Kentucky 
 (Mr. Clay) a debt of gratitude for his services to the Union 
 on this occasion. The purity of his motives cannot be 
 doubted. He has set the ball in motion which is to restore 
 peace and harmony to the Union." 
 
 THE OMNIBUS BILL. 
 
 On the 3d of June, 1850, Mr. Douglas spoke in favor of 
 the Omnibus Bill, and in the course of his remarks said : " In 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 49 
 
 respect to African slavery, the position that I have ever 
 taken has been, that this, and all other questions relating to 
 the domestic affairs and domestic policy of the Territories, 
 ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves. I 
 would therefore have much preferred that the bill should 
 have remained as it was reported from the Committee on Ter 
 ritories, with no provision on the subject of slavery; and I 
 do hope that that clause in the bill will be stricken out. It 
 ought not to be there, because it is a violation of principle 
 I do not see how we who have argued in favor of the right 
 of the people to legislate for themselves on this question, can 
 support such a provision without abandoning all the argu 
 ments which we urged in the Presidential campaign of 1848, 
 and the principles set forth by the senator from Michigan in 
 the Nicholson letter. 
 
 "And, sir, is an institution to be fixed upon a people in 
 opposition to their unanimous opinion ? I, for one, think 
 that such ought not to be the case. I desire no provision 
 whatever in respect to slavery in the Territories. I wish to 
 leave the people of the Territories free to enact such laws as 
 they please. But on this one point, I am not left to follow 
 my own judgment, nor my own desire. I am to express the 
 will of my constituents. My vote will be in accordance with 
 their instructions." 
 
 We give, in a subsequent part of this work, the Nicholson 
 letter referred to by Mr. Douglas, and commend it to the 
 perusal of our readers. It will amply repay the time thus spent. 
 
 On the 6th of June, and also on the 26th, Mr. Douglas ad 
 dressed the Senate in support of the Compromise measures. 
 
 ABOLITIONISM IX CHICAGO. 
 
 The Compromise measures of 1850 having been adopted by 
 Congress, and that body having adjourned, Mr. Douglas 
 
 3 
 
50 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 proceeded to Chicago, where he had recently purchased pro 
 perty, with a view of making that city his permanent resi 
 dence. It is a well known fact that Chicago has always been 
 the hot-bed of abolitionism, and a prominent station on the 
 Underground Railroad. There are many men there who 
 have never bowed the knee to the Baal of fanaticism and 
 treason, but the majority of the people have always been 
 abolitionists. These restless beings had been violently op 
 posed to the Compromise measures, and they raised a storm 
 of execration and abuse against Mr. Douglas, because he had 
 been prominent in procuring their adoption. The excite 
 ment was fierce and terrific. A venal press, and pulpits dis 
 graced by crazy fanatics, joined in the work of misrepresen 
 tation, abuse, and denunciation. The city council met, and 
 passed resolutions denouncing the Compromise and Fugitive 
 Slave Law as violations of the law of God and the Constitu 
 tion of the United States ; enjoined the city police to disre 
 gard the law, and called upon the citizens not to obey it. 
 On the next evening a meeting was held, composed of twenty- 
 five hundred citizens, and in that meeting, in the midst of 
 terrific applause, it was determined to defy " death, the dun 
 geon, and the grave," in resistance to the execution of the 
 law. Mr. Douglas was then in Chicago : he knew that this 
 meeting was to take place ; and he knew, from the character 
 of the men who composed it, what the nature of the resolu 
 tions would be. He walked into the meeting, and from the 
 stand gave notice that on the next evening he would appear 
 there and defend every measure of the Compromise, and 
 especially the Fugitive Slave Law, from every objection : and 
 he called upon the entire people of the city to come and hear 
 him. The announcement was made in the midst of profound 
 silence, but was immediately followed by a storm of groans 
 and hisses. Mr. Douglas, however, calmly stood his ground 
 till the noise suicided, and then, addressing those who had 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 51 
 
 hissed and groaned, told them that he was right and they 
 were wrong, and that if they would come and hear him he 
 would prove it to them. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS SPEAKS LIST CHICAGO. 
 
 On the next evening, in the presence of 4,000 people, with 
 the city council and abolitionists in front of the stand, which 
 was surrounded in the rear by a large body of armed negroes, 
 including many fugitive slaves, Mr. Douglas made a speech 
 in which he vindicated the Compromise measures and the 
 Fugitive Slave Law, and proved that the latter was both neces 
 sary and constitutional ; and he answered every objection 
 that had been urged against them. The objections relating 
 to the right of trial by jury, to the writ of habeas corpus, to 
 records from other States, to the fees of the commissioners, to 
 the pains and penalties, to the "higher law" every objec 
 tion which the ingenuity and fanaticism of abolitionism could 
 invent, was brought up by different persons in the meeting, 
 and fully and conclusively answered by Mr. Douglas. What 
 was the effect of that speech upon that meeting, comprising 
 three-fourths of all the legal voters of the city of Chicago ? 
 The people composing that meeting, ajmajority of whom had, 
 the nighji previously, pledged themselves to open and violent 
 resistance to the law, after the conclusion of the speech of 
 Mr. Douglas, unanimously adopted a series of resolutions in 
 favor of sustaining and carrying into effect every provision 
 of the Constitution and laws in respect to the surrender of 
 fugitive slaves. The resolutions were written, and submitted 
 to the meeting by Mr. Douglas, and cover the entire ground. 
 The city council having nullified the law and denounced 
 Mr. Douglas as a traitor, the Hon. Buckner S. Morris offered 
 the following resolution, which was also adopted : "Resolved, 
 That we, the people of Chicago, repudiate the resolutions 
 
52 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 recently passed by the Common Council of Chicago upon the 
 subject of the Fugitive Slave Law." 
 
 EFFECT OF THE SPEECH. 
 
 On the following evening, the city council met again, and 
 repealed their nullifying resolutions by a vote of twelve 
 to one. 
 
 This speech of Mr. Douglas was the first one ever made in 
 a free State in defence of the Fugitive Slave Law, and that 
 Chicago meeting was the first public assemblage in any free 
 State that determined to support and sustain it. In the very 
 nest of rebellion and treason, the rebels and traitors received 
 their first check : the fanatical spirit was rebuked, and the 
 supremacy of the Constitution and laws asserted and main 
 tained. Such is the power of eloquence and the force of 
 truth, even in modern times. 
 
 In the Appendix to this work, will be found the two 
 documents referred to by Senator Douglas in his speech of 
 the 13th and 14th of March, 1850; namely, the official dis 
 patch of John C. Calhoun, secretary of state under John 
 Tyler, to the Hon. Wm. R. King, our ambassador to Paris : 
 and the Nicholson letter of Gen. Cass. The former" is valuable 
 as a part of the history ofthe Tyler administration, and as 
 showing their views on the subject of the annexation of 
 Texas. It is a rare document, and as curious as any State 
 paper in the history of the country. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGrLAS. 53 
 
 CHAPTER Yin. 
 
 1851-1854. 
 
 Speech in favor of making Gen. Winfield Scott a Lieutenant-General 
 Speech on the Fugitive Slave Law Speech on the Foreign Policy of the 
 United States Retrospective View of the Course of Mr. Douglas in 
 Congress up to this Time (1852) Mr. Douglas the real Author of the 
 Compromise Measures of 1850 Bill for the Organization of the Territo 
 ries of Kansas and Nebraska Mr. Douglas opposes the Oregon Treaty 
 with England Opposes the Peace Treaty with Mexico Speech on the 
 Clayton and Bulwer Treaty Report on the Organization of Nebraska 
 and Kansas The Nebraska Bill Debate on it The bill passed. 
 
 ON the 12th of February, 1851, Mr. Douglas spoke in favor 
 of conferring the rank of Lieutenant-General on General 
 Winfield Scott. In the course of his remarks, he said, " I 
 would have preferred, however, to have seen this proposition 
 put in a shape which would have been more consistent with 
 the organization of the army, with reference to what may 
 occur in the future. I think that the highest grade in the 
 army of the United States should be always vacant in time 
 of peace, to be filled when war should occur, by a commission 
 to expire at the end of the war. I think that when a war 
 occurs, the President of the United States should be tit 
 liberty to look through the whole line of the army, and 
 through the whole line of the citizen soldiery, to select a 
 commander-iii-chief to conduct that war. I would, therefore, 
 like to see the office of lieutenant-general created, to be 
 
54: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 filled when a war arises, and to become vacant at its termi 
 nation." 
 
 SPEECH O1S" THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 On the 22d, in the debate on the execution of the Fugitive 
 Slave Law, shortly after the riot at Boston, Mr. Douglas said : 
 " The laws of Illinois have always discouraged negroes from 
 coming there. In regard to runaway slaves coming into the 
 State, we have a law imposing penalties at the discretion of 
 the court, upon any citizen of Illinois who would harbor a 
 runaway slave. It has been my fortune, in the course of my 
 brief judicial experience, to impose severe penalties upon 
 citizens of Illinois for a violation of that law : it remains upon 
 the statute book at this day. The senator from Ohio looks 
 upon this matter of the rescue of a fugitive at Boston, as a 
 trivial transaction. I do not. It is well known that there is 
 a systematic organization in many of the free States of this 
 Union, for the purpose of evading the obligations of the Con 
 stitution, and to prevent the enforcement of the laws of the 
 United States in relation to fugitive slaves. It has, at its 
 Lead, men of daring and of desperate purpose; and the oppo 
 sition to the Fugitive Slave Law is a combined and concerted 
 action. It is in the nature of a conspiracy against the govern 
 ment. I say, therefore, that these conspirators, be they in 
 Boston or in Illinois, are responsible for all that any of their 
 number may do in resistance to this law. Sir, I hold white 
 men now in my sight responsible for the violation of the law 
 at Boston. It was done under their advice, under their 
 teaching, under the influence of their speeches. The negroes 
 m the free States have been armed by the abolitionists during 
 the last six months, for the express purpose of violating the 
 Fugitive Slave Law. I have stood in a meeting of 2,000 men, 
 and heard w r hite men tell the negroes to kill the first white 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 55 
 
 man who attempted to execute this law. I have seen the 
 weapons that have been prepared by white abolitionists, to 
 enable the negroes to resist. I trust the penalty will fall 
 upon the white abolitionists." 
 
 On the 26th of August, 1852, Mr. Sumn^r, of Massachu 
 setts, made a most violent speech against the Fugitive Slave 
 Law, and in favor of its repeal. 
 
 Mr. Douglas said in reply : " The arguments against the 
 Fugitive Slave Law, are arguments against the Constitution 
 of our country. Gentlemen should pass over the law, and 
 make their assaults directly upon the Constitution of the 
 United States, in obedience to which the law was passed. 
 Let them proclaim to the world that they feel bound to make 
 violent resistance to the Constitution which our fathers have 
 transmitted to us. The Constitution provides that no man 
 shall be a senator unless he takes an oath to support the 
 Constitution. And when he takes that oath, I do not under 
 stand that he has a right to have a mental reservation, or 
 entertain any mental equivocation that he excepts that clause 
 which relates to the surrender of fugitives. I know not how 
 a man reconciles it to his conscience to take that oath to 
 support the Constitution, when he believes that Constitution 
 is in violation of the law of God. A man who thus believes, 
 and yet takes the oath, commits perjury before God for the 
 sake of the temporary honors of a seat on this floor/ 
 
 KOSSUTH. 
 
 On the llth December, 1851, when the resolution giving 
 a national welcome to Louis Kossuth, of Hungary, was pend 
 ing before the Senate, Mr. Douglas said : " I regret that this 
 resolution has been introduced, not because I do not cordially 
 sympathize in the proposed reception, but because it cannot 
 pass unanimously. Its discussion and a divided vote deprive 
 
56 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 it of its chief merit. I do not deem it material whether the 
 reception of Gov. Kossuth will give offence to the crowned 
 heads of Europe, provided it does not violate the laws of 
 nations, and give just cause of offence. The question with 
 me is, whether the passage of this resolution gives just cause 
 of offence according to the laws of nations. I would take no 
 step which would violate the law of nations, or give just 
 cause of offence to any power on earth. Nor do I think that 
 a cordial welcome to Gov. Kossuth can be properly construed 
 into such cause of offence. Shall it be said that democratic 
 America is not to be permitted to grant a hearty welcome to 
 an exile who has become the representative of liberal princi 
 ples throughout the world, lest despotic Austria and Russia 
 shall be offended ? I think that the bearing of this country 
 should be such as to demonstrate to all mankind that America 
 sympathizes with the popular movement against despotism. 
 The principle laid down by Gov. Kossuth as the basis of his 
 action, that each state has a right to dispose of her own 
 destiny, and regulate her internal affairs in her own way, is 
 mi axiom in the laws of nations which every state ought to 
 recognize and respect. The armed intervention of Russia to 
 deprive Hungary of her constitutional rights, was such a 
 violation of the laws of nations as authorized England or the 
 United States to interfere and prevent the consummation of 
 the deed. To say in advance that the United States w T iil not 
 interfere in vindication of the laws of nations, is to give our 
 consent that Russia may interfere to destroy the liberties of 
 an independent nation. I will make no such declaration. 
 On the other hand, I will not advise the declaration in ad 
 vance that we will interfere. Something has been said about 
 our alliance with England. I desire no alliance with Eng 
 land." 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 57 
 
 EETKOSPECTIVE VIEW. 
 
 Let us now take a brief retrospective view of the Con 
 gressional life of Mr. Douglas, up to this time. The first 
 important vote he ever gave in the House of Representatives 
 was in favor of excluding abolition petitions, and his vote 
 stands so recorded. His action, ever since he has been a 
 member of the Senate, has been governed by the same prin 
 ciple. "Whenever the slavery agitation has been forced upon 
 Congress, he has met it fairly, directly and fearlessly, and 
 endeavored to apply the proper remedy. When the stormy 
 agitation arose in connection with the annexation of Texas, 
 he originated and first brought forward the Missouri Com 
 promise as applicable to that territory, and had the gratifica 
 tion to see it incorporated in the bill which annexed Texas to 
 the United States. He did not deem this a matter of much 
 moment as applicable to Texas alone ; but he did conceive it 
 to be of vast importance in view of the probable acquisition 
 of New Mexico and California. His preference for the Mis 
 souri Compromise was predicated on the assumption that the 
 whole people of the United States would be more easily 
 reconciled to that measure than to any other mode of adjust 
 ment ; and this assumption rested upon the fact that the 
 Missouri Compromise had been the means of an amicable 
 settlement of a fearful controversy in 1821, which had been 
 acquiesced in cheerfully by the people for more than a 
 quarter of a century, and which all parties and sections of 
 the Union respected and cherished as a fair, just and honor 
 able adjustment. 
 
 COUKSE OP ME. DOUGLAS IX CONGRESS. 
 
 Mr. Douglas could see no reason for the application of the 
 Missouri line to all the territory owned by t]ie United States; 
 
 3* 
 
58 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 in 1821, that would not apply with equal force to its exten 
 sion to the Rio Grande, and also to the Pacific, as soon as we 
 should acquire the country. In accordance with these views, 
 he brought forward the Missouri Compromise at the session 
 of 1845 as applicable to Texas, and had the satisfaction to 
 see it adopted. Subsequently, after the Avar with Mexico 
 had commenced, and Avhen, in August, 1846, Mr. Wilmot 
 first introduced his proviso, Mr. Douglas proposed to extend 
 the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, as a substitute for 
 the Wilmot Proviso. The Wilmot Proviso not onlv designed 
 
 */ O 
 
 to prohibit slavery in the territories while they remained ter 
 ritories, but proposed to insert a stipulation in the treaty 
 with Mexico, pledging the faith of the nation that slavery 
 should never exist in the country acquired, either while it 
 remained a territory, or after it should have been admitted 
 into the Union as States. Mr. Douglas denounced this pro 
 viso as being unwise, improper, and unconstitutional: he 
 never voted for it, and more than once declared that he 
 never would vote for it. When California and New Mexico 
 had been acquired without any condition or stipulation in 
 respect to slavery, the Wilmot Proviso was disposed of for 
 ever. 
 
 At the time that the question began to be discussed, what 
 kind of territorial governments should be established for 
 those countries, a severe domestic affliction called Mr. Doug 
 las from Washington, and detained him several weeks. On 
 his return to the Senate he supported the Clayton bill, 
 which passed the Senate, but was defeated in the House of 
 Representatives. Mr. Douglas then brought forward his 
 original proposition, to extend the Missouri Compromise to 
 the Pacific, in the same sense and with the same understand 
 ing with which it was originally adopted. This proposition 
 passed the Senate by a large majority, but was rejected, as 
 we have seen, by the House of Representatives. Mr. Doug- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 58 
 
 las then conceived the idea of a bill to admit California as a 
 State, leaving the people to form a constitution, and to 
 settle the question of slavery afterward to suit themselves. 
 This bill was introduced by Mr. Douglas with the sanction 
 of President Polk. It recognized the right of the people 
 of California to determine all questions relating to their 
 domestic concerns in their own way ; but the Senate refused 
 to pass the bill. All this took place before the Compromise 
 measures of Mr. Clay were brought forward. During the 
 period of five years that Mr. Douglas had been laboring for 
 the adoption of the Missouri Compromise, his votes on the 
 Oregon question, and upon all questions touching slavery, 
 were given with reference to a settlement on that basis, and 
 were consistent with it. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS THE AUTHOR OF THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 
 
 When Congress met, in December, 1849, Mr. Douglas 
 was again placed by the Senate at the head of the Com 
 mittee on Territories, and it became his duty to prepare 
 and submit some plan for the settlement of those mo 
 mentous questions, the agitation of which had convulsed 
 the whole nation. Early in December, within the first 
 two or three weeks of the session, he wrote and laid 
 before the Committee on Territories, for their examina 
 tion, two bills : one for the admission of California into the 
 Union, and the other containing three distinct measures ; 
 first, for the establishment of a territorial government for 
 Utah ; second, for the establishment of^ a" territorial govern 
 ment for N~ew Mexico ; and third, for the settlement of the 
 Texas boundary. These bills remained before the Committee 
 on Territories from the month of December, 1849, to the 25th 
 of March, 1850. On that day Mr. Douglas reported the bills, 
 and they were, on his motion, ordered to be printed. These 
 
60 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 punted bills having laid on the tables of all the senators for 
 four weeks, the Senate appointed a committee of thirteen, 
 Henry Clay, of Kentucky, chairman. That committee took 
 the two printed bills of Mr. Douglas, pasted them together, 
 and reported them to the Senate as one bill, which was 
 thenceforth known as the Omnibus Bill. Mr. Douglas made 
 this statement to the Senate on the 23d of December, 1851, 
 while the original Omnibus Bill was yet upon the clerk s 
 table. The Committee of Thirteen had drawn a black line 
 through the words, " Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on 
 Territories," and in place of them, interlined these other 
 words, " Mr. Clay, from the Committee of Thirteen, 
 reported the following bill." 
 
 The report of the committee will be found in a subsequent 
 part of this work. 
 
 Mr. Douglas supported the Omnibus Bill as a joint mea 
 sure ; but the Senate refused to pass the measures together. 
 Each one, however, was passed separately ; and each one 
 was supported by Mr. Douglas. Well might Mr. Polk 
 remark in the House of Representatives, in April, 1852, after 
 speaking of the eminent services of Mr. Douglas : " History 
 will cherish the record of such fearless and faithful service, 
 and administer the proper rebuke to those who from malice 
 or envy may seek to detract from his fair fame." 
 
 We give the material features of these bills as they were 
 passed, as a part of the history of the times, in the 
 Appendix. 
 
 THE EIGHT OF INSTRUCTION. 
 
 On the 23d of December, 1851, Mr. Douglas made a 
 speech in the Senate, on the resolutions declaring the Com 
 promise measures of 1850 to be a definitive and final settle 
 ment of all the questions growing out of the subject of 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 61 
 
 domestic slavery, in the course of which he took a brief 
 review of the votes he had given since the introduction of 
 the Compromise measures, and showed that he had supported 
 them all.. In this speech he said : 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT : I claim no merit for having originated and proposed the 
 measures contained in the. Omnibus Bill. There was no remarkable feature 
 about them. They were merely ordinary measures of legislation, well 
 adapted to the circumstances, and their merit consisted in the fact 
 that separately they could and did pass both Houses of Congress. Being 
 responsible for these bills, as they came from the hands of the Committee 
 on Territories, I wish to call attention to the fact that they contained no 
 prohibition of slavery no provision upon the subject. And now I come 
 to the point which explains my object in stating my votes. The legislature 
 of Illinois had passed a resolution instructing me to vote for a bill for the 
 government of the territory acquired from Mexico, which should contain 
 an express prohibition of slavery in that territory while it remained as 
 territories, leaving the people to do as they pleased when they became a 
 State. The instruction was designed in order to compel me to resign my 
 seat and give place to a Freesoiler. The legislature knew my inflexible 
 opposition to the principles asserted in the instructions, and wished me to 
 give place to a Freesoiler, who would come here and carry out abolition 
 doctrines. Notwithstanding these instructions, I wrote the bills and re 
 ported them from the Committee on Territories without the prohibition, in 
 order that the record might show what my opinions were ; but, lest the 
 trick against me might fail, a Freesoii senator offered an amendment in 
 the language of my instructions. I knew that the amendment could not 
 prevail, even if the vote of Illinois was recorded in its favor. But if I 
 resigned my place to an abolitionist, it was almost certain that the bills 
 would fail on their passage. I came to the conclusion that duty required 
 me to retain my seat. I was prepared to fight and defy abolitionism in all 
 its forms, but I was not willing to repudiate the settled doctrine of my 
 State, in regard to the right of instruction. Before the vote was taken, I 
 defined my position. I denounced the doctrine of the amendment, declared 
 my unalterable opposition to it, and gave notice that any vote which might 
 be recorded in my name seemingly in its favor, would be the vote of those 
 who gave the instructions, and not my own. Under this protest, I re 
 corded a vote for this and two other amendments embracing the same 
 principle, and then renewed my protest against them, and gave notice that 
 I should not hold myself responsible for them. Immediately on my return 
 
62 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 home, and in a speech to my constituents, I renewed my protest against 
 these votes, and repeated the notice to that infuriated meeting, that they were 
 their votes, and not mine. In that speech at Chicago, I said of the territo 
 rial bills : These measures are predicated on the great fundamental princi 
 ple that every people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating 
 their own internal concerns and domestic instillations in their own way. 
 If those who emigrate to the territories have the requisite intelligence and 
 honesty to enact laws for the government of .jjhite men, I know of no 
 reason why they should not be deemed competent to legislate for the 
 negro. If they are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protec 
 tion of life, liberty, and property, of morals and education, to determine 
 the relation of husband and wife, of parent and child, I am not aware 
 that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate the affairs of 
 master and servant. My votes and acts have been in accordance with 
 these views in all cases, except in the instances in which I voted under 
 your instructions. Those were your votes, and not mine. I entered my 
 protest against them at the time, before and after they were recorded, and 
 shall never hold myself responsible for them. I made a good many 
 speeches of the same tenor, the last of which was at the capital of Illinois. 
 A few weeks afterward the legislature of Illinois assembled, and one of 
 their first acts was to repeal the resolution of instructions to which I have 
 referred, and to pass resolutions approving of the course of my colleague, 
 General Shields, and myself, on the Compromise measures. From that day 
 Illinois has stood firm and unwavering in support of the Compromise 
 measures, and of all the compromises of the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. President, if I have said anything that savors of egotism, the 
 Senate will pardon me. If I had omitted all that was personal to myself, 
 my defence would have been incomplete. I am willing to be held respon 
 sible for all my acts, but I wish to be judged by my acts, and not by mali 
 cious misrepresentations. I may have committed errors ; but when I am 
 convinced of them, I will acknowledge them like a man, and promptly 
 correct them. The Democratic party is as good a Union party as I want, 
 and I want to preserve its principles and its organization, and to triumph 
 upon its old issues. I desire no new tests, no interpolations upon the old 
 creed." 
 
 In December 1853, Mr. Douglas reported the bill to organ 
 ize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, which formed 
 the issues upon which the Democratic and Republican parties 
 became arrayed against each other. He opposed the treaty 
 
STEP HEN A. DOUGLAS. 63 
 
 with England in relation to the Oregon boundary, contending 
 that England had no rights on that coast. He opposed the 
 Trist peace treaty with Mexico upon the ground that the boun 
 daries were unnatural and inconvenient, and that the provi 
 sions in relation to the Indians could never be executed. The 
 United States government has since paid Mexico ten millions 
 of dollars to change the boundaries, and to relinquish the 
 stipulations in regard to the Indians. He opposed the Clay 
 ton and Bulwer treaty, because it pledged the United States 
 in all time to come, never to annex Central America. He 
 declared that he did not desire to annex Central America at 
 that time, but maintained that the isthmus routes must be 
 kept open as highways to the American possessions on the 
 Pacific ; that the time would come when the United States 
 would be compelled to occupy Central America, and that he 
 would never pledge the faith of the republic not to do in the 
 future what its interests and safety might require. He also 
 declared himself in favor of the acquisition of Cuba, whenever 
 that island can be obtained consistently with the laws of 
 nations and the honor of the United States. We give this 
 speech entire in a subsequent part of this work. 
 
 On the 4th of January 1854, Senator Douglas made the 
 following Report relative to the organization of the Territo 
 ries of Nebraska and Kansas : 
 
 The, Committee on Territories, to whom was referred a bill for an act to estab 
 lish the Territories of Nebraska, have given the same that serious and 
 deliberate consideration which its great importance demands, and beg leave 
 to report it back to the Senate, with various amendments, in the form of 
 a substitute for the bill : 
 
 The principal amendments which your committee deem it their duty to 
 commend to .the favorable action of the Senate, in a special report, arc 
 those in which the principles established by the Compromise measures of 
 1850, so far as they are applicable to territorial organizations, are proposed 
 to be affirmed and carried into practical operation within the limits of the 
 iew Territory. 
 
64 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 The wisdom of those measures is attested, not less by theii salutary 
 and beneficial effects, in allaying sectional agitation and restoring peace 
 and harmony to an irritated and distracted people, than by the cordial and 
 almost universal approbation with which they have been received and 
 sanctioned by the whole countr0 In the judgment of your Committee, 
 those measures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and endur 
 ing effect than the mere adjustment of difficulties arising out of the recent 
 acquisition of Mexican territory. ^JThey were designed to establish certain 
 great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for 
 existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of similar agitation, 
 by withdrawing the question of Slavery from the halls of Congress and 
 the political arena,Jcommitting it to the arbitration of those who were 
 immediately interested in, and alone responsible for, its consequences. 
 With a view of conforming their action to what they regard as the settled 
 policy of the government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the 
 American people, your Committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate 
 and perpetuate, in their Territorial Bill, the principles and spirit of those 
 measures. If any other consideration were necessary to render the pro 
 priety of this course imperative upon the Committee, they may be found 
 in the fact that the Nebraska country occupies the same relative position 
 to the slavery question, as did New Mexico and Utah, when those Terri- 
 t^ries were organized. 
 
 t was a disputed point, whether slavery was prohibited by law in the 
 
 untry acquired from Mexico. On the one hand, it was contended, as a 
 legal proposition, that slavery, having been prohibited by the enactment 
 of Mexico, according to the laws of nations, we received the country with 
 all its local laws and domestic institutions attached to the soil, so far as 
 they did not conflict with the Constitution of the United States ; and that 
 a law either protecting or prohibiting slavery, was not repugnant to that 
 instrument, as was evidenced by the fact that one-half of the States of the 
 Union tolerated, while the other half prohibited, the institution of slavery. 
 On the other hand, it was insisted that, by virtue of the Constitution of the 
 United States, every citizen had a right to remove to any Territory of the 
 Union, and carry his property with him under the protection of law, whe 
 ther that property consisted of persons or things. The difficulties arising 
 from this diversity of opinion, were greatly aggravated by the fact that 
 there were many persons on both sides .of the legal controversy, who were 
 unwilling to abide the decision of the courts on the legal matters in dis 
 pute ; thus, among those who claimed that the Mexican laws were still in 
 force, and, consequently, that slavery was already prohibited in those Ter 
 ritories by valid enactment, there were many who insisted upon Congress 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 65 
 
 making the matter certain, by enacting another prohibition. In like man 
 ner, some of those who argued that Mexican law had ceased to have any 
 binding force, and that the Constitution tolerated and protected slave pro 
 perty in those Territories, were unwilling to trust the decision of the courts 
 upon the point, and insisted that Congress should, by direct enactment, 
 remove all legal obstacles to the introduction of slaves into those Ter 
 ritories. 
 
 Such being the character of the controversy in respect to the territory 
 acquired from MexicoTa similaff question has arisen in regard to the right 
 to hold slaves in the Territory of Nebraska, when the Indian laws shall be 
 withdrawn, and the country thrown open to emigration and settlement. 
 By the 8th section of " an act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory 
 to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of 
 such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and 
 to prohibit slavery in certain Territories," approved March 6th, 1820, it 
 was provided ; " That in all that territory ceded by France to the United 
 States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 degrees 30 
 minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contem 
 plated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the 
 punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, 
 shall be, and are hereby, prohibited : Provided always, That any person 
 escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in 
 any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully 
 reclaimed, and conveyed to the persons claiming his or her labor or services 
 as aforesaid, "j 
 
 Under thfssection, as in the case of the Mexican law in New Mexico 
 and Utah\it is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in the 
 Nebraska country by valid enactment. The decision of this question 
 involves the constitutional power of Congress to pass laws prescribing and 
 regulating the domestic institutions of the various Territories of the Union. 
 In the opinion of those eminent statesmen who hold that Congress is 
 invested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery 
 in the Territories, the 8th section of the act preparatory to the admission 
 of Missouri is nulljind voidTVhiie the prevailing sentiment in large por 
 tions of the Union sustaTnTTtre doctrine that the Constitution of the United 
 States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the 
 Territories with his property, of whatever kind and description, and to 
 hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your Committee do 
 not feel themselves called upon to enter upon the discussion of these con 
 troverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced 
 the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850. As 
 
00 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters 
 vn controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or 
 ft an act declaratory of the true intent of the Constitution, and the extent 
 af the protection afforded by it to slave property in the Territories, so 
 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 legal points in dispute. 
 
 Your Committee deem it fortunate for the peace of the country, and the 
 security of the Union, that the controversy then resulted in the adoption 
 of the Compromise measures, which the two great political parties, with 
 singular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their faith, and 
 proclaimed to the world as a final settlement of the controversy and an 
 end to the agitation. A due respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions 
 of senators, as well as a proper sense of patriotic duty, enjoins upoa your 
 Committee the propriety and necessity of a strict adherence to the princi 
 ples, and even a literal adoption of the enactments of that adjustment, in 
 all their territorial bills, so far as the same are not locally inapplicable. 
 Those enactments embrace, among other things less material to the mat 
 ters under consideration, the following provisions : 
 
 "When admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, 
 shall be received into the Union, with or without Slavery, as their consti 
 tution may prescribe at the time of their admission ; 
 
 That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested 
 in the Governor and a Legislative Assembly ; 
 
 That the legislative power of said Territory shall extend to. all rightful 
 subjects of legislation, consistent with the Constitution of the United 
 States, and the provisions of this act ; but no law shall be passed interfer 
 ing with the primary disposal of the soil ; no tax shall be imposed upon 
 the property of the United States ; nor shall the lands or other property 
 of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of 
 residents."*"^ 
 
 Writs^er error and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court 
 shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United 
 States in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Cir 
 cuit Courts of the United States, where the value of the property or amount 
 in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, 
 or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars ; except only 
 that, in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals 
 shall be allowed and decided by the said Supreme Court, without regard to 
 the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy ; and except, also 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 67 
 
 that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court oi 
 the United States from the decision of the said Supreme Court by this act, 
 s>r of any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of 
 my judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question 
 of personal freedom ; and each of the said district courts shall have and 
 exercise the same jurisdiction, in all cases arising under the Constitution 
 ami laws of the United States, as is vested in thech cuit and district courts 
 of the United States; and the said supreme and district courts of the said 
 territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of 
 habeas corpus, in all cases in which the same are granted by the judges of 
 the United States in the District of Columbia. 
 
 To which may be added the following proposition affirmed by the act of 
 1850, and known as the Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 That the provisions of the " act respecting fugitives from justice, and 
 persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February 12, 
 1793, and the provisions of the act to amend and supplementary to the 
 aforesaid act, approved September 18, 1850, shall extend to, and be in force 
 in, all the organized Territories, as well as in the various States of the 
 Union. AMS> V* CC4CUjl6l6ft& 
 
 From these provisions it is apparent that the Compromise measures of 
 
 50 affirm, and rest upon, the following propositions : 
 
 First : That all questions pertaining to Slavery in the Territories, and the 
 new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the 
 people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen 
 by them for that purpose. 
 
 Second: That "all cases involving title to slaves," and " questions of 
 personal freedom," are to be referred to the adjudication of the local tri 
 bunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. 
 
 Third : That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, in 
 respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in 
 all " the original Territories," the same as in the States. 
 
 The substitute for the bill which your Committee have prepared, and 
 which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to 
 carry these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the pre 
 cise language of the Compromise measures of 1850. 
 
 1850.*} 
 
 The bill thus reported was considered in Committee of the 
 Whole, and then made the special order for the following 
 Monday. The debate was continued Jan. 31st, Feb. 3d, 5th, 
 and 6th. 
 
68 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 On the 23d of January, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee 
 on Territories, reported a substitute for the original bill, in 
 nearly the same terms, in which, after defining the limits of 
 the territory, it was proposed to constitute it a Territory, to 
 be afterward admitted as a State, with or without slavery, as 
 their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admis 
 sion. It was declared to be the true intent and meaning of 
 the act to carry into practical operation the principles of the 
 Compromise measures of 1850, to wit, That all questions 
 pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States 
 to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the 
 people residing therein ; and that the provisions of the Con 
 stitution and laws of the United States, in respect to fugitives 
 from service, are to be carried into faithful execution in all 
 the organized Territories. ,To the words "the C/onstitution 
 and all laws of the United States not locally inapplicable, 
 shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory 
 as elsewhere in the United States," the substitute proposed 
 to add these words : " Except the 8th section of the Act for 
 the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 
 6, 1820, which was superseded by the Compromise measures 
 of 1850, and is declared inoperative. 
 
 DEBATE OX THE NEBRASKA BILL. 
 
 On the 30th of January, Mr. Douglas made his first speech 
 in favor of the Nebraska Bill. We give the speech in a sub 
 sequent part of this work. 
 
 On the 15th of February, Mr. Douglas moved to strike 
 out of his substitute the assertion that the Missouri restric 
 tion " was superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850," 
 and insert instead the following : 
 
 " Which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by 
 Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 69 
 
 legislation of 1850 (commonly called the Compromise measures), is hereby 
 declared inoperative and void ; it being the true intent and meaning of 
 this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude 
 it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and 
 regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to tho 
 Constitution of the United States," 
 
 which prevailed yeas 35, nays lO-^-as follows: 
 
 YEAS -for Douglas 1 Amendment : Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bayard, 
 Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, 
 Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Hunter, John 
 son, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tenn, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pierce, Pettit, 
 Pratt, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Ky. Toombs, Wellev, 
 Williams 35. 
 
 NAYS against the Amendment : Messrs. Allen, Chase, Dodge of Wise., 
 Everett, Fish, Foote, Houston, Seward, Sumncr, Wade 10. 
 
 The vote on this amendment is significant, and we invite 
 to it the attention of the reader. Here we have the em 
 phatic declaration of every Democratic senator, especially of 
 every Democratic senator from the slave States, in favor of 
 the great peace measure of non-intervention with slavery in 
 the States and Territories, avowing "the true intent and 
 meaning of this act to be, not to legislate slavery into any 
 Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave 
 the people thereof free to form and regulate their domestic 
 institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution 
 of the United States." How this doctrine, deemed sound, 
 then, contrasts with the late shibboleth of the Senate caucus, 
 that if the people of a Territory want slavery, Congress 
 shall not interfere, but if they do not want it, Congress is to 
 legislate it on them. 
 
 Mr. Badger of N. C. moved to add to the aforesaid sec- 
 
 3n: 
 
 " Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive 
 
70 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the 
 to the act of 6th of March, 1S20, either protecting, establishing, prohibit 
 ing, or abolishing Slavery." 
 
 Carried yeas 35, nays 6. 
 
 It had been charged by Edmund Burke, of New Hamp 
 shire, and other Abolition enemies of the measure at the 
 north, that the repeal of the restriction would revive slavery 
 in Kansas and Nebraska, by putting in force the old French 
 laws. The object of Mr. Badger was to set this slander at 
 rest. Every Southern Democrat voted for the proviso. 
 
 The question on the engrossment of the bill was now 
 reached, and it was carried yeas 29, nays 12 as follows : 
 
 YEAS To engross the bill for its third reading: MESSRS. Adams, 
 Atehison, Badger, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Dawson, 
 Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gvvin, Hunter, John 
 son. Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tenn., Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt, 
 Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Williams 29. 
 
 NAYS against the engrossment: Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wise., 
 Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Hamlin, James, Seward, Smith, Sumner, Wade, 
 Walker 12. 
 
 On the night of the 3d of March, 1854, Mr. Douglas 
 closed the debate in a speech of great eloquence and ability. 
 The attention of the reader is particularly directed to those 
 
 ; passages in which Mr. Douglas speaks of the necessity for 
 the organization of these Territories ; and to his elucidation 
 of what had generally been called the Missouri Compromise, 
 in which he proves that Missouri was not admitted into the 
 Union under the Missouri restriction, the Act of 1S20, but 
 under Mr. Clay s compromise, or joint resolution, of March 
 2, 1821 ; and also to the broad nationality of the views of the 
 whale speech. We give it entire in a subsequent part of the 
 work. 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 71 
 
 The vote was then taken, and the bill passed yeas 37, 
 nays 14. So the bill was passed, and its title declared to be 
 " An Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kan 
 sas." The bill being approved by the President, became a 
 law. We give it entire, in a subsequent part of this work. 
 
72 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OS 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Mil. DOUGLAS AT CHICAGO, 1854, 
 
 IT is difficult to give a full idea of the excitement that pre 
 vailed at Chicago, at the time of the passage of the Nebraska 
 bill. It far surpassed the excitement in 1850, relative to the 
 Compromise measures. The ranks of the Abolitionists, 
 always full there, had been largely recruited during the 
 last three years : and among the new converts were many 
 professed ministers of the Gospel. These men eagerly seized 
 on any pretext that would give them a little notoriety, and as 
 the public mind, that is to say, the Abolition sentiment in 
 Chicago, was already worked up to a high pitch, they con 
 ceived the idea of treating Senator Douglas as a delinquent 
 schoolboy. Accordingly, they addressed to him, and pub 
 lished in the Chicago daily papers at the same time, a most 
 scurrilous and abusive letter, in which they impiously arro 
 gated to themselves the authority to speak " in the name of 
 Almighty God," and soundly berated Mr. Douglas for his 
 course in the Senate. With admirable temper, Mr. Douglas 
 wrote them a letter, which will be found in a subsequent part 
 of this work. 
 
 In the autumn of 1854, Mr. Douglas returned to Chicago. 
 The city was convulsed with excitement. The Nebraska 
 Bill, and its author, were denounced in the most bitter and 
 violent manner. Neither were understood. The opposition 
 organs, the " Tribune," the " Journal," and the "Press," had 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 73 
 
 for mouths teemed with articles written in the most savage 
 style, in which the Nebraska Bill and its provisions had been 
 studiously misrepresented and misquoted, and Mr. Douglas 
 vilified and abused as the author of countless woes to genera 
 tions yet unborn. It is no compliment to the intelligence of 
 the readers and supporters of these papers to state what is, 
 nevertheless, the fact, that these statements were swallowed 
 with eager credulity, and that Mr. Douglas was regarded by 
 the Abolitionists as a monster in human form. 
 
 In a few days after his arrival in Chicago, Mr. Douglas 
 caused the announcement to be made that he would address 
 the citizens in vindication of the Nebraska Bill. A meeting 
 was accordingly appointed, to take place at North Market 
 Hall. At the hour of meeting, the vast space in front of the 
 Hall was filled with men, the crowd numbering nearly ten 
 thousand persons. Probably one-third of the number were 
 really desirous to hear the senator s speech ; but by far the 
 greater part of the crowd were violent and radical Abolition 
 ists, who were determined that he should not speak. 
 
 HIS SPEECH THEEE. 
 
 Mr. Douglas appeared before the meeting, on an open bal 
 cony, and commenced his address. He alluded to the excite 
 ment that prevailed, but asked a patient hearing, and pro- 
 iiiLsed his auditc to be as brief as he could be, consistently 
 with a full exposition of the subject. He spoke of the sacred 
 rights of the people of the Territories to form and regulate 
 their domestic institutions in their own way ; the great prin 
 ciple that lay at the foundation of the Nebraska Bill. At this 
 part of his remarks, several prominent Abolitionists com 
 menced to groan and hiss. Others followed the example* 
 The noise and tumult increased. 
 
 The senator stopped speaking, and stood calmly, with his 
 
 4 
 
74 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 arms folded upon his breast, and his eye surveying the angry 
 and excited multitude. He waited patiently till the noise sub 
 sided, and then, stretching forth his hand, he proceeded. He 
 described the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and alluded 
 to the fact that for the last ten years, he had endeavored, at 
 every session of Congress, to have them organized. Here 
 the groans and hisses were redoubled in violence, and came 
 from all parts of the meeting. The most opprobrious epi 
 thets were applied to Mr. Douglas, and the most insulting 
 language used to him by rowdies in the crowd. In vain se- 
 veral gentlemen endeavored to restore order. The Aboli 
 tionists were determined that Mr. Douglas should not be 
 heard ; and they succeeded. For nearly four hours after this 
 did Mr. Douglas essay to make himself heard ; and each time 
 did the yells and hootings of the infuriated multitude drown 
 his voice. At last, it being Saturday night, he deliberately 
 pulled out his watch under the gaslight, and observing that 
 it was after twelve o clock, he said in a stentorian voice, 
 which was heard above the din of the crowd : "Abolitionists 
 of Chicago ! it is now Sunday morning. I will go to church, 
 while you go to the devil in your own way." 
 
 A SCE^STE FOR A TAINTEE. 
 
 In her whole history, Chicago has never witnessed so dis 
 graceful a scene as this. There was a parallel occurrence in 
 the life of Rienzi, the last of the Roman Tribunes, thus 
 described by the great English novelist : 
 
 " On they came, no longer in measured order, as stream after stream 
 from lane, from alley, from palace, and from hovel the raging sea received 
 new additions. On they came their passions excited by their numbers 
 women and men, children and malignant age in all the awful array of 
 aroused, released, unresisted physical strength and brutal wrath : Death 
 to the traitor death to the tyrant death to him who has taxed the peo 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 75 
 
 pie ! * Mora 1 traditore che ha fatta la gabella ! Mora ! Such was the 
 cry of the people such the crime of the senator ! They broke over the 
 low palisades of the capitol they filled with one sudden rush the vast 
 space a moment before so desolate now swarming with human beings 
 athirst for blood ! 
 
 " Suddenly came a dead silence, and on the balcony above stood Rienzi 
 his face was bared, and the morning sun shone over that lordly brow, 
 and the hair grown grey before its time, in service of that maddening mul 
 titude. Pale and erect he stood neither fear, nor anger, nor menace 
 but deep grief and high resolve upon his features ! A momentary shame 
 a momentary awe, seized the crowd. 
 
 " He pointed to the gonfalon, wrought with the republican motto and 
 arms of Rome, and thus he began : 
 
 " I too am a Roman and a citizen ; hear me ! 
 
 " Hear him not; hear him not ! his false tongue can charm away our 
 senses! cried a voice louder than his own; and Rienzi recognized Cecco 
 del Vecchio. 
 
 " Hear him not ; down with the tyrant ! cried a more shrill and youth 
 ful tone ; and by the side of the artisan stood Angelo Villani. 
 
 * Hear him not; death to the death-giver! cried a voice close at hand, 
 and from the grating of the neighboring prison glared near upon him, as 
 the eye of a tiger, the vengeful gaze of the brother of Montreal. 
 
 " Then from earth to Heaven rose the roar Down with the tyrant 
 down with him who taxed the people P 
 
 u A shower of stones rattled on the mail of the senator still he stirred 
 not. No changing muscle betokened fear. His persuasion of his own 
 wonderful powers of eloquence, if he could but be heard, inspired him yet 
 with hope. He stood collected in his own indignant but determined 
 thoughts ; but the knowledge of that very eloquence was now his deadliest 
 foe. The leaders of the multitude trembled lest he should be heard ; 
 and doubtless^ says the contemporaneous biographer, had he but spoken 
 he would have changed them all} " 
 
 Thus it was at the meeting at the North Market Hall. 
 The leaders of the multitude trembled lest Douglas sho xidbe 
 heard; they remembered the effect of his eloquence in 1550, 
 and they knew that if he was permitted to speak n< % , he 
 could and would convince the citizens of Chicago, ft i l^ 
 Fecond time, that he was right and they were wrong. 
 
76 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES O * 
 
 SPEECH AT THE TEEMONT HOUSE. 
 
 After the close of the canvass of that* year, in which Mr. 
 Douglas had addressed the people in every portion of Illinois, 
 he returned to Chicago, and on the 19th of November, two 
 hundred and fifty gentlemen of that city, personal and po 
 litical friends of Senator Douglas, tendered him the compli 
 ment of a public dinner at the Tremont House. After the 
 repast, and in response to a toast in compliment to the " dis 
 tinguished guest, the originator and successful advocate of 
 the Illinois Central Railroad, and the champion of State 
 Rights and Constitutional Liberty," Mr. Douglas made the 
 speech which we give in a subsequent part of this work. 
 
 In this speech, Mr. Douglas takes up and critically ex 
 amines the Nebraska Bill, and proves the soundness of the 
 principles on which it is founded : he fastens upon the House 
 of Representatives in 1848 the responsibility for all the sub 
 sequent slavery agitation, by their rejection of the Missouri 
 Compromise line, after it had passed the Senate : he proves 
 that the Abolitionists and Freesoilers, by supporting Van 
 Buren, pledged themselves to blot out the Missouri Compro 
 mise line : he calls to the recollection of his hearers the fact, 
 that he was abused and vilified in the year 1848, and called 
 " Stephen A. Douglas the solitary exception," meaning that he 
 was the only northern member of Congress who was in favor 
 of adhering to the Missouri Compromise line ; and the other 
 fact, that the same Abolitionists and Freesoilers now pretend 
 to support a measure which they then declared infamous. 
 He graphically describes the manner in which the Compro 
 mise measures of 1850 were formed; and then, passing again 
 to the Nebraska Bill, he shows that its great principle was 
 to guarantee to the people of all the new Territories the right 
 (which the Constitution of the United States had already 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 77 
 
 secured, but which the Missouri Compromise had taken 
 away) of determining the question of slavery for themselves. 
 He proves, by the unequivocal testimony of the oldest and 
 wisest patriots of the country, that the Abolitionists have 
 proved to be the very worst enemies of the slaves, have riveted 
 stronger their chains, taken away some of the privileges 
 which they had before enjoyed, and actually put a stop to 
 their owners emancipating them. 
 
 THE " REPUBLICAN " PARTY ANALYZED. 
 
 The last part of the speech is a complete and searching ex 
 position of the platform and principles of the new " Repub 
 lican party " which had just been formed. He proves it to 
 be purely an abolition party, the principles of which 
 were entirely sectional, arraying the North against the South, 
 and which, of course, could never be a national party. We 
 give this speech entire in a subsequent part of this work. 
 
78 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 TERRITORIAL POLICY OF MR. DOUGLAS, 1856. 
 
 Report of Mr. Douglas on the Territorial Policy of the Government- 
 Speech in Reply to Trumbull, and in Support of the Bill authorizing the 
 People of Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government Speech 
 in Reply to Mr. Collamer The Bill passed by the Senate Report of 
 Mr. Douglas on the House Bill. 
 
 AFFAIRS IN KANSAS. 
 
 THE 34th Congress met on the first Monday in December, 
 1855, but the House of Representatives was unable to 
 organize or to choose a Speaker for nine weeks. On the 
 31st of December, President Pierce transmitted his An 
 nual Message to Congress, in which he only slightly alluded 
 to the recent troubles in Kansas. On the 24th of January, 
 however, he sent a special message to Congress in regard to 
 the affairs in Kansas, which will be found in a subsequent 
 part of this work. 
 
 On the 12th of March, 1856, Mr. Douglas made his great 
 report on the affairs of Kansas Territory. In this report, he 
 elucidates the constitutional principles under which new 
 States may be admitted, and Territories organized. He ex 
 poses the designs of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Soci 
 ety ; traces from their inception the treasonable acts of that 
 secret military organization, the " Kansas Legion ;" and 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 79 
 
 proves that all the troubles in Kansas originated in attempts 
 to violate or circumvent the principles and provisions of the 
 Nebraska Bill. This report will be found in a subsequent 
 part of this work. 
 
 Mr. Jacob Collamer, of Vermont, who constituted the 
 minority of the committee, made a minority report on the 
 same day. 
 
 TRUMBULL S SPEECH. 
 
 Two days afterward, on the 14th of March, Mr. Lyman 
 Trumbull, who had taken his seat a few days before, as a 
 senator from Illinois, in the place of General Shields, ad 
 dressed the Senate in opposition to the views expressed in 
 the report of Mr. Douglas. Mr. Douglas was absent from 
 the Senate chamber at the time, but notwithstanding his 
 knowledge of this fact, Mr. Trumbull was offensively per 
 sonal. It might have been supposed that in making his first 
 speech in the Senate, Mr. Trumbull would have had some 
 regard to common decency and propriety. But in point of 
 fact, he was so violent and coarse in his invective as to dis 
 gust the whole body of senators. As soon as the rules of the 
 Senate would permit, he was stopped by Mr. Weller of Cali 
 fornia, who called for the special order of the day, which was 
 the bill to increase the efficiency of the army. But as this 
 was his first speech, he had the effrontery to insist upon con 
 tinuing his rigmarole of abuse, and did go on till nearly 4 
 o clock. Shortly before that time, Mr. Douglas entered the 
 Senate chamber, and when Mr. Trumbull had exhausted the 
 vials of his wrath, and sat down, Mr. Douglas said : 
 
 Mr. President, I was very much surprised when it was communi 
 cated to me this afternoon that my colleague was making a speecli 
 on the Kansas question, in which he was arraigning my own conduct 
 and the statements and principles set forth in the report which I had 
 the honor to submit to the Senate two days since from the Committee 
 on Territories. 
 
80 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 The feeble state of my own health, which is well known to the 
 Senate, rendered it imprudent for me to be in the Senate chamber 
 to-day, and I stayed away for that reason. I never dreamed that 
 any man in this body would so far forget the courtesies of life, and 
 the well known usages of the Senate, as to make an assault in my 
 absence in violation of the distinct understanding of the body when 
 the subject was postponed. 
 
 My colleague says that he did not know that I was not here. Now, 
 I am informed that my friend from Texas (Mr. Rusk), when the 
 morning hour expired, suggested, among other reasons for a post 
 ponement, that I was absent. The senator from Texas told my col 
 league that I was absent, and, therefore, according to the courtesies 
 of the Senate, his speech should have been postponed. In the face 
 of a fact known to every man present, my colleague now dares to 
 say that he did not know I was absent. 
 
 Sir, I believe in fair and free discussion. Whatever speeches I 
 may have to make in reference to my colleague or his political posi 
 tion, or in reference to other senators, will be made to their faces. 
 I do not wish to avoid the responsibility of a reply to the points that 
 shall be made. I will not attempt to reply to my colleague upon 
 hearsay, having been absent, from the causes which I have stated 
 during the delivery of the greater portion of his speech. I desire, 
 however, to ask him, with a view to fix the time for the discussion 
 of th-e subject, at what period of time I may reasonably look for his 
 printed speech? I desire to reply to its statements, and I ask the 
 question with a view to have the subject postponed until the time 
 which he may name. 
 
 ME. TBUMBULL. I think my remarks will be published on Mon- 
 d ty. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. If I can rely on seeing the speech published in the 
 " Globe " on Monday, I will reply to it on Tuesday ; and I shall ask 
 the Senate to accord to me that courtesy. I propose to reply on the 
 next day after its publication. 
 
 ME. SEWAED and ME. TBUMBULL. Take your own time. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Sir, I understand this game of taking my own 
 time. Last year, when the Nebraska Bill was under consideration, 
 the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) asked of me the cour 
 tesy to have it postponed for a week, until he could examine the 
 question. I afterward discovered that, previous to that time, he had 
 written an exposition of the bill a libel upon me and sent it off 
 under his own frank ; and the postponement thus obtained by my 
 courtesy was in order to take a week to circulate the libel. I do not 
 choose to take my own time in that way again. I wish to meet 
 these misrepresentations at the threshold. If I am right, give me an 
 opportunity to show it. If iny colleague is right, I desire to givo 
 him the fullest and fairest opportunity to show it. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 81 
 
 TRUMBULL REBUKED. 
 
 I desire now to say a word upon another point. I understand that 
 my colleague has told the Senate, as being a matter very material to 
 tliis issue, that he comes here as a Democrat, having always been a 
 Democrat. Sir, that fact will be news to the Democracy of Illinois. 
 I undertake to assert there is not a Democrat in Illinois who will 
 not say that such a statement is a libel upon the Democracy of that 
 State. When he was elected, he received every Abolition vote in 
 the Legislature of Illinois. He received every Know Nothing vote 
 in the Legislature of Illinois. So far as I am advised and believe, he 
 received no vote except from persons allied to Abolitionism or Know 
 Nothingism. He came here as the Know-Nothing-Abolition candi 
 date, in opposition to the united Democracy of his State, and to the 
 Democratic candidate. How can a man who was elected as an 
 Abolition-Know Nothing, come here and claim to be a Democrat, in 
 good standing with the Democracy of Illinois ? Sir, the Illinois De 
 mocracy have no sympathies or alliances with Abolitionism in any 
 of its forms. They have no connection with Know Nothingism in 
 any of its forms. If a man has ever been a Democrat, and becomes 
 either an Abolitionist or Know Nothing, or a Free Soiler, he ceases 
 that instant to be a Democrat in Illinois. 
 
 Sir, why was the statement of my colleague being a Democrat 
 made, unless to convey the idea that the Illinois Democracy would 
 harbor and associate with a Know Nothing or an Abolitionist ? Sir, 
 we do no such thing in Illinois. There is a high wall and a deep 
 ditch between the national Democracy of that State, including the 
 old national Whigs, on the one side, and all Know Nothing and Abo* 
 lition organizations on the other. I can say to senators that Know 
 Nothingism and Abolitionism in Illinois are one and the same thing. 
 Every Know Nothing lodge there adopted the Abolition creed, and 
 every Abolition society supported the Know Nothing candidates. 
 It may be different in the South ; but in the Northwest, and espe 
 cially in Illinois, a Know Nothing or an Abolitionist means a 
 Kebublican. My colleague is the head and front of Bepubli- 
 canism in Illinois in opposition to Democracy. You might as well 
 call the distinguished senator from New York (Mr. Seward), or the 
 member from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), or any other leader 
 of the Eepublican forces, a Democrat, as to call my colleague a 
 Democrat. Why has that assertion been brought into this debate ? 
 Did it prove that my report was wrong ? Did it prove that it was 
 courteous to make an assault on that report in my absence ? 
 
 On the 17th of March, Mr. Douglas reported from the 
 Committee on Territories, " A bill to authorize the People 
 
 4* 
 
82 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 of the Territory of Kansas to fdf m a Constitution and State 
 government, preparatory to their admission into the Union 
 when they have the requisite population." 
 
 On the 20th of March, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate 
 in support of this bill, and in reply to the tirade of Mr. 
 Trumbull. In this speech, he vindicates his report ; shows 
 that the report of Mr. Collamer keeps out of sight the mate 
 rial facts of the case ; and proves that it was the design of 
 the reckless leaders of the Freesoil party, to produce a con 
 flict with the Territorial government. He defends the Mis- 
 isourians from the charge of invading and conquering Kansas, 
 and proves that the whole responsibility of all the disturb 
 ances in Kansas, rests upon the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid 
 Society. When he reached the concluding paragraph of his 
 remarks, he turned to where Trumbull uneasily sat, and fix 
 ing upon him his eagle eye, pronounced in a clear and sonor 
 ous voice, and in emphatic tones, those words referring to 
 the certainty of the fact that even in the United States, the 
 traitor s doom would fall upon the traitor s head. Trumbull 
 turned pale, and his head sank upon his breast. He felt 
 that he was convicted. 
 
 The speech will be found in a subsequent part of this 
 work. 
 
 REPUBLICAN HYPOCKISY EXPOSED. 
 
 Mr. Collamer made a speech upon the same subject, on the 
 3d of April, and on the 4th, Mr. Douglas responded. Mr. 
 Collamer had labored hard to show that the free State men 
 in Kansas were not such bad fellows after all. But in this 
 speech Mr. Douglas shows by incontestable evidence, their 
 blood-thirsty nature, their determination to conquer all who 
 did not believe with them, and to resist the constituted 
 authorities to a bloody issue, and their preparations of arms 
 and munitions of war, with which to resist. He raises the 
 
, 
 
 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 83 
 
 specious veil of "peaceful emigration," which concealed the 
 movements of the free State party in Kansas, and exposes the 
 secret springs by which they were really actuated, showing 
 that they were guilty of rebellion and treason. This speech 
 is a full and complete exposition of the real history of Kan 
 sas, up to that time. The reader will not fail to observe, 
 toward the conclusion of the speech, how completely Mr. 
 Douglas exposes the hypocrisy of the Black Republican 
 party ; and how conclusively he shows the hollowness and 
 insincerity, as well as the inconsistency and heartlessness, of 
 their professions of regard for the negro. Strong in the 
 consciousness of the rectitude of the principles of the Demo 
 cratic party, he delineates, with withering scorn, the incon 
 sistent and jarring elements that make up the creed of 
 the Republican faith, and dares the leaders of that party 
 to the fight. Like some experienced general, at the head of 
 a numerous and well disciplined army, an army which loves, 
 idolizes, and trusts in their leader knowing his own strength 
 and confident of victory because he knows that his cause is 
 just, he throws down the gage of battle, and challenges 
 the onset of the opposing squadrons. The leaders of the 
 Republican party quailed before him in the Senate ; as that 
 party itself afterward quailed under the irresistible charge of 
 the Democracy. The speech will be found in a subsequent 
 part of this work. 
 
 On the 30th of June, Mr. Douglas reported to the Senate 
 on several bills submitted for the pacification of Kansas, as 
 also most decidedly against Mr. Seward s proposition tc 
 admit Kansas as a State under the bogus " Topeka " consti 
 tution. 
 
 Mr. Seward then moved to strike out the whole of Mr. 
 Douglas bill, and insert instead, one admitting Kansas under 
 the Topeka constitution. This motion was defeated ayes 11, 
 nays 36. 
 
84: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 The bill was now reported as amended, and the amend 
 ment made in Committee of the Whole concurred in. Tho 
 bill was then (8 A.M. on the 3d, the Senate having been in 
 session all night), ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
 time ; and, on the question of its final passage the vote stood 
 yeas 33, nays 12 as follows : 
 
 YEAS Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, 
 Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, 
 Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, 
 Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weller, 
 Wright, and Yulee 33. 
 
 NAYS Messrs. Bell, of New Hampshire, Collamer, Dodge, Durkee, Fessen- 
 den, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson 12. 
 
 So the bill passed the Senate. We give it, in the shape in 
 which it was sent to the House, in a subsequent part of this 
 work. 
 
 On the 8th of July, Mr. Douglas reported back from the 
 Committee on Territories the House bill to admit Kansas as a 
 State, with an amendment striking out all after the enacting 
 clause, and inserting instead the Senate bill (No 356) just 
 referred to. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, moved that all the Territorial 
 laws of Kansas be repealed and the Territorial officers dis 
 missed : rejected yeas 12, nays 32. 
 
 Mr. Collamer of Vermont, proposed an amendment, pro 
 hibiting slavery in all that portion of the Louisiana purchase 
 north of 36 30 not including the Territory of Kansas. 
 rejected yeas 12, nays 30. 
 

 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 85 
 
 The amendment reported by Mr. Douglas (i. e. the Senate 
 bill as passed) was then agreed to yeas 32, nays 13 and the 
 bill in this shape passed the Senate. But the House of 
 Representatives, where the majority was composed of a 
 fusion of Republicans, Abolitionists, Know Nothings, 
 Freesoilers, Freethinkers, Free-lovers, and Freemonters, 
 refused to act upon it, or to concur in it, and the session 
 terminated without the concurrence of the House. 
 
 OF THE 
 
 f UNIVERSITY ) 
 
86 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 RETROSPECTIVE. 
 
 A. Retrospect Origin and Causes of Disagreement with the President- 
 Net Provoked by Mr. Douglas Mr. Buchanan owes his Nomination at 
 Cincinnati to Mr. Douglas Telegraphic Dispatches His Efforts to Elect 
 Mr. Buchanan in 1856 Speech at Springfield in 1857, defending the 
 Administration President s Instructions to Governor Walker Consti 
 tution to be Submitted Executive Dictation Differences of Opinion 
 tolerated on all Subjects except Lecompton Mr. Douglas Propositions 
 for Adjustment Resolutions of Illinois Democracy Controversy termi 
 nated by the English Bill War Renewed by the Administration Coali 
 tion between the Federal Officeholders and the Abolitionists Mr. Dou 
 glas last Speech in the Senate preparatory to Illinois Canvass. 
 
 IN order that the reader may appreciate the nature and im 
 portance of the issues involved in the memorable senatorial 
 canvass in Illinois in 1858, it is but proper we should state 
 distinctly the origin and causes of the unfortunate disagree 
 ment between Mr. Douglas and the administration of Mr. 
 Buchanan. 
 
 It will be remembered that Mr. Buchanan owed his nomi 
 nation at Cincinnati to the direct and personal interposition 
 of Mr. Douglas. But for the telegraphic dispatches which 
 he sent to his friends urging the withdrawal of his own name 
 and the unanimous nomination of Mr. Buchanan, that gentle 
 man could never have received the nomination by a two- 
 thirds vote, according to the rules of the convention and the 
 usages of the party. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 87 
 
 These dispatches are important, serving to show the mag 
 nanimity of Mr. Douglas, and his anxiety to promote the 
 union and harmony of the Democratic party. 
 
 The names of James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Lewis 
 Cass, and Stephen A. Douglas, were put in nomination by 
 their respective friends. There were 296 votes in the Con 
 vention. On the first ballot Buchanan received 1351, Pierce 
 122|, Douglas 33, and Cass 5. Judge Douglas votes were 
 from the following States : Ohio, 4 ; Kentucky, 3 ; Illinois, 
 11 ; Missouri, 9; Iowa, 4 ; Wisconsin, 2. There were very few 
 changes in the ballotings until after the fourteenth, when 
 Pierce was withdrawn. The two succeeding ballots were 
 about the same. The sixteenth was as follows : Buchanan, 
 168 ; Douglas, 122 ; Cass, 6. When this ballot was an 
 nounced, Col. Richardson, of Illinois, arose, and after making 
 a short explanatory speech, said that he had just received a 
 dispatch from Judge Douglas, which he sent to the chair to 
 be read, after which, he said he would withdraw that gentle 
 man s name from before the Convention. This dispatch is 
 so characteristic of Senator Douglas, that we cannot refrain 
 from reproducing it here. Its self-sacrificing spirit, its con 
 ciliatory tone, and its pure Democracy, commend it to the 
 attention of the country at the present state of political 
 affairs. It breathes the spirit of devotion to the Democratic 
 party which has ever characterized the public life of its great 
 author. It applies to the Presidential Convention system 
 the great principle for which his whole life has been devoted 
 the principle that the majority should rule. Let it be re 
 membered, that in the Cincinnati Convention he would not 
 allow his name to be used one moment after any other states 
 man had received a majority of the votes ! But here is 
 Judge Douglas letter, and we ask for it the carefu] perusal 
 of every Democrat in the nation : 
 
88 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 WASHINGTON, June 4, 1856. 
 
 DEAE SIR : From the telegraphic reports in the newspapers, I feai 
 that an embittered state of feeling is being engendered in the Con 
 vention, which may endanger the harmony and success of our party. 
 I wish you and all my friends to bear in mind that I have a thou 
 sand fold more anxiety for the triumph of our principles than for 
 my own personal elevation. 
 
 If the withdrawal of my name will contribute to the harmony of 
 our party, or the success of our cause, I hope you will not hesitate 
 to take the step. Especially is it my desire that the action of the 
 Convention will embody and express the wishes, feelings, and prin 
 ciples of the Democracy of the republic ; and hence, if Mr. Pierce, 
 or Mr. Buchanan, or any other statesman, who is faithful to the 
 great issues involved in the contest, shall receive a majority of the 
 Convention, I earnestly hope that all my friends will unite in insur 
 ing him two-thirds, and then in malting his nomination unanimous. 
 Let no personal considerations disturb the harmony or endanger the 
 triumph of our principles. 
 
 S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 To HON. W. A. RICHARDSON, Cincinnati, 0. 
 
 The reading of this dispatch was interrupted by frequent 
 and tremendous applause. The other dispatches are as 
 follows : 
 
 June 5, 1856, 9 A.M. 
 
 DEAR SIR : I have just read so much of the platform as relates to 
 the Nebraska Bill and slavery question. The adoption of that noble 
 resolution by a unanimous vote of all the States, accomplishes all the 
 objects I had in view in permitting my name to be used before the 
 convention. If agreeable to my friends, I would prefer exerting all 
 my energies to elect a tried statesman on that platform to being the 
 nominee myself. At all events do not let my name be used in such 
 manner as to disturb the harmony of the party or endanger the suc 
 cess of the work so nobly begun. S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 HON. W. A. RICHARDSON, of Illinois, 
 Burnet House, Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 WASHINGTON, June 5th 9^ A.M. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan having received a majority of the convention, is, in 
 my opinion, entitled to the nomination. I hope my friends will give 
 effect to the voice of the majority of the party. 
 
 S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 HOM. W. A. RICHARDSON. 
 
 (See "Washington Union," June 7th, 1856. ) 
 
 Many of Mr. Douglas warmest friends complained of him 
 bitterly for having thus withheld his own name and sec ired 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 89 
 
 the nomination of his rival, at the critical moment, when it 
 became evident the latter could not possibly have been nomi 
 nated without the positive and efficient aid of the former ; 
 and this withdrawal in favor of Mr. Buchanan, is, at this time, 
 used in some quarters as a point of objection to Mr. Douglas 
 nomination at Charleston. But the whole political course of 
 Mr. Douglas, for a quarter of a century, has been in harmony 
 with the sentiment enunciated and enforced in those de 
 spatches, that he felt " a thousand fold more interest in the 
 success of the principles of the Democratic party than in his 
 own individual promotion." 
 
 Immediately after the adjournment of the convention, Mr. 
 Douglas entered the canvass with that energy and vigor for 
 which he is so remarkable, and it is but fair to add that to his 
 herculean efforts, in Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and other 
 States in the campaign of 1856, is Mr. Buchanan indebted for 
 his election, more than to any other man living or dead. 
 
 When the election was secured, and the inauguration had 
 taken place, Mr. Douglas had no personal favors to ask of the 
 President for either himself or friends, and hence had no 
 grievances to complain of or disappointments to resent. 
 Before he left Washington for his home, it is well known that 
 he was personally consulted by the President, and approved 
 of the policy of his administration in regard to Kansas affairs, 
 to be promulgated by Governor Walker in his message and 
 address to the people of that Territory, viz., that the consti 
 tution which was about to be formed at Lecompton should 
 be submitted to and ratified by the people, at a fair election 
 to be held for that purpose, before the State could be admitted 
 into the Union. 
 
 Subsequently, when Governor Walker was on his way to 
 Kansas, he called on Judge Douglas at Chicago by direction 
 of the President, as he himself says, and read to him the 
 inaugural address which he was to publish on his arrival in 
 
90 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the Territory, in which the governor stated that he was 
 authorized by the President and his cabinet to give the assur 
 ance that he and they would oppose the admission of Kansas 
 into the Union as a State under any constitution which was 
 not first submitted to and ratified by the people. 
 
 After copying his instructions from the President in favor 
 of the submission of the constitution to the people, Governor 
 Walker added : " I repeat, then, as my clear conviction, that 
 unless the convention submit the constitution to the vote of 
 all the actual resident settlers of Kansas, and the election be 
 fairly and justly conducted, the constitution will be and 
 ought to be rejected by Congress." 
 
 In this interview, Judge Douglas assured Governor Walker, 
 as he had previously assured the President, that he might 
 rely on his cordial and hearty cooperation in carrying out 
 the policy that Kansas should not be forced into the Union 
 with any constitution which had not been previously sub 
 mitted to and ratified by the people at a fair election regu 
 larly held for that purpose. 
 
 A short time afterward, June 12th, 1857, Mr. Douglas 
 made his celebrated Springfield speech, in which he warmly 
 defended the administration of Mr. Buchanan, commended 
 his territorial policy, and predicted for him a successful and 
 brilliant administration. We have the best reasons for the 
 assertion that his friendly relations with, and kind feelings 
 toward Mr. Buchanan continued uninterrupted and undimin- 
 ished until after their well-known interview in Washington 
 city, about the first of December of that year, upon the ques 
 tion of admitting Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton 
 constitution, without submitting the constitution to the people 
 for ratification or rejection. Mr. Douglas insisted that he 
 was bound in honor, good faith, and due regard for the fun 
 damental principles of all free government, to resist the mea 
 sure at every hazard and under all circumstances. Here we 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 91 
 
 find the origin and sole cause of the disagreement between 
 the President and Mr. Douglas, so far as the friends of the 
 latter have ever been able to discover. The difficulty was 
 not of Mr. Douglas own seeking or procurement. He only 
 claimed that so far as he was concerned it was his right and 
 duty to carry out in good faith the policy to which he, Go 
 vernor Walker, the President, and every member of his 
 cabinet, stood publicly and irrevocably pledged. The Presi 
 dent claimed that it was his right and duty, in a message to 
 Congress, to recommend the admission of Kansas under the 
 Lecompton constitution. Mr. Douglas did not question cither 
 the right or the duty of the President, provided " he thought 
 the Lecompton constitution was the act and deed of the peo 
 ple of Kansas, and a fair embodiment of their will." While 
 conceding to the President entire freedom of action according 
 to his sense of duty, Mr. Douglas claimed the same privilege 
 for himself, as a senator representing a sovereign State. 
 
 The President, however, would tolerate no difference of 
 opinion among friends on this question. Upon the tariff 
 upon specific and ad valorem duties upon the Pacific Rail 
 road upon the Homestead Bill upon the Neutrality Laws 
 and, indeed, on any and every other question, Democratic 
 senators and representatives, and cabinet officers, were at 
 liberty to think and act as they pleased, without impairing 
 their personal or political relations with the President. But 
 on the Kansas question, having determined to abandon the 
 principles and reverse the policy to which he had pledged 
 the administration and the party, he regarded Mr. Douglas 
 refusal to follow him in his change of principles and policy as 
 a serious reflection upon his own conduct. Ah 1 freedom of 
 judgment and action was denied. Implicit obedience to 
 the behests of the President was demanded. The senator 
 was required to obey the mandate of the Executive, instead 
 of to represent the will of his constituency. The representa- 
 
92 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 tives of the States and of the people were required to stir, 
 render their convictions, their judgments and their consciences 
 to the Executive, and to receive instructions from him instead 
 of them. 
 
 These were the terms and the only conditions upon which 
 Mr. Douglas could preserve friendly relations with the Pre 
 sident. He met the issue with characteristic alacrity and 
 boldness. He denounced the Lecompton constitution in 
 firm but respectful terms, not because it provided for a slave 
 State, but because it was not the act and deed of the people 
 of Kansas, and did not reflect their will. 
 
 Foreseeing the rent the agitation of this unfortunate 
 question was likely to make in the Democratic party, and the 
 irreparable damage to which it would be likely to lead, Mr. 
 Douglas was anxious to heal the breach and settle the diffi 
 culty on any fair and just terms, that were consistent with 
 fidelity to his own constituency, and to those principles of 
 popular rights and self-government to which he was so 
 solemnly pledged, and upon which he believed the peace and 
 harmony of the country depended. He submitted various 
 propositions in a spirit of conciliation and fraternal feeling 
 for the pacification of the difficulty. 
 
 He proposed to refer the Lecompton constitution back to 
 the people of Kansas, for their adoption or rejection, at a 
 fair election, to be held in pursuance of law for that purpose, 
 and if ratified by a majority of the legal votes cast at such 
 election, Kansas was to be declared a State of the Union 
 without further legislation. 
 
 He proposed to pass an act of Congress authorizing the 
 Territorial legislature to call a new convention and form a 
 constitution, and submit the same to the people for adoption 
 at the polls, and if ratified at such election, Kansas should 
 be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as such 
 constitution should prescribe, as provided in the case of Min 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 93 
 
 nesota, to which the President had referred as affording an 
 example to be followed in all future cases of admission of new 
 States. 
 
 He offered to accept what is known as the " Crittenden- 
 Montgomery Amendment," as a satisfactory solution of the 
 question, in harmony with the fundamental principles of 
 self-government. 
 
 And finally, he proposed a general law, which would not 
 only settle the existing difficulty, but prevent all future con 
 troversies on the subject, providing that " neither Kansas nor 
 any other Territory shall be admitted into the Union as a 
 State, until it shall have been ascertained, by a legal census, 
 to contain population requisite for a member of Congress, 
 according to the existing ratio of representation for the time 
 being ; and that the example of the Minnesota case shall be a 
 rule of action in the future, as recommended in the Presi 
 dent s message." 
 
 This proposition was offered substantially at a later period 
 of the session in the House, by General Quitman, of Missis 
 sippi, who intended to have called it up in the event of the 
 failure of the English bill. It would have been happy for 
 the Democratic party and the country had it been accepted. 
 Besides thoroughly uniting the party, it would have laid the 
 foundation of a sound and healthy principle governing the 
 admission of new States, and have saved the present Congress 
 from acting on the Kansas Wyandot constitution. 
 
 These several propositions and all others for conciliation 
 and harmony, were unceremoniously rejected by the partisans 
 of the President, and the unconditional submission of the 
 rebels demanded under the penalty of having all their friends 
 removed from office and made victims of Executive ven- 
 o-eance. The system of proscription and persecution which 
 followed is too fresh hi the public mind to require recapitu 
 lation. 
 
94: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 The wisdom and forecast evinced by Mr. Douglas in 
 opposing the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton con 
 stitution, has been amply vindicated by succeeding events. 
 The immense vote by which it was rejected when submitted 
 under the temptations of the English bill the subsequent 
 confession of actors in the fraudulent voting the discovery 
 of the bogus election returns the statements of Governor 
 Denver, and other well-authenticated facts and circumstances 
 attest the correctness of Mr. Douglas position ; while the 
 declaration of Senator Hammond, who voted for the mea 
 sure, that " the constitution ought to have been kicked out 
 of Congress," and the high repute in which Governor Wise 
 and other leading southern statesmen whfc opposed the 
 project enjoy in the respect and confidence of the Southern 
 people, clearly indicate that their " sober second thought " 
 does justice to the statesmanlike view which Mr. Douglas 
 took of this unfortunate issue. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS OF ILLINOIS DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION. 
 
 Notwithstanding the ferocity with which the warfare was 
 continued against Mr. Douglas and his friends during the 
 Lecompton controversy, all fair-minded men took it for 
 granted that hostilities would cease with the settlement of 
 the question out of which the contest arose. Mr. Douglas 
 and the Illinois Democracy seem to have entertained this 
 reasonable expectation, as appears from the proceedings of 
 the Illinois Democratic State Convention, which assembled at 
 Springfield, on the 21st of April, 1858, for the nomination of 
 candidates for State officers. While the resolutions were ex 
 plicit and firm in the assertion of the principles on which 
 they had rejected the Lecompton constitution, they were 
 conciliating in spirit and respectful in language. They con 
 tain no assault n the President, no attack upon the adminis- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 95 
 
 tration, and indulge in no complaint at the unprovoked, and 
 vindictive warfare which had been waged against them. 
 They maintain a dignified and manly silence, a generous 
 forbearance on all these points, with a view to the preserva 
 tion of the organization, the usages, and the integrity of the 
 Democratic party upon its time-honored principles, as enun 
 ciated in the Cincinnati Platform. The resolutions adopted 
 by the Convention were introduced into the Senate by Mr. 
 Douglas on the 25th of April, "AS FURNISHING THE PLAT 
 FORM ON WHICH THE ILLINOIS DEMOCRACY STAND, AND BY 
 WHICH I MEAN TO ABIDE." 
 
 They were as follows : . 
 
 
 
 Colonel McClernand, from the committee to prepare solutions for the 
 consideration of the convention, made the following report; which was 
 read, and, on motion, each resolution was separately read and unanimously 
 adopted: 
 
 1. Resolved, That the Democratic party of the State of Illinois, through 
 their delegates in general convention assembled, do re-assert and declare 
 the principles avowed by them as when, on former occasions, they have 
 presented their candidates for popular suffrage. 
 
 2. Resolved, That they are unalterably attached to, and will maintain 
 inviolate, the principles declared by the national convention at Cincinnati 
 in June, 1856. 
 
 3. Resolved, That they avow, with renewed energy, their devotion to 
 the Federal Union of the United States, their earnest desire to avert sec 
 tional strife, their determination to maintain the sovereignty of the States, 
 and to protect every State, and the people thereof, in all their constitu 
 tional rights. 
 
 4. Resolved, That the platform of principles established by the national 
 democratic convention at Cincinnati is the only authoritative exposition of 
 Democratic doctrine, and they deny the right of any power on earth, 
 except a like body, to change or interpolate that platform, or to prescribe 
 new or different tests ; that they will neither do it themselres nor permit it 
 to be done by others, but will recognize all men as democrats who stand 
 by and uphold Democratic principles. 
 
 6. Resolved, That in the organization of States the people have a right 
 to decide, at the polls, upon the character of their fundamental law, and 
 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 that the experience of the past year has conclusively demonstrated the 
 wisdom and propriety of the principle, that the fundamental law under 
 which the Territory seeks admission into the Union should be submitted 
 to the people of such Territory, for their ratification or rejection, at a fair 
 election to be held for that purpose ; and that, before such Territory is 
 admitted as a State, such fundamental law should receive a majority of the 
 legal votes cast at such election; and they deny the right, and condemn 
 the attempt, of any convention, called for the purpose of framing a con 
 stitution, to impose the instrument formed by them upon the people against 
 their known will. 
 
 6. Resolved, That a fair application of these principles requires that 
 the Lecompton constitution should be submitted to a direct vote of the 
 actual inhabitants of Kansas, so that they may vote for or against that 
 instrument, before Kansas shall be declared one of the States of this Union ; 
 and until it shall be ratified by the people of Kansas, at a fair election 
 held for that purpose, the Illinois Democracy are unalterably opposed to 
 the admission of Kansas under that constitution. 
 
 7. Resolved, That we heartily approve arid sustain the manly, firm, 
 patriotic, and democratic position of S. A. Douglas, Isaac N. Morris, 
 Thomas L. Harris, Aaron Shaw, Robert Smith, and Samuel S. Marshall, 
 the Democratic delegation of Illinois in Congress, upon the question of the 
 admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution ; and that, by their 
 firm and uncompromising devotion to Democratic principles, and to the 
 cause of justice, right, truth, and the people, they have deserved our 
 admiration, increased, if possible, our confidence in their integrity and 
 patriotism, and merited our warm approbation, our sincere and hearty 
 thanks, and shall receive our earnest support. 
 
 8. Resolved^ That in all things wherein the national administration 
 sustain and carry out the principles of the Democratic party as expressed 
 in the Cincinnati platform, and affirmed in these resolutions, it is entitled 
 to, and will receive, our hearty support. 
 
 By the adoption of the English bill a few days afterward, 
 the Lecompton controversy was at an end so far as Congress 
 was concerned. By that act the question was banished from 
 the halls of Congress and remanded to the people of Kansas 
 to be determined at an election to be held on the first Mon 
 day in August, 1858. 
 
 In a speech in the Senate after the passage of the English 
 
STEP HEN A. DOUGLAS. 97 
 
 bill, Mr. Douglas referred to the Lecompton controversy as 
 at an end a dead issue which should no longer distract and 
 divide the Democratic party, in these words : 
 
 But when the bill became a law, the whole question was remanded to 
 Kansas, to be decided at an election, which has been fixed for the first 
 Monday in August. Whichever way the people of Kansas may decide the 
 question at that election will be final and conclusive. If they reject the 
 proposition submitted by Congress, the Lecompton constitution is dead, 
 and there is an end of the controversy. If, on the contrary, they accept 
 the proposition, Kansas, from that moment, becomes a State of the 
 Union, and thus the controversy terminates. Whether they shall accept 
 or reject the proposition is a question for the people of Kansas to decide 
 for themselves, and with which neither Congress nor the people of the 
 several States, nor any person, official or otherwise, outside of that Terri 
 tory, has any right to interfere. Hence, the Lecompton controversy is at 
 an end ; for all men, of all parties, must be content with and abide by 
 whatever decision the people of Kansas may make. 
 
 NO POINT OF DIFFERENCE NOW BETWEEN" DEMOCRATS. 
 
 And again, in the same speech, Mr. Douglas said : 
 
 Under these circumstances the question naturally arises, what con 
 troverted principle is there left for Democrats to differ and divide about ? 
 
 In the first place, we all agree, not only Democrats, but men of all par 
 ties, that whatever decision the people of Kansas may make at the election, 
 on the first Monday in August must be final and conclusive. 
 
 Now, if we can agree, as I have always avowed my willingness to do, 
 to sustain President Buchanan s recommendation, that in all future cases 
 the constitution shall be submitted to the people, as was required in the 
 Minnesota case, all matters of dispute and controversy will be at an end, 
 and our Territorial policy will be firmly placed on a wise and just basis. 
 
 Whatever justification or excuse may be urged for the war 
 fare upon Mr. Douglas and his friends during the Lecompton 
 controversy, no patriotic reason can be assigned after the 
 passage of the English bill and the adoption of the magnani- 
 
 5 
 
98 THE L I B^ E AND S P E E C II E S OF 
 
 mous and conciliating resolutions of the Illinois State conven 
 tion, for forming a coalition in that State with the Abolition 
 ists to defeat the regular Democratic nominee for State offi 
 cers, members of the legislature, congressmen, and a United 
 States senator, and filling their places with abolitionists. No 
 other reason can be assigned for keeping up the warfare after 
 the question had been finally settled than an insatiable desire 
 for revenge. No administration can be justified in dividing 
 and destroying the party by which it was elevated to power 
 upon the plea of resentment for real or imaginary grievances 
 growing out of a past political issue. The coalition between 
 the Republicans and the federal officeholders in Illinois, for 
 the purpose of electing Mr. Lincoln to the Senate in the place 
 of Mr. Douglas, by violating all the usages and bolting the 
 regular nomination of the Democratic party, must form a 
 dark page in the history of Mr. Buchanan s administration. 
 Having been voted down and defeated by overwhelming ma 
 jorities in the regular organization in every county in the 
 State for the election of delegates to the State convention, 
 the federal officeholders called a new convention at Spring 
 field on the 9th of June, 1858, and formed a separate ticket 
 to be supported by the bolters, for the avowed purpose of 
 defeating the regularly nominated ticket of the party, and 
 securing the ascendency of Black Republicanism in Illinois 
 by means of the division thus produced in the Democratic 
 ranks. 
 
 On the loth of June, 1858, Mr. Douglas made a speech in 
 the Senate, in which he exposed the combination between 
 the federal officeholders and the Abolitionists in Illinois, and 
 called the attention of the Democratic party in Congress, 
 and of the whole country, to this unholy and unnatural alli 
 ance ; and after showing that the federal officials professed 
 to have the authority of the President and his cabinet for the 
 course they were pursuing, said : 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 99 
 
 A refusal to disavow the authority, after a full knowledge of the facts 
 shall have been brought home to the administration, should, of course, be 
 regarded and treated as an approval and indorsement of the act as having 
 been done by authority 
 
 I intend to denounce this treason to the Democratic party; this system 
 of bolting regular Democratic nominations this coalition of officeholders 
 with the enemies of Democracy. I intend to denounce it in every part of 
 Illinois, and I mean to hold all men responsible for it, who, by their action, 
 become justly responsible. I now point out the fact that a conspiracy 
 against the unity and integrity of the Democratic party exists, and is being 
 executed by a portion of the federal officeholders in Illinois, who profess to 
 be acting under the sanction of the administration, but who, in my opinion, 
 are acting under the direction of a small squad of selfish and unscrupulous pol 
 iticians here, who care less for the present than for the next administration. 
 I am as confident that the Democracy of the whole Union will visit the con 
 spirators with condemnation when the facts are fully understood, as I am now 
 assured that the movement itself is disapproved and condemned by a large 
 majority of the Democrats in both houses of Congress. All good Demo- 
 crats, all fair-minded men of every party, will unite in denouncing such an 
 unscrupulous alliance between the leaders of the Republican party and that 
 portion of the officeholders who receive orders from the Danite chief. 
 What is the issue now pending in Illinois ? What is the inducement to the 
 great struggle for which the Republican leaders and their allies are now 
 preparing ? The motive cannot be disguised, nor, indeed, is there much 
 effort to conceal it. The object of this combination is to strike down and 
 crush out the Democratic delegation in the two houses of Congress, and 
 the Democratic party in Illinois, which has unanimously indorsed their 
 course in State convention, for having acted fully up to their conscientious 
 convictions in carrying out in good faith the great principle of self-govern 
 ment, in its application to Kansas. This is the extent of our offending. 
 For this offence we are to be pursued and hunted down by an unscrupu 
 lous coalition. The Republican leaders, with all the machinery of their 
 party organization in motion, are fighting us with more fierceness, and, I 
 may add, with more ferocity, than they ever did on any former occasion. 
 They go into the battle with more energy and confidence, relying for suc 
 cess solely upon the aid which may be rendered them by the bolting office 
 holders in dividing the Democratic party. 
 
 It is natural that the Republican leaders should feel great anxiety to 1mm- 
 ble and defeat the Democracy of Illinois. They are restive under the re 
 flection that Illinois is the only northern State which never struck her nag 
 to the enemies of the Democracy at a Presidential election. While every 
 
100 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 other northern State has, at some time, under some momentary panic or 
 fanatical excitement, struck her flag and surrendered to the enemy, Illinois 
 never ! Pennsylvania has, on more than one occasion, abandoned the 
 Democratic party, and secured the election of an opposition President. 
 New York has done the same thing frequently ; Ohio often ; Indiana sev 
 eral times ; and so with each State in turn, leaving Illinois standing bravely 
 alone, a solitary exception among her northern sisters. Now, it is pro 
 posed, in view of these facts, to humble that gallant State, and make her 
 trail her glorious old flag in the dust, and strike her ever-victorious colors 
 to an allied army, composed of the Republican organization and the bolting 
 officeholders under a Democratic administration ! 
 
 CONSTITUTION FOB MINNESOTA.* 
 
 The 3d Session of the 34th Congress assembled in Decem 
 ber, 1856. One of the most important acts of this session 
 was the passage of a bill to authorize the people of the Ter 
 ritory of Minnesota to form a constitution and State govern 
 ment, preparatory to their admission into the Union on an 
 equal footing with the original States. In the debate on this 
 bill, on the 21st of February, 1857, Mr. Douglas said . 
 
 The organic act creating the Territory of Minnesota many years 
 since provided that : 
 
 " Every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who 
 shall have been a resident of the said Territory at the time of the passage of 
 this act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to 
 any office in the said Territory ; but the qualifications of voters and of holding 
 office at all subsequent elections shall be such as shall be subscribed by the 
 Legislative Assembly : Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding 
 office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States and those who 
 have declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall have taken an 
 oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of 
 this act." 
 
 That was the organic law of the Territory. Under that law the 
 Territorial legislature have prescribed the qualifications of voters. 
 The present bill provides that the legal voters of Minnesota may 
 assemble and elect delegates to a convention to form a constitution 
 and State government for admission into the Union, leaving the 
 qualifications of voters in the Territorv for this purpose precisely 
 what they have been ever since the Territory was organized, and as 
 they are now fixed by law. I see no reason wliy we should change 
 
 * Chronologically, the conclusion of this chapter belongs elsewhere It 
 will be arranged in a subsequent edition. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 101 
 
 the existing law of Minnesota on that point for this one election, 
 when there is no pretence that any evil consequences have grown 
 out of the exercise of the elective franchise under the present law. 
 If my friend from North Carolina could show me that any injurious 
 consequences had grown out ~of the law of Minnesota fixing the 
 qualifications of voters, there would be an argument in favor of the 
 ctiange ; but there is no objection on that score ; no consideration 
 of that kind has been urged. The amendment, therefore, is only to 
 carry out a theory of the senator, and not to remedy any practical 
 existing evil in the Territory. 
 
 My friend from North Carolina is entirely mistaken in the suppo 
 sition that it has been the uniform practice in laws enabling Terri 
 tories to become States, to restrict the right of voting to citizens of 
 the United States. I have sent for the laws, and will present them 
 if it be necessary, in the course of the discussion, to show that he is 
 entirely mistaken in that respect. The rule is rather the reverse, if 
 there be any rule on the subject. The foot is, that there has been a 
 variety of laws on that point. In some Territories where there was 
 no contest about it, the right was confined to citizens of the United 
 States ; in others, all the inhabitants possessing certain qualifications 
 were allowed to vote. In all the North western Territory, in Ohio, 
 Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, aliens, under certain con 
 ditions, were permitted to vote, not only while those States were 
 Territories, but when they became States ; and this provision was 
 not peculiar to the Northwestern States, as has been supposed. 
 
 My friend from Alabama is mistaken in saying that it has not been 
 done at the South. I remember well that I served some years ago 
 on the Committee of Elections in the House of Representatives when 
 there was a contested seat between Mr. John "W. Jones and Mr. John 
 M. Botts ; and it turned out that Mr. Jones had received some eighty- 
 nine votes, I think, of foreigners unnaturalized according to the laws 
 of the United States, but who were legal voters according to the laws 
 of Virginia. There certainly was a class of persons in Virginia, 
 who, under her laws, were allowed to vote, although they were not 
 naturalized citizens of the United States, and they did vote in that 
 election between Jones and Botts under the law of Virginia, author 
 izing them to become voters, although they were not citizens of the 
 United States according to the laws of the United States. It was 
 under some special law. The impression is on my mind 1 firmly, 
 because I was on the committee that investigated this question. 
 
 Virginia prescribes who shall be citizens of Virginia, and in some 
 cases has not confined the right of voting to citizens of the United 
 States. That is just what Michigan did when she came into the 
 Union with a constitution providing that all citizens of the United 
 States should be permitted to vote, and also, all other persons who 
 were inhabitants of the State at the time of the adoption of the con 
 stitution. By that-constitution, Michigan made those other inhabi 
 tants who had not been naturalized, but possessed certain specified 
 
102 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 qualifications, citizens of the State of Michigan, although they were 
 not citizens of the United States. That is precisely what we did in 
 Illinois under the old constitution. We allowed an unnaturalized 
 foreigner who possessed certain qualifications to vote in that State, 
 although he had not become a citizen of the United States ; in other 
 words, we made him a citizen of the State of Illinois, and authorized 
 him to vote at our elections, notwithstanding the fact that he had 
 not complied with the law of Congress in regard to citizenship. 
 That is all Virginia has done, and I believe it is only in limited 
 cases. 
 
 But, sir, I did not wish to open a debate on this subject. I 
 referred to the Virginia case only for illustration. The simple ques 
 tion here is, shall we authorize the present legal voters of Minnesota 
 to vote for the election of delegates to form a State constitution ? I 
 hope the amendment will not be adopted. 
 
 I appeal to the Senate not to go into a political discussion upon 
 aliens and Know Nothingism, and other questions, on these measures, 
 for the reason that we are near the end of the session. This day was 
 set apart for Territorial business, and there is as much as we can dis 
 pose of if we confine ourselves to the bills themselves, without these 
 long discussions. I appeal, therefore, to the Senate to allow us to 
 have a vote. This question is well understood by every senator 
 present. It has been thoroughly discussed. 1 have not the slightest 
 idea that any gentleman can have his opinions changed, or his stock 
 of knowledge added to or diminished materially by a discussion. 
 The only effect of this discussion will be to occupy the entire day, 
 and compel us to have a night session, or else oblige us to lose all 
 these Territorial bills for to-day. Of course, if I cannot get a vote 
 to-day, I shall feel compelled to press these measures every day until 
 I can get a vote. I refrain from replying even to that part of the 
 argument which touched my own State, and where I think it did her 
 injustice, in order to get a vote. 
 
 As I do not wish to reply to my friend, I desire now to call his 
 attention to an error into which he has fallen. He overlooks one 
 clause in the Indiana and Illinois laws to which he has referred. I 
 will read the Illinois law : 
 
 " That all white male citizens of the United States who shall have attained 
 to the age of twenty-one years, and have resided in said Territory six months 
 previous to the day of election, and all persons having in other respects tho 
 legal qualifications to vote for a representative in the General Assembly of said 
 Territory, be, and they are hereby, authorized to vote " 
 
 at the election to form a State constitution. That includes inhabi 
 tants unnaturalized, who, by the Territorial laws, and the Ordinance 
 of 1787, were authorized to vote. If the senator will turn to the 
 Indiana law, he will find a similar clause there : 
 
 " That all male citizens of the United States who shall have attained the age 
 of twenty-one years, and resided in said Territory at least one year previous to 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 103 
 
 the election, and shall have paid a country tax," . . . . " and all persons 
 having, in other respects, the -legal qualifications to vote for representatives in 
 the General Assembly of said Territory, be, and they are hereby, authorized to 
 choose representatives." 
 
 The organic law of Indiana Territory was the Ordinance of 1787 ; 
 or organic law of Illinois Territory was the Ordinance of 1787; and 
 so with all the northwestern Territories. The Ordinance of 1787, 
 which constituted the organic law of those Territories, .expressly 
 provided that citizens of the different States residing there and hav 
 ing a certain amount of property, should vote; and it expressly 
 authorized unuaturalized persons to vote, as well as naturalized 
 citizens, provided they owned property. If my friend will look into 
 the matter, he will find that there is no question that, under the 
 organic law of those Territories, unnaturalized foreigners could and 
 did vote while they were Territories ; and then the acts authorizing 
 those Territories to form constitutions and State governments, pro 
 vided that all citizens of the United States could vote, and also, all 
 such other persons as were qualified to vote in the Territories by 
 existing laws, showing clearly that there was an express recognition 
 of the rights of unnaturalized foreigners to vote who were authorized 
 to vote under the Territorial laws. That brings those cases exactly 
 within the limits of the bill now under consideration. 
 
 OPPOSITION TO MINNESOTA. 
 
 The bill met with considerable opposition in both houses 
 of Congress. In the Senate, Mr. Thompson, of Kentucky, 
 made a most remarkable speech against it, which is entirely 
 too rich to be lost, but which our limits preclude our giving 
 here. This w r as on the 24th of February; and in reply 
 to it, Mr. Douglas made a speech which we give in a subse 
 quent part of the work. 
 
 On the 12th of June, 1857, Mr. Douglas being at Spring 
 field, Illinois, addressed the Grand Jury of the United States 
 Court, at their request, upon the affairs of Kansas and Utah, 
 and the recently decided Dred Scott case. The reader will 
 observe that at the time Mr. Douglas made this speech, he 
 had no doubt but that President Buchanan would remove 
 Brigham Young and all his followers from office, would 
 cause a searching investigation to be made into all the crimes 
 
104: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 that have been perpetrated in Utah, and would execute the 
 Lows, by military force if necessary. No temporizing policy, 
 no half-way measures, says Mr. Douglas, will answer. " He 
 would first repeal the organic act, absolutely and uncondi 
 tionally, blotting out of existence the Territorial government, 
 and bringing Utah under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction 
 of the United States government." 
 
 No man can fail to see that the mode of grappling with the 
 Utah question which Mr. Douglas suggests, is the only way in 
 which the great problem of " What is to be done with 
 Utah ?" can be solved. It must be settled in the way he 
 indicates, sooner or later. We give this speech in a subse- 
 quent part of the work. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 105 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION BEITISH AGGRESSION 1858. 
 
 New Aspect of Affairs at the Federal Capitol Mr. Douglas calls on 
 the President for Information in regard to Affairs in Kansas Great 
 Speech of Mr. Douglas against the Lecompton Constitution Speech in 
 Favor of the Crittenden-Montgomery Amendment Speech on the Eng 
 lish Bill Speech in favor of conferring on the President Power to pun 
 ish British Outrages. 
 
 THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 
 
 THE first session of the 35th Congress met in December, 
 1857. On the 8th, President Buchanan sent to Congress his 
 first annual message. On the 9th, Mr. Douglas addressed 
 the Senate on that part of the message referring to affairs in 
 Kansas. 
 
 This speech is a calm and clear examination of the question 
 whether or not Kansas could be received into the Union, 
 with the Lecompton constitution. 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT : When yesterday the President s message was read at 
 the clerk s desk, I heard it but imperfectly, and I was of the impression 
 that the President of the United States had approved and indorsed the 
 action of the Lecompton convention in Kansas. Under that impression, I 
 felt it my duty to state that, while I concurred in the general views of the 
 message, yet, so far as it approval or indorsed the action of that conven 
 tion, I entirely dissented from it, and would avail myself of an early op 
 portunity to state my reasons for my dissent. Upon a more careful and 
 critical examination of the message, I am rejoiced to find that the Presi- 
 
 5* 
 
10( THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 dent of the United States has not recommended that Congress shall pass a 
 law to receive Kansas into the Union under the constitution formed at 
 Lecompton. It is true that the tone of the message indicates a willingness 
 on the part of the President to sign a bill, if we shall see proper to pass 
 one, receiving Kansas into the Union under that constitution. But, sir, it 
 is a fact of great significance, and worthy of consideration, that the Presi 
 dent has refrained from any indorsement of the convention, and from any 
 recommendation as to the course Congress should pursue with regard to 
 the constitution there formed. 
 
 The message of the President has made an argument an unanswerable 
 argument, in my opinion against that constitution, which shows clearly, 
 whether intended to arrive at the result or not, that, consistently with his 
 views and his principles, he cannot accept that constitution. He has ex 
 pressed his deep mortification and disappointment that the constitution 
 itself has not been submitted to the people of Kansas for their acceptance 
 or rejection. He informs us that he has unqualifiedly expressed his opi 
 nions on that subject in his instructions to Governor Walker, assuming, as 
 a matter of course, that the constitution was to be submitted to the people 
 before it could have any vitality or validity. He goes further, und tells us 
 that the example set by Congress in the Minnesota case, by inserting a 
 clause in the enabling act requiring the constitution to be submitted to the 
 people, ought to become a uniform rule, not to be departed from hereafter 
 in any case. On these various propositions I agree entirely with the Presi 
 dent of the United States, and I am prepared now to sustain that uniform 
 rule which he asks us to pursue, in all other cases, by taking the Minnesota 
 provision as our, example. 
 
 I rejoice, on a careful perusal of the message, to find so much less to 
 dissent from than I was under the impression there was. from the hasty 
 reading and imperfect hearing of the message in the first instance. In 
 effect, he refers that document to the Congress of the United States as 
 the Constitution of the United States refers it for us to decide upon it 
 under our responsibility. It is proper that he should have thus referred it 
 to us as a matter for Congressional action, and not as an administration or 
 executive measure, for the reason that the Constitution of the United 
 States says that " Congress may admit new States into the Union." Hence 
 we find the Kansas question before us now, not as an administration mea 
 sure, not as an Executive measure, but as a measure coming before us for 
 our free action, without any recommendation or interference, directly or 
 isdirectly, by the administration now in possession of the Federal Govern- 
 
STEPHEN A . DOUGLAS. 107 
 
 ment. Sir, I propose to examine this question calmly and fairly, to see 
 whether or not we can properly receive Kansas into the Union with the 
 constitution formed at Lecompton. 
 
 The President, after expressing his regret, and mortification, and dis 
 appointment, that the constitution had not been submitted to the people 
 in pursuance of his instructions to Governor Walker, and in pursuance of 
 Governor Walker s assurance to the people, says, however, that by the 
 Kansas-Nebraska Act the slavery question only was required to be referred 
 to the people, and the remainder of the constitution was not thus required 
 to be submitted. He acknowledges that, as a general rule, on general 
 principles, the whole constitution should be submitted ; but according to 
 his understanding of the organic act of Kansas, there was an imperative 
 obligation to submit the slavery question for their approval or disapproval, 
 but no obligation to submit the entire constitution. In other words, he 
 regards the organic act, the Nebraska Bill, as having made an exception 
 of the slavery clause, and pi tided for the disposition of that question in 
 a mode different from that in which other domestic or local, as contra 
 distinguished from federal questions, should be decided. Sir, permit me 
 to say, with profound respect for the President of the United States, that 
 I conceive that on this point he has committed a fundamental error, an 
 error which lies at the foundation of his whole argument on this matter. 
 I can well understand how that distinguished statesman came to fall into 
 this error. He was not in the country at the time the Nebraska Bill was 
 passed ; he was not a party to the controversy and the discussion that took 
 place during its passage. He was then representing the honor and the 
 dignity of the country with great wisdom and distinction at a foreign 
 court. Thus deeply engrossed, his whole energies were absorbed in con 
 ducting great diplomatic questions that diverted his attention from the 
 mere territorial questions and discussions then going on in the Senate and 
 the House of Representatives, and before the people at home. Under 
 these circumstances, he may well have fallen into an error, radical and 
 fundamental as it is, in regard to the object of the Nebraska Bill and the 
 principle asserted in it. 
 
 Now, sir, what was the principle enunciated by the authors and supporters 
 of that bill when it was brought forward ? Did we not come before the coun 
 try and say that we repealed the Missouri restriction for the purpose of 
 substituting and carrying out as a general rule the great principle of self- 
 government, which left the people of each State and each Territory free 
 to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
 
108 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 only to the Constitution of the United States ? In support of that proposi 
 tion, it was argued here, and I have argued it wherever I have spoken in 
 various States of the Union, at home and abroad, everywhere I have en 
 deavored to prove that there was no reason why an exception should be 
 made in regard to the slavery question. I have appealed to the people if 
 we did not all agree, men of all parties, that all other local and domestic 
 questions should be submitted to the people. I said to them, " We agree 
 that the people shall decide for themselves what kind of a judiciary system 
 they will have ; we agree that the people shall decide what kind of a school 
 system they will establish ; we agree that the people shall determine for 
 themselves what kind of a banking system they will have, or whether they 
 will have any banks at all ; we agree that the people may decide for them 
 selves what shall be the elective franchise in their respective States ; they 
 shall decide for themselves what shall be the rule of taxation and the 
 principles upon which their finance shall be regulated ; we agree that they 
 may decide for themselves the relations between husband and wife, parent 
 and child, guardian and ward ; and why should we not then allow them to 
 decide for themselves the relations between master and servant ? Why 
 make an exception of the slavery question by taking it out of that great 
 rule of self-government which applies to all the other relations of life ?" 
 The very first proposition in the Nebraska Bill was to show that the Mis 
 souri restriction, prohibiting the people from deciding the slavery question 
 for themselves, constituted an exception to a general rule, in violation of 
 the principle of self-government, and hence that that exception should be 
 repealed, and the slavery question, like all other questions, submitted to 
 the people to be decided for themselves. 
 
 Sir, that was the principle on which the Nebraska Bill was defended by 
 its friends. Instead of making the slavery question an exception, it re 
 moved an odious exception which before existed. Its whole object was to 
 abolish that odious exception, and make the rule general, universal, in its 
 application to all matters which were local and domestic, and not national 
 or federal. For this reason was the language employed which the Presi 
 dent has quoted ; that the eighth section of the Missouri Act, commonly 
 called the Missouri Compromise, was repealed because it was repugnant to 
 the principle of non-intervention established by the Compromise measures 
 of 1850, " it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate 
 slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to 
 leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic 
 /Qstitutioos in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 109 
 
 United States." We repealed the Missouri restriction because that was 
 confined to slavery. That was the only exception there was to the general 
 principle of self-government. That exception was taken away for the 
 avowed and express purpose of making the rule of self-government general 
 and universal, so that the people should form and regulate all their do 
 mestic institutions in their own way. 
 
 Sir, what would this boasted principle of popular sovereignty have been 
 worth, if it applied only to the negro, and did not extend to the white 
 man? Do you think we could have aroused the sympathies and the 
 patriotism of this broad Republic, and have carried the Presidential election 
 last year iu the face of a tremendous opposition, on the principle of ex 
 tending the rights of self-government to the negro question, but denying it 
 as to all the relations affecting white men ? No, sir. We aroused the | 
 patriotism of the country, and carried the election in defence of that great I 
 principle, which allowed all white men to form and regulate their domestic I 
 institutions to suit themselves institutions applicable to white men as well 
 as to black men institutions applicable to freemen as well as to slaves 
 institutions concerning all the relations of life, and not the mere paltry 
 exception of the slavery question. Sir, I have spent too much strength and 
 breath, and health, too, to establish this great -principle in the popular 
 heart, now to see it fritted away by bringing it down to an exception that 
 applies to the negro, and does not extend to the benefit of the white man. 
 As I said before, I can well imagine how the distinguished and eminent 
 patriot and statesman no\v at the head of the government, fell into the 
 error for error it is, radical, fundamental and, if persevered in, subver 
 sive of that platform upon which he was elevated to the Presidency of the 
 United States. 
 
 Then, if the President be right in saying that, by the Nebraska Bill, the I 
 slavery question must be submitted to the people, it follows inevitably that I 
 every other clause of the Constitution must also be submitted to the people. / 
 The Nebraska Bill said that the people should be left " perfectly free to/ 
 form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way " not the! 
 slavery question, not the Maine liquor law question, not the banking 
 question, not the school question, not the railroad question, but " their 
 domestic institutions," meaning each and all the questions which are local, 
 not national State, not federal. I arrive at the conclusion that the princi 
 ples enunciated so boldly, and enforced with so much ability by the Presi 
 dent of the United States, require us, out of respect to him and the plat 
 form on which he was elected, to send this whole question back to the 
 
110 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 people of Kansas, and enable them to say whether or not the constitution 
 which has been framed, each and every clause of it, meets their approbation. 
 The President, in his message, has made an unanswerable argument in 
 favor of the principle which requires this question to be sent back. It is 
 stated in the message, with more clearness and force than any language 
 which I can command; but I can draw your attention to it and refer you 
 to the argument in the message, hoping that you will take it as a part of 
 my speech as expressing my idea more forcibly than I am able to express 
 it. The President says that a question of great interest, like the slavery 
 question, cannot be fairly decided by a convention of delegates, for the 
 reason that the delegates are elected in districts, and in some districts the 
 delegate is elected by a small majority ; in others by an overwhelming 
 majority, so that it often happens that a majority of the delegates are one way, 
 while a majority of the people are the other way ; and therefore it would 
 
 Ibe unfair and inconsistent with the great principle of popular sovereignty, 
 to allow a body of delegates, not representing the popular voice, to 
 establish domestic institutions for the mass of the people. This is the 
 President s argument to show that you cannot have a fair and honest de 
 cision without submitting it to the popular vote. The same argument is 
 conclusive with regard to every other question as well as with regard to 
 slavery. 
 
 But, Mr. President, it is intimated in the message that although it was 
 an unfortunate circumstance, much to be regretted, that the Lecomptou 
 convention did not submit the constitution to the people, yet perhaps it 
 may be treated as regular, because the convention was called by a Terri 
 torial legislature which had been repeatedly recognized by the Congress of 
 the United States as a legal body. I beg senators not to fall into an error 
 as to the President s meaning on this point. He does not say, he does not 
 mean, that this convention had ever been recognized by the Congress of 
 the United States as legal or valid. On the contrary, he knows, as we 
 here know, that during the last Congress I reported a bill from the Com 
 mittee on Territories to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and 
 Yorm a constitution for themselves. Subsequently, the senator from 
 Georgia (Mr. Toombs) brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, 
 after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed 
 by the Senate. It is known in the country as "the Toombs Bill." It 
 authorizes the people of Kansas Territory to assemble in convention and 
 form a constitution preparatory to their admission into the Union as a 
 State. That bill, it is well known, was defeated in the House of Rcprc- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Ill 
 
 sentatives. It matters not, for the purpose of this argument, what was the 
 reason of its defeat. Whether the reason was a political one ; whether it 
 had reference to the then existing contest for the Presidency ; whether it 
 was to keep open the slavery question ; whether it was a conviction that 
 the bill would not be fairly carried out ; whether it was because there 
 were not people enough in Kansas to justify the formation of a State no 
 matter what the reason was, the House of Representatives refused to pass 
 that bill, and thus denied to the people of Kansas the right to form a con 
 stitution and State government at this time. So far from the Congress 
 of the United States having sanctioned or legalized the convention which 
 assembled at Lecompton, it expressly withheld its assent. The assent has 
 not been given, either in express terms or by implication ; and being with 
 held, this Kansas constitution has just such validity and just such authority 
 as the Territorial legislature of Kansas could impart to it without the 
 assent, and in opposition to the known will of Congress. 
 
 Now, sir, let me ask what is the extent of the authority of a Territorial 
 legislature as to calling a constitutional convention without the assent of 
 Congress? Fortunately this is not a new question; it does not now arise 
 for the first time. When the Topeka constitution was presented to the 
 Senate nearly two years ago, it was referred to the Committee on Territo 
 ries with a variety of measures relating to Kansas. The committee made a 
 full report upon the whole subject. That report reviewed all the irregular 
 cases which had occurred in our history in the admission of new States. 
 The committee acted on the supposition that whenever Congress had 
 passed an enabling act authorizing the people of a Territory to form a 
 State constitution, the convention was regular, and possessed all the 
 authority which Congress had delegated to it ; but whenever Congress had 
 failed or refused to pass an enabling act, the proceeding was irregular and 
 void, unless vitality was imparted to it by a subsequent act of .Congress 
 adopting and confirming it. The friends of the Topeka constitution insisted 
 that although their proceedings were irregular, they were not so irregular 
 but that Congress could cure the error by admitting Congress with that 
 constitution. They cited a, variety of cases, amongst others the Arkansas 
 case. In my report, sanctioned by every member of the Committee on 
 Territories, except the senator from Vermont (Mr. Collamer), I reviewed 
 the Arkansas case as well as the others, and affirmed the doctrine esta 
 blished by General Jackson s administration and enunciated in the opinion 
 of Mr. Attorney General Butler, a part of which opinion was copied into 
 the report and published to the country at the time. 
 
112 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Now, sir, in order to ascertain what we understood on the 12th of March, 
 1856 little more than a year and a half ago to be the true doctrine on 
 this point, let me call your attention to the opinion of Mr. Butler in the 
 Arkansas case. The governor of the Territory of Arkansas sent a printed 
 address to President Jackson, in which he stated that he had been urged 
 to call together the legislature of the Territory of Arkansas, for the pur 
 pose of allowing them to call a convention to form a constitution, prepara 
 tory to their admission into the Union as a State. The governor stated 
 that, in his opinion, the legislature had no power to call such a convention 
 without the assent of Congress first had and obtained ; but he asked 
 instructions on that point. The President referred the case to the secre 
 tary of state, and he asked for the advice of the attorney general, whose 
 opinion was given, and adopted, as the plan of actioij, and communicated 
 to the governor of Arkansas for his instruction. I will read some extracts 
 from that opinion : 
 
 " Consequently, it is not in the power of the General Assembly of Arkansas to pass any 
 law for the purpose of electing members to form a constitution and State government, or 
 to do any other act, directly or indirectly, to create such new government. Every such 
 law, even though it were approved by the governor of the Territory, would be null 
 and void. If passed by them, notwithstanding his veto, by a vote of two-thirds of each 
 branch, it would still be equally void. 
 
 " If I am right in the foregoing opinion, it will then follow that the course of the gov 
 ernor, in declining to call together the Territorial legislature for the purpose in question, 
 Avas such as his legal duties required ; and that the views he has expressed in his public 
 address, and also in his official communication to yourself, so far as they indicate an 
 intention not to sanction or concur in any legislative or other proceedings toward the 
 formation of a State government until Congress shall have authorized it, are also cor 
 rect." 
 
 That is what I have understood to be the settled doctrine as to the au 
 thority of a Territorial legislature to call a convention without the consent 
 of Congress first had and obtained. The reasoning is very clear and palpa 
 ble. A Territorial legislature possesses whatever power its organic act 
 gives it, and no more. The organic act of Arkansas provided that the 
 legislative power should be vested in the Territorial legislature, the same 
 as the organic act "of Kansas provides that the legislative power and autho 
 rity shall be vested in the legislature. But what is the extent of that legis 
 lative power? It is to legislate for that Territory under the organic act, 
 and in obedience to it. It does not include any power to subvert the 
 organic act under which it was brought into existence. It has the power 
 to protect it, the power to execute it, the power to carry it into effect ; but 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 113 
 
 it has no power to subvert, none to destroy ; and hence that power can 
 only be obtained by applying to Congress, the same authority which cre 
 ated the Territory itself. But while the attorney general decided, with 
 the approbation of the administration of General Jackson, that the Terri 
 torial legislature had no power to call a convention, and that its action was 
 void if it did, he went farther : 
 
 " No law has yet been passed by Congress which either expressly or impliedly gives to 
 the people of Arkansas the authority to form a State government." 
 
 Nor has there been any in regard to Kansas. The two cases are alike 
 thus far. They are alike in all particulars so far as the question involving 
 the legality and the validity of the Lecompton convention is concerned. 
 The opinion goes on to say : 
 
 " For the reasons above stated, I am, therefore, of opinion that the inhabitants of that 
 Territory have not at present, and that they cannot acquire otherwise than by an act 
 of Congress, the right to form such a government." 
 
 General Jackson s administration took the ground that the people of 
 Arkansas, by the authority of the Territorial legislature, had not the power 
 to hold a convention to form a constitution, and could not acquire it from 
 any source Avhatever except from Congress. While, therefore, the legis 
 lative act of Arkansas was held to be void, so far as it assumed authoritj 
 to authorize the calling of a convention to form a constitution, yet they 
 did not hold, in those days, that the people could not assemble and frame 
 a constitution in the form of a petition. I will read the rest of the opinion, 
 in order that the Senate may understand precisely what was the doctrine 
 on this subject at that day, and what the committee on Territories under 
 stood to be the doctrine on this subject in March, 1856, when we put forth 
 the Kansas report as embodying what we Nebraska men understood to be 
 our doctrine at time. Here it is. This was copied into that report: 
 
 "But I am not prepared to say that all proceedings on this subject, on the part of the 
 citizens of Arkansas, will be illegal. They undoubtedly possess the ordinary privileges 
 and immunities of citizens of the United States. Among these is the right to assemble 
 and to petition the government for the redress of grievances. In the exercise of this right, 
 the inhabitants of Arkansas may peaceably meet together in primary assemblies, or in 
 conventions chosen by such assemblies, for the purpose of petitioning Congress to abro 
 gate the Territorial government, and to admit them into the Union as an independent 
 State. The particular form which they may give in their petition cannot be material, so 
 long as they confine themselves to the mere right of petitioning, and conduct all their 
 proceedings in a peaceable manner. And as the power of Congress over the whole sub 
 ject is plenary and unlimited, THEY MAY ACCEPT ANY CONSTITUTION, HOWEVER FRAMKD, 
 
 WHICH IN THKIR JUDGMENT MEETS THE SENSK OF THE PEOPLE TO BE AFFECTED BY IT. If, 
 
1 14 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 therefore, the citizens of Arkansas think proper to accompany their petition with a writ 
 ten constitution, framed and agreed on by their primary assemblies, or by a convention 
 of delegates chosen by such assemblies, I perceive no legal objection to their power to 
 do so, nor any measures which may be taken to collect the sense of the people in respect 
 to it ; provided always, that such measures be commenced and prosecuted in a peace 
 able manner, in strict subordination to the existing Territorial government. AND IN KN- 
 
 TIRE SUBSERVIKNCY TO THE POWKR OF CONGRESS TO ADOPT, REJECT, OR DISREGARD THEM, 
 AT THEIR PLEASURE." 
 
 While the legislature of Arkansas had no power to create a convention 
 to frame a constitution, as a legal constitutional body, yet if the people chose 
 to assemble under such an act of the legislature for the purpose of petition 
 ing for redress of grievances, the assemblage was not illegal ; it was not 
 an unlawful assemblage ; it was not such an assemblage as the military 
 power could be used to disperse, for they had a right under the Constitu 
 tion thus to assemble and petition. But if they assumed to themselves the 
 right or the power to make a government, that assumption was an act of 
 rebellion which General Jackson said it was his duty to put down with the 
 military force of the country. 
 
 If you apply these principles to the Kansas convention, you find that it 
 had no power to do any act as a convention forming a government ; you 
 find that the act calling it was null and void from the beginning; you find 
 that the legislature could confer no power whatever on the convention. 
 That convention was simply an assemblage of peaceable citizens, under the 
 Constitution of the United States, petitioning for the redress of grievances, 
 and, thus assembled, had the right to put their petition in the form of a 
 constitution if they chose ; but still it was only a petition having the force 
 of a petition which Congress could accept or reject, or dispose of as it 
 saw proper. That is what I understand to be just the extent of the power 
 and authority of this convention assembled at Lecomptou. It was not an 
 unlawful assemblage like that held at Topeka ; for the Topeka constitution 
 was made in opposition to the Territorial law, and, as I thought, intended 
 to subvert the government without the consent of Congress, but, as con 
 tended by their friends, not so intended. If their object was to subvert it 
 without the consent of Congress, it was an act of rebellion, which ought to 
 have been put down by force. If it was a peaceable assemblage, simply to 
 petition and abide the decision of Congress on the petition, it was not an 
 unlawful assemblage. I hold, however, that it was an unlawful assemblage. 
 I hold that this Lecompton convention was not an unlawful assemblage ; 
 but, on the other hand, I hold that they had no legal power and authority 
 to establish a government. They had a right to petition for a redress of 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 115 
 
 grievances. They had a right in that petition to ask ^for the change of 
 government from a Territorial to a State government. They had a right to 
 ask Congress to adopt the instrument which they sent to us as their constitu 
 tion ; and Congress, if it thought that paper embodied the will of the peo 
 ple of the Territory, fairly expressed, might, in its discretion, accept it as a 
 constitution, and admit them into the Union as a State ; or if Congress 
 thought it did not embody the will of the people of Kansas, it might reject 
 it ; or if Congress thought it was doubtful whether it did embody the will 
 of the people or not, then it should send it back and submit it to the peo 
 ple to have that doubt removed, in order that the popular voice, whatever 
 it might be, should prevail in the constitution under which that people 
 were to live. 
 
 So far as the act of the Territorial legislature of Kansas calling this con 
 vention was concerned, I have always been under the impression that it 
 was fair and just in its provisions. I have always thought the people 
 should have gone together en masse and voted for delegates, so that the 
 voice expressed by the convention should have been the unquestioned and 
 united voice of the people of Kansas. I have always thought that those 
 who staid away from that election stood in their own light, and should 
 have gone and voted, and should have furnished their names to be put on 
 the registered list, so as to be voters. I have always held that it was their 
 own fault that they did not thus go and rote ; but yet, if they chose, 
 they had a right to stay away. They had a right to say that that conven 
 tion, although not aa unlawful assemblage, is not a legal convention to 
 make a government, and hence we are under no obligation to go and ex 
 press any opinion about it. They had a right to say, if they chose, 
 "We will stay away until we see the constitution they shall frame, the 
 petition they shall send to Congress ; and when they submit it to us for 
 ratification we will vote for it, if Ave like it, or vote it down if we do not 
 like it." If say they had a right to do either, though I thought, and think 
 yet, as good citizens, they ought to have gone and voted ; but that was 
 their business and not mine. 
 
 Having thus shown that the Convention at Lecompton had no power, no 
 authority, to form and establish a government, but had power to draft a 
 petition, and that petition, if it embodied the will of the people of Kansas, 
 ought to be taken as such an exposition of their will, yet if it did not 
 embody their will, ought to be rejected having shown these facts, let me 
 proceed and inquire what was the understanding of the people of Kansas, 
 when the delegates were elected ? I understand, from the history of the 
 transaction, that the people who voted for delegates to the Lecompton 
 
116 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 convention, and those who refused to vote both parties understood the 
 Territorial Act to mean that they were to be elected only to frame a consti 
 tution, and submit it to the people for their ratification or rejection. I say 
 that both parties in that Territory, at the time of the election of delegates, 
 so understood the object of the convention. Those who voted for dele 
 gates did so with the understanding that they had no power to make a 
 government, but only to frame one for submission ; and those who staid 
 away did so with the same understanding. 
 
 Xo\v for the evidence. The President of the United States tells us, in 
 his message, that he had unequivocally expressed his opinions, in the form 
 of instructions to Governor Walker, assuming that the constitution was to 
 be submitted to the people for ratification. When we look into Governor 
 Walker s letter of acceptance of the office of governor, we find that he 
 stated expressly that he accepted it with the understanding that the Pre 
 sident and his whole cabinet concurred with him, that the constitution, 
 when formed, was to be submitted to the people for ratification. Then 
 look into the instructions given by the President of the United States, 
 through General Cass, the secretary of state, to Governor Walker, and 
 you there find that the governor is instructed to use the military power to 
 protect the polls when the constitution shall be submitted to the people of 
 Kansas for their free acceptance or rejection. Trace the history a little 
 further, and you will find that Governor Walker went to Kansas and pro 
 claimed, in his inaugural, and in his speeches at Topeka and elsewhere, 
 that it was the distinct understanding, not only of himself, but of those 
 higher in power than himself meaning the President and his cabinet 
 that the constitution was to be submitted to the people for their free 
 acceptance or rejection, and that he would use all the power at his com 
 mand to defeat its acceptance by Congress, if it were not thus submitted 
 to the vote of the people 
 
 Mr. President, 1 am not going to stop and inquire how far the Nebraska 
 Bill, which said the people should be left perfectly free to form their con 
 stitution for themselves, authorized the President, or the cabinet, or Gov 
 ernor Walker, or any other Territorial officer, to interfere and tell the Con 
 vention of Kansas whether they should not submit the question to the 
 people. I am not going to stop to inquire how far they were authorized 
 to % do that, it being my opinion that the spirit of the Nebraska Bill required 
 it to be done. It is sufficient for my purpose that the administration of 
 the Federal Government unanimously that the administration of the Ter 
 ritorial government, in all its parts, unanimously understood the Territorial 
 law under which the convention was assembled to mean that the constitu 
 tion to be formed by that convention should be submitted to the people 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 117 
 
 for ratification or rejection ; and. if not confirmed bv a majority of the 
 people, should be null and void, without coming to Congress for ap 
 proval. 
 
 Xot only did the national government and the Territorial government 
 no understand the law at the time, but, as I have already stated, the people 
 of the Territory so understood it. As a further evidence on that point, a 
 large number, if not a majority, of the delegates were instructed in the 
 nominating conventions to submit the constitution to the people for ratifi 
 cation. I know that the delegates from Douglas County, eight in number, 
 Mr. Calhoun, president of the convention, being among them, were not 
 only instructed thus to submit the question, but they signed and pub 
 lished, while candidates, a written pledge that they would submit it to the 
 people for ratification. I know that men, high in authority, and in the 
 confidence of the Territorial and national government, canvassed every 
 part of Kansas during the election of delegates, and each one of them 
 pledged himself to the people that no snap judgment was to be taken ; 
 that the constitution was to be submitted to the people for acceptance or 
 rejection ; that it would be void unless that was done ; that the adminis 
 tration would spurn and scorn it as a violation of the principles on which 
 it came into power, and that a Democratic Congress would hurl it from 
 their presence as an insult to Democrats who stood pledged to see the 
 people left free to form their domestic institutions for themselves. 
 
 Not only that, sir, but up to the time when the convention assembled, 
 on the 1st of September, so far as I can learn, it was understood every 
 where that the constitution was to be submitted for ratification or reject- 
 tion. They met, however, on the 1st of September, and adjourned until 
 after the October election. I think it was wise and prudent that they 
 should thus have adjourned. They did not wish to bring any question 
 into that election which would divide the Democratic party, and weaken 
 our chances of success in the election. I was rejoiced when I saw that 
 they did adjourn, so as not to show their hand on any question that would 
 divide and distract the party until after the election. During that recess, 
 while the convention was adjourned, Governor Ransom, the Democratic 
 candidate for Congress, running against the present delegate from that 
 Territory, was canvassing every part of Kansas in favor of the doctrine of 
 submitting the constitution to the people, declaring that the Democratic 
 party were in favor of such submission, and that it was a slander of the 
 Black Republicans to intimate the charge that the Democratic party did 
 not intend to carry out that pledge in good faith. Thus, up to the time 
 of the meeting of the convention, in October last, the pretence was kept 
 up, the piofession was openly made, and believed by me, and [ thought 
 
118 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 believed by them, that the convention intended to submit a constitution 
 to the people, and not to attempt to put government in operation without 
 such submission. The election being over, the Democratic party being 
 defeated by an overwhelming vote, the Opposition having triumphed, and 
 got possession of both branches of the legislature, and having elected 
 their Territorial de-legate, the convention assembled, and then proceeded 
 to complete their work. 
 
 Now let us stop to inquire how they redeemed the pledge to submit the 
 constitution to the people. They first go on and make a constitution. 
 Then they make a schedule, in which they provide that the constitution, 
 on the 21st December the present month shall be submitted to all the 
 bond fide inhabitants of the Territory on that day, for their free acceptance 
 or rejection, in the following manner, to wit : thus acknowledging that they 
 were bound to submit it to the will of the people, conceding that they had 
 no right to put it into operation without submitting it to the people, pro 
 viding in the instrument that it should take effect from and after the 
 date of its ratification, and not before ; showing that the constitution 
 derives its vitality, in their estimation, not from the authoritv of the con- 
 A r ention, but from that vote of the people to which it was to be submitted 
 for their acceptance or rejection. How is it to be submitted ? It shall be 
 submitted in this form : " Constitution with slavery, or constitution with 
 no slavery." All men must vote for the constitution, whether they like it 
 or not, in order to be permitted to vote for or against slavery. Thus a 
 constitution made by a convention that had authority to assemble and 
 petition for a redress of grievances, but not to establish a government a 
 constitution made under a pledge of honor that it should be submitted to 
 the people before it took effect ; a constitution which provides, on its face, 
 that it shall have no validity except what it derives from such submission 
 is submitted to the people at an election where all men are at liberty to 
 come forward freely without hinderance and vote for it, but no man is 
 permitted to record a vote against it. 
 
 That would be as fair an election as some of the enemies of Xapoleou 
 attributed to him when he was elected First Consul. He is said to have 
 called out his troops, and had them reviewed by his officers with a speech, 
 patriotic and fair in its professions, in which he said to them : " Now, my 
 soldiers, you are to go to the election and vote freely just as you please. 
 It you vote for Xapoleon all is well; vote against him, and you are to be 
 instantly shot." That was a fair election. (Laughter.) This election is to 
 be equally fair. All men in favor of the constitution may vote for it all 
 men against it -hall not vote at all. Why not let them vote against it? 
 I presume you have asked many a man this question. I have asked a very 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 119 
 
 large number of the gentlemen \vlio framed the constitution, quite a 
 number of delegates, and a still larger number of persons who are their 
 friends, and I have received the same answer from every one of them. I 
 never received any other answer, and I presume we never shall get any 
 other answer. What is that ? They say if they allowed a negative vote 
 the constitution would have been voted down by an overwhelming major 
 ity, and hence the fellows shall not be allowed to vote at all. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. President, that may be true. It is no part of my purpose to deny 
 the proposition that that constitution would have been voted down if sub 
 mitted to the people. I believe it would have been voted down by a ma 
 jority of four to one. I am informed by men well posted there Demo 
 crats that it would be voted down by ten to one ; some say by twenty to 
 one. 
 
 But is it a good reason why you should declare it in force, without being 
 submitted to the people, merely because it would have been voted down 
 by five to one if you had submitted it ? What does that fact prove ? Does 
 it not show undeniably that an overwhelming majority of people of Kansas 
 are unalterably opposed to that constitution ? Will you force it on them 
 against their will, simply because they would have voted it down if youhad 
 consulted them ? If you will, are you going to force it upon them under 
 the plea of leaving them perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic 
 institutions in their own way ? Is that the mode in which I am called upon 
 to carry out the principle of self-government and popular sovereignty in 
 the Territories to force a constitution on the people against their will, in 
 opposition to their protest, with a knowledge of the fact, and then to assign, 
 as a reason for my tyranny, that they would be so obstinate and so per 
 verse as to vote down the constitution if 1 had given them an opportunity 
 to be consulted about it ? 
 
 Sir, I deny your right or mine to inquire of these people what their ob 
 jections to that constitution are. They have a right to judge for them 
 selves whether they like or dislike it. It is no answer to tell me that the 
 constitution is a good one and unobjectionable. It is not satisfactory to 
 me to have the President say in his message that that constitution is an 
 admirable one, like all the constitutions of the new States that have been 
 recently formed. Whether good or bad, whether obnoxious or not, is none 
 of my business and none of yours. It is their business, and not ours. I 
 care not what they have in their constitution, so that it suits them and 
 does not violate the Constitution of the United States and the fundamental 
 principles of liberty upon which onr constitutions rest. I am not going to 
 argue the question whether the banking system established in that consti 
 tution ia wise or unwise. It says there shall be no monopolies, but there 
 
120 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 shall be one bank of issue in the State, with two branches. All I have to - 
 say on that point is, if they want a banking system let them have it ; if 
 they do not want it, let them prohibit it. If they want a bank with two 
 branches, be it so ; if they want twenty, it is none of my business, and it 
 matters not to me whether one of them shall be on the north side and the 
 other on the south side of Kaw River, or where they shall be. 
 
 While I have no right to expect to be consulted on that point, I do hold 
 that the people of Kansas have the right to be consulted and to decide it, 
 and you have no rightful authority to deprive them of that privilege. It 
 is no justification, in my mind, to say, that the provisions for the eligibility 
 for the offices of governor and lieutenant-governor requires twenty years 
 citizenship in the United States. If men think that no person should vote 
 or hold office until he has been here twenty years, they have a right to 
 think so ; and if a majority of the people of Kansas think that no man of 
 foreign birth should vote or hold office unless he has lived there twenty 
 years, it is their right to say so, and I have no right to interfere with them; 
 it is their business, not mine ; but if I lived there I should not be willing 
 to have that provision in the constitution without being heard upon the 
 subject, and allowed to record my protest against it. 
 
 I have nothing to say about their system of taxation, in which they have 
 gone back and resorted to the old exploded system that we tried in Illinois, 
 but abandoned, because we did not like it. If they wish to try it, and get 
 tired of it, and abandon it, be it so ; but if I were a citizen of Kansas, I 
 would profit by the experience of Illinois on that subject, and defeat it if I 
 could. Yet I have no objection to their having it if they want it; it is 
 their business, not mine. 
 
 So it is in regard to the free negroes. They provide that no free negro 
 shall be permitted to live in Kansas. I suppose they have a right to say so 
 if they choose; but if I lived there, I should want to vote on that question. 
 We, in Illinois, provide that no more shall come there. We say to the 
 other States, " take care of your own free negroes and we will take care of 
 ours." But we do not say that .the negroes now there shall not be per 
 mitted to live in Illinois ; and I think the people of Kansas ought to have 
 the right to say whether they will allow them to live there, and if they are 
 not going to do so, how they are to dispose of them. 
 
 So you may go on with all the different clauses of the constitution. 
 They may be all right ; they may be all wrong. That is a question on which 
 my opinion is worth nothing. The opinion of the wise and patriotic chief 
 magistrate of the United States is not worth anything as against that of 
 the people of Kansas, for they have a right to judge for themselves; and 
 neither Presidents, nor Senates, nor Houses of Representatives, nor any 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 121 
 
 other power outside of Kansas, has a right to judge for them. Hence, it 
 is no justification, in my mind, for the violation of a great principle of 
 self-government, to say that the constitution you are forcing on them ia 
 not particularly obnoxious, or is excellent in its provisions. 
 
 Perhaps, sir, the same thing might be said of the celebrated Topeka 
 constitution. I do not recollect its peculiar provisions. I know one thing, 
 we Democrats, we Nebraska men, would not even look into it, to see what 
 its provisions were. Why ? Because we said it was made by a political 
 party, and not by the people ; that it was made in defiance of the authority 
 of Congress ; that if it was as pure as the Bible, as holy as the ten com 
 mandments, yet we would not touch it until it was submitted to and ratified 
 by the people of Kansas, in pursuance of the forms of law. Perhaps that 
 Topeka constitution, but for the mode of making it, would have been un 
 exceptionable. I do not know ; I do not care. You have no right to force 
 an unexceptionable constitution on a people. It does not mitigate the 
 evil, it does not diminish the insult, it does not ameliorate the wrong, that 
 you are forcing a good thing on them. I am not willing to be forced to 
 do that which I would do if I were left free to judge and act for myself. 
 Hence, I assert that there is no justification to be made for this flagrant 
 violation of popular rights in Kansas, on the plea that the constitution 
 which they have made is not particularly obnoxious. 
 
 But, sir, the President of the United States is really and sincerely of the 
 opinion that the slavery clause has been fairly and impartially submitted 
 to the free acceptance or rejection of the people of Kansas, and that, inas 
 much as that was the exciting and paramount question, if they get the 
 right to vote as they please on that subject they ought to be satisfied ; and 
 possibly it might be better if we would accept it, and put an end to the 
 question. Let me ask, sir, is the slavery clause fairly submitted, so tha, 
 the people can vote for or against it? Suppose I were a citizen of Kansas, 
 a::d should go up to the polls and say, "I desire to vote to make Kansas 
 a slave State, here is my ballot." They reply to me, " Mr. Dougks, just 
 vote for that constitution first, if you please." " Oh, no !" I answer, " 1 
 cannot vote for that constitution conscientiously. I am opposed to the 
 clause by which you locate certain railroads in such a way as to sacrifice 
 my county and my part of the State. I am opposed to that banking sys 
 tem. I am opposed to this Know Nothing or American clause in the con- 
 stitution about the qualification for office. I cannot vote for it." Then 
 they answer, " You shall not vote on making it a slave State." I then say, 
 " I want to make it a free State." They reply, " vote for that constitu 
 tion first, and then you can vote to make it a free State ; otherwise you 
 cannot." Thus they disqualify every free State man who will not first vote 
 
 6 
 
122 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 for the constitution. They disqualify every slave State man who will not first 
 vote for the constitution. No matter whether or not the voters state that they 
 cannot conscientiously vote for those provisions, they reply, " You cannot 
 vote for or against slavery here. Take the constitution as we have made 
 it, take the elective franchise as we have established it, take the banking sys 
 tem as we have dictated it, take the railroad lines as we have located them, 
 take the judiciary system as we have formed it, take it all as we have fixed 
 it to suit ourselves, and ask no questions, but vote for it, or you shall not 
 vote either for a slave or free State." In other words, the legal effect of 
 the schedule is this : all those who are in favor of this constitution may 
 vote for or against slavery, as they please ; but all those who are against 
 this constitution are disfranchised, and shall not vote at all. That is the 
 mode in which the slavery proposition is submitted. Every man opposed 
 to the constitution is disfranchised on the slavery cause. How many are 
 they? They tell you there is a majority, for they say the constitution 
 will be voted down instantly, by an overwhelming majority, if you allow a 
 negative vote. This shows that a majority are against it. They disqua 
 lify and disfranchise every man who is against it, thus referring the sla 
 very clause to a minority of the people of Kansas, and leaving that mino 
 rity free to vote for or against the slavery clause, as they choose. 
 
 Let me ask you if that is a fair mode of submitting the slavery clause ? 
 Does that mode of submitting that particular clause leave the people per 
 fectly free to vote for or against slavery as they choose ? Am I free to 
 vote as I choose on the slavery question, if you tell me that I shall not 
 vote on it until I vote for the Maine liquor law ? Am I free to vote on the 
 slavery question, if you tell me that I shall not vote either way until I vote 
 for a bank? Is it freedom of election to make your right to vote upon 
 one question depend upon the mode in which you are going to vote on 
 some other question which has no connection with it ? Is that freedom of 
 election ? Is that the great fundamental principle of self-government, for 
 which we combined and struggled, in this body and throughout the coun 
 try, to establish as the rule of action in all time to come ? 
 
 The President of the United States has made some remarks in his mes 
 sage which it strikes me it would be very appropriate to read in this con 
 nection. He says: 
 
 " The friends and supporters of the Nebraska and Kansas Act, when struggling on a 
 recent occasion to sustain its wise provisions before the great tribunal of the American 
 people, nerer differed about its true meaning on this subject. Everywhere throughout the 
 Union they publicly pledged their faith and honor that they would cheerfully submit the 
 question of slavery to the decision of the bond fide people of Kansas, without any re- 
 itriction or qualification whatever. All were cordially united upon the great doctrine of 
 popular sovereignty, whieh is the vital principle of our free instiutioas." 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 123 
 
 Mark this : 
 
 " Had it then been insinuated, from any quarter, that it would have been a sufficient 
 compliance with the requisitions of the organic law for the members of a convention, 
 thereafter to be elected, to withhold a question of slavery from the people, and to substi 
 tute their own will for that of a legally ascertained majority of their constituents, thij 
 would have been instantly rejected." 
 
 Yes, sir, and I will add further, had it been then intimated from any 
 quarter, and believed by the American people, that we would have sub 
 mitted the slavery clause in such a manner as to compel a man to vote for 
 that which his conscience did not approve, in order to vote on the slavery 
 clause, not only would the idea have been rejected, but the Democratic 
 candidate for the Presidency would have been rejected ;. and every man 
 who backed him would have been rejected too. 
 
 The President tells us in his message that the whole party pledged our 
 faith and our honor that the slavery question should be submitted to the 
 people, without any restriction or qualification whatever. Does this sche 
 dule submit it without qualification ? It qualifies it by saying, " you may 
 vote on slavery if you will vote for the constitution ; but you shall not do 
 so without doing that." That is a very important qualification a qualifi 
 cation that controls a man s vote, and his action, and his conscience, if he 
 is an honest man a qualification confessedly in violation of our platform. 
 We are told by the President that our faith and our honor are pledged, 
 that the slavery clause should be submitted without qualification of any 
 kind whatever ; and now I am to be called upon to forfeit my faith and 
 my honor in order to enable a small minority of the people of Kansas to 
 defraud the majority of that people out of their elective franchise ? Sir, 
 my honor is pledged ; and before it shall be tarnished, I will take what 
 ever consequences personal to myself may come ; but never ask me to do 
 an act which the President, in his message, has said is a forfeiture of faith, 
 a violation of honor, and that merely for the expediency of saving the 
 party. I will go as far as any of you to save the party. I have as much 
 heart in the great cause that binds us together as a party as any man liv 
 ing. I will sacrifice anything short of principle and honor for the peace of 
 the party; but if the party will not stand by its principles, its faith, its 
 pledges, I will stand there, and abide whatever consequences may result 
 from the position. 
 
 Let me ask you, why force this constitution down the throats of the 
 people of Kansas in opposition to their wishes, and in violation of our 
 pledges. What great object is to be attained? Cui Lono ? What are 
 you to gain by it? Will you sustain the party by violating its principles? 
 
124 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Do you propose to keep the party united by forcing a division ? Stand by 
 the doctrine that leaves the people perfectly free to form and regulate 
 their institutions for themselves in their own way, and your party will be 
 united and irresistible in power. Abandon that great principle, and the 
 party is not worth saving, and cannot be saved, after it shall be violated. 
 I trust we are not to be rushed upon this question. Why shall it be done ? 
 Who is to be benefited ? Is the South to be the gainer ? Is the North 
 to be the gainer ? Neither the North nor the South has the right to gain 
 a sectional advantage by trickery or fraud. 
 
 But I am beseeched to wait until I hear from the election on the 21st 
 of December. I am told that perhaps that will put it all right, and will 
 save the whole difficulty. How can it ? Perhaps there may be a large 
 vote. There may be a large vote returned. (Laughter.) But I deny 
 that it is possible to have a fair vote on the slavery clause ; and I say that 
 it is net possible to have any vote on the constitution. Why wait for the 
 mockery of an election when it is provided, unalterably, that the people 
 cannot vote when the majority are disfranchised? 
 
 But I am told on all sides, " Oh, just wait; the pro-slavery clause will 
 be voted down." That does not obviate any of my objections ; it does not 
 diminish any of them. You have no more right to force a free State con 
 stitution on Kansas than a slave State constitution. If Kansas wants a 
 slave State constitution she has a. right to it; if she wants a free State 
 constitution she has a right to it. J It is none of my business which way 
 the slavery clause is decided. I care not whether it is voted down or 
 voted up. Do you suppose, after the pledges of my honor that I would 
 go for that principle and leave the people to vote as they choose, that I 
 would now degrade myself by voting one way if the slavery clause be 
 voted down, and another way if it is voted up? I care not how that vote 
 may stand. I take it for granted that it will be voted out. I think I have 
 seen enough in the last three days to make it certain that it will be re 
 turned out, no matter how the vote may stand. (Laughter.) 
 
 Sir, I am opposed to that concern because it looks to me like a system 
 of trickery and jugglery to defeat the fair expression of the will of the 
 people. There is no necessity for crowding this measure, so unfair, so un 
 just as it is in all its aspects, upon us. Why can we not now do what we 
 proposed to do in the last Congress? We then voted through the Senate an 
 enabling act, called " the Toombs Bill," believed to be just and fair in all 
 its provisions, pronounced to be almost perfect by the senator from New 
 Hampshire (Mr. Hale), only he did not like the man, then President of 
 the United States, ^ho would have to make the appointments. Why can 
 we not take that bill, and, out of compliment to the President, add to it a 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 12! 
 
 clause taken from the Minnesota Act, which he thinks should be a general 
 rule, requiring the constitution to be submitted to the people, and pasa 
 that ? That unites the party. You all voted, with me, for that bill, at the 
 last Congress. Why not stand by the same bill now ? Ignore Lecomptou, 
 ignore Topeka, treat both those party movements as irregular and void ; 
 pass a fair bill the one that we framed ourselves when we were acting as 
 a unit ; have a fair election, and you will have peace in the Democratic 
 party, and peace throughout the country, in ninety days. The people 
 want a fair vote. They will never be satisfied without it. They never 
 should be satisfied without a fair vote on their constitution. 
 
 If the Toombs Bill does not suit my friends, take the Minnesota Bill of 
 the last session the one so much commended by the President in his 
 message as a model. Let us pass that as an enabling act, and allow the 
 people of all parties to come together and have a fair vote, and I will go 
 for it. Frame any other bill that secures a fair, honest vote to men of all 
 parties, and carries out the pledge that the people shall be left free to de 
 cide on their domestic institutions for themselves, and I will go with you 
 with pleasure, and with all the energy I may possess. But if this consti- 
 tion is to be forced down our throats, in violation of the fundamental prin 
 ciple of free government, under a mode of submission that is a mockery 
 and insult, I will resist it to the last. I have no fear of any party associa 
 tions being severed. I should regret any social or political estrangement, 
 even temporarily ; but if it must be, if I cannot act with you and preserve 
 my faith and my honor, I will stand on the great principle of popular sov 
 ereignty, which declares the right of all people to be left perfectly free to 
 form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. I will 
 follow that principle wherever its logical consequences may take me, and 
 I will endeavor to defend it against assault from any and all quarters. No 
 mortal man shall be responsible for my action but myself. By my action 
 I will compromit no man. 
 
 [At the conclusion of the honorable gentleman s speech, loud applause and 
 clapping of hands resounded through the crowded galleries.] 
 
 ME. BUCHANAN S MESSAGE. 
 
 Mr. Douglas had previously (Dec. 10) given notice of his 
 intention to introduce a bill to enable the people of Kansas 
 territory to hold a convention to form a constitution and 
 State government, preparatory to their admission into tho 
 
126 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Union on an equal footing with the original States. On the 
 18 h, he had introduced the bill (S. No. 15), which was read 
 twice, and referred to the Committee on Territories. 
 
 Or the 2d of February, 1858, President Buchanan trans 
 raitted to Congress a copy of the proposed constitution of 
 Kansas, framed by the convention at Lccompton ; accompanied 
 by a message from himself, from which we make the following 
 remarkable extracts : 
 
 The Kansas convention, thus lawfully constituted, proceeded to 
 frame a constitution; and having completed their work, tinally ad 
 journed on the 7th day of November last. They did not think pro 
 per to submit the whole of this constitution to a popular vote ; but 
 they did submit the question whether Kansas should be a free or a 
 slave State to the people. No person thought of any other question. 
 For my own part, when I instructed Governor Walker in general 
 terms in favor of submitting the constitution to the people, I had no 
 object in view except the all-absorbing question of slavery. 
 
 I then believed, and still believe, that under the organic act the 
 Kansas convention were bound to submit this all-important question 
 of slavery to the people. It was never, however, my opinion that, 
 independently of this act, they would have been bound to submit any 
 portion of the constitution to a popular vote in order to give it va 
 lidity. 
 
 It has been solemnly adjudged, by the highest judicial tribunal 
 known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the 
 Constitution of the United States. Kansas is therefore, at this mo 
 ment, as much a slave State as Georgia or South Carolina. "Without 
 this, the equality of the Sovereign States composing the Union, would 
 be violated, and the use and enjoyment of a Territory acquired by 
 the common treasure of all the States, would be closed against the 
 people and the property of nearly half the members of the Confeder 
 acy. Slavery can, therefore, never be prohibited in Kansas, except 
 by means of a constitutional provision, and in no other manner can 
 this be obtained so promptly, if a majority of the people desire it, as 
 by admitting it into i he Union under its present constitution. 
 
 On the other hand, should Congress reject the constitution, under 
 the idea of affording the disaffected in Kansas a third opportunity 
 of prohibiting slavery in the State, which they might have done 
 twice before if in the majority, no man can foretell the consequences. 
 If Congress, for the sake of these men who refused to vote for dele 
 gates to the convention, when they might have excluded slaverv 
 from the constitution, and who afterward refused to vote on the 21st 
 December last, when they might, as they claim, have stricken slavery 
 from the constitution, should now reject the State, because slavery 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 127 
 
 remains on the constitution, it is manifest that the agitation upon 
 this dangerous subject will be renewed in a more alarming form than 
 it has ever yet assumed. 
 
 DOUGLAS INTEEKOGATES THE PRESIDENT. 
 
 Two days after the reception of this extraordinary message 
 by Congress, Senator Douglas called on the President for 
 more definite information regarding the facts to which the 
 message alluded, as follows : 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS I desire to offer a resolution, calling for informa 
 tion which will hasten our action on the Kansas question. I will 
 read it for information ; but if it gives rise to debate, of course it will 
 go over : 
 
 Resolved That the President be requested to furnish all the information 
 within his possession or control on the following points : 
 
 1. The return and votes for and against a convention at an election held in 
 the Territory of Kansas, in October, 1856. 
 
 2. The census and registration of votes in the Territory of Kansas, under the 
 provisions of the act of the said legislature, passed in February, 1857, provid 
 ing for the election of delegates and assembling a convention to frame a con 
 stitution. 
 
 3. The returns of an election held in said Territory on the 21st of December, 
 1857, under the schedule of theLecompton constitution, upon the question of 
 "constitution with slavery" or "constitution without slavery." 
 
 4. The returns of an election held in the Territory of Kansas on the 4th day 
 of January, 1858, under the authority of a law passed by the legislature of said 
 Territory, submitting the constitution formed by the Lecompton convention to 
 a vote of the people for ratification or rejection. 
 
 5. The returns of the election held in said Territory on the 4th day of Janu 
 ary, 1858, under the schedule of the Lecompton constitution, for Governor and 
 other State officers, and for members of the legislature, specifying the names 
 of each officer to whom a certificate of election has been accorded, and the 
 number of votes cast and counted for each candidate, and distinguishing be 
 tween the votes returned within the time and in the mode provided in said 
 schedule, and those returned subsequently and in other modes, and stating 
 whether at either of said elections any returns of votes were rejected in con 
 sequence of not having been returned in time, or to the right officer, or in pro 
 per form, or for any other cause, stating specifically for what cause. 
 
 6. All correspondence between any of the Executive departments and Se 
 cretary or Governor Denver relating to Kansas affairs, and which has not been 
 communicated to the Senate. 
 
 Resolved That in the event all the information desired in the foregoing reso 
 lution is not now in the possession of the President, or of any of the Executive 
 departments, he be respectfully requested to give the proper orders and take 
 the necessary steps to procure the same for the use of the Senate. 
 
 ME. SLIDEI.L objected, and the resolutions, under the rules, were 
 hi id over. 
 
128 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 MINORITY REPORT ON KANSAS AFFAIRS. 
 
 The majority of the Committee on Territories being in 
 favor of the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton con 
 stitution, submitted through Mr. Green a report to that 
 effect. On the same day, February 18, 1858, Mr. Douglas 
 submitted a Minority Report, which will be found in a subse 
 quent part of this work. 
 
 This report is a most vigorous argument, showing that 
 there was no evidence that the Lecompton constitution was 
 the act of the people of Kansas, or that it embodied their 
 will ; that the right of admission accrued to a Territory only 
 when they had sufficient population ; that the President and 
 his cabinet had solemnly assured the people of Kansas that 
 the constitution should be submitted to them for their free 
 acceptance or rejection ; that the 60 delegates composing the 
 Lecompton convention were chosen by 19 of the 38 counties 
 of the Territory, while the other 18 counties were entirely 
 disfranchised ; he tears away the thin veil that covered the 
 designs of the members of the Lecompton convention, and 
 shows that while knowing that an immense majority of the 
 people of Kansas were opposed to the introduction of slavery 
 they yet determined that they would form a constitution sanc 
 tioning slavery, and submit it in such a form as to render it 
 impossible for them to reject it; that the election held in 
 Kansas on the 21st of December, 1857, was not valid and 
 binding on the people of the Territory, for the reason that it 
 was not held in pursuance of any law ; that the election of 
 January 4, 1858, was lawful and valid, having been fairly 
 conducted under a valid law of the Territorial legislature ; 
 and that there was a majority of 10,000 votes against the Le 
 compton constitution. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 129 
 
 DEBATE ON LECOMPTON. 
 
 During the month of March, 1858, the proposition to 
 admit Kansas under the Lecompton constitution was warmly 
 debated in the Senate. On the 22d, Mr. Douglas made a 
 speech which was one of the ablest efforts of his life, and 
 will be read with interest and admiration, as long as a vestige 
 of the political history of the Union exists. In this speech, 
 after a rapid and brief review of his course in Congress, he 
 shows that it was the chief merit of the Compromise mea 
 sures of 1850, that they provided a rule of action which 
 should apply everywhere, north and south of 36 30 , not 
 only to the territories we then had, but to all we might 
 afterward acquire ; and thus prevent all strife and agitation 
 in future. He shows that the Lecompton constitution is not 
 the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and does not 
 embody their will. In concluding, he alludes to the ap 
 proaching termination of his senatorial term, and to the 
 efforts that the Executive would make to prevent his reelec 
 tion. In tones that rang through the Senate chamber clear 
 and sonorous as the blast of a trumpet, he gave utterance 
 to these noble sentiments : 
 
 " I do not recognize the right of the President to tell me my duty 
 in the Senate chamber. When the time comes that a Senator is to 
 account to the Executive, and not to his State, what becomes of the 
 severeignty of the States ? Is it intended to brand every Democrat 
 as a traitor who is opposed to the Lecompton constitution ? Come 
 what may, I intend to vote, speak, and act, according to my own 
 sense of duty. I have no vindication to make of my course. Let 
 it speak for itself. Neither the frowns of power nor the influence 
 of patronage will change my action, or drive me from my principles. 
 1 stand immovably upon the principles of State Sovereignty, upon 
 which the campaign was fought and the election won. I will stand 
 by the Constitution of the United States, with all its compromises, 
 and perform all my obligations under it. If I shall be driven into 
 private life, it is a fate that has no terrors for me. I prefer private 
 
 6* 
 
130 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 life, preserving my own self-respect, to abject and servile submissioa 
 to executive will. If the alternative be private life, or servile obe 
 dience to executive will, I am prepared to retire. Official position 
 lias no charms for me, when deprived of freedom of thought and 
 action." 
 
 We give this great speech entire in a subsequent part of 
 this work. It was delivered in the evening, the Senate 
 chamber being brilliantly illuminated, and the galleries 
 crowded, many ladies being admitted to seats on the floor of 
 the Senate. 
 
 On the next day, however, March 23, the bill admitting 
 Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, 
 passed the Senate by a vote of 33 to 25. Previous to taking 
 this vote, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, moved a substitute 
 for the bill, to the effect that the Constitution be submitted 
 to the people of Kansas at once ; and if approved, the State 
 to be admitted by the President s proclamation. If rejected, 
 the people to call a convention and frame a constitution to 
 be submitted to the popular vote. Special provisions made 
 against frauds at elections. The substitute was lost yeas 
 24, nays 34. 
 
 On the first of April, the bill as passed was taken up in the 
 House of Representatives, and Mr. Montgomery, of Penn 
 sylvania, offered, as a substitue, the same one proposed by 
 Mr. Crittenden. This was adopted in the House, ayes 120, 
 nays, 112. 
 
 THE ENGLISH BILL. 
 
 The Senate refused to concur in this substitute, and a 
 committee of conference was appointed by each House, who 
 reported what has since been known as the English bill, 
 which passed both Houses of Congress, and became a law. 
 But in the debate in the Senate on the Crittenden-Mont- 
 gomery amendment, Mr, Douglas spoke in its favor and 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 131 
 
 against the English bill, and in the course of his remarks 
 said: 
 
 "I had hoped that the principle of self-government in the Territo 
 ries, the great principle of popular sovereignty which we all profess 
 to cherish, on which all our institutions are founded, would have 
 heen carried out in good faith in Kansas. I believe, sir, that if the 
 amendment inserted by the House of Kepresentatives be concurred 
 in by the Senate to-day, and become the law of the land, the great 
 principle of popular sovereignty, on which all our institutions rest, 
 will receive a complete triumph, and there will be peace and quiet 
 and fraternal feeling all over this country. 
 
 " We are told that this vexed question ought to be settled ; that the 
 country is exhausted with strife and controversy ; and that peace 
 should be restored by the admission of Kansas. Sir, why not admit 
 it? You can admit it in one hour, and restore peace to the country, 
 if you will concur with with the House of Kepresentatives in what 
 is called the Orittenden amendment. This amendment provides that 
 Kansas is admitted into the Union on the fundamental condition pre 
 cedent that the constitution be submitted to the people for ratification, 
 and if assented to by them, it becomes their constitution ; if not 
 assented to, they are to proceed to make one to suit themselves, and 
 the President is to declare the result, and Kansas is to be in the Union 
 without further legislation. Concur with the House of Representa 
 tives, and your action is final ; Kansas is in the Union, with the right 
 to make her constitution to suit herself; and there is an end to the 
 whole controversy." 
 
 The English bill, as passed, will be found in a subsequent 
 part of this work. 
 
 On the 29th of April, Mr. Douglas again addressed the 
 Senate on the same general subject, with more particular 
 reference to the English bill, for the admission of Kansas, 
 which had passed the House of Representatives. In this 
 speech, he says : 
 
 Mr. President : I have carefully examined the bill reported by the 
 committee of conference as a substitute for the House amendment to 
 the Senate bill for the admission of Kansas, with an anxious desire 
 to find in it such provisions as would enable me to give it my sup 
 port. I had hoped that, after the disagreement of the two houses 
 upon this question, some plan, some form of bill, could have been 
 
!3iJ THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 agreed upon, which would harmonize and quiet the country, nnd 
 reunite those who agree in principle and in political action on this 
 great question, so as to take it out of Congress. I am not able, in 
 the bill which is now under consideration, to find that the principle 
 for which I have contended is fairly carried out. The position, and 
 r,he sole position, upon which I have stood in this whole controversy, 
 has been that the people of Kansas, and of each other Territory, in 
 forming a constitution for admission into the Union as a State, 
 should be left perfectly free to form and mold their domestic insti 
 tutions and organic act in their own way, without coercion on the 
 one side, or any improper or undue influence on the other. 
 
 The question now arises, is there such a submission of the Lecomp 
 ton constitution as brings it fairly within that principle ? In terms, 
 the constitution is not submitted at all ; but yet we are told that it 
 amounts to a submission, because there is a land grant attached to 
 it, and they are permitted to vote for the land grant, or against the 
 land grant ; and, if they accept the land grant, then they are required 
 to take the constitution with it; and, if they reject the land grant, 
 it shall be held and deemed a decision against coming into the Union 
 under the Lecompton constitution. Hence it has been argued in one 
 portion of the Union that this is a submission of the constitution, 
 and in another portion that it is not. We are to be told that sub 
 mission is popular sovereignty in one section, and submission in 
 another section is not popular sovereignty. 
 
 Sir, I had hoped that when we came finally to adjust this question, 
 we should have been able to employ language so clear, so unequi 
 vocal, that there would have been no room for doubt as to what was 
 meant, and what the line of policy was to be in the future. Are 
 these people left free to take or reject the Lecompton constitution ? 
 It they accept the land grant they are compelled to take it. If they 
 reject the land grant, they are out of the Union. Sir, I have no 
 special objection to the land grant as it is. I think it is a fair one, 
 and if they had put this further addition, that if they refused to come 
 in under the Lecompton constitution with the land grant, they might 
 proceed to form a new constitution, and that they should then have 
 the same amount of lands, there would have been no bounty held 
 out for coming in under the Lecompton constitution ; but when the 
 law gives them the six million acres in the event they take this con 
 stitution, and does not indicate what they are to have in the event 
 they reject it, and wait until they can form another, Lsubmit the 
 question whether there is not an inducement, a bounty held out to 
 influence these people to vote for this Lecompton constitution? 
 
 It may be said that when they attain the ninety-three thousand 
 population, or if they wait until after I860, if they acquired the 
 population required by the then ratio which may be one hundred 
 and ten thousand or one hundred and twenty thousand and form a 
 constitution under it, we shall give then the same amount of land 
 that is now givem by this grant. That may be so, and may not be 
 
STEPHEN A . DOUGLAS. 133 
 
 so. I believe it will be so ; and yet in the House bill, for which thia 
 is a substitute, the provision was that they should have this same 
 amount of land, whether they came in under the Lecorapton consti 
 tution or whether they formed a new constitution. There was no 
 doubt, no uncertainty left in regard to what were to be their rights 
 under the land grant, whether they took the one constitution or the 
 other. Hence that proposition was a fair submission, without any 
 penalties on the one side, or any bounty or special favor or privilege 
 on the other to influence their action. In this view of the case, I 
 am not able to arrive at the conclusion that this is a fair submission 
 either of the question of the constitution itself, or of admission into 
 the Union under the constitution and the proposition submitted by 
 this bill. 
 
 There is a further contingency. In the event that they reject this 
 constitution, they are to stay out of the Union until they shall attain 
 the requisite population for a member of Congress, according to the 
 then ratio of representation in the other House. I have no objection 
 to making it a general rule that Territories shall be kept out until 
 they have the requisite population. I have proposed it over and 
 over again. I am willing to agree to it and make it applicable to 
 Kansas if you will make it a general rule. But, sir, it is one thing 
 to adopt that rule as a general rule and adhere to it in all cases, and 
 and it is a very different, and a very distinct thing, to provide that 
 if they will take this constitution, which the people have shown that 
 they abhor, they may come in with forty thousand people, but if 
 they do not, they shall stay out until they get ninety thousand ; thus 
 discriminating between the different character of institutions that 
 may be formed. I submit the question whether it is not congres 
 sional intervention, when you provide that a Territory may come in 
 with one kind of constitution with forty thousand, and with a dif 
 ferent kind of constitution, not until she gets ninety thousand, or one 
 hundred and twenty thousand ? It is intervention with inducements 
 to control the result. It is intervention with a bounty on the one 
 side and a penalty on the other. I ask, are we prepared to construe 
 the great principle of popular sovereignty in such a manner as will 
 recognize the right of Congress to intervene and control the decision 
 that the people may make on this question ? 
 
 I do not think that this bill brings the question within that prin 
 ciple which I have held dear, and in defence of which I have stood 
 here for the last five months, battling against the large majority of 
 ray political friends, and in defence of which I intend to stand aa 
 long as I have any association or connection with the politics of the 
 country. 
 
 Mr. President, I say now, as I am about to take leave of this 
 subject, that I never can consent to violate that great principle of 
 State equality, of State sovereignty, of popular sovereignty, by any 
 discrimination, either in the one direction or in the other. My 
 position is taken. I know not what its consequences will be per 
 
134- THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 sonally to me. I will not inquire what those consequences may be. 
 If I cannot remain in public life, holding firmly, immovably, to the 
 great principle of self-government and state equality, I shall go into 
 private life, where I can preserve the respect of my own conscience 
 under the conviction that I have done my duty and followed the 
 principle wherever its logical consequences carried me. 
 
 SUBSEQUENT AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 
 
 On the next day, however, April 30, the Senate passed the 
 English bill. So far as the action of Congress was concerned, 
 Kansas was admitted: that is, provided the people there 
 chose to come in under the English bill. 
 
 But they did not so choose. In order to give complete 
 ness to this view of affairs in Kansas, we will state, though in 
 doing so we greatly anticipate the order of time, that when 
 the election took place, under the provisions of the English 
 bill, the people of Kansas indignantly rejected the proposi 
 tions of the bill, and at the election held on the 3d of August, 
 1858, trampled the odious Lecompton constitution under 
 their feet, by a majority of 10,000 votes. Soon after the 
 election, Gov. Denver resigned, and Samuel Medary of Ohic 
 was appointed governor. The Territorial legislature met in 
 January, 1859, repealed many of the laws of the previous 
 session, passed a new apportionment act ; and an act referring 
 to the people the question of a new constitutional convention, 
 the election to be held March 21. The people decided for a 
 constitutional convention by a majority of 3,881. The con 
 vention met at Wyandot, on the 5th of July, 1859, and 
 adopted a constitution by a small majority, the minority pro 
 testing against its adoption. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS ON BRITISH AGGRESSION. 
 
 On the 29th of May, 1858, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate, 
 on the general subject of the recent British aggression on 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 135 
 
 our ships, in a speech which made a most powerful impres 
 sion, not only on the Senate, but on the whole countiy. He 
 ridiculed the idea of simply passing resolutions on the sub 
 ject; and urged the importance, nay, the necessity, of at 
 once adopting such energetic measures as should convince 
 England that the time had come at last when this nation 
 would no longer submit to her aggressions. He urged that 
 the President of the United States should be clothed with 
 power to punish instantly and effectually, all outrages on our 
 flag, as soon as committed : " confer the power, and hold 
 him responsible for its abuse." He showed that the Presi 
 dent of the United States was utterly powerless abroad, and 
 that unless some such measures as he proposed should be 
 adopted, the outrages of Great Britain would be contin 
 ued. He then proceeded to prove, from his own observation, 
 that the coast of America was not defenceless ; that indeed, 
 the coast of the United States is in a better condition of de 
 fence than that of Great Britain ; that ISTew York was at this 
 day better defended than London or Liverpool : and that 
 it is easier for a hostile fleet to enter the harbor of either of 
 those cities than the harbor of New York. 
 
 " While I am opposed to war," said Mr. Douglas, " while 
 I have no idea of any breach of the peace with England, yet, 
 I confess to you, sir, if war should come by her act, and not 
 ours ; by her invasion of our rights, and our vindication of 
 the same ; I would administer to every citizen and every 
 child Hannibal s oath of eternal hostility as long as the En 
 glish flag waved, or their government claimed a foot of land 
 upon the American continent, or the adjacent islands. Sir, 
 I would make it a war that would settle our disputes for 
 ever, not only of the right of search upon the seas, but the 
 rig] it to tread with a hostile foot upon the soil of the Ameri 
 can continent or its appendages." 
 
 The reader will find the whole of this eloquent and patri- 
 
136 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 otic speech, in a subsequent part of this work. It electrified 
 the whole nation. Men breathed freer and easier when they 
 read it : and no one with a spark of American feeling in his 
 breast failed to respond to the noble sentiments of the gal 
 lant sen ate r from Illinois. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 137 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Mr. Douglas returns to Chicago Brilliant Reception Makes his Speech 
 opening the Campaign Lays down Principles on which he conducted it. 
 
 Soox after Congress adjourned, in June, 1858, Mr. Douglas 
 returned to Illinois to engage in his canvass for reelection to 
 the Senate, and to vindicate the line of policy which he had 
 felt it his duty to pursue. He arrived at Chicago on the 9th 
 of July, and was welcomed by such a reception as no public 
 man has ever received in this country. The newspapers of 
 that city, of all shades of political opinions, concur in repre 
 senting it as one of the most magnificent orations on record. 
 Many columns of their sheets were filled with descriptions of 
 the arrangements for the reception, the vast concourse of 
 people estimated at 30,000 the processions, illumination of 
 houses, fireworks, banners, cannon, etc., etc., which greeted 
 Mr. Douglas return to his home. 
 
 The great event of this imposing pageant, however, was 
 the speech of Mr. Douglas, in reply to the address of wel 
 come. After an appropriate and feeling acknowledgment 
 of the honor done him in this grand testimonial, he proceeded 
 to a discussion of the principles involved in the great contro 
 versy in which he was engaged. As this was the opening 
 speech of the canvass, and clearly defines the principles on 
 which it was afterward conducted through a series of more 
 than one hundred joint and separate debates, we shall make 
 such copious extracts as may enable the reader to understand 
 the points in issue in that memorable campaign. 
 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF SELF-GOVERNMENT, AS APPLICAPJLE TO THE 
 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 
 
 If there is any one principle dearer and more sacred than all others in 
 free governments, it is that which asserts the exclusive right of a free peo 
 ple to form and adopt their own fundamental law, and to manage and 
 regulate their own internal affairs and domestic institutions. (Applause.) 
 
 When I found an effort being made, during the recent session of Con 
 gress, to force a constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, 
 and to force that State into the Union with a constitution which her people 
 had rejected by more than 10,000 majority, I felt bound, as a man of 
 honor and a representative of Illinois, bound by every consideration of 
 duty, of fidelity, and of patriotism, to resist to the utmost of my power the 
 consummation of what I deemed fraud. (Cheers.) With others I did 
 resist it, and resisted it successfully until the attempt was abandoned. 
 (Great applause.) We forced them to refer that constitution back to the 
 people of Kansas, to be accepted or rejected, as they shall decide at an 
 election, which is fixed for the first Monday of August next. It is true 
 that the mode of reference and the form of the submission was not such as 
 I could sanction with my vote, for the reason that it discriminated between 
 free States and slave States ; providing that if Kansas consented to come 
 in under the Lecompton constitution it should be received with a popula 
 tion of 35,000 ; but if she demanded another constitution, more consistent 
 with the sentiments of her people and their feelings, that it should not be 
 received into the Union until she had 93,420 inhabitants. (Cries of " hear, 
 hear," and cheers.) I did not consider that mode of submission fair, for 
 the reason that any election is a mockery which is not free that any elec 
 tion is a fraud upon the rights of the people which holds out inducements 
 for affirmative votes, and threatens penalties for negative votes. (Hear, 
 hear.) But whilst I was not satisfied with the mode of submission, whilst 
 I resisted it to the last, demanding a fair, a just, a free mode of submission, 
 still, when the law passed placing it within the power of the people of 
 Kansas at that election to reject the Lecompton constitution, and then 
 make another in harmony with their principles and their opinions (Bravo, 
 and applause), I did not believe that either the penalties on the one hand. 
 or the inducements on the other, would prevail on that people to accept a 
 constitution to which they are irreconcilably opposed. (Cries of "glori 
 ous," and renewed applause.) All I can say is, that if their votes can be 
 controlled by such considerations, all the sympathy which has been 
 
OF 
 
 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 139 
 
 expended upon them has been luisplaced, and all the efforts that have been 
 made in defence of their right to self-government have been made iii ao 
 unworthy cause. (Cheers.) 
 
 NO EIGHT TO FORCE EVEN A GOOD THINTG ON AN UNWILLING 
 
 PEOPLE. 
 
 I will be entirely frank with you. My object was to secure the right 
 of the people of each State and of each Territory, North or South, to de 
 cide the question for themselves, to have slavery or not, just as thoy 
 choose ; and my opposition to the Lecompton constitution was not pre 
 dicated upon the ground that it was a pro-slavery Constitution (cheers), 
 nor would my action have been different had it been a free-soil Constitu 
 tion. My speech against it was made on the 9th of December, while the 
 vote on the slavery clause in that Constitution was not taken until the 21st 
 of the same month, nearly two weeks after. I made my speech solely on 
 the ground that it was a violation of the fundamental principles of free 
 government ; on the ground that it was not the act and deed of the people 
 of Kansas ; that it did not embody their will ; that they were averse to 
 it ; and hence I denied the right of Congress to force it upon them, cither 
 as a free State or a slave State. (Bravo.) i deny the right of Congress 
 to force a slaveholding State upon an unwilling people. (Cheers.) I 
 deny their right to force a free State upon an unwilling people. (Cheers.) 
 I deny their right to force a good thing upon a people who are unwilling 
 to receive it. (Cries of " Good, good," and cheers.) The great principle 
 is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself whether a 
 thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to 
 adopt it ; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, the right 
 of free judgment upon the question is dearer to every true American than 
 any other under a free government. My objection to the Lecompton con 
 trivance was that it undertook to put a constitution on the people of 
 Kansas against their will, in opposition to their wishes, and thus violated 
 the great principle upon which all our institutions rest. It is no answer to 
 this argument to say that slavery is an evil, and hence should not be tole 
 rated. You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is 
 a good or an evil. You allow them to decide for themselves whether they 
 desire a Maine liquor law or not ; you allow them to decide for them 
 selves what kind of common schools they will have; what system of 
 banking they will adopt, or whether they will adopt any at all ; you allow 
 them to decide for themselves the relations between husband and wife, 
 
140 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 parent and child, and guardian and ward ; in fact, you allow them to de 
 cide for themselves all other questions, and why not upon this ques 
 tion ? (Cheers.) Whenever you put a limitation upon the right of any 
 people to decide what laws they want, you have destroyed the fundamen 
 tal principle of self-government. (Cheers). 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE IKEEPKESSIBLE CONFLICT. 
 
 The Republican convention which, nominated Mr. Lincoln 
 for United States senator in opposition to Mr. Douglas, was 
 held in the city of Springfield, on the 15th of June, 1858. 
 Immediately after Mr. Lincoln s unanimous nomination was 
 announced, he read to the convention a carefully elaborated 
 speech accepting the nomination which he had prepared in 
 anticipation of that event, and which was published for cir 
 culation by order of the convention, as an authoritative ex 
 position of the principles of the Republican party. Mr. 
 Douglas referring to this speech, said : 
 
 Mr. Lincoln made a speech before that Republican convention which 
 unanimously nominated him for the Senate a speech evidently well pre 
 pared and carefully written in which he states the basis upon which he 
 proposes to carry on the campaign during this summer. In it he lays dowi 
 two distinct propositions which I shall notice, and upon which I shall take 
 a direct, and bold issue with him. (Cries of "Good, good," and great 
 applause). 
 
 His first and main proposition I will give in his own language, Scrip 
 ture quotation and all (laughter). I give his exact language : 
 
 " In my opinion it [the slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall 
 h-ive been reached and passed. A BOOM divided against itself cannot stand. 
 I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. 
 I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It 
 will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will 
 arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in 
 1he belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will 
 pu>h forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States old as well as 
 new, North as well as South." 
 
 In other words, Mr. Lincoln asserts as a fundamental principle of this 
 government, that there must be uniformity in the local laws and domestic 
 institutions of each and all the States of the Union ; and he therefore in- 
 
STEPHEN A . DOUGLAS. 
 
 vites all the non-slaveholding States to band together, organize as one 
 body, and make war upon slavery in Kentucky, upon slavery in Virginia, 
 upon slavery in the Carolinas, upon slavery in all the slaveholding States 
 in this Union, and to persevere in that war until it shall be exterminated. 
 He then notified the shareholding States to stand together as a unit and 
 make an aggressive war upon the free States of this Union with a view of 
 establishing slavery in them all ; of forcing it upon Illinois, of forcing it 
 upon New York, upon New England, and upon every other free State, and 
 that they shall keep up the warfare until it has been formally established 
 in them all. In other words, Mr. Lincoln advocates boldly and clearly a 
 war of sections, a war of the North against the South, of the free States 
 against the slave States a war of extermination to be continued relent 
 lessly, until the one or the other shall be subdued and all the States shall 
 either become free or become slave. 
 
 Now, my friends, I must say to you frankly, that 1 take bold, unqualified 
 issue with him upon that principle. I assert that it i.s neither desirable 
 nor possible that there should be uniformity in the local institutions arid 
 domestic regulations of the different States of this Union. The framers 
 of our government never contemplated uniformity in its internal concerns. 
 The fathers of the Revolution, and the sages who made the Constitution, 
 well understood that the laws and domestic institutions which would suit 
 the granite hills of New Hampshire, would be totally unfit for the rice 
 plantations of South Carolina (cheers) ; they well understood that the laws 
 which would suit the agricultural districts of Pennsylvania and New York, 
 would be totally unfit for the large mining regions of the Pacific, or the 
 lumber regions of Maine. (Bravo.) They well understood that the great 
 varieties of soil, of production, and of interests, in a republic as large as 
 this, required different local and domestic regulations in each locality, 
 adapted to the wants and interests of each separate State (cries of 
 44 bravo" and "good,") and for that reason it was provided in the federal 
 Constitution that the thirteen original States should remain sovereign and 
 supreme within their own limits in regard to all that was local, and inter 
 nal, and domestic, while the Federal Government should have certain speci 
 fied powers which were general and national, and could be exercised only 
 by the federal authority. (Cheers). 
 
14:2 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 IF UNIFORMITY WERE EITHER DESIRABLE OR POSSIBLE, HOW 
 IS IT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED ? 
 
 How could this uniformity be accomplished if it were desirable and 
 possible ? There is but one mode in which it could be obtained, and that 
 must be by abolishing the State legislatures, blotting out State sovereignty, 
 merging the rights and sovereignty of the States in one consolidated 
 empire, and vesting Congress with the plenary power to make all the police 
 regulations, domestic and local laws, uniform throughout the limits of the 
 Republic. When you shall have done this you will have uniformity. Then 
 the States will all be slave or all be free ; then negroes will be free every 
 where or nowhere; then you will have a Maine liquor law in every State 
 or none ; then you will have uniformity in all things local and domestic 
 by the authority of the Federal Government. But, when you attain that 
 uniformity you will have converted these thirty-two sovereign, independent 
 States into one consolidated empire, with the uniformity of disposition 
 reigning triumphant throughout the length and breadth of the land. 
 (" Hear," " hear," " bravo," and great applause.) 
 
 From this view of the case, my friends, I am driven irresistibly to the 
 conclusion that diversity, dissimilarity, variety in all our local and domestic 
 institutions, is the great safeguard of our liberties ; and that the framens 
 of our institutions were wise, sagacious, and patriotic when they made this 
 government a confederation of sovereign States with a legislature for each, 
 and conferred upon each legislature the power to make all local and do 
 mestic institutions to suit the people it represented, without interference 
 from any other State or from the general Congress of the Union. If we 
 expect to maintain our liberties we must preserve the rights and sovereignty 
 of the States, we must maintain and carry out that great principle of self- 
 government incorporated in the Compromise measures of 1850; indorsed 
 by the Illinois legislature in 1851 ; emphatically embodied and carried 
 out in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and vindicated this year by the refusal to 
 bring Kansas into the Union with a constitution distasteful to her people. 
 (Cheers.) 
 
 NO CRUSADE AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT THE DRED SCOTT 
 DECISION THE LAW OF THE LAND AND MUST BE OBEYED. 
 
 The other proposition discussed by Mr. Lincoln in his speech consists iu 
 a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States on account of 
 the Dred Scott decision. On this question, also, i desire to say to you 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 143 
 
 unequivocally, that I take direct and distinct issue with him. I have no 
 warfare to make on the Supreme Court of the United States (Bravo), 
 either on account of that or any other decision which they have pro- 
 nounced from that bench. (" Good, good," and enthusiastic applause.) 
 The Constitution of the United States has provided that the powers of gov 
 ernment (and the constitution of each State has the same provision) shall 
 be divided into three departments, executive, legislative and judicial. The 
 right and the province of expounding the Constitution, and construing 
 the law, is vested in the judiciary, established by the Constitution. As a 
 lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear before the court and controvert any 
 principle of law while the question is pending before the tribunal ; but when 
 the decision is made, my private opinion, your opinion, all other opinions 
 must yield to the majesty of that authoritative adjudication. (Cries of " it is 
 right," " good, good," and cheers.) I wish you to bear in mind that this in 
 volves a great principle, upon which our rights, and our liberty and our 
 property all depend. What security have you for your property, for your 
 reputation, and for your personal rights, if the courts are not upheld, and 
 their decisions respected when once firmly rendered by the highest 
 tribunal known to the Constitution ? (Cheers.) I do not choose, there 
 fore, to go into any argument with Mr. Lincoln in reviewing the various 
 decisions which the Supreme Court has made, either upon the Dred Scott 
 case, or any other. I have no idea of appealing from the decision of the 
 Supreme Court upon a constitutional question to a tumultuous town-meet 
 ing. (Cheers.) I am aware that once an eminent lawyer of this city, now 
 no more, said that the State of Illinois had the most perfect judicial system 
 in the world, subject to but one exception, which could be cured by a 
 slight amendment, and that amendment was to so change the law as to 
 allow an appeal from the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, on all 
 constitutional questions, to two justices of the peace. (Great laughter and 
 applause.) My friend, Mr. Lincoln, who sits behind me, reminds me that 
 that proposition was made when I was judge of the Supreme Court. Be 
 that as it may, I do not think that fact adds any greater weight or 
 authority to the suggestion. (Renewed laughter and applause.) It mat 
 ters not with me who was on the bench, whether Mr. Lincoln or myself, 
 whether a Lockwood or a Smith, a Taiiey or a Marshall ; the decision of 
 the highest tribunal known to the Constitution of the country must be final 
 until it has been reversed by an equally high authority. (Cries of "bravo" 
 and applause.) Hence, I am opposed to this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, by 
 which he proposes to take an appeal from the decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States upon these high constitutional questions to u 
 Republican caucus. (A voice " Call it Freesoil," and cheers.) Yes, or ta 
 
144 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 any other caucus or town-meeting, whether it be Republican, American, or 
 Democratic. (Cheers.) I respect the decisions of that august tribunal; I 
 shall always bow in deference to them. I am a law-abiding man. I will 
 sustain the Constitution of my country as our fathers have made it. I will 
 yield obedience to the laws, whether I like them or not, as I find them on 
 the statute book. I will sustain the judicial tribunals and constituted 
 authorities in, all matters within the pale of their jurisdiction, as defined by 
 the Constitution. (Applause.) 
 
 OURS A WHITE MAN S GOVERNMENT NEGROES NOT CITIZENS. 
 
 But I am equally free to say that the reason assigned by Mr. Lincoln for 
 resisting the decision of the Supreme Court intheDred Scott case does not 
 in itself meet my approbation. He objects to it because that decision de 
 clared that a negro descended from African parents who were brought 
 here and sold as slaves, is not, and cannot be, a citizen of the United 
 States. He says it is wrong, because it deprives the negro of the benefits 
 of that clause of the Constitution which says that citizens of one State 
 shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several 
 States ; in other words, he thinks it wrong because it deprives the negro 
 of the privileges, immunities, and rights of citizenship, which pertain, ac 
 cording to that decision, only to the white man. Q am free to say to you 
 that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. 
 (Great applause.) It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the 
 white man, to be administered by white men, in such a manner as they 
 should determine. (Cheers.) It is also true that a negro, or any other 
 man of an inferior race to a white man, should be permitted to enjoy, and 
 humanity requires that he should have all the rights, privileges and immu 
 nities which he is capable of exercising consistent with the safety of society. 
 I would give him every right and every privilege which his capacity would 
 enable him to enjoy, consistent with the good of the society in which he 
 lived. (" Bravo.") But you may ask me what are these rights and these 
 privileges. My answer is that each State must decide for itself the nature 
 and extent of these rights. (" Hear, hear," and applause^/ . Illinois has 
 Decided for herself. We have decided that the negro shall not be a slave, 
 and we have at the same time decided that he shall not vote, or serve on 
 juries, or enjoy political privileges. I am content with that system of 
 policy which we have adopted for ourselves. (Cheers.) I deny the right 
 of any other State to complain of our policy in 1,1 1 at respect, or to interfere 
 with it, or to attempt to change it. On the other hand, the State of Maim? 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 14:5 
 
 has decided, as she had a right to under the Dred Scott decision, thai in 
 that State a negro may vote on an equality with the white man. The 
 sovereign power of Maine had the right to prescribe that rule for herself. 
 Illinois has no right to complain of Maine for conferring the right upon 
 negro suffrage, nor has Maine any right to interfere with, or complain of, 
 Illinois because she has denied negro suffrage. ( That s so," and cheers.) 
 The State of New York has decided by her constitution that a negro may 
 vote, provided that he owns $250 worth of property, but not otherwise. 
 The rich negro can vote, but the poor one cannot. (Laughter.) Although 
 that distinction does not commend itself to my judgment, yet I assert that 
 the sovereign power of New York had a right to prescribe that form of the 
 elective franchise. Kentucky, Virginia, and other States have provided 
 that negroes, or a certain class of them in those States, shall be slaves, 
 having neither civil nor political rights. Without indorsing or condemning 
 the wisdom of that decision, I assert that Virginia has the same power, by 
 virtue of her sovereignty, to protect slavery within her limits as Illinois has 
 to banish it forever from our borders. (" Hear, hear," and applause.) I 
 assert the right of each State to decide for itself on all these questions, and 
 I do not subscribe to the doctrine of my friend, Mr. Lincoln, that 
 uniformity is either desirable or possible. I do not acknowledge that the 
 States must all be free or must all be slave. 
 
 I do not acknowledge that the negro must have civil and political rights 
 everywhere or nowhere. I do not acknowledge that the Chinese must 
 have the same rights in California that we would confer upon him here. 
 I do not acknowledge that the Coolie imported into this country must 
 necessarily be put upon an equality with the white race. I do not ac 
 knowledge any of these doctrines of uniformity in the local and domestic 
 regulations in the different States. (" Bravo," and cheers.) 
 J Thus you see, my fellow-citizens, that the issues between Mr. Lincoln and 
 myself, as respective candidates for the U. S. Senate, as made up, are 
 direct, unequivocal, and irreconcilable. He goes for uniformity in our 
 domestic institutions, for a war of sections, until one or the other sTiall be 
 subdued. I go for the great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the 
 right of the people to decide for themselves. (Senator Douglas was here 
 interrupted by the wildest applause ; cheer after cheer rent the air ; the 
 band struck up " Yankee Doodle ;" rockets and pieces of fireworks blazed 
 forth ; and the enthusiasm was so intense and universal that it was some 
 time before order could be restored and Mr. Douglas resume. The scene 
 at this period was glorious beyond description.) 1 
 
146 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES O f 
 
 STANDS BY THE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION AND THE CINCIN 
 NATI PLATFORM. 
 
 My friends, you see that the issues are distinctly drawn. I stand by the 
 same platform that I have so often proclaimed to you and to the people of 
 Illinois heretofore. (Cries of " That s true," and applause.) I stand by the 
 Democratic organization, yield obedience to its usages, and support its 
 regular nominations. (Intense enthusiasm.) I indorse and approve the 
 Cincinnati platform (renewed applause), and I adhere to and intend to 
 carry out as part of that platform the great principle of self-government, 
 which recognizes the right of the people in each State and Territory to 
 decide for themselves their domestic institutions. (" Good, good," and 
 cheers.) / 
 
 In conclusion, he denounces the " unholy alliance :" 
 
 Fellow-citizens, you now have before you the outlines of the propositions 
 which I intend to discuss before the people of Illinois during the pending 
 campaign. I have spoken without preparation, and in a very desultory 
 manner, and may have omitted some points which I desired to discuss, 
 and may hare been less explicit on others than I could have wished. I 
 iiave made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination 
 which has been made against me. (Enthusiastic applause.) The Republi 
 can leaders have formed an alliance, an unholy, unnatural alliance, with a 
 portion of the federal officeholders. I intend to fight that allied army 
 wherever I meet them. (Cheers.) I know they deny the alliance while 
 avowing the common purpose ; but yet these men who are trying to divide 
 the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Republican senator in 
 my place, are just as much the agents, the tools, the supporters of Mr. 
 Lincoln as if they were avowed Republicans, and expect their reward for 
 their services when the Republicans come into power. (Cries of " That is 
 true," and cheers.) I shall deal with these allied forces just as the Rus 
 sians dealt with the allies at Scbastopol. The Russians when they fired a 
 broadside at the common enemy did not stop to inquire whether it hit a 
 Frenchman, an Englishman or a Turk, nor will I stop (laughter and great 
 applause), nor shall I stop to inquire whether my blows hit the Republican 
 leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal offices and yet acting in 
 concert with the Republicans to defeat the Democratic party and its nomi 
 nees. (Cheers, and cries of " Bravo.") I do not include all of the federal 
 officeholders in this remark. Such of them as are Democrats and show 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 147 
 
 their Democracy by remaining inside of the Democratic organization and 
 supporting its nominees, I recognize as Democrats, but those who, having 
 been defeated inside of the organization, go outside and attempt to divide 
 and destroy the party in concert with the Republican leaders, have ceased 
 to be Democrats, and belong to the allied army whose avowed object is to 
 elect the Republican ticket by dividing and destroying the Democratic 
 party. (Cheers) 
 
 Immediately after his reception at Chicago, Mr. Douglas 
 entered actively on his canvass over the entire State, making 
 more than one hundred speeches in less than four months, 
 and enduring an unparalleled amount of physical exertion 
 and fatigue. History fails to cite any public man who ever 
 received such continued ovations at the hands of his people 
 as greeted Mr. Douglas all through his Illinois campaign. 
 We make room for a letter which appeared in one of the 
 Chicago papers of the day, descriptive of his journey from 
 that city to Bloomington, to fill his first appointment, with 
 the remark that the same demonstrations of popular enthusi 
 asm and manifestations of popular admiration and love met 
 Mr. Douglas everywhere through his canvass. The picture 
 of the correspondent does but bare justice to the facts as 
 they existed. 
 
 SENATOR DOUGLAS AMONG THE PEOPLE PASSAGE FROM CHI 
 CAGO TO SPRINGFIELD GREAT ENTHUSIASM ALONG THE 
 
 LINE OF THE ST. LOUIS AND ALTON RAILROAD GLORIOUS 
 DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE POPULAR FEELING. 
 
 BLOOMINGTON, July 16, 1858. 
 
 If there was- ever any doubt that Senator Dangles possessed the popular 
 heart of the people of Illinois, that doubt has been dispelled to-day. His 
 passage from Chicago to this place has been a perfect ovation. There was 
 not a station or cottage that the train passed from which there was not a 
 greeting and a " God speed" sent forth ; and the evidences of popular feel 
 ing evinced in his favor are conclusive that the result in November will be 
 one of the most glorious triumphs of the Democracy ever achieved in this 
 State. 
 
148 THE LIFE AJSD SPEECHES OF 
 
 Senator Douglas, as you are aware, left Chicago in the 9 o clock train 
 this morning, on the St. Louis, Alton and Chicago Railroad, to meet an 
 appointment which he made at Springfield for to-morrow. The train which 
 bore him was tastefully decorated with flags, the engine being almost hid 
 beneath them, and banners were also displayed on the cars with the inscrip 
 tion " Stephen A. Douglas, the Champion of Popular Sovereignty." As 
 the train passed along, the crowds who had assembled to give a parting 
 cheer to the " Little Giant " performed their labor of love energetically and 
 well. The train was soon out of Chicago and flying along the track ; and 
 now Mr. Douglas, having a few moments to devote to those " on board," 
 shook hands and exchanged compliments with a number of impatient pas 
 sengers who crowded around him, anxious to evince their respect and high 
 admiration of the man. 
 
 As the train swept through Bridgeport, the employees of the road sta 
 tioned there had assembled together, and greeted Senator Douglas with 
 three hearty cheers. 
 
 A little incident occurred as we passed Bridgeport which is perhaps 
 worthy of notice. One of the flags with which the train was decorated 
 caught on the branches of a tree, and a gentleman seeing it, exclaimed, 
 " See, Judge Douglas, there is one of your flags waving from that tree." 
 " Yes," replied the Judge, "and before this campaign is over, my flags will 
 be seen waving from every tree in the State." 
 
 At every station on the road at Brighton Course, Summit, Athens and 
 Lockport the people were out waiting an opportunity to testify their 
 respect to their patriot senator ; and not a little interest was added to these 
 demonstrations by the number of pretty girls and blooming matrons who 
 took part in them, and testified by the waving of handkerchiefs and smiles 
 of approval that there was one besides their lovers and husbands who had 
 a place in their hearts. 
 
 As the train approached Joliet, the shrill whistle of the engine to " break 
 up " was answered by the roar of artillery from the town ; and when we 
 reached the station, about 11 o clock, we found some four or five hundred 
 people awaiting us. The thunders of the guns were answered by the 
 cheers of welcome by the crowd, who pressed around the cars anxious to 
 get a glimpse of Senator Douglas. There being a delay at this place of 
 twenty minutes for dinner, the senator spent it in shaking hands with and 
 receiving the congratulations of those who had assembled to see him. 
 The beaming countenances of the sturdy yeomanry, whose faces Avere 
 lighted up with joy at meeting the man whom they delighted to honor, 
 showed that the heart felt what the mouth uttered. One fine looking 
 specimen of human nature, whose strong, sturdy frame, and sunburnt 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 119 
 
 healthy cheek, bore testimony to his having spent the best part of his days 
 ia the open air, exclaimed, after shaking hands with the senator, "By 
 G d, that did me good !" 
 
 At Joliet, a platform car, decorated with thirteen flags, and bearing a 
 twelve-pounder and gun-carriage, was hitched on to the train, and after 
 we left that town, as we approached each station, " Popular Sovereignty," 
 as the gun was called, gave lively notice that we were on hand. At El- 
 wood, a crowd was awaiting us, and as the train passed through, cheer 
 after cheer went up, whilst two or three individuals expressed their enthu 
 siasm by the discharge of their revolvers. 
 
 As the train approached Wilmington, "Popular Sovereignty s" note wa3 
 echoed by a piece of artillery in the town, and as we reached the station, 
 we found the citizens, accompanied by a fine brass band, awaiting Senator 
 Douglas. The cars had hardly stopped, when a gentleman, whose head 
 was silvered o er with age, jumped on the train, and seizing Senator Dou 
 glas by the hand, cried, " Welcome, Judge Douglas, welcome to Wilming 
 ton," and then three hearty cheers, such as only the farmers of the Prairie 
 State can give, rose in the air, and the people crowded around to shake 
 Mr. Douglas by the hand. The train was delayed here several minutes, in 
 order to afford the people an opportunity of seeing their senator. 
 
 At all the other stations Stewart s Grove, Gardner, Dwight, Odell, Cay 
 uga, Pontiac, Kook Creek, Peoria Junction, Lexington, and Towanda, th 
 people were out awaiting the train, and greeted Senator Douglas with lou<* 
 hurrahs. At each of these stations large numbers got on board for Bloom 
 ington. As we approached Bloomington, " Popular Sovereignty" gave 
 notice that we were about, and his roar was answered by another of wel 
 come from the town. About 5,000 people had assembled here to meet 
 Senator Douglas, and the whole town and surrounding country were pre 
 sent on horseback, in vehicles, and on foot, to welcome his arrival. The 
 train was overrun with people who clambered on top of the cars, and tum 
 bled in on all sides, and the enthusiasm manifested was similar to that 
 shown on his arrival at Chicago on Friday last. The thunders of the guns, 
 the music of the band, and the shouts of the multitude filled the air. The 
 scene can better be imagined than described. The crowd closed in around 
 the cars in an impenetrable mass, and, taking possession of Senator Doug 
 las, they carried him over to the platform, where he received their per 
 sonal welcomes. After some time spent in this manner, the senator was 
 placed in an open carriage, provided by the Committee of Arrangements, 
 and the escort, composed of the Bloomington Rifles, a cavalcade of horse 
 men, and citizens on foot, headed by the Bloomington brass band, took 
 up its march for the London House where rooms had been engaged by 
 
150 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the committee for their guest. Flags were displayed from the house, and 
 strips of muslin ran along the balconies, bearing the inscription, " S. A. 
 Douglas, the champion of Popular Sovereignty." Arriving at the house, 
 the procession was dismissed, and after giving three times three cheers for 
 Senator Douglas, gradually dispersed, to re-assemble at 7 o clock, P.M., 
 in the court-house square, for the purpose of listening to his address. 
 
 At 7 o clock, the roar of the cannon, and the firing of rockets, the ring- 
 of the court-house bell, and the music of the band attached to the Bloom- 
 ington Guards, who attended the meeting in uniform, gave notice to the 
 people to assemble ; and in half an hour the large square surrounding the 
 court-house was crowded with people, whilst Washington, Jefferson, and 
 Madison streets were in the same condition; and the windows and doors 
 of the houses fronting the square were thronged with ladies and gentle 
 men. There were about 10,000 persons in attendance, and the committee 
 of arrangements expected a much larger number, who were prevented 
 from coming in from the country by the heavy rain which fell in this 
 neighborhood all last night and to-day. The court-house was illuminated, 
 and a stage was erected on the west side for the meeting. 
 
 At about 8 o clock, Allen Withers, Esq., chairman of the Committee of 
 Arrangements, called the meeting to order. Dr. E. R. Roe, in a very elo 
 quent speech, welcomed Senator Douglas, and assured him, on behalf of 
 the people of McLean County, that his course, during the last session of 
 Congress, was fully approved by them, and that they were ready to show 
 that approval, in a substantial manner, at the polls in November next. 
 
 SPEECH AT BLOOMIXGTON. 
 
 In the course of his speech at Bloomington, Mr. Douglas 
 referred to the Compromise measures of 1850, and the in 
 structions of the Illinois legislature of 1851 to carry out the 
 same principle of self-government in the organization of new 
 Territories, as follows : 
 
 Illinois stands proudly forward as a State which early took her position 
 in favor of the principle of popular sovereignty, as applied to the Territo 
 ries of the United States. When the Compromise measures of 1850 passed, 
 predicated upon that principle, you recollect the excitement which prevailed 
 throughout the northern portion of this State. I vindicated those mea 
 sures then, and defended myself for having voted for them, upon the groucd 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 151 
 
 that they embodied the principle that every people ought to have the 
 privilege of forming and regulating their own institutions to suit them 
 selves that each State had that right, and I saw no reason why it should 
 not be extended to the Territories. When the people of Illinois had an 
 opportunity of passing judgment upon those measures, they indorsed 
 them by a vote of their representatives in the legislature sixty-one in 
 the affirmative, and only four in the negative in which they asserted that 
 the principle embodied in the measures was the birthright of freemen, the 
 gift of Heaven, a principle vindicated by our Revolutionary fathers, and 
 that no limitation should ever be placed upon it, either in the organization 
 of a Territorial government, or the admission of a State into the Union. 
 That resolution still stands unrepealed on the journals of the legislature 
 of Illinois. In obedience to it, and in exact conformity with the principle, 
 I brought in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, requiring that the people should 
 be left perfectly free in the formation of their institutions, and in the or 
 ganization of their government. I now submit to you whether I have not 
 in good faith redeemed that pledge, that the people of Kansas should be 
 teft perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions to suit themselves. 
 (* You have," and cheers.) And yet, while no man can rise in any crowd 
 and deny that I have been faithful to my principles, and redeemed my 
 pledge, we find those who are struggling to crush and defeat me, for the 
 very reason that I have been faithful in carrying out those measures. 
 (" They can t do it," and great cheers.) We find the Republican leaders 
 forming an alliance with professed Lecompton men to defeat every Demo 
 cratic nominee, and elect Republicans in their places, and aiding and de 
 fending them in order to help them break down Anti-Lecompton me 
 whom they acknowledge did right in their opposition to Lecomptoc 
 (" They ean t do it.") The only hope that Mr. Lincoln has of defeating im_ 
 for the Senate rests in the fact that I was faithful to my principles, and 
 that he may be able, in consequence of that fact, to form a coalition with 
 Lecompton men who wish to defeat me for that fidelity. (" They will 
 never do it. Never in the State of Illinois" and cheers.) 
 
 He again refers to the coalition between the federal office 
 holders and the abolitionists, to break down the Democratic 
 party 
 
 This is one element of strength upon which he relies to accomplish his 
 object. He hopes he can secure the few men claiming to be friends of the 
 Lecompton constitution, and for that reason you will find he does not say 
 a word against the Lecompton constitution or its supporters. lie is aa 
 
152 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 silent as the grave upon that subject. Behold Mr. Lincoln courting Lecomp- 
 ton votes, in order that he may go to the Senate as the representative of 
 Republican principles ! (Laughter.) You know that the alliance exists. 
 I think you will find that it will ooze out before the contest is over. 
 (" That s my opinion," and cheers.) 
 
 Every Republican paper takes ground with my Lecompton enemies, en 
 couraging them, stimulating them in their opposition to me. and styling 
 my friends bolters from the Democratic party, and their Lecompton allies 
 the true Democratic party of the country. If they think that they can 
 mislead and deceive the people of Illinois, or the Democracy of Illinois, by 
 that sort of an unnatural and unholy alliance, I think they show very little 
 sagacity, or give the people very little credit for intelligence. (" That s so," 
 and cheers.) It must be a contest of principle. Either the radical aboli 
 tion principles of Mr. Lincoln must be maintained, or the strong, constitu 
 tional, national Democratic principles with which I am identified, must be 
 carried out. 
 
 There can be but two great political parties in this country. The contest 
 this year and in 1860, must necessarily be between the Democracy and the 
 Republicans, if we can judge from present indications. My whole life has 
 been identified with the Democratic party. (Cheers.) I have devoted all my 
 energies to advocating its principles, and sustaining its organization. In 
 this State the party was never better united and more harmonious than at 
 this time. (Cheers.) The State Convention which assembled on the 2d 
 of April, and nominated Fondey and French, was regularly called by the 
 State Central Committee, appointed by the previous State Convention for 
 that purpose. The meetings in each county in the State for the appoint 
 ment of delegates to the convention, were regularly called by the county 
 committees, and the proceedings in every county in the State, as well as 
 in the State Convention, were regular in all respects. No convention was 
 ever more harmonious in its action, or showed a more tolerant and just 
 spirit toward brother Democrats. The leader^ of the party there assem 
 bled declared their unalterable attachment to the time-honored principles 
 and organization of the Democratic party, and to the Cincinnati platform. 
 They declared that that platform was the only authoritative exposition of 
 Democratic principles, and that it must so stand until changed by another 
 National Convention ; that in the meantime they would make no new tests, 
 and submit to none ; that they would proscribe no Democrat, nor permit the 
 proscription of Democrats because of their opinions upon Lecomptonism, 
 or upon any other issue which has arisen ; but would recognize all men as 
 Democrats who remained inside of the organization, preserved the usages 
 of the party, and supported its nominees. (Great applause.) These bolt- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 153 
 
 ing Democrats who now claim to be the peculiar friends of the national 
 administration, and have formed an alliance with Mr. Lincoln and the Re 
 publicans, for the purpose of defeating the Democratic party, have ceased 
 to claim fellowship with the Democratic organization, have entirely sepa 
 rated themselves from it, and are endeavoring to build up a faction in the 
 State, not with the hope or expectation of electing any one man who pro 
 fesses to be a Democrat, to office in any county in the State, but merely to 
 secure the defeat of the Democratic nominees, and the election of Repub 
 licans in their places. "What excuse can any honest Democrat have for 
 abandoning the Democratic organization, and joining with the Republi 
 cans ("None!") to defeat our nomine-es, in view of the platform estab 
 lished by the State Convention? They cannot pretend that they were pro 
 scribed because of their opinions upon Lecompton or any other question, 
 for the Convention expressly declared that they recognize all as good De 
 mocrats who remained inside of the organization, and abided by the nomi 
 nations. If the question is settled, or is to be considered as finally dis 
 posed of by the vote on the 3d of August, what possible excuse can any 
 good Democrat make for keeping up a division for the purpose of pro 
 strating his party, after that election is over, and the controversy has ter 
 minated. 
 
 DEED SCOTT DECISION NEGRO EQUALITY. 
 
 But I must now bestow a few words upon Mr. Lincoln s main objection 
 to the Dred Scott decision. He is not going to submit to it. Not that he 
 is going to make war upon it with force of arms. But he is going to appeal 
 and reverse it in some way ; he cannot tell us how. I reckon not by a writ 
 of error, because I do not know where he would prosecute that, except 
 before an Abolition Society. (" That s it," and applause.) And when he 
 appeals, he does not exactly tell us to whom he will appeal, except it be to 
 the Republican party, and I have yet to learn that the Republican party, 
 under the Constitution, has judicial powers ; but he is going to appeal from 
 it and reverse it either by an act of Congress, or by turning out the judges, or 
 in some other way. And why ? Because he says that that decision deprives 
 the negro of the benefit of that clause of the Constitution of the United States 
 which entitles the citizens of each State to all the privileges and immuni 
 ties of citizens of the several States. Well, it is very true that the decision 
 does have that effect. By deciding that a negro is not a citizen, of course 
 it denies to him the rights and privileges awarded to citizens of the United 
 Sta*es. It is this that Mr. Lincoln will not submit to. Why ? For the 
 palpable reason that he wishes to confer upon the negro all the righu. 
 
15 i THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 privileges, and immunities of citizens of the several States. I will not 
 quarrel with Mr. Lincoln for his views on that subject. I have no doubt 
 that he is conscientious in them. I have not the slightest idea but that he 
 conscientiously believes that a negro ought to enjoy and exercise all the 
 rights and privileges given to white men ; but I do not agree with him, and 
 hence I cannot concur with him. I believe that this government of ours 
 was formed on the white basis. (Prolonged cheering.) I believe that it 
 was established by white men (applause) by men of European birth and 
 descended of European races, for the benefit of white men and their pos 
 terity in all time to come. (" Hear, hear. ) I do not believe that it was 
 the design or intention of the signers of the Declaration of Independence 
 or the framers of the Constitution to include negroes or other inferior 
 races with white men as citizens. (Cheers.) Our fathers had at that day 
 seen the evil consequences of conferring civil and political rights upon the 
 negro in the Spanish and French colonies on the American continent, and 
 the adjacent islands. In Mexico, in Central America, in South America, 
 and in the West India Islands, where the negro, and men ot all colors and 
 all races are put on an equality by law, the effect of political amalgamation 
 can be seen. Ask any of those gallant young men in your own county, 
 who who went to Mexico to fight the battles of their country, in what 
 friend Lincoln considers an unjust and unholy war, and hear what they 
 will tell you in regard to the amalgamation of races in that country. Amal 
 gamation there, first political, then social, has led to demoralization and 
 degradation until it has reduced the people below the point of capacity for 
 self-government. Our fathers knew what the effect of it would be, and 
 from the time they planted foot on the American continent, not only those 
 who landed at Jamestown, but at Plymouth Rock and all other points on 
 the coast, they pursued the policy of confining civil and political rights to 
 the white race, and excluding the negro in all cases. Still Mr. Lincoln con 
 scientiously believes that it is his duty to advocate negro citizenship. He 
 wants to give the negro the privileges of citizenship. He quotes Scripture 
 again, and says: "As your Father in Heaven is perfect, be ye also per 
 fect," and he applies that Scriptural quotation to all classes, not that he 
 expects us all to be as perfect as our Master, but as nearly perfect as pos 
 sible. In other words, he is willing to give the negro an equality under 
 the law, in order that he may approach as near perfection or an equality 
 with the white man as possible. To this same end he quotes the Declara 
 tion of Independence in these words : "We hold these truths to be self- 
 evident that all men were created equal, and endowed by their Creator 
 with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pur 
 suit of happiness," and goes on to argue that the negro was included, or 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 155 
 
 intended to be included, in that declaration by the signers of the paper. 
 He says that by the Declaration of Independence, therefore, all kinds of 
 men, negroes included, were created equal, and endowed by their Creator 
 with certain inalienable rights, and further, that the right of the negro to 
 be on an equality with the white man is a Divine right conferred by the 
 Almighty, and rendered inalienable according to the Declaration of Inde 
 pendence. Hence no human law or constitution can deprive the negro of 
 that equality with the white man to which he is entitled by Divine law. 
 (" Higher law.") Yes, higher law. Now, I do not question Mr. Lincoln s 
 sincerity on this point. He believes that the negro by the Divine law is 
 created the equal of the white man, and that no human law can deprive 
 him of that equality thus secured ; and he contends that the negro ought, 
 therefore, to have all the rights and privileges of citizenship on an equality 
 with the white man. In order to accomplish this, the first thing that would 
 have to be done in this State would be to blot out of our State Constitution 
 that clause which prohibits negroes from coming into this State and making 
 it an African colony, and permit them to come and spread over these charm 
 ing prairies until in midday they shall look black as night. When our 
 friend Lincoln gets all his colored brethren around him here, he will then 
 raise them to perfection as fast as possible, and place them on an equality 
 with the white man, first removing all legal restrictions, because they are 
 our equals by Divine law and there should be no such restrictions. He 
 wants them to vote. I am opposed to it. If they had a vote I reckon they 
 would all vote for him in preference to me, entertaining the views I do. 
 (Laughter.) But that matters not. The position he has taken on this 
 question not only presents him as claiming for them the right to vote, but 
 their right, under the Divine law and the Declaration of Independence, to 
 be elected to office, to become members of the legislature, to go to Con 
 gress, and to become governors, or United States senators (laughter and 
 cheers), or judges of the Supreme Court; and I suppose that when they 
 control that court that they will probably reverse the Dred Scott decision. 
 (Laughter.) He is going to bring negroes here, and give them the right 
 of citizenship, the right of voting, the right of holding office and sitting on 
 juries, and what else ? "Why, he would permit them to marry, would he 
 not? and if he gives them that right, I suppose he will let them marry 
 whom they please, provided they marry their equals. (Laughter.) If the 
 Divine law declares that the white man is the equal of the negro woman; 
 that they are on a perfect equality; I suppose he admits the right of the 
 negro woman to marry the white man. (Renewed laughter.) In other 
 words, his doctrine that the negro by Divine law is placed on a perfect 
 equality with the white man, and that that equality is recognized by the 
 
156 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Declaration of Independence, leads him necessarily to establishing negro 
 equality under the law; but whether even then they would be so in fact, 
 would depend upon the degree of virtue and intelligence they possessed, 
 and certain other qualities that are matters of taste rather than of law. 
 (Laughter.) I do not understand Mr. Lincoln as saying that he expects to 
 make them our equals socially, or by intelligence, nor, in fact, as citizens, 
 but that he wishes to make them equal under the law, and then say to them 
 " as your Master in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." Well, I confess 
 to you, my fellow-citizens, that I am utterly opposed to that system of 
 abolition philosophy. (" So am I," and cheers.) 
 
 MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND LET YOUR NEIGHBORS 
 ALONE CLAY AND WEBSTER. 
 
 In Kentucky they -will not give a negro any. political rights or any civil 
 rights. I shall not argue the question whether Kentucky in so doing 
 has decided right or, wrong, wisely or unwisely. It is a question for 
 Kentucky to decide for herself. I believe that the Kentuckians have 
 consciences as well as ourselves ; they have as keen a perception of 
 their religious, moral and social duties as we have, and I am willing that 
 they shall decide this slavery question for themselves, and be accountable to 
 their God for their action. It is not for me to arraign them for what they 
 do. I will not judge them lest I shall be judged. Let Kentucky mind her 
 own business, and take care of her negroes, and we attend to our own 
 affairs, and take care of our negroes, and we will be the best of friends ; 
 but if Kentucky attempts to interfere with us, or we with her, there will be 
 strife, there will be discord, there will be relentless hatred, there will be 
 everything but fraternal feeling and brotherly love. It is not necessary 
 that you should enter Kentucky and interfere in that State, to use the 
 language of Mr. Lincoln. It is just as offensive to interfere from this 
 State, or send your missiles over there. I care not whether an enemy, if 
 he is going to assault us, shall actually come into our State or come along 
 the line and throw his bomb-shells over to explode in our midst. Suppose 
 England should plant a battery on the Canadian side of the Niagara River, 
 opposite Buffalo, and throw bomb-shells over, which would explode in 
 Main street, in that city, and destroy the buildings, and that when we pro 
 tested, -she should say, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, that she never 
 dreamed of coming into the United States to interfere with us, and that 
 she was just throwing her bombs over the line from her own side, which 
 Bhe had a right to do, would that explanation satisfy us ? (" No ;" " Strike 
 him again.") So it is with Mr. Lincoln. He is not going into Kentucky 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 151 
 
 out he will plant his batteries on this side of the Ohio, where he is saft 
 and secure for a retreat, and will then throw his bomb-shells his abolition 
 documents over the river, and will carry on a political warfare and get 
 up strife between the North and South until he elects a sectional President, 
 reduces the South to the condition of dependent colonies, raises the negro 
 to an equality, and forces the South to submit to the doctrine that a house 
 divided against itself cannot stand, that the Union divided into half slave 
 States and half free cannot endure, that they must all be slave or they 
 must all be free, and that as we in the North are in the majority we will 
 not permit them to be all slave, and, therefore, they in the South must 
 consent to the States all being free. (Laughter.) No\v, fellow-citizens, I 
 submit whether these doctrines are consistent with the peace and harmony 
 of this Union. (" No, no.") I submit to you, whether they are consistent 
 with our duty as citizens of a common confederacy ; whether they are 
 consistent with the principles which ought to govern brethren of the same 
 family. I recognize all the people of these States, North and South, East 
 and West, old or new, Atlantic and Pacific, as our brethren, flesh of one 
 flesh, and I will do no act unto them that I would not be willing they 
 should do unto us. I would apply the same Christian rule to the States of 
 this Union that we are taught to apply to individuals, " do unto others as 
 you would have others do unto you," and this would secure peace. Why 
 should this slavery agitation be kept up ? Does it benefit the white man 
 or the slave ? Who does it benefit except the Republican politicians, who 
 use it as their hobby to ride into office. (Cheers.) Why, I repeat, should 
 it be continued ? Why cannot we be content to administer this govern 
 ment as it was made a confederacy of sovereign and independent States. 
 Let us recognize the sovereignty and independence of each State, refrain 
 from interfering with the domestic institutions and regulations of other 
 States, permit the Territories and new States to decide their institutions 
 for themselves as we did when we were in their condition ; blot out these 
 lines of North and South and resort back to those lines of State boundaries 
 which the Constitution has marked out and engraved upon the face of 
 the country ; have no other dividing lines but these and we will be one 
 united, harmonious people, with fraternal feelings and no discord or dis 
 sension. (Cheers.) 
 
 These are my views and these are the principles to which I have devoted 
 all my energies since 1850, when I acted side by side with the immor 
 tal Clay and the godlike Webster in that memorable struggle in which 
 Whigs and Democrats united upon a common platform of patriotism and 
 the Constitution, throwing aside partisan feelings in order to restore peace 
 aud harmony to a distracted country. And when I stood beside the death 
 
158 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 bed of Mr. Clay and heard him refer with feelings and emotions of the 
 deepest solicitude to the welfare of the country, and saw that he looked 
 upon the principle embodied in the great Compromise measures of 1850, 
 the principle of the Nebraska Bill, the doctrine of leaving each State and 
 Territory free to decide its institutions for itself, as the only means by 
 which the peace of the country could be preserved, and the Union per 
 petuated, I pledged him, on that death-bed of his, that so long as I lived 
 my eaergies should be devoted to the vindication of that principle, and of 
 his fame as connected with it. (" Hear, hear," and great enthusiasm.) I 
 gave the same pledge to the great expounder of the Constitution, he who 
 has been called the "godlike Webster." I looked up to Clay and him as 
 a son would to a father, and I call upon the people of Illinois, and the 
 people of the whole Union to bear testimony that never since the sod has 
 been laid upon the graves of those eminent statesmen have I failed on any 
 occasion to vindicate the principle with which the last great, crowning acts 
 of their lives were identified, or to vindicate their names whenever they 
 have been assailed ; and now my life and energy are devoted to this great 
 work as the means of preserving this Union. (Cheers.) This Union can 
 only be preserved by maintaining the fraternal feeling between the North 
 and the South, the East and the "West. If that good feeling can be pre 
 served the Union will be as perpetual as the fame of its great founders. It 
 can be maintained by preserving the sovereignty of the States, the right of 
 each State and each Territory to settle its domestic concerns for itself, and 
 the duty of each to refrain from interfering with the other in any of its 
 local or domestic institutions. Let that be done and the Union will be 
 perpetual ; let that be done, and this republic, which began with thirteen 
 States, and which now numbers thirty-two, which when it began only 
 extended from the Atlantic to the Mississippi but now reaches to the 
 Pacific, may yet expand North and South until it covers the whole conti 
 nent and becomes one vast ocean-bound confederacy. (Great cheering.) 
 Then, my friends, the path of duty, of honor, of patriotism is plain. 
 There are a few simple principles to be preserved. Bear in mind the 
 dividing line between State rights and federal authority ; let us maintain 
 the great principles of popular sovereignty, of State rights, and of the 
 Federal Union as the Constitution has made it, and this republic will 
 endure forever. 
 
 UNITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PAETY. 
 
 In the course of Mr. Douglas speech at Edwardsvillc, on 
 the 6th of August, an old Democrat sprang to his feet and 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 159 
 
 exclaimed, " These are the principles of all us Douglas Demo 
 crats !" To which Mr. Douglas replied : 
 
 My friend you will pardon me for telling you that there is no such 
 term ia" the Democratic vocabulary as Douglas Democrats. Let there be no 
 divisions in our ranks no such distinction as Douglas Democrats, or 
 Buchanan Democrat^, or any other peculiar kind of Democrats. Let us 
 retain the old nameyof Democrat, and under that name recognize all men 
 as good Democrats who stand firmly by the principles and organization of 
 the party, and support its regular nominations. Let us have no divisions in 
 our ranks on account of past differences, but treating bygones as bygones 
 let the party be a unit in the accomplishment of the great mission which it 
 has to perform. 
 
 This sentiment was received with rapturous applause. 
 
 . SPEECH AT WINCHESTER TOUCHING INCIDENTS. 
 
 At \Yinchester, where he settled when he first emigrated 
 to Illinois, in 1833, he responded to the address of welcome, 
 thus : 
 
 To -say that I am profoundly impressed with the keenest gratitude for 
 the kind and cordial welcome you have given me, in the eloquent and too 
 partial remarks which have been addressed to me, is but a feeble expres 
 sion of the emotions of my heart. There is no spot in this vast globe 
 which fills me with such emotions as when I come to this place, and recog 
 nize the faces of my old and good friends who now surround me and bid 
 me welcome. Twenty-five years ago I entered this town on foot, with my 
 coat upon my arm, without an acquaintance in a thousand miles, and with 
 out knowing where I could get money to pay a week s board. Here I 
 made the first six dollars I ever earned in my life, and obtained the first 
 regular occupation that I ever pursued. For the first time in my life I 
 then felt that the responsibilities of manhood were upon me, although I 
 was under age, for I bad none to advise with, and knew no one upon 
 whom I had a right to call for assistance or for friendship. Here I found 
 the then settlers of the country my friends my first start in life was taken 
 here, not only as a private citizen, but my first election to public office by 
 the people was conferred upon me by those whom I am now addressing, 
 and by their fathers. A quarter of a century has passed, and that pen- 
 
1GO THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 niless boy stands before you, with his heart full and gushing with the sen 
 timents which such associations and recollections necessarily inspire. 
 
 In the midst of that portion of his speech, in which ho 
 was vindicating the doctrine of popular sovereignty, applica 
 ble to the Territories, one of his early friends exclaimed, in a 
 loud voice, "Stephen, you shall be the next President;" to 
 which Mr. Douglas instantly replied : 
 
 My friend, I appreciate the kindness of heart which makes you put forth 
 that prediction, but will assure you that it is more important to this coun 
 try, to your children and to mine, that the grea<; principles which we are 
 now discussing shall be carried out in good faith by the party, than it is 
 that I or any other man shall be President of the United States. (Three 
 cheers.) I am also free to say to you that whenever the question arises 
 with me whether I shall be elevated to the Presidency or any other high 
 position, by the sacrifice of my principles, I will stand by my principles 
 and allow the position to take care of itself. (Three cheers.) I have 
 always admired that great sentiment put forth by the illustrious Clay, that 
 he would rather be right than be President. (" Good.") I say to you that 
 1 have more pride in my history connected with the vindication of this 
 great principle of popular sovereignty than I would have in a thousand 
 Presidencies. (Three cheers.) 
 
 Mr. Douglas, again advocating that " by-gones be by 
 gones," when Kansas rejected the English bill, said, in a 
 speech at Pittsfield : 
 
 By the rejection of the Lecompton constitution the controversy which 
 it caused is terminated forever, and there will be no cause for reviving it, 
 and it never will be revived unless it is brought up in an improper and 
 mischievous manner, for improper and mischievous purposes. I say that 
 the controversy can never rise again if we act properly, and for this rea 
 son: the President of the United States, in his annual message, declared 
 that he regretted that the Lecompton constitution had not been submitted 
 to the people. I joined him in that regret, and thus far we agreed. He 
 further declared in that message, that it was a just and sound principle to 
 require the submission of every constitution to the people who were to 
 live under it, and to this I also subscribed. He then declared that, in his 
 opinion^ the example set in the Minnesota case, wherein Congress required 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 161 
 
 the submission of the constitution to the people, should be followed here 
 after forever as a rule of action ; in which opinion I heartily concurred. 
 So far we agreed perfectly, and were together. Well, then, what did we 
 differ about ? He said that while it was a sound principle that the consti 
 tution should be submitted to the people, and while he hoped that here 
 after Congress would always require it to be done, yet that there were such 
 circumstances connected with Kansas as rendered it politic and expedient 
 to admit her unconditionally under the Lecompton constitution. I differed 
 with him on that one point, and it was the whole matter at issue between 
 him and me, his friends and mine. That point is now decided. The peo 
 ple of Kansas have set it at rest forever, and I trust that he is satisfied 
 with their decision as well as myself. That being the case, why should we 
 not come together in the future and stand firmly by his recommendation 
 that hereafter Congress shall, as in the Minnesota case, require the consti 
 tution of all new States to be submitted to the people in all cases ? If we 
 only do stand by that principle in the future, another Lecompton contro 
 versy can never arise the friends of self-government will then all be 
 United, and there will be no more discord or dissensions in our ranks. 
 Why not rally on that plank as the common plank in the platform of our 
 party, upon which not only all Democrats, but all national men, all friends 
 of popular sovereignty, can stand together, shoulder to shoulder. 
 
 THE FKEEPORT SPEECH. 
 
 Iii the joint debate at Freeport, Mr. Lincoln propounded 
 to Mr. Douglas a series of questions, and among them was 
 the following, to which he desired an explicit reply : 
 
 " Can the people of a Territory of the United States in 
 any lawful way, againsfc the wishes of any citizen of the 
 United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the 
 formation of a State constitution ?" 
 
 To this question Mr. Douglas gave an affirmative reply, in 
 accordance with the opinions which lie had so often ex 
 pressed, in 1850, during the pendency of the Compromise 
 measures, and in 1854, in support of the Kansas-Nebraska 
 Bill, and in harmony with the known opinions of the most 
 eminent men of the Democratic party, and especially of 
 
162 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 General Cass, in his Nicholson letter, and of Mr. Buchanan, 
 in his letter accepting the Cincinnati nomination. 
 
 It being a joint debate, in which his time was limited, and 
 having a large number of other questions to answer, Mr. 
 Douglas contented himself with a direct and unequivocal 
 answer, without entering into any argument in support of the 
 propositions. His reply, as published in the unreviscd 
 report of the debate, is as follows : 
 
 The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, can the people 
 of a Territory in any lawful way against the wishes of any citizen of the 
 United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of 
 a State constitution? I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard 
 me answer a hundred times from every stump iu Illinois, that in my opinion 
 the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their 
 limits prior to the formation of a State constitution. (Enthusiastic ap 
 plause.) Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and 
 over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska Bill on that principle all 
 over the State in 1854, in 1855 and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pre 
 tending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not 
 what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract ques 
 tion whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the consti 
 tution ; the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as 
 they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour any 
 where, unless it is supported by local police regulations. (Right, right.) 
 Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature, 
 and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to 
 that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the intro 
 duction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, theii 
 legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision 
 of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of 
 the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and com 
 plete under the Nebraska Bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satis 
 factory on that point. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS AT ALTON KEBUKES EXECUTIVE DICTATTOX. 
 
 And now this warfare is made on me because I would not surrender my 
 convictions of duty, because I would not abandon my constituency, and re 
 ceive the orders of the Executive authorities how I should vote in tho 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 163 
 
 Senate of the United States. ("Never do it," three cheers, etc.) I hold 
 that an attempt to control the Senate on the part of the Executive is sub 
 versive of the principles of our Constitution. ("That s right.") The 
 Executive department is independent of the Senate, and the Senate is in 
 dependent of the President. In matters of legislation the President has a 
 veto on the action of the Senate, and in appointments and treaties the 
 Senate has a veto on the President. He has no more right to tell me how 
 I shall vote 03. his appointments, than I have to tell him whether he shall 
 veto or approve a bill that the Senate has passed. Whenever you recog 
 nize the right of the Executive to say to a senator, " Do this, or I will take 
 off the heads of your friends," you convert this government from a 
 republic into a despotism. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Whenever you 
 recognize the right of a President to say to a member of Congress, " Yoto 
 as I tell you, or I will bring a power to bear against you at home which 
 will crush you," you destroy the independence of the representative, and 
 convert him into a tool of Executive power. (" That s so," and applause.) 
 I resisted this invasion of the constitutional rights of a senator, and I 
 intend to resist it as long as I have a voice to speak, or a vote to give. 
 Yet, Mr. Buchanan cannot provoke me to abandon one iota of Democratic 
 principles out of revenge or hostility to his course. (" Good, good, and 
 three cheers for Douglas.") I stand by the platform of the Democratic 
 party, and by its organization, and support its nominees. If there are 
 any who choose to bolt, the fact only shows that they are not as good 
 Democrats as I am. (" That s so," " good," and applause.) 
 
 UNION OF NATIONAL MEN FOE SAKE OF THE UNION. 
 
 My friends, there never was a time when it was as important for the 
 Democratic party, for all national men, to rally and stand together as it is 
 to-day. We find all sectional men giving up past differences and com 
 bining on the one question of slavery ; and when we find sectional men 
 thus uniting, we should unite to resist them and their treasonable designs. 
 Such was the case in 1850, when Clay left the quiet and peace of his home 
 and again entered upon public life to quell agitation and restore peace to a 
 distracted Union. Then we Democrats, with Cass at our heau, ivelcomed 
 Henry Clay, whom the whole nation regarded as having been preserved by 
 God for the times. He became our leader in that great fight, and we 
 rallied around him the same as the Whigs rallied around old Hickory 
 in 1832, to put down nullification. (Cheers.) Thus you see that 
 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 whilst Whigs and Democrats fought fearlessly in old times abou 
 banks, the tariff distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, 
 all united as a band of brothers when the peace, harmony, or integ 
 rity of the Union was imperilled. (Tremendous applause.) It was so 
 in 1850, when abolitionism had even so far divided this country, North and 
 South, as to endanger the peace of the Union ; Whigs and Democrats 
 united in establishing the Compromise measures of that year, and restoring 
 tranquillity and good feeling. These measures passed on the joint action 
 of the two parties. They rested on the great principle that the people of 
 each State and each Territory should be left perfectly free to form and 
 regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves. You Whigs and 
 we Democrats justified them on that principle. In 1854, when it became 
 necessary to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, I brought 
 forward a bill for the purpose on the same principle. In the Kansas- 
 Nebraska Bill you find it declared to be the true intent and meaning of the 
 act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it 
 therefrom ; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and 
 regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. (" That s so," and 
 cheers.) I stand on that same platfonn in 1858 that I did in 1850, in 
 1854 and 1856. 
 
 The Washington " Union," pretending to be the organ of the administra 
 tion, in the number of the 5th of this month, devotes three columns and a 
 half to establish these propositions: First, that Douglas, in his Freepoit 
 speech, held the same doctrine that he did in his Nebraska Bill in 1854 ; 
 second, that in 1854 Douglas justified the Nebraska Bill, upon the ground 
 that it was based upon the same principle as Clay s Compromise measures 
 of 1850. The " Union" thus proved that Douglas was the same in 1858 
 that he was in 1856, in 1854 and in 1850, consequently argued that he was 
 never a Democrat. (Great laughter.) Is it not funny that I was never a 
 Democrat? (Renewed laughter.) There is no pretence that I have changed 
 a hair s breadth. The "Union" proves, by my speeches, that I explained 
 the Compromise measures of 1850 just as I do now, and that I explained 
 the Kansas and Nebraska Bill in 1854 just as I did in my Freeport speech, 
 and yet says that I am not a Democrat, and cannot be trusted, because I 
 have not changed during the whole of that time. It has occurred to me 
 that in 1854 the author of the Kansas and Nebraska Bill was considered a 
 pretty good Democrat. (Cheers.) It has occurred to me that in 1856, 
 when I was exerting every nerve and every energy for James Buchanan, 
 standing on the same platform then that I do now, that I was a pretty 
 good Democrat. (Renewed applause.) They uow tell me that I am not a 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 1G5 
 
 Democrat, because I assert that the people of a Territory, as well as those 
 of a State, have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery can or 
 cannot exist in such Territory. Let me read what James Buchanan said on 
 that point when he accepted the Democratic nomination for the Presidency 
 in 1856. In his letter of acceptance, he used the following language : 
 
 " The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived, as it has 
 been, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the 
 majority, promise ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation -a 
 founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and in accordance with 
 them, has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall do- 
 cide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." 
 
 Dr. Hope will there find my answer to the question he propounded to 
 me before I commenced speaking. (Vociferous shouts of applause.) Of 
 course no man will consider it an answer who is outside of the Democratic 
 organization, bolts Democratic nominations, and indirectly aids to put 
 Abolitionists into power over Democrats. But whether Dr. Hope con 
 siders it an answer or not, every fair-minded man will see that James 
 Buchanan has answered the question, and has asserted that the people of 
 a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether sla 
 very shall or shall not exist within their limits. I answer specifically, if 
 you want a further answer, and say, that while under the decision of the 
 Supreme Court, as recorded in the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, slaven 
 are property like all other property, and can be carried into a Territory of 
 the United States the same as any other description of property ; yet, when 
 you get them there, they are subject to the local law of the Territory just 
 like all other property. You will find in a recent speech, delivered by that 
 able and eloquent statesman, lion. Jefferson Davis, at Portland, Maine, that 
 he took the same view of this subject that I did in my Frceport speech. 
 He there said : 
 
 " If the inhabitants of any Territory should refuse to enact such laws and police regu 
 lations as would give security to their property or to his, it would be rendered more or 
 less valueless, in proportion to the difficulties of holding it without such protection. In 
 the case of property in the labor of man, or what is usually called slave property, the 
 insecurity would be so great that the owner could not ordinarily retain it. Therefore, 
 though the right would remain, the remedy being withheld, it would follow that tiie 
 owner would be practically debarred, by the circumstances of the case, from taking 
 slave property into a Territory where the sense of the inhabitants was opposed to its 
 introduction. So much for the oft-rep-ea-ied fallacy of forcing slavery upon any com 
 munity." 
 
 You will also find that the distinguished speaker of the present Ilou^e 
 of Representatives, Hon. James L. Orr, construed the Kansas and Ne- 
 
1G6 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 braska Bill in this same way in 1856, and also that that great intellect of 
 the South, Alex. H. Stevens, put the same construction upon it in Con- 
 rreae that I did in my Freeport speech. The whole South are rallying to 
 the support of the doctrine that, if the people of a Territory want slavery, 
 they have a right to have it ; and if they do not want it, that no power on 
 earth can force it upon them. I hold that there is no principle on earth 
 more sacred to all the friends of freedom than that which says that no in 
 stitution, no law, no constitution, should ke forced on an unwilling people 
 contrary to their wishes ; and I assert that the Kansas and Nebraska Bill 
 contains that principle. It is the great principle contained in that bill. It 
 is the principle on which James Buchanan was made President. Without 
 that principle he never would have been made President of the Uuited 
 States. I will never violate or abandon that doctrine if I have to stand 
 alone. (Hurrah for Douglas.) I have resisted the blandishments and 
 threats of power on the one side, and seduction on the other, and have 
 stood immovably for that principle, fighting for it when assailed by 
 northern mobs, or threatened by southern hostility. (" That s the truth, 
 and cheers.) I have defended it against the North and the South, and I 
 will defend it against whoever assails it, and I will follow it wherever its 
 logical conclusions lead me. (" So will we all," " hurrah for Douglas.") I 
 say to you that there is but one hope, one safety for this country, and that 
 is to stand immovably by that principle which declares the right of each 
 State and each Territory to decide these questions for themselves. (Hear 
 him, hear him.) This government was founded on that principle, and 
 must be administered in the same sense in which it was founded. 
 
 The Democracy of Illinois determined at the opening of 
 their campaign, in view of their relations toward the adminis 
 tration, to invite no speakers from abroad to participate in 
 the labor of their canvass. In the event of any gentlemen 
 volunteering their services, they would be most gratefully 
 accepted. A few exceptions, however, were made to this 
 rule, at the suggestion of friends in other States. Private 
 Otters had been received by numerous gentlemen in the 
 State, to the effect that Vice-President Breckinridge warmly 
 sympathized with the Illinois Democracy in their fierce strug 
 gle with their confederated enemy, and that his feelings were 
 painfully exercised by the imminent dangers that environed 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 167 
 
 the prospects of Mr. Douglas reelection to the Senate. In 
 deed, it was suggested that the Yice-President had expressed 
 a desire to lend the weight of his great talents and exertions 
 in the good cause ; and, if invited, would cheerfully engage 
 in the canvass, as he had done before when himself a candi 
 date in the contest of 1856. Accordingly, invitations were 
 sent to Mr. Breckinridge, and Governor Wise of Virginia, 
 who, it was understood, warmly sympathized with Judge 
 Douglas in his struggle, as he had done through his whole 
 anti-Lecompton course in Congress ; to which invitations these 
 gentlemen sent characteristic replies, which we think of suf 
 ficient importance to here insert. 
 
 LETTER OF ME. B^ECKINBIDGE. 
 
 VERSAILLES, Ky., Oct. 4, 1858. 
 
 DEAR SIR : I received this morning your letters of the 28th and 29th 
 ult., written as chairman of the Democratic State Committee of Illinois, 
 also one of Mr. V. Hickox, who informs me that he is a member of the 
 same committee. My absence from home will account for the delay of 
 this answer. 
 
 In these letters it is said that I am reported to have expressed a desire 
 that Mr. Douglas shall defeat Mr. Lincoln in their contest for a seat in the 
 Senate of the United States, and a willingness to visit Illinois and make 
 public speeches in aid of such result ; and if these reports are true, I am 
 invited to deliver addresses at certain points in the State. 
 
 The rumor of my readiness to visit Illinois and address the people in the 
 present canvass is without foundation. I do not propose to leave Kentucky 
 for the purpose of mingling in the political discussions in other States. 
 The two or three speeches which I delivered recently in this State rested 
 on peculiar grounds, which I need not now discuss. 
 
 The rumor to which you refer is true. I have often, in conversation, 
 expressed the wish that Mr. Douglas may succeed over his TJ^ publican com 
 petitor. But it is due to candor to say, that this prefere-nce. is not founded 
 on his course at the late session of Congress, and would not exist if I sup 
 posed it would be construed as an indorsement of the attitude which he 
 then chose to assume toward his party, or of all the positions he has 
 taken in the present canvass. It is not necessary to enlarge on these thicgs. 
 
168 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 I will only add, that my preference rests mainly on these considerations : 
 that the Kansas question is practically ended that Mr. Douglas, in recent 
 speeches, has explicitly declared his adherence to the regular Democratic 
 party organization that he seems to be the candidate of the Illinois De 
 mocracy, and the most formidable opponent in that State of the Kepublican 
 party, and that on more than one occasion during his public life he has 
 defended the union of the States and the rights of the States with fidelity, 
 courage, and great ability. 
 
 I have not desired to say anything upon this or any other subject about 
 which a difference may be supposed to exist in our political family, but I 
 did not feel at liberty to decline an answer to the courteous letter of your 
 committee. 
 
 With cordial wishes for the harmony of the Illinois Democracy, and the 
 hope that your great and growing State, which has never yet given a sec 
 tional vote, may continue true to our constitutional Union, 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN C. BRECKINRIDQK. 
 
 HON. JOHN MOORE, Chairman of the Committee. 
 
 LETTER OF GOVERNOR WISE. 
 
 RICHMOND, VA., 1858. 
 
 To HON. JOHN MOORE, Chairman of the Democratic 
 State Committee of Illinois: 
 
 DEAR SIR : I cannot express to you the emotions of my bosom, excited 
 by your appeal to me for aid in the warm contest which your noble De 
 mocracy is waging with abolitionism. Every impulse prompts me to rush 
 to Your side. Your position is a grand one, and in some respects un 
 exampled. In the face of doubt and distrust attempted to be thrown upon 
 your Democracy, and its gallant leader, by the pretext of pretenders that 
 you were giving aid and comfort to the arch enemy of our country, peace 
 and safety, and our party integrity, I see you standing alone isolated by 
 a tyrannical proscription, which would, alike foolishly and wickedly, lop 
 off one of the most vigorous limbs of national Democracy, the limb of 
 glorious Illinois ! I see you, in spite of this imputation, firmly fronting 
 the foe, and battling to maintain conservative nationality against em 
 bittered and implacable sectionalism constitutional rights, operating 
 proprid vigore, and every way against all unequal and unjust federal or 
 territorial legislation ; 
 
 The right of the people to govern themselves against all force or fraud ; 
 
 The right of the sovereign peoplo to look at the u returns," and behind 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, 169 
 
 the u returns," of all their representative bodies, agents, trustees, or 
 servants ; 
 
 The responsibility of all governors, representatives, trustees, agents, and 
 servants, to their principals, the people, who are "the governed," and the 
 source of all political power ; 
 
 Utter opposition to the detestable doctrine of the absolutism of con 
 tentions to prescribe and proclaim fundamental forms of government at 
 their will, without submission to the sovereign people a doctrine fit only 
 for slaves, and claimed only by legitimists and despots of the old world ; 
 
 Powers of any sort not expressly delegated to any man, or body of men, 
 arc expressly " reserved to the people ;" 
 
 No absolute or dictatorial authority in representative bodies. The repre 
 sentative principle as claiming submission and obedience to the Avill of the 
 constituents ; 
 
 The sovereignty of the organized people supreme above all mere repre 
 sentative bodies, conventions, or legislatures, to decide, vote upon, and 
 determine what shall be their supreme law ; 
 
 Justice and equality between States and their citizens, and between 
 voters to elect their agents and representatives, and to ratify or reject any 
 proposed system of government; 
 
 Submission to the constitution and laws of the federal Union, and strict 
 observance of all the rights of the States and their citizens, but resistance 
 to the dictation or bribes of Congress, or any other power, to yield the 
 inalienable right of self-government ; 
 
 Protection in the Territories, and everywhere, to all rights of persons 
 and of property, in accordance with the rights of the States, and with the 
 constitution and laws of the Union; 
 
 Equity and uniformity in the mode of admitting new States into the 
 Union, making the same rules and ratios to apply to all alike ; 
 
 The rejection of all compromises, conditions or terms which would dis 
 criminate between forms of republican constitutions, admitting one, with 
 one number of population, and requiring three times that number for 
 another form equally republican ; 
 
 The great law of settlement of the public domain of the United States, 
 free, equal, and just, never to be "temporized" or "localized" by tem 
 porary or partial expedients, but to be adjusted by permanent, uniform 
 and universal rules of right and justice. 
 
 Maintaining these and the like principles, I deem it to be the aim of the 
 struggle of the devoted Democracy in this signal contest. And so under 
 standing them, I glory in their declaration and defence. I would sacrifice 
 much and go far to uphold your arms in this battle. I would most gladly 
 
 8 
 
170 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 visit your people, address them, and invoke them to stand fast by the 
 standard of their faith and freedom, and never to let go the truths for 
 which they contend, for they are vital and cardinal, and essential, and can 
 never be yielded without yielding liberty itself. 
 
 But, sir, I am like a tied man, bound to my duties here ; and, if my 
 office would allow me to leave it, I could not depart from the bedside of 
 illness in my family, which would probably recall me before T could reach 
 Illinois; and my own state of health admonishes me that I ought not to 
 undertake a campaign as arduous as that you propose. I know what the 
 labors of the stump are, and am not yet done suffering bodily from my 
 efforts for Democracy iu 1855. For these reasons, I cannot obey your 
 call; but, permit me to add : Fight on! fight on! fight on ! never yield 
 but in death or victory! And, oh! that I was unbound and could do 
 more than look on, throbbing with every pulse of your glorious struggle 
 with its every blow and breath cheered with its hopes, and chafed by its 
 doubts You have my prayers, and I am, 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 HENRY A. WISE. 
 
 The Democracy of Illinois were not satisfied with the 
 spirit and tone of Mr. Breckinridge s letter, nor did they 
 acknowledge the justice of the Vice-President s insinuation, 
 that their position was no better than Black Republicanism, 
 contained in the following paragraph : 
 
 I have often, in conversation, expressed the wish that Mr. Douglas may 
 succeed over his competitor ; but it is due to candor to say, that this pre 
 ference is not founded on his course at the last session of Congress, and 
 would not exist if I supposed it would be construed as an indorsement of 
 the attitude which he then chose to assume toward his party, or of all the 
 positions he has taken in the present canvass. 
 
 The speeches of Mr. Breckinridge, in favor of the Ne 
 braska Bill, while that measure was pending in Congress, 
 and in 1856, when a candidate for the Vice-Presidency, in 
 each of which he advocated the doctrine of popular sove 
 reignty, in terms quite as explicit as those employed by Mr. 
 Douglas in his Freeport speech, were too fresh in the minds 
 of Illinoisans to permit this implied rebuke from a gen- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 171 
 
 tleman whom they had so recently aided in electing to the 
 second office in the gift of the people to pass without hard 
 thoughts. Nor did the Illinois Democrats exactly relish the 
 ambiguous and equivocal language in which the Vice-President 
 gave his reasons for preferring Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. 
 
 The tone and temper of the noble letter of Governor 
 Wise, replete with fervid interest in the struggle, is in strik 
 ing contrast with that of Mr. Breckinridge, and the two letters 
 appearing about the same time, produced a profound impres 
 sion on the minds and feelings of the Illinois Democracy. 
 
 ME. DIXON S LETTER. 
 
 Pending the campaign, the Hon. Archibald Dixon, late 
 United States senator from Kentucky, addressed a letter to 
 the lion. Henry S. Foote, under date of September 30, 
 1858, in which the public career of Mr. Douglas was referred 
 to, his position on the Lecompton constitution sustained, 
 and his course on the Nebraska Bill vindicated. Mr. Dixon 
 is an Old Line Whig, and will be remembered as having first 
 moved the repeal of the Missouri restriction in the Senate, 
 an amendment which was modified and accepted by Mr. 
 Douglas, and subsequently incorporated into the Nebraska- 
 Kansas Bill. 
 
 The following extract will show in what estimation Mr. 
 Douglas is held by one of the retired statesmen of the coun 
 try, no longer influenced by partisan feeling and personal 
 rivalry : 
 
 Of Judge Douglas, personally, I have a few words to utter which I could 
 not withhold, without greatly wronging my own conscience. When I en 
 tered the United States Senate a few years since, I found him a decided 
 favorite with the political party then dominant both in the Senate and the 
 country. My mind had been gj-eatly prejudiced against him, and I felt no 
 disposition whatever to sympathize, or to cooperate with him. It soon 
 
172 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 became apparent to me, as to others, that he was, upon the whole, fat the 
 ablest Democratic member of the body. In the progress of time my 
 respect for him, both as a gentleman and a statesman, greatly increased. 
 T found him sociable, affable, and in the highest degree entertaining and 
 instructive in social intercourse. His power, as a debater, seemed to me 
 unequalled in the Senate. He was industrious-, energetic, bold, and skill 
 ful in the management of the concerns of his party. He was the acknow 
 ledged leader of the Democratic party in the Senate, and, to confess the 
 truth, seemed to me to bear the honors which encircled him with suffi 
 cient meekness. Such was the palmy state of his reputation ^d 
 popularity on the day that he reported to the Senate his celebrated Kan 
 sas and Nebraska Bill. 
 
 On examining that bill, it struck me that it was deficient in one material 
 respect ; it did not in terms repeal the restrictive provision in regard to 
 slavery embodied in the Missouri Compromise. This, to me, was a defi 
 ciency that I thought it imperiously necessary to supply. I accordingly 
 offered an amendment to that effect. My amendment seemed to take the 
 Senate by surprise, and no one appeared more startled than Judge Doug 
 las himself. lie immediately came to my seat and courteously remon 
 strated against my amendment, suggesting that the bill which he had 
 introduced was almost in the words of the Territorial acts for the organi 
 zation of Utah and New Mexico ; that they being a part of the Compro 
 mise measures of 1850, he had hoped that I, a known and zealous friend 
 of the wise and patriotic adjustment which had then taken place, would 
 not be inclined to do anything to call that adjustment in question or 
 weaken it before the country. 
 
 I replied that it was precisely because I had been, and was, a firm and 
 zealous friend of the Compromise of 1850, that I felt bound to persist in the 
 movement which I had originated ; that I was well satisfied that the Mis 
 souri restriction, if not expressly repealed, would continue to operate in 
 the Territory to which it had been applied, thus negativing the great and 
 salutary principle of nen-intervention, which constituted the most promi 
 nent and essential feature of the plan of settlement of 1850. We talked 
 for some time amicably, and separated. Some days afterward Judge 
 Douglas came to my lodgings, while I was confined by physical indisposi 
 tion, and urged me to get up and take a ride with him in his carriage. I 
 accepted his invitation and rode out with him. During our short excur 
 sion we talked on the subject of my proposed amendment, and Judge 
 Douglas, to my high gratification, proposed to me that I should allow him 
 to take charge of the amendment and ingraft it on his Territorial Bill. I 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. If 3 
 
 acceded to the proposition at once, whereupon a most interesting inter 
 change occurred between us. 
 
 On this occasion, Judge Douglas spoke to me, in substance, thus : "I 
 have become perfectly satisfied that it is my duty, as a fair-minded national 
 statesman, to cooperate with you as proposed in securing the repeal of the 
 Missouri Compromise restriction. It is due to the South ; it is due to the 
 Constitution, heretofore palpably infracted ; it is due to that character for 
 consistency, which I have heretofore labored to maintain. The repeal, if 
 we can effect it, will produce much stir and commotion in the free States 
 of the Union for a season. I shall be assailed by demagogues and fana 
 tics there, without stint or moderation. Every opprobrious epithet will 
 be applied to me. I shall be probably hung in effigy in many places. It 
 is more than probable that I may become permanently odious among those 
 whose friendship and esteem I have heretofore possessed. This proceed 
 ing may end my political career. But, acting under the sense of the duty 
 which animates me, I am prepared to make the sacrifice. I will do it." 
 
 He spoke in the most earnest and touching manner, and I confess that 
 I was deeply affected. I said to him in reply : " Sir, I once recognized 
 you as a demagogue, a mere party manager, selfish and intriguing. I now 
 find you a warm-hearted and sterling patriot. Go torward in the pathway 
 of duty as you propose, and though all the world desert you, / never 
 will* 
 
 The subsequent course of this extraordinary personage is now before 
 the country. His great speeches on this subject, in the Senate and else 
 where, have since been made. As a true national statesman as an 
 inflexible and untiring advocate and defender of the Constitution of his 
 country as an enlightened, fair-minded, and high-souled patriot, he has 
 fearlessly battled for principle ; he has with singular consistency pursued 
 the course which he promised to pursue when we talked together in Wash 
 ington, neither turning to the right nor to the left. Though sometimes 
 reviled and ridiculed by those most benefited by his labors, he has never 
 been heard to complain. Persecuted by the leading men of the party ho 
 had so long served and sustained, he has demeaned himself, on all occ.i- 
 sions, with moderation and dignity ; though he has been ever earnest in 
 the performance of duty, energetic in combating and overcoming the ob 
 stacles which have so strangely beset his pathway, and always ready to 
 meet and to overthrow such adversaries as have ventured to encounter 
 him. He has been faithful to his pledge ; he has been true to the South 
 and to the Union, and I intend to be faithful to my own pledge. I am 
 sincerely grateful for his public services. I feel the highest admiration foe 
 
THE LIFE AND SPEECH E S OF 
 
 all his noble qualities and high achievements, and I regard his reputation 
 as part of the moral treasures of the nation itself. 
 
 And now, in conclusion, permit me to say that the southern people 
 cannot enter into unholy alliance for the destruction of Judge Douglas, 
 if they are true to themselves, for he has made more sacrifices to sustain 
 southern institutions than any man now living. Southern men may, and 
 doubtless have, met the enemies of the South in the councils of the nation, 
 and sustained, by their votes and their speeches, her inalienable rights 
 under the Constitution of our common country ; northern men may have 
 voted that those rights should not be wrested from us ; but it has remained 
 for Judge Douglas alone, northern man as he is, to throw himself " into 
 the deadly imminent breach," and like the steadfast and everlasting rock 
 of the ocean, to withstand the fierce tide of fanaticism, and drive back 
 those angry billows which threatened to ingulf his country s happiness. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully and cordially, your friend and 
 fellow-citizen, ARCH. DIXON. 
 
 Our limits will not allow us to refer further to the incidents 
 of the Illinois campaign. The canvass on both sides was 
 conducted with unparalleled spirit and energy until the day 
 of the election. The result is well known. The Republicans 
 were completely routed, and a Democratic legislature chosen. 
 Mr. Douglas majority on joint ballot was eight, three in the 
 Senate and five in the House. Most of the federal office 
 holders voted the Republican ticket, and the reason assigned 
 for this act of treachery to the party was, that the entire 
 Catholic vote had remained faithful to the party with which 
 they had usually acted. 
 
 The " Chicago Herald," the organ of the Administration, 
 on the day after the election, explained the reasons why the 
 Administration ticket in that city received only 215 votes, 
 when there were 600 persons in Government employ, as fol 
 lows : 
 
 The fact having become known on the eve of the election, that the 
 entire Catholic vote of this city, notwithstanding professions to the con 
 trary, would be thrown for Douglas, the National Democrats became exas 
 perated at such wholesale treachery, and despite all the eft orts tha.t could 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 175 
 
 be made to prevent it, they voted en masse for the Republican candidates, 
 as the most effectual way of defeating Douglas. 
 
 When full returns of the result had been received from 
 all parts of the State, the Democracy celebrated their tri 
 umph with great eclat and rejoicing. Thousands of citizens 
 from all quarters of the West flocked to Chicago to take 
 part in the celebration. 
 
 When the immense procession reached the front of the 
 Tremont House, they gave nine hearty cheers for Senator 
 Douglas, and loudly called for a speech. Mr. Douglas made 
 his appearance on the same balcony from which he had 
 opened the canvas four months previous, and addressed the 
 vast assemblage as follows : 
 
 Mr FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS : I return you my heartfelt thanks 
 for this magnificent demonstration. The Democracy of Illinois havo 
 achieved a noble victory over the combined forces of Abolitionism and its 
 allies. (Cheers.) You have a right to be proud of this glorious triumph. 
 It is the triumph of the Constitution over faction ; it is the triumph of the 
 glorious principles of the Union over fanaticism and sectionalism (ap 
 plause) ; it is the triumph of the principle of self-government over Con 
 gressional interference and Executive dictation. (Immense applause.) 
 
 Four months ago, I opened the canvass in a speech from this balcony 
 to countless thousands of my fellow-citizens ; I now appear before you to 
 receive the congratulations of as many more thousands rejoicing over our 
 great success. While it is right and proper that you should rejoice at tho 
 success of sound constitutional principles which insure peace and harmony 
 to the republic, it is our duty to enjoy our victory with moderation. 
 With the result of this election let all the asperities, the excitements and 
 angry passions which have been aroused during the contest be buried for 
 ever. It is neither just nor magnanimous to rejoice over a vanquished 
 foe. (Cheers.) Let us teach our political opponents that although we 
 have triumphed, the victory is for their good as well as ours. (Great ap 
 plause.) When we put sound, just and constitutional principles into prac 
 tical operation in this government, the Republicans enjoy the blessings 
 thus conferred as well as the Democrats. (Good, good, and cheers.) It 
 ia right, therefore, that all should rejoice in our triumph, but it is our 
 
176 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 duty to be kind, generous and magnanimous toward those whom -we have 
 differed with in opinion. (Cheers.) Let us remember, that while we are 
 divided into political parties and separated from each other by antago 
 nistic principles, yet as citizens of a common republic we all revere the 
 glories of our past history, and trust that our posterity will share a com 
 mon destiny in all time to come. (Applause.) This Union, through the 
 Constitution, has conferred upon our country the greatest legacy that 
 Divine Providence has ever vouchsafed to a free people. (Hear, hear.) 
 Let that Constitution be administered as our fathers made it ; let that 
 bond of union which binds these States together continue forever, each 
 State retaining its sovereign rights, disposing of its own internal affairs, 
 and regulating its own domestic institutions to suit itself. (Cheers.) Let 
 that great principle of popular sovereignty, which underlies our republican 
 institutions, be carried, out in good faith in the States and Territories 
 alike. (Cheers.) Let Illinois regulate her own affairs, model her institu 
 tions according to her own wishes, and mind her own business, permitting 
 every other State to do the same thing (cheers), and there will then be 
 concord and fraternal feeling among the different States of the Union. 
 (Renewed cheering.) 
 
 We must discard forever that fatal heresy which teaches that this Union, 
 divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it, cannot endure 
 that false philosophy which says that these States must all become free, or 
 all become slave that they must become all one thing, or all the other, 
 should be discarded forever (applause) ; and the great principle of popular 
 sovereignty, of State rights and State sovereignty should prevail, declar 
 ing the right of the people of each State and each Territory to manage 
 their own affairs in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. 
 (Three cheers.) When that principle shall be recognized and proclaimed 
 by the whole American people, North and South, there will then be peace, 
 and harmony, and fraternity among all the States of this confederacy 
 (good, and applause); but so long as that monstrous political heresy shall 
 prevail, that the North must combine against the South to abolish slavery 
 everywhere, and that the South must combine against the North to esta 
 blish it everywhere that there must be an " irrepressible conflict " be 
 tween the North and the South for the ascendency, so long there will be 
 discord, strife and hatred between the different sections of the Union. 
 (" That s it," and applause.) That great issue was directly and distinctly 
 submitted to the people of Illinois at the recent election, and thank God, 
 the principles of the Constitution and the Union have triumphed. (Im< 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 177 
 
 mense applause.) Illinois now stands as she has ever stood, faithful to the 
 Constitution and the Union ; Illinois now stands as she has ever stood, 
 immovable, upon Democratic principles, maintaining the Democratic or 
 ganization. (Six cheers.) Every other free State in this Union at some 
 time has wheeled out of line, except gallant Illinois. (Tremendous ap 
 plause.) From the day that Illinois entered this confederacy, up to this 
 hour, she has cast her vote for Democratic candidates for the Presidency 
 and Vice-Presidency at every succeeding election. (Renewed applause.) 
 And yet you have been told that the only State that has never failed to 
 stand by the Democratic organization, and vote for the Democratic candi 
 dates for President, is now to be read out of that party by the politicians 
 of those States which have all gone Abolition. When this dark cloud of 
 fanaticism, -which has spread over the New England States, rolled over 
 New York, completely overwhelmed Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, and 
 reached in its course the Wabash River, it was there met by the invincible 
 Democracy of Illinois, who turned back the tide and kept the flag of the 
 Constitution and the Union floating over their beloved State. (Cheers.) 
 
 The victory you are now celebrating is one never to be forgotten, for it 
 is the triumph of Union, constitutional men over fanaticism, sectionalism, 
 and disunion. Illinois now occupies the proud position of having fought 
 the good fight; Illinois is now greeted all aver the Union north and 
 south, east and west as the only northern State that was not over 
 whelmed in the recent elections. (Cheers.) To what cause do the De 
 mocracy of Illinois owe this triumph ? It is due to fidelity to principle. 
 (Applause.) In Illinois the true principle of popular sovereignty has been 
 sustained ; in Illinois the Cincinnati platform has been strictly adhered to ; 
 in Illinois the Democratic organization has been maintained. (Six cheers, 
 and long continued enthusiasm.) In Illinois there have been no new tests 
 interpolated into the Democratic platform (applause) ; in Illinois Demo 
 crats have never been persecuted because of differences of opinion, pro 
 vided they remained inside of the Democratic party and abided the usages 
 of its organization. (Cheers.) In Illinois, a liberal, tolerant, just and 
 generous policy has prevailed, and in Illinois a glorious triumph has 
 rewarded that policy. (Applause.) 
 
 Now, my friends, the result in this State contrasted with the disasters in 
 others, furnishes a lesson. Let the bitterness that has been excited, let 
 the angry passions that have been aroused, be buried with the contest out 
 of which they arose. (Good, and cheers.) Let us meet our fellow-citizens 
 who differed with us in politics the same as if there had been no angry 
 
 8* 
 
ITS THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 feeling engendered. It is our duty now to consolidate the party, to begin 
 to combine our forces for the future, in order that we may present a full, 
 united, invincible front to Abolitionism and all of its allied forces. (Cheers.) 
 If wise and patriotic counsels now prevail, the great battle of Popular 
 Sovereignty has been fought and the victory won forever. (Cheers.) If 
 we expect to maintain our liberties as our fathers transmitted them to us, 
 we must be vigilant and watchful, preserving our organization, and ever 
 ready to present a united and irresistible front to the common enemy 
 wherever he makes his appearance. (Cheers.) 
 
 My friends, I will now renew to you my grateful and profound ac 
 knowledgments for the magnificent demonstrations which you have made, 
 to-night. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 179 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Mr. Douglas leaves Chicago for New Orleans Received at St. Louis and 
 Memphis Brilliant Reception at New Orleans Speech at Odd Fellows 
 Hall Departs for New York Received by Corporate Authorities Voted 
 Independence Hall in Philadelphia Speaks at Baltimore Receives 
 news of his Reelection as Senator on point of starting for Washington. 
 
 SOON after the close of the Illinois campaign, in November, 
 1858, Mr. Douglas, with his family, left Chicago for the pur 
 pose of making a brief visit to New Orleans, to attend to 
 some pressing private matters which his public duties had 
 constrained him too long to neglect. He gave no notice of 
 his intention to make the trip, desiring to perform the jour 
 ney as speedily and quietly as possible. Remaining in St. 
 Louis a day, for a boat to convey him down the river, the 
 news of his presence soon spread through the city, and that 
 night he was honored with a serenade by a large concourse 
 of citizens, who assembled around the hotel and insisted on 
 a speech. Mr. Douglas acknowledged the compliment in a 
 few appropriate remarks, and expressed his gratification that 
 the people of Missouri, who were so deeply interested in the 
 institution of slavery, so justly appreciated the nature and 
 importance of the contest through which he had recently 
 passed in Illinois. 
 
 Proceeding down the river without giving any public 
 notice of his destination, Mr. Douglas was surprised when, 
 nearly a hundred miles above Memphis, he was notified that 
 
180 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the Democracy of that city had learned by telegraph of his 
 intended visit to New Orleans, and had appointed a commit 
 tee of one hundred persons and chartered a steamer to pro 
 ceed up the river and meet him, for the purpose of inducing 
 him to stop a day at Memphis and accept of the hospitalities 
 of that city. Not feeling at liberty to decline so flattering 
 an invitation, Mr. Douglas placed himself in the hands of the 
 committee, and on the following day addressed a large meet 
 ing of the citizens of Memphis on the political topics of the 
 day. In this speech Mr. Douglas confined himself mainly to 
 a discussion of the points presented in the Illinois campaign, 
 prefacing it with the declaration, that no political creed was 
 sound which could not be proclaimed equally as well in one 
 State of the Union as in the other. On a comparison of the 
 published report of this speech, as it appeared in the news 
 papers of the clay, we find that he asserted the same views 
 on the Territorial question in Memphis as he had done in 
 Illinois. 
 
 The cordial and enthusiastic approbation with which his 
 audience received his speech, must have satisfied Mr. Dou 
 glas that Democracy was the same in Tennessee as in 
 Illinois. 
 
 At New Orleans, Mr. Douglas reception was truly grand 
 and magnificent. Approaching the Crescent at 9 o clock at 
 night, he was received by the city authorities, the military 
 and the citizens, amidst the firing of cannon and in the glare 
 of a brilliant illumination. He was escorted to the St. 
 Charles Hotel, where he was lodged as the guest of the city, 
 and addressed by the mayor on behalf of the municipal au 
 thorities, and by Hon. Pierre Soule on behalf of the citizens, 
 in eloquent speeches of congratulation on his brilliant victory 
 in Illinois over the enemies of the Constitution and the 
 Union, to each of which he made an appropriate response. 
 
 On the 6th December, he addressed the people of New 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 181 
 
 Orleans at Odd Fellows Hall, on the political topics of the 
 day, at the request of a large number of citizens, embracing 
 all shades of political opinions. "We deem this speech of 
 sufficient importance to the reader to justify us in giving one 
 or two extracts : 
 
 MR. PKESIDENT AND CITIZENS OF NEW ORLEANS : It was with much hesita 
 tion and no small degree of reluctance that I was induced to give my con 
 sent to address you on this occasion. I have just passed through a fierce 
 conflict in my own State, which required me to perform more speaking 
 than was either agreeable to my wishes or consistent with my strength. 
 When I determined to visit New Orleans, it was only on private business 
 of an imperative character ; and it was my desire to arrive and depart as 
 quietly as possible, and without in any way connecting myself with politics. 
 I approached your city, as I supposed, unheralded and unknown, and I 
 was amazed at the magnificent reception extended to me on the Levee by 
 so vast a concourse of people, embracing the municipal authorities, the 
 citizens in their individual capacity, my own political friends, and men of 
 all political parties. This was a compliment which filled my heart with 
 gratitude, and did not leave me at liberty to decline the first request you 
 might make of me in return. I have, therefore, yielded to your solicita 
 tions, to make a few remarks on the political topics which now agitate the 
 public mind throughout the length and breadth of our glorious Republic, 
 and I have done so the more readily as I desire to know whether the prin 
 ciples which are admitted to be sound and orthodox in the free States can 
 pass current in the slave States. 
 
 So long as we live under a common Constitution, binding on the people 
 of all the States, any political creed which cannot be proclaimed in Louisi 
 ana as boldly as in Illinois, must be unsound and unsafe. I shall not at 
 tempt to enter upon any new views, or propound any original ideas, with 
 the view of testing the truth of this proposition, but shall simply discuss 
 these questions now at issue in the country, in the same manner that I ain 
 in the habit of doing before an Illinois audience. The tendency of events 
 during the past fifteen years has been to force the organization of political 
 parties on a geographical basis, to array the North against the South, em 
 bittering the one against the other, under the misapprehension that there 
 is some irreconcilable antagonism in their interests which prevents har 
 mony between them. For the last twenty-five years I have been in public 
 life ; fifteen years have been spent in the Congress of the United States, 
 
182 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 and the whole of my life has been devoted to the discovery and elucidation 
 of some common ground on which northern and southern men might stand 
 on terms of equality and justice. If you will take pains to examine the 
 history of this sectional strife which has grown up in our midst, you will 
 find that the whole contest has arisen from an attempt on the part of the 
 Federal Government to assume, or usurp, the exercise of powers not con 
 ferred by the federal Constitution. 
 
 NON-INTERVENTION THE ONLY POLICY THAT CAN SAVE THE 
 
 UNION. 
 
 The Democracy of Illinois, in the first place, accepts the decision of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott, as an author 
 itative interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with that decision, 
 we hold that slaves arc property, and hence on an equality with all other 
 kinds of property, and that the owner of a slave has the same right to move 
 into a Territory and carry his slave property with him, as the owner of any 
 other property has to go there and carry his property. All citizens of the 
 United States, no matter whether they come from the North or the South, 
 from a free State or a slave State, can enter a Territory with their pro 
 perty on an equal footing. And, I apprehend, when jou arrive there with 
 your property, of whatever description, it is subject to the local laws of 
 the Territory. How can your slave property be protected without local 
 law, any more than any other kind of property ? The Constitution gives 
 you the right to go into a Territory and carry your slaves with you, the 
 same as any other species of property ; but it does not punish any man for 
 stealing your slaves any more than stealing any other kind of property. 
 Congress has never yet passed a law providing a criminal code or furnish 
 ing protection to any kind of property. It has simply organized the Terri 
 tory and established a legislature, that legislature being vested with legis 
 lative power over all rightful subjects of legislation, subject only to the 
 Constitution of the United States. Hence, whatever jurisdiction the legis 
 lature possesses over other property, it has over slave property no more, 
 no less. Let me ask you, as southern men, whether you can hold slaves 
 anywhere unless protected by the local law ? Would not the inaction of 
 the local legislature, its refusal to provide a slave code, or to punish offences 
 against that species of property, exclude slavery just as effectually as a 
 constitutional prohibition ? Would it not have that effect in Louisiana and 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 183 
 
 in every other State ? No one will deny it. Then, let me ask you, if the 
 people of a Territory refuse to pass a slave code, how are you going to 
 make them do it? When you give them power to legislate on all rightful 
 subjects of legislation, it becomes a question for them to decide and not 
 for you. 
 
 If the local legislature imposes a tax on horses, or any other kind of pro 
 perty, you may think it a hardship, but how are you going to help it ? 
 Just so it is with regard to traffic in liquors. If you are dealing in liquors 
 you have the same right to take your liquors into the Territory that any 
 body else has to take any other species of property. You may pass through 
 and take your liquors in transitu, and you will be protected in your right 
 of property under the Constitution of the United States; but if you open 
 the packages they become subject to the local law ; and should the Maine 
 law happen to prevail in the Territory, you had better travel with your 
 liquors. Hence, if the local legislature has the same power over slave pro 
 perty as over every other species of property, what right have you to com 
 plain of that equality ? But if you do complain, where is your remedy ? 
 And let me say to you that if you oppose this just doctrine, if you attempt 
 to exempt slaves from the same rules that apply to every other kind of pro 
 perty, you will abandon your strongest ground of defence against the as 
 saults of the Black Republicans and Abolitionists. If the people of a Ter 
 ritory are in favor of slavery they will make laws to protect it ; if opposed 
 to slavery they will not make those laws, and you cannot compel them to 
 do it. But I will tell you when they will have it, and when slavery will 
 find protection in a Territory. It is when the Territory lies in those lati 
 tudes and climates which adapt it to the profitable production of rice and 
 tmgar and cotton, and where slave labor will be remunerative. Thus, sla 
 very will exist wherever soil, climate, and productions demand it, and it 
 will exist nowhere else. Now, if climate, and soil, and self-interest will re 
 gulate this question, why should we quarrel about it ? When you arrive at 
 a certain distance to the north of the line there cannot be any doubt of the 
 result : and so when you go to a certain distance south, the result will be 
 equally certain the other way. But in the great central regions, where 
 there may be some doubt as to the effect of natural causes, who ought to 
 decide the question except the people residing there, who have all their 
 interest there ; who have gone there to live with their wives and children ? 
 Any party which attempts, by a system of coercion, to force any institutions 
 irvto regions not adapted to them, violates the great principles on which 
 our government is founded. 
 
 You now have my views on the subject of slavery in the Territories. 
 
184: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Practically, they amount simply to this : If the people want slavery they 
 will have it ; if they do not want it they will not have it, and you cannot 
 force it upon them. If these principles be recognized and adhered to, we 
 can live in peace and harmony together ; but just as surely as you attempt 
 to force the people to have slavery, against their will, in regions to which 
 it is not adapted, fanaticism will take control of the Federal Government. 
 
 FOREIGN POLICY EXPANSION THE LAW OF OUK EXISTENCE, 
 
 A few words more and I am done. I will only say to you, in conclusion, 
 that if we recognize and observe this principle of State rights and self- 
 government for the people of the Territories, there will be peace forever 
 between the North and South, and America will fulfill the glorious 
 destiny which the Almighty has marked out for her. She will re 
 main an example for all nations, expanding as her people increase and her 
 interests demand more territory. I am not in favor of the acquisition of 
 territory by fraud, violence, or improper means of any kind ; on the con 
 trary, I would never permit the Federal Government to be an instrument 
 in the hands of foreign powers to carry out their purposes upon the Amer 
 ican continent. Let us adopt a policy consistent with our destiny, and then 
 bide our time. 
 
 [Mr. Douglas was apparently about to bring his remarks to a close at 
 this point, when, in response to calls of " Cuba ! Cuba !" from the audience, 
 he proceeded thus :] 
 
 It is our destiny to have Cuba, and it is folly to debate the question. It 
 naturally belongs to the American continent. It guards the mouth of the 
 Mississippi River, which is the heart of the American continent, and the 
 body of the American nation. 
 
 Its acquisition is a matter of time only. Our government should adopt 
 the policy of receiving Cuba as soon as a fair and just opportunity shall be 
 presented. Whether that opportunity occur next year or the year after, 
 whenever the occasion arises and the opportunity presents itself, it should 
 be embraced. 
 
 The same is true of Central America and Mexico. It will not do to say 
 we have territory enough. When the Constitution was formed, there was 
 enough, yet in a few years afterward, we needed more. We acquired 
 Louisiana and Florida, Texas and California, just as the increase hi 
 our population and our interest demanded. When, in 1?50, the Clayton- 
 Bulwer treaty was sent to the Senate for ratification, I fought it to the 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 185 
 
 end. They then asked what I wanted with Central America. I told them 
 I did not want it then, but the time would come when we must have it. 
 They then asked what my objection to the treaty was. I told them I ob 
 jected to that among other clauses of it, which said that neither Great 
 Britain nor the United States should ever buy, annex, colonize, or acquire 
 any portion of Central America. I said I would never consent to a 
 treaty with any foreign power, pledging ourselves not to do in the future 
 whatever interest or necessity might compel us to do. I was then told 
 by veteran senators, as my distinguished friend well knows (looking toward 
 Mr. Soule), that Central America was so far off that we should never want 
 it. I told them then, " Yes ; a good way off half way to California, and 
 on the direct road to it." I said it was our right and duty to open all the 
 highways between the Atlantic and the Gulf States and our possessions ou 
 the Pacific, and that I would enter into no treaty with Great Britain or 
 any other government concerning the affairs of the American continent. 
 And here, without a breach of confidence, I may be permitted to state a 
 conversation which took place at that time between myself and the British 
 minister, Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, on that point. He took occasion to 
 remonstrate with me that my position with regard to the treaty was un 
 just and untenable ; that the treaty was fair because it was reciprocal, and 
 it was reciprocal because it pledged that neither Great Britain nor the 
 United States should ever purchase, colonize, or acquire any territory in 
 Central America. I told him that it would be fair if they would add one 
 word to the treaty so that it would read that neither Great Britain nor 
 the United States should ever occupy or hold dominion over Central Ame 
 rica or Asia. But he said: "You have no interest in Asia;" "No," 
 answered I, " and you have none in Central America." 
 
 "But," said he, " you can never establish any rights in Asia." "No," 
 .said I, " and we don t mean that you shall ever establish any in America." 
 I told him it would be just as respectful for us to ask that pledge in re 
 ference to Asia, as it was for Great Britain to ask it from us in reference 
 to Central America. 
 
 If experience shall continue to prove, what the past may be considered 
 to have demonstrated, that those little Central American powers cannot 
 maintain self-government, the interests of Christendom require that some 
 power should preserve order for them. Hence, I maintain that we should 
 adopt and observe a line of policy in unison with our own interests and 
 our destiny. I do not wish to force things. We live in a rapid age 
 Events crowd upon each other with marvellous rapidity. I do not want 
 
186 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 territory any faster than we can occupy, Americanize, and civilize i:. I 
 am no filibuster. I am opposed to unlawful expeditions ; but on the other 
 hand, I am opposed to this country acting as a miserable constabulary for 
 France and England. 
 
 I am in favor of expansion as fast as consistent with our interest and 
 the increase and development of our population and resources. But I am 
 not in favor of that policy unless the great principle of non-intervention 
 and the right of the people to decide the question of slavery, and all other 
 domestic questions, for themselves shall be maintained. If that principle 
 prevail, we have a future before us more glorious than th.it of any other 
 people that ever existed. Our republic will endure for thousands of 
 years. Progress will be the law of its destiny ; it will gain new strength 
 with every State brought into the confederacy. Then there will be peace 
 and harmony between the free States and the slave States. The more 
 degrees of latitude and longitude embraced beneath our Constitution, the 
 better. The greater the variety of productions, the better; for then we 
 shall have the principles of free trade apply to the important staples of the 
 world, making us the greatest planting as well as the greatest manufactur 
 ing, the greatest commercial, as well as the greatest agricultural power on 
 the globe. 
 
 These are my views in regard to our foreign relations. They are ques 
 tions I had not intended to discuss; and I should not have done so if some 
 gentleman in the crowd had not called my attention to them. My votes 
 in Congress have always been in harmony with the line of policy I l:;ive 
 here marked out. It matters not whether you acquire more territory, or 
 how much or how little you wish to acquire. Expansion is the law of our 
 existence ; when we cease to grow, we commence to decline. Hence our 
 course is onward, on the principle established by our fathers, under Divine 
 inspiration, as I believe, in the formation of the government. 
 
 And now permit me to return my grateful acknowledgments for the 
 kindness with which you have listened to me, and to retire. 
 
 Mr. Douglas determined, at JSTew Orleans, to take the 
 steamer for ISTew York, in order to secure relaxation from 
 his recent labor. On the island of Cuba, where he stopped a 
 fe\v days en route, he was treated with marked attention by 
 the authorities and people. 
 
 Arriving at New York, he found that elaborate prepare 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 187 
 
 tions had been made in that city by the authorities for his 
 reception. Both branches of the Council, by a unanimous 
 vote, had extended to him the freedom of the city, and had 
 invited him to become its guest. 
 
 PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARDS OF ALDERMEN 
 AND COUNCILMEN OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Whereas, Information has been received that the Hon. Stephen A. Dou 
 glas, United States senator from Illinois, will arrive in this city in a few 
 days, en route for Washington, and 
 
 Whereas, It is eminent^ due this esteemed patriot and distinguished 
 senator, that the city of New York, through its constituted authorities, 
 should extend to him a cordial welcome on his arrival, in order to express 
 our admiration of the man, and of the principles which he has so long and 
 go ably advocated ; 
 
 Therefore, be it resolved, That a committee be appointed to extend to 
 the lion. Stephen A. Douglas the hospitalities of the city, and to become 
 the guest of the corporation during his stay in New York. 
 
 And be it further resolved, That the flags be displayed on the City Hall 
 during the day set apart for the reception of our distinguished guest. 
 
 Accordingly, Mr. Douglas was met at the wharf, on his 
 arrival at New York, by the joint committee of the two 
 boards of Common Council, and escorted to the Everett 
 House. During his sojourn in the city, he was treated with 
 such demonstrations of respect and regard as few public men 
 have ever received. 
 
 No sooner had the news of Mr. Douglas arrival in New 
 York reached Philadelphia, than a committee of eminent 
 citizens was appointed to repair to New York and tender 
 Itirn a public reception in Independence Hall, in pursuance of 
 the resolutions of the Councils of Philadelphia, unanimously 
 tendering its use for that purpose. 
 
 Although anxious to repair at once to Washington, and 
 avoid all further demonstrations for his journey so lar had 
 
188 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 been one continuous ovation Mr. Douglas could not well de 
 cline an invitation which had rarely, if ever, been extended 
 to any American who had held a less position than President 
 of the United States. 
 
 The reader will hardly fail to admire the speeches whicn 
 were delivered on this interesting occasion. 
 
 Wm. E. Lehman, Esq., on behalf of the citizens committee, 
 introduced Senator Douglas to the Mayor and Council. He 
 said : 
 
 MAYOR HENRY : It was my agreeable duty to be one of the committee 
 appointed to go to New York, and wait upon the distinguished senator of 
 Illinois, and extend to him a cordial invitation to visit our city. In the 
 performance of that duty, I not only represented his personal and political 
 friends, but, in a measure, the corporate authorities of the city. I informed 
 Senator Douglas that the councils of the city, without distinction of party, 
 had unanimously tendered him the use of Independence Hall to receive his 
 friends, and that it was your intention, as chief magistrate of this munici 
 pality, to welcome him. I deem it proper to state that the senator, in his 
 reply, consented to waive all his private arrangements, and to forego en 
 gagements of a pressing public nature, to accept this grateful tribute of 
 respect. It is with great pleasure that I now introduce to you the illus 
 trious senator. 
 
 Mayor Henry then addressed Senator Douglas in the fol 
 lowing : 
 
 MR. SENATOR : The councils of Philadelphia have tendered you, in pass 
 ing through this city, the use of the Hall of Independence for the 
 reception of your friends, and in their name I welcome you upon this 
 occasion. 
 
 This spot is the common heritage of American freemen. Within these 
 walls, memorable for the most illustrious deed in our country s history, 
 hallowed more than once by the ashes of the mighty dead, cherished as 
 the depository of the mementoes of patriots and heroes, all other senti 
 ments merge in that of unalloyed devotion to the Union, its prosperity 
 and its perpetuity. 
 
 I greet you, sir, as a member of those national councils on whom 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 189 
 
 devolves the guardianship of our nation s interest and destiny ; as one 
 whose eminent position in those councils has elicited the admiration and 
 respect of so many of your fellow-citizens. 
 
 Permit me, individually, to express my wishes for your personal welfare, 
 and the assurance that the hospitality of Philadelphia will be well cared 
 for by your surrounding frionds. 
 
 SENATOR DOUGLAS SPEECH. 
 
 Senator Douglas, in response, said : MR. MAYOR It has fallen to my lot, 
 as a public man, and as a politician, to receive many testimonials from 
 political and partisan friends, which, under the circumstance?, were most 
 grateful to my feelings ; but the tender of the use of this hall voluntarily, 
 and as I am informed, by the unanimous sentiment of the corporate autho 
 rities of the city of Philadelphia this hall, within whose sacred preciricta 
 no thought, no sentiment, can enter any citizen s breast inconsistent with 
 the peace of the republic and the perpetuity of the Union is a compli 
 ment that overwhelms me with gratitude. In this hall we find the pictures, 
 and we feel the influence of the spirit, of those sages and patriots to whom 
 we owe our independence and our constitutional form of government. 
 Here that sentiment which now animates all the free governments of the 
 earth first found its authoritative exposition and proclamation. There 
 stands the bell which " proclaimed liberty throughout the land, unto all the 
 inhabitants thereof;" and it seems as if the inscription it bears was directed 
 by the hand of Divine Providence, for it was placed upon it far in advance 
 of the period when any human brain could foresee that it was to be used to 
 proclaim the independence of America over the arbitrary decrees of a 
 British parliament. The great principle proclaimed by the fathers of the 
 republic in this hall, was the right of the people of all the States, of all tho 
 provinces and dependencies, and of every community, to regulate its own 
 domestic concerns and internal affairs in its own way. Pennsylvania has 
 always been true to that cardinal principle of representative government. 
 Pennsylvania, with her Franklin, and those congenial spirits who gave im 
 pulse to the Revolution, foresaw that the time might come when, afte:. 
 having maintained her independence against the British parliament, 
 another imperial parliament might be established on her own continent, 
 equally destructive to the liberties of the people and the rights of the citi 
 zens, and henco Pennsylvania, in her instructions to her delegates who 
 represented her in this hall, when she anticipated the D?claration of Inde- 
 
190 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 pendence, empowered them to give her assent to that declaration, on the 
 fundamental condition that Pennsylvania retained unto herself forever the 
 right to manage her local and domestic concerns and police regulations 
 in her own way, independent of any other power on the face of the 
 globe. 
 
 Sir : If we remain true to these great principles of constitutional liberty 
 proclaimed by our fathers in this hall, and consummated by the Constitu 
 tion of the United States within the precincts of Philadelphia, this Union 
 may last forever as our forefathers made it, each State retaining just such 
 local and domestic institutions as it shall choose. If my devotion to these 
 constitutional, conservative principles of liberty have attracted to me the 
 attention of the constituted authorities of this vast city, it is ample reward 
 for all of the toils that have accompanied my public life. I appreciate it a, 
 thousand times more than any partisan triumph which a transient poli 
 tician may acquire in the road through life, for such a triumph must neces 
 sarily be ephemeral in its character. 
 
 Mr. Mayor, discarding all partisan spirit, as you have done, I accept thig 
 honor with a grateful heart. I have not the vanity that would receive it 
 as a mark of mere personal respect. I am glad to know that I have the 
 esteem individually of yourself, and of those you represent ; but it is far 
 more grateful to me, as a public man, to know that your sympathy is 
 aroused by public services calculated to sustain and perpetuate those prin 
 ciples of civil and religious liberty which our fathers have translated to us. 
 May we be successful in handing down to our children, and through our 
 children to our latest posterity, those immortal principles which were first 
 proclaimed in this hall, the witnesses of which stand now, like guardian 
 angels, looking down upon our every act, and inspiring our prayers to 
 Heaven that this Union, this Constitution, these States, as they exist, and 
 have existed, may last forever, not only for the protection of our own 
 people, but as a guide to the friends of freedom throughout the world. 
 
 Returning my grateful acknowledgments, I can only say that when I 
 leave here I shall carry with me a recollection of this day which will never 
 be effaced while life lasts, and over the memory of which, I trust, my 
 children will feel more proud than of any act that has heretofore marked 
 my public life. 
 
 This great mark of respect to Mr. Douglas was to be the 
 more appreciated, coming as it did from authorities the 
 majority of whom were his political opponents, and was con- 
 
STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 191 
 
 curred in by the citizens, embracing every shade of political 
 opinions. 
 
 The arrangements for Mr. Douglas reception in Phila 
 delphia by his political friends were imposing beyond descrip 
 tion. Cannon, fire-works, music welcomed his arrival, while 
 a vast concourse of citizens escorted him to his hotel, through 
 thronged streets rendered brilliant by the illumination of the 
 houses. 
 
 At Havre De Grace, Mr. Douglas was met by a deputa 
 tion of citizens from Baltimore ; the chairman of which 
 delivered an eloquent address of congratulation upon the 
 glorious triumph which he had recently achieved in Illinois 
 over the enemies of the Constitution and the Union, and 
 insisted that he should accept the hospitalities of his political 
 friends in the Monumental City. 
 
 Yielding to their request, Mr. Douglas addressed that 
 night a large assemblage of citizens on Monument Square, 
 and the following day had a public reception. 
 
 After a brief recapitulation of the issues determined by the 
 people of Illinois, at the late election, Mr. Douglas, in con 
 clusion, said : 
 
 " My friends, I have given you an epitome of the principles which I dis 
 cussed in Illinois in the late contest with the abolitionists and their allies. 
 I appealed to the people of Illinois by their love for the American Union, to 
 preserve sacred the fraternal feeling between the old and the new, the 
 free and slave States; I pointed them to Bunker s Hill, to Bennington, to 
 Saratoga and to Monmouth ; I pointed them to King s Mountain, Guilford 
 Court House, and to Yorktown ; I showed them that in the Kevolution, 
 northern and southern men stood shoulder to shoulder in a. common cause, 
 fought under the same banner, poured out their blood in common streams, 
 and shared common graves to secure the liberty which we now enjoy. 
 Why cannot northern and southern men live under this Constitution in 
 the same spirit in which our fathers framed it. I believe that if these 
 principles are firmly adhered to and faithfully carried out, this glorious 
 Union can exist forever, divided into free and slave States, as our fathers 
 
192 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 made it, each State retaining the right to have just such laws and institu 
 tions as it may choose, and to modify and change them as it may see pro 
 per. I renew to you my grateful acknowledgments for the kind and 
 respectful manner in which you have listened to me, and beg to bid you 
 good night. 
 
 The last and crowning feature of this triumphal tour was 
 the receipt of a telegraphic dispatch by Mr. Douglas, at 
 Baltimore, just as he was entering the cars for Washington, 
 announcing his reelection to the Senate of the United States by 
 the legislature of Illinois, by a majority of eight votes, hav 
 ing received the vote of every Democratic member in each 
 House. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 193 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Mr. Douglas again in Washington Experiences a Change of Atmosphere- 
 Scene shifts Removed from Post of Chairman of Territorial Commit 
 tee His Services as Chairman Pretext of Removal Freeport Speech 
 Letter to California in reply to Dr. Gwin. 
 
 WHEX Mr. Douglas reached Washington, where Executive 
 power and patronage stifles popular sentiment, he found him 
 self suddenly plunged into a very different atmosphere from 
 that which he had been breathing in the past few weeks. 
 Failing in their efforts to defeat his reelection to the Senate 
 by a disreputable coalition with the abolitionists of Illinois, 
 his enemies contrived a new scheme to humble and degrade 
 the unsubdued rebel. For thirteen years previous, he had 
 been chairman of the Committee on Territories, two years in 
 the House and eleven in the Senate. In that capacity, he 
 had reported and successfully carried through Congress bills 
 for the admission of the following States : Texas, Iowa, Wis 
 consin, California, Oregon, and Minnesota. 
 
 During the same period, he had reported and successfully 
 carried through Congress bills to organize the following Ter 
 ritories : Oregon, Minnesota, New Mexico, Utah, Washing 
 ton, Kansas, and Nebraska. In that time, he had met and 
 mastered every intricate question which had arisen connected 
 with the organization of the Territories and the admission of 
 new States. Confessedly, he was more familiar with all sub 
 jects pertaining to Territorial legislation, than any other liv 
 ing man. His peculiar qualifications and acquaintance with 
 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the subject, induced the Senate, on the day of his first 
 entrance into that body, to put him at the head of the Terri 
 torial Committee. He had been unanimously nominated in 
 the Democratic caucus, and reflected chairman of that com 
 mittee each succeeding year. With a full knowledge on the 
 part of every senator of his views and opinions on Territorial 
 policy, what excuse can be given for the removal of a man 
 from a position which he had so long filled with such distin 
 guished ability, and for which he was so eminently qualified ? 
 With or without excuse, however, the deed was consum 
 mated in a secret caucus, and in Mr. Douglas absence. The 
 public indignation at his removal -was almost universal. 
 Indeed, so heavily has it fallen on those engaged in it, but 
 three or four senators have ever had the boldness to confess 
 themselves parties to the act, and ever these have assigned 
 a reason as a pretext for the deed, which is an insult to the 
 intelligence of the American people, and but a poor compli 
 ment to their own understanding ; because they aifect to call 
 in question Mr. Douglas political orthodoxy for the expres 
 sion of an opinion in his Illinois campaign, which he had 
 advanced and elaborated in his speeches on the Compromise 
 measures of 1850, and upon the passage of the Kansas- 
 Nebraska Bill, and indeed upon every discussion of the 
 slavery question in which he had participated for the ten 
 years previous to his removal. 
 
 Notwithstanding Mr. Douglas, in all his joint debates with 
 Mr. Lincoln, in Illinois, had taken direct issue with himonallhis 
 abolition propositions assuming bold ground against negro 
 citizenship reasserting his old position, that aniformity in 
 the institutions of the various States was neither possible nor 
 desirable treating negro-slavery as purely a question of 
 climate, production, and political economy, to be regulated 
 by their inexorable laws sustaining the Fugitive Slave Law, 
 and avowing his willingness, if not strong enough, to vote to 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 195 
 
 make it stronger maintaining the binding force of all 
 supreme judicial decisions vindicating the equality of all 
 the States, and proclaiming the right of all their citizens to 
 emigrate into the common Territories on the basis of an 
 entire equality under the local law, with their property of all 
 descriptions, whether horses, clocks, negroes or what not 
 denouncing the doctrines of the " irrepressible conflict," 
 when advanced by Lincoln four months prior to Seward s 
 Rochester speech sustaining the regular organization of the 
 Democratic party, and maintaining the Democratic creed as 
 enunciated in the Cincinnati platform ; notwithstanding all 
 these facts, they seize on an answer of Mr. Douglas to a 
 question propounded by Mr. Lincoln at Freeport, garble it 
 from its context and present it to the country as the reason 
 for his removal from the chairmanship of the Committee on 
 Territories. 
 
 It went for nothing that Col. Jefferson Davis had uttered, 
 a few weeks before, at Portland, similar views touching the 
 power -of the people of the Territories, which Mr. Douglas 
 quoted and indorsed in a joint debate with Mr. Lincoln at 
 Alton, as containing his own views nothing that Stephens. 
 Orr, Cobb, and a host of Democratic lights, great and small, 
 were committed to the same proposition nothing that Mr. 
 Douglas was simply repeating as the Washington " Union" at 
 that time in an elaborate article charged and proved (alleg 
 ing that he was consistently unsound), what he had uttered 
 frequently in the debates on the Compromise measures of 
 1850 nothing that Col. Richardson, when the Democratic 
 candidate for Speaker, in 1855, had expressed similar opinions, 
 and received, afterward, every Democratic vote in tho 
 House it booted nothing that Mr. Douglas was on record 
 one hundred times advocating the same doctrine while these 
 very men (his present accusers) were his advocates for the 
 Presidency. These things all stood for nothing. 
 
196 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS CALIFORNIA LETTER. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact, that while Mr. Douglas was removed 
 from the Committee on Territories in December, 1858, no 
 senator ever publicly assigned Mr. Douglas Freeport speech 
 as a cause for it, until in July, 1859, Dr. Gwin gave this 
 reason in a speech in California. Mr. Douglas promptly 
 replied to Dr. G win s speech, in a letter addressed to the 
 editor of the San Francisco "National," from which we 
 extract so much as relates to this subject : 
 
 The country is now informed for the first time that I was removed from 
 the post of chairman of the Committee on Territories because of the senti 
 ments contained in my " Freeport speech." To use the language of Mr. 
 Gwin, " The doctrines he had avowed in his Freeport speech had been 
 condemned in the Senate by his removal from the chairmanship of the 
 Territorial Committee of that body." The country will bear in mind this 
 testimony, that I was not removed because of any personal unkindness or 
 hostility ; nor in consequence of my course on the Lecompton question, 
 or in respect to the administration ; but that it was intended as a condem 
 nation of the doctrines avowed in my "Freeport speech." The only posi 
 tion taken in my " Freeport speech," which I have ever seen criticised or 
 controverted, may be stated in a single sentence, and was in reply to an 
 interrogatory propounded by my competitor for the Senate : " That " the 
 Territorial legislature could lawfully exclude slavery, either by non-action 
 or unfriendly legislation." This opinion was not expressed by me at Free- 
 port for the first time. I have expressed the same opinion often in the 
 Senate, freely and frequently, in the presence of those senators who, as 
 Mr. Gwin testifies, removed me "from the chairmanship of the Committee 
 on Territories," ten years after they knew that I held the opinion, and 
 would never surrender it. 
 
 I could fill many columns of the "National" with extracts of speeches 
 made by me during the discussion of the Compromise measures in 1850, 
 and in defence of the principles embodied in those measures in 1851 and 
 1852, in the discussion of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill in 1854, and of the 
 Kansas difficulties and the Topeka revolutionary movements in 1856, in all 
 of which I expressed the same opinion and defended the same position 
 which was assumed in the " Freeport speeech." I will not, however, bur- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 197 
 
 den your columns or weary your readers with extracts of all these speeches, 
 but will refer you to each volume of the "Congressional Globe" for the 
 last ten years, where you will find them fully reported. If you cannot 
 conveniently procure the the " Congressional Globe," I refer you to an 
 editorial article in the Washington "Union" of October 5, 1858, which, it 
 was reported, received the sanction of the President of the United States 
 previously to its publication, a few weeks after my "Freeport speech" had 
 been delivered. The " Union" made copious extracts of my speeches in 
 1850 and 1854, to prove that at each of those periods I held the same 
 opinions which I expressed at Freeport in 1858, and, consequently, de 
 clared that I never was a good Democrat, much less sound on the slavery 
 question, when I advocated the Compromise measures of 1850, and the 
 Kansas-Nebraska Bill in 1854. 
 
 In the article referred to, the Washington Union said : 
 
 " We propose to show that Judge Douglas action in 1350 and 1854 was taken with 
 especial reference to the announcement of doctrine and programme which was made at 
 Freeport. The declaration at Freeport was, that in his opinion the people can, by 
 lawful means, exclude slavery from a Territory before it comes in as a State; and he 
 declared that his competitor had heard him argue the Nebraska Bill on that principle 
 all over Illinois in 1854, 1855, and 185C, and had no excuse to pretend to have any doubt 
 on that subject. " 
 
 T) e Union summed up the evidence furnished by my speeches in the 
 Semte in 1850 and 1854, that the " Freport speech" was consistent with 
 my former course, with this emphatic declaration . 
 
 "Thus we have shown that precisely the position assumed by Judge Douglas at Free- 
 port had been maintained iy him in 1850, in the debates and votes on the Utah and New 
 Mexican Bills, and in 1854 on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill ; and have shown that it waj 
 owing to his opposition that clauses depriving Territorial legislatures of the power of 
 excluding slavery from their jurisdictions were not expressly inserted in these meapures." 
 
 The evidence thus presented by the Washington " Union" the evidence 
 of an open enemy is so full and conclusive, that I have uniformly advo 
 cated for ten years past the same principles which I avowed at Freeport, 
 that I cannot refrain from asking you to spread the entire article before 
 your readers, as an appendix, if you choose, to this letter. 
 
 The question whether the people of the Territories should be permitted 
 to decide the slavery question for themselves, the same as all other right 
 ful subjects of legislation, was thoroughly discussed and definitively settled 
 in the adoption of the Compromise measures of 1850. The Territorial bills, 
 at originally reported on by the Committee on Territories, extended tho 
 
198 THE LIPE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 authority of the Territorial legislature to all rightful subjects of legislation 
 consistent with the Constitution, without excepting African slavery. Modi 
 fied by the Committee of Thirteen, they conferred power on the .Territorial 
 legislature over all rightful subjects of legislation, except African slavery. 
 This distinct question, involving the power of the Territorial legislature 
 over the subject of African slavery, was debated in the Senate from the 8th 
 of May until the 31st of July, 1850, when the limitation was stricken out 
 by a vote of yeas 33, nays 19; and the Territorial legislature authorized 
 to legislate on all rightful subjects, without excepting African slavery. In 
 this form and upon this principle, the Compromise measures of 1850 were 
 enacted. 
 
 When I returned to my home in Chicago, at the end of the session of 
 Congress, after the adoption of the measures of adjustment, the excite 
 ment was intense. The City Council had passed a resolution nullifying 
 the Fugitive Slave Act, and releasing the police from all obligations to 
 obey the law or assist in its execution. Amidst this furious excitement, 
 and surrounded by revolutionary movements, I addressed the assembled 
 populace. My speech, in which I defended each and all of the Compro 
 mise measures of 1850, was published at the time, and spread broadcast 
 throughout the country. I herewith send you a copy of that speech, in 
 which you will find that I said 
 
 " These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that every people 
 ought to possess the right of forming and regulating their own internal concerns and 
 domestic institutions in their own way. It was supposed that those of our fellow-citizens 
 who emigrated to the shores of the Pacific and to our other territories, were as capable 
 of self-government as their neighbors and kindred whom they left behind them ; and 
 there was no reason for believing that they have lost any of their intelligence or patriot 
 ism by the wayside, while crossing the Isthmus or the Plains. It was also believed thai 
 after their arrival in the country, when they had become familiar with its topography, 
 climate, productions, and resources, and had connected their destiny with it, they were 
 fully as competent to judge for themselves what kind of laws and institutions were best 
 adapted to their condition and interests, as we were, who never saw the country, and 
 knew very little about it. To question their competency to do this was to deny their 
 capacity for self-government. If they have the requisite intelligence and honesty to be 
 intrusted with the enactment of laws for the government of white men, I know of no 
 reason why they should not be deemed competent to legislate for the negro. If they 
 are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protection of life, liberty, and property 
 of morals and education to determine the relation of husband and wife, of parent 
 and child I am not aware that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate 
 the affairs of master and servant. These things are all confided by the Constitution to 
 each State to decide for itself, and I know of no reason why the same principle should 
 not be extended to the Territories." 
 
 This epeech was laid on the desk of every member of the Senate, at tho 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 199 
 
 opening of the pccond session of the 31st Congress, in December, 1S5C, 
 when, with a full knowledge of my opinions on the Territorial question, I 
 was unanimously nominated in the Democratic caucus, and reflected by 
 the Senate chairman of the Committee oa Territories. Prom that time 
 to this I have spoken the same sentiments, and vindicated the same posi 
 tions in debate in the Senate, and have been reflected chairman of the 
 Committee on Territories at each session of Congress, until last December, 
 by the unanimous voice of the Democratic party in caucus and in the Sen 
 ate, with my opinions ou this Territorial question well known to, and well 
 understood by every senator. Yet Mr. Gwin testifies that I was condemned 
 and deposed by the Senate for the utterance of opinions in 1858, which 
 were put on record year after year so plainly and so unequivocally as to 
 leave neither the Senate nor the country in dou-bt. Thus does Mr. Gwin, 
 in his eagerness to be my public accuser, speak hie own condemnation, for 
 he voted for me session after session, with my opinions, the same that I 
 spoke at Freeport, stariog him in the face. 
 
 On the 4th of January, 1854, I reported the Nebraska Bill, and, aa 
 chairman of the Committee on Territories, accompanied it with a special 
 report, in which I . stated distinctly " that all questions pertaining to 
 .slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, 
 are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appro 
 priate representatives to be chosen by them for th -it purpose." And that 
 the bill proposed " to carry these propositions and principles into practical 
 operation iu the precise language of the Compromise measures of 1850." 
 The Kansas-Nebraska Act, as it stands on the statute book, does define the 
 power of the Territorial legislature " in the precise language of the Com 
 promise measures of 1850." It gives the legislature power over all 
 rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution, 
 without excepting African slavery. During the discussion of the measure 
 it was suggested that it was necessary to repeal the 8th section of the act 
 of the 6th of March, 1850, called the Missouri Compromise, in order to 
 permit the people to control the slavery question while they remained in a 
 Territorial condition, and before they became a State of the Union. That 
 was the object and only purpose for which the Missouri Compromise was 
 repealed. 
 
 On the night of the 3d of March, 1854, in my closing speech on the 
 Kansas-Nebraska Bill, a few hours before it passed the Senate, I said : " It 
 is only for the purpose of carrying out this great fundamental principle of 
 self-government that the bill renders the 8th section of the Missouii Act 
 inoperative and void." The article of the Washington " Union " of October 
 
200 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 5, 1858, to which I have referred, quotes this and other passages of ray 
 speech on that occasion, to prove that the author of the Nebraska Bill 
 framed it with express reference to conferring on the Territorial legisla 
 ture power to control the slavery question. And further, that I boldly 
 avowed the purpose at the time in the presence of all the friends of the 
 bill, and urged its passage upon that ground. I have never understood 
 that Mr. Gwin, or any other senator who heard that speech and voted for 
 the bill the same night, expressed any dissent or disapprobation of the 
 doctrines it announced. That was the time for dissent and disapprobation ; 
 that was the time to condemn, if there were cause to condemn, and not 
 four or five years later. The record furnishes uo such evidence of dissent 
 or disapprobation ; nor does the history of those times show that the 
 Democratic party, in the North or in the South, or in any portion of the 
 country, repudiated the fundamental principle upon which the Kansas- 
 Nebraska Act is founded, and proscribed its advocates and defenders. 
 
 If Mr. Gwin did not understand the Kansas-Nebraska Bill when it was 
 under consideration, according to its plain meaning as explained and 
 defended by its authors and supporters, it is not the fault of those who 
 did understand it precisely as I interpreted it at Freeport, and as the 
 country understood it in the Presidential canvass of ISod. Mr. Buchanan, 
 and leading members of his cabinet, at all events, understood the Kansas- 
 Nebraska Act in the same sense in which it was understood and defended 
 at the time of its passage. Mr. Buchanan, in his letter accepting the 
 Cincinnati nomination, affirmed that " this legislation is founded upon 
 principles as ancient as free government itself, and, in accordance with 
 them, has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a 
 State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist 
 within their limits." General Cass, now secretary of state, has always 
 maintained, from the day he penned the " Nicholson Letter " to this, that 
 the people of the Territories have a right to decide the slavery question 
 for themselves whenever they please. In 1856, on the 2d day of July, 
 referring to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, he said : " I believe the original 
 act gave the Territorial legislature of Kansas full power to exclude or 
 allow slavery." Mr. Toucey, the secretary of the navy, interpreted that 
 act in the same way, and, on the same occasion in the Senate, said : 
 
 "The original act recognizes in the Territorial legislature all the power which they can 
 have, subject to the Constitution, and subject to the organic law of the Territory." 
 
 Mr. Cobb, the secretary of the treasury, in a speech at West Chester, 
 Pennsylvania, on the 19th of September, 1856, advocating Mr. Buchanan s 
 election to the Presidency, said : 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 201 
 
 "The government of the United States should not force the institution of slavery upon 
 the people either of the Territories or of the States, against the will of the people, though 
 my voice could bring about that result. I stand upon the principle the people of my 
 State decide it for themselves, you for yourselves, the people of Kansas for themselves- 
 That is the Constitution, and I stand by the Constitution." And again, in the same speech, 
 he said : " Whether they " (the people of a Territory) " decide it by prohibiting it, ac 
 cording to the one doctrine, or by refusing to pass laws to protect it, as contended for 
 by the other party, is immaterial. The majority of the people, by the action of the 
 Territorial legislature, will decide the question; and all must abide the decision when 
 made." 
 
 Here ;ve find the doctrines of the Freeport speech, including " non-ac 
 tion " and " unfriendly legislation " as a lawful and proper mode for the ex 
 clusion of slavery from a Territory clearly defined by Mr. Cobb, and the 
 election of Mr. Buchanan advocated on those identical doctrines. Mr. 
 Cobb made similar speeches during the Presidential canvass in other 
 sections of Pennsylvania, in Maine, Indiana, and most of the northern 
 States, and was appointed secretary of the treasury by Mr. Buchanan as 
 a mark of gratitude for the efficient services which had been thus rendered. 
 Will any senator who voted to remove me from the chairmanship of the 
 Territorial Committee for expressing opinions for which Mr. Cobb, Mr. 
 Toucey, and General Cass were rewarded, pretend that he did not know- 
 that they or either of them had ever uttered such opinions when their 
 nominations were before the Senate ? I am sure that no senator will 
 make so humiliating a confession. Why, then, were those distinguished 
 gentlemen appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate ag 
 cabinet ministers if they were not good Democrats sound on the slavery 
 question, and faithful exponents of the principles and creed of the party! 
 Is it not a significant fact that the President and the most distinguishec 1 
 and honored of his cabinet should have been solemnly and irrevocable 
 pledged to this monstrous heresy of " popular sovereignty," for asserting 
 which the Senate, by Mr. Gwin s frank avowal, condemned me to the 
 extent of their power? 
 
 It must be borne in mind, however, that the President and members of 
 the cabinet are not the only persons high in authority who are committed 
 to the principle of self-government in the Territories. The Hon. John C. 
 Brcckinridge, the Vice-President of the United States, was a member of 
 the House of Representatives when the Kansas-Xebraska Bill passed, and 
 in a speech delivered March 23, 1854, said: 
 
 " Among the many misrepresentations sent to the country by some of the enemies of 
 this bill, perhaps none is more flagrant than the charge that it proposes to legislate 
 slavery into Kansas and Nebraska. Sir, if the bill contained such a future It wonU uct 
 
 9* 
 
202 1HE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 receive my vote. The right to establish involves the correlative right to prohibit, and 
 
 denying both I would vote for neither 
 
 "The effect of the repeal, (of the Missouri Compromise,) therefore, is neither to estab 
 lish nor to exclude, but to leave the future condition of the Territories dependent wholly 
 upon the action of the inhabitants, subject only to such limitations as the federal Con 
 stitution may impose It will be observed that the right of the 
 
 people to regulate in their own way all their domestic institutions is left wholly untouched, 
 except that whatever is done must be done in accordance with the Constitution the 
 supreme law for us all." 
 
 Again, at Lexington, Kentucky, on the 9th of June, 1856, in response 
 to the congratulations of his neighbors on his nomination for the Vice- 
 Presidency, Mr. Breckinridge eaid : 
 
 " The whole power of the Democratic organization is pledged to the following proposi 
 tions : That Congress shall not interpose upon this subject (slavery) in the States, in the 
 Territories, or in the District of Columbia; that the people of each Territory shall deter 
 mine the question for themselves, and be admitted into the Union upon a footing of 
 perfect equality with the original States, without discrimination on account of the allow 
 ance or prohibition of slavery." 
 
 Touching the power of the Territorial legislature over the subject of 
 slavery, the Hon. James L. Orr, late speaker of the House of Represent** 
 fives, on the llth of December, 1856, said: 
 
 " Now, the legislative authority of a Territory is invested with a discretion to vote for 
 or against the laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every Territory, when the Ter 
 ritory is open to settlement and slaveholders go there, to protect slave property. But if 
 they decline to pass such law, what is the remedy ? None, sir, if the majority of the 
 people are opposed to the institution ; and if they do not desire it ingrafted upon their 
 Territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in the Territorial legis 
 lature for its protection, and then it is as well excluded as if the power was invested in 
 the Territorial legislature to prohibit it." 
 
 Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, in a speech in the House of Representatives 
 on the 17th of February, 1854, said: 
 
 " The whole question of slavery was to be left to the people of the Territories, whether 
 north or south of 36 80 , or any other line 
 
 " It was based upon the truly republican and national policy of taking this disturbing 
 element out of Congress and leaving the whole question of slavery in the Territories to 
 the people there to settle it for themselves. And it is in vindication of that new prin 
 ciplethen established for the first time in the history of our government in the year 
 1850, the middle of the nineteenth century, that we, the friends of the Nebraska Bill, 
 whether from the North or South, now call upon this house and the country to carry out 
 in good faith, and give effect to the spirit and intent of those important measures of Ter 
 ritorial legislation." 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 203 
 
 Again, on the 17th of January, 1856, lie said: 
 
 " I am willing that the Territorial legislature may act upon the subject when and how 
 they may think proper." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin, of Louisiana, in a speech in the Senate on the 25th of 
 May, 1854, on the Nebraska Bill, said : 
 
 " We find, then, that this principle of the independence and self-government of the 
 people in the distant Territories of the confederacy harmonizes all these conflicting 
 opinions, and enables us to banish from the halls of Congress another fertile source of 
 content and excitement." 
 
 On February 15, 1854, Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, said of the 
 Kansas-Nebraska Bill : 
 
 " It submits the whole authority to the Territory to determine for itself. That in my 
 judgment, is the place where it ought to be put. If the people of the Territories choose 
 to exclude slavery, so far from considering it as a wrong done to me or to my consti 
 tuents, I shall not complain of it. It is their business." 
 
 Again, on March 2, 1854, one day before the passage of the bill through 
 the Senate, Mr. Badger said: 
 
 " But with regard to that question we have agreed some of us because we thought it 
 the only right mode, anjl some because we think it a right mode, and under existing cir 
 cumstances the preferable mode to confer this power upon the people of the Territories." 
 
 On the same day Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, said : 
 
 " Now, I believe that under the provisions of this bill, and of the Utah and New Mexico 
 bills, there will be a perfect carte blanche given to the Territorial legislature to legislate 
 
 as they may think proper I am willing to trust them. I have been 
 
 willing to trust them in Utah and New Mexico, where the Mexican law prevailed, and I 
 am willing to trust them in Nebraska and Kansas, where the French law, according to 
 the idea of the gentleman, may possibly be revived." 
 
 In the House of Representatives, June 25, 1856, Mr. Samuel A. Smith, 
 Tennessee, said : 
 
 "For twenty years this question had agitated Congress and the country without a 
 single beneficial result. They resolved that it should be transferred from these halls, 
 that all unconstitutional restrictions should be removed, and that the people should de 
 termine for themselves the character of their local and domestic institutions under which 
 they were to live, with precisely the same rights, but no greater than those which were 
 enjoyed by the old thirteen States." 
 
 And further ; 
 
 " In 18M, the same question was presented, when the necessity arose for the organiza- 
 
204 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 tion of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and the identical principle was applied 
 for its solution." 
 
 In the Senate, on the 25th of February, 1854, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa (now 
 Democratic candidate for governor of that State), said : 
 
 " And, sir, honesty and consistency with our course in 1850 demand that those of 3 
 who supported the Compromise measures should zealously support this bill, because it 
 is a return to the sound principle of leaving to the people of the Territories the right of 
 determining for themselves their domestic institutions." 
 
 And in the House of Representatives, December 28, 1855, Mr. George 
 W. Jones, of Tennessee, said : 
 
 " Then, sir, you may call it by what name you please non-intervention, squatter 
 sovereignty, or popular sovereignty. It is, sir, the power of the people to govern them 
 selves, and they, and they alone, should exercise it, in my opinion, as well while in a 
 Territorial condition as in the position of a State." 
 
 And again, in the same speech, he said : 
 
 " I believe that the great principle the right of the people in the Territories, as well 
 as in the States, to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way 
 is clearly and unequivocally embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and if it is not, it 
 should have been. Believing that it was the living, vital principle of the act, I voted for 
 it. These are my views, honestly entertained, and will be defended." 
 
 I could fill you columns with extracts of speeches of senators and repre 
 sentatives from the Xorth and the South who voted for the Kansas-Xebraska 
 Bill and supported Mr. Buchanan for the Presidency on that distinct issue ; 
 thus showing conclusively that it was the general understanding at the time 
 that the people of the Territories, while they remained in a Territorial con 
 dition, were left perfectly free, under the Kansas-Xebraska Act, to form and 
 regulate all their domestic institutions, slavery not excepted, in their own 
 way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. This is the 
 doctrine of which Mr. Gwin spoke when he said : 
 
 " To contend for the power and a sovereign power it is of a Territorial legislature to 
 exclude by non-action or hostile legislation is pregnant with the mischiefs of never- 
 ending agitation, of civil discord, and bloody wars. 
 
 " It is an absurd, monstrous, and dangerous theory, which demands denunciation from 
 every patriot in the land ; and a profound sense of my duty to you would not permit me 
 to do less than to offer this brief statement of my views upon a question so vital to the 
 welfare of our common country." 
 
 Why did not the same " profound sense of duty " to the people of Cali 
 fornia require Mr. Gwin to denounce this " absurd, monstrous, and dan 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 205 
 
 gerous theory when pronounced and enforced by General Cass, in support 
 of the Compromise measures of 1850, and thence repeated by that eminent 
 statesman at each session of Congress until 1857, when Mr. Gwin voted for 
 his confirmation as secretary of state ? Why did not Mr. Gwin obey the 
 same sense of duty by denouncing James Buchanan as the Democratic 
 candidate for the Presidency, when he declared, in 1856, that "the 
 people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves 
 whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits ?" Why did he 
 not perform this imperative duty by voting against Mr. Cobb, who made 
 northern votes for Mr. Buchanan by advocating this same "absurd, 
 monstrous and dangerous theory of non-action and unfriendly legisla 
 tion "when he was appointed secretary of the treasury? And, in short, 
 why did he not prove his fidelity to a high sense of duty by protesting 
 against my selection as chairman of the Senate s Committee on Territories 
 in the Democratic caucus by a unanimous vote, at every session that he 
 has been a senator, from 1850 to 1858, with a full knowledge of my 
 opinions? The inference is, that Mr. Gwin, from his remarks on the 
 " Dred Scott decision," is prepared to offer it as an excuse for the disregard 
 for*so many years of that profo-und sense of duty which he owed to the 
 people of California. It may be that before the decision his mind was not 
 clear as to the souse of duty which now moves him. Of that decision he 
 said : 
 
 " In March, 1857, the Supreme Court decided this question, in all its various relations, 
 in the case of Dred Scott. That decision declares that neither Congress nor a Territorial 
 legislature possesses the power either to establish or to exclude slavery from the Territory, 
 and that it was a power which exclusively belonged to the States ; that the people of a 
 Territory can exercise this power for the first time when they form a constitution ; that 
 the right of the people of any State to carry their slaves into a common Territory of the 
 United States, and hold them there during its existence as such, was guaranteed by the 
 Constitution of the United States ; that it was a right which could neither be subverted 
 nor evaded, either by non-action, by direct or indirect Congressional legislation, or by 
 any law passed by a Territorial legislature." 
 
 Surely Mr. Gwin had never read the opinion of the Court in the case of 
 " Dred Scott," except as it had been perverted for partisan purposes by 
 newspapers, when he undertook to expound it to the good people of Cali 
 fornia. 
 
 It o happens that the court did not decide any one of the propositions 
 so boldly and emphatically stated in the " Grass Valley " speech ! 
 
 The court did not declare that " neither Congress nar a Territorial le 
 gislature possessed the power either to establish or exclude slavery from a 
 
206 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Territory, and that it was a power which exclusively belonged to the 
 States." 
 
 The court did not declare " that the people of a Territory can exercise 
 this power for the first time when they come to form a constitution. 
 
 The court did not declare " that the right of the people in any State to 
 carry their slaves into a common Territory of the United States, and hold 
 them there during its existence as such, was guaranteed by the Constitu 
 tion of the United States." 
 
 The court did not declare " that it was a right which could neither be 
 subverted nor evaded, either by non-action, by direct or indirect Con 
 gressional legislation, or by any law passed by a Territorial legislature." 
 
 Neither the decision nor the opinion of the court affirms any one of those 
 propositions, either in express terms or by fair legal iritendment. 
 
 This version of the "Dred Scott Decision " had its origin in the unfor 
 tunate Lecomptou controversy, and is one of the many political heresies to 
 which it gave birth. 
 
 PROTECTION TO AMERICAN CITIZENS ABROAD. 
 
 On the 18th of February, 1859, President Buchanan had sent 
 to Congress a special message, in which he urged the neces 
 sity of passing " a law conferring upon the President of the 
 United States the authority to employ a sufficient military or 
 naval force, whenever it might be necessary to do so, for the 
 protection of American citizens when out of the immediate 
 jurisdiction of the United States. Mr. Douglas spoke in 
 favor of such a law, and said : " I think sir, that the Presi 
 dent of the United States ought to have the power to re 
 dress sudden injuries upon our citizens, or outrages upon our 
 flag, without waiting for the action of Congress. The Ex 
 ecutive of every other powerful nation on earth has that 
 authority. Our merchants are now being driven out of the 
 trade in the Mexican and South American ports, for the Avant 
 of authority in the Executive to demand and enforce instant 
 redress the moment the outrage is perpetrated. I go fur 
 ther, sir ; I would intrust the Executive with the authority, 
 when an outrage is perpetrated upon our ships or commerce, 
 
STEPHEN A . DOUGLAS. 207 
 
 to punish it instantly. I desire the President of the United 
 States to have as much authority to protect American citi 
 zens, American property, and the American flag, abroad, as 
 the Executive of every other civilized nation on earth pos 
 sesses." 
 
 SLAVE PROPERTY IX THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 On the 23d of February, in a debate on the Legislative 
 Appropriation Bill, Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, made a speech 
 in the Senate, insisting on a code of laws protecting slavery 
 in the Territories. Admitting that, if the people of the Terri 
 tories did not want negroes, they could lawfully legislate 
 so as to accomplish their purpose, he assumed that it was the 
 right and duty of Congress to enact laws to sustain it against 
 the popular will. Taking Mr. Douglas position on the 
 question (as he said) for granted, Mr. Brown declared that 
 he wished to hear from other Democratic senators from the 
 free States, and to know whether they would vote to protect 
 the rights of slaveholders in the Territories. ISTo one rising 
 for several minutes after, Mr. Brown concluded his remarks, 
 and the Senate being about to proceed to the consideration 
 of other subjects, Mr. Douglas arose and observed that if no 
 other northern Democratic senator desired to be heard on the 
 points presented by the senator from Mississippi, he craved 
 the attention of the Senate for a while. He thanked Mr. 
 Brown for taking his position for granted on the question pre 
 sented to the other northern Democrats. He had yet to know 
 that there was one Democrat in the free States who would 
 vote to protect slavery in the Territories by Congressional 
 enactment against the popular decision. In this speech he shows 
 that all property in the Territories, including slaves, is, and 
 must be, subject to the local law of the Territorial legislature: 
 that the Territorial legislature has the same power over 
 slaves in the Territory, as it has over all other property ; and 
 
208 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 no more : he explains his Freeport speech ; reminds the Sen 
 ate that his past record shows that he would never vote for 
 a Congressional slave code for the Territories ; shows tho 
 absurdity of such a code ; and demonstrates that if the peo 
 ple of a Territory want slavery there, they will enact laws for 
 its protection : he shows that it was the intent of the Ne 
 braska Bill to confer on the Territorial legislature all the 
 power that Congress possessed on the subject of slavery, to 
 let them wield it as the people of the Territory chose : he 
 elucidates the truly equitable and just provisions of that bill, 
 and shows that it expressly forbids the enactment of a Con 
 gressional slave code for the Territories. 
 In the course of his remarks he said : 
 
 The senator from Mississippi and myself agree that under the de 
 cision of the Supreme Court, slaves are property, standing on an 
 equal footing with all other property ; arid that consequently, the 
 owner of slaves has the same right to carry his slave with him to a 
 Territory, as the owner of any other species of property has to carry 
 Ms property there. The right of transit to and from the Territories 
 is the same for one species of property as it is for all others. Thus 
 far the senator from Mississippi and myself agree that slave pro 
 perty in the Territories stands on an equal footing with every other 
 species of property. Now, the question arises, to what extent is pro 
 perty, slaves included, subject to the local law of the Territory ? 
 Whatever power the Territorial legislature has over other species 
 of property, extends, in my judgment, to the same extent, and in like 
 manner, to slave property. The Territorial legislature has the- 
 same power to legislate in respect to slaves, that it has in regard to 
 any other property, to the same extent, and no further. If the sena 
 tor wishes to know what power it has over slaves in the Territories, 
 I answer, let him tell me what power it has to legislate over every 
 other species of property, either by encouragement or by taxation, or 
 in any other mode, and he has my answer in regard to slave property. 
 
 But the senator says that there is something peculiar in slave pro 
 perty, requiring further protection than other species of property. 
 If so, it is the misfortune of those who own that species of property. 
 He tells us that, if the Territorial legislature fails to pass a slave 
 code for the Territories, fails to pass police regulations to protect 
 slave property, the absence of such legislation practically excludes 
 slave property as effectually as a constitutional prohibition would 
 exclude it. I agree to that proposition. He says, furthermore, that 
 it is competent for the Territorial legislature, by the exercise of the 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 209 
 
 taxing power, and other functions within the limits of the Constitu 
 tion, to adopt unfriendly legislation which practically drives slavery 
 out of the Territory. I agree to that proposition. That is just what 
 I said, and all I said, and just what I meant by my Freeport speech 
 in Illinois, upon which there has been so much comment throughout 
 
 the country. 
 
 ******** 
 
 The senator from Mississippi says they ought to pass such a code ; 
 but he admits that it is immaterial to inquire whether they ought or 
 ought not to do it;, for if they do not want it, they will not enact 
 it ; and if they do not do it, there is no mode by which you can com 
 pel them to do it. He admits there is no compulsory means by 
 which you can coerce the Territorial legislature to pass such a law ; 
 and for that reason he insists that, in case of non-action by the Ter 
 ritorial legislature, it is the right and duty of southern senators and 
 representatives to demand affirmative action by Congress in the en 
 actment of a slave code for the Territories. He says that it is not 
 necessary to put the question to me, whether I would vote for a Con 
 gressional slave code. He desire to know of all other northern De 
 mocrats what they will do ; he does not wish an answer from me. 
 1 am much obliged to him for taking it for granted, from my past 
 record, that I never would vote for a slave code in the Territories by 
 Congress ; and I have yet to learn that there is a man in a free State 
 of this Union, of any party, who would. 
 
 The senator from Mississippi defined it very well in his speech. 
 His position was, that while the Constitution gave him the right of 
 protection in a Territory for his slave property, it did not, of it 
 self, furnish adequate protection. He drew a distinction between 
 the right and the fact, and said that the protection could only be 
 furnished by legislation ; that legislation could only come from one 
 of two sources the Territorial legislature or the Congress of the 
 United States. He would look to the Territorial legislature in 
 the first instance. If he got adequate legislation there, he was con 
 tent; but if the Territorial legislature failed to act, and give him 
 that adequate legislation, in the form of what is commonly called a 
 slave code, such non-action was equivalent to a denial of his rights ; 
 and, losing his rights, it was no consolation to him that he had been 
 deprived of them by the non-action of a Territorial legislature ; 
 and hence he would demand of Congress the passage of laws to 
 protect his slaves, and to punish men for running them off; to fur 
 nish such remedies for the violation of his rights as he thought he 
 was entitled to from the Territorial legislature. He said he would 
 demand this from Congress. He further said that he would base 
 his demand on Congress to pass this slave code on the ground that 
 the Territorial legislature was the creature of Congress; and, if it 
 did not do its duty, Congress should pass such laws as were neces 
 sary to protect slave property in the Territories. 
 
 .All 1 have to say, on the point presented by the senator from Mis- 
 
210 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 souri, is this : while our Constitution does not provide remedies for 
 stealing negroes, it does not provide remedies for stealing dry-goods, 
 or horses, or any other species of property. You cannot protect any 
 property in the Territories, without laws furnishing remedies for its 
 violation, and penalties for its abuse. Nobody pretends that you are 
 ?oing to pass laws of Congress making a criminal code for the Terri 
 tories, with reference to other species of property. The Congress of 
 the United States never yet passed an act creating a criminal code for 
 any organized Territory. Jt simply organizes the Territory, and 
 leaves its legislature to make its own criminal code. Congress never 
 passed a law to protect any species of property in the organized Ter 
 ritories ; it leaves its protection to the Territorial Legislatures. The 
 question is, whether we shall make an exception as to slavery ? The 
 Supreme Court makes no such distinction. It recognizes slaves as 
 property. "When they are taken to a Territory, they are on an equal 
 footing with other property, and dependent upon the same system of 
 legislation, for protection, as other property. While all other pro 
 perty is dependent on the Territorial legislation for protection, I hold 
 that slave property must look to the same authority for its pro 
 tection. 
 
 SLAVERY DEPENDENT ON THE LOCAL LAW. 
 
 I leave all kinds of property, slaves included, to the local law for 
 protection ; and I will not exert the power of Congress to inter 
 fere with that local law with reference to slave property, or any other 
 kind of property. If the people think that particular laws on the 
 subject of property are beneficial to their interests, they will enact 
 them. If they do not think such laws are wise, they will refrain 
 from enacting them. They will protect slaves there, provided they 
 want slavery ; and they will want slavery, if the climate be such that 
 the white man cannot cultivate the soil, so as to render negro com 
 pulsory labor necessary. Hence, it becomes a question of climate, of 
 production, of self-interest, and not a question of legislation, whether 
 slavery shall, or shall not exist there. 
 
 But the senator from Mississippi says he has a right to protection. 
 The owner of every other species of property may say he lias a right 
 to protection. The man dealing in liquors may think that, inasmuch 
 as his stock of liquors is property, he has a right to protection. The 
 man dealing in an inferior breed of cattle, may think he has a right 
 to protection; but the people of the Territory may think it is their 
 interest to improve the breed of stock by discrimination against infe 
 rior breeds; and hence they may fix a higher rate of taxation on the 
 one than on the other. 
 
 I am willing to test this question by the illustration the senator 
 presents of a Maine liquor law. I shall not stop to inquire whether 
 the Maine liquor law is constitutional or not; first, because Congress 
 hi- not the tribunal to decide it; and secondly, because, by the platform 
 
STEPHEN^ A. DOUGLAS. 211 
 
 to which the senator from Mississippi and myself both stand pledged 
 as the rule for our political action, it is provided that that question 
 shall be sent to the court to test the constitutionality of the law, and 
 we shall not come to Congress to repeal the law. When the Ne 
 braska Bill was first pending in the Senate, it contained the old clause 
 that the Territorial laws should be sent here, and, if disapproved by 
 Congress, should be void. The discussion proceeded on the basis 
 that we were conferring the whole power of legislation on the Terri 
 tory, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, with the 
 right in the Territorial legislature u to form and regulate their domes 
 tic institutions in their OAvn way ;" and that if any man was aggrieved 
 by such legislation, he should have a right to appeal to the Supreme 
 Court of the United States to test its validity, but should not come 
 to Congress to repeal the obnpxious law. When that argument was 
 made, a distinguished senator from Ohio, not now here (Mr. Chase), 
 asked us why we kept that clause in the bill requiring the laws of the 
 Territory to be sent here for approval or disapproval. We could not 
 answer the inquiry, and hence we struck out the provision requiring 
 the Territorial laws to be sent here for approval or disapproval, upon 
 the avowed ground, at the time, that the Territorial legislature might 
 pass just such laws as they wanted, with the right of appeal by any 
 one aggrieved to the Supreme Court to test their constitutionality, 
 but not to Congress to annul them. I undertake to say that this was 
 the distinct understanding among the northern and southern Demo 
 crats at that time, and among all the friends of the Kansas Nebraska 
 Bill. It was agreed, that while we might differ as to the extent of 
 the power of the Territorial legislature on these questions, we would 
 make a full grant of legislative authority to the legislature of the 
 Territory, with the right to pass such laws as they chose, and the 
 right of anybody to appeal to the court to decide upon the validity 
 and constitutionality of such laws, but not to come to Congress for 
 their annulment. Hence, if the Territorial legislature should pass 
 the Maine liquor law, and anybody was dissatisfied with the provi 
 sions of that act, and thought it violated his constitutional right, he 
 could not come to Congress for its annulment, but could appeal to 
 the Supreme Court of the United States ; and if that court decided 
 the law to be constitutional, it must stand, no matter how obnoxious 
 it might be to any portion of the American people. If it was uncon 
 stitutional, it became void without any interference by Congress, or 
 any other legislative body. The Kansas Nebraska Bill was thus 
 amended for the avowed purpose, at the time, of striking out the 
 appeal to Congress, and substituting the appeal to the court. 
 
 SUPREME COURT TO SETTLE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON 
 TERRITORIAL POWER. 
 
 After we had gone that far, a senator from New Hampshire 
 
212 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 pointed out in the Nebraska Bill tlio fact, that no appeal could b* 
 taken to the Supreme Court of the United States unless the amount 
 of property in controversy was $2,000 in value, and hence that a 
 negro could not appeal for his freedom, nor could the owner of a 
 single skive appeal to the Supreme Court to establish his title, it he 
 thought that his rights were violated. In order to obviate that ob 
 jection, we amended the bill by providing that where the title to 
 property in slaves, or any question of personal freedom was the point 
 in issue, the right of appeal to the Supreme Court should exist with 
 out reference to the amount in controversy. 
 
 Thus the Kansas Nebraska Bill stood, granting all rightful power 
 of legislation on all subjects whatsoever to the Territorial legislature, 
 subject only to the Constitution of the United States, provided they 
 should not pass any law taxing the property of non-residents higher 
 than that of residents, nor any law interfering with the primary dis 
 position of the soil, nor impose any tax on the property of the United 
 States; but there was no exception made as to slavery. The intent 
 was to confer on the Territorial legislature all the power we had on 
 the subject of slavery, to let them wield it for or against slavery 
 as the people of the Territory chose; and the understanding 
 was, that we would abide by whatever laws they might make, pro 
 vided they did not violate the Constitution of the United States; 
 and the Supreme Court was the only tribunal that could decide that 
 quest ion. 
 
 STANDS BY THE NEBRASKA BILL. 
 
 Now, sir, I stand on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill as it was expounded 
 find understood at the time, with this full power in the Territorial 
 legislature, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court to test 
 the validity of its laws, and no right whatever to appeal to Congress 
 to repeal them in the event of our not liking them. I am ready to 
 answer the inquiry of the senator from Mississippi, whether, if I 
 believed the Maine liquor law to be unconstitutional and wrong, 
 and if a Territorial legislature should pass it, I would vote here to 
 annul it? I tell him no. If the people of Kansas want a Maine 
 liquor law, let them have it. If they do not want it, let them 
 refuse to pass it. If they do pass it, and any citizen thinks that 
 law violates the Constitution, let him make a case and appeal to 
 the Supreme Court. If the court sustains his objection, the law is 
 void. If it overrules the objection, the decision must stand until 
 the people, who alone are to be affected by it, who alone have an 
 interest in it, may choose to repeal it. So I say with reference to 
 slavery. Let the Territorial legislature pass just such laws in regard 
 to slavery as they think they have a right to enact under the Consti 
 tution of the United States. If I do not like those laws, I will not 
 vote to repeal them ; if you do not like them, you must not vote tu 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 213 
 
 repeal them ; but anybody aggrieved may appeal to the Supreme 
 Court, and if they are constitutional, they must stand ; if they are 
 unconstitutional, they are void. That was the doctrine of non-inter 
 vention, as it was understood at the time the Kansas-Nebraska Bill 
 was passed. That is the way it was explained and argued in the 
 Senate, and in the House of Representatives, and before the country. 
 It was distinctly understood that Congress was never to intervene for 
 or against slavery, or for or against any other institution in the Ter 
 ritories; but leave the courts to decide all constitutional questions as 
 they might arise, and the President to carry the decrees of the court 
 into effect; and, in case of resistance to his authority in executing 
 the judicial process, let him use, if necessary, the whole military force 
 of the country, as provided by existing laws. 
 
 NON-INTERVENTION A DEMOCRATIC SHIBBOLETH. 
 
 I know that some gentlemen do not like the doctrine of non-inter 
 vention as well as they once did. It is now becoming fashionable to 
 talk sneeringly of "your doctrine of .non-intervention." Sir, that 
 doctrine has been a fundamental article in the Democratic creed for 
 years. It has been repeated over and over again in every national 
 Democratic platform non-intervention by Congress with slavery in 
 the States and Territories. The Nebraska Bill was predicated on 
 that idea the Territorial legislature to have jurisdiction over all 
 rightful subjects of legislation, not excepting slavery, with no appeal 
 to Congress, but a right to appeal to the courts ; and the legislation 
 to be void, if the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional ; and 
 valid, no matter how obnoxious, if ihe court said it was constitu 
 tional. Let me call attention to the language of the Kansas-Nebraska 
 Bill. Its fourteenth section provides: 
 
 "That the Constitution and all laws of the United States, which are not 
 locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect in the said Territory 
 of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section 
 of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved 
 March G, 1820, which, being INCONSISTENT WITH THE rKiNCirLE OF NON-INTERVEN 
 TION BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY in the States AND TERRITORIES, as recognized 
 by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise measures, is IIEKEJ;Y 
 DECLARED INOPERATIVE and VOID; it being the true intent and meaning of this 
 act not to legislate slavery into any State or TERRITORY, nor to exclude it there 
 from, but to leave the people THEREOF perfectly FREE TO FORM AND REGULATE 
 
 THEIR DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS IN THEIR OWN WAY. SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONSTI 
 TUTION OF THE UNITED STATES." 
 
 Thus, in the Nebraska Bill, it is declared that a Congressional en 
 actment on the subject of slavery was inconsistent with the principle 
 of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Ter 
 ritories. This same article of faith has gone into the various Demo 
 cratic platforms, and especially into the Cincinnati platform. Every 
 
214 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Democrat, therefore, is pledged, by his platform and the organization 
 of the party, against any legislation of Congress in the Territories for 
 or against slavery, no matter how obnoxious the Territorial legisla 
 tion may be^ If it is unconstitutional, you have your remedy ; go to 
 the court and test the question. If it is constitutional, you agreed 
 that the people of a Territory may have it. J hold you to the agree 
 ment. 
 
 The whole legislative power possessed by Congress over a Territory 
 was, by that act, conferred on the Territorial legislature. There were 
 exceptions on three points; but slavery was not one of the exceptions. 
 I say, then, the intent was to give to the Territorial legislature all the 
 power that we possessed ; all that could be given under the Constitu 
 tion ; and the understanding was, that Congress would not interfere 
 with whatever legislation they might enact. 
 
 Now, the senator from Alabama asks me whether the southern 
 people, under the Constitution, have not the right to carry their 
 slaves there ? I answer, yes the same right that you have to carry 
 any other property. Then you ask, have they not a right to hold it 
 there when they get it there? I answer, the same right that you 
 have to hold any other property, subject to such local laws as the 
 local legislature may constitutionally enact. Can you hold any other 
 property without law to protect it? No. Then, can you hold slave 
 property without law to protect it? No, is the answer. Then, will 
 Congress pass laws to protect other property in the Territories ? I 
 answer, no. We have created Territorial legislatures for that pur 
 pose. We agreed that this government should not violate the princi 
 ples of our Revolution, by making laws for a distant people, regulat 
 ing their domestic concerns and affecting their rights of property, 
 without giving them a representation. The doctrine that Congress 
 is to regulate the rights of person and property, and the domestic 
 concerns of a Territory, is the doctrine of the Tories of the Revolu 
 tion. It is the doctrine of George III., and Lord North, his minister. 
 Our fathers then said that they would not consent that the British 
 parliament should pass laws touching the local and domestic concerns 
 of the colonies, the rights of person and property, the family relations 
 of the people of the colonies, without their consent. The parliament 
 of Great Britain said they had the power. We said to them, "you 
 may have the power, but you have not the moral right; it is viola- 
 tive of the great principles of civil liberty ; violative of the rights of 
 an Englishman, not to be affected in his property without his consent 
 is given through his representatives." Because Great Britain insisted 
 on exercising that identical power over these colonies, our lathers 
 flew to arms, asserted the doctrine that every colony, every depen 
 dency, every Territory, had a right in its own domestic legislature to 
 pass just such laws as its people chose touching their local and do 
 mestic concerns, recognizing the right of the imperial parliament to 
 regulate imperial affairs, as I do the right of Congress to regulate the 
 national and federal concerns of the people of a Territory. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 215 
 
 Sir, I am asserting, on behalf the people of the Territories, just 
 those rights which our fathers demanded for themselves against the 
 claim of Great Britain. .Because those rights were not granted to 
 our fathers, they went through a bloody war of s-even years. Am I 
 now to be called upon to enforce that same odious doctrine on the 
 people of a Territory, against their consent? I say, no. Organize a 
 Territorial government for them ; give them a legislature, to be 
 elected by their own people ; give them all the powers of legislation 
 on all questions of a local and domestic character, subject only to the 
 Constitution ; and if they make good laws, let them enjoy their bless 
 ings; and if they make bad laws, let them suffer under them until 
 they repeal them. If the laws are unconstitutional, let those aggrieved 
 appeal to the court the tribunal created by the Constitution to as 
 certain that fact. That is the principle on which we stood in 
 1854. It was on that principle and that understanding we fought the 
 great political battle and gained the great victory of 1856. How 
 many votes do you think Mr. Buchanan would have obtained in Penn 
 sylvania if he had then said that the Constitution of the United 
 States plants slavery in all the Territories, and makes it the duty of 
 the Federal Government to keep it there and maintain it at the point 
 of the bayonet and by federal laws, in opposition to the will of the 
 people? How many votes would he have received in Ohio, or any 
 other free State, on such a platform ? Mr. Buchanan did not then 
 understand the doctrines of popular sovereignty and self-government 
 in that way. 
 
 I assert that in 1856, during the whole of that campaign, I took 
 the same position I do now, and none other ; and I will show that 
 Mr. Buchanan pledged himself to the same doctrine when he accepted 
 the nomination of the Cincinnati Convention. In his letter of accept 
 ance, he says, referring to the Kansas-Nebraska Act : 
 
 "The recent legislation of Congress, respecting domestic slavery, derived, 
 as it has been, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political 
 power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous 
 excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free 
 government itself, and. in accordance with them, has simply declared that the 
 people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether 
 slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." 
 
 This extract from Mr. Buchanan s letter, shows that he then under 
 stood that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, should 
 decide for themselves whether slavery should or should not exist 
 within their limits. I undertake to say, that wherever I went that 
 year, his cause was advocated on that principle, as laid down in his 
 letter of acceptance. The people of the North, at least, certainly 
 understood him to hold the doctrine of self-government in Terri 
 tories as well as in States, and as applicable to slave property as well 
 as to all other species of property. I undertake to say, that he 
 would not have carried one-half the Democratic vote in any free 
 State, if he had not been thus understood ; and I hope my friend 
 
216 THE LIFE AND STEECIIES OF 
 
 from Mississippi had no allusion to this letter, when he said that in 
 the next contest he did not desire " to cheat nor be cheated." I am 
 glad that the senator from Mississippi means to have a clear, unequi 
 vocal, specific statement of our principles, so that there shall he no 
 cheating on either side. I intend to use language which can be 
 repeated in Chicago as well as in New Orleans, in Charleston the 
 same as in Boston. We live under a common Constitution. No 
 political creed is sound or safe which cannot be proclaimed in the 
 same sense wherever the American flag waves over American soil. 
 If the North and the South cannot come to a common ground on the 
 slavery question, the sooner we know it the better. The Democracy 
 of the North hold, at least, that the people of a Territory have the 
 same right to legislate in respect to slavery, as to all other property ; 
 and that, practically, it results in this : if they want slavery, they 
 will have it; and if they do not want it, it shall not be forced upon 
 them by an act of Congress. The senator from Mississippi says that 
 doctrine is right, unless we pass an act of Congress compelling the 
 people of a Territory to have slavery whether they want it or not. 
 The point he wishes to arrive at, is whether we are for or against 
 Congressional intervention. If you repudiate the doctrine of non 
 intervention, and form a slave code by act of Congress, when the 
 people of a Territory refuse it, you must step off the Democratic plat 
 form. We will let you depart in peace, as you no longer belong to 
 us ; you are no longer of us when you adopt the principle of Con 
 gressional intervention, in violation of the Democratic creed. I stand 
 here defending the great principle of non-intervention by Congress, 
 and self-government by the people of the Territories. That is the 
 Democratic creed. The Democracy in the northern States have so 
 understood it. No northern Democratic State ever would have 
 voted for Mr. Buchanan, but for the fact that he was understood to 
 occupy that position. 
 
 Gentlemen of the southern States, I tell you in all candor that I 
 do not believe a Democratic candidate can ever carry any one 
 northern Democratic State on the platform that it is the duty of the 
 Federal Government to force the people of a Territory to have slavery 
 when they do not want it. But if the true principles of State rights 
 and popular sovereignty be maintained and carried out in good faith, 
 as set forth in the Nebraska Bill, and as understood by the people in 
 1856, a glorious future awaits the Democracy. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS ,. 217 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 WAK OF THE PAMPHLETS. 
 
 Le^iers to Dorr and Peyton Speeches in Ohio, and Cincinnati Platform 
 Charleston Convention Presidental Aspirants The Harper Article 
 Black s Reply Appendix of Attorney General Rejoinder of Senator 
 Douglas The Chase and Trumbull Amendments Consistency of Sena 
 tor Douglas. 
 
 DUIIING the spring and summer of 1859, Mr. Douglas 
 received many letters from his personal friends, soliciting the 
 use of his name as a candidate for the Presidency before the 
 Charleston Convention, to one of which he replied as fol 
 lows: 
 
 WASHINGTON, Wednesday, June 22, 1869. 
 
 MY DEAR SIR : I have received your letter inquiring whether my friends 
 are at liberty to present my name in the Charleston Convention for the 
 Presidential nomination. 
 
 Before the question can be finally determined, it will be necessary to 
 understand distinctly upon what issue the canvass is to be condccted. If, 
 ns I have full faith they will, the Democratic party shall determine, in the 
 Presidential election of 1860, to adhere to the principles embodied in the 
 Compromise measures of 1850, and ratified by the people in the Presi 
 dential election of 1852, and re-affirmed in the Kansas-Nebraaka Act of 
 1854, and incorporated into the Cincinnati platform in 1856, as expounded 
 by Mr. Buchanan in his letter accepting the nomination, and approved by 
 the people in that event my friends will be at liberty to present my 
 name to the Convention, if they see proper to do so. If, on the contrary, 
 it shall become the policy of the Democratic party which I cannot anti 
 cipate to repudiate these, their time-honored principles, on which we 
 have achieved so many patriotic triumphs, and if, in lieu of them, the 
 Convention shall interpolate into the creed of the party such new issues 
 
 10 
 
218 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 as the revival of the African slave-trade, or a Congressional slave code for 
 the Territories, or the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States 
 either establishes or prohibits slavery in the Territories, beyond the 
 power of the people legally to control it as other property, it is due to 
 candor to say that, in such an event, I could not accept the nomination if 
 tendered to me. Trusting that this answer will be deemed sufficiently 
 explicit, I am, very respectfully, your friend, 
 
 S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 To J. B. DORK, Esq., Dubuque, Iowa. 
 
 The publication of this letter produced immense enthu 
 siasm among Mr. Douglas friends all over the country, and 
 particularly throughout the Northwest, and was followed 
 by a pressing invitation from the Democratic State Central 
 Committee of Ohio to visit that State and address the people 
 in their pending canvass. In consequence of the ill-health of 
 Mr. Douglas and his family, he was only able to make three 
 speeches in Ohio at Columbus, Cincinnati and Wooster, in 
 each of which places the Democracy made immense gains at 
 the fall election, averaging one thousand votes in each 
 county. He was met in Cincinnati by large numbers of 
 Democrats from Kentucky, Indiana, and other adjacent 
 States, and wherever he went was greeted with the wildest 
 enthusiasm. 
 
 We omit to insert extracts from these speeches, which are 
 among the ablest and best of his political life, for the reason 
 that they relate chiefly to the line of argument which has 
 been so fully illustrated in the previous pages of this work. 
 These speeches appeared in the columns of the New York 
 press the morning after their delivery, having been deemed 
 of sufficient consequence to be telegraphed entire. A marked 
 feature of these addresses was his solemn protest against the 
 incorporation of any new tests of faith into the Democratic 
 creed which would tend to divide and defeat the party, 
 insisting upon " the re-adoption of the Cincinnati platform 
 without the addition of a word or the subtraction of a letter." 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 219 
 
 We omitted to state, that on his way to Ohio, Mr. Douglas 
 was induced, by the earnest entreaties of the Democrats of 
 Pittsburg, to remain a day and address the people of that 
 city in behalf of the regularly nominated State ticket, with a 
 view to the pending election. 
 
 It was in this speech that Mr. Douglas, in kind but firm 
 language, rebuked those Democrats who had permitted their 
 passions to array them in opposition to the regular organiza 
 tion of their party, and thus contribute to the success of the 
 common enemy. 
 
 Notwithstanding these speeches which had been so recent 
 ly published throughout the country, the attorney-general 
 of the United States did not hesitate, a few weeks afterward, 
 in an anonymous pamphlet, the authorship of which he subse 
 quently assumed, to call in question Mr. Douglas fidelity to 
 the party and the principles of the Cincinnati platform. In 
 reply, after arraigning Judge Black and his confederates for 
 their unnatural coalition with the Black Republicans in the 
 memorable Illinois campaign, Mr. Douglas thus meets and 
 crushes his assailant in his allegation that the former intended 
 to insist on the Charleston Convention adopting his interpre 
 tation of the Cincinnati platform : 
 
 The administration claimed the right to " change and interpolate the 
 Cincinnati platform, and prescribe new and different tests ;" while the 
 gallant Democracy of that noble State denied " the right of any power on 
 earth, except a like body," to change the Cincinnati platform or prescribe 
 new tests ; and declared that " they will"neither do it themselves, nor per 
 mit it to be done by others, but will recognize all men as Democrats 
 who stand by and uphold Democratic principles." 
 
 We were assailed and proscribed because we did startd by the Cincinnati 
 platform ; because we would not recognize the right of any power on earth 
 except a regularly constituted convention of the party to change the plat 
 form and interpolate new articles into the creed ; because we would not 
 sanction the new issues and submit to the new tests ; because we woulu not 
 proscribe any Democrat, nor permit the proscription of Democrats in rou 
 
220 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 sequence of difference of opinion upon questions which had arisen subse 
 quently to the adoption of the platform ; and because we recognized all 
 men as Democrats who supported the nominees and upheld the principles 
 of the party as defined by the last National Convention. It was upon this 
 issue and for these reasons that the power and patronage of the Federal Go 
 vernment were wielded in concert with the Black Republicans for the elec 
 tion of their candidates in preference to the regular nominees of the 
 Democratic party. This system of proscription still continues in Illinois, 
 and is being extended throughout the Union, with the view of controlling 
 the Charleston nomination. Fidelity to the Cincinnati platform and oppo 
 sition to the new issues and tests prescribed by men in power, in direct 
 conflict with the professions upon which they were elected, are deemed 
 disqualifications for office and cause of removal. 
 
 THE CHARLESTON CONTENTION PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRANTS. 
 
 The reasons for singling me out as the especial object for anathema 
 will be found in the first page of the attorney-general s pamphlet, where 
 he says : 
 
 " He (Douglas) lias been for years a working, struggling candidate for the Presi 
 dency !" 
 
 Suppose it were true, that I am a Presidential aspirant ; does that fact 
 justify a combination by a host of other Presidential aspirants, each of whom 
 may imagine that his success depends upon my destruction, and the preach 
 ing a crusade against me for boldly avowing now the same principles to 
 which they and I were pledged at the last Presidential election? Is this 
 a sufficient excuse for devising a new test of political orthodoxy ; and, 
 under pretext of fidelity to it, getting up a set of bolting delegates to the 
 Charleston Convention in those States where they are unable to control the 
 regular organization ? The time is not far distant when the Democracy of 
 the whole Union will be called upon to consider and pronounce judgment 
 upon this question. 
 
 What authority has the attorney-general, aside from his fears and hopes, 
 for saying that I am " a working, struggling candidate for the Presidency ?" 
 My best friends know that I have positively and peremptorily refused to 
 have anything to do with the machinery of the conventions in the several 
 States by which the delegates to the Charleston Convention arc to be ap 
 pointed. They know that personally I do not desire the Presidency at this 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 221 
 
 time that I prefer a seat in the Senate for the next six years, with the 
 chance of a reelection, to being President for four years, at my period of 
 life. They know that I will take no steps to obtain the Charleston nomi 
 nation, that I will make no sacrifice of principle, no concealment of opi 
 nions, no concession to power for the purpose of getting it. They know, 
 also, that I only consented to the use of my name upon their earnest repre 
 sentations that the good of the Democratic party required it, and even then, 
 upon the express condition that the Democratic party shall determine in 
 the Presidential election of 1860, as I have full faith they will; to adhere to 
 the principles embodied in the Compromise measures of 1850, and approved 
 by the people in the Presidential election of 1852, and incorporated into tho 
 Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and confirmed by the Cincinnati platform, 
 and ratified by the people, in the Presidential election of 1856. Nor can 
 the attorney-general pretend to be ignorant of the fact that the public 
 were informed long since, that, " If, on the contrary, it shall become the 
 policy of the Democratic party, which I cannot anticipate, to repudiate 
 these their time-honored principles, on which we have achieved so many 
 patriotic triumphs, and in lieu of them the convention shall interpolate into 
 the creed of the party such new issues as the revival of the African slave 
 trade, or a Congressional slave code for the Territories, or the doctrine 
 that the Constitution of the United States either establishes or prohibits 
 slavery in the Territories beyond the power of the people legally to control 
 it, as other property, it is due to candor to say that in such an event I could 
 not accept the nomination if tendered to me." Is this the language of a 
 man who is working and struggling for the Presidency upon whatever 
 terms, and by the use of whatever means it could be obtained ? Or does 
 this language justify that other charge, that I am making new issues and 
 prescribing new tests in violation of the Cincinnati platform ? 
 
 WOULD VOTE FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, THOUGH NOT 
 STANDING ON HIS PLATFORM 
 
 While I could have no hesitation in voting for the nominee of my own 
 party, with whom I might differ on certain points, in preference to the can 
 didate of the Black Republican party, whose whole creed is subversive of 
 the Constitution and destructive of the Union, I am under no obligation 
 to become a candidate upon a platform that I would not be willing to 
 carry out in good faith, nor to accept the Presidency on the implied 
 pledge to carry into effect certain principles, and then administer tho 
 government in direct conflict with them. In other words, I prefer tho 
 
222 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 position of senator, or even that of a private citizen, where I would be at 
 liberty to defend and maintain the well-defined principles of the Demo 
 cratic party, to accepting a Presidential nomination upon a platform in 
 compatible with the principle of self-government in the Territories, or the 
 reserved rights of the States, or the perpetuity of the Union under the 
 Constitution. In harmony with these views, I said in those very speeches 
 in Ohio, to which Judge Black refers in his appendix, that I was in favor 
 of conducting the great struggle of 1860 upon "the Cincinnati platform 
 witJiotit the addition of a word or the subtraction of a letter" Yet, in the 
 face of all these facts, the attorney-general does not hesitate to repre 
 sent me as attempting to establish a new school of politics, to force new 
 issues upon the party, and prescribe new tests of Democratic faith. 
 
 In conclusion, I have only to suggest to Judge Black and his confede 
 rates in this crusade, whether it would not be wiser for them, and more 
 consistent with fidelity to the party which placed them in power, to exert 
 their energies and direct all their efforts to the redemption of Pennsylvania 
 from the thralldom of Black Republicanism, than to continue their alliance 
 with the Black Republicans in Illinois, with the vain hope of dividing and 
 defeating the Democratic party in the *only western or northern State 
 which has never failed to cast her electoral vote for the regular nominee of 
 the Democratic party at any Presidential election. 
 
 WASHINGTON, October , 1S59. 
 
 PROTECTION TO NATURALIZED CITIZENS AFRICAN SLAVE 
 TRADE. 
 
 Mr. Peyton, of Virginia, formerly of Chicago, having ad 
 dressed a letter to Mr. Douglas, in which he informed him 
 that his views in respect to the rights of naturalized citizens 
 and the reopening of the African slave trade were the sub 
 ject of misrepresentation in tho Old Dominion, Mr Douglas 
 replied : 
 
 WASHINGTON, Aug. 2, 1859. 
 COLONEL JOHN L. PEYTON, Staunton, Va. : 
 
 MY DEAK SIR : You do me no more than justice in your kind let 
 ter, for which accept my thanks, iu assuming that I do not concur with 
 the administration in their views respecting tha rights of naturalized citi 
 zens, as defined in the " Le Clerc Letter," which, it is proper to observe, 
 have since been materially modified. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 223 
 
 Under our Constitution there can be no just distinction between the 
 rights of native-born and naturalized citizens to claim the protection of 
 our government, at home and abroad. Unless naturalization releases the 
 person naturalized from all obligations which he owed to his native coun 
 try, by virtue of his allegiance, it leaves him in the sad predicament of 
 owing allegiance to two countries, without receiving protection from 
 cither, a dilemma in which no American citizen should ever be placed. 
 
 Neither have you misapprehended my opinions in respect to the Afri 
 can slave trade. That question seriously disturbed the harmony of the 
 convention which framed the federal Constitution. Upon it the delegates 
 divided into two parties, under circumstances which, for a time, rendered 
 harmonious action impossible. The one demanded the instant and uncon 
 ditional prohibition of the African slave trade, on moral and religious 
 grounds, while the other insisted that it was a legitimate commerce, in 
 volving no other consideration than a sound public policy, which each 
 State ought to be permitted to determine for itself, so long as it was sane- 
 tioned by its own laws. Each party stood firmly and resolutely by its 
 own position until both became convinced that this vexed question would 
 break up the convention, destroy the federal Union, blot out the glories 
 of the Revolution, and throw away all its blessings, unless some fair and 
 just compromise could be formed on the common ground of such mutual 
 concessions as were indispensable to the preservation of their liberties, 
 Union, and independence. 
 
 Such a compromise was effected and incorporated into the Constitution, 
 by which it was understood that the African slave trade might continue 
 as a legitimate commerce in those States whose laws sanctioned it until 
 the year 1808, from and after which time Congress might and would pro 
 hibit it forever, throughout the dominion and limits of the United States, 
 and pass all laws which might become necessary to make such prohibition 
 effectual. The harmony of the convention was restored, and the Union 
 saved by this compromise, without which the Constitution could never 
 have been made. 
 
 I stand firmly by this compromise, and by all the other compromises of 
 the Constitution, and shall use my best efforts to carry each and all of 
 them into faithful execution, and in the sense and with the understanding 
 which they were originally adopted. I am irreconcilably opposed to the 
 revival of the African slave trade, in any form and under any circum 
 stances. I am, with great respect, yours truly, 
 
 S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 
22-i THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 THE HAEPER ARTICLE. 
 
 In the September (1859) number of "Hamper s Magazine," 
 Mr. Douglas published over his own name, an article entitled 
 "Popular Sovereignty in the Territories: The Dividing 
 Line between Federal and Local Authority." This article 
 was read with avidity by the public, and for some days after 
 its appearance, nothing else was talked of in political circles. 
 It is a clear elucidation of the line that divides the authority 
 of the Federal Government from that of local authorities ; and 
 of the great principle that every distinct political community, 
 loyal to the Constitution and the Union, is entitled to all the 
 rights, privileges, and immunities of self-government in 
 respect to their local concerns and internal polity, subject 
 .only to the Constitution of the United States. He exposes 
 the erroneous views entertained by the " Republican " party 
 on these points : shows that the courts in a Territory derive 
 all their powers from the Territorial legislature : that nil 
 powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution, must be 
 exercised by Congress in the manner prescribed in the Con 
 stitution ; but that Congress may establish local governments, 
 and invest them with powers which Congress itself cannot 
 constitutionally exercise. 
 
 He shows by the records of the provincial legislature of 
 Virginia, that in 1772, the Virginians were unwilling to have 
 slavery forced upon them : that in 1776, the inhuman use of 
 the royal negative, in refusing the colony of Virginia per 
 mission to exclude slavery from her limits by law, was one 
 of the reasons for separating from Great Britain : and that in 
 all the thirteen colonies, slavery was regarded as a domestic 
 question, to be considered and determined by each colony to 
 suit itself, without the intervention of the British parliament. 
 He proves that the principle of popular sovereignty was afc 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 225 
 
 the very foundation of the causes that led to the Revolution: 
 showing that the patriots of 1776 fought for the inalienable 
 right of local self-government, with the clear understanding 
 that when the despotism of the British parliament was 
 thrown off, no Congressional despotism was to be substituted 
 for it. 
 
 He proves by a citation of Jefferson s plan for the govern 
 ment of the first Territory ever owned by the United States, 
 that by it, the right of Congress to bind the people of the 
 Territories without their consent was emphatically ignored ; 
 and the people therein recognized as the source of all local 
 power : that in forming the Constitution of the United States 
 in 1787, the Convention took the British constitution for 
 their model, conferring upon the Federal Government the 
 same powers which, as colonies, they had been willing to 
 concede to the British government, and reserving to the 
 States and to the people, the rights for which the Revolution 
 had been fought. He shows that the clause in the Constitu 
 tion which gives to Congress " power to dispose of, and 
 make all needful rules and regulations for the Territory " 
 refers exclusively to property, in contradistinction to persons 
 and communities ; but does not authorize Congress to inter 
 pose or interfere with the internal polity of the people who 
 may reside upon lands which the United States once owned. 
 
 He alludes to the erroneous views that have been put forth 
 in regard to the Dred Scott case ; and shows that the slavery 
 question was not included in the class of prohibited powers 
 to which the Constitution alluded. He describes the steps 
 by which the Compromise measures of 1850 were formed, 
 and the principles on which they were based ; and shows that 
 they are the same principles upon which the Nebraska Bill of 
 1854 was formed. 
 
 "We give a few extracts from the article, which possesses 
 permanent historical value, in the Appendix to this 
 
 10* 
 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 The appearance of the Harper article caused, as has been 
 stated, the most profound sensation in political circles. 
 
 The exposition of the question produced consternation 
 and dismay in the camp of the assailants of Judge Douglas. 
 Their hope was to secure the confidence and favor of the 
 South by conceding their right to plant slavery in the Terri 
 tories in opposition to the wishes of the people, and in de 
 fiance of the Territorial authorities; and at the same time, 
 satisfy the North by withholding all legislative protection 
 and judicial remedies, without which the right becomes a 
 naked, useless, worthless possession. The exposure of Mr. 
 Douglas opened their eyes to the dangers of their perilous 
 position, and made it obvious, even to their comprehension, 
 that they could no longer successfully maintain the ground 
 they then occupied. Afraid to advance and pursue their 
 doctrines to their logical consequences, and ashamed to re 
 treat and return to the impregnable position of popular 
 sovereignty, which they had so recently abandoned, they 
 began to look about for some new expedient to relieve 
 themselves from the awkward dilemma into which they had 
 been driven by one short article in " Harper s Magazine." 
 Accordingly Judge Black w r as deputed to frame an answer to 
 the masterly paper of Mr. Douglas. 
 
 The attorney-general s reply to the Harper article ap 
 peared in the " Washington Constitution," the central organ 
 of the assailants of Judge Douglas, in October. A few days 
 after, Mr. Douglas made a speech at Wooster, in which he 
 replied to the pamphlet of the attorney-general. The latter 
 functionary published an appendix to his former article, and 
 on the 17th of November, Mr. Douglas published a rejoin 
 der, from which we make the following extracts : 
 
 111 my reply to Judge Black I produced and quoted the decisions 
 of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the following 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 227 
 
 propositions were solemnly and authoritatively established as the 
 law of the land : 
 
 1st. That the state of slavery is a mere municipal regulation, 
 founded upon and limited to the range of Territorial laws. 
 
 2d. That the laws of one State or country can have no force 01 
 effect in another without its consent, express or implied. 
 
 3d. That, in the absence of any positive rule upon the subject, 
 affirming or denying or restraining the operation of the foreign law 
 or laws of one State or country in their application to another, the 
 courts will presume the tacit adoption of them by the government 
 of the place where they are sought to be enforced, unless they aro 
 repugnant to its policy, or prejudicial to its interests. 
 
 The attorney-general neither admits nor denies the correctness 
 of these propositions, nor does he either admit or deny that the 
 courts have so decided. To admit their correctness would necessarily 
 involve an abandonment of his position and a confession that he had 
 been wrong from the beginning. To deny them would bring him in 
 direct conflict with the authority of the court and expose him to an 
 inevitable conviction by the record. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Judge Black has not attempted to reconcile his opinion with the 
 decision of the court. No man in his senses can fail to perceive that 
 if the court is right, Judge Black is inevitably wrong. Although the 
 whole legal controversy between Judge Black and myself turns on 
 this one point, I did not choose, in my reply, to offset my individual 
 opinion against his, or to bring the two into comparison. As the 
 question at issue could only be determined by authority, I said : 
 
 " Of course I express no opinion of my own, since I make it a rule to acqui 
 esce in the decisions of the courts upon all legal questions." 
 
 And again, in concluding what I had to say on the legal points at 
 issue, I added : 
 
 " In all that I have said, I have been content to assume the law to be as de 
 cided by the Supreme Court of the United States, without presuming that my 
 individual opinion would either strengthen or invalidate their decisions." 
 
 If Judge Black could reconcile it with his dignity and sense of 
 duty to act on the same assumption, there could be no controversy 
 between him and me in regard to the law of the case. According 
 to the doctrine of the court, a white man, with a negro wife and 
 mulatto children, under a marriage lawful in Massachusetts, on re 
 moval into a Territory, could not maintain that interesting " private 
 relation," under the laws of Massachusetts, without the consent or 
 tacit adoption of the Massachusetts law by the Territorial govern 
 ment. On the contrary, if Judge Black s view of the axiomatic prin- 
 
228 THE LIFE A.ND SPEECHES OF 
 
 ciple of public law be correct, this disgusting and demoralizing system 
 of amalgamation may be introduced and maintained in the Territories 
 under the law of Massachusetts, in defiance of the wishes of the 
 people and in contempt of all Territorial authority, until " they get a 
 constitutional convention or the machinery of a State government in 
 their hands." It is true that Judge Black limits this right to those 
 places where there is no law "in direct conflict with it ;" but he also 
 says in the same pamphlet that the Territories " have no attribute of 
 sovereignty about them," and, therefore, are incapable of making 
 any law in conflict with this "private relation" which is lawful in 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 According to the doctrine of the court, a Turk, with thirteen 
 wives, under a marriage lawful in his own country, could not move 
 into the Territories of the United States with his family and main 
 tain his marital rights under the laws of Turkey without the consent 
 or tacit adoption of the Turkish law by the Territorial government. 
 
 In accordance with the Black doctrine (I use the term for conve 
 nience and with entire respect), polygamy may be introduced into 
 all the territories, maintained under the laws of Turkey, " until the 
 people of the Territory get a constitutional convention or the ma 
 chinery of a State government into their hands," with competent 
 authority to make laws in conflict with this "private relation." 
 
 According to the doctrine of the court, the peddler with his 
 clocks, the liquor-dealer with his whiskies, the merchant with his 
 goods, and the master with his slaves, on removal to a Territory, can 
 not hold, protect, or sell their property under the laws of the 
 States whence they came, respectively, without the consent or tacit 
 adoption of those laws by the Territorial government. 
 
 According to the Black doctrine, however, any one person, black 
 or white, from any State of the Union, and from any country upon 
 the globe, may remove into the Territories of the United States, and 
 carry with him the law of the State or country whence he carne, for 
 the protection of any " right of property, private relation, condition, 
 or status, lawfully existing in such State or country," without the 
 consent and in defiance of the authority of the Territorial govern 
 ment, and maintain the same " until they get a constitutional con 
 vention or the machinery of a State government into their hands." 
 
 This is the distinct issue between Judge Black and the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. It is not an issue between the attor 
 ney-general and myself, for in the beginning of the controversy I 
 announced my purpose "to assume the law to be as decided by the 
 court, without presuming that my individual opinion would either 
 strengthen or invalidate their decisions." 
 
 But if it be true, as contended by Judge Black, that the Territories 
 cannot legislate upon the subject or slavery, or any other right of 
 property, private relation, condition, or status, lawfully existing in 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 229 
 
 another State or country, it necessarily results that the Territorial le 
 gislature cannot adopt the laws of other States or countries for tha 
 protection of such rights and institutions, and consequently that tho 
 courts cannot presume the tacit adoption of such laws by the Territo 
 rial government in the absence of any power to adopt them. Here, 
 again, we see that the doctrine of Judge Black, if it does not con 
 clusively establish a right without the possibility of a remedy, is 
 certainly equivalent to the Wilmot Proviso in its practical results, so 
 far as the institution of slavery is concerned. I demonstrated this 
 proposition to him in my "reply" so conclusively that he did not 
 venture to deny it, much less attempt to answer the argument in his 
 " rejoinder." 
 
 I do not deem it necessary to notice in detail the many strange 
 and unaccountable misrepresentations in his " rejoinder" of the mat 
 ters of fact and law set forth in my "reply," to which he was pro 
 fessing to respond. One or two instances will suffice as specimens 
 of the manner in which the attorney-general is in the habit of dis 
 posing of authorities which stand as insuperable obstacles in the path 
 of his argument. In my " reply " I quoted the following paragraph 
 from Judge Story s "Conflict of Laws," to show that he, at least, 
 thought the law was precisely the reverse of what Judge Black sup 
 posed it to be : 
 
 " There is a uniformity of opinion among foreign jurists and foreign tribunals 
 in giving no effect to the state of slavery of a party, whatever it may have been 
 in the country of his birth, or that in which he had been previously domiciled, 
 unless it is also recognized by the laws of the country of his actual domicil, and 
 where he is found, and it is sought to be enforced. [After citing various au 
 thorities, Judge Story proceeds :] In Scotland the like doctrine has been 
 solemly adjudged. The tribunals of France have adopted the same rule, even 
 in relation to slaves coming from and belonging to their own colonies. This is 
 aldo the undisputed law of England." 
 
 Now for Judge Black s reply to these passages from Judge Story : 
 " These passages (will the reader believe it?) merely show that a 
 slave becomes free when taken to a country where slavery is NOT 
 TOLKRA.TED by law /" Substituting the words "not tolerated by law " 
 for the words "unless it is also recognized by law," Judge Black 
 reverses Judge Story s meaning, and makes that learned jurist declare 
 the law to be precisely the reverse of what Judge Story stated it to 
 be! " Will the reader believe itT" 1 Not content with changing the 
 language and reversing the meaning, and citing it, in its altered form, 
 as evidence that I had misapplied the quotation, the attorney-gen 
 eral has the audacity to exclaim in parenthesis, for the purpose of 
 giving greater emphasis to his allegation, "will the reader believe 
 it ?" Judge Black cannot avoid the responsibility which justly 
 attaches to such conduct by the pretence that slavery was prohibited 
 by law in Scotland, England and France, for the reason that tho 
 reports of the cases show that the laws of those countries were silent 
 upon the subject, and that the decisions wore made upon the disdnol 
 
230 THE LIFE AND S P E E C II E S OF 
 
 ground that there was no law recognizing slavery, and not upon tha 
 ground that it was prohibited by law. 
 
 *****&* 
 
 I will now devote a few words to a more pleasing and agreeable 
 duty, by presenting to the public some of the beneficial results of 
 this discussion. The attorney-general has been forced, by the exi 
 gencies of the controversy, step by step and with extreme reluctance, 
 to make several important confessions, which necessarily involve an 
 abandonment, on the part of his clients, of various pernicious heresies 
 with which the country has been threatened for the last two years. 
 
 First, that slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of the Consti 
 tution of the United States. . . . Hence, we find on the second 
 page of Judge Black s pamphlet these emphatic words : " The Con 
 stitution certainly does not establish slavery in the Territories or any 
 where else. Nobody in this country ever thought or said so." 
 
 This confession is ample reward for all the labor that the article in 
 " Harper s Magazine " cost me, protesting, however, that I am ac 
 quainted with no rule of Christian morality which justifies gentlemen 
 in saying "that nobody in this country ever thought or said so," in 
 the face of Mr. Buchanan s Silliman letter and Lecompton message. 
 This confession is presumed to have the sanction of the President 
 and his cabinet, and therefore may be justly regarded as an official 
 and authoritative abandonment of the pernicious heresy with which 
 the country has been irritated for the last two years, that slavery 
 exists in the Territories by virtue of the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 # * # # * -* & 
 
 Another political heresy, which is in substance, although not in 
 terms, abandoned in Judge Black s rejoinder, is "that the Territories 
 have no attribute of sovereignty about them." 
 
 It will be recollected that in my Harper article I drew a parallel 
 between our Territories and the American Colonies, and showed 
 that each possessed the exclusive power of legislation in respect to 
 their internal polity ; that, according to our American theory, in 
 contradistinction to the European theory, this right of self-govern 
 ment was not derived from the monarch or government, but was 
 inherent in the people. 
 
 ****** * 
 
 In reply, Judge Black argued that this claim involved the posses 
 sion of sovereignty by the people of the Territories ; that " they have 
 no attribute of sovereignty about them ;" that "they are public cor 
 porations established by Congress to manage the local affairs of the 
 inhabitants, like the government of a city established by a State le 
 gislature;" that "there is probably no city in the United States 
 whose powers are not larger than those of a federal Territory ; 51 and 
 in fact, adopting the Tory doctrine of the Revolution, that all political 
 power is derived from the crown or government, and not inherent 
 in the people. 
 
STEPHEN A . DOUGLAS. 231 
 
 In my reply I showed that the people of the Territories do pass 
 laws for the protection of life, liberty and property, and, in pursuance 
 of those laws, do deprive the citizen of life, liberty and property, 
 whenever the same become forfeited by crimes ; that they exercise 
 the sovereign power of taxation over all private property within 
 their limits, and divest the title for non-payment of taxes ; that they 
 exercise the sovereign power of creating corporations, municipal, 
 public and private ; that they possess " legislative power " over u all 
 rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution and 
 the organic act;" and I quoted the language of Chief Justice Mar 
 shall, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, that 
 " all legislative powers appertain to sovereignty. 1 
 
 Now let us see with what bad grace and worse manners, and yet 
 how completely the attorney-general backs down fromhis main po 
 sition, that the Territories " have no attribute of sovereignty about 
 them :" 
 
 " Every half-grown boy in the country who has given the usual amount of 
 study to the English tongue, or who has occasionally looked into a dictionary, 
 knows that the sovereignty of a government consists in its uncontrollable right 
 to exercise the highest power. But Mr. Douglas tries to clothe the Territories 
 with the attributes of sovereignty, not by proving the supremacy of their 
 jurisdiction in any matter or thing whatsoever, but merely by showing that 
 they may be, and some of them have been, authorized to legislate within cer 
 tain limits, to exercise the right of eminent domain, to lay and collect taxes for 
 territorial purposes, to deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property, as a pun 
 ishment for crime, and to create corporations. All this is true enough, but it 
 does by no means follow that the provisional government of a Territory is, 
 therefore, a sovereign in any sense of the word." 
 
 ABSURDITIES OF BLACK S AEGUMENTS. 
 
 So he surrenders at last. This discussion furnishes a single exam 
 ple of what perseverance can accomplish. It has taken a long time 
 to drive the attorney-general into the admission that the people of 
 a Territory are clothed with the LAW-MAKING POWEK; with the right 
 "to legislate within certain limits" (that is to say, upon " all right 
 ful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution"); with 
 " the right of eminent domain, to lay and collect taxes for Territorial 
 purposes, to deprive a citizen of life, liberty, and property, as a pun 
 ishment for crime, and to create corporations." 1 am not quite 
 sure that "every half-grown boy in the country who has given the 
 usual amount of study to the English tongue, or has occasionally 
 looked into a dictionary," does know that these powers are all "attri 
 butes of sovereignty ;" but I am very confident that no respectable 
 court, jurist, or lawyer, " on this side of China " (Judge Black alone 
 excepted), ever exposed their ignorance by questioning it, much less 
 had the audacity to deny it. Since the fact is admitted, that the 
 Territories do possess and may rightfully exercise those "legislative 
 powers " which are recognized throughout the civilized world as the 
 
232 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 very highest attributes of sovereignty the power over life, liberty 
 and property I shall not waste time in disputing with the attorney- 
 general about the name by which he chooses to call them. It is 
 sufficient for my purpose that I have at last forced him into the ad 
 mission that the law-making power over all rightful subjects of legis 
 lation appertaining to life, liberty, and property, resides in, and may 
 be rightfully exercised by the Territories, subject only to the limita 
 tions of the Constitution. 
 
 This brings to my notice another important confession in Judge 
 Black s rejoinder, intimately connected with the preceding, which is: 
 THAT IT is AX INSULT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SUPPOSE THAT 
 
 THE PEOPLE OF ANY ORGANIZED TERRITORY WOULD ABUSE THE RIGHT 
 OF SELF-GOVERNMENT IF IT WERE CONCEDED TO THEM. 
 
 This last confession, taken in connection with the previous admis 
 sion of the power, removes the last vestige of any substantial objec 
 tion to the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the Territories. Unable 
 to make any plausible argument against it in theory and upon prin 
 ciple, as explained in " Harper s Magazine," Judge Black expended 
 all the powers and energies of his intellect in his first pamphlet to 
 render the doctrine odious and detestable upon the presumption of its 
 probable practical results. He argued that it might result in "legis 
 lative robbery ;" that " they may take every kind of property in mere 
 caprice, or for any purpose of lucre or malice, without process of law, 
 and without providing for compensation ;" that " they may order the 
 miners to give up every ounce of gold that has been dug at Pike s 
 Peak ;" that they may " license a band of marauders to despoil the 
 emigrants crossing the Territory." 
 
 These were the arguments employed by the attorney-general, in 
 the beginning of this controversy, to render the doctrine of popular 
 sovereignty odious and detestable in the eyes of all honest men, and 
 to prepare the minds of the people for the favorable reception of his 
 new doctrine, that property in the Territories must be protected 
 under the laws of the State whence the owner removed. Very soon, 
 however, the lawyers began to amuse themselves and the public by 
 exposing the folly and absurdity of the pretence that the Territo 
 rial courts could apply the judicial remedies prescribed by the 
 legislature of Kentucky, or of any other State. Becoming ashamed 
 of his position, Judge Black wrote an appendix to his pamphlet, in 
 which he declared that while the "title which the owner acquired in 
 the State " from whence he removed must be respected in the Terri 
 tory, " THE ABSURD INFERENCE which some persons have drawn from 
 it is not true, that the master also takes with him the JDDICIAL REME- 
 DIKS which were famished him at the place where his title was ac 
 quired," and that "the respective rights and obligations of the parties 
 must be protected and enforced ~by the, law prevailing at the place 
 where they are supposed to lie violated. 1 1 
 
 By this time it was my turn to reply, when T showed that his doc 
 trine, if true, established a RIGHT WITHOUT A REMEDY, and if the 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 233 
 
 people of the Territories could not be trusted in the management of 
 their own affairs, and in the protection of life, liberty, and property, 
 they could not ~be relied upon to provide the remedies! This reply 
 was made in good faith, and believed to be pertinent to the issue 
 and fatal to his position. Instead of receiving it in good temper, 
 obviating the force of it by fair argument, if it were possible for him 
 to do so, he flies into a rage and denies that he " said that an " " ; - 
 
 grant to a Territory had a right to his property without a remedy," 
 and that "* is an insult to the American people to suppose that any 
 community can he organized within the limits of our Union who will 
 tolerate such a state of things." Listen to his patriotic indignation 
 at the bare suggestion that the people of the Territories cannot be 
 trusted to guard and protect the rights of property and provide the 
 remedies : 
 
 " I never said that an immigrant to a Territory had a right to his property 
 without a remedy ; but I admit that he must look for his remedy to the law of 
 his new domicil. It is true that he takes his life, his limbs, his reputation, and 
 his property, and with them he takes nothing but his naked right to keep them 
 and enjoy them. He leaves the judicial remedies of his previous domicil behind 
 him. It is also true that in a Territory just beginning to be settled, he may 
 need remedies for the vindication of his rights above all things else. In his 
 new home there may be bands of base marauders, without conscience or the 
 fear of God before their eyes, who are ready to" rob and murder, and spare 
 nothing that man or woman holds dear. In such a time it is quite possible to 
 imagine an abolition legislature whose members owe their seats to Sharpe s 
 rifles and the money of the Emigration Aid Society. Very possibly a_legisla- 
 ture so chosen might employ itself in passing laws unfriendly to the rights of 
 honest men and friendly to the business of the robber and the murderer. I 
 concede this, and Mr. Douglas is entitled to all the comfort it affords him. 
 Bat it is an insult to the American people to suppose, that any community can 
 be organized within the limits of our Union, who will tolerate such a state 
 of things." 
 
 Why did Judge Black insult the American people by supposing and 
 assuming that they would do these things if left free to regulate their 
 own internal polity and domestic affairs in their own way ? It was 
 deemed a necessary expedient in order to render popular sovereignty 
 and its advocates odious and detestable. Why then did he, in the 
 course of the same discussion, turn round and say it was an insult to 
 the American people to suppose that the people of the Territories 
 would do those things when allowed to regulate their own affairs in 
 their own way ? This, too, was in turn deemed a necessary expe 
 dient in order to avoid the horn of the dilemma into which he had 
 been fairly driven, and escape the odium of an attempt to deceive the 
 southern people, of which he had been fairly convicted of advocating 
 a " right without a remedy." 
 
 To what desperate shifts will men resort or be driven when they 
 deliberately abandon principle FOE expediency ? No more striking 
 or humiliating illustration of this truth was ever given than this con 
 troversy presents. Each change of ground, every shifting of position 
 has been done as an expedient to avoid what at the time was deemed 
 
23-1 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 a worse alternative. The ground on which Mr. Buchanan was elected, 
 that " the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for 
 themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their 
 limits," was changed, and in lieu of it the position assumed that 
 u slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of the Constitution," as 
 an expedient to obtain the support of certain southern ultras and 
 fire-eaters who had always opposed popular sovereignty, on the sup 
 position that without such support Mr. Buchanan s administration 
 would be in a minority in the two houses of Congress. The confes 
 sion that " the Constitution certainly does not establish slavery in 
 the Territories, nor anywhere else," was made, and the position that 
 slavery may be protected in the Territories under the laws of other 
 States, assumed as an expedient to avoid the necessity of supporting 
 a Congressional slave code. The confession that the people of the 
 Territories may exercise legislative powers over all righful subjects 
 of legislation, pertaining to life, liberty, and property, was made as 
 an expedient to avoid the odium of advocating a right without a 
 remedy, by showing that the Territorial legislatures might lawfully 
 and rightfully pass all laws and prescribe all judicial remedies neces 
 sary for the protection of property of every description, slavery in 
 cluded. The declaration that it is an insult to the American people 
 to suppose that the people of the Territories, when left free to ma 
 nage their own affairs in their own way, would be guilty of " legisla 
 tive robbery," would confiscate private property, seize it in mere 
 spite, etc., was deemed a necessary expedient for the purpose of 
 proving that the people might safely be trusted to furnish the pro 
 tection and provide the remedies without which slaves could not be 
 held and slave property protected in the Territories under the laws 
 of other States. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Turning from Judge Black to Dr. Gwin, it is but respectful to say a 
 few words upon his letter, which illuminated the columns of the cen 
 tral organ of my assailants the day previous to Judge Black s rejoin 
 der. The identity of language, thought, and style, which pervades 
 the two productions, while rejecting the idea that they could have 
 been written with the same pen, furnishes conclusive evidence that 
 great men will think alike when in the same vein. For example 
 
 Dr. Gwin says : 
 
 " The difference BETWEEN MR. DOUGLAS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, sus 
 tained by this decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, is this," 
 etc., etc. 
 
 Judge Black says : 
 
 " The whole dispute (as far as it is a doctrinal dispute) BETWEEN >fR. DOUG 
 LAS AND TUB DEMOCRATIC PARTY lies substantially in these two propositions," etc., 
 etc. 
 
 This coincidence, without wearying the reader with other exami 
 pies, will suffice to show the unity of purpose and harmony of design 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 235 
 
 with which ray assailants pursue me. To separate "Mr. Douglas" 
 from the " Democratic party " seems to he the patriotic end to which 
 they all aim. They may as well make up their minds to helieve, if 
 they have not already been convinced of the fact hy the hitter experi 
 ence of the last two years, that the thing cannot ~be done. I gave 
 them notice, at the initial point of this crusade, that no man or set of 
 men on earth, save one, could separate me from the Democratic 
 party; and as I was that one, and the only one who had the power, 
 I did not intend to do it myself nor permit it to be done by others ! 
 
 At this point (N"ov. 7), Mr. Douglas was forced to stop 
 writing by a seve reattack of inflammatory rheumatism, which 
 soon prostrated him with a dangerous illness, from which he 
 was not expected at one time to recover. In a moment of 
 consciousness he directed the unfinished manuscript to bo 
 taken to the printer, with a note which concludes as follows : 
 
 " I am too feeble, however, to add more. Here let the controversy 
 close for the present, and perhaps for ever." 
 
 THE CHASE AND TJRUMBULL AMENDMENT. 
 
 We cannot close this chapter without referring to " the 
 record " to which Mr. Douglas alludes in his brief " note " 
 as wishing to comment on in reply to Mr. Gwin. It will 
 be found in the " Congressional Globe " of the First 
 Session of the thirty-third Congress, vol. xxviii. It com 
 pletely exposes the attempted trickery of the Chase amend 
 ment. It shows what the Senate regarded as the true 
 meaning of that clause in the Kansas Nebraska Bill which 
 left the people of the Territories perfectly free "to form and 
 regulate their domestic institutions in their own way," and 
 that that meaning was, in the language of Senator Badger, " an 
 unrestricted and unreserved reference to the Territorial 
 authorities or the people themselves to determine upon the 
 question of slavery." 
 
 After the appearance of the Harper article, Mr. Gwin of 
 California endeavored to produce the impression that neither 
 
236 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Mr. Douglas nor other senators understood, when the Kansas 
 Nebraska Bill was before them, that the people of the Terri 
 tories could legislate on the subject of slavery during the 
 Territorial condition ; and that had senators so understood 
 the bill, it would have destroyed the measure ; and further, 
 that Mr. Douglas, if he took a different view of the bill from 
 that, acted in bad faith to the Senate and the country in not 
 saying so " before the bill became a law." 
 
 The records of Congress show the very reverse of this to be 
 the fact. The record shows that both Mr. Douglas and the 
 Democratic as well as other senators understood the Kansas 
 Nebraska Bill to mean that the people of the Territories, 
 while in the Territorial condition, could legislate on slavery 
 as on any other domestic affair. It shows, also, that both 
 Mr. Chase s amendment and Mr. Trumbull s amendment 
 were legislative tricks, gotten up for political effect outside 
 of Congress. 
 
 As the Kansas Nebraska Bill stood before Mr. Chase 
 offered his amendment, it read : 
 
 It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate 
 slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but 
 to leave the people therein perfectly free to form and regulate their 
 domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitu 
 tion of the United [States. 
 
 Mr. Chase s amendment proposed to add these words : 
 
 Under which the people of the Territory, through their appropri 
 ate representatives, may, if they see fo, prohibit the existence of da- 
 very therein. 
 
 Mr. Chase made a brief speech in support of his amend 
 ment, in the course of which he said : 
 
 After I have obtained a vote upon this question, I shall want to 
 know, and if no other senator shall do it, I will move amendments 
 calculated to ascertain, whether it be intended to give the principle 
 of non-intervention asserted by the bill full scope. If it is to be 
 adopted, I want to gee it adopted and fully carried out. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 237 
 
 MR. PRATT said : Mr. President, the principle which the senator 
 from Ohio adopts as the principle of his amendment, is that the ques 
 tion shall be left entirely and exclusively to the people whether they 
 will prohibit slavery or not. Now, for the purpose of testing the sin 
 cerity of the senator, and for the purpose of deducing the principle of 
 his amendment correctly, I propose to amend it by inserting after the 
 word " prohibit " the words a or introduce," so that if my amend 
 ment be adopted, and the amendment of the senator from Ohio as so 
 amended be introduced as part of the bill, the principle which he 
 says he desires to have tested will be inserted in the bill that the 
 people of the Territories shall have power to prohibit or introduce 
 slavery as they may see proper. I suppose the question will be taken 
 on the amendment which I offer to the amendment. 
 
 ME. SEWAED. Is an amendment to an amendment to an amend 
 ment in order? 
 
 MR. CHASE. The amendment which I offered is an amendment to 
 an amendment. 
 
 THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the senator from 
 Maryland is not now in order. 
 
 ME. PRATT. Perhaps the senator from Ohio will accept it. 
 
 ME. CHASE, in the course of his reply, said : Now, sir, I desire to 
 have the sense of the Senate on the question, whether the Territorial 
 legislatures to which you propose to refer tliis great question vital 
 to the future destiny of the people who are to emigrate into these 
 Territories can, subject to the Constitution, protect themselves, if 
 they see fit to do so, from slavery. The senator from Maryland, Mr. 
 Pratt, has proposed an amendment to my amendment. I cannot 
 accept it, but it will be entirely within the power of the Senate to 
 agree to his if they see fit to do so. 
 
 MR. SHIELDS. If the honorable senator will permit, I will suggest 
 to him, if he wishes to test that proposition, to put the converse as 
 suggested by the honorable senator from Maryland, and then it will 
 be a fair proposition. Let the senator from Ohio accept the amend 
 ment of the senator from Maryland for the purpose of testing the 
 question. 
 
 MR. CHASE* I was about to state why 1 could not accept the 
 amendment of the senator from Maryland. I have no objection that 
 the vote shall be taken on it, and it is probable that it would receive 
 the sanction of a majority here, but with iny views of the Constitu 
 tion, I cannot vote lor it. I do not believe that a Territorial legis 
 lature, though it may have power to protect the people against 
 slavery, is constitutionally competent to introduce it. 
 
 Senator Badger, of North Carolina, took Mr. Chase in 
 hand, and exposed the insincerity of the Ohio senator, and 
 also told what was the true meaning of the, bill. He said : 
 
 Mr. President, I have understood, 1 iiud, correctly the purport ol 
 
238 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the amendment offered by the honorable senator from Ohio. The 
 purposes of the amendment, and the effect of the amendment, if 
 adopted by the Senate, and standing as it does, are clear and obvious. 
 Tlie effect of the amendment, and the design of the amendment, are 
 to overrule and subvert tlie very proposition introduced into the l>ill 
 upon the motion of the chairman of the Committee on Territories, 
 (Mr. Douglas.) Is not that clear? The position, as it stands, is an 
 unrestricted and unreserved reference to the Territorial authorities, 
 or the people themselves, to determine upon the question of slavery ; 
 and, therefore, by the very terms, as well as by the obvious meaning 
 and legal operations of that amendment (of Mr. Pratt), TO ENABLE 
 
 THEM EITHER TO EXCLUDE OE TO INTEODUCE OE TO ALLOW SLAVEET. 
 
 If, therefore, the amendment proposed by the senator from Ohio 
 were appended to the bill in the connection in which he introduces 
 it, the necessary and inevitable effect of it would lie to control and 
 limit the language which the Senate had just put into the lill, and to 
 give it this construction, that though Congress leaves them to regu 
 late their own domestic institutions as they please, yet in regard to 
 the subject matter of slavery, the power is confined to the exclusion or 
 prohibition of it. I say this is both the legal effect and the manifest 
 design of the amendment. The legal effect is obvious upon the 
 statement ; the design is obvious upon the refusal of the gentleman 
 to incorporate in his amendment what was suggested by my honor 
 able friend from Maryland, the propriety and fairness of which were 
 
 instantly seen by my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shields.) 
 
 ********** 
 
 I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that I shall vote against 
 the amendment of the senator from Ohio. The clause as it stands 
 is ample. It submits the whole authority to the Territory to deter 
 mine for itself. That in my judgment is the place where it ought to 
 be put. If the people of these Territories choose to exclude slavery, so 
 far from considering it a wrong done to me or to my constituents, 1 
 shall not complain of it. It is their own business" 
 
 The question being taken by yeas and nays on the amend 
 ment of Mr. Chase, it resulted yeas 10, nays 36. 
 
 YEAS Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wis., Fessenden, Fish, Foote, 
 Hamlin, Seward, Smith, Sumner and Wade 10. 
 
 NATS Messrs. Adams, Atchison. Badger, Bell, Benjamin, Brod- 
 liead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Clayton, Dawson, Dixou, Dodge of Iowa, 
 Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, Jones 
 of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mason, Morton, Norris, Petti t, Pratt, 
 Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Toucey, Walker, Weller and 
 Williams 30. 
 
 And so the amendment was rejected. It will be observed 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 230 
 
 that Dr. Gwin, who quotes Mr. Douglas vote against the 
 Chase amendment as conclusive evidence that the Nebraska 
 Bill was not intended to confer on the Territorial legislature 
 the power of introducing or excluding slavery, was present 
 participating in these proceedings, without uttering one 
 word of dissent or disapprobation of the speeches of Messrs. 
 Pratt, Shields and Badger, when the latter declared that the 
 bill as it stood without the Chase amendment, " submits the 
 whole authority to the Territorial legislature to determine 
 for itself," " and that if the people of these Territories choose 
 to exclude slavery, so far from my considering it a wrong 
 done to me or my constituents, I shall not complain of it it 
 is their own business." 
 
 The reader will doubtless be curious to know why it hap 
 pened that so many of the senators who participated in the 
 removal of Mr. Douglas from the chairmanship of the Com 
 mittee on Territories for construing the Nebraska Bill in the 
 same manner as Mr. Badger construed it the day before it 
 received their votes, could have remained silent in their 
 places without one word of dissent or protest. 
 
 The Trumbull proposition referred to by Dr. Gwin, was 
 offered as an amendment to the bill for the admission of 
 Kansas into the Union as a State, two years after the passage 
 of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and was rejected solely upon the 
 ground that it was irrelevant to the bill for the admission of 
 a State, and not because it did not declare the true intent 
 and meaning of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. 
 
 It was in the following words : 
 
 And le it further enacted : 
 
 That the provision in the act "to organize the Territories of 
 Kansas and Nebraska," which declares it to be " the true intent 
 and meaning of said act not to legislate slavery into any Territory 
 or State, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people 
 thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti 
 tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of 
 the United States," was intended to and does confer upon or leave 
 
240 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 to the people of the Territory of Kansas full power at any time 
 through its Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from said Ter 
 ritory, or to recognize or regulate it therein. 
 
 The official report of the proceedings on this amendment 
 (see App. to "Cong. Globe," July 2d, 1856) shows that this 
 amendment was discussed by Senators Benjamin, Trmnbull, 
 Fessenden, Cass, Douglas, Bigler, Toucey, Hale, Seward and 
 Bayard, and that no one of them denied or intimated that the 
 amendment did not declare the true intent and meaning of 
 the original act, and that those who opposed it did so upon 
 the ground that it was irrelevant to the bill under con 
 sideration. 
 
 MR. CASS said: Now, in respect to myself, I suppose the Senate 
 knows clearly my views. I believe the original act gave the Territo 
 rial legislature of Kansas full power to exclude or allow slavery. 
 . . . . This being my view, I shall vote against the amendment. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS said: The reading of the amendment inclines my 
 mind to the belief, that in its legal effect it is precisely the same with 
 the original act, and almost in the words of that act. Hence, I should 
 have no hesitancy in voting for it, except that it is putting oil this 
 bill a matter which does not belong to it. 
 
 MR. BIGLER said : Now, sir, I am not prepared to say what the 
 intention of the Congress of 1854 was, because I was not a member 
 of that Congress. I will not vote on this amendment, because I 
 should not know that my vote was expressing the truth. I agree too, 
 with the senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass), and the senator from 
 Illinois (Mr. Douglas), that this is substantially the law as it now 
 exists. 
 
 ME. TOTTCEY said : Now, I object to this amendment as superflu 
 ous, nugatory, worse than that, as giving grounds for misrepresenta 
 tion. It leaves the subject precisely where it is left in the Kansas- 
 Nebraska Bill. 
 
 MR. BAYARD said : I have an objection to the amendment proposed 
 by the honorable senator from Illinois (Mr. Trumbull), which to me 
 would be perfectly sufficient, independent of any other : and that is, 
 it is nothing more or less than an attempt to give a judicial exposition 
 by the Congress of the United States to the Constitution ; and I hold 
 that they have no right to usurp judicial power. 
 
 The question being taken by yeas and nays on the amend 
 ment, resulted, ayes 11, nays 34, as follows : 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 24:1 
 
 Messrs. Allen, Bell, of K H., Collamer, Durkee, Fessen- 
 den, Foote, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull and Wade 11. 
 
 1ST AYS Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, 
 Brodhead, Brown, Oass, Clay, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, 
 Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Mai- 
 lory, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Keid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, 
 of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weller, Wright and Yulee 34. 
 
 So the amendment was rejected. 
 
 Upon this transcript from the records we have three com 
 ments to make, which cannot fail to impress the reader. 
 
 First, That during this whole debate no senator pretended 
 that Mr. Trumbull s amendment did not declare the true 
 intent and meaning of the Nebraska Act, according to its 
 legal effect and plain reading. 
 
 Second, That every senator who spoke against the amend 
 ment, assigned as the sole reason for his vote, either that it 
 was irrelevant or an attempt by Congress to usurp judicial 
 power. 
 
 Third, That those senators who now arraign and condemn 
 Mr. Douglas as too unsound to be chairman of the Terri 
 torial Committee for no other reason than that he now con 
 strues the Kansas-INT ebraska Act precisely as he then did, 
 listened to this debate without one word of dissent, 
 and by silence have acquiesced in the construction 
 which the author of the bill distinctly affirmed in their 
 presence. Indeed, it may be said that this construction 
 of the act was unanimously affirmed by the Senate, on this 
 occasion the Republicans assenting to it by their votes in 
 favor of the amendment, and all the others by their acqui 
 escence in the reasons assigned by Messrs. Cass, Douglas, 
 Bayard, Bigler and Toucey for voting against it. If, however, 
 these senators shall attempt to escape the conclusion under 
 cover of the reasons assigned by Mr. Bayard, that the 
 amendment was " nothing more or less than an attempt to 
 give a judicial exposition,- by the Congress of the United 
 
 11 
 
24:2 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 States, to the Constitution," and " that they have no right 
 to usurp judicial power," with what consistency can these 
 gentlemen meet in secret caucus and propose resolutions, to 
 be offered in open Senate, as a platform for the Charleston 
 Convention ; thus " giving a judicial exposition," by the 
 caucus and the Senate, to the Constitution, on the identical 
 point which Mr. Bayard denounced as "a usurpation of 
 judicial power," and in the justice of which denunciation 
 they all appeared at the time to acquiesce ? Would it not 
 be well, at the next meeting of the senatorial caucus, to give 
 a satisfactory answer to this inquiry ? 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 243 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 PROTECTION OF STATES PROM INVASION THE SENATORIAL 
 CAUCUS. 
 
 Great Speech of Mr. Douglas on the Harper s Ferry Invasion Anxiety to 
 hear him His Speeches in Reply to Senators Fessenden, Jeff. Davis, 
 and Seward The Caucus of Senators Their Utopian Platform. 
 
 THE first session of the 36th Congress met on the first Mon 
 day in December, 1859. The great practical measure of the 
 session was the proposition of Mr. Douglas, embraced in the 
 resolution which he offered on the 16th of January, 1860, 
 instructing the Judiciary Committee to report a bill to pro 
 tect each State from invasion by people of other States. 
 
 A day or two before the introduction of this resolution, a 
 sharp passage at arms took place in the Senate between Mr. 
 Douglas and Messrs. Clay, Jeff. Davis, and Green, which is 
 thus described by the correspondent of the " New York 
 Herald :" 
 
 MR. PUGH, of Ohio, a sharp, keen, and plucky debater, and the 
 right-hand man of Mr. Douglas, brought the controversy to a focus. 
 There was a good deal of cross-firing and sharp-shooting against the 
 doctrines and speeches of the Little Giant, from Green, Iverson, 
 Clay, Davis, Gwin, and other southsiders, till at length the Little 
 Giant himself was brought to the floor. 
 
 He complained of ill-health ; but he never looked better in his life 
 
 never appeared fresher in the ring, and never acquitted himself 
 
 more to the admiration of his friends. He was like^a stag at bay, 
 and right and left he dashed among his pursuers. It is useless hero 
 to repeat this branch of the debate. It was the feature of the day 
 and of the session. 
 
244 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Mr. Douglas announced to-day that he will abide by the decision 
 of the convention, for the sake of the Democratic party, though he 
 will not accept its nomination except upon the doctrine of popular 
 sovereignty, as enunciated in the Cincinnati platform. 
 
 EXTRACTS FHOM THE DEBATE. 
 
 This was Mr. Douglas s first appearance in the Senate after 
 his severe and protracted illness, and it was thought rather 
 ungenerous in these senators to make a combined and con 
 certed attack upon him under the circumstances. It is con 
 ceded, however, by all who listened to the debate, that he 
 never bore himself more gallantly or came out of a contest 
 more successfully. The objects of the assaults upon him were 
 to justify his removal from the Committee on Territories, 
 upon the ground that he held opinions incompatible with the 
 Democratic creed. We give several extracts from this im 
 portant debate. 
 
 In reply to Mr. Davis of Mississippi, Mr. Douglas said : 
 
 I have never complained of my removal from the chairmanship 
 of the Committee on Territories, and I never intended to allude to 
 that subject in this body ; but I do assert that the record proves that 
 the Senate knew for eleven years that I held the identical opinions 
 which I expressed in my Freeport speech, and which are now alleged 
 as the cause of my removal ; and during that period, with a full 
 knowledge of those opinions, which were repeated over and over 
 again in this body, within the hearing of every member of the Se 
 nate, I was, by the unanimous vote of the body, made chairman of 
 that committee, being reflected each year for eleven years. Tho 
 cause now assigned for my removal is that I hold the identical 
 opinions to-day that I held and repeatedly expressed during that 
 whole period. If this be the true state of the facts, what does it 
 prove ? Simply, that those who removed me changed at the end of 
 the eleven years, and I was not sound because I did not change aa 
 suddenly as they. My only offence consists in fidelity to the princi 
 ples that I had avowed during that whole period. If at the end of 
 that time my opinions were incompatible with those of a majority, 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 245 
 
 it shows that the majority had changed their policy but that I had 
 not changed my opinions. 
 
 Mr. Green answered by charging that Mr. Douglas, in 
 1856, had declared in the Senate that the question, in respect 
 to the extent of the power of a Territorial legislature over 
 the subject of slavery, was a judicial question, which could 
 be alone authoritatively determined by the Supreme Court 
 of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Douglas, in reply, said : 
 
 In 1856 I did say it was a judicial question, and I said it over and 
 over again hefore 1856. I have said it since that time. I declared 
 in my Illinois speeches that it was a judicial question, I have declared 
 the same thing in every publication I have made during the last 
 year. I assert, now, that it is a judicial question. The point is that 
 for years it was no want of soundness in principle that I held one 
 side of that judicial question while others held the opposite. I assert 
 that the Senate did know which side of the judicial question I held. 
 But I have always said that I would abide the decisions of the Su 
 preme Court, not only as a matter of policy but from considerations 
 of duty. I take the law as expounded by the Supreme Court, I re 
 ceive the Dred Scott decision as an authoritative exposition ; but I 
 deny that the point now under consideration has been decided in the 
 Dred Scott case. There is no one fact in that case upon which it 
 could have arisen. The lawyers engaged on each side never dreamt 
 that it did arise in the case. It is offensive and injurious to the 
 reputation of the court to say that they decided a great question which 
 had been the subject of agitation to the extent of convulsing the 
 whole country, when it did not arise in the case, and when it was 
 not argued by counsel. Sir, it would prove the court unworthy to 
 decide the great question in a civilized country if it would take cog 
 nizance of a case when there was no fact upon the record upon which 
 it could arise, when the counsel on either side never dreamt that 
 it was in issue, when there was no argument on it, and foreclose the 
 right of self-government to thousands and hundreds of thousands of 
 people without a hearing. But one word more : I assert, and the 
 debates will prove, that the understanding of the Kansas-Nebraska 
 
246 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Bill was that this was a judicial question to be decided when it 
 should arise on a Territorial enactment. 
 
 The speech of the senator from Ya. (Mr. Hunter), shows clearly 
 that it was to arise on a Territorial enactment, and all the speeches 
 oi all of us show that it was in that way and at that time that this 
 judicial question was expected to arise and be decided. The under 
 standing was that when a Territorial legislature passed an act on 
 this subject, of which any man complained, he should be able to 
 bring the matter before the Supreme Court ; and to facilitate the 
 court in getting jurisdiction, we amended the bill by putting in a 
 clause providing that a case affecting the title to slaves might be 
 taken up to the Supreme Court without reference to the amount in 
 volved. That clause was inserted in order to get this judicial ques 
 tion before the Supreme Court of the United States. How ? On a 
 Territorial enactment, and nobody ever dreamt that the court was 
 going in a decision on a case which did not affect that question to 
 decide this point without argument and without notice, and preclude 
 the rights of the people without allowing them to be heard. Whenever 
 a Territorial legislature shall pass an act divesting or attempting to 
 divest or impair or prejudice the right to slave property, and a case 
 under that act shall be brought before the Supreme Court, I will 
 abide by the decision and help in good faith to carry it out. 
 
 Mr. Clay, of Alabama, was the next to assail Mr. Douglas 
 and to impeach the soundness of his principles and the con 
 sistency of his course upon the slavery question. In reply 
 to him, Mr. Douglas said : 
 
 I say to the gentleman from Alabama, that while I have sought no 
 sympathy and desire no sympathy, I shrink from no vindication of 
 myself. I leave the public to judge whether there has not been 
 rather a doubling of teams on me every time I have engaged in 
 debate for the last two years. After fighting an unholy alliance in 
 my own State, between federal officeholders and abolitionists, and 
 triumphing over them, did I come here at the last session and make 
 any parade of that fact? No, sir, I remained silent. I made no 
 vindication of myself; I made no complaint of my removal from the 
 chair of the Territorial Committee ; I never alluded to it, and the 
 matter would never have passed my lips if it had not been thrust in 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 247 
 
 my face in debate in the Senate to-day. The discussion of last year 
 was brought on by others and not by me, and yet we have been told 
 by a senator (Mr. Gwin) while making a speech in the country, that 
 those who removed me from the head of that committee expected me 
 to defend myself, and complained that I waited until the end of the 
 session, after I had been tried, condemned and executed in my ab 
 sence. Sir, I had no defence to make. I scorn to make any defence. 
 T stood conscious of the rectitude of my own motives and the correct 
 ness of my own actions. I claimed the right to hold and vindicate 
 my own opinions, and to impeach no other man s conduct or the 
 integrity of his purpose. I yield to every senator the right of differ 
 ing from me, and I never make a test on him for doing so. 
 
 **** **** 
 
 I have but a word more to say now, and that is on another point. 
 The senator from Alabama tells me that if he had not supposed that 
 I had changed my opinions, he would never have extended to me the 
 right hand of fellowship as a Democrat. Well, sir, I do not know 
 that my Democracy would have suffered much if he never had. I 
 am willing to compare records with him as a Democrat. I never 
 make speeches, proclaiming to the world that if I cannot get my 
 man nominated I will bolt .the convention and break up the Demo 
 cratic party, and then talk about the right hand of Democratic 
 fellowship. Sir. that senator has placed himself beyond the pale of 
 Democratic fellowship, by the pronunciamento that he will not abide 
 the decision of the National Convention, if the speeches, which 1 see 
 attributed to him in the newspapers, are true. I do not understand 
 this thing of belonging to an organization, going into a convention 
 and abiding by the result if you win and bolting if you lose. I never 
 thought that it was deemed fair dealing in any profession. If you 
 take the winnings when you gain, I always thought you had to pay 
 your- bets when you lost : a man who tells me and the world that he 
 only goes into a convention to abide the result in the event of its 
 deciding in his favor, has no right to talk about extending the hand 
 of Democratic fellowship. Now, sir, I have the kindest feelings 
 toward the gentleman personally. He has a right to differ from 
 me ; he has a right to bolt the Charleston Convention ; he has a right 
 to proclaim to the world beforehand that he means to do so ; but ho 
 has no right to go into the convention unless he intends to abide tha 
 
24:8 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 reuult. He has no right to claim that he belongs to the convention 
 and say that he will bolt the nominee; and hence I say to that 
 senator, with all kindness, that if he does not extend to me the right 
 hand of Democratic fellowship I shall survive the stroke. If I should 
 happen to be the nominee of the Charleston Convention, and he 
 should vote against me, I am not certain that it would diminish my 
 majority in his own State. I am not counting his support. Permit 
 me to say to that senator that it will be time enough to threaten that 
 he will not vote for me when I ask him to do it. Permit me to say 
 further to him that I am doing quite as much honor to him if I con 
 sent to accept his vote, as he will do me by conferring it. 
 
 ******** 
 
 When threats are made of not extending the hand of Democratic 
 fellowship, I should like to understand who it is that has the right to 
 say who is in the party and who not. I believe that more than two- 
 thirds of the Democracy of the United States are with me on this 
 disputed point. James Buchanan received about eighteen hundred 
 thousand votes at the last election, more than twelve hundred 
 thousand of them in the free States, and something over six hundred 
 thousand in the slaveholding States, and you have heard it said by 
 the senator from Ohio to-day, and I believe it, that ninety-nine out 
 of every one hundred Democrats in the northern States agreed with 
 him and me on this question. Then one-third of the Democratic 
 party are going to read out the remaining two-thirds. Your candidate 
 will have a good chance of election if you shall have done it, will he 
 not ? 
 
 The only importance attached to the question of the chairmanship 
 of the Committee on Territories is this : heretofore no test has been 
 made as to a man s opinions on this judicial question, and hence I 
 could hold the position of chairman by a unanimous vote, without 
 objection ; but now it is made a test. I do not make it I only resist 
 your test if you make it on me. While I do not want the chairman 
 ship while I have performed labor enough on that committee, for 
 eleven and a half years, to be anxious to get rid of it yet the coun 
 try cannot fail to take notice that my removal at the end of eleven 
 years, is significant in one of two points of view. It was either per 
 sonal or political. I acquit every man of the suspicion that it was 
 personal. Then it must have been political. What does it signify ? 
 It is a proclamation to the Senate that a man holding tl.e opinions I 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 24:9 
 
 do is not sound enough to serve as chairman of a committee. Is he 
 sound enough for a cabinet officer, for a district attorney, for a collec 
 tor of the port, for a post-master, for a lighthouse-keeper ? All these 
 classes of officers are now being removed, except cabinet officers, for 
 holding the same opinions as myself. If you were to nominate for 
 the Presidency a man who intends to pursue this prescriptive policy 
 that every man holding the opinions I do is marked as a victim for 
 vengeance the moment your candidates are elected, what chance have 
 you of electing them ?" 
 
 After a colloquy between Mr. Davis and Mr. Douglas, the 
 latter proceeded : 
 
 " I seek no war with any senator on either side of the chamber, 
 and especially I seek none on political issues with Democratic sena 
 tors. Every word I have said has been in defence of myself against 
 the imputation that I had changed my line of policy, which I utterly 
 deny. I did understand, and I understand now, that when applica 
 tions are made to the present Administration for office, the question 
 of a man s opinion on popular sovereignty is asked, and the applicant 
 is proscribed if he agree with me in opinion. The country under 
 stands therefore that if a man representing this prescriptive policy 
 is the next President, every man in the country who holds tlio 
 opinions of the senator from Ohio and myself is to be proscribed 
 from every office, high or low. Such is now the case. Is any gen 
 tleman prepared to take the Charleston nomination with the under 
 standing that he is to proscribe two-thirds of the party, and then 
 degrade himself so low as to seek the votes of the men whom he has 
 marked as his victims ? If no tests are to be made, there can be 
 harmony ; if these tests are to be made, one-third will not subdue 
 two-thirds. I do not intend to surrender an opinion or to try and 
 force one upon any other senator or citizen. I arraign no man 
 because of his opinions." 
 
 11* 
 
250 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 INCIDENTS OF THE GREAT SPEECH. 
 
 On Monday, the 23d of January, the resolution submitted 
 on the 16th instant having been made the special order for 
 that day, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate in its support. 
 It was known in Washington for some time previously that 
 he would speak on that day, and this fact drew to the Capitol 
 an immense concourse of people. It would seem that the 
 mantles of Clay and Webster have fallen upon the shoulders 
 of Douglas, for it is well known that for years past it is only 
 necessary to say "Douglas speaks to-day," in order to have 
 the Senate chamber thronged by all the wit and beauty in 
 the capital. On this occasion, although it was known that 
 Mr. Douglas would not begin to speak till nearly two in the 
 afternoon, yet as early as ten in the morning, numerous groups 
 of people were seen wending their way to the Capitol. At 
 eleven, the galleries were full, and the tide of silk and satin, 
 cambric and crinoline, continued to gather in the avenues and 
 lobbies. Crowds of ladies and gentlemen continued to pour 
 in, till at noon every seat in the immense chamber was occu 
 pied, and all the standing-place jammed. The members of 
 the House of Representatives came in almost in a body, and 
 occupied the floor. The foreign diplomatic corps too, were 
 present in full force. Never before had there been such a 
 scene in the new chamber. 
 
 Douglas was to speak not for Illinois, not for the West, 
 but for the pacification of the whole country, and the perpe 
 tuity of the Union. 
 
 The reader will comprehend the character of this speech 
 from the subjoined extracts: 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 251 
 
 INVASION OF STATES. 
 
 The hour having arrived for the consideration of the special order, 
 the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted 
 by Mr. Douglas on the 16th instant : 
 
 "Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report a bill 
 for the protection of each State and Territory of the Union against invasion 
 by the authorities or inhabitants of any other State or Territory ; and for the 
 suppression and punishment of conspiracies or combinations in any State or 
 Territory with intent to invade, assail, or molest the gov ernment, inhabit 
 ants, property, or institutions of any other State or Territor y of the Union." 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, the 
 governor of Virginia addressed an official communication to the 
 President of the United States, in which he said: 
 
 " I have information from various quarters, upon which I rely, that a con 
 spiracy of formidable extent, in means and numbers, is formed in Ohio, Penn 
 sylvania, New York, and other States, to rescue John Brown and his associ 
 ates, prisoners at Charlestown, Virginia. The information is specific enough 
 to be reliable 
 
 u Places in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have been occupied as depots 
 and rendezvous by these desperadoes, unobstructed by guards or otherwise, 
 to invade this State, and we are kept in continual apprehension of outrage 
 from fire and rapine. I apprise you of these facts in order that you may take 
 steps to preserve peace between the States." 
 
 To this communication the President of the United States, on the 
 28th of November, returned a reply, from which I read the follow 
 ing sentence: 
 
 " I am at a loss to discover any provision in the Constitution or laws of the 
 United States which would authorize me to take steps for this purpose." 
 [That is, to preserve the peace between the States.] 
 
 This announcement produced a profound impression upon the 
 public mind, especially in the slaveholding States. It was generally 
 received and regarded as an official and authoritative announcement 
 that the Constitution of the United States confers no power upon 
 the Federal Government to protect the several States of this Union 
 against invasion from the other States. I shall not stop to inquire 
 whether the President meant to declare that the existing laws confer 
 no authority upon him, or that the Constitution empowers Congress 
 to enact no laws which would authorize the federal interposition to 
 protect the States from invasion; my object is to raise the inquiry, 
 and to ask the judgment of the Senate and of the House of Kepre- 
 sentatives on the question, whether it is not within the power of 
 Congress, and the duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to en 
 act all laws which are necessary and proper for the protection of 
 
252 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 each and every State against invasion, either from foreign powers or 
 
 from any portion of the United States. 
 
 ****** 
 
 Sir, what were the causes which produced the Harper s Ferry 
 outrage ? Without stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no 
 hesitation in expressing my firm and deliberate conviction that the 
 Harper s Ferry crime was the natural, logical, inevitable result of 
 the doctrines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained 
 and enforced in their platform, their partisan presses, their 
 pamphlets and books, and especially in the speeches of their leaders 
 in and out of Congress. (Applause in the galleries.) 
 
 Order being restored, Mr. Douglas proceeded : 
 
 1 was remarking that I considered this outrage at Harper s Ferry 
 as the logical, natural consequence of the teachings and doctrines of 
 the Republican party. I am not making this statement for the pur 
 pose of crimination or partisan eifect. I desire to call the attention 
 of members of that party to a reconsideration of the doctrines that 
 they are in the habit of enforcing, with a view to a fair judgment 
 whether they do not lead directly to those consequences on the part 
 of those deluded persons who think that all they say is meant in real 
 earnest, and ought to be carried out. The great principle that un 
 derlies the organization of the Republican party is violent, irrecon 
 cilable, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery, 
 with the view of its ultimate extinction throughout the land ; sec 
 tional war is to be waged until the cotton fields of the South shall 
 be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields of New York and 
 Massachusetts shall be cultivated by slave labor. In furtherance of 
 this article of their creed, you find their political organization not 
 only sectional in its location, but one whose vitality consists in ap 
 peals to northern passion, northern prejudice, northern ambition 
 
 against southern States, southern institutions, and southern people. 
 ****** 
 
 Can any man say to us that although this outrage has been perpe 
 trated at Harper s Ferry, there is no danger of its recurrence ? Sir, 
 is not the Republican party still embodied, organized, sanguine, con 
 fident of success, and defiant in its pretensions ? Does it not now 
 hold and proclaim the same creed that it did before this invasion r \ 
 It is true that most of its representatives here disavow the acts of 
 John Brown at Harper s Ferry. lam glad that they do so ; lam 
 rejoiced that they have gone thus far ; but I must bo permitted to 
 say to them that it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless 
 they also repudiate and denounce the doctrines and teachings which 
 produced the act. Those doctrines remain the same ; those teachings 
 are being poured into the minds of men throughout the country, by 
 means of speeches, and pamphlets, and books, and through partisan 
 presses. The causes that produced the Harper s Ferry invasion are 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 253 
 
 now in active operation. Is it true that the people of all the border 
 States are required by the Constitution to have their hands tied, 
 without the power of self-defence, and remain patient under a threat 
 ened invasion in the day or in the night ? Can you expect people to 
 be patient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night without 
 iirst stationing sentinels around their houses to see if a band of ma 
 rauders and murderers are not approaching with torch and pistol ? 
 Sir, it requires more patience than freemen ever should cultivate, to 
 submit to constant annoyance, irritation and apprehension. If we 
 expect to preserve this Union, we must remedy, within the Union, 
 and in obedience to the Constitution, every evil for which disunion 
 would furnish a remedy. 
 
 Upon the conclusion of this speech Mr. Fessenden at 
 tempted to break its force by a violent partisan attack on 
 Mr. Douglas and the Democratic party ; to which Mr. Doug 
 las instantly replied, repelling the assaults and vindicating 
 the position of the Democratic party upon the slavery ques 
 tion. We invite attention to extracts : 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS KEPLY. 
 
 Sir, I desire a law that will make it a crime, punishable by impri 
 sonment in the penitentiary, after conviction in the United States 
 court, to make a conspiracy in one State, against the people, property, 
 government, or institutions of another. Then we shall get at the 
 root of the evil. I have no doubt that gentlemen on the other side 
 will vote for a law which pretends to comply with the guarantees of 
 the Constitution, without carrying any force or efficiency in its pro 
 visions. I have heard men abuse the Fugitive Slave Law, and express 
 their willingness to vote for amendments ; but when you came to the 
 amendments which they desired to adopt, you found they were such 
 as would never return a fugitive to his master. They would go for 
 any fugitive slave law that had a hole in it big enough to let the ne 
 gro drop through and escape; but none that would comply with the 
 obligations of the Constitution. So we shall find that side of the 
 House voting for a law that will, in terms, disapprove of unlawful 
 expeditions against neighboring States, without being efficient in 
 affording protection. 
 
 But the senator says it is a part of the policy of the northern 
 Democracy to represent the Republicans as being hostile to southern 
 institutions. Sir, it is a part of the policy of the northern Demo 
 cracy, as well as their duty, to speak the truth on that subject. I did 
 not suppose that any man would have the audacity to arraign a bro 
 ther senator here for representing the Republican party as dealing in 
 
251 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 denunciation and insult of the institutions of the South. Look to 
 your Philadelphia platform, where you assert the sovereign power of 
 Congress over the Territories for their government, and demand that 
 it shall be exerted against those twin relics of barbarism polygamy 
 and slavery. 
 
 ******** 
 
 I have said and repeat that this question of slavery is one of 
 climate, of political economy, of self-interest, not a question of legis 
 lation. Wherever the climate, the soil, the health of the country 
 are such that it cannot be cultivated by white labor, you will have 
 African labor, and compulsory labor at that. Wherever white labor 
 can be employed cheapest and most profitably, there African labor 
 will retire and white labor will take its place. 
 
 You cannot force slavery by all the acts of Congress you may 
 make on one inch of territory against the will of the people, and 
 you cannot, by any law you can make, keep it out from one inch of 
 American territory where the people want it. You tried it in 
 Illinois. By the Ordinance of 1787, slavery was prohibited, and yet 
 our people, believing that slavery would be profitable to them, estab 
 lished hereditary servitude in the Territory by Territorial legislation, 
 in defiance of your federal ordinance. We maintained slavery there 
 just so long as Congress said we should not have it, and we abolished 
 it at just the moment you recognized us as a State, with the right to 
 do as we pleased. When we established it, it was on the supposi 
 tion that it was for our interest to do so. 
 
 ********* 
 
 My object is to establish firmly the doctrine that each State is to 
 do it. a own voting, establish its own institutions, make its own laws 
 without interference, directly or indirectly, from any outside power. 
 The gentleman says that is squatter sovereignty. Call it squatter 
 sovereignty, call it popular sovereignty, call it what you please, it is 
 the great principle of self-government on which this Union was 
 formed, and by the preservation of which alone can it be maintained. 
 It is the right of the people of every State to govern themselves and 
 make their own laws, and be protected from outside violence or inter 
 ference, directly or indirectly. Sir, I confess the object of the legisla 
 tion I contemplate is to put down this outside interference ; it is to 
 repress this "irrepressible conflict ;" it is to bring the government 
 back to the true principles of the Constitution, and let each people in 
 this Union rest secure in the enjoyment of domestic tranquillity with 
 out apprehension from neighboring States. I will not occupy 
 further time. 
 
 EEPLY TO SENATOR DAVIS. 
 
 On the 26th of Jannary, Mr. Douglas made the following 
 remarks, in liis reply to Gen. Jeff. Davis, senator from 
 Mississippi. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 255 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I think if the senator from Mississippi had care 
 fully read my speech, he would have found no necessity for vindicat 
 ing the President of the United States from any criticis-m that I had 
 made upon his letter, or from any issue that I had made with the 
 President growing out of that letter. Certainly, in my speech, there 
 is no criticism upon the President, none upon his letter, no issue 
 made with him; on the contrary, an express disclaimer of any such 
 issue. I quoted the paragraph from the President s letter in reply 
 to GOY. "Wise, and I will quote it again : 
 
 U I am at a loss to discover any provision in the Constitution or 
 laws of the United States which would authorize me to take steps for 
 this purpose." [That is, preserving the peace between the States.] 
 
 My impression, from reading the President s letter, was that lie 
 was inclined to the belief that the Constitution conferred no power 
 upon the Federal Government to interfere. But stili, it might be 
 that such was not the President s meaning, and that he only wished 
 to be understood as saying that existing laws conferred DO authority 
 upon him to interfere. Hence, in order to make no isnue with tho 
 President upon that subject, I stated, I shall not stop to inquire whe 
 ther he meant to be understood as denying the power of Congress to 
 confer authority, or denying that the authority was yet conferred. 
 My simple object was to obtain suitable legislation to redress similar 
 evils in the future; that if the present laws were not sufficient T 
 believe there are none on the subject Congress ought to enact suit 
 able laws to the extent that the Constitution authorized, to prevent 
 these invasions. I quoted it for the purpose of showing the necessity 
 of legislation by Congress. My argument was founded upon that 
 supposed necessity. I proceeded to demonstrate that the Constitu 
 tion conferred the power on Congress to pass laws necessary and pro 
 per to protect the States, and I called upon Congress to exercise that 
 power. I made no issue with the President. 
 
 But the senator intimates that the legislation of which I spoke 
 would lead to an act of usurpation that would endanger the rights of 
 the States, and yet goes on to prove that the President of the United 
 States does not differ with mo in regard to that constitutional power. 
 If the President agrees with me on that point, I am glad of it. if lie 
 differs with me it would not change my opinions nor my action, but 
 I respectfully submit, when I only propose such legislation as the 
 Constitution authorizes and requires, it is hardly fair to say that that 
 means an attack upon the sovereignty of the States. 
 
 The legislation that I propose on this point of combinations, was 
 this: that it shall be Lawful for the grand juries of the United States 
 courts to indict all men who shall form conspiracies or combinations 
 to invade a State or to disturb or molest citizens, property, or insti 
 tutions; and that it shall be proper for the petit jury in the United 
 States courts, under the judge, to try and convict the conspirators, 
 and to punish them by confinement in the penitentiaries or prisons 
 within the respective States where the conspiracies or combinations 
 are formed. That was the power that I proposed should be coa- 
 
256 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 ferred by law on the federal courts. I never proposed to intrust to the 
 President an army to go and seek out conspiracies, to seek out com 
 binations, and to punish them by military rule. My whole argument 
 was that the federal courts should have jurisdiction over these con 
 spiracies and combinations; that the conspirators should be indicted, 
 and convicted according to law, and punished to the extent of their 
 power. But in case of an organized body of men, or a military force 
 in the act of invading, I would confer authority to use military force 
 to the extent necessary to prevent that not the conspiracy. 
 
 The senator says he has got that power now. The President of 
 the United States, I apprehend, thought not, for this reason : He said 
 the only power he had got was the authority conferred by the two 
 acts to which he alluded, to wit: to protect the United States against 
 invasion from foreign powers and Indian tribes ; and he stated that 
 the invasion of one State from another State did not come within the 
 specifications of the statute rbr protecting the United States against 
 foreign powers and Indian tribes. If the senator thinks that that 
 power is there, when we get the legislation before us it will be pro 
 per to make amendments which will reach each objection he may 
 raise. The two propositions I maintained in my argument, and 
 those provided for in my resolution, were these : first to protect each 
 State against invasion the case of actual invasion being then in pro 
 cess of execution ; second, to make it criminal to form conspiracies 
 and combinations in any State or Territory, or any place within the 
 United States, against the institutions, property or government of 
 any other State or Territory of this Union. Those were the propo 
 sitions. 
 
 KEPLY TO SENATOR SEWAED. 
 
 On the 29th of February, Mr. Seward made his great speech 
 on the occasion of his presenting the Wyandott Constitution 
 of Kansas. It was a speech of much ability, and no doubt, 
 when he had concluded, Mr. Seward imagined that he had 
 dealt a death-blow to the Democratic party. Mr. Douglas 
 immediately replied to Mr. Seward, taking up seriatim the 
 points of his speech, and scattering his sophistries to the 
 winds. By general confession Mr. Douglas has rarely ap 
 peared to better advantage on the floor of the Senate than in 
 this triumphant extempore reply to Mr. Seward. In the lan 
 guage of the correspondent of the " Cleveland Plaindealer," 
 " He decapitated the mighty Philistine with his own sword. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 257 
 
 The beautiful structure which had cost Mr. Seward so much 
 time, labor, and travel, was in one brief hour scattered in 
 fragments at the feet of the Little Giant." 
 
 The reader will find the reply of Mr. Douglas in a subse 
 quent part of this work, from which we give brief extracts : 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM EEPLT. 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT : I trust I shall be pardoned for a few remarks upon 
 to much of the senator s speech as consists in an assault on the De 
 mocratic party, and especially with regard to the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, of which I was the responsible author. It has become fashion 
 able now-a-days for each gentleman making a speech against the De 
 mocratic party to refer to the Kansas-Nebraska act as"a cause of all 
 the disturbances that have since ensued. They talk about the repeal 
 of a sacred compact that had been undisturbed for more than a quar 
 ter of a century, as if those who complained of violated faith had 
 been faithful to the provisions of the Missouri Compromise. Sir, 
 wherein consisted the necessity for the repeal or abrogation of that 
 act, except it was that the majority in the northern States refused 
 to carry out the Missouri Compromise in good faith ? I stood willing 
 to extend it to the Pacific Ocean, and abide by it forever, and the 
 entire South, without one exception in this body, was willing thus 
 to abide by it ; but the freesoil element of the northern States was 
 so strong as to defeat that measure, and thus open the slavery ques 
 tion anew. The men -who now complain of the abrogation of that 
 act were the very men who denounced it, and denounced all of us 
 who were willing to abide by it so long as it stood upon the statute- 
 book. Sir, it was the defeat, in the House of Representatives, of the 
 enactment of the bill to extend the Missouri Compromise to the 
 Pacific Ocean, after it had passed the Senate on my own motion, that 
 opened the controversy of 1850, which was terminated by the adop 
 tion of the measures of that year. 
 
 We carried those Compromise measures over the head of the sena 
 tor of New York and his present associates. We, in those measures 
 established a great principle, rebuking his doctrine of intervention 
 by the Congress of the United States to prohibit slavery in the Ter 
 ritories. Both parties, in 1852, pledged themselves to abide by that 
 principle and thus stood pledged not to prohibit slavery in ihe Ter 
 ritories by act of Congress. The Whig party affirmed that pledge, 
 and so did the Democracy. In 1854 we only carried out, in the 
 Kansas-Nebraska Act, the same principle that had been affirmed in 
 the Compromise measures of 1850. I repeat that their resistance to 
 carrying out in good faith the settlement of 1820, their defeat of thy 
 bill for extending it to the Pacific Ocean, was the sole cause of the 
 agitation of 1850, and gave rise to the necessity of establishing the 
 
258 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Terri 
 tories 
 
 But, sir, the whole argument of that senator goes far beyond the 
 question of slavery, even in the Territories. His entire argument 
 rests on the assumption that the negro and the white man were equal 
 by Divine law, and hence that all laws and constitutions and govern 
 ments in violation of the principle of negro equality are in violation 
 of the law of God. That is the basis upon which his speech rests. 
 
 He quotes the Declaration of Independence to show that the fathers 
 of the Revolution understood that the negro was placed on an equality 
 with the white man, by quoting the clause, " we hold these truths to 
 be self-evident that, all men are created equal, and are endowed 
 by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are 
 life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Sir, the doctrine of that 
 senator and of his party is and I have had to meet it for eight 
 years that the Declaration of Independence intended to recognize 
 the negro and the white man as equal under the Divine law, and 
 hence that all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States 
 which recognize slavery are in violation of the Divine law. In other 
 words, it is an argument against the Constitution of the United 
 States upon the ground that it is contrary to the law of God. The 
 senator from New York has long held that doctrine. The senator 
 from New York has often proclaimed to the world that the Consti 
 tution of the United States was in violation of the Divine law, and 
 that senator will not contradict the statement. I have an extract 
 from one of his speeches now before me, in which that proposition is 
 distinctly put forth. In a speech made in the State of Ohio, in 1848, 
 he said: 
 
 " Slavery is the sin of not some of the States only, but of them all ; of not 
 one nationality, but of all nations. It perverted and corrupted the moral sense 
 of mankind deeply and universally, and this perversion became a universal 
 habit. Habits of thought become fixed principles. No American State has 
 yet delivered itself entirely from these habits. "We, in New York, are guilty 
 of slavery still by withholding the right of suffrage from the race we have 
 emancipated. You, in Ohio, are guilty in the same way by a system of black 
 laws still more aristocratic and odious. It is written in the Constitution of the 
 United States that five slaves shall count equal to three freemen as a basis of 
 representation; and it is written, also, IN VIOLATION OF DIVINE LAW, 
 that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at our firesides from 
 his relentless pursuer." 
 
 LABOR STATES AXD CAPITAL STATES. 
 
 The Senater from New York has coined a new definition of the 
 States of the Union labor States and capital States. The capital 
 States, I believe, are the slaveholding States ; the labor States are 
 the non-slaveholding States. It has taken that senator a good many 
 years to coin that phrase and bring it into use. I have heard him 
 discuss these favorite theories of his for the last ten years, I think, 
 and I never heard of capital States and labor States before. It 
 strikes me that something has Decently occurred up in New England 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 259 
 
 that makes it politic to get up a question between capital and labor, 
 and take the side of the numbers against the few. We have seen 
 some accounts in the newspapers of combinations and strikes among 
 the journeymen shoemakers in the towns there labor against capi 
 tal. The senator has a new word ready coined to suit their case, 
 and make the laborers believe that he is on the side of the most 
 numerous class of voters. 
 
 What produced that strike among the journeymen shoemakers ? 
 Why are the mechanics of New England, the laborers and the em 
 ployees, now reduced to the starvation point ? Simply because, by 
 your treason, by your sectional agitation, you have created a strife 
 between the North and the South, have driven away your southern 
 customers, and thus deprive the laborers of the means of support. 
 This is the fruit of your ^Republican dogmas. It is another step, fol 
 lowing John Brown, of the "irrepressible conflict." Therefore we 
 now get this new coinage of " labor States " he is on the side of 
 the shoemakers, (laughter), and " capital States " he is against 
 those that furnish the hides. (Laughter.) I think those shoemakers 
 will understand this business. They know why it is that they do 
 not get so many orders as they did a few months ago. It is not 
 confined to the shoemakers ; it reaches every mechanic s shop and 
 every factory. All the large laboring establishments of the North 
 feel the pressure produced by the doctrine of the "irrepressible con 
 liict." This new coinage of words will not save them from the just 
 responsibility that follows the doctrines they have been inculcating. 
 If they had abandoned the doctrine of the "irrepressible conliict, 1 
 and proclaimed the true doctrine of the Constitution, that each State 
 is entirely free to do just as it pleases, have slavery as long as it 
 chooses, and abolish it when it wishes, there would be no conflict ; 
 the northern and southern States would be brethren ; there would 
 be fraternity between us, and your shoemakers would not strike for 
 higher prices. 
 
 ******** 
 
 But, sir, if the senator from New York, in the event that he is 
 made President, intends to carry out his principles to their logical 
 conclusions, let us see where they will lead him. In the same speech 
 that I read from a few minutes ago, I find the following. Address 
 ing the people of Ohio, he said : 
 
 " You blush not at these things, because they have become as familiar as 
 household words ; and your pretended free-soil allies claim peculiar merit for 
 maintaining these miscalled guarantees of slavery, which they find in the na 
 tional compact. Does not all this prove that the Whig party have kept up 
 with the spirit of the age ; that it is as true and faithful to human freedom as 
 the inert conscience of the American people will permit it to be? What then, 
 you say, can nothing be done for freedom, because the public conscience re 
 mains inert? Yes, much can be done, everything can be done. Slavery can 
 be limited to its present bounds." 
 
 That is the first thing that can be done slavery can be limited tc 
 its present bounds. What else ? 
 
2GO THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 " It can be ameliorated. It can and must be abolished, and you and 1 can and 
 must do it." 
 
 There you find are two propositions : first, slavery was to be limited 
 to the States in which it was then situated. It did not then exist in 
 any Territory. Slavery was confined to the States. The first pro 
 position was that slavery must be restricted, and confined to those 
 States. The second was, that he, as a New Yorker, and they, the 
 people of Ohio, must and would abolish it; that is to say, abolish it 
 in the States. They could abolish it nowhere else. Every appeal they 
 make to Northern prejudice and passion, is against the institution of 
 slavery everywhere, and they would not be able to retain their abo 
 lition allies, the rank and file, unless they held out the hope that it was 
 the mission of the Republican party, if successful, to abolish slavery 
 in the States as well as in the Territories of the Union. 
 
 And again in the same speech, the senator from New York advised 
 the people to disregard constitutional obligations in these words: 
 
 " But we must begin deeper and lower than the composition and combination 
 of factions or parties, wherein the strength and security of slavery lie. You 
 answer that it lies in the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions 
 and laws of slaveholding States. Not at all. It is in the erroneous sentiment 
 of the American people. Constitutions and laws can no more rise above the 
 virtue of the people than the limpid stream can climb above its native spring. 
 Inculcate the love of freedom and the equal rights of man under the paternal 
 roof; see to it that they are taught in the schools and in the churches; reform 
 your own code ; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary 
 limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal gods ; correct 
 your own error, that slavery is a constitutional guaranty which may not be 
 released, and ought not to be relinquished." 
 
 I know they tell us that all this is to be done according to the 
 Constitution; they would not violate the Constitution except so far 
 as the Constitution violates the law of God that is all and they are 
 to be the judges of how far the Constitution does violate the law of 
 God. They say that every clause of the Constitution that recognizes 
 property in slaves, is in violation of the Divine law, and hence should 
 not be obeyed; and witli that interpretation of the Constitution, they 
 turn to the South and say, "We will give you all your rights under 
 the Constitution, as we explain it." 
 
 Then the senator devoted about a third of his speech to a very 
 beautiful homily on the glories of our Union. All that he had said, 
 all that any other man has ever said, all that the most eloquent 
 tongue can ever utter, in behalf of the blessings and the advantages of 
 this glorious Union, I fully indorse. But still, sir, I am prepared to s;iy, 
 that the Union is glorious only when the Constitution is preserved 
 inviolate. He eulogized the Union, f, too, am for the Union ; I in 
 dorse the eulogies; but still, what is the Union worth, unless the Con 
 stitution is preserved and maintained inviolate in all its provisions? 
 
 Sir, I have no faith in the Union-loving sentiments of those who 
 will not carry out the Constitution in good faith, as our fathers made 
 it. Professions of fidelity to the Union will be taken for naught, un- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 261 
 
 *ess they are accompanied by obedience to the Constitution upon 
 which the Union rests. I have a right to insist that the Constitution 
 shall be maintained inviolate in all its parts, not only that which suits 
 the temper of the North, but every clause of that Constitution, whe 
 ther you like it or dislike it. Your oath to support the Constitution 
 binds you to every line, word, and syllable of the instrument. You 
 have no right to say that any given clause is in violation of the Divine 
 law, and that, therefore, you will not observe it. The man who dis 
 obeys any one clause on the pretext that it violates the Divine law, 
 or on any other pretext, violates his oath of office. 
 
 But, sir, what a commentary is this pretext that the Constitution is 
 a violation of the Divine law, upon those revolutionary fathers whose 
 eulogies we have heard here to-day. Did the framers of that instru 
 ment make a Constitution in violation of the law of God? If so, how 
 do your consciences allow you to take the oath of office? If the sena 
 tor from New York still holds to his declaration that the clause in the 
 Constitution relative to fugitive slaves is a violation of the Divine 
 law, how dare he, as an honest man, take an oath to support the in 
 strument ? Did he understand that he was defying the authority of 
 Heaven when he took the oath to support that instrument? 
 
 THE SENATORIAL CAUCUS. 
 
 About the middle of February, 1860, the whole country 
 was astounded by the report that some of the Democratic 
 senators in Congress had been amusing themselves for want 
 of something better to do, by constructing an entirely 
 new platform for the Charleston Convention. It was at 
 first laughed at as a good joke, but finally proved to be 
 a fact. Well might the question be asked, "Who au 
 thorized them to make a platform for the party at the 
 Charleston Convention ? What business had they to med 
 dle in the matter ?" Certain gentlemen were named by them 
 as a committee to arrange something to be presented to a 
 wondering and admiring world as the new Democratic creed. 
 Yet strange to say, this committee did not embody the 
 talents or the wisdom of the Democratic party in the Senate. 
 Was there no merit in Mr. Toombs, or Mr. Pearce, or Mr. 
 Benjamin, or Mr. Polk, or Mr. Pugh, or Mr. Hammond, or 
 Mr. Davis, or Mr. Nicholson, or Mr. Wigfall, that they wero 
 passed over in the formation of the committee ? 
 
262 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 The chairman of the Caucus, Mr. Bright, a bitter enemy of 
 Mr. Douglas, appointed the following cast : 
 
 Mr. Green of Missouri, who had supplanted Mr. Douglas 
 as chairman of the Committee on Territories ; Mr. Fitch of 
 Indiana, an ancient hater of Mr. Douglas ; Mr. Bigler of Penn 
 sylvania, the shadow of the President ; Mr. Gwin of California, 
 whose hostility to Mr. Douglas is implacable and proverbial ; 
 and Mr. Chestnut of South Carolina. Excepting Mr. Chest 
 nut, who is really an amiable gentleman, and a man of great 
 ability, of what singular material was this committee com 
 posed ! and that, too, when there were such men as Mason, 
 Hunter, Clingman, and Brown, in the Senate ! This com 
 mittee of five were to report their platform to the Democratic 
 members of the Senate, in caucus ; and after its approval there, 
 it was to be introduced into the Senate for adoption. 
 
 Mr. Bright could not have selected a better committee for 
 the purpose of heading off Mr. Douglas at Charleston. A 
 manifesto was therefore expected from this committee of five, 
 which would be pointedly directed to the overthrow of the 
 distinguished senator from Illinois, and his doctrine of popu 
 lar sovereignty. It was hoped by Messrs. Bright, Fitch, 
 Gwin and Co., that by the action of this caucus, such new 
 tests might be introduced at the Charleston Convention, as 
 would make it impossible for Mr. Douglas to receive the 
 nomination. The whole proceedings of the committee were 
 what might have been anticipated. 
 
 PLATFORM OF THE CAUCUS. 
 
 The following are the material resolutions of the caucna 
 platform : 
 
 4. JResolved, That neither Congress nor a Territorial legislature, 
 whether by direct legislation or legislation of an indirect and unfriendly 
 character, possesses the power to annul or impair the constitutional 
 right of any citizen of the United States to take his slave property 
 into the common Territories, and there hold and enjoy the same while 
 the Territorial condition remains. 
 
UwiyfcKoi i 7 
 
 OF 
 
 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 263 
 
 5. Resolved, That if experience should at any time prove that the 
 judiciary and executive authority do not possess the means to insure 
 adequate protection to constitutional rights in a Territory, and if the 
 Territorial government should fail or refuse to provide the necessary 
 remedies for that purpose, it will be the duty of Congress to supply 
 such deficiency. 
 
 6. Resolved, That the inhabitants of a Territory of the United 
 States, when they rightfully form a constitution to be admitted as a 
 State into the Union, may then, for the first time like the people of 
 a State when forming a new constitution decide for themselves 
 whether slavery, as a domestic institution, shall be maintained or 
 prohibited within their jurisdiction ; and if Congress admit them as a 
 State "they shall be received into the Union with or without 
 slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their 
 admission." 
 
 It remains to be seen what disposition the United States 
 Senate will make of this Utopian piece of Senatorial-caucus 
 patchwork ; this modern bed of Procrustes. At all events, 
 it is too short for the Little Giant. 
 
 The material and obnoxious features of the caucus plat 
 form will be found in those provisions in which the caucus, 
 to use the language of Senator Bayard, on the Trumbull 
 amendment, " attempted to give a judicial exposition of 
 the Constitution, and to usurp judicial power " by deciding 
 against the right of a Territorial legislature to control the 
 slavery question in violation of the Cincinnati platform, and 
 in advance of the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States. 
 
 These resolutions, when translated into plain English, in 
 effect declare that if the people of a Territory desire slavery, 
 and pass laws to introduce and protect it, Congress will not 
 interfere with their decision ; but if they do not want it, and 
 so decide in their legislation, Congress ought to interfere, to 
 force it on them, by the enactment of a code for its protec 
 tion in the Territories. 
 
 Is this the boasted principle of non-intervention with 
 slavery in States, Territories and the District of Columbia, to 
 which the party was pledged by tbe Cincinnati platform ? 
 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Is this the principle, " ancient as free government itself," of 
 which Mr. Buchanan spoke in his letter accepting the Cin 
 cinnati nomination, when he said that the Kansas-Nebraska 
 Act " has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like 
 those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery 
 shall or shall not exist within their limits ?" 
 
 We should be doing injustice to the Democratic party no 
 less than to those gentlemen concerned to omit to state the 
 fact that the introduction of these resolutions was deemed 
 unfortunate and improper by at least twelve southern sena 
 tors, as was announced in caucus pending the discussion. 
 
 Nor is it unworthy of note to mention the further fact 
 that Messers. Pugh and Douglas are understood to have been 
 the only senators from the free States who raised their voices 
 in caucus against this gross departure from the usages, 
 creed and established policy of the Democratic party. Nay, 
 if well-accredited and uncontradicted rumors are to be 
 believed, the main champions of these resolutions were 
 Messrs. Bright, Fitch, Gwin and Lane all representing free 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Lane, who was so loud in his declarations, in 1856, in 
 favor of the doctrines of popular sovereignty, and the 
 right of the people to introduce or exclude slavery at their 
 pleasure during their Territorial condition, is represented in 
 the public press as having declared in the Senate caucus, 
 that " he did not wish to live in a republic w r hich would not 
 protect slavery in the Territories by act of Congress that he 
 could not conceive how a southern man could consent to 
 remain in the Union without such Congressional protection, 
 and that he had no respect for any man who would not vote 
 for an act of Congress, protecting slavery in the Territories." 
 
 
STEPHEN A. DOCTGLAS. 265 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 THE STATE CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Conventions of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and 
 .Michigan ; also of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and 
 New York Claims of the North-west Conclusion. 
 
 CONVENTIONS IN THE NORTHWEST. 
 
 THE northwestern States began to hold their State Conven 
 tions, and to elect delegates to the National Democratic Con 
 vention at Charleston, early in 1860 
 
 Illinois Avas first in the field. She held her Convention at 
 Springfield, on the 4th of January, 1860, and unanimously 
 adopted, among others, the following resolutions : 
 
 ResMved, That the Democracy of Illinois do reassert and affirm 
 the Cincinnati platform, in the words, spirit and meaning with which 
 the same was adopted, understood and ratified by the people in 1856, 
 and do reject and utterly repudiate all such new issues and tests as 
 the revival of the African slave-trade, or a congressional slave code 
 for the Territories, or the doctrine that slavery is a federal institu 
 tion, deriving its validity in the several States and Territories in 
 which it exists from the Constitution of the United States, instead 
 of being a mere municipal institution, existing in such States and 
 Territories "under the laws thereof." 
 
 Resolved, That the Democratic party of the Union is pledged in 
 faith and honor, by the Cincinnati Platform and its indorsement of 
 the Kansas-Nebraska Act, to the following propositions : 
 
 1. That all questions pertaining to African slavery in the Terri 
 tories shall be forever banished from the halls of Congress. 
 
 2. That the people of the Territories respectively shall be left per 
 fectly free to make such laws and regulations in respect to slavery 
 and all other matters of local concern as they may determine for 
 themselves, subject to no other limitations or restrictions than those 
 imposed by the Constitution of the United States 
 
266 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 3. That all questions affecting the validity or constitutionality of 
 any Territorial enactments shall be referred for final decision to tho 
 Supreme Court of the United States, as the only tribunal provided 
 by the Constitution which is competent to determine them. 
 
 Resolved, That wo recognize the paramount judicial authority of 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, as provided in the Consti 
 tution, and hold it to be the imperative duty of all good citizens to 
 respect and obey the decisions of that tribunal, and to aid, by all 
 lawful means, in carrying them into faithful execution. 
 
 Resolved^ That the Democracy of Illinois repel with just indigna 
 tion the injurious and unfounded imputation upon the integrity and 
 impartiality of the Supreme Court, which is contained in the as 
 sumption on the part of the so-called Eepublicans, that, in the Dred 
 Scott case, that august tribunal decided against the right of tho peo 
 ple of the Territories to decide the slavery question for themselves, 
 without giving them an opportunity of being heard by counsel in 
 defence of their rights of self-government, and when there was no 
 Territorial law, enactment or fact before tho court upon which that 
 question could possibly arise. 
 
 Resolved, That whenever Congress or the legislature of any State 
 or Territory shall make any enactment, or do any act which attempts 
 to divest, impair or prejudice any right which the owner of slaves, 
 or any other species of property, may have or claim in any Territory 
 or elsewhere, by virtue of the Constitution or otherwise, and tho 
 party aggrieved shall bring his case before the Supreme Court of the 
 Uwted States, the Democracy of Illinois, as in duty bound by their 
 obligations of fidelity to the Constitution, will cheerfully and faith 
 fully respect and abide by the decision, and use all lawful means to 
 aid in giving it, full effect according to its true intent and meaning. 
 
 Resolved, That the Democracy of Illinois view with inexpressible 
 horror and indignation the murderous and treasonable conspiracy of 
 John Brown and his confederates to incite a servile insurrection in 
 the slaveholding States, and heartily rejoice that the attempt waa 
 promptly suppressed, and the majesty of the law vindicated, by 
 inflicting upon the conspirators, after a fair and impartial trial, 
 that just punishment which the enormity of their crimes so richly 
 merited. 
 
 Resolved, That the Harper s Ferry outrage was the natural conse 
 quence and and logical result of the doctrines and teachings of the 
 Republican party, as explained and enforced in their platforms, par 
 tisan presses, books and pamphlets, and in the speeches of their 
 leaders, in and out of Congress, and for this reason an honest and 
 law-abiding people should not be satisfied with the disavowal or dis 
 approval by the Republican leaders of John Brown s acts, unless they 
 also repudiate the doctrines and teachings which produced those 
 monstrous crimes, and denounce all persons who profess to sympa 
 thize with murderers and traitors, lamenting their fate and venerating 
 their memory as martyrs who lost their lives in a just and holy cause. 
 
 Resolved, That the delegates representing Illinois in the Charleston 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 Convention be instructed to vote for and use all honorable means to 
 secure the readoption of the Cincinnati platform, without any addi 
 tions or subtractions. 
 
 Resolved, That no honorable man can accept a seat as a delegate in 
 the National Democratic Convention, or should be recognized as a 
 member of the Democratic party, who will not abide the decisions 
 of such convention and support its nominees. 
 
 Resolved, That we afBrm and repeat the principles set forth in the 
 resolutions of the last State Convention of the Illinois Democracy, 
 held in this city on the 21st day of April, 1858, and will not hesitate 
 to apply those principles wherever a proper case may arise. 
 
 Resolved, That the Democracy of the State of Illinois is unani 
 mously in favor of Stephen A. Douglas for the next Presidency, and 
 that the delegates from this State are instructed to vote for him, and 
 make every honorable effort to procure his nomination. 
 
 THE NOKTIIWEST FOR DOUGLAS. 
 
 The convention then elected their 22 delegates ; and they 
 were all instructed to support Mr. Douglas for the nomination 
 at Charleston. 
 
 Indiana held her convention at Indianapolis on the llth of 
 January, and passed resolutions nearly similar to the above 
 and quite as strong in favor of Mr. Douglas. The 26 dele 
 gates to Charleston, from Indiana, were instructed by this 
 convention to cast the vote of the State of Indiana as a unit 
 for Mr. Douglas. 
 
 Ohio, had held her State Convention a few days before, and 
 it had been equally unanimous in favor of Mr. Douglas. 
 Ohio is entitled to 46 delegates to Charleston, all of whom 
 were instructed by the State Convention to cast the vote of 
 Ohio as a unit for Mr Douglas. 
 
 Minnesota, entitled to 8 delegates, instructed them to go 
 as a unit for Mr. Douglas. 
 
 Iowa held her State Convention at Fort Des Moines, on the 
 22d of February. It was the largest convention ever held 
 in the State. There were 518 delegates present, from all parts 
 of the State. The resolutions were adopted unanimously 
 among them were the following : 
 
268 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 8. Resolved, That we recognize in the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas the 
 man for the times, able in council, ripe in experience, honest and firm 
 in purpose, and devotedly attached to the institutions of the country, 
 whose nomination as the Democratic standard-bearer for the Presi 
 dent would confer honor alike on the party and the country, and is 
 a consummation devoutly to be wished ; and that the delegates elected 
 by this convention be and are hereby instructed to cast the vote of 
 the State of Iowa in the Charleston Convention as a unit for Stephen 
 A. Douglas so long as he is a candidate before that body, and to 
 use every other honorable means to secure his nomination for the 
 Presidency. 
 
 Another resolution cordially re-affirmed the principles of 
 the platform of the National Democratic Convention at Cin 
 cinnati in 1856. 
 
 Wisconsin held her State Convention on the same day. 
 The following resolutions were adopted by a vote of 165 ayes 
 to 22 nays : 
 
 Resolved. That the Democratic party of Wisconsin will cordially 
 biipport the nominee of the Charleston convention. 
 
 Resolved, That Stephen A. Douglas is the choice of the Democracy 
 of Wisconsin for President of the United States his eminent public- 
 services rendered the government and the country his signal 
 triumphs in the Senate and before the people his admitted ability 
 his sound and just views of public policy his devotion to the Consti 
 tution and th e dron render his name a tower of strength, and gives 
 assurance to the conviction that, if nominated at Charleston, he will 
 most certainly receive the electoral vote of Wisconsin. Therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That the entire delegation be instructed to vote for 
 Stephen A. Douglas. 
 
 Michigan also held her State Convention on the same day. 
 The convention was very full, every county in the State 
 being represented. 
 
 The Committee on Resolutions reported a long series. 
 They emphatically indorse the Cincinnati platform ; recog 
 nize the paramount judical authority in the Supreme Court of 
 the United States ; express a fraternal regard for the citizens 
 of every State, and denounce the invasion of Virginia as dan 
 gerous to the safety and prosperity of the country ; appeal to 
 their brethren in other States to bury local prejudices, and 
 join Michigan in advocating the claims of the favorite of the 
 North-west ; present Douglas as their unanimous choice, and 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 2b 9 
 
 instruct their delegates to use every honorable means to se 
 cure his nomination. 
 
 The resolutions were unanimously adopted amid great 
 enthusiasm. Patriotic Union speeches were made by the 
 State delegates, and all declared themselves uncompromising 
 Douglas men. The name of Douglas was always received 
 with the heartiest applause. 
 % Among the resolutions adopted, was the following : 
 
 That admiring his broad, national statesmanship, his loyalty to 
 true Democratic principles, his impartial defence of national rights 
 against sectional claims, and that heroic courage which in be 
 half of the right quails at no difficulty or disaster, and confi 
 dent that under his matchless leadership the enthusiastic masses 
 can and will sweep the Northwest from centre to circumference, 
 the Democracy of Michigan present Stephen A. Douglas as their 
 UNANIMOUS choice for the Presidency, and they hereby instruct 
 their delegates to the Charleton Convention to spare no honor 
 able efforts to secure his nomination. 
 
 In the aggregate, these seven States have one hundred and 
 thirty-two delegates at Charleston, and give sixty-six votes 
 for President. They cast over 600,000 Democratic votes, 
 a number equal to all the Democrats in the fifteen Southern 
 States. They give one-third of the Democratic vote of the 
 Union, and contain more than one-quarter of the population 
 of the United States. By the census of the present year 
 they will be entitled to over ninety members of Congress. 
 
 THE CLAIMS OF THE NOTCTH-WEST. 
 
 While all the sections of the Union have each had their 
 Presidents indeed while every leading State in the East and 
 South has had one or more of her sons honored with that 
 high office the great North-west, with its millions of people, 
 has never had the Chief Magistrate taken from her limits. 
 The case of General Harrison can scarcely be quoted to dis- 
 
270 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 prove this remark, as he held the office but one month, when 
 it reverted, by his death, to Virginia. 
 
 For the first time in their history, the unfaltering Demo 
 cracy of the seven north-western States, hitherto always 
 divided in their choice, arc a unit for Mr. Douglas, and, if 
 nominated at Charleston, it is the belief of nearly all the intel 
 ligent men in that section he would carry every State west of 
 the Ohio River. They present, as their favorite, confessedly 
 the foremost statesman of the nation one, the unvarnished 
 record of whose achievements puts him on a towering pedes 
 tal and furnishes a crushing answer to all the calumnies of his 
 enemies. They present a man whose private escutcheon slan 
 der has never befouled with its breath, and whose career has 
 been characterized by a greater height of moral grandeur 
 thjiii has ever been reached by any statesman of his day. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Combinations are thickening around him. Undoubtedly 
 the favorite of the popular heart beyond question the first 
 choice of a large majority of the Democratic masses of the 
 country political conspirators are at work night and day to 
 defeat his nomination at Charleston. No contrivance which 
 artful malice can suggest is permitted to escape unavailed of. 
 Political calumnies, for years sleeping in the grave where 
 truth consigned them, are revived and revamped. Republi 
 cans and southern Disunionists, almost in open alliance, are 
 conspiring to thwart this to them most hateful consummation, 
 the former satisfied that Douglas nomination is their mortify 
 ing, crushing defeat, the latter, assured that if nominated he 
 will be elected, and all excuse for secession and revolution re 
 moved. But the conspiracy will not triumph. The people have 
 taken up his cause, and will bring such a pressure of opinion 
 on Charleston that the politicians will not disregard it. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 211 
 
 The adjourned meeting of the DEMOCRATIC CONTEN 
 TION to Baltimore, on the 18th day of June, is a matter 
 of history. MR. DOUGLAS was nominated on the Second 
 Ballot, he having received ISOj- votes out of 194J cast, 
 when Mr. Church, of New York, offered the following : 
 
 Revolted, That Stephen A. Douglas having received two-thirds of all the votes cast in 
 the National Democratic Convention, is, according to the rules of this Convention and the 
 usages of the Democratic party, declared nominated for the office of President of the 
 United States. 
 
 Messrs. Hoge, of Virginia, and Clark, of Missouri, then simultaneously 
 seconded the resolution of Mr. Church declaring Judge Douglas nominated, 
 according to the usages of the Democratic party and the rules of the Con 
 vention, by a two-thirds vote. 
 
 The resolution was adopted unanimously. 
 
 A scene of excitement then ensued that evinced the violence of the 
 feeling so long pent up. The cheers were deafening, every person in the 
 theatre rising, waving hats, handkerchiefs, and evincing the utmost enthu 
 siasm. The scene could not be exceeded in excitement. From the upper 
 tier, banners long kept in reserve were unfurled and waved before the 
 audience. On the stage appeared banners, one of which was borne by the 
 delegation from Pennsylvania, bearing the motto, " Pennsylvania good for 
 forty thousand majority for Douglas." Cheers for the " Little Giant," were 
 responded to until all was in a perfect roar, inside the building and outside. 
 
 The Convention again rose en masse, and the scene of excitement was 
 renewed, cheer after cheer being sent forth for the nominee. 
 
 Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, then made a speech, thanking the Conven 
 tion for the high honor conferred on his State in selecting for the candi 
 date for the Presidency her favorite son. Alluding to the seceders, he said 
 that if the Democratic party should be defeated and perpetually ruined, 
 they, the seceders, must bear the responsibility, not Douglas or his friends. 
 In this connection he produced a letter from Mr. Douglas, dated Wash 
 ington, the 20th inst., authorizing and requesting his friends to withdraw 
 his name if, in their judgment, harmony could be restored in the Demo 
 cratic ranks. Mr. Richardson then said that the course of the seceders had 
 
212 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 placed it out of the power of the friends of Mr. Douglas to make any use 
 of the letter. He concluded by saying that when the Government fails to 
 accomplish the object for which it was formed, let it go down. 
 
 The following is the letter of Mr. Douglas : 
 
 WASHINGTON, Jwne 2011, P.M. 
 
 MY DEAR SIR : I learn there is imminent danger that the Democratic party will be de 
 moralized, if not destroyed, by the breaking up of the Convention. Such a result would 
 inevitably expose the country to the perils of sectional strife between the Northern and 
 Southern partisans of Congressional intervention upon the subject of slavery in the Terri 
 tories. I firmly and conscientiously believe that there is no safety for the country, no hope 
 for the preservation o f the Union, except by a faithful and rigid adherence to the doctrine 
 of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories. Intervention means dis 
 union. There is no difference in principle between Northern and Southern intervention. 
 The one intervenes for slavery, and the other against slavery ; but each appeals to the 
 passions and prejudices of his own section against the peace of the whole country and the 
 right of self-government by the people of the Territories. Hence the docrine of non-inter 
 vention must be maintained at all hazards. But while I can never sacrifice the principle, 
 even to obtain the Presidency, I will cheerfully and joyfully sacrifice myself to maintain 
 the principle, 
 
 If, therefore, you and my other friends who have stood by me with such heroic firmness 
 at Charleston and Baltimore shall be of the opinion that the principle can be preserved, 
 and the unity and ascendency of the Democratic party maintained, and the country saved 
 from the perils of Northern Abolitionism and Southern disunion by withdrawing my name 
 and uniting with some other non-intervention Union-loving Democrat, I beseech you to 
 pursue that course. Do not understand me as wishing to dictate to my friends ; I have 
 implicit confidence in your and then* patriotism, judgment, and discretion. Whatever 
 you may do in the premises will meet my hearty approval. But I conjure you to act with 
 a single eye to the safety and welfare of the country, and without the slightest regard to 
 my individual interest or aggrandizement. My interest will be best promoted, and my 
 ambition gratified, and motives vindicated, by that course, on the part of my friends, 
 which will be most effectual in saving the country from being ruled or ruined by a sectional 
 party. The action of the Charleston Convention, by sustaining me by so large a majority 
 on the platform, and designating me as the first choice of the party for the Presidency, is 
 all the personal triumph I desire. This letter is prompted by the same motives which 
 induced my dispatch four years ago, withdrawing my name from the Cincinnati Convention. 
 With this knowledge of my opinions and wishes, you and your other friends must act upon 
 your own convictions of duty. 
 
 Very truly, your friend, 
 
 S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 To HON. WM. A. RICHARDSON, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 THE PLATFORM ADOPTED. 
 
 In addition to and in explanation of the Cincinnati platform, the majority 
 of our late National Convention, during its sessions at Charleston and Balti 
 more, adopted the following resolutions : 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 213 
 
 Resolved, That we, the Democracy of the Union, in Convention assembled, do hereby 
 declare our affirmation of the resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform 
 of principles by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing that 
 Democratic principles are unchangeable in their nature when applied to the same subject- 
 matters. 
 
 Resolved, That it is the duty of the United States to afford ample and complete protec 
 tion to all its citizens, whether at home or abroad, and whether native or foreign born. 
 
 Resolved, That one of the necessities of the age in a military, commercial and postal 
 point of view, is speedy communication between the Atlantic and Pacific States, and the 
 Democratic party pledge such Constitutional power of the Government as will insure the 
 construction of a Railroad to the Pacific coast, at the earliest practicable period. 
 
 Resolved, That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of Cuba on such 
 terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain. 
 
 Resolved, That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of 
 the Fugitive Slave law, are hostile in character and subversive to the Constitution, and 
 revolutionary in their effects. 
 
 Resolved, That it is in accordance with the Cincinnati platform, that during the exis 
 tence of Territorial Governments, the measure of restriction, whatever it maybe, imposed 
 by the Federal Constitution on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the subject 
 of the domestic relations, as the same has been or shall hereafter be finally determined by 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, should be respected by all good citizens, and en 
 forced with promptness and fidelity by every branch of the General Government. 
 
 On this platform, word for word, as printed above, the majority of our 
 late National Convention nominated the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas for 
 President of the United States. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE. 
 
 WASHINGTON, Friday, June 29, 1860. 
 
 GENTLEMEN : In accordance with the verbal assurance which I gave you 
 when you placed in my hands the authentic evidence of my nomination for 
 the Presidency by the National Convention of the Democratic party, I now 
 send you my formal acceptance. Upon a careful examination of the plat 
 form of principles adopted at Charleston and reaffirmed at Baltimore, with 
 an additional resolution which is in perfect harmony with the others, I find 
 it to be a faithful embodiment of the time-honored principles of the Demo 
 cratic party, as the same were proclaimed and understood by all parties in 
 the Presidential contests of 1848, 1852, and 1856. 
 
 Upon looking into the proceedings of the Convention also, I find that 
 the nomination was made with great unanimity, in the presence and with 
 the concurrence of more than two-thirds of the whole number of dele 
 gates, and in accordance with the long-established usages of the party. 
 My inflexible purpose not to be a candidate, nor accept the nomination un 
 der any contingency, except as the regular nominee of the National Demo- 
 
214: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 cratic party, and in that case only upon the condition that the usages, as 
 well as the principles of the party, should be strictly adhered to, had been 
 proclaimed for a long time and become well known to the country. These 
 conditions having all been complied with by the free and voluntary action 
 of the Democratic masses and their faithful representatives, without any 
 agency, interference, or procurement, on my part, I feel bound in honor 
 and duty to accept the nomination. In taking this step, I am not unmind 
 ful of the responsibilities it imposes, but with firm reliance upon Divine 
 Providence, I have the faith that the people will comprehend the true na 
 ture of the issues involved, and eventually maintain the right. 
 
 The peace of the country and the perpetuity of the Union have been 
 put in jeopardy by attempts to interfere with and to control the domestic 
 affairs of the people in the Territories, through the agency of the Federal 
 Government. If the power and the duty of Federal interference is to be 
 conceded, two hostile sectional parties must be the inevitable result the 
 one inflaming the passions and ambitious of the North, the other of the 
 South, and each struggling to use the Federal power and authority for the 
 aggrandizement of its own section, at the expense of the equal rights of 
 the other, and in derogation of those fundamental principles of self-gov 
 ernment which were firmly established in this country by the American Re 
 volution, as the basis of our entire republican system. 
 
 During the memorable period of our political history, when the advo 
 cates of Federal intervention upon the subject of slavery in the Territories 
 had well-nigh " precipitated the country into revolution," the northern 
 interventionists demanding the Wilmot Proviso for the prohibition of 
 slavery, and the southern interventionists, then few in number, and with 
 out a single Representative in either House of Congress, insisting upon 
 Congressional legislation for the protection of slavery in opposition to the 
 wishes of the people in either case, it will be remembered that it required 
 all the wisdom, power and influence of a Clay and a Webster and a Cass, 
 supported by the conservative and patriotic men of the AVhig and Demo 
 cratic parties of that day, to devise and carry out a line of policy which 
 would restore peace to the country and stability to the Union. The essen 
 tial living principle of that policy, as applied in the legislation of 1850, 
 was, and now is, non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Terri 
 tories. The fair application of this just and equitable principle restored 
 harmony and fraternity to a distracted country. If we now depart from 
 that wise and just policy which produced these happy results, and permit 
 the country to be again distracted ; if precipitated into revolution by a 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 215 
 
 sectional contest between Pro-Slavery and Anti-Slavery interventionists, 
 where shall we look for another Clay, another Webster, or another Casa 
 to pilot the ship of state over the breakers into a haven of peace and 
 safety. 
 
 The Federal Union must be preserved. The Constitution must be main 
 tained inviolate in all its parts. Every right guaranteed by the Constitu 
 tion must be protected by law in all cases where legislation is necessary to 
 its engagement. The judicial authority as provided in the Constitution 
 must be sustained, and its decisions implicitly obeyed and faithfully exe 
 cuted. The laws must be administered and the constituted authorities 
 upheld, and all unlawful resistance to these things must be put down with 
 firmness, impartiality and fidelity if we expect to enjoy and transmit 
 unimpaired to our posterity, that blessed inheritance which we have 
 received in trust from the patriots and sages of the Revolution. 
 
 With sincere thanks for the kind and agreeable manner in which you 
 have made known to me the action of the Convention, 
 
 I have the honor to be, 
 Your friend and fellow citizen, 
 
 S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 Hon. Wrn. II. Ludlow, of New York ; R. P. Dick, of North Carolina ; P. C. Wickliff, of 
 Louisiana-, and others of Committee. 
 
SPEECHES AND REPORTS. 
 
 ON THE MEASURES OF ADJUSTMENT. 
 Delivered in the City Hall, Chicago, Illinois, Oct. 23, 1850. 
 
 THE agitation on the subject of slavery now raging through the 
 breadth of the land presents a most extraordinary spectacle. Congress, 
 after a protracted session of nearly ten months, succeeded in passing 
 a system of measures, which are believed to be just to all parts of the 
 Republic, and ought to be satisfactory to the people. The South has 
 not triumphed over the North, nor has the North achieved a victory 
 over the South. Neither party has made any humiliating concessions 
 to the other. Each has preserved its honor, while neither has sur 
 rendered an important right, or sacrificed any substantial interest. 
 The measures composing the scheme of adjustment are believed to 
 be in harmony with the principles of justice and the Constitution. 
 
 And yet we find that the agitation is re-opened in the two extremes 
 of the Union with renewed vigor and increased violence. In some 
 of the southern States, special sessions of the legislatures are being 
 called for the purpose of organizing systematic and efficient measures 
 of resistance to the execution of the laws of the land, and for the 
 adoption of disunion as the remedy. In the northern States, munici 
 pal corporations, and other organized bodies of men, are nullifying 
 the acts of Congress, and raising the standard of rebellion against 
 the authority of the Federal Government. 
 
 At the South, the measures of adjustment are denounced as a dis 
 graceful surrender of southern rights to northern abolitionism. 
 
 At the North, the same measures are denounced with equal violence 
 as a total abandonment of the rights of freemen to conciliate the slave 
 power. 
 
 The southern disunionists repudiate the authority of the highest 
 judicial tribunal on earth, upon the ground that it is a pliant and 
 corrupt instrument in the hands of northern fanaticism. 
 
 The northern nullifiers refuse to submit the points at issue to the 
 same exalted tribunal, upon the ground that the Supreme Court of 
 the United States is a corrupt and supple instrument in the hands of 
 the southern slavocracy. 
 
 For these contradictory reasons the people in both sections of th 
 
4 1 II E LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Union are called upon to resist the laws of the lai.d, and the authority 
 of the Federal Government, by violence, even unto death and disunion. 
 
 Strange and contradictory positions! 
 
 Both cannot be true, and I trust in God neither may prove to be. 
 We have fallen on evil times, when passion^ and prejudice, and ambi 
 tion, can so blind the judgments and deaden the consciences of men, 
 that the truth cannot be seen and felt. The people of the North, or 
 the South, or both, are acting under a fatal delusion. Should we not 
 pause, and reflect, and consider, whether we, as well as they, have 
 not been egregiously deceived upon this subject ? It is my purpose 
 .this evening to give a candid and impartial exposition of these mea 
 sures, to the end that the truth may be known. It does not become 
 a free people to rusli madly and blindly into violence, and bloodshed, 
 and death, and disunion, without first satisfying our consciences upon 
 whose souls the guilty consequences must rest. 
 
 The measures, known as the adjustment or compromise scheme, 
 are six in number : 
 
 1. The admission of California, with her free constitution. 
 
 2. The creation of a Territorial government for Utah, leaving the 
 people to regulate their own domestic institutions. 
 
 3. The creation of a Territorial government for New Mexico, with 
 like provisions. 
 
 4. The adjustment of the disputed boundary with Texas. 
 
 5. The abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. 
 
 6. The Fugitive Slave Bill. 
 
 The first three of these measures California, Utah, and New 
 Mexico I prepared with my own hands, and reported from the 
 Committee on Territories, as its chairman, in the precise shape in 
 which they now stand on the statute-book, with one or two unimportant 
 amendments, for which I also voted. I, therefore, hold myself iv>- 
 ponsible to you, as my constituents, for those measures as they passed. 
 If there is anything wrong in them, hold me accountable; if there is 
 anything of merit, give the credit to those who passed tlve bills. 
 These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that 
 every people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating 
 their own internal concerns and domestic institutions in their own 
 way. It was supposed that those of our fellow-citizen!? who emi 
 grated to the shores of the Pacific and to our other territories, were 
 as capable of self-government as their neighbors and kindred whom 
 they left behind them ; and there was no reason for believing that 
 they have lost any of their intelligence or patriotism by the wayside, 
 while crossing the Isthmus or the Plains. It was also believed, that 
 after their arrival in the country, when they had become familiar 
 with its topography, climate, productions, and rest nrccs, and had con 
 nected their destiny with it, they were fully as competent to judge for 
 themselves what kind of laws and institutions were best adapted to 
 their condition and interests, as we were who never ~aw the country, 
 and knew y little about it. To question their competency to do 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 5 
 
 this, was to deny their capacity for self-government. If they have 
 the requisite intelligence and honesty to be intrusted with the enact 
 ment of laws for the government of white men, I know of no reason 
 why tl.ey should not be deemed competent to legislate for the negro. 
 It they are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protection 
 of life, liberty, and property of morals and education to determine 
 the relation of husband and wife of parent and child I am not 
 aware that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate 
 the affairs of master and servant. These things are all confided by 
 the Constitution of each State to decide for itself, and I know of no 
 reason why the same principle should not be extended to the Terri 
 tories. My votes and acts have been in accordance with these views 
 in all cases, except the instances in which I voted under your 
 instructions. Those were your votes, and not mine. I entered my 
 protest against them at the time before and after they were recorded 
 and shall never hold myself responsible for them. I believed then, 
 and believe now, that it was better for the cause of freedom, of 
 humanity, and of republicanism, to leave the people interested to 
 settle all these questions for themselves. They have intellect and 
 consciences as well as we, and have more interest in doing that 
 which is best for themselves and their posterity, than we have as 
 their self-constituted and officious guardians. I deem it fortunate for 
 the peace and harmony of the country that Congress, taking the 
 same view of the subject, rejected the Proviso, and passed the bills 
 in the shape in which I originally reported them. So far as slavery 
 is concerned, I am sure that any man who will take the pains to 
 examine the history of the question, will come to the conclusion that 
 this is the true policy, as well as the sound republican doctrine. Mr. 
 Douglas here went into a historical view of the subject, to show 
 that slavery had never been excluded in fact from one inch of the 
 American continent by act of Congress. When the federal Consti 
 tution was formed in 87, twelve of the thirteen States, then compos 
 ing the Confederation, held slaves, and sustained the institution of 
 slavery by their laws. Since that period slavery had been abol 
 ished in six of these twelve original slave States. How was this 
 effected ? Not by an act of Congress. Not by the interposition of 
 the Federal Government. Congress had no power over the subject, 
 and never attempted to interfere with it. Slavery was abolished in 
 those States by the people of each, acting for themselves, and upon 
 their own motion and responsibility. The people became convinced 
 that it was for their own interests, and the interests of their posterity, 
 pecuniarily and morally, and they did it of their own free will, and 
 rigidly enforced their own laws. 
 
 So it was in the territory northwest of the Ohio River. By the act 
 of Congress, known as the Ordinance of 87, slavery was prohibited 
 by law, but not excluded in fact. Slavery existed in the Territories 
 of Illinois and Indiana, in spite of the Ordinance, under the authority 
 of the Territorial laws. Illinois was a slaveholding Territory in de- 
 
6 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 fiance of the act of Congress, but became a free State by tlie action 
 of our own people, when they framed our State constitution, prepa 
 ratory to their admission into the Union. So it was with Indiana. 
 Oregon prohibited slavery by the action of her people under their 
 provisional government, several years before Congress established 
 a Territorial government. In short, wherever slavery has been 
 excluded, and free institutions established, it has been done by the 
 voluntary action of the people interested. Wherever Congress at 
 tempted to interfere in opposition to the wishes of the people of the 
 Territory, its enactments remained a dead letter upon the statute- 
 book, and the people took such legislative action as comported with 
 their inclinations and supposed interests. 
 
 Mr. Douglas then referred to the country acquired from Mexico, 
 and called the attention of the audience to the fact, that the aboli 
 tionists had all predicted that slavery would certainly be introduced 
 into those territories, unless Congress interfered and prohibited it by 
 law, and condemned him because he was opposed to such interfer 
 ence. The problem is now solved. What was then a matter of 
 opinion and disputation, has become a historical fact. Time has 
 settled the controversy, and shown who was right and who was 
 wrong. The Wilmot Proviso was not adopted. Congress did not 
 prohibit slavery in those territories, and yet slavery does not exist in 
 them. In California, it was prohibited by the people in the consti 
 tution with which that State was admitted into the Union. It is 
 well known that the people of ISTew Mexico, when they formed a 
 constitution with the view of asking admission, also prohibited sla 
 very. These facts show conclusively that all the predictions of the 
 abolitionists upon this subject have been falsified by history, and that 
 my own have been literally fulfilled. I refer to these facts, not in the 
 spirit of self-gratulation, but to show that these men, who have 
 alarmed the friends of freedom, and for a time partially controlled 
 the popular sentiment, were themselves mistaken, and misled their 
 followers; at the same time that their doctrine was at war with the 
 whole spirit of our republican institutions. 
 
 But let us return to the measures immediately under discussion. 
 It must be conceded that the question of the admission of California 
 was not free from difficulty, independently of the subject of sla 
 very. There were many irregularities in the proceedings ; in fact, 
 every step in her application for admission was irregular, when 
 viewed with reference to a literal compliance with the most approved 
 rules and usages in the admission of new States. On the other haud, 
 it should be borne in mind that this resulted from the necessity of 
 the case. Congress had failed to perform its duty had established 
 no Territorial government, and made no provision for her admission 
 into the Union. She was left without government, and was there 
 fore compelled to provide one for herself. She could not conform 
 to rules which had not been established, nor comply with laws which 
 Congress had failed to enact. The same irregularities had occurred. 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 7 
 
 however, and been waived, in the admission of other States under 
 peculiar circumstances. True, they had not all occurred in the case 
 of any one State; but some had in one, others in another; so that, 
 by looking into the circumstances attending the admission of each of 
 the new States, we find that all of these irregularities, as they are 
 called, had intervened and been waived in the course of our legisla 
 tive history. Besides, the territory of California was too extensive 
 for one State, (if we are to adopt the old States as a guide in carving 
 out new ones,) being about three times the size of New York; and 
 her boundaries were unnatural and unreasonable, disregarding the 
 topography of the country, and embracing the whole mining region 
 and her coast in the limits. Thus it will be seen that the slavery 
 question was not the only real difficulty that the admission of Cali 
 fornia presented to the minds of calm and reflecting men ; although 
 it cannot be denied that it was the exciting cause, which stimulated 
 a large portion of the people in one section to demand her instant 
 admission, and in the other, to insist upon her unconditional rejec 
 tion. Even in this point of view, I humbly conceive that the ultras 
 in each extreme of the republic acted under a misconception of their 
 true interests and real policy. The whole of California from the 
 very nature of the country, her rocks and sands, elevation above the 
 sea, climate, soil, and productions was bound to be free territory 
 by the decision of her own people, no matter when admitted or how 
 divided. Hence, if considered" with reference to the preponderance 
 of political power between the free and slaveholding States, it was 
 manifestly the true policy of the South to include the whole country 
 in one State ; while the same reasons should have induced the North 
 to subdivide it into as many States as the extent of the territory 
 would justify. But, in my opinion, it was not proper for Congress 
 to act upon any such principle. We should know no North, no 
 South, in our legislation, but look to the interests of the whole coun 
 try. By our action in this case, the rights and privileges of Califor 
 nia and the Pacific coast were principally to be affected. By erect 
 ing the country into one State instead of three, the people are to be 
 represented in the Senate by two in the place of six senators. If 
 their interests suffer in consequence, they can blame no one but 
 themselves, for Congress only confirmed what they had previously 
 done. The problem in relation to slavery should have been much 
 more easily solved. It was a question which concerned the people 
 of California alone. The other States of the Union had no interest 
 in it, and no right to interfere with it. South Carolina settled that 
 question within her own limits to suit herself; Illinois has decided it 
 in a manner satisfactory to her own people ; and upon what prin 
 ciple are we to deprive the people of the State of California of a right 
 which is common to every State in the Union ? 
 
 The bills establishing Territorial governments for Utah and New 
 Mexico are silent upon the subject of slavery, except the provision 
 that, when they should be admitted into the Union as States, each 
 
8 . THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 should decide the question of slavery for itself. This latter provision 
 was not incorporated in my original bills, for the reason that I con 
 ceived it to involve a principle so clearly deducible from the Consti 
 tution that it was unnecessary to embody it in the form of a legal 
 enactment. But when it was offered as an amendment to the bills, 
 I cheerfully voted for it, lest its rejection should be deemed a denial 
 of the principle asserted in it. The abolitionists of the North pro 
 fess to regard these bills as a total abandonment of the principles of 
 freedom, because they do not contain an express prohibition of sla 
 very ; while the ultras of the South denounce the same measures as 
 equivalent to the Wilmot Proviso. 
 
 Of ths Texas boundary I have but little to say, for the reason that 
 I have scarcely heard it alluded to since my return home, although 
 many complaints are made against it in other portions of the free 
 States. It was an unfortunate dispute, which could result in no 
 practical benefit to either party, no matter how decided. The Terri 
 tory in controversy was of no considerable value. If there was a 
 spot on the face of the American continent more worthless than any 
 other ; if there was a barren waste more desolate sands more arid, 
 and rocks more naked than all others it was the country in dispute 
 between Texas and the United States. Distant from navigation, and 
 almost inaccessible for want of means of communication ; void of 
 timber, fuel, water, or soil, with the exception of here and there a 
 nook in the gorges of the mountains, it was entirely useless, save as 
 it afforded hiding-places for the wild and roaming savages. And yet 
 the controversy was none the less serious and fierce in consequence 
 of the barrenness of the country. Texas believed it to be hers, and 
 deemed it a point of honor to maintain her title at all hazards and 
 against all odds. Many of the States entertained doubts of the vali 
 dity of the Texan claim, while others considered it entirely without 
 foundation. In this state of the case, each party having partial pos 
 session, was mustering troops to render its possession complete to 
 the exclusion of the other. Many of the slaveholding States, from 
 sympathy with the peculiar institutions of Texas, were preparing to 
 array themselves on the one side, while most of the free States, from 
 aversion to those institutions, were expected to array themselves on 
 the other. Thus were we plunging headlong and madly into a civil 
 war, involving results which no human wisdom could foresee, and 
 consequences which could be contemplated only with horror. 
 
 Fortunately this unnatural struggle was averted by the timely and 
 judicious interposition of Congress. The Committee on Territories, 
 to whom the subject had been referred, found it impossible to ascer 
 tain -and agree upon the true boundary line of Texas, and accord 
 ingly authorized me, as their chairman, to report a bill for adjusting 
 the boundary upon an arbitrary but convenient line, drawn through 
 the centre of the desert, and to pay Texas dollars for relin 
 quishing her claim to the waste lands outside of that line. I, there 
 fore, reported this provision-, at the same time that I brought in the 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 9 
 
 lills for California, Utah, and New Mexico, with the intention of 
 moving to fill the blank with ten millions of dollars. When the 
 Committee of Thirteen, which was subsequently appointed, united 
 into one the several bills which had been reported by the Commit 
 tee on Territories, and thus formed what has been known as the 
 " Omnibus Bill," they made a slight change in the line which had 
 been agreed upon by the Territorial Committee. Upon the defeat 
 of the Omnibus, Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, brought in a separate bill 
 for adjusting this boundary, predicated upon the principle, also, of 
 an arbitrary but convenient line through the Desert, changing the 
 courses, however, so as to obviate some objections which have been 
 urged to the others, and paying Texas ten millions of dollars for re 
 linquishing her claim. This bill, after having been joined in the 
 House of Representatives to the bill establishing a Territorial gov 
 ernment for New Mexico, passed both houses, and became the law 
 of the land. The people of Texas have since ratified it at the polls 
 by an overwhelming majority ; and thus this dangerous element of 
 agitation has been withdrawn from the controversy by the mutual 
 assent of the parties. And yet there are organized parties, in both 
 extremes of the Union, who are striving to reopen the controversy 
 by persuading the people that the rights and interests of their own 
 particular section have been basely betrayed in the settlement of 
 this question. At the South, it is boldly proclaimed, and every 
 where repeated, that sixty thousand square miles of slave territory 
 have been sold and converted into free soil. On the other hand, 
 the northern nullifiers and abolitionists are industriously impressing 
 it upon the people that more than fifty thousand square miles of free 
 soil have been transferred to Texas, and converted into slave terri 
 tory by the act of Congress adjusting the Texas boundary. Such 
 are the extremities to which prejudice and ambition can lead des 
 perate men ! Neither party has gained or lost anything, so far as 
 the question of slavery is concerned. Texas has gained ten millions 
 of dollars, and the United States have saved, in blood and treasure, 
 the expenses of a civil war. 
 
 The next in the series of measures was the bill for the abolition ot 
 the slave trade in the District of Columbia. This bill was prepared 
 and reported by the Committee of Thirteen, and I gave it my cordial, 
 support. I has been represented at the South as a concession to the 
 North, to induce us to perform our duties under the Constitution in 
 the surrender of fugitives from labor, and much opposition has been 
 raised against the whole scheme of adjustment on that account. I 
 did not regard it in that light. My vote was given upon no such con 
 siderations. I believed each of the measures substantially right in 
 itself, and, under the extraordinary circumstances by which we were 
 surrounded, eminently wise and expedient. The bill does not abolish 
 slavery in the District does not emancipate the few slaves that aro 
 there, and interferes with no man s right of property. It simply 
 provides that slaves shall not be brought from the surrounding 
 
 1* 
 
10 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 States, or elsewhere, into the District for sale. In this respect, Con 
 gress only followed the example of the legislatures of Maryland, 
 North Carolina, Kentucky, and, in fact, most of the slaveholding 
 States. The country embraced within the limits of the District of 
 Columbia, therefore, stands in precisely the same relation to the 
 slave trade under this law, that it would have stood under the laws 
 of Maryland, if it had never been separated from that State. What 
 justification can there be then, for the assertion that this was a con 
 cession to the North ? It does nothing more nor less than to apply the 
 general principles of the legislation of a majority of the southern 
 States to the District of Columbia. But, while it was no concession 
 from one section to the other, I had a right to expect that those 
 modern philanthropists who have declaimed so eloquently and vio 
 lently against the disgrace of the National Capitol, by the slave trade 
 within its precincts, would have rejoiced with exceeding joy at the 
 passage of this act. I have listened in vain for one word of appro 
 val or commendation from the advocates of abolition or nullification. 
 While the whole series of Compromise measures are denounced in 
 coarse and unmeasured terms, not one word of congratulation to the 
 friends of freedom- not a word of approval of the act or of the 
 conduct of those who voted for it is allowed to escape their lips. 
 All the other measures of the scheme of adjustment are attempted 
 to be kept in the background, and concealed from the public view, 
 in order that more prominence and importance may be given to 
 what they are pleased to call "THE INFAMOUS FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL." 
 
 Before 1 proceed to the exposition of that bill, I will read the pre 
 amble and resolutions passed by the Common Council of this city, 
 night before last. 
 
 Mr. Douglas then read as follows : 
 
 " Whereas, The Constitution of the United States provides that the privilege 
 of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of 
 rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it; and, 
 
 " Whereas, The late act of Congress purporting to be for the recovery of 
 fugitive slaves, virtually suspends the habeas corpus, and abolishes the right 
 of trial by jury, and by its provisions, not only fugitive slaves, but white men, 
 owing service to another in another State, viz., the apprentice, the mecha 
 nic, the farmer, the laborer engaged on contract or otherwise, whose terms of 
 service are unexpired, may be captured and carried off summarily, and withoul 
 legal resource of any kind ; and, 
 
 u Whereas, No law can be legally or morally binding on us which violates 
 the provisions of the Constitution ; and, 
 
 " Whereas, Above all, in the responsibilities of human life, and the practice 
 and propagation of Christianity, the laws of God should be held paramount to 
 all human compacts and statutes : Therefore, 
 
 " Resolved, That the Senators and Representatives in Congress from the free 
 States, who aided and assisted in the passage of this infamous law, and those 
 who basely sneaked away from their seats, and thereby evaded the question, 
 richly merit the reproach of all lovers of freedom, and are fit only to be ranked 
 with the traitors, Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed bis Lorrf 
 and Master for thirty pieces of silver. 
 
 "And Resolv&d. That the citizens, officers, and police of the city be, and 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 11 
 
 they are hereby requested to abstain from all interference in the capture and 
 delivering up of the fugitive from unrighteous oppression, of whatever nation, 
 name, or color. 
 
 " Resolved, That the Fugitive Slave Law lately passed by Congress is a cruel 
 and unjust law, and ought not to be respected by any intelligent community, 
 and that this Council will not require the city police to render any assistance 
 for the arrest of fugitive slaves. 
 
 " AYES Aid. Milliken, Loyd, Sherwood, Foss, Throop, Sherman, Richards, 
 Brady and Dodge. 
 
 " NAYS Aid. Page and Williams." 
 
 But for the passage of these resolutions, said Mr. D., I should not 
 have addressed you this evening, nor, indeed, at any time before iny 
 return to the Capitol. I have no desire to conceal or withhold my 
 opinions, no wish to avoid the responsibility of a full and frank 
 expression of them, upon this and all other subjects which were 
 embraced in the action of the last session of Congress. My reasons 
 for wishing to avoid public discussion at this time, were to be found 
 in the state of my health and the short time allowed me to remain 
 among you. 
 
 Now to the resolutions. I make no criticism upon the language 
 in which they are expressed ; that is a matter of taste, and in every 
 thing of that kind I defer to the superior refinement of our city 
 fathers. But it cannot be disguised that the polite epithets of 
 " traitors, Benedict Arnold, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his 
 Lord and Master for thirty pieces of silver," will be understood 
 abroad as having direct personal application to my esteemed col 
 league, Gen. Shields, and myself. Whatever may have been the inten 
 tion of those who voted for the resolutions, I will do the members 
 of council the justice to say, that I do not believe they intended to 
 make any such application. But their secret intentions are of little 
 consequence, when they give their official sanction to a charge of 
 infamy, clothed in such language that every man who reads it must 
 give it a personal application. The whole affair, however, looks 
 strange, and even ludicrous, when contrasted with the cordial recep 
 tion and public demonstrations of kindness and confidence, and even 
 gratitude for supposed services, extended to my colleague and myself 
 upon our arrival in this city one week ago. Then we were welcomed 
 home as public benefactors, and invited to partake of a public dinner, 
 by an invitation numerously signed by men of all parties and shades 
 of opinion. The invitation had no sooner been declined, for reasons 
 which were supposed to be entirely satisfactory, and my colleague 
 staited for his home, than the Common Council, who are presumed to 
 speak officially for the whole population of the city, attempted to 
 brand their honored guests with infamy, and denounce them as Bene 
 dict Arnolds and Judas Iscariots! 1 have read somewhere that it 
 was a polite custom, in other countries and a different age, to invite 
 those whom they secretly wished to destroy to a feast, in order to 
 secure a more convenient opportunity of administering the hemlock! 
 I acquit the Common Council of any design of introducing that custom 
 
12 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 into our hospitable city. But I have done with this subject, so fai 
 as it has a personal bearing. 
 
 It is a far more important and serious matter, when viewed with 
 reference to the principles involved, and the consequences which 
 may result. The Common Council of the city of Chicago have 
 assumed to themselves the right, and actually exercised the power, 
 of determining the validity of an act of Congress, and have declared 
 it void upon the ground that it violates the Constitution of the 
 United States and the law of God ! They have gone further ; they 
 declared, by a solemn, official act, that a law passed by Congress 
 "ought not to be respected by any intelligent community," and 
 have called upon " the citizens, officers, and police of the city" 
 to abstain from rendering any aid or assistance in its execution! 
 What is this but naked, unmitigated nullification ? An act of the 
 American Congress nullified by the Common Council of the city of 
 Chicago! Whence did the council derive their authority? I have 
 been able to find no such provision in the city charter, nor am I 
 aware that the legislature of Illinois is vested with any rightful 
 power to confer such authority. I have yet to learn that a subordi 
 nate municipal corporation is licensed to raise the standard of rebel 
 lion, and throw off the authority of the Federal Government at 
 pleasure ! This is a great improvement upon South Carolinian nul 
 lification. It dispenses with the trouble, delay, and expense of con 
 vening legislatures and assembling conventions of the people, for the 
 purpose of resolving themselves back into their original elements, 
 preparatory to the contemplated revolution. It has the high merit 
 of marching directly to its object, and by a simple resolution, writ 
 ten and adopted on the same night, relieving the people from their 
 oaths and allegiance, and of putting the nation and its laws at defi 
 ance ! It nas heretofore been supposed by men of antiquated notions, 
 who have not kept up with the progress of the age, that the Supreme 
 Court of the United States was invested with the power of deter 
 mining the validity of an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the 
 forms of the Constitution. This w T as the doctrine of the entire 
 North, and of the nation, when it became necessary to exert the 
 whole power of the government to put down nullification in 
 another portion of the Union. But the spirit of the age is progres 
 sive, and is by no means confined to advancement in the arts and 
 physical sciences. The science of politics and of government is also 
 rapidly advancing to maturity and perfection. It is not long since 
 that I heard an eminent lawyer propose an important reform in the 
 admirable judicial system of our State, which he thought would 
 render it perfect. It was so simple and eminently practicable, that 
 it could not fail to excite the admiration of even the casual inquirer. 
 His proposition was, that our judicial system should be so improved 
 as to allow an appeal on all constitutional questions from the Supreme 
 Court of this State to two justices of the peace! When tltot shall 
 have been effected, but one other reform will be necessary to render 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 13 
 
 our national system perfect, and that is, to change the federal Con 
 stitution, so as to authorize an appeal, upon all questions touching 
 the validity of acts of Congress, from the Supreme Court of the 
 United States to the Common Council of the city of Chicago ! 
 
 So much for the general principles involved in the acts of the 
 council. I will now examine briefly the specific ground of objection 
 urged by the council against the Fugitive Slave Bill, as reasons why 
 it should not be obeyed. 
 
 The objections are two in number : first, that it suspends the writ 
 of habeas corpus in the time of peace, in violation of the Constitu 
 tion ; secondly, that it abolishes the right of trial by jury. 
 
 How the council obtained the information that these two odious 
 provisions were contained in the law, I am unable to divine. One 
 thing is certain, that the members of the council, who voted for these 
 resolutions, had never read the law, or they would have discovered 
 their mistake. There is not one word in it in respect to the writ of 
 habeas corpus or the right of trial by jury. Neither of these sub 
 jects is mentioned or referred to. The law is entirely silent on 
 those points. Is it to be said that an act of Congress which is 
 silent on the subject, ought to be construed to repeal a great consti 
 tutional right by implication ? Besides, this act is only an amend 
 ment amendatory to the old law the act of 1V93 but does not 
 repeal it. There is no difference between the original act and the 
 amendment, in this respect. Both are silent in regard to the writ 
 of habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury. If to be silent is to 
 suspend the one and abolish the other, then the mischief was done 
 by the old law fifty-seven years ago. If this construction be correct, 
 the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended, and a trial by a jury 
 abolished, more than half a century, without anybody ever discov 
 ering the fact, or, if knowing it, without uttering a murmur of com 
 plaint. 
 
 Mr. Douglas then read the whole of the act of 1793, and compared 
 its provisions with the amendment of last session, for the purpose 
 of showing that the writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial by 
 jury were not alluded to or interfered with by either. But I main 
 tain, said Mr. D., that the writ of habeas corpus is applicable to the 
 case of the arrest of a fugitive under this law, in the same sense in 
 which the Constitution intended to confer it, and to the fullest 
 extent for which that writ is ever rightfully issued in any case. In 
 this I am fully sustained by the opinion of Mr. Crittenden, the attor 
 ney-general of the United States. As soon as the bill passed the 
 two houses of Congress, an abolition paper raised the alarm that 
 the habeas corpus bill had been suspended. The cry was eagerly 
 caught up, and transmitted by lightning upon the wires, to every 
 part of the Union, by those whose avocation is agitation. The 
 President of the United States, previous to signing the bill, referred 
 it to the attorney -general, for his opinion upon the point whether 
 any portion of it violated any provision of the Constitution of the 
 
1-1 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 United States, and especially whether it could possibly be construed 
 to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I have the answer of the 
 attorney-general before me, in which he gives it as his decided 
 opinion that every part of the law is entirely consistent with the 
 Constitution, and that it does not suspend the writ of habeas corpus. 
 I would commend the argument of the attorney-general to the 
 careful perusal of those who have doubts upon the subject. Upon 
 the presentation of this opinion, and with entire confidence in its 
 correctness, President Fillmore signed the bill. 
 
 [Here Mr. Douglas was interrupted by a person present, who 
 called his attention to the last clause of the 6th section of the bill, 
 which he read, and asked him what construction he put upon it, if 
 it did not suspend the writ of habeas corpus.] 
 
 Mr. Douglas, in reply, expressed his thanks to the gentleman who 
 propounded the inquiry. His object was to meet every point, and 
 remove every doubt that could be possibly raised ; and he expressed 
 the hope that every gentleman present would exercise the privilege 
 of asking him questions upon all points upon which he was not fully 
 satisfied. lie then proceeded to answer the question which had been 
 propounded. That section of the bill provides for the arrest of the 
 fugitive and the trial before the commissioner ; and if the facts of 
 servitude, ownership, and escape be established by competent evi 
 dence, the commissioner shall grant a certificate to that effect, which 
 certificate shall be conclusive of the right of the person in whose 
 favor it is issued to remove the fugitive to the State from which ho 
 fled. Then comes the clause which is supposed to suspend the habeas 
 corpus : "And shall prevent all molestatian of said person or persons 
 &?/ any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person 
 whomsoever." 
 
 The question is asked, whether the writ of habeas corpus is not a 
 "PROCESS" within the meaning of this act? I answer, that it 
 undoubtedly is such a " process," and that it may be issued by any 
 court or judge having competent authority not for the purpose of 
 u molesting " a claimant, having a servant in his possession, with 
 such a certificate from the commissioner or judge, but for the purpose 
 of ascertaining the fact whether he has such a certificate or not ; 
 and if so, whether it be in due form of law ; and if not, by what 
 authority he holds the servant in custody. Upon the return of the 
 writ of habeas corpus, the claimant will be required to exhibit to 
 the court his authority for conveying that servant back ; and if he 
 produces a " certificate " from the commissioner or judge in due 
 form of law, the court will decide that it has no power to " molest 
 the claimant " in the exercise of his rights under the law and the 
 Constitution. But if the claimant is not able to produce such certi 
 ficate, or other lawful authority, or produces one which is not in 
 conformity with law, the court will set the alleged servant at liberty, 
 for the very reason that the law has not been complied with. The 
 sole object of the writ of habeas corpus is to ascertain bj what 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 15 
 
 authority a person is held in custody; to release him if no such 
 authority be shown ; and to refrain from any molestation of the 
 claimant, if legal authority he produced. The habeas corpus is 
 necessary, therefore, to carry the fugitive law into effect, and, at 
 the same time, to prevent a violation of the rights of freemen under 
 it. It is essential to the security of the claimant, as well as the 
 protection of the rights of those liable to be arrested under it. The 
 reason that the writ of habeas corpus was not mentioned in the bill 
 must be obvious. The object of the new law seems to have been, 
 to amend the old one in those particulars wherein experience had 
 proven amendments to be necessary, and in all other respects to leave 
 it as it had stood from the days of Washington. The provisions of 
 the old law have been subjected to the test of long experience to 
 the scrutiny of the bar and the judgment of the courts. The writ 
 of habeas corpus had been adjudged to exist in all cases under it, 
 and had always been resorted to when a proper case arose. In 
 amending the law there was no necessity for any new provision upon 
 this subject, because nobody desired to change it in this respect. 
 
 But why this extraordinary effort, on the part of the professed 
 friends of the fugitive, to force such a construction upon the law, in 
 the absence of any such obnoxious provision, as to deprive him of 
 the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus? The law does not do so 
 in terms; and if it is ever accomplished, it must be done by implica 
 tion, contrary to the understanding of those who enacted it, and in 
 opposition to the practice of the courts, acquiesced in by the people, 
 from the foundation of the government. One would naturally 
 suppose, that if there was room for doubt as to what is the true 
 construction, those who claim to be the especial and exclusive 
 friends of the negro would contend for that construction which is 
 most favorable to liberty, justice, and humanity. But not so. 
 Directly the reverse is the fact. They exhaust their learning, and 
 exert all their ingenuity and skill, to deprive the negro of all rights 
 under the law. What can be the motive ? Certainly not to protect 
 the rights of the free, or to extend liberty to the oppressed ; for 
 they strive to fasten upon the law such a construction as would 
 defeat both of these ends. Can it be a political scheme, to render 
 the law odious, and to excite prejudice against all who voted for it, 
 or were unavoidably absent when it passed ? No matter what the 
 motive, the effects would be disastrous to those whose rights they 
 profess to cherish, if their efforts should be successful. 
 
 Now, a word or two in regard to the right of trial by jury. The city 
 council, in their resolutions, say that this law abolishes that right. 
 1 have already shown you that the council are mistaken that the 
 law is silent upon the subject, and stands now precisely as it has 
 stood for half a century. If the law is defective on that point, the 
 error was committed by our fathers in 1793, and the people have 
 acquiesced in it ever since, without knowing of its existence or car 
 ing to remedy it. The new act neither takes away nor confers cho 
 
10 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 right of trial by jury. It leaves it just were our fathers and the 
 Constitution left it under the old law. That the right of trial by 
 jury exists in this country for all men, black or white, bond or free, 
 guilty or innocent, no man will be disposed to question who under 
 stands the subject. The right is of universal application, and exists 
 alike in all the States of Union ; it always has existed, and always 
 will exist, so long as the Constitution of the United States shall be 
 respected and maintained, in spite of the efforts of the abolitionists 
 to take it away by the perversion of the fugitive law. The ouly 
 question is, where shall this jury trial take place ? Shall the jury trial 
 be had in the State where the arrest is made, or the State from which 
 the fugitive escaped? Upon this point the act of last session says 
 nothing, and of course, leaves the matter as it stood under the law 
 of 93. The old law was silent on this point, and therefore left the 
 courts to decide it in accordance with the Constitution. The highest 
 judicial tribunals in the land have always held that the jury trial 
 must take place in the State under whose jurisdiction the question 
 arose, and whose laws were alleged to have been violated. The same 
 construction has always been given to the law for surrendering fugi 
 tives from justice. It provides also for sending back the fugitive, 
 but says nothing about the jury trial, or where it shall take place. 
 Who ever supposed that that act abolished the right of trial by jury ? 
 Every day s practice and observation teach us otherwise. The jury 
 trial is always had in the State from which the fugitive fled. So it 
 is with a fugitive from labor. When he returns, or is surrendered 
 under the law, he is entitled to a trial by jury of his right of free 
 dom, and always has it when he demands it. There is great unifor 
 mity in the mode of proceeding in the courts of the southern States 
 in this respect. "When the supposed slave sets up his claim, to the 
 judge or other officer, that he is free, and claims his freedom, it be 
 comes the duty of the court to issue its summons to the master to 
 appear in court with the alleged slave, and there to direct an issue 
 of freedom or servitude to be made and tried by a jury. The master 
 is also required to enter into bonds for his own appearance arid that 
 of the alleged slave at the trial of the cause, and that he will not 
 remove the slave from the county or jurisdiction of the court in the 
 mean time. The court is also required to appoint counsel to conduct 
 the cause for the slave, while the master employs his own counsel. 
 All the officers of the court are required by law to render all facili 
 ties to the slave for the prosecution of his suit free of charge, such as 
 issuing and serving subpoenas for witnesses, etc. If upon the trial 
 the alleged slave is held to be a free man, the master is required to 
 pay the costs on both sides. If, on the other hand, he is held to be 
 a slave, the State pays the costs. This is the way in which the trial 
 by jury stood under the old law ; and the new one makes no change 
 in this respect. If the act of last session be repealed, that will neither 
 benefit nor injure the fugitive, so far as the right of trial by jury i* 
 concerned. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 17 
 
 For these two reasons the habeas corpus and the trial by jury the 
 Common Council have pronounced the law unconstitutional, and de 
 clared that it ought not to be respected by an enlightened community. 
 I have shown that neither of the objections are well founded, and that 
 if they had taken the trouble to read the law before they nullified 
 it, they would have avoided the mistake into which they have fallen. 
 I have spoken of the acts of the city council in general terms, and it 
 may be inferred that the vote was unanimous. I take pleasure in 
 stating that I learn from the published proceedings that there was 
 barely a quorum present, and that Aldermen Page and Williams 
 voted in the negative. Having disposed of the two reasons assigned 
 by the Common Council for the nullification of the law, I shall bo 
 greatly indebted to any gentleman who will point out any other 
 objection to the new law, which does not apply with equal force to 
 the old one. My object in drawing the parallel between the new 
 and old law is this : The law of 93 was passed jhy the patriots and 
 sages who framed our glorious Constitution, ana approved by the 
 father of his country. I have always been taught to believe that 
 they were men well versed in the science of government, devotedly 
 attached to the cause of freedom and capable of construing the Con 
 stitution in the spirit in which they made it. That act has been 
 enforced and acquiesced in for more than half a century, without a 
 murmur or word of complaint from any quarter. 
 
 I repeat will any gentleman be kind enough to point out a single 
 objection to the new law, which might not be urged with equal pro 
 priety to the act of 93 ? 
 
 [Here a gentleman present arose, and called the attention of Mr. 
 Douglas to the penalties in the seventh section of the new law, and 
 desired to know if there were any such obnoxious provisions in the 
 old one.] 
 
 Mr. Douglas then read the section referred to, and also the fourth 
 section of the act of 93, and proceeded to draw the parallel between, 
 them. Each makes it a criminal offence to resist the due execution 
 of the law ; to knowingly and willfully obstruct or hinder the claimant 
 in the arrest of the fugitive ; to rescue such fugitive from the claim 
 ant when arrested ; to harbor or conceal such person after notice 
 that he or she was a fugitive from labor. In this respect the two 
 laws were substantially the same in every important particular. 
 Indeed the one was almost a literal copy of the other. I can con 
 ceive of no act which would be an offence under the one, that would 
 not be punishable under the other. In the speeches last night, great 
 importance was given to the clause which makes it an offence to 
 harbor or conceal a fugitive. You were told that you could not 
 clothe the naked, nor feed the hungry, nor exercise the ordinary 
 charities toward suffering humanity, without incurring the penalty 
 of the law. Is this a true construction of that provision ? The act 
 does not so read. The law says that you shall not " harbor or con 
 ceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such 
 
18 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 person after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a 
 fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid." This does not deprive you 
 of the privilege of extending charities to the fugitive. You may feed 
 him, clothe him, may lodge him, provided you do. not harbor or conceal 
 him, so as to prevent discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge 
 that he is a fugitive. The offence consists in preventing the discovery 
 and arrest of the fugitive after knowledge of the fact, and not in the 
 extending kindness and charities to him. This is the construction 
 put upon a similar provision in the old law by the highest judicial 
 tribunals in the land. The only difference between the old law and 
 the new one, in respect to obstructing its execution, is to be found 
 in the amount of the penalty, and not in the principle involved. 
 
 But it is further objected that the new law provides, in addition 
 to the penalty, for a civil suit for damages, to be recovered by an action 
 of debt by any court having jurisdiction of the cause. This is true ; 
 but it is also true that a similar provision is to be found in the old 
 law. The conclucftig clause in the last section of the act of 93 is as 
 follows: 
 
 u Which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such 
 claimant, by action of debt, in any proper court to try the same ; 
 saving, moreover, to the person claiming such labor or service, his right 
 of action for or on account of the said injuries, or either of them. 1 1 
 
 Thus it will be seen, that upon this point there is no difference 
 between the new and the old law. 
 
 Is there any other provision of this law upon which explanation 
 is desired ? 
 
 [A gentleman present referred to the 10th section, and desired an 
 explanation of the object and effect of the record from another State 
 therein provided for.] 
 
 1 am glad, said Mr. D., that my attention has been called to that 
 provision ; for I heard a construction given to it, in the speeches last 
 night, entirely different to the plain reading and object of that sec 
 tion. It is said, that this provision authorizes the claimant to go 
 before a court of record of the county and State where he lives, and 
 there establish by ex-parte testimony, in the absence of the fugitive, 
 the tacts of servitude, of ownership, and escape ; and when a record 
 of these facts shall have been made, containing a minute description 
 of the slave, it shall be conclusive evidence against a person corres 
 ponding to that description, arrested in another State, and shall con 
 sign the person so arrested to perpetual servitude. The law con 
 templates no such thing, and authorizes no such result. I have the 
 charity to believe that those who have put this construction upon 
 it have not carefully examined it. The record from another State 
 predicated upon " satisfactory proof to such court or judge" before 
 whom the testimony may be adduced, and the record made, is to be 
 i;i;n . 1 --jsive of two facts only: 
 
 1st. That the person named in this record does owe service to the 
 person in whose behalf the record is made. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 19 
 
 2d. That such person has escaped from service. 
 
 The language of the law is, that " the transcript of the record 
 authenticated," etc., "shall be held and taken to be full and conclu 
 sive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of 
 such person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned." 
 The record is conclusive of these two facts, so far as to authorize the 
 fugitive to be sent back for trial under the laws of the State whence 
 he fled ; l)ut it is no evidence that the person arrested here is the fugi 
 tive named in the record. The question of identity is to be proven 
 here to the satisfaction of the commissioner or judge, before whom 
 the trial is had, by " other and further evidence." This is the great 
 point in the case. The whole question turns upon it. The man 
 arrested may correspond to the description set forth in the re cord, 
 and yet not be the same individual. We often meet persons resem 
 bling each other to such an extent that the one is frequently mis 
 taken for the other. The identity of the person becomes a matter 
 of proof a fact to be established by the testimony of competent 
 and disinterested witnesses, and to be decided by the tribunal before 
 whom the trial is had, conscientiously and impartially, accord 
 ing to the evidence in the case. The description in the record, 
 unsupported by other testimony, is not evidence of the identity. It 
 is not inserted for the especial benefit of the claimant much less to 
 the prejudice of the alleged slave. It is required as a test of truth, 
 a safeguard against fraud, which will often operate favorably to the 
 fugitive, but never to his injury. If the description be accurate and 
 true, no injustice can possibly result from it. But if it be erroneous 
 or false, the claimant is concluded by it ; and the fugitive, availing 
 himself of the error, defeats the claim, in the same manner as a dis 
 crepancy between the allegations and the proof, in any other case, 
 results to the advantage of the defendant. I repeat, that when an 
 arrest is made under a record from another State, the identity of the 
 person must be established by competent testimony. The trial in 
 this instance, would be precisely the same as in the case of a white 
 man arrested on a charge of being a fugitive from justice. The writ 
 of the governor, predicated upon an indictment, or even an affidavit 
 from another State, containing the charge of crime, would be con 
 clusive evidence of the right to take the fugitive back ; but the 
 identity of the person in that case, as well as a fugitive from labor, 
 must be proven in the State where the arrest is made, by competent 
 witnesses, before the tribunal provided by law for that purpose. In 
 this respect, therefore, the negro is placed upon a perfect equality 
 with the white man who is so unfortunate as to be charged with an 
 offence in another State, whether the charge by true or false. lu 
 some respects, the law guards the rights of tlie negro, charged with 
 being a fugitive from labor, more rigidly than it does those of a 
 white man who is alleged to be a fugitive from justice. The record 
 from another State must be predicated upon " proof satisfactory 
 to the court or judge" before whom it is made, and must set forth 
 
20 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 the " matter proved," before it can be evidence against a fugitive 
 from labor, or for any purpose ; whereas, an innocent white man, 
 who is so unfortunate as to be falsely charged with a crime in 
 another State, by the simple affidavit of an unknown person, without 
 indictment or proof to the satisfaction of any court, is liable to be 
 transported to the most distant portions of this Union for trial. 
 
 Here we find the act of last session is a great improvement upon 
 the law of 93 in reference to fugitives, white or black, whether they 
 tied from justice or labor. But it is objected that the testimony 
 before the court making the record is ex parte, and therefore in vio 
 lation of the principles of justice and the Constitution ; because it 
 deprives the accused of the privilege of meeting the witnesses face 
 to face, and of cross-examination. Gentlemen forget that all pro 
 ceedings for the arrest of fugitives are necessarily ex parte, from the 
 nature of the case. They have fled beyond the jurisdiction of the 
 court, and the object of the proceeding is, that they may be brought 
 back, confront the witnesses, and receive a fair trial according to the 
 Constitution and laws. If they would stay at home in order to 
 attend the trial, and cross-examine the witnesses, the record would 
 be unnecessary, and the fugitive law inoperative. It is no answer 
 to this proposition to say that slavery is no crime, and therefore the 
 parallel does not hold good. I am not speaking of the guilt or inno 
 cence of slavery. I am discussing our obligations under the Consti 
 tution of the United States. That sacred instrument says that a 
 fugitive from labor u shall ~be delivered up on the claim of the 
 owner." The same clause of the same instrument provides that 
 fugitives from justice shall be delivered up. We are bound by our 
 oaths to our God to see that claim as well as every other provision 
 of the Constitution carried into effect. The moral, religious and 
 constitutional obligations resting upon us, here and hereafter, are the 
 same in the one case as in the other. As citizens, owing allegiance 
 to the government and duties to society, we have no right to inter 
 pose our individual opinions and scruples as excuses for violating the 
 supreme law of the land as our fathers made it, and as we are sworn 
 to support it. The obligation is just as sacred, under the Constitu 
 tion, to surrender fugitives from labor, as fugitives from justice. And 
 the Congress of the United States, according to the decision of the 
 Supreme Court, are as imperatively commanded to provide the 
 necessary legislation for the one as for the other. The act of 1793, 
 to which I have had occasion to refer so frequently, and which has 
 been read to you, provided for these two cases in the same bill. The 
 first half of that act, relating to fugitives from justice, applies, from 
 the nature and necessity of the case, principally to white men ; and 
 the other half for the same reasons, applies exclusively to the negro 
 race. I have shown you, by reading and comparing the two laws in 
 your presence, that there is no constitutional guaranty or common 
 Law right or legal, or judicial privilege for the protection of the 
 white nun against oppression and injustice, under the law, framed 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 21 
 
 m 1793, and now in force, for the surrender of fugitives from justice, 
 that does not apply in all its force in behalf of the negro, when 
 arrested as a fugitive from labor, under the act of the last session. 
 What more can the friends of the negro ask than, in all his civil and 
 legal rights under the Constitution, he shall be placed on an equal 
 footing with the white man ? But it is said that the law is suscepti 
 ble of being abused by perjury and false testimony. To what human 
 enactment does not the same objection lie ? You, or I, or any other 
 man, who was never in California in his life, is liable, under the 
 Constitution, to be sent there in chains for trial as a fugitive from 
 justice, by means of perjury and fraud. But does this fact prove 
 that the Constitution, and the laws for carrying it into effect, are 
 wrong, and should be resisted, as we were told last night, even unto 
 the dungeon, the gibbet and the grave ? It only demonstrates to us 
 the necessity of providing all the safeguards that the wit of man can 
 devise, for the protection of the innocent and the free, at the same 
 time that we religiously enforce, according to its letter and spirit, 
 every provision of the Constitution. I will not say that the act 
 recently passed for the surrender of fugitives from labor, accom 
 plishes all this ; but I will thank any gentleman to point out any one 
 barrier against abuse in the old law, or in the law for the surrender 
 of white men, as fugitives from justice, that is not secured to the 
 negro under the new law. I pause, in order to give any gentleman 
 an opportunity to point out the provision. I invite inquiry and 
 examination. My object is to arrive at the truth to repel error and 
 dissipate prejudice and to avoid violence and bloodshed. Will any 
 gentleman point out the provision in the old law, for securing and 
 vindicating the rights of the free man, that is not secured to him in 
 the act of last session ? 
 
 [A gentleman present rose and called the attention of Mr. Douglas 
 to the provision for paying out of the treasury of the United States 
 the expenses of carrying the fugitive back in case of anticipated 
 resistance.] 
 
 Ah, said Mr. D., that is a question of dollars and cents, involving 
 no other principle than the costs of the proceeding ! I was discuss 
 ing the question of human rights the mode of protecting the rights 
 of freemen from invasion, and the obligation to surrender fugitives 
 under the Constitution. Is it possible that this momentous question, 
 which only forty-eight hours ago was deemed of sufficient import 
 ance to authorize the city council to nullify an act of Congress, and 
 raise the standard of rebellion against the Federal Government, has 
 dwindled down into a mere petty dispute, who shall pay the costs of 
 suit ? This is too grave a question for me to discuss on this occasion. 
 I confess my utter inability to do it justice. Yesterday the Consti 
 tution of the ocean-bound republic had been overthrown; the 
 privileges of the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended ; the 
 right of trial by jury had been abolished ; pains and penalties had 
 been imposed upon every humane citizen who should feed tho 
 
22 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 hungry and cover the naked ; the law of God had been outraged by 
 an infamous act of a traitorous Congress ; and the standard of rebel 
 lion, raised by our city fathers, was floating in the breeze, calling on 
 all good citizens to rally under its sacred folds, and resist with fire 
 and sword the payment of the costs of suit upon the arrest of a 
 fugitive from labor ! 
 
 I will pass over this point, and inquire whether there is any other 
 provision of this law upon which an explanation is desired? I hope 
 no one will be backward in propounding inquiries, for I have but a 
 few days to remain with you, and desire to make a clean business of 
 this matter on the present occasion. Is there any other objection ? 
 
 [A gentleman rose, and desired to know why the bill provides for 
 paying ten dollars to the commissioner for his fee in case he decided in 
 favor of the claimant, and only five dollars if he decided against him.] 
 
 I presume, said Mr. Douglas, that the reason was that he would 
 have more labor to perform. If, after hearing the testimony, the 
 commissioner decided in favor of the claimant, the law made it his 
 duty to prepare and authenticate the necessary papers to authorize 
 him to carry the fugitive home ; but if he decided against him, he 
 had no such labor to perform. The law seems to be based upon the 
 principle that the commissioner should^ be paid according to the ser 
 vice he should render five dollars for presiding at the trial, and five 
 dollars for making out the papers in case the testimony should re 
 quire him to return the fugitive. This provision appears to be 
 exciting considerable attention in the country, and I have been ex 
 ceedingly gratified at the proceedings of a mass meeting held in a 
 county not far distant, in which it was resolved unanimously that 
 they could not be bribed, for the sum of five dollars, to Consign a 
 freeman to perpetual bondage ! This shows an exalted state of moral 
 feeling, highly creditable to those who participated in the meeting. 
 I doubt not they will make their influence felt throughout the State, 
 and will instruct their members of the legislature to reform our 
 criminal code in this respect. Under our laws, as they have stood 
 for many years, and probably from the organization of our State 
 government, in all criminal cases, on the preliminary examination 
 before the magistrates, and in all the higher courts, if the prisoner 
 be convicted, the witnesses, jurors, and officers, are entitled to their 
 fees and bills of costs ; but if he be acquitted, none of them receive 
 a cent. In order to diffuse the same high moral sense throughout 
 the whole community, would it not be well, at their next meeting, 
 to pass another resolution, that they would not be bribed by the 
 fees and costs of suit in any case, either as witnesses, jurors, magis 
 trates, or in any other capacity, to consign an innocent man to a 
 dismal cell in the penitentiary, or expose him to an ignominious 
 death upon the gallows ? Such a resolution might do a great deal 
 of good in elevating the character of our people abroad, at the same 
 time that it might inspire increased confidence in the liberality and 
 conscientiousness of those who adopted it. 
 
STEP HEN A. DOUGLAS. 23 
 
 Is there any other objection to this law ? 
 
 [A gentleman rose, and called the attention of Mr. Douglas to the 
 provision vesting the appointment of the commissioners under it in 
 the courts of law, instead of the President and Senate, and asked if 
 that was not a violation of that provision of the Constitution which 
 says that judges of the Supreme Courts, and of the inferior courts, 
 should be appointed by the President and Senate.] 
 
 I thank the gentleman, said Mr. D., for calling my attention to 
 this point. It was made in the speech of a distinguished lawyer last 
 night, and evidently produced great effect upon the minds of the 
 audience. The gentleman s high professional standing, taken in con 
 nection with his laborious preparation for the occasion, as was appa 
 rent to all, from his lengthy written brief before him, while speak 
 ing, inspired implicit confidence in the correctness of his position. 
 My answer to the objection will be found in the Constitution itself, 
 which I will read, so far as it bears upon this question : 
 
 " The President shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate, 
 shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the 
 Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, where appointments 
 are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by 
 law." 
 
 Now it will be seen that the words " inferior courts " are not men 
 tioned in the Constitution. The gentleman in his zeal against the 
 law, and his frenzy to resist it, interpolated these words, and then 
 made a plausible argument upon them. I trust this was all unin 
 tentional, or was done with the view of fulfilling the "higher law." 
 But there i is another sentence in this same clause of the Constitu 
 tion which I have not yet read. It is as follows : 
 
 " But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers 
 as they may think proper in the President alone, in the Courts of Law] or in 
 the heads of Departments." 
 
 The practice under this clause has usually been to confer the power 
 of appointing those inferior officers, whose duties were executive or 
 ministerial, upon the President alone, or upon the head of the appro 
 priate department ; and in like manner to give to the courts of law 
 the privilege of appointing their subordinates, whose duties were in 
 their nature judicial. What is meant by u inferior officers," whose 
 appointment may be vested in the " courts of law," will be seen by 
 reference to the 8th section of the Constitution, where the powers 
 of Congress are enumerated, and among them is the following : 
 
 " To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Cmirt." 
 
 Is the tribunal which is to carry the fugitive law into effect infe 
 rior to the Supreme Court of the United States ? If it is, the Con 
 stitution expressly provides for vesting the appointment in the courts 
 of law. I will remark, however, that these commissioners are not 
 
24: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 appointed under the new law, hut in obedience to an act of Con 
 gross which has stood on the statute books for many years. If those 
 who denounce and misrepresent the act of last session, had conde 
 scended to read it before they undertook to enlighten the people 
 upon it, they would have saved themselves the mortification of ex 
 posure, as I will show by reading the first section. 
 
 Here Mr. Douglas read the law, and proceeded to remark: Thus 
 it will be seen that these commissioners have been in office for years, 
 with their duties prescribed by law, nearly all of which were of a 
 judicial character, and that the new law only imposes additional 
 duties, and authorizes the increase of the number. Why has not this 
 grave constitutional objection, been discovered before, and the people 
 informed how their rights have been outraged in violation of the 
 supreme law of the land? Truly, the passage of the fugitive bill has 
 thrown a flood of light upon constitutional principles ! 
 
 Is there any other objection to the new law which does not apply 
 to the act of 93? 
 
 [A gentleman rose, and said that he would like to ask another 
 question, which was this : if the new law was so similar to the old 
 one, what was the necessity of passing any at all, since the old one 
 was still in force?] 
 
 Air. Douglas, in reply, said, that is the very question I was anxious 
 some one should propound, because I was desirous of an oppor 
 tunity of answering it. The old law answered all the purposes for 
 which it was enacted tolerably well, until the decision by the Su 
 preme Court of the United States, in the case of Priggs vs. the State 
 of Pennsylvania, eight or nine years ago. That decision rendered 
 the law comparatively inoperative, for the reason that there were 
 scarcely any officers left to execute it. It will be recollected that 
 the act of 93 imposed the duty of carrying it into effect upon the 
 magistrates and other officers under the State governments. These 
 officers performed their duties under that law, with fidelity, for 
 about fifty years, until the Supreme Court, in the case alluded 
 to, decided that they were under no legal obligation to do so, and 
 that Congress had no constitutional power to impose the duty upon 
 them. From that time, many of the officers refused to act, and soon 
 afterward the legislature of Massachusetts, and many other States, 
 passed laws making it criminal for their officers to perform these 
 duties. Hence the old law, although efficient in its provisions, and 
 similar in most respects, and especially in those now objected to, 
 almost identical with the new law, became comparatively a dead 
 letter for want of officers to carry it into effect. The judges of the 
 United States courts were the only officers left who were authorized 
 to execute it. In this State, for instance?, Judge Drummond, whose 
 residence was in the extreme northwest corner of the State, within 
 six miles of Wisconsin and three of Iowa, and in the direction where 
 fugitives were least likely to go, was the only person authorized tc 
 try the case. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 25 
 
 If a fugitive was arrested at Shawneetown or Alton, three or font 
 hundred miles from the residence of the judge, the master would 
 attempt to take him across the river to his home in Kentucky 01 
 Missouri, without lirst establishing his right to do so. This was 
 calculated to excite uneasiness and doubts in the minds of our citi 
 zens, as to the propriety of permitting the negro to be carried out 
 of the State, without the fact of his owing service, and having es 
 caped, being first proved, lest it might turn out that the negro was 
 a free man and the claimant a kidnapper. And yet, according 
 to the express term of the old law, the master was authorized to seize 
 his slave wherever he found him, and to carry him back without 
 process, or trial, or proof of any kind whatsoever. Hence, it was 
 necessary to pass the act of last session, in order to carry into 
 effect, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the provisions of the law 
 and the Constitution on the one hand, and to protect the free colored 
 man from being kidnapped and sold into slavery by unprincipled 
 men on the other hand. The purpose of the new law is to accom 
 plish these two objects to appoint officers to carry the law into 
 effect, in the place of the magistrates relieved from that duty by the 
 decision of the Supreme Court, and to guard against harassing and 
 kidnapping the free blacks, by preventing the claimant from carry 
 ing the negro out of the State, until he establishes his legal right to 
 do so. The new law, therefore, is a great improvement in this re 
 spect upon the old one, and is more favorable to justice and freedom, 
 and better guarded against abuse. 
 
 [A person present asked leave to propound another question to Mr. 
 Douglas, which was this: "If the new law is more favorable to free 
 dom than the old one, why did the southern slaveholders vote for it, 
 and desire its passage ?"] 
 
 Mr. Douglas said he would answer that question with a great deal 
 of pleasure. The southern members voted for it for the reason that 
 it was a better law than the old one better for them, better for us, 
 and better for the free blacks. It places the execution of the law in 
 the hands of responsible officers of the government, instead of leav 
 ing every man to take the law into his own hands and to execute it 
 for himself. It affords personal security to the claimant while arrest 
 ing his servant and taking him back, by providing him with the 
 opportunity of establishing his legal rights by competent testimony 
 before a tribunal duly authorized to try the case, and thus allay all 
 apprehensions and suspicions, on the part of our citizens, that he is 
 a villain, attempting to steal a free man for the purpose of selling him 
 into slavery. The slaveholder has as strong a desire to protect the 
 rights of the free black man as we have, arid much more interest to 
 do so ; for he well knows, that if outrages should be tolerated under 
 the law, and free men are seized and carried into slavery ; from that 
 moment the indignant outcry against it would be so strong here and 
 everywhere, that even a fugitive from labor could not be returned, 
 lest he also might happen to be free. The interest of the slaveholder, 
 
26 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 therefore, requires a law which shall protect the rights of all free 
 men, black or white, from any invasion or violation whatever. I 
 ask the question, therefore, whether this law is not better than the 
 old one better for the North and the South better for the peace and 
 quiet of the whole country ? Let it be remembered that this law is but 
 an amendment to the act of 93, and that the old law still remains 
 in force, except so far as it is modified by this. Every man who 
 voted against this modification, thereby voted to leave the old law 
 in force ; for I am not aware that any member of either house of 
 Congress ever had the hardihood to propose to repeal the law, and 
 make no provisions to carry the- Constitution into effect. But the 
 cry of repeal, as to the new law, has already gone forth. Well, sup 
 pose it succeeds ; what will there have gained who joined in the 
 shout ? Have I not shown that ftll the material objections they urge" 
 against the new law, apply with equal force to the old one ? What 
 do they gain, therefore, unless they propose to repeal the old law, 
 also, and make no provision for performing our obligations under the 
 Constitution? This must be the object of all men who take that 
 position. To this it must come in the end. The real objection is not 
 to the new law, nor to tho old one, but to the Constitution itself. 
 Those of you who hold the-je opinions, do not mean that the fugitive 
 from labor shall be taken back. That is the real point of your objec 
 tion. You would not care a farthing about the new law, or the old 
 law, or any other law, or what provisions it contained, if there was 
 a hole in it big enough for the fugitive to slip through and escape. 
 Habeas corpuses trials by jury records from other States pains 
 and penalties the whole catalogue of objections, would be all moon 
 shine, if the negro was not required to go back to his master. Tell 
 me, frankly, is not this the true character of your objection? 
 [Here several gentlemen gave an affirmative answer.] 
 Mr. Douglas said he would answer that objection by reading a 
 portion of the Constitution of the United States. He then read as 
 follows : 
 
 "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, 
 escaping into another, shall, into consequence of any law or regulation therein, 
 be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on the 
 claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 
 
 This, said Mr. D., is the supreme law of the land, speaking to 
 every citizen of the republic. The command is imperative. There 
 is no avoiding no escaping the obligation, so long as we live under, 
 and claim the protection of, the Constitution. We must yield implicit 
 obedience, or we must take the necessary steps to release ourselves 
 from the obligation to obey. There is no other alternative. We 
 must stand by the Constitution of the Union, with all its compro 
 mises, or we must abolish it, and resolve each State back into its 
 original elements. It is, therefore, a question of union or disunion. 
 We cannot expect our brethren of other States to remain faithful to 
 the compact, and permit us to be faithless. Are we prepared, there- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 27 
 
 fore, to execute faithfully and honestly the compact our fathers have 
 made for us ? 
 
 [Here a gentleman rose, and inquired of Mr. Douglas, whether the 
 clause in the Constitution providing for the surrender of fugitive 
 slaves was not in violation of the law of God ?] 
 
 Mr. Douglas in reply : The divine law is appealed to as authority 
 for disregarding our most sacred duties to society. The city council 
 have appealed to it, as their excuse for nullifying an act of Congress ; 
 and a committee embodied the same principle in their resolutions to 
 the meeting in this hall last night, as applicable both to the Consti 
 tution and laws. The general proposition that there is a law para 
 mount to all human enactments the law of the Supreme Euler of 
 Universe I trust that no civilized and Christian people is prepared 
 to question, much less deny. We should all recognize, respect, and 
 revere the divine law. But we should bear in mind that the law of 
 God, as revealed to us, is intended to operate on our consciences, and 
 insure the performance of our duties as individuals and Christians. 
 The divine law does not prescribe the form of government under 
 which we shall live, and the character of our political and civil insti 
 tutions. Kevelation has not furnished us with a constitution a code 
 of international law and a system of civil and municipal jurispru 
 dence. It has not determined the right of persons and property 
 much less the peculiar privileges which shall be awarded to each 
 class of persons under any particular form of government. God has 
 created man in his own image, and endowed him with the right of 
 self-government, so soon as he shall evince the requisite intelligence, 
 virtue, and capacity to assert and enjoy the privilege. The history 
 of world furnishes few examples where any considerable portion of 
 the human race have shown themselves sufficiently enlightened and 
 civilized to exercise the rights and enjoy the blessings of freedom. 
 In Asia and Africa we find nothing but ignorance, superstition, and 
 despotism. Large portions of Europe and America can scarcely lay 
 claim to civilization and Christianity; and a still smaller portion 
 have demonstrated their capacity for self-government. Is all this 
 contrary to the laws of God ? And if so, who is responsible ? The 
 civilized world have always held, that when any race of men have 
 shown themselves so degraded, by ignorance, superstition, cruelty, 
 and barbarism, as to be utterly incapable of governing themselves, 
 they must, in the nature of things, be governed by others, by such 
 laws as are deemed applicable to their condition. It is upon this 
 principle alone that England justifies the form of government she 
 has established in the Indies, and for some of her other colonies 
 that Kussia justifies herself in holding her serfs as slaves, and selling 
 them as a part of the land on which they live that our Pilgrim 
 Fathers justified themselves in reducing the negro and Indian to 
 servitude, and selling them as property that we in Illinois and 
 Host of the free States, justify ourselves in denying the negro and 
 -16 Indian the privilege of voting, and all other political rights- and 
 
28 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 that many of the States of the Union justify themselves in depriving 
 the white man of the right of the elective franchise, unless he is for 
 tunate enough to own a certain amount of property. 
 
 These things certainly violate the principle of absolute equality 
 among men, when considered as component parts of apolitical society 
 or government, and so do many provisions of the Constitution of the 
 United States, as well as the several States of the Union. In fact, no 
 government ever existed on earth in which there was a perfect equality, 
 in all things, among those composing it and governed by it. Neither 
 sacred nor profane history furnishes an example. If inequality in the 
 form and principles of government is therefore to be deemed a viola 
 tion of the laws of God, and punishable as such, who is to escape ? 
 Under this principle all Christendom is doomed, and no Pagan can 
 hope for mercy ? Many of these things are, in my opinion, unwise 
 and unjust, and, of course, subversive of republican principles ; but 
 I am not prepared to say that they are either sanctioned or con 
 demned by the divine law. Who can assert that God has prescribed 
 the form and principles of government, and the character of the poli 
 tical, municipal and domestic institutions of men on earth ? This 
 doctrine would annihilate the fundamental principle upon which our 
 political system rests. Our forefathers held that the people had an 
 inherent right to establish such Constitution and laws for the govern 
 ment of themselves and their posterity, as they should deem best 
 calculated to insure the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
 happiness ; and that the same might be altered and changed as expe 
 rience should satisfy them to be necessary and proper. Upon this 
 principle the Constitution of the United States was formed, and our 
 glorious Union established. All acts of Congress passed in pursuance 
 of the Constitution are declared to be the supreme laws of the land, 
 and the Supreme Court of the United States is charged with expound 
 ing the same. All officers and magistrates, under the Federal and 
 State governments executive, legislative, judicial, and ministerial 
 are required to take an oath to support the Constitution, before they 
 can enter upon the performance of their respective duties. Any citi 
 zen, therefore, who in his conscience, believes that the Constitution 
 of the United States is in violation of a " higher law," has no right, 
 as an honest man, to take office under it, or exercise any other func 
 tion of citizenship conferred by it. Every person born under the 
 Constitution owes allegiance to it ; and every naturalized citizen 
 takes an oath support it. Fidelity to the Constitution is the only 
 passport to the enjoyment of rights under it. When a senator elect 
 presents his credentials, he is not allowed to take his seat until he 
 places his hand upon the holy evangelist, and appeals, to his God for 
 the sincerity of his vows to support the Constitution. He, who doe:* 
 this, with a mental reservation or secret intention to disregard any 
 provision of the Constitution, commits a double crime is morally 
 guilty of perfidy to his God and treason to his country ! 
 
 If the Constitution of the United States is to be repudiated upon 
 
STEP II EN A. DOUGLAS. 29 
 
 the ground that it is repugnant to the divine law, where are the 
 friends of freedom and Christianity to look for another and a better ? 
 Who is to be the prophet to reveal the will of God and establish a 
 Theocracy for us ? 
 
 Is he to be found in the ranks of northern abolitionism, or of 
 southern disunion ; or is the Common Council of the city of Chicago 
 to have the distinguished honor of furnishing the chosen one ? I 
 will not venture to inquire what are to be the form and principles 
 of the new government, or to whom is to be intrusted the execution 
 of its sacred functions ; for, when we decide that the wisdom of our 
 revolutionary fathers was foolishness, and their piety wickedness, 
 and destroy the only system of self government that has ever real 
 ized the hopes of the friends of freedom, and commanded the respect 
 of mankind, it becomes us to wait patiently until the purposes of the 
 Latter Day Saints shall be revealed unto us. 
 
 For my part, I am prepared to maintain and preserve inviolate the 
 Constitution as it is with all its compromises, to stand or fall by the 
 American Union, clinging with the tenacity of life to all its glorious 
 memories of the past and precious hopes for the future. 
 
 Mr. Douglas then explained the circumstances which rendered his 
 absence unavoidable when the vote was taken on the fugitive bill 
 in the Senate. He wished to avoid no responsibility on account of 
 that absence, and therefore desired it to be distinctly understood that 
 he should have voted for the bill if he could have been present. He 
 referred to several of our most prominent and respected citizens by 
 name, as personally cognizant of the fact that he was anxious at that 
 time to give that vote. He believed the passage of that or some 
 other efficient law a solemn duty, imperatively demanded by the 
 Constitution. In conclusion, Mr. I), made an earnest appeal to our 
 citizens to rally as one man to the defence of the Constitution and 
 laws, and above all things, and under all circumstances, to put down 
 violence and disorder, by maintaining the supremacy of the laws. 
 He referred to our high character for law and order heretofore, and 
 also to the favorable position of our city for commanding the trade 
 between the JSTorth and South, through our canals and railroads, to 
 show that our views and principles of action should be broad, liberal, 
 and national, calculated to encourage union and harmony, instead of 
 disunion and sectional bitterness. He concluded by remarking, that 
 he considered this question of fidelity to the Constitution and supre 
 macy of the laws, as so far paramount to all other considerations, 
 that he had prepared some resolutions to cover these points only, 
 which he would submit to the meeting, and take their judgment upon 
 them. If he had consulted his own feelings and views only, he 
 should have embraced in the resolutions a specific approval of all the 
 measures of the compromise ; but as the question of rebellion and 
 resistance to the Federal Government has been distinctly presented, 
 it has been thought advisable to meet that issue on this occasion, dis 
 tinct and separate from all others. 
 
30 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Mr. Douglas then offered the following resolutions, which were 
 adopted without a dissenting voice : 
 
 Resolved, That it is the sacred duty of every friend of the Union to maintain, 
 and preserve inviolate, every provision of our federal Constitution. 
 
 Resolved, That any law enacted by Congress, in pursuance of the Constitu 
 tion, should be respected as such by all good and law-abiding citizens, and 
 should be faithfully carried into effect by the officers charged with its execution. 
 
 Resolved, That so long as the Constitution of the United States provides, that 
 all persons held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another State, 
 "SHALL BE DELIVERED UP on the claim of the party to whom the service or 
 labor may be due," and so long as members of Congress are required to take 
 an oath to support the Constitution, it is their solemn and religious duty to pass 
 all laws necessary to carry that provision of the Constitution into effect. 
 
 Resolved, That if we desire to preserve the Union, and render our great 
 Republic inseparable and perpetual, we must perform all our obligations under 
 the Constitution, at the same time that we call upon our brethren in other 
 States to yield implicit obedience to it. 
 
 Resolved, That as the lives, property and safety of ourselves and our families 
 depend upon the observance and protection of the laws, every effort to excite 
 any portion of our population to make resistance to the due execution of the 
 laws of the land, should be promptly and emphatically condemned by every 
 good citizen. 
 
 Resolved, That we will stand or fall by the American Union and its Constitu 
 tion, with all its compromises, with its glorious memories of the past and pre 
 cious hope of the future. 
 
 [The following was offered in addition by B. S. Morris, and also 
 adopted :] 
 
 Resolved, That we, the people of Chicago, repudiate the resolutions passed 
 by the Common Council of Chicago upon the subject of the Fugitive Slave Law 
 passed by Congress at its last session. 
 
 On the succeeding night the common council of the city repealed 
 their nullifying resolution by a vote of 12 to 1. 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 31 
 
 ON THE CLAYTON BULWEK TEEATY. 
 
 Delivered in the Senate of the United States, March 10 and 17, 18.j:j. 
 
 On returning to the Senate of the United States at the 
 special session, commencing on the 4th March, 1843, Senator 
 Clayton, of Delaware, offered the following resolutions : 
 
 Resolved, That the President be respectfully requested, if compatible in his 
 opinion with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the propositions 
 mentioned in the letter of the secretary of state accompanying the Executive 
 message to the Senate of the 18th February last, as having been agreed upon 
 by the Department of State, the British minister, and the state of Costa Kica, 
 on the 30th of April, 1852, having for their object the settlement of the terri 
 torial controversies between the states and governments bordering on the 
 river San Juan. 
 
 Resolved, That the secretary of state be directed to communicate to the 
 Senate such information as it maybe in the power of his department to furnish, 
 in regard to the conflicting claims of Great Britain and the state of Honduras, 
 to the island of Eoatan, Bonacca, Utilla, Barbarat, Helcne, arid Morat, in or 
 near the Bay of Honduras. 
 
 On the 8th and 9th of March, 1853, he addressed the 
 Senate on the subject, and arraigned Senators Cass, Mason, 
 and Douglas, for the part they had taken in the debate 
 during the regular session. On the 10th of March, Mr. 
 Douglas replied as follows : 
 
 ME. PEESIDENT : I have nothing to do with the controversy which 
 has arisen between the senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton) and 
 my venerable friend from Michigan (Mr. Cass), who is now absent 
 in consequence of the severe illness of one nearest and dearest to 
 him. We all know enough of that senator to be assured that when 
 he shall be in his place, he will be prompt to respond to any calls 
 that may be made upon him. Neither have I anything to do with 
 the dispute which has grown up among senators in respect to the 
 boundary of Central America, and the position of the British settle 
 ment at the Balize. I leave that in the hands of those who have 
 made themselves parties to the controversy. Nor shall I become a 
 party to the discussion upon the issue between the senator from 
 Delaware and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
 in their report on that question. Not having been present when the 
 committee made their report, and not yet having had the opportunity 
 of reading it, I leave the chairman of the committee to vindicate his 
 
32 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 positions, as I doubt not he will prove himself abundantly able to do. 
 I have, therefore, only to ask the attention of the Senate to such 
 points as the senator from Delaware has chosen to make against a 
 speech delivered by me a few weeks ago in this chamber. 
 
 The senator seems to complain that I should have questioned the 
 propriety of withholding from the consideration of the Senate what 
 is known as the Ilise treaty, and the substitution of the Clayton and 
 Bulwer treaty in its place. Those two treaties presented a distinct 
 issue of great public concern to the country; and it \vas a difference 
 of opinion between him and me as to which system of policy should 
 prevail. I advocated that system which would secure to the United 
 States the sole and exclusive privilege of controlling the communi 
 cation between the two oceans, lie substituted that other policy 
 which opened the privilege to a partnership between the United 
 States and Great Britain. The senator has assigned various 
 reasons for withholding the Hise treaty from the consideration of 
 the Senate. The first is, that it was concluded by Mr. Ilise without 
 the authority of this government. That may be true, but it is the 
 first time I have heard it argued as a valid reason for withholding 
 from the consideration of the Senate a treaty the objects and pro 
 visions of which were desirable. The treaty with New Granada, 
 which he so warmly commends in his speech, was made by Mr. Bid- 
 lack without authority. President Polk stated this fact in his 
 message communicating the treaty to the Senate, and the senator 
 from Delaware has read that message and incorporated it into his 
 speech, lie therefore knew that fact when lie gave as a reason for 
 withholding the Hise treaty, that it was made without authority. 
 
 The treaty of peace with Mexico, to the provisions of which the 
 senator has also referred on another point, was entered into by Mr. 
 Trist, not only without authority, but in bold defiance of the instruc 
 tions of our government to the contrary. The administration of 
 President Polk did not feel at liberty to withhold these two treaties 
 from the Senate, merely because they were made without authority 
 or in defiance of instructions, for the reason that the objects intended 
 to be accomplished by the treaty were desirable, and the provisions 
 could be so modified by the Senate as to make the details conform to 
 the objects in view. It may not be amiss for me to remind the 
 senator from Delaware, that he was a member of the Senate at tho 
 time the Mexican treaty was submitted for ratification, and that he 
 voted for it, notwithstanding it was concluded in opposition to the 
 instructions of our government. If, therefore, the senator has any 
 respect for the practice of the government heretofore, or for his own 
 votes^recorded upon the very point in controversy, he is not at liberty 
 to object to the treaty upon the ground that it was concluded by our 
 diplomatic agent without authority. 
 
 1 understand the rule to be this : whenever the treaty is made in 
 pursuance of instructions, the Executive is under an implied obliga 
 tion to submit it to the Senate foi ratification. But if it be entered 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 33 
 
 into without authority, or in violation of instructions, the admin 
 istration are at liberty to reject it unconditionally, or to send it to 
 the Senate for advice, amendment, ratification, or rejection, according 
 to their judgment of its merits. Whether the Hise treaty was per 
 fect in all its provisions, or contained obnoxious features, is not the 
 question. It furnished conclusive evidence that the government of 
 Nicaragua was willing and anxious to confer upon the United States 
 the exclusive and perpetual privilege of controlling the canal between 
 the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, instead of a partnership between us 
 and the European powers. The senator from Delaware (then secre 
 tary of state) had the opportunity of securing to his own country 
 that inestimable privilege, either by submitting the Hise treaty to 
 the Senate, with the recommendation that it be so modified as to 
 obviate all the objections which he deemed to exist to some of its 
 provisions, or by making a new treaty which should embrace the 
 principle of an exclusive and perpetual privilege without any of the 
 obnoxious provisions. He did not do either. He suppressed the 
 treaty refused to accept of an exclusive privilege to his own 
 country and caused a new treaty to be made, which should lay the 
 foundation of a partnership between the United States and Great 
 Britain and the other European powers. 
 
 The next reason assigned for withholding theHise treaty from the 
 Senate is that it had not been approved by Nicaragua. It is true 
 that Nicaragua did not ratify that treaty ; but why did she fail to do 
 so ? I showed conclusively in the speech to which the senator was 
 replying that the non-approval was in consequence of his instructions, 
 as secretary of state, to Mr. Squier, our charge d affaires to Nicaragua. 
 It required the whole influence of the representative of our govern 
 ment in that country to prevent the ratification and approval of the 
 Hise treaty by the state of Nicaragua. Sir, it is not a satisfactory 
 reason for suppressing the treaty, therefore, that it had not been 
 ratified by the other party, when the non-ratification was produced 
 by the action of the agent of this government in pursuance of in 
 structions. 
 
 ME. CLAYTON. I desire distinctly to understand the senator. If 
 I understood him, he said that Mr. Hise s treaty was rejected in 
 consequence of Mr. Squier s interference. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. CLAYTON. And then I understand him to say that Mr. Squier 
 did it by instruction. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. CLAYTON. Now will the senator submit the truth to sub 
 stantiate that assertion? I know of no such instruction. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. I will do that with a great deal of pleasure. Mr. 
 Hise was sent to the Central American States by Mr. Polk. lie 
 negotiated a treaty with the state of Nicaragua the treaty in 
 question on the 21st of June, 1849. Prior to that time ho had 
 been recalled, and Mr. Squier had been appointed by the administra 
 
 2* 
 
34: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 tion which succeeded that of President Polk. Mr. Hise had re 
 ceived no knowledge of his removal ; no instructions from the new 
 administration at the time when he made the treaty. In the in 
 structions which the secretary of state gave to Mr. Squier on the 
 2d of May, 1849, when he was about to proceed to Central America 
 to supersede Mr. Hise, you will find that he was directed to "claim 
 no peculiar privilege ; no exclusive right ; no monopoly of com 
 mercial intercourse " for the United States. I will read from the 
 letter of instructions : 
 
 "We should naturally be proud of such an achievement as an American 
 work ; but if European aid be necessary to accomplish it, why should we re 
 pudiate it, seeing that our object is as honest as it is openly avowed, to claim 
 no peculiar privilege ; no exclusive right; no monopoly of commercial inter 
 course, but to see that the work is dedicated to the benefit of mankind, to be 
 used by all on the same terms with us, and consecrated to the enjoyment and 
 diffusion of the unnumbered and inestimable blessings which must flow from it 
 to all the civilized world !" 
 
 Then, sir, after having instructed Mr. Squier as to the character 
 of the treaty which he was to form a treaty which was to open the 
 canal to the world a treaty which was to give us no peculiar 
 privilege, and secure to us no exclusive right after giving that in 
 struction, the secretary, in the concluding paragraph, says : 
 
 "If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously or 
 inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to have it 
 properly modified to answer the ends we have in view." 
 
 MK. CLAYTOX. Is that the passage ? 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. That and the other together. 
 
 ME. CLAYTON. I endeavored to correct the misapprehension of 
 the honorable senator yesterday in reference to that. That is not 
 an instruction to the minister to Central America in regard to the 
 treaty made by Mr. Hise, or any other treaty. It is a direction to 
 the minister to Central America to see that any contract which had 
 been made by the local government should be so made as not to be 
 assignable. If the gentleman will read the context, he will see at 
 once that that does not allude to a treaty. It is merely, I say again, 
 an instruction to the minister in that country to look to it, that the 
 capitalists who were about to construct the canal should not specu 
 late upon the work. There is nothing there touching a treaty ; 
 nothing whatever. The gentleman is entirely mistaken. The whole 
 construction is in reference to the character of the contract o* 
 charter. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I will read the preceding sentence, and we will see 
 then who is mistaken : 
 
 " If they do. not agree to grant us passage on reasonable and proper terms, 
 refuse our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from 
 Nicaragua " 
 
STEP II EN A. DOUGLAS. 35 
 
 ME. CLAYTON. If the gentleman will look at the context which 
 goes before, he will see that the word " they " refers to the capitalists. 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I will read what goes before : 
 
 "See that it is not assignable to others; that no exclusive privileges are 
 granted to any nation that will not agree to the same treaty stipulations with 
 Nicaragua ; that the tolls to bs demanded by the owners are not unreasonable 
 or oppressive ; that no power be reserved to the proprietors of the canal or 
 their successors to extort at any time hereafter, or unjustly to obstruct or 
 embarrass the right of passage. This will require all your vigilance and skill. 
 if they do not agree to grant us passage on reasonable and proper terms, re- 
 vase our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from 
 Yicaragua. If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incau 
 tiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to 
 ta,ve it properly modified to answer the ends we have in view." 
 
 ME. CLAYTON. The honorable senator will observe that that does 
 lot refer to a treaty. The grant of the right of way was a different 
 "iiing. It was a contract between the local government and the 
 capitalists. Not a treaty at all. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. The senator s explanation is doubtless satisfactory 
 to himself. He may imagine that it will suit his present purposes to 
 place upon his instructions the construction for which he now con 
 tends ; but it is wholly unwarranted by the language he employed. 
 His instructions speak of securing the right of way to "us." To 
 whom did he allude in the word "us?" Did he refer to the 
 capitalists, proprietors and speculators, who should become the 
 owners of the charter ? Was he one of the company, and therefore 
 authorized to use the word "us," when speaking of the rights and 
 privileges to be acquired of a foreign nation through his agency as 
 secretary of state ? I have supposed that Mr. Squier was sent to 
 Central America to represent the United States, and to protect our 
 rights and interests as a nation. I have always done the senator 
 from Delaware the justice to believe that when he gave those in 
 structions to Mr. Squier he was acting on behalf of his country to 
 secure the right of way for a canal to the United States and not to a 
 few capitalists- and speculators under the title of "us." For the 
 honor of our country I will still do him that justice, notwithstanding 
 his disclaimer. His instructions also speak of the right of way to 
 "natiQns," and caution Mr. Squier to see that "no exclusive privi 
 leges are granted to any nation," etc. 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that in the instructions relating to the secur 
 ing the right of way for a canal to the nations of the earth, Mr. 
 Squier was directed to see that no exclusive privilege was granted 
 to any other nation, and not to claim any peculiar advantages for 
 our own. Then follows the concluding paragraph, which has been 
 read: 
 
 " If a charter or grant of the rights of way shall have been incautiously or in 
 considerately made before your arrival in the country, seek to have it properly 
 modified to answer the ends we have in view." 
 
 Modified how ? If before the arrival of Mr. Squier in the country 
 
36 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Mr. Hise shall have acquired a charter or grant which si ill secure 
 peculiar privileges or exclusive rights for this country, te was to 
 seek to have it so modified as to open the same rights and privileges 
 to all other nations on equal terms. This is what I understand to 
 be the meaning of those instructions, and it is clear that Mr. Squier 
 understood them in the same way ; for when he arrived in Nicaragua, 
 and discovered, by a statement in a newspaper of the Isthmus, that 
 Mr. Hise was about making a treaty for a canal, without knowing 
 what its terms were, without waiting to ascertain its provisions, he 
 sent at once a notice to #ie government of Nicaragua, that Mr. Hise 
 was not authorized to treat that he did not understand the policy 
 and views of the new administration that he had been recalled, 
 and that any treaty he might make must be considered and treated 
 as an unofficial act. He communicated this protest to the secretary 
 of state on the same day, and then proceeded to his point of destina 
 tion, where he made a treaty for the right of way for a canal to all 
 nations on the partnership plan in pursuance of his instructions. 
 These two treaties the Hise treaty and the Squier treaty were in 
 the Department of State at the same time the one having arrived 
 about the middle of September, and the other about the first of 
 October. It then became the duty of the senator from Delaware, as 
 secretary of state, to decide between them : in other words, to de 
 termine whether he would accept of an exclusive privilege to hia 
 own country, or enter into partnership with the monarchies of 
 Europe. He did determine that question, and his decision was in 
 favor of the partnership, and against his own country having the 
 exclusive control of the canal. 
 
 Then, sir, I think I was authorized to say what I did say, that the 
 non-ratification of Hise treaty by the government of Nicaragua was 
 procured by the agent of General Taylor s administration in that 
 country, and that the agent acted under the authority of this go 
 vernment. He certainly acted in obedience to what he understood 
 to be his instruction, and that is, the instruction, that if such a char 
 ter had been incautiously granted, to seek to have it modified to con 
 form to the ends had in view, as stated in the instruction. 
 
 ME. CLAYTOX. Will the senator allow me to interrupt him ? It 
 is not a very material point, still it is better to have it right than 
 wrong. If the senator will only read the last paragraph, he will see 
 that the charter or grant of the right of way which Mr. Squier was 
 instructed to see was not incautiously made, was a very different 
 thing, indeed, from the treaty ; and he will see that that is the thing 
 which I directed the minister to look to, as I stated, and endeavored 
 to be understood yesterday, and as I was anxious to be understood 
 by the gentleman on this point what I instructed the minister to 
 look to was that the contract of these capitalists should not be such 
 as would enable them to extort from persons using the canal. The 
 last sentence of the instruction applies, if he will look at it excli 
 eively to the case of the contract, and not to that rf the treaty. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 37 
 
 ^ One remark more : How is it possible for the gentleman to recon 
 cile the fact, that the State Department could know or imagine that 
 Mr. Hise had made a treaty on the 2d of May, 1850, when those in 
 structions were given, when, in "point of fact, Mr. Hise was not 
 heard from until June afterward ? How could I imagine any such 
 thing ? And again : how could I possibly suppose that Mr. Hise 
 had made a treaty, or was going to make a treaty, when the records 
 of the State Department showed me the instructions given to him 
 by Mr. Buchanan, in which he tells Mr. Hise to make no treaty 
 whatever with Nicaragua? If the gentleman can reconcile these 
 things, I should be happy to hear him. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I will have less difficulty in reconciling these things 
 with my views of his instructions than he will with his construction 
 of them. I have already shown that the instructions related to the 
 Light of way to nations and not to individuals ; that they were in 
 favor of equal rights to all nations, and opposed to any peculiar pri 
 vileges to our own country. Is it not as reasonable to suppose that 
 the instructions meant what they said, as it is to conceive that our 
 minister was directed to procure the modification of contracts pre 
 viously entered into with individuals, and for the observance of 
 which Nicaragua was supposed to have pledged her faith as a nation? 
 Was our minister sent there to represent individuals in their schemes 
 of procuring charters and contracts on private account, or to inter 
 fere with and prevent the faithful observance of such contracts as 
 that government might previously have made with our own citizens 
 or others? While this supposition might extricate the senator from 
 his present difficulty on this point, it would not tend to elevate the 
 character of our diplomacy during his administration of the State 
 Department. I think I do the senator more justice by the construc 
 tion I have put upon his conduct than he does by his own explana 
 tion. 
 
 But, sir, I wish to know whether I understand the senator now ? 
 Does he wish now to be understood as saying that he preferred an 
 exclusive privilege to his own country to a partnership with Eng 
 land? 
 
 ME. CLAYTON". No, sir. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Ah ! then as he did not prefer the exclusive pri 
 vilege to a partnership with the European powers, does he wish the 
 Senate to understand that he did not mean to convey his true idea 
 in his instructions ? If he preferred the partnership to the exclusive 
 privilege, was it not his duty to make known that wish in his in 
 structions ? Why should he complain when I show that by his in 
 structions he said precisely what he now avows to be his policy 
 upon that subject ? Why, sir, I am defending the consistency of his 
 own opinions, according to his present views, by showing that his 
 instructions embraced what he says now was his true policy in 
 favor of a partnership with other nations, instead of an exclusive 
 privilege to our own country. 
 
38 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 But, sir, whatever may have been his meaning in those instruc 
 tions, it is undeniable that Mr. Squier understood them as I now do, 
 an-d acted upon them accordingly. Hence, as I have already re- 
 maiked, before he arrived upon the theatre of his operations, and 
 upon the mere authority of a newspaper paragraph, that Mr. Hise 
 was about making such a treaty, he sent ahead a messenger to in 
 form the government of Nicaragua that Mr. Hise had no autho 
 rity to treat upon the subject that he had been recalled that he 
 was not informed of the views and purposes of the new administra 
 tion and that whatever treaty he made must be regarded and 
 treated as an unofficial act and requesting that "new negotiations 
 may be entered upon at the seat of government." 
 
 The new negotiations were immediately opened accordingly, and 
 on the 3d of September terminated in a treaty, which was a substi 
 tute for that which Mr. Hise had previously made. I do not under 
 stand that the Hise treaty was formally rejected or disavowed by 
 the government of Nicaragua. It was treated as an unofficial act 
 a mere nullity upon the authority of Mr. Squier s protest. I again 
 submit the question to the Senate, therefore, whether I am not fully 
 justified in the statement that the non-approval of the Hise treaty 
 by the government of Nicaragua was in consequence of the action 
 of the agent of this government in that country, under the instruc 
 tions of the senator from Delaware as secretary of state ? I am 
 only surprised that he should attempt to avoid the responsibility of 
 the act, since, when hard pressed in this discussion, he has been 
 driven into the admission that he preferred a partnership with the 
 monarchies of the Old "World to an exclusive privilege for his own 
 country. If such were his opinions and preferences, he was bound 
 by every consideration of duty and patriotism to have given the in 
 structions, and produced the result which I have attributed to him. 
 "Why not avow that which he now acknowledges to have been his 
 purpose, in obedience to what he conceived to be his duty ? I only 
 ask him to assume the responsibility and consequences of his own 
 conduct, and then to assign such reasons as he may be able in justi 
 fication. 
 
 The next reason which he gives for suppressing the Hise treaty is 
 totally inconsistent with the first. He alleges that the clause guar 
 anteeing the independence of Nicaragua was wholly inadmissible, and 
 could never receive his sanction. In a report which was communi 
 cated to the House of Representatives in 1850, he assigned the same 
 reason, and stated that such a guaranty was a departure from our 
 uniform policy, and had no precedent in our history except in the one 
 case of the French colonies in America. 
 
 Of course courtesy requires me to acknowledge that the senator 
 really believes that this was one of the reasons which induced him 
 to withhold the Hise treaty from the Senate. I must be permitted, 
 however, to inform him that he is entirely mistaken : that the clause 
 in question did not constitute an objection in his mind at that time 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 39 
 
 that it is an afterthought which lie has since seized hold of to justify 
 an act which he had previously performed upon totally different 
 grounds. The evidence of these facts will be found recorded in a 
 dispatch written by the senator from Delaware, as secretary of state, 
 on the 20th of October, 1849, to Mr. Lawrence, our minister to Eng 
 land. The document containing this dispatch was printed arid laid 
 upon our tables a few days since, and is entitled Senate Ex. Doc. No. 
 27. It will be remembered that the Hise treaty was communicated 
 to the Department of State on the 15th of September, and theSqnier 
 treaty about the first of October of the same year. On the 20th of 
 October, Mr. Clayton (in the dispatch to which I refer), discussed our 
 relations with the Central American states at great length among 
 other things communicated to Mr. Lawrence the substance of these 
 two treaties and directed him to make the same known to Lord 
 Palmerston. I read from the dispatch: 
 
 "If, however, the British government shall reject these overtures on onrpart, 
 and shall refuse to cooperate with us in the generous and philanthropic scheme 
 of rendering the interoceanic communication by the way of the port and river 
 San Juan free to ail nations upon the same terms, we shall deem ourselves jus 
 tified in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and despite her op 
 position or hostility. With a view to this alternative, we have a treaty with 
 the state of Nicaragua, a copy of which has been sent to you, and the stipula 
 tions of which you should unreservedly impart to Lord Palmerston. You will 
 inform him, however, that this treaty was concluded without a power or in 
 struction from this government; that the President had no knowledge of its 
 existence, of the intention to form it, until it was presented to him by Mr. 
 Hise, our late charge d affaires to Guatemala, about the 1st of September last ; 
 and that, consequently, we are not bound to ratify it, and will take no step for 
 that purpose, if we can, by arrangements with the British government, place 
 our interests upon a just and satisfactory foundation. But, if our effort for this 
 end should be abortive, the President will not hesitate to submit this or some 
 other treaty which maybe concluded by the present charge" d affaires to Gua 
 temala, to the Senate of the United States for their advice and consent, with a 
 view to its ratification ; and if that enlightened body should approve it, he also 
 will give it his hearty sanction, and will exert all his constitutional power to 
 execute its provisions in good faith a determination in which he may confi 
 dently count upon the goodwill of the people of the United States." 
 
 Here we find the true reason assigned for withholding the Hise 
 treaty from the Senate. It was to induce Great Britain to enter into 
 partnership with us. Lord Palmerston is informed that if Great Bri 
 tain refuses our offer of a partnership, that u we shall deem ourselves 
 justified in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and in 
 despite of her opposition or hostility," and that u with a view to this 
 alternative," he held the Hise treaty in reserve, to be submitted to 
 the Senate for ratification or not, dependent upon the decision of 
 Great Britain in relation to the partnership. This is the only reason 
 assigned for withholding the treaty from the Senate. The pretext 
 that it was made without authority is expressly negatived by the 
 threat to accept the exclusive privilege, in the event that England 
 refuses to enter into the partnership. Not a word of objection that 
 
40 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 it guarantees the independence of Nicaragua I But the testimony 
 does not stop here. This same dispatch furnishes affirmative evi 
 dence conclusive and undeniable that the u guaranty" constituted 
 no portion of his objection to the Hise treaty was not deemed ob 
 jectionable by him at that time but, on the contrary, was looked 
 upon with favor, and actually proposed by Mr. Clayton himself as a 
 desirable provision which might be incorporated into a treaty for the 
 protection of the canal ! I read from the same dispatch : 
 
 "You may suggest, for instance, that the United States and Great Britain 
 should enter into a treaty guaranteeing the independence of Nicaragua, Hon 
 duras and Costa Rica, which treaty may also guarantee to British subjects the 
 privileges acquired in those States by the treaties between Great Britain and 
 Spain, provided that the limits of those States on the east be acknowledged to 
 be the Carribean Sea." 
 
 Now, sir, let me ask the senator from Delaware what becomes of 
 his pretext that he deemed the guaranty of the independence of 
 Nicaragua an insuperable objection to the Hise treaty? Have I not 
 proven by his own dispatches, written at the time, that such an idea 
 could never have entered his brain when he determined to withhold 
 the treaty from the Senate ? that it was an afterthought upon which 
 lie has since seized as an excuse for an act which had been previously 
 done with a view to another object, and for different reasons ? 
 
 I will now proceed to consider the fourth objection made by the 
 senator to the Hise treaty. He goes on to criticise its various pro 
 visions, denounces them as ridiculous, as absurd, as unconstitutional, 
 and he puts the question with an air of triumph whether there was 
 a man in this body who would have voted for all the provisions of 
 that treaty. Sir, I have no fancy for that species of special pleading 
 which attempts to avoid the real issue by a criticism upon mere 
 details which are subject to modification at pleasure. Does not the 
 senator know that when a treaty is made, the objects of which are 
 desirable, while the details are inadmissible, the practice has been 
 to send it to the Senate, that the object may be secured and the 
 details so modified as to conform to the ends in view ? Whoever 
 supposed before that a treaty, desirable in its leading features, was to 
 be rejected by the department, merely because there was an obnox 
 ious provision in it ? I could turn upon the senator with an air of 
 as much triumph, if I had practised it as well, and ask him if there 
 was a man in this body who would have voted for the Mexican 
 treaty of peace as it was sent to us by the Executive ? Do we not 
 all know that the treaty which was ratified by about four-fifths of 
 the Senate came to us in a shape in which it could not receive one 
 solitary vote upon either side of the chamber? Do we not know 
 that Mr. Polk in his message communicating the treaty intimated 
 that fact, and called the attention of the Senate to the obnoxious 
 provisions? "While it contained provisions which would exclude the 
 President from the possibility of ever ratifying it, which would have 
 
STEP HEN A. DOUGLAS. 41 
 
 prevented every senator from giving his sanction to it, yet inasmuch 
 as the main objects of the treaty met the approval of the President, 
 and it was only matters of detail that were obnoxious and inadmis 
 sible, he sent it to the Senate that its details might be made to har 
 monize with its objects. Sir, the vote to strike out the obnoxious 
 features in the treaty was unanimous. Not one man in the body, not 
 even the senator from Delaware, dared to affirm those clauses or vote 
 to keep them in the treaty. Having perfected it so as to suit the 
 views of about four-fifths of the Senate, it was ratified with the vote 
 0- the senator recorded in the affirmative, according to my recol 
 lection. 
 
 If, therefore, the senator from Delaware had followed the practice 
 which he sanctioned by his own vote in the case of the Mexican 
 treaty, he would have sent the Hise treaty to the Senate for amend 
 ment and ratification, even if the details had been obnoxious to all 
 the objections he now urges to them. For this reason I do not deem 
 it necessary to occupy the time of the Senate in reply to his objec 
 tions relative to making a canal outside the limits of the "United 
 States, or the creation of a company either by Congress or the Presi 
 dent for that purpose. I care not whether these provisions were 
 admissible or inadmissible. It is not material to the argument. It 
 can have no bearing upon the question. The Hise treaty was evi 
 dence of one great fact, which should never be forgotten, and that 
 fact is, that Nicaragua was willing and anxious to grant the United 
 States forever the exclusive right and control over a ship canal 
 between the two oceans. The secretary of state (Mr. Clayton), 
 knew that fact. If the details were not acceptable to him, he could 
 have availed himself of the main provisions and made the details to 
 suit himself; I confine myself therefore to the great point that you 
 might have had the exclusive privilege if you had desired it. You 
 refused it with your eyes open, and took a partnership in lieu of it. 
 All about the details is a matter of moonshine. You could have 
 modified them to suit yourself before sending the treaty to the 
 Senate, or you could have followed the example of Mr. Polk, in the 
 case of the Mexican treaty, and sent it to the Senate with the recom 
 mendation that the details be thus modified. 
 
 All this talk about obnoxious features and objectionable provisions 
 about guarantees of independence and want of authority to make 
 the treaty must be regarded as miserable attempts to avoid the 
 main point at issue. Why this pitiful equivocation, if the senator 
 was really in favor of the European partnership in preference to the 
 exclusive privilege for the United States, as all his acts prove the 
 whole tenor of his correspondence clearly and conclusively prove 
 was the case? If he thinks his policy was right, why not frankly 
 avow the truth, and justify upon the merits ? I am not to be diverted 
 from my purpose by his assaults upon the administration of Presi 
 dent Polk, nor by his array of great names in opposition to the viewj 
 I entertain. History will do justice to Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan 
 
42 THELIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 upon this as well as all other questions connected with their admi 
 nistration of the government. In the speech to which the senator 
 professed to reply, I did not make an allusion to party politics. I do 
 not think the term Whig or Democrat can be found in the whole 
 speech. I am sure that it does not contain a partisan reference to 
 the state of political parties in the country during the period to 
 which my remarks applied. I attempted to discuss the question 
 upon its merits, independent of the fact whether my views might come 
 in conflict with those professed hy either of the great parties, or 
 entertained by the great men of our country at some former period. 
 I should have been better satisfied if the senator had pursued the 
 same course, instead of calling upon Jackson, Polk and Buchanan, 
 and sheltering himself behind their great names, while attempting to 
 detract from their fame by representing them as having sacrificed the 
 interests and honor of their country. 
 
 MR. CLAYTON. I deny it. There was not one word in my speech 
 which went to arraign Mr. Polk or General Jackson, or anybody. 
 There was nothing like a party spirit in this speech. If the gentle 
 man so understood me, he entirely misunderstood me. I stated the 
 fact that Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan had been applied to by the 
 local government of Nicaragua for the intervention of this govern 
 ment to protect it from the aggressions of the British. I stated, and 
 proved the fact, that the Monroe doctrine had never been carried 
 out that Mr. Polk on that occasion had declined to interfere ; but 
 I disclaim entirely assailing him, and endeavor to reconcile his whole 
 course of conduct as being consistent with what he stated in the 
 House of Representatives on the Panama mission. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I accept the explanation. It is perfectly satisfac 
 tory, but I am very unfortunate in apprehending the meaning of 
 language. He said that Mr. Polk had avowed himself in favor of 
 asserting the Monroe doctrine. He then said that Mr. Polk had 
 abandoned and refused to carry it out when this question arose. He 
 said the President of Nicaragua, to use his own language, " poked 
 that declaration into Mr. Polk s own teeth." 
 
 MB. CLAYTON. I used no such word. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. At least, that he thrust it into his teeth. 
 
 ME. CLAYTON. I did not. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Well, never mind about the precise word. At all 
 events, he went on to show that Mr. Polk was pledged to the Mon 
 roe doctrine, that he failed to carry it out, that no administration 
 ever carried it out, that it had been abandoned whenever a question 
 arose which gave an opportunity for carrying it into effect. When 
 he chose to put Mr. Polk into the position of making declarations 
 and violating them, making protests and abandoning them, making 
 threats and never executing them, I very naturally supposed, accord 
 ing to the notion of a western man, that he was attacking him. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 MB. CLAYTON. I endeavor to show that Mr. Polk had made his 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 43 
 
 recommendation to the Congress of the United States that he was 
 perfectly justifiable in not considering that as the established doc 
 trine of the country, because the Congress of the United States had 
 never adopted it. On that principle I endeavor to reconcile the 
 course of Mr. Polk with itself. The gentleman has undertaken to 
 represent me as assailing Mr. Polk, when if he had paid attention to 
 what I said unfortunately he was out during the greater portion of 
 the time I was discussing the subject he would have seen that I was 
 endeavoring to prove that the course of that President of the United 
 States, in this particular, was made liable to the exception which is 
 tuken to it ; that he was not bound by the declaration of the Monroe 
 doctrine unless Congress adopted it, because he was not the govern 
 ment. 
 
 MB. DOTJGLAS. Of course I accept the explanation of the senator 
 with a great deal of pleasure, and I am gratified to know that I 
 misapprehend him ; but it really did appear to me that I was 
 justified in putting that construction upon what he said, inasmuch 
 as he went on to show that when he came into the State Department, 
 he found Great Britain with her protectorate over the Mosquito 
 coast, and spreading over more than half of Central America that 
 during Mr. Polk s administration, and while he was negotiating the 
 treaty of peace with Mexico, Great Britain seized the town of San 
 Juan, at the mouth of the proposed canal, and that Mr. Polk and Mr. 
 Buchanan remained silent, without even a protest against this unjus 
 tifiable aggression ; and when he denounced that seizure as an act 
 originating in hostility to this country, to cut off communication 
 with our Pacific possessions ; and when he said that it would have 
 been wiser to have closed the door and shut out the British lion, than 
 to allow him to enter unresisted, and then attempt to expel him ; 
 and when he boasted of having expelled the British lion after Mr. 
 Polk and Mr. Buchanan had permitted him to enter the house in 
 contempt of their declaration of the Monroe doctrine, I really thought 
 that he was attempting to censure Mr. Polk for letting the lion come in ; 
 but it seems I was mistaken. He did not mean that, and not meaning 
 it, upon my word I do not know what he did mean. (Laughter.) 
 
 When I heard all this, and much more of the same tenor, it oc 
 curred to me that it amounted to a pretty good arraignment of Mr. 
 Polk and his administration ; and that his object was to glorify him 
 self and General Taylor, at the expense of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. 
 Polk, by accusing the latter of having tamely submitted to British 
 aggressions of great enormity, which the former promptly rebuked 
 by expelling the British from Central America. Let me ask him the 
 question did the Clayton and Bulwer treaty expel the British from 
 Central America? Has England abandoned her protectorate? "What 
 power has she surrendered ? What functionary has she recalled ? 
 What portion of the country what inch of territory has she given 
 up? Will the senator from Delaware inform me what England has 
 abandoned in pursuance or by virtue of the Clayton and Bulwor 
 
44: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 treaty ? I can show him where she has extended her possessions 
 since the date of that treaty, and in cor tempt of its stipulations. I 
 can point him to the seizure of the Bay Islands and the erection of 
 them into a colony to the extension of her jurisdiction in the 
 vicinity of the Balize to her invasion of the Territory of Honduras 
 on the main land and to the continuance of her protectorate over 
 the Mosquito coast. I can point him to a series of acts designed by 
 Great Britain to increase her power and extend her possessions in 
 that quarter. "Will he point me to any one act hy which she has re 
 duced her power or curtailed her possessions ? He boasts of having 
 expelled the British from Central America. "Will he have the kind 
 ness to inform the Senate how, when, and where this has been 
 effected ? Where is the evidence to sustain this declaration ? I called 
 for information on this point in my speech the other day. The 
 senator replied to all other parts of that speech in detail and at great 
 length. Of course, want of time was the reason for his omission to 
 respond to these pertinent inquiries. (Laughter.) 
 
 ME. CLAYTON. ISTo, sir ; I replied to it, but the senator was ou 
 ot his seat. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. I was in my seat the most of the time the senator 
 was speaking on that part of the subject, but unfortunately I heard 
 no response to this interrogatory. Now, sir, in regard to this Bay 
 Island colony, I may be permitted to say, although it is by the way 
 of digression from the line of argument which I was marking out for 
 myself, that it presents a clear case not only in derogation of the 
 Monroe doctrine, but in direct violation and contempt of the Clayton 
 and Bulwer treaty. I will do the senator the justice to say, that the 
 Bay Island colony has not been erected in pursuance of the treaty, 
 but in derogation of its provisions. The question arises, are we 
 going to submit tamely to the establishment of this new colony ? If 
 we acquiesce in it we submit to a double wrong a contravention of 
 our avowed policy in regard to European colonization on this conti 
 nent ; and a palpable and open violation of the terms and stipulations 
 of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. If we tamely submit to this two 
 fold wrong, the less we say henceforth in regard to European colo 
 nization on the American continent, the better for our own credit. 
 
 Here is a case where we must act promptly if we ever intend to 
 act. I do not wish to make an issue with England about the Balize 
 she has been in possession there longer than our nation has existed 
 as an independent republic. I do not wish to make an issue with 
 her in regard to Jamaica, because she cannot surrender it upon our 
 demand without dishonor, and she is bound to fight if driven to an 
 extremity on that point. I do not want to make an issue with 
 her in reference to any colony she has upon the continent or adjacent 
 to it, where she may be said to have had a long and peaceful 
 possession. Sir, if I was going to make the issue on any one of 
 these points, I would pursue a more manly course by declaring war 
 at once instead of resorting to such an expedient. I would make the 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 45 
 
 issue solely and distinctly on the Bay Island colony, for the reason 
 that there she is clearly in the wrong, the act having been done in 
 violation of her plighted faith. It was done in contempt of our 
 avowed policy. She cannot justify it before the civilized world, and 
 therefore, dare not fight upon such an issue. England will fight us 
 when her honor compels her to do it, and she Avill fight us for no 
 other cause. We can require Great Britain to discontinue the Bay 
 Island colony, and I call upon the friends of the Clayton-Bulwer 
 treaty, whose provisions are outraged by that act, to join in the de 
 mand that that colony be discontinued. Upon that point we are in 
 the right : England is in the wrong ; and she cannot, she dare not 
 fight upon it. And, sir, when England backs out of one colony upon 
 our remonstrance, it will be a long time before she will establish 
 another upon this continent without consulting us. And, sir, when 
 England shall have refrained from interfering in the affairs of the 
 American continent without consulting the wishes of this govern 
 ment, what other power on earth will be willing to stand forward 
 and do that which England concedes it prudent not to attempt ? I may 
 be permitted to say, therefore, that the only issue that I desire to see 
 at this time, upon our foreign relations, as they are now presented to 
 me, is upon the Bay Island colony : and let us require that that be 
 discontinued, and that the terms of our treaty stipulations be obeyed 
 and fulfilled. Whan that issue shall have been made and decided in 
 our favor, we will not have much need for general resolutions about 
 the Monroe doctrine in future. 
 
 But, sir, this was" a digression. The point that I was discussing 
 was this : that while it has been a matter of boast for years that the 
 Clayton and Bulwer t" .aty drove Great Britain out of Central 
 America, she has not surrendered an inch ; and what is more, she is 
 now proposing negotiations with us with a view to new arrange 
 ments, by which she shall hereafter give up her protectorate.. Yes, sir, 
 your late secretary of state and President, Everett and Fillmore, have 
 communicated to Congress the fact that the British minister was pro 
 posing new negotiations, new arrangements, by which Great Britain 
 shall hereafter give up that which the senator makes it a matter of 
 boast that he had secured by his treaty. That is a little curious. I 
 do not understand this self-gratulation of having accomplished a great 
 and wonderful object, by the expelling of the British lion from the 
 place where Mr. Polk allowed him to come and abide, and still a new 
 negotiation or a new arrangement is deemed necessary to secure that 
 which the senator from Delaware boasts of having accomplished long 
 since ! 
 
 England professes to be desirous of surrendering her protectorate. 
 Then, why does she not do it? The British minister proposes ^to 
 open negotiations by which England shall withdraw her authority 
 from Central America, and the late secretary of state (Mr. Everett) 
 entertains the proposition favorably, while the senator from Delaware 
 congratulates the country upon his having effected the desired end. 
 in his treaty three years ago. 
 
46 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 If Messrs. Everett and Fillmore were correct in entertaining Mr. 
 Crampton s proposition for a new arrangement, certainly the senator 
 from Delaware is at fault in saying that his treaty expelled the Brit 
 ish from Central America. My opinion as to whether it did expel 
 them or not, is a matter of not much consequence. I have always 
 thought the language of the treaty was so equivocal, that no man 
 could say with certainty, whether it did aholish the protectorate or 
 not. One clause seemed to abolish it ; another seemed to recognizo 
 its existence, and to restrain its exercise ; and you could make as 
 good an argument on one side as the other. But I gave notice at 
 the time the treaty w^as ratified, that I would take the American side, 
 and stand by the senator from Delaware in claiming that England 
 was bound to quit ; but our late secretary of state and the President, 
 Everett and Fillmore, think otherwise ; and now it becomes a 
 question whether new negotiations to accomplish that very desirable 
 object are necessary or not ? 
 
 Mr. President, I return to the point which I was discussing when 
 the senator interrupted me, and led me off in this digression, to wit . 
 That the simple question presented in this matter, when stripped of 
 all extraneous circumstances, was this : Should we have accepted, 
 Avhen tendered, an exclusive right of way forever, from one ocean to 
 the other ? The senator from Delaware thought not, and the admin 
 istration of General Taylor sustained him in his view of the question. 
 I thought we ought to have embraced the offer w^hich tendered us 
 the exclusive control forever over this great interoceanic canal. 
 
 The senator attempts to sustain his position by quoting the 
 authority of General Jackson and Mr. Polk. Sir, he is unfortunate 
 in his quotation. I do not think that, fairly considered, he has any 
 such authority. I am aware that in 1835 that senator offered a 
 resolution in this body, which was adopted, recommending a nego 
 tiation to open the Isthmus to all nations, and that General Jackson 
 sent out Colonel Biddle to collect and report information on the 
 subject ; but when the resolution was adopted, the question was then 
 presented under circumstances very different from those which 
 existed when the senator suppressed the Hise treaty. At that time 
 the Central American States had granted to the ^Netherlands the 
 privilege of making a canal. Others had already secured the privi 
 lege, and in that point of view it was reasonable to suppose that the 
 most we could do was to get an equal privilege with European 
 nations. That was not the case presented when the exclusive privi 
 lege was offered to us and the offer declined by the senator from 
 Delaware without consulting the Senate. 
 
 But there is no evidence that General Jackson ever entertained 
 the opinions attributed to him. Colonel Biddle, who was appointed 
 by General Jackson to explore the routes and collect and report 
 information, availed himself of his official position to obtain an 
 exclusive privilege to himself and his associates on private account. 
 When the existence of this private contract came to the knowledge 
 of the secretary of state, Mr. Forsyth, he reprimanded our charge at 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 47 
 
 New Granada, for having given any countenance to it. And why? 
 Not because it contained an exclusive privilege to the United States, 
 for it did not give us any privilege. Mr. Biddle had been sent out 
 there to get information to be laid before the administration. He 
 had no power to negotiate no authority to open diplomatic rela 
 tions. He had no power to take any one step in procuring the privi 
 lege. He made use of his official position, and, in the opinion of the 
 administration, abused it, by securing a private grant to himself, 
 without the authority, protection, or sanction of the government of 
 his own country. 
 
 Mr. Forsyth was indignant because his agent had disobeyed his 
 authority, and turned the public employment into a private specula 
 tion. That is not the question presented here. That contract did 
 not give the United States the privilege at all. It gave it to 
 Colonel Biddle and his associates. But I find nothing in that trans 
 action, and in all the public documents relating to it, to show that 
 General Jackson would have refused the exclusive privilege to his 
 own country if it had been tendered to him. 
 
 How is it, then, with Mr. Polk ? According to my recollection 
 of the facts, New Granada had granted the privilege of making a 
 canal to a Frenchman by the name of Du Quesne I will not be cer 
 tain of his name and it was desirable to get permission to carry the 
 mails across there. The grant had passed into the possession of a 
 citizen of a foreign power, and the most that our government could 
 ask, was to be put upon an equal footing with that other power. It 
 did not present the question of the privilege being tendered to us, 
 and we refusing to accept it. 
 
 But I shall take no time in going into a vindication of those ad 
 ministrations. In the remarks that I made the other day, I chose to 
 vindicate my own course without reference to past administrations 
 or present party associations, and I will pursue the same line of de 
 bate now. One word upon the point, made by the senator, that the 
 Hise treaty was unconstitutional. Was it not constitutional to 
 accept the exclusive privilege to the United States ? If it was not, 
 and hi s constitutional objection is valid, it goes a little too far. If 
 you had no right to accept an exclusive privilege to us under the 
 Constitution, what right had you to take a partnership privilege in 
 company with Great Britain ? If you had no right to take the 
 privilege for the benefit of American citizens alone, what right had 
 you to take one for the benefit of Englishmen and Americans jointly ? 
 If you have no right to make a treaty by which you will protect an 
 American company in making that canal, what right had you to 
 make a treaty by which you pledged yourselves to protect a British 
 company in making the same work ? I choose to put the senator 
 upon the defensive, and let him demonstrate his right to do this 
 thing jointly with England, and then I will draw from his argument 
 my right to do it for the benefit of America alone. I choose to put 
 him in the position of demonstrating the existence of the constitu 
 
4:8 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 tional power. He, in his treaty, exercised the power. I have not. 
 And he, having exercised it, having pledged the faith of the nation 
 to do the act, I have a right to call upon him to show the authority, 
 under the Constitution of the United States, to make a guaranty 
 jointly with England for the benefit of English subjects as well as 
 American citizens ; and when he proves the existence of that power, 
 he has proved the right of the government to do the same thing for 
 the benefit of America and American citizens, omitting England and 
 British subjects. 
 
 Sir, as I before said, I have no fondness for this special pleading 
 about the peculiar provisions of a treaty, when the real point was 
 the extent of the privilege which we should accept. Now, sir, I 
 was in favor of an exclusive privilege, and I will tell you why. I 
 desired to see a canal made ; and when made, I desired to see it 
 under the control of a power enabled to protect it. I desired to see it 
 open to the commerce of the whole world, under our protection upon 
 proper terms. How was that to be done, except by an exclusive 
 privilege to ourselves ? Then, let us open it to the commerce of 
 the world on such terms and conditions as we should deem wise, just 
 and politic. Could we not do this as well by our volition as England 
 could in conjunction with us ? Would it not be as creditable to us 
 as a nation to have acquired it ourselves, and then opened it freely, 
 as to have gone into a partnership by which we should have no con 
 trol in prescribing the terms upon which it should be opened ? And 
 besides, if the grant had been made to us, and we had accepted it, 
 and then thrown it open to the commerce of all nations on our own 
 terms and conditions, we held in our hands a right which would have 
 been ample security for every nation under heaven to keep the peace 
 with the United States. The moment England abused the privilege 
 by seizing any more islands, by establishing any more colonies, by 
 invading any more rights, or by violating any more treaties, we 
 would use our privileges, shut up the canal, and exclude her com 
 merce from the Pacific. We would hold a power in our hands 
 which might be exercised at any moment to preserve peace and pre 
 vent injustice. Peace and progress being our aim, we should still 
 have continued to be the only government on earth whose public 
 policy from the beginning has been justly and honestly to enforce the 
 laws of nations Avith fidelity toward all the nations. Sir, when you 
 surrendered that exclusive right, you surrendered a great element of 
 power, which in our hands would have been wielded in the cause of 
 justice for the benefit of mankind. 
 
 I was not for such a restrictive policy as would exclude British 
 vessels from going through the canal, or the vessels of any other 
 nation which should respect our rights. I would let them all pass, 
 as long as they did not abuse the privilege ; close it against them 
 when they did. I insist that the American people occupy a position 
 on this continent which rendered it natural and proper that we should 
 exercise that power. I have no fear of a war with England. 1 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 49 
 
 have none now. War should be avoided as long as possible. But 
 sir, you need have no apprehension of a war with her, for the reason 
 that if we keep in the right, she dare not fight us, and she will not 
 especially for- anything relating to American affairs. She knows she 
 has given a bond to keep the peace, with a mortgage on all her real 
 estate in America as collateral security, and she knows she forfeits 
 her title to the whole, without hope of redemption, if she commits a 
 breach of the bond. She will not fight unless compelled. "We could 
 have fortified that canal at each end, and in time of war could have 
 closed it against our enemies, and opened it at our own pleasure. We 
 had the power of doing it ; for the Rise treaty contained provisions for 
 the construction of fortifications at each terminus and at such points 
 along the line of the canal as we thought proper. We had the 
 privilege of fortifying it, and we had the right to close it against any 
 power which should abuse the privilege which we conferred. 
 ^ Then, sir, what was the objection to the acceptance of that exclu 
 sive privilege ? I do not see it, sir. I know what were the private 
 arguments urged in times which have gone by, and which I trust 
 never will return ; that England and other European powers never 
 would consent that the United States should have an exclusive con 
 trol over the canal. Well, sir, I do not knoAv that they would have 
 consented, but of one thing I am certain, I would never have asked 
 their consent. When Nicaragua desired to confer the privilege, and 
 when we were willing to accept it, it was purely an American ques 
 tion with which England had no right to interfere. It was an Ame 
 rican question about which Europe had no right to be consulted. 
 Are we under any more obligation to consult European powers 
 about an American question than the allied powers were, in their 
 Congress, to consult us, when establishing the equilibrium of Europe 
 by the agency of the Holy Alliance ? America was not consulted 
 then. Our name does not appear in all the proceedings. It was a 
 European question, about which it was presumed America had 
 nothing to say. This question of a canal in Nicaragua, when nego 
 tiations were pending to give it to us, was so much an American 
 question, that the English government was not entitled to be con 
 sulted. England not consent! She will acquiesce in your doing 
 what you may deem right so long as you consent to allow her to hold 
 Canada, the Bermudas, Jamaica, and her other American possessions. 
 I hope the time has arrived when we will not be told any more that 
 Europe will not consent to this, and England will not consent to that. 
 I heard that argument till I got tired of it when we were discussing 
 the resolutions for the annexation of Texas. I heard it again on the 
 Oregon question, and I heard it on the California question. It has 
 been said on every occasion whenever we had an issue about acquir 
 ing territory, that England would not consent ; yet she has acquiesced 
 in whatever we had the courage and the justice to do. And why ? 
 Because we kept ourselves in the right. England was so situated 
 with her possessions on this continent, that she dare not fight in an 
 
50 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 unjust cause. We would Lave been in the right to Lave accepted tLo 
 privilege of making this canal, and England would never have dared 
 to provoke a controversy with us. I think the time has come when 
 America should perform her duty according to our own judgment, 
 and our own sense of justice, without regard to what European 
 powers might say with respect to it. I think this nation is about 
 of age. I think we have a right to judge for ourselves. Let us 
 always do right, and put the consequences behind us. 
 
 But, sir, I do not wish to detain the Senate upon this point, or to 
 prolong the discussion. I have a word or two to say in reply to the 
 remarks of the senator from Delaware upon so much of my speech 
 as related to the pledge in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, never to 
 annex any portion of that country. I objected to that clause in the 
 treaty, upon the ground that I was unwilling to enter into a treaty 
 stipulation with any European power in respect to this continent, 
 that we would not do in the future, whatever our duty, interest, honor, 
 and safety, might require in the course of events. The senator infers 
 that I desire to annex Central America because I was unwilling to 
 give a pledge that we never would do it. He reminded me that 
 there was a clause in the treaty with Mexico containing the stipula 
 tion, that in certain contingencies we would never annex any portion 
 of that country. Sir, it was unnecessary that he should remind me 
 of that provision. He has not forgotten how hard I struggled to get 
 that clause out of the treaty where it was retained in opposition to 
 my vote. Had the senator given me his aid then to defeat that pro 
 vision in the Mexican treaty, I would be better satisfied now with 
 his excuse for having inserted a still stronger pledge in his treaty. 
 But having advocated that pledge then, he should not attempt to 
 avoid the responsibility of his own act by citing it as a precedent. I 
 was unwilling to bind ourselves by treaty for all time to come never 
 to annex any more territory. I am content for the present with the 
 territory we have. I do not wish to annex any portion of Mexico 
 now. I did not wish to annex any part of Central America then, 
 nor do I at this time. 
 
 But I cannot close my eyes to the history of this country for the 
 last half century. Fifty years ago the question was being debated 
 in this Senate whether it was wise or not to acquire any territory on 
 the west bank of the Mississippi, and it was then contended that we 
 could never with safety extend beyond that river. It was at that 
 time seriously considered whether the Alleghany Mountains should 
 not be the barrier beyond which we should never pass. At a sub 
 sequent date, after we had acquired Louisiana and Florida, more 
 liberal views began to prevail, and it was thought that perhaps we 
 might venture to establish one tier of States west of the Mississippi ; 
 but in order to prevent the sad calamity of an undue expansion of 
 our territory, the policy was adopted of establishing an Indian Ter 
 ritory, with titles in perpetuity, all along the western borders of 
 those States, so that no more new States could possibly be created 
 
STEP HEN A. DOUGLAS. 51 
 
 in that direction. That barrier could not arrest the onward progress 
 of our people. They burst through it, and passed the Rocky Moun 
 tain:?, and were only arrested by the waters of the Pacific. Who 
 then is prepared to say that in the progress of events, having met 
 with the barrier of the ocean in our western course, we may not be 
 compelled to turn to the north and to the south for an outlet. How 
 long is it since the gentleman from Delaware himself thought that 
 the time would never arrive when we would want California? I am 
 aware that he was of that opinion at the time we ratified the treaty, 
 and annexed it. 
 
 MR. CLAYTOX. How? 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. By his voting for Mr. Crittendeirs resolutions de 
 claring that we did not want any portion of Mexican territory. He 
 will find his vote ia this volume which I hold in my hand. I am 
 aware that he belonged to that school of politicians who thought we 
 had territory enough. I have not forgotten that a respectable por 
 tion of this body, but a few years ago, thought it would be prepos 
 terous to bring a country so far distant as California, and so little 
 known, into the Union. But it has been done; and now since Cali 
 fornia has become a member of the confederacy, with her immense 
 commerce and inexhaustible resources, we are told that the time will 
 never come when the territory lying half way between our Atlantic 
 and Pacific possessions will be desirable. Central America is too far 
 off, because it is half way to California, and on the main, direct 
 route on the very route upon which you pay your senators and 
 representatives in Congress their mileage in coming to the capitol of 
 the nation! The usual route of travel, the public highway, the half 
 way house from one portion of the country to the other, is so far dis 
 tant that the man who thinks the time will ever come when we will 
 want it, is deemed a madman ! 
 
 MR. CLAYTON. Does the senator apply those sentiments to me 2 
 I do not think so. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. -I simply say that such an opinion was indicated by 
 the vote of the gentleman on the resolution of Mr. Orittenden. 
 
 MR. CLAYTON. The senator is entirely mistaken on that point. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS In order to save time, I waive the point as to the 
 senator s vote, although it is recorded in the volume before me, and 
 he can read it at his leisure. But I am not mistaken in saying that 
 the senator on yesterday did ridicule the idea that we were ever to 
 want any portion of Central America. He was utterly amazed, and 
 in his amazement inquired where were these boundaries ever to cease. 
 He wanted to know how far we were going, and if we expected to 
 spread over the entire continent. I do not think we will do it in our 
 day, but I am not prepared to prescribe limits to the area over which 
 Democratic principles may safely spread. I know not what our 
 destiny may be. 1 try to keep up with the spirit of the age, to keep 
 in view the history of the country, see what we have done, whither 
 we are going, and with what velocity we are moving, in order to bo 
 
52 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 prepared for those events which it is not in the power of man to 
 thwart. 
 
 You may make as many treaties as you please to fetter the limits of 
 this giant republic, and she will hurst them all from her, and her 
 course will be onward to a limit which I will not venture to describe. 
 "Why the necessity of pledging your faith that you will never annex 
 any more of Mexico? Do you not know that you will be compelled 
 to do it; that you cannot help it; that your treaty will not prevent 
 it, and that the only effect it will have will be to enable European 
 powers to accuse us of bad faith when the act is done, and associate 
 American faith and Punic faith as synonymous, terms ? What is the 
 use of your guaranty that you will never erect any fortifications in 
 Central America ; never annex, occupy, or colonize any portion of 
 that country ? How do you know that you can avoid doing it? If 
 you make the canal, I ask you if American citizens will not settle 
 along its line ; whether they will not build up towns at each termi 
 nus; whether they will not spread over that country, and convert it 
 into an American State ; whether American principles and American 
 institutions will not be firmly planted there ? And I ask you how 
 many years you think will pass away before you will find the same 
 necessity to extend your laws over your own kindred that you found 
 in the case of Texas? How long will it be before that day arrives? 
 It may not occur in the senator s day nor mine. But so certain as 
 this republic exists, so certain as we remain a united people, so cer 
 tain as the laws of progress which have raised us from a mere hand 
 ful to a mighty nation, shall continue to govern our action, just so 
 certain are these events to be worked out, and you will be compelled 
 to extend your protection in that direction. 
 
 Sir, I am not desirous of hastening the day. I am not impatient 
 of the time when it shall be realized. I do not wish to give any 
 additional impulse to our progress. We arc going fast enough. But 
 I wish our public policy, our laws, our institutions, should keep up 
 with the advance in science, in the mechanic arts, in agriculture, and 
 in everything that tends to make us a great and powerful nation. 
 Let us look the future in the face, and let us prepare to meet that 
 which cannot be avoided. Hence I was unwilling to adopt that 
 clause in the treaty guaranteeing that neither party would ever annex, 
 colonize, or occupy any portion of Central America. I was opposed 
 to it for another reason. It was not reciprocal. Great Britain had 
 possession of the island of Jamaica. Jamaica was the nearest armed 
 and fortified point to the terminus of the canal. Jamaica at present 
 commands the entrance of the canal; and all that Great Britain 
 desired was, inasmuch as she had possession of the only place com 
 manding the canal, to procure a stipulation that no other power 
 would ever erect a fortification nearer its terminus. That stipulation 
 is equivalent to an agreement that England may fortify, but that we 
 never shall. Sir, when you look at the w T hole history of that ques 
 tion you will see that England, with her far-seeing, sagacious policy, 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 53 
 
 has attempted to circumscribe and restrict and restrain the free action 
 of this government. When was it that Great Britain seized the pos 
 session of the terminus of this canal? Just six days after the signing 
 of the treaty which secured to us California! The moment England 
 saw, that by the pending negotiations with Mexico, California was to 
 be acquired, she collected her fleets and made preparations for the 
 seizure of the port of San Juan, in order that she might be gate 
 keeper on the public highway to our new possessions on the Pacific. 
 Within six days from the time we signed the treaty, England seized 
 by force and violence the very point now in controversy. Is not this 
 fact indicative of her motives ? Is it not clear that her object was to 
 obstruct our passage to our new possessions ? Hence I do not sympa 
 thize with that feeling which the senator expressed yesterday, that 
 it was a pity to have a difference with a nation so friendly to us as 
 England. Sir, I do not see the evidence of her friendship. It is not in 
 the nature of things that she can be our friend. It is impossible she 
 can love us. I do not blame her for not loving us. Sir, we have 
 wounded her vanity and humbled her pride. She can never forgive 
 us. But for us, she would be the first power on the face of the 
 earth. But for us, she would have the prospect of maintaining that 
 proud position which she held for so long a period. We are in her way. 
 She is jealous of us, and jealousy forbids the idea of friendship. Eng 
 land does not love us ; she cannot love us, and we do not love her either. 
 We have some tilings in the past to remember that are not agreeable. 
 She has more in the present to humiliate her that she cannot forgive. 
 I do not wish to administer to the feeling of jealousy and rivalry 
 that exists between us and England. I wish to soften and allay it 
 as much as possible ; but why close our eyes to the fact that friend 
 ship is impossible while jealousy exists. Hence England seizes every 
 island in the sea and rock upon our coast where she can plant a gun 
 to intimidate us or to annoy our commerce. Her policy has been to 
 seize every military and naval station the world over. Why does 
 she pay such enormous sums to keep her post at Gibraltar, except to 
 hold it " in terrorem" over the commerce of the Mediterranean ? 
 Why her enormous expense to maintain a garrison at the Cape of 
 Good Hope, except to command the great passage on the way to the 
 Indies ? Why is she at the expense to keep her position on the little 
 barren islands, Bermuda and the miserable Bahamas, and all the 
 other islands along our coast, except as sentinels upon our actions ? 
 Docs England hold Bermuda because of any profit it is to her? Has 
 she any other motive for retaining it except jealousy which stimulates 
 hostility to us? Is it not the case with all her possessions along our 
 coast? Why, then, talk about the friendly bearing of England 
 toward ua when she is extending that policy every day? New 
 treaties of friendship, seizure of islands, and erection of new colonies 
 in violation of her treaties, seem to be the order of the day. In view 
 of this state of things, I am in favor of meeting England as we meet 
 a rival ; meet her boldly, treat her justly and fairly, but make no 
 
54 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 humiliating concession even for the sake of peace. She has as mnch 
 reason to make concessions to us as we have to make them to her. 
 I would not willingly disturb the peace of the world ; but, sir, the Bay 
 Island colony must be discontinued. It violates the treaty. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, it is not my purpose to say another word upon 
 our foreign relations. I have only occupied so much time as was 
 necessary to put myself right in respect to the speech made by the 
 senator from Delaware, lie advocates one line of policy in regard 
 to our foreign relations, and I have deemed it my duty to advocate 
 another. It has been my object to put the two systems by the side 
 of each other that the public might judge between us. 
 
 Mr. Mason having continued the debate on Monday, March 
 14th, Mr. Clayton occupied a portion of that and the succeed 
 ing days in a reply to Mr. Douglas to which, on Wednesday, 
 the 1 7th of March, Mr. Douglas responded : 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT : I had a right to expect that the senator from 
 Delaware, in his reply, would have ventured upon an argument 
 against the positions which I had assumed in my former speech, and 
 which he had assailed. It will be observed, upon a close examination, 
 that he has evaded nearly every point in controversy between us, 
 under the cover of free indulgence in coarse personalities. I do not 
 complain of this. He had a right to choose his own course of dis 
 cussion. Perhaps it was prudent in him to pursue the course which 
 he adopted. I shall not follow his example, however. I may not 
 have the same inducements that may have prompted him. If I had 
 been driven from nearly every position I had assumed in debate if 
 nearly every material fact I had asserted had been negatived and 
 disproved by official documents bearing my own signatures if I had 
 br.en convicted of giving one explanation of my conduct at one time, 
 and at other times different and contradictory reasons, I might be 
 prompted to seek refuge under personalities from the exposure that 
 might be made. Sir, I pass that all by. 
 
 The senator, as a last resort, attempted to get up unkind feelings 
 between my political friends and myself in regard to this debate. He 
 endeavored to show that my speech was an assault upon every sena 
 tor who took a different course. He went further, and charged that 
 I, as a Presidential candidate, was pursuing this course in order to 
 destroy and break down rivals in my own party. Sir, these insidious 
 and disreputable assaults do not disturb my equanimity. The object 
 is to enlist, from prejudice and unworthy motives, a sympathy in the 
 course of discussion which he has attempted to maintain. But I 
 appeal to the Senate if I assailed any senator upon this floor, either 
 in regard to the Hise treaty or the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. I 
 appeal to the Senate if I mentioned the name of any senator, or stated 
 how any one man had voted. I did not disclose even how the vote 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 55 
 
 stood. No citizen in America would have known the vote of any 
 senator on this floor from my speech, or from my participation in the 
 recent discussion ; and I have yet to learn that a vindication of my 
 own course involves an assault upon those who chose to differ with 
 me. I have not understood the speeches of the senator from Michi 
 gan (Mr. Cass) and of the senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason) and of 
 other senators, who have spoken on this question, in opposition to 
 some of my views, as an attack on myself. It was their duty to vin 
 dicate their own course with the reasons which prompted them ; and 
 it was my right and my duty to give the reasons which induced and 
 compelled me to pursue the course that I did. 
 
 I do not choose to occupy the time of the Senate in a matter that 
 partakes so much of a personal character. But the senator cannot 
 avail himself of that argument in vindication of his course in sup 
 pressing the Hise treaty. He is not supported by that array of names 
 which he has produced for that act. No one of the senators ever did 
 sustain him, so far as I know, in suppressing the Hise treaty. That 
 treaty was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Se 
 nate were never permitted to examine it. The treaty, to this day, 
 has been withheld from the Senate. You will have to go elsewhere 
 than to the files of this body to find that treaty. How can it be said 
 that senators have sustained him in his rejection of the Hise treaty, 
 when he had deprived the Senate of an opportunity of showing 
 whether they were for or against it ? Sir, he cannot have the benefit 
 of those names which he has quoted to shelter him upon that point. 
 
 Again, sir, he has quoted all the eminent names from General 
 Jackson down to the present time, to support him in his refusal to 
 accept of the exclusive control of the canal for his own country. Sir, 
 he has no authority thus to quote them ; he has no authority for say 
 ing that any one of those eminent statesmen were opposed to such a 
 privilege as the Hise treaty showed that we could have acquired. It 
 is true that when Central America granted a privilege to a company 
 in the Netherlands to make this canal, the administration of General 
 Jackson, under that state of facts, were content with asserting our 
 right to an equal participation. It is also true that when a French 
 man had procured a charter for a railroad across the isthmus of 
 Panama, and thus it had gone into the hands of foreigners, the ad 
 ministration of President Polk were content to assert our claim to an 
 equal right. But it is not true that either of them ever refused to ac 
 cept an exclusive privilege for this country when voluntarily tendered. 
 
 I am not going to occupy the attention of the Senate with an array 
 of names for or against this proposition. I quoted no names in my first, 
 argument. I addressed myself to the merits of the question, and chose 
 to decide it by arguments upon its merits, and not by the authority of 
 great names. I would rather see the senator sustain his position now 
 by arguments upon the merits of his own official action, and not by an 
 appeal to the action of great men who lived at a different period, and 
 whoso acts were dependent upon entirely different circumstances. 
 
56 T1IE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 One word more, and I proceed to the main point at issue. Th 
 senator has accused me of having attempted to make this a party 
 question. How did I attempt it? In my speech of February last, 
 to which he replied, he cannot find the term Whig or Democrat, 01 
 a political allusion, or a partisan argument. I explained my own 
 principles of action as evinced in my votes ; and I expressly stated 
 that they were not sanctioned by either Whig or Democratic adminis 
 trations upon some of the points. I did not invoke the aid of sympa 
 thy of party. I was willing to stand upon the truth and the soundness 
 of my own record, and leave the future to determine whether I wa 
 right or wrong on the question. Sir, partisan politics have been 
 introduced by the senator, and not by me. The senator, in his speech 
 in reply to me, endeavored to show that Democratic administrations 
 had done this, and Democratic administrations had done that, and 
 appealed to partisan authority, to sustain himself. I admit his right 
 to introduce party questions, and to appeal to party names as author 
 ity. I have not done it, and I deny his right to charge it upon me. 
 Sir, I invoked the aid of no partisan feeling or party organization for 
 the support of the position I maintained. But when the senator 
 showed that a majority of my own party, on the ratification of the 
 Clayton and Bulwer treaty, had recorded their names in opposition 
 to mine, he ought to have been content, without charging that I was 
 making it a party question. It was not a very agreeable thing to me 
 to be compelled to differ with three-fourths of the Senate, including 
 a majority of my own political friends, and nothing but a sense of 
 duty would have compelled me to take the responsibility of such a 
 course. 
 
 Xow, let us go back to the real point. Why all these attempts to 
 avoid the main issue? In the first place the senator denied that he 
 was responsible for not sending the Hise treaty to the Senate, inas 
 much as it had been rejected by Central America. Then, when I 
 showed that the rejection of that treaty was procured by his own 
 agent in obedience to his instructions, he denied the existence of the 
 instructions. When I produced the instructions, and showed that 
 the agent acted in obedience to what he believed to be their true 
 meaning, the senator acknowledged his opposition to the treaty, and 
 justified it upon the ground that it guaranteed the independence of 
 Nicaragua. When I showed that he could not have objected to it on 
 that ground, for the reason that at that very time he proposed a 
 guaranty, in connection with Great Britain, of the independence of 
 Nicaragua, he abandons that position, and is driven to the extremity 
 of seeking refuge under what he chooses to consider obnoxious 
 details. W r hen I showed that his objections to the details could not 
 avail him, because it was no reason for withholding the treaty 
 according to the usages of the Senate, he then comes to the point 
 that it was better to have a partnership privilege than an exclusive 
 one. That brings us to the real question. Why could we not, luivo 
 come to it at once? If he was right in his preference for a European 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 57 
 
 partnership over an exclusive privilege to his own country, why did 
 he not avow the fact at once and justify his conduct, instead of wast 
 ing the time of the Senate in requiring me to prove facts which 
 ought to have been confessed, and which have been proven by his 
 own written testimony, in opposition to his own denial? 
 
 In his last speech the senator chose to persevere in representing 
 me as the advocate of a canal to be made through Central America, 
 with funds from the Treasury of the United States. I need not 
 remind the senator that he had no authority, from anything I have 
 said, to attribute to me such a purpose. I certainly did not assume 
 any such position, while my remarks were calculated to negative 
 such an idea. My position was this: that while negotiating for the 
 right of way for a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we should 
 have accepted the offer to our own government of the exclusive right 
 to control it, instead of a partnership with England and the other 
 powers of the earth. The Hise treaty granted the privilege either 
 to the United States or to an American company under our protec 
 tion, at our option. I insisted that we had the same right to take it 
 to ourselves that we had to take it jointly with other powers. It 
 requires no further exertion of constitutional power to execute and 
 maintain and regulate an exclusive privilege to America than it did to 
 execute and maintain a partnership privilege with European powers. 
 Hence his objections upon that score must fall to the ground. The 
 simple question was, whether it would have been wise to accept that 
 privilege. Sir, I think it would have been. I am not going to 
 repeat the argument I made the other day upon that point. If it 
 had been given to us, we could have opened the canal to the world 
 upon such terms as we deemed proper. We could have withdrawn 
 the use of it whenever a nation failed to respect our rights. It would 
 have been a bond of peace instead of being an apple of discord 
 between us and other nations; because when you bring all the great 
 Powers of the earth into partnership, constant disputes will arise as 
 to the nature and extent of the rights of the respective parties. The 
 history of these negotiations proves this fact. 
 
 But, sir, let me ask the senator what he has gained by his rejec 
 tion of the Hise treaty? He has given the world to understand by 
 his speeches that he has accomplished two great objects: the one to 
 open a canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans the other 
 to put a stop to British encroachments in Central America. Has he 
 accomplished either of those objects? I ask what privilege he has 
 gained to make a canal? He has not even secured the right of way 
 for a canal, either jointly or separately. He is responsible for having 
 defeated the project of a canal between the two oceans. He refused 
 the grant of the right of way, because it gave the right to control the 
 work exclusively to his own country. The treaty which he caused 
 to be made, failed to receive the sanction of the Senate. Thus we 
 are left without any right of way without any charter, right, or 
 privilege. Instead of accomplishing that object, he is responsible for 
 
 3* 
 
68 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 its defeat. All that he has to boast of is, that he deprived his own 
 country of an inestimable privilege, the necessity and importance of 
 which are now conceded on all hands. 
 
 "What, then, have we gained by his diplomacy? Why, sir, after 
 having failed in getting the privilege of making the canal, either 
 jointly or separate!} , he makes a treaty with Great Britain by -which, 
 if we hereafter secure it, the privilege is given to Great Britain as 
 well as to ourselves. The Clayton and Buhver treaty provides that 
 any right of way or communication which may be secured at any 
 future time, shall be open alike to England and the United States, 
 and under the joint control and protection of the two powers. We 
 have a treaty with England about a canal in Central America, but 
 we have none with any of the Central American States. Let me 
 ask, then, how much have we gained ? Has he expelled the British 
 from Central America by his treaty? What inch of country have 
 they given up. What right have they abandoned ? What functionary 
 have they .withdrawn? Where is the evidence that you have driven 
 the British from Central America? Are they not still in the full 
 enjoyment of their protectorate upon the Mosquito coast ? Have you 
 driven them from the Balize? 
 
 The senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass), and the chairman of the 
 Committee on Foreign Relations (Mr. Mason), in their speeches, have 
 maintained that the Clayton and Bulwer treaty would fairly include 
 the Balize as a part of Central America. But the senator from Dela 
 ware, while acting as the secretary of state, gave a construction to 
 that treaty which excludes the Balize. The senator, therefore, is 
 fstopped from saying that lie lias expelled the British from the 
 Balize. The fact shows that he has not driven the British protecto 
 rate from the coast. We find that instead of leaving Central America, 
 the British have not only established a colony at the Bay Islands, 
 but, if the newspaper information received by the last steamers can 
 be credited, they have bombarded the towns upon the main land, and 
 taken forcible possession of a part of the state of Honduras. Then 
 I repeat the question to the senator, what has he gained ? I can tell 
 him what has resulted from his negotiation. He lias recognized the 
 right of Great Britain and all European powers to interfere with the 
 affairs of the American states. He has recognized that right by a 
 treaty; and he has guaranteed to England that we will use our good 
 offices to enable them to enter into arrangements with these Central 
 American states. He has excluded the idea that the question of thy 
 Central American states is an American question, and by his nego 
 tiation lias opened it as a European question. In other words, he 
 lias, by his treaty, abolished what is known as the Monroe doctrine, 
 with reference to a large portion of the American continent. 
 
 This brings me to the examination of another question. The sena 
 tor from Delaware chose to arraign me upon that portion of iny 
 speech, in which I stated that I was unwilling to give a pledge never 
 to annex any more territory to the United States. lie then went on 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 59 
 
 to argue against annexation, said "we were pledged, and that the 
 pledge given was correct, and attempted to vindicate it. He ar 
 raigned me for having said that such a treaty could not be enforced 
 through all time to come. I explained to him that my idea was that 
 the growth of this country was so great and so rapid that the har 
 riers of any treaty would be irresistibly broken through by natural 
 causes, over which we had no control ; and hence that the treaty 
 ought not to have been made. He told me that the explanation 
 made it worse, and that he would show that the doctrine involved 
 moral turpitude : that he was amazed and grieved that any one here 
 from this high place should proclaim such a sentiment. 
 
 Sir, I will proceed to show my authority on that point, which I 
 think he will be compelled to respect. In taking that position, I 
 only reiterated the opinions expressed by the late secretary of state, 
 and now senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett), in his letter to 
 the Comte de Sartiges, a few months ago, in respect to the island of 
 Cuba ; and when the senator from Delaware arraigns me for utter 
 ing sentiments involving a want of respect for treaty stipulations, I 
 will turn him over to the senator from Massachusetts and to ex-Pre 
 sident Fillmore, and allow them to settle that issue between them 
 selves. I wish to call the attention of the senator to the letter of 
 Mr. Everett to the Comte de Sartiges. In that letter you find the 
 following passage in regard to a proposed convention stipulating tlmt 
 we would never annex Cuba ; 
 
 " The convention -would be of no value unless it -were lasting ; accordingly 
 its terms express a perpetuity of purpose and obligation. Now, it may well be 
 doubted whether the Constitution of the United States would allow the treaty- 
 making power to impose a permanent disability on the American government 
 for all conung time, and prevent it, under any future change of circumstances, 
 from doino- what has been so often done in times past. In 1803 the United 
 States purchased Louisiana of France, and in 1819 they purchased Florida of 
 Spain. It is not within the competence of the treaty-making power in 1852 
 effectually to bind the government in all its branches ; and for all coming 
 time not to make a similar purchase of Cuba." 
 
 The senatorfrom Delaware will see that the late secretary of state, 
 Mr. Everett, by the direction of President Fillmore, has pronounced 
 such a guaranty to be a violation of the Constitution of the United 
 States and the exercise of an authority not conferred by that instru 
 ment 1 Sir, if the Constitution gave no authority to make a pledge 
 by this government that we will never annex Cuba, I suppose it does 
 not authorize a pledge never to annex Central America. The con- 
 stitu ional objection applies to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, in re 
 lation to Central America, with the same force that it did to. the 
 proposed convention in respect to Cuba. They take higher ground 
 than I did. I was not willing to do that which would involve a 
 breach of faith in the progress of events. But I did not go so tar as 
 to denv the constitutional power to make such a treaty. And, there 
 fore Task the senator why he did not arraign President I illmon 
 
GO THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 why lie did not arraign the late secretary of state, Mr. Everett, for 
 uttering those monstrous sentiments, instead of hurling his anathe 
 mas upon my head, as if I had been the only man in America who 
 ever ventured to proclaim such opinions? According to the opin 
 ions of President Fillmore, and his secretary of state, as promulgated 
 in Mr. Everett s celebrated letter, and applauded by the almost una 
 nimous voice of the American people, the Clayton and Bulwer treaty 
 was a palpable violation of the Constitution of the United States. 
 But Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Everett were not content with denying 
 the power of this government, under the Constitution, to enter into 
 this treaty stipulation. They deny its propriety, its justice, its wis 
 dom, as well as the right to make it. I will read a passage upon this 
 point: 
 
 " There is another strong objection to the proposed agreement. Among tlie 
 oldest traditions of the Federal Government is an aversion to political alliances 
 with European powers. In his memorable Farewell Address, President Wash 
 ington says : The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, 
 in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political con 
 nection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them 
 be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. President Jefferson, in 
 his inaugural address, in 1801, warned the country against entangling alliances. 
 This expression, now become proverbial, was unquestionably used by Mr. Jef 
 ferson in reference to the alliance with France of 1778, an alliance at the time 
 of incalculable benefit to the United States, but which in less than twenty years 
 came near involving us in the wars of the Fre.nch Revolution, and laid the foun 
 dation of heavy claims upon Congress not extinguished to the present day. It 
 is a significant coincidence that the particular provision of the alliance which 
 occasioned these evils was that under which France called upon us to aid her 
 in defending her West Indian possessions against England. Nothing less than 
 the unbounded influence of Washington rescued the Union from the perils of 
 that crisis and preserved our neutrality." 
 
 As the senator from Delaware is fond of the authority of great 
 names, I not only furnish him with the name of the late secretary of 
 state, and that of the late President of the United States, upon the 
 points to which I have referred, but I have the authority of these 
 gentlemen for saying that his doctrine witli regard to Central America 
 is in violation of the solemn warnings of the Father of his Country, 
 and in derogation of the protests of Mr. Jefferson, repeated over 
 and over again during his eventful life. I find that the late secretary 
 of state has again, in another passage, summed up the objections 
 which I entertained to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, and I \\ill 
 call the attention of the Senate to it. It is this: 
 
 " But the President has a graver objection to entering into the proposed con 
 vention. He has no wish to disguise the feeling, that the compact, although 
 equal in its terms, would be very unequal in substance France and England, 
 by entering into it, would disable themselves from obtaining possession of an 
 island remote from their seats of government, belonging to another European 
 power, whose natural right to possess it must always be as good as their own 
 a distant island, in another hemisphere, and one which by MO ordinary or 
 peaceful course of things could ever belong to either of them. If the present 
 
STEP II EN A. DOUGLAS. C>] 
 
 balance of power in Europe should be broken up ; if Spain should become tin- 
 Jtble to maintain the island in her possession, and France and England should 
 be engaged m a death-struggle with each other, Cuba might then be the prize 
 of the victor. Till these events all take place, the President does not see how 
 saba. can belong to any European power but Spain. The United States on 
 the other hand, would, by the proposed convention, disable themselves from 
 making an acquisition which might take place without any disturbance of ex 
 isting foreign relations, and in the natural order of things." 
 
 If the prosposed guaranty never to annex Cuba was not reciprocal 
 as between the United States and England, how is it that it can be 
 said that a similar guaranty respecting Central America was reci 
 procal ? Every argument urged by the late secretary of state against 
 reciprocity in one, applies with equal force to the other. It may be 
 said that Cuba stands at the entrance of the Gulf of Mexico; but it 
 can be said with equal truth that Central America is upon the public 
 highway to our Pacific possessions. Both stand as gates to this pub 
 lic highway, and every argument urged in relation to the one is 
 equally applicable to the other. 
 
 ^ Now I have to quote the late secretary of state and President 
 Fillmoro against the senator from Delaware on another point. When 
 I remarked that the history of this country showed that our growth 
 and expansion could not be resisted, and would inevitably break 
 through whatever barriers might be erected by the .present genera 
 tion to restrain our future progress, the senator from Delaware as 
 sumed the right to rebuke me for uttering sentiments implying per 
 fidy and moral turpitude. He desired to know if sentiments of that 
 kind were to be tolerated in the American Senate? Let him hear 
 his friend from Massachusetts on that point, in the same docu 
 ment : 
 
 " That a convention such as is proposed would be a transitory arrangement, 
 Bare to be swept away by the irresistible tide of affairs in a new country, is, to 
 the apprehension of the President, too obvious to require a labored argument. 
 The project rests on principles applicable, if at all, to Europe, where interna 
 tional relations are in their basis of great antiquity, slowly modified for the 
 most part in the progress of time and events; and not applicable to America, 
 Avhich, but lately a waste, is filling up with intense rapidity, and adjusting, on 
 natural principles, those territorial relations which on the first discovery of lie 
 continent were in a good degree fortuitous." .... 
 
 " But whatever may be thought of these last suggestions, it would seem im 
 possible for any one who reflects upon the events glanced at in this note to 
 mistake the law of American growth and progress, or think it can ultimately 
 arrested by a convention like that proposed. In the judgment of the Presi 
 dent, it would be as easy to throw a dam from Cape Florida to Cuba, in the 
 hope of stopping the flow of the Gulf Stream, as to attempt, by a compact like 
 this, to fix the fortunes of Cuba, now and for hereafter, or, as expressed in the 
 French text of the convention, pour le present comme pour 1 avenir. that is 
 for all coming time." 
 
 There the senator is told that such a stipulation might be applica 
 ble to European politics, but would be iinsnited and unfitted to Ame 
 rican affairs ; that he has mistaken entirely the system of policy, 
 
62 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP 
 
 which should be applied to our own country, that he has predicated 
 his action upon those old, antiquated notions which belong to the 
 stationary and retrograde movements of the Old World, and find no 
 sympathy in the youthful, uprising aspirations of the AmericarPheart. 
 I indorse fully the sentiment. I insist that there is a difference, a 
 wide difference, between the system of policy which should be pursued 
 in America and that which would be applicable to Europe. Europe 
 is antiquated, decrepit, tottering on the verge of dissolution. When 
 you visit her, the objects which enlist your highest admiration are 
 the relics of past greatness ; the broken columns erected to departed 
 power. It is one vast graveyard, where you find here a tomb indi 
 cating the burial of the arts ; there a monument marking the spot 
 where liberty expired; another to the memory of a great man, 
 whose place has never been filled. The choicest products of her 
 classic soil consists in relics, which remain as sad memorials of de 
 parted glory and fallen greatness! They bring up the memories of 
 the dead, but inspire no hope for the living! Here everything is 
 fresh, blooming, expanding, and advancing. We wish a wise, prac 
 tical policy adapted to our condition and position. Sir, the states 
 man who would shape the policy of America by European models, 
 has failed to perceive the antagonism which exists in the relative 
 position, history, institutions in everything pertaining to the Old 
 and the New World. 
 
 The senator from Delaware seems always to have had his back 
 turned upon his own country, and his eye intently fixed upon Europe 
 as the polar star of all his observations. If it would not be deemed 
 an indelicate interposition between the senator from Delaware and 
 his friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett), I should be inclined to 
 say that the criticism of the late secretary of state, although not in 
 tended for the senator from Delaware, is strictly applicable to his 
 diplomacy, and fully deserved. I shall not go into the discussion of 
 that question, however. I deny the right of the senator from Dela 
 ware to come back at me on that point. I shall certainly turn him 
 over to his friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett), because he will 
 not dare to accuse him of political prejudices and partisan feelings. 
 He has said severer things of the senator s diplomacy than I thought 
 the rules of the Senate would authorize me to indulge in. The ex- 
 President of the United States has sanctioned them, and now I think 
 I am at liberty to refer to them, for if it were not within the rules of 
 courtesy and diplomacy, they would not be sent here. But, sir, I 
 may be permitted to add that the nation has sanctioned them too ; 
 for I am not aware that a State paper was ever issued in America 
 that received a heartier response in most of its principles, than the 
 letter of the late secretary of state to the Comte de Sartiges, to 
 which I have referred. Sir, if he had done nothing else to render 
 his administration of the State Department illustrious, his name 
 would live in all coining time in that diplomatic letter, as one who 
 could appreciate the spirit of the age, and perceive the destiny of the 
 - io >ion. No document has ever received such a universal sanction 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 63 
 
 of the American people as the one to which I have referred, con 
 demning and repudiating the diplomacy of the senator from Dela 
 ware in relation to the American continent. 
 
 Mr. President, I have not much more to add. The senator has 
 arraigned me also for having attempted to arouse unkind feelings be 
 tween the United States and England. I deny that the arraignment 
 is just. 
 
 I have attempted no such thing. I have never attempted to foster 
 jealousies or unkind feelings between our own country and any 
 other. I have attempted to plant our relations on amicable terms, 
 by speaking the truth plainly as we and they know it to exist. Tho 
 remarks that I have made about friendly relations between the two 
 countries, were drawn out by his statement that England was known 
 to be so " friendly" to us. I said to him I did not think the friendly 
 relations of England constituted any claim upon our gratitude. I 
 have seen no evidence of that friendship. I said frankly I did not 
 think that England loved us, and it w T as useless for us to pretend 
 that we loved her. The history of the two countries proves it. The 
 daily action of the two countries proves it. England is spending her 
 millions to maintain her fortifications all along our coast ; at the Ber 
 mudas, the Bahamas, and at Jamaica, and on every rock and barren 
 waste along the American coast. What does she keep them up for ? 
 Does she make money out of them ? Why, you all know that they are 
 a source of unbounded expenditure to her. Does it extend her com 
 merce ? Does it employ her shipping ? Not at all. Why does she 
 keep them ? In order to point her guns at America. 
 
 Well, if she is so friendly to us, and we are so friendly to her, what 
 necessity is there for pointing her cannon all the time at us ? And 
 if these are evidences of friendship, why do we not reciprocate it by 
 sending over a few cannon and planting them on every little island 
 and rock near her coast ? If we were to seize upon every military 
 and naval position, and expend millions in keeping up fortifications 
 all along her coast, would that be any evidence of friendly feeling on 
 our part toward England ? I do not see it. 
 
 Again : the moment it was discovered that we were to acquire 
 California as a consequence of the Mexican war, England sent her 
 armed ships and seized possession of the town of San Juan, and I 
 have the authority of the senator from Delaware for saying there is 
 reason to believe that the act was done out of hostility to the Amer 
 ican government. Why did she want the town of San Juan ? Sim 
 ply for the reason that by the Mexican treaty our possessions had been 
 enlarged upon the Pacific coast, and it evidently became necessary, 
 in order to preserve this Union and maintain our commerce, that we 
 should have the line of intercommunication between the two oceans 
 so as to connect the Atlantic and Pacific States together ; and there 
 fore, in order to cut off our right of way, in order to establish a toll 
 gate upon our public highway, she seized possession of that point as 
 the one from which she could annoy us most. 
 
 The senator will not pretend that he believes that act originated 
 
64 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 in friendly feelings toward us on the part of England. I have his 
 authority in his public documents for saying that he believes it ori 
 ginated in motives of jealousy and hostility. The object was, not to 
 advance her own interest, not to increase her own commerce, not to 
 extend her own power, but to restrain, fetter, and cripple our ener 
 gies and our power. Are these acts evidence of friendship on her 
 part toward us, and are we so constituted that we feel grateful for 
 them ? Sir, let us not play the hypocrite upon this subject. Let us 
 speak out the naked truth, plainly and boldly. AVe feel that this 
 seizure of every rock and island upon our coast, and converting them 
 into garrisoned fortresses, with guns to bear on American commerce 
 and American interests, are no evidence of friendship. We feel that 
 these attempts to surround and fetter us, and hem us in, are evidences 
 of hostility, which it is our duty plainly to see and boldly to resist. 
 Sir, the way to establish friendly relations with England is, to let 
 her know that we are not so stupid as not to understand her policy, 
 nor so pusillanimous as to submit to her aggressions. The moment 
 she understands that we mean what we say, and will carry out any 
 principle we profess, she will be very careful not to create any point 
 of difference between us. It is want of candor and frankness that 
 keeps the two nations in conflict with each other. I say, that as long 
 as this policy of hemming us in, and fettering us, and trying to re 
 strain our growth and curtail our power continues, we cannot feel 
 friendly and kindly toward her ; and so long as she persists in that 
 policy, we ought not to believe that she feels kindly toward us. If 
 we tell her so, she will do one of two things ; either abandon her 
 aggressive course, or avow her hostility ; and of all things let us 
 know whether she is our friend or our enemy. Therefore, I will 
 repeat very frankly, that it is useless to endeavor to conceal the fact 
 that there are jealousies between us and England growing out of 
 rival interests, and that her policy has for its aim to restrain our 
 power rather than increasing her own. Our policy is, to enhance 
 our own power and greatness, without attempting to restrain hers. 
 Ours is generous, honorable, and justifiable; hers is illiberal, unkind, 
 unjust, and we ought to tell her so. 
 
 I believe, Mr. President, I have said all I have to say upon this 
 question. My object has been simply to reply to the points raised 
 by the senator in his speech. I do not wish to travel over the ground 
 again. There are many other points in the discussion into which I 
 could have gone. There are many other positions that the docu 
 ments which have been lately published would furnish me ample 
 material for prolonging the discussion, but I do not wish to occupy 
 the time of the Senate. I only wish to show that the real points tit 
 issue are : first, that the senator preferred a partnership with Eng 
 land to an exclusive privilege to his own country for the great intw- 
 oceanic canal. Secondly, that he believes in the policy of pledging 
 this country never to annex any more territory in all time to come. 
 I repudiate that policy. These are the main points between us. and 
 
STEP II EN A. DOUGLAS. 65 
 
 the last point, in the course of the discussion, seems to have become 
 the material one. He is opposed to all further annexation, and wishes 
 to make treaties now to restrain us in all time to come from extend 
 ing our possessions. 
 
 I do not wish to annex any more territory now. But I avow 
 freely that I foresee the day when you will be compelled to do it, 
 and cannot help it, and when treaties cannot prevent the consumma 
 tion of the act. Hence my policy would be to hold the control of 
 our own action, give no pledges upon the subject, but bide our time, 
 and be at liberty to do whatever our interest, our honor, and duty may 
 require when the time for action may come. An old, decrepit nation, 
 tottering and ready to fall to pieces, may well seek for pledges and 
 guaranties from a youthful, vigorous, growing power, to protect her 
 old age. But a young nation, with all her freshness, vigor, and 
 youth, desires no limits fixed to her greatness, no boundaries to her 
 future growth. She desires to be left free to exercise her own powers, 
 exert her own energies, according to her own sense of duty in all 
 coming time. This, sir, is the main issue between us, and I am 
 ready to submit it to the Senate and to the country. 
 
 [Senator Butler, in continuation of the debate on the same day, 
 having assailed some of the positions maintained by Senator Douglas, 
 and pronounced a eulogy upon England and her literature, Senator 
 Douglas replied :] 
 
 ME. PRESIDENT : In reply to the senator from South Carolina, I 
 wish to state to him, without going into the controversy as to which 
 is the right policy for the President when a treaty contains objects 
 desirable and details obnoxious, that he will find an example in point 
 in tke case of the Mexican treaty containing provisions which the 
 President and Senate both regarded as unconstitutional, yet the 
 President sent the treaty here, and pointed out the obnoxious 
 parts. The senator and those acting with him modified it, perfected 
 it, voted for it, and ratified it in opposition to my vote, and it became 
 the law of the land. It is a case precisely in point, and I merely 
 mention it, and leave that part of the question. 
 
 MR. BUTLER. I think the Mexican treaty was sent as an entirety. 
 We amended it no doubt, but it was sent as an entirety by President 
 Polk, saying that Mr. Trist had usurped power which he did not 
 possess. Itwas exactly one of those instances in which the treaty 
 had been made, and he asked the Senate to adopt it, but he sent it 
 in as an entire thing. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. The President sent it in, stating that there were 
 certain provisions in it which must be striken out before it could bf. 
 sanctioned by him. But now to another point: The gentleman com 
 mented upon a remark that I had made, and which also was con, 
 tained in the letter of the late secretary of state (Mr. Everett), and 
 seems to suppose that we were advocating the doctrine of not ob- 
 fcervino- the faith of treaties. That did not put us before the country 
 in the true position which we have assumed. My position is this . 
 
66 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 that we should never make a treaty which we cannot carry into full 
 execution ; that good faith requires us not to make a treaty unless 
 we intend to execute it, nor make one which we probably cannot be 
 able to execute. My argument, therefore, was an argument against 
 the making of treaties improperly upon points that were unnecessary, 
 and which could not be carried into effect, and not in favor of violat 
 ing any treaties that had been made. It was an argument in favor 
 of the sanctity of treaties ; and those who make treaties profusely 
 and recklessly, binding us for all time to come without reference to 
 the ability in future to execute them, are the ones who ought to 
 be arraigned, if anybody should be, for not being faithful to treaty 
 stipulations. I wish, therefore, to make this explanation, in order 
 that no misapprehension as to the position which I have assumed 
 may be entertained in any quarter. 
 
 The senator referred to a remark of mine in regard to the decay 
 and decline of European powers, and made it the excuse for a eulo- 
 gium upon England as the source from which we have derived every 
 thing that is valuable in science and art ; in literature, law, and politics. 
 
 When I am reminded of the greatness of England, as connected 
 with her statesmen and orators, and the illustrious names of Hamp- 
 den and Sydney are pointed to as examples, I cannot fail to remem 
 ber I can never forget that the same England which gave them 
 birth, and should have felt a mother s pride and love in their virtues 
 and services, persecuted her noble sons to the dungeon and the 
 scaffold, and attempted to brand their names with infamy in all com 
 ing time, for the very causes which have endeared them to us and 
 filled the republican world with their fame ! NOT am I unmindful 
 of the debt of gratitude which the present generation owes to the 
 brilliant galaxy of great names whose fortune it was to have been 
 born and to have suffered in England, and whose labors and re 
 searches in political, legal, and physical science in literature, poetry, 
 and art, have added so much lustre on their native land. Some 
 pursued their labors under the protection and patronage of the Eng 
 lish government others in defiance of her tyranny and vengeance. 
 I award all credit and praise to the authors of all the blessings and 
 advantages we have inherited from that source. 
 
 I cannot go as far as the senator from South Carolina. I cannot 
 recognize England as our mother. If so, she is and ever has been a 
 cruel and unnatural mother. I do not find the evidence of her affec 
 tion in her watchfulness over our infancy, nor in her joy and pride 
 at our ever-blooming prosperity and swelling power, since we as 
 sumed an independent position. 
 
 The proposition is not historically true. Our ancestry were not 
 all of English origin. They were of Scotch, Irish, German, French, 
 and of Norman descent as well as English. In short, we inherit from 
 every branch of the Caucasian race. It has been our aim and policy 
 to profit by their example to reject their errors and follies and to 
 retain, imitate, cultivate, perpetuate all that was valuable and desir- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLA.S. 67 
 
 able. So far as any portion of the credit may be due to England and 
 Englishmen and much of it is let it be freely awarded and recorded 
 in her ancient archives, which seem to have been long since forgotten 
 by her, and the memory of which her present policy toward us is 
 not well calculated to revive. But, that the senator from South 
 Carolina, in view of our present position and of his location in this 
 Confederacy, should indulge in glowing and eloquent eulogiums of 
 England for the blessings and benefits she has conferred and is still 
 lavishing upon us, and urge these considerations in palliation of the 
 wrongs she is daily perpetrating, is to me amazing. He speaks in 
 terms of delight and gratitude of the copious and refreshing streams 
 which English literature and science are pouring into our country 
 and diffusing throughout the land. Is he not aware that nearly every 
 English book circulated and read in this country contains lurking 
 and insidious slanders and libels upon the character of our people 
 and the institutions and policy of our government ? Does he not know 
 that abolitionism, which has so seriously threatened the peace and 
 safety of this republic, had its origin in England, and has been in 
 corporated into the policy of that government for the purpose of 
 operating upon the peculiar institutions of some of the States of this 
 confederacy, and thus render the Union itself insecure ? Does she 
 not keep her missionaries perambulating this country, delivering 
 lectures and scattering broadcast incendiary publications, designed 
 to incite prejudices, hate, and strife between the different sections 
 of this Union ? Iliad supposed that South Carolina and the other 
 slaveholding States of this confederacy had been suih 1 ciently refreshed 
 and enlightened by a certain species of English literature, designed 
 to stir up treason and insurrection around his own fireside, to have 
 excused the senator from offering up praises and hosannas to our 
 English mother ! (Applause in the galleries.) Is not the heart, in-- 
 tellect, and press of England this moment employed in flooding 
 America with this species of " English literature ?" Even the wives 
 and daughters of the nobility and the high officers of government 
 have had the presumption to address the women of America, and in 
 the name of philanthropy appeal to them to engage in the treasonable 
 plot against the institutions and government of their own choice in 
 their native land, while millions are being expended to distribute 
 " Uncle Tom s Cabin" throughout the world, with the view of com 
 bining the fanaticism, ignorance, and hatred of all the nations of the 
 earth in a common crusade against the peculiar institutions of the 
 State and section of this Union represented by the senator from 
 South Carolina; and he unwittingly encourages it^by giving vent to 
 his rapturous joy over these copious and refreshing streams wit.li 
 winch England is irrigating the American intellect. (Renewed ap 
 plause in the galleries.) 
 
 THE PKESID.IXG OFFICER (Mi*. RUSK in the chair). There must be 
 order in the galleries. If there is not, they will be ordered to be 
 cleared. 
 
G8 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 MR. ADAMS. I desire to ask that the galleries may be cleared if 
 such an outrage occurs again. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. I hope it will be done. It is manifestly improper 
 to have such proceedings in the galleries. 
 
 THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It certainly will be done, if the same 
 thing occurs again. 
 
 MR. BUTLER. I have but one word to say in reply to the senator 
 from Illinois. When I spoke of our gratitude to England, I did not 
 allude to the sentimental kind of literature to which the senator re 
 fers. I thought I indicated the authors of the literature to which I 
 referred ; and I do not thank the senator for going out of his way, 
 and indicating impure streams, as if they had a connection with my 
 remark, for there are impure streams llowing from other sources be 
 sides Great Britain ; and there are impure examples in other parts 
 of the Avorld besides Great Britain. When I spoke of it, I spoke in 
 emphatic terms of those writers who have poured upon us what the 
 senator himself will not deny to be refreshing streams ; what I hope 
 he will regard as refreshing to him, and to the intelligence of the 
 age. I named authors. Will he dissent from Burke ? Will he dis 
 sent from Chatham ? Will he dissent from Shakspeare ? Will he 
 
 pect to be diverted by 
 Cabin." (Laughter.) That may do for an ad captandum, but it is 
 not a manly mode of meeting what I said in relation to the literature 
 of England. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. I spoke in terms of reverence and respect of the 
 monuments and tombstones which were found in England, to the 
 great men, to their patriotism, to their legal learning and science 
 and poetry, and all that was great and noble and admirable. I spoke 
 of them with respect as a matter of the past ; but, sir, I do not think 
 it was a legitimate argument to go back two or three centuries past 
 to justify English aggressions in the present upon this continent ; 
 and when I heard the laudations and eulogiums upon past English 
 history in palliation of present English enormity, with commenda 
 tions upon the refreshing streams which she is now pouring into this 
 country to enlighten our people, I thought it was right and proper to 
 remind the senator himself of some of the present conduct of 
 England, which should be borne in mind when he pronounced 
 eulogies upon her conduct. I am talking of the present and its 
 bearing upon the future. It is that to which I am directing my 
 remarks, and not to the past. 
 
 MR. BUTLER. I should like to know how England is to be re 
 sponsible for " Uncle Tom s Cabin." Is England the indorser of it? 
 I have alluded to the masterly intellects of England, and not to the 
 spurious, miserable, sickly sentimentality of the day. If such litera 
 ture as that to which he alludes is to be taken as a standard, England 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 69 
 
 is not the only place in which it is found. She is no more responsi 
 ble for that miserable cant in relation to this subject than others. 
 But with regard to England, in all our commercial relations, in all 
 our connection with her as a civilized nation, I presume the honor 
 able senator would not be disposed to postpone her to any other 
 any other nation. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I would neither postpone nor give her the prefer 
 ence. I have no eulogium to make upon her. I will treat her as our 
 duty as a nation requires. 
 
 ME. BUTLEE. I have pronounced no other eulogium than history 
 yields to her literature, commerce and civilization, and we are bound 
 to maintain our relations with England if we intend to be a civil 
 ized nation ourselves. I made no allusion to the kind of literature 
 which the senator has brought in debate. We can find this miserable 
 sentimentality anywhere, and there are many other things which the 
 senator might as well have brought in, which would have been as 
 pertinent to the debate. He had better get up a discussion of the 
 Maine liquor law. (Laughter.) I do not see why he could not. It 
 has about as much connection with the question as the other. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I have introduced into this discussion none of 
 these extraneous topics. I have contented myself with replying 
 when others have brought them forward and thrust them upon me. 
 My object has been to confine the debate to the points at issue be 
 tween the senator from Delaware and myself, and I have not de 
 parted from that line except when compelled to do so by the remarks 
 of others. 
 
 The discussion having been continued on subsequent days 
 by Mr. Clayton and Mr. Everett, Mr. Douglas closed the 
 debate with the following remarks : 
 
 ME. PEESIDENT : I do not intend to prolong the discussion ; but I 
 think it due to myself and the occasion to make a word of comment 
 upon one remark which fell from the eminent senator from Massa 
 chusetts. I understood him to concur in the opinion expressed by 
 the senator from Delaware, that his letter in relation to Cuba, which 
 proclaimed the principle that no pledge was to be made by this gov 
 ernment in regard to the future condition of that island, was not 
 applicable to the Central American states. I cannot consent, even 
 for the sake of harmonizing the political relations of those two sena 
 tors, to be placed in a false position. I am not willing, even by their 
 concurrence, to be put in a position of having made a misapplication 
 of that letter. The main point to which I referred in the letter of 
 Mr. Everett to the Comte de Sartiges was the denial of any consti 
 tutional power in this government to make the pledge, that in all 
 coming time we would not acquire any territory which, in the course 
 
70 THE LIFE 4.ND SPEECHES OF 
 
 of events, might become desirable and necessary. If it was not com 
 petent under the Constitution to make such a stipulation in reference 
 to the island of Cuba, where does he find the constitutional authority 
 to make it in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty in respect to Central 
 America ? If there be a want of constitutional power in the one 
 case, does not the same absence of authority exist in the other, and 
 should it not be equally binding upon the consciences of men in a]l 
 cases ? Therefore, until they remove that constitutional barrier, I 
 cannot permit those two senators to place themselves upon a com 
 mon platform, and accuse me of having made a misapplication of 
 the letter to the French minister. The senator from Delaware has 
 asserted the existence of the power, and exercised it in the Clayton 
 and Bulwer treaty, while the senator from Massachusetts has denied 
 its existence in the official dispatch to which I have referred. That 
 is all I desired to say on that point. -> 
 
 So far as the senator s remarks relate to the preservation ofpbacej 
 I fully and cordially agree with him. If there is any one line of 
 policy more dear to my heart than all others, it is that which shall 
 avoid any just cause of war, and preserve peace in all time to come. 
 If there be a difference of opinion between us, it is upon the point as 
 to which line of policy will best accomplish that object. I believe 
 that the true policy is to make no pledges at present which are to 
 bind our successors in all time to come with reference to a state of 
 facts which now does not exist, but then may require action. I have 
 not said that I wish to annex any portion of Central America to this 
 country. I only protest against the pledge that our successors shall 
 not do that which their interest, duty and honor may require when 
 the time for action comes. With these remarks, I am willing to 
 close the discussion. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 71 
 
 ON THE NEBRASKA TERRITORY. 
 
 Delivered in the Senate, January 30, 1854. 
 
 ^ The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to the con 
 sideration of the bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, when I proposed, on Tuesday last, 
 that the Senate should proceed to the consideration of the bill to or 
 ganize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, it was my purpose 
 only to occupy ten or fifteen minutes in explanation of its pro visions. 
 I desired to refer to two points ; first to those provisions relating to 
 the Indians, and second to those which might be supposed to bear 
 upon ^M question of slavery. 
 
 Th<rcommittee, in drafting the bill, had in view the great anxiety 
 which had been expressed by some members of the Senate to protect 
 the rights of the Indians, and to prevent infringements upon them. 
 By the provisions of the bill, I think we had so clearly succeeded, in 
 that respect, as to obviate all possible objection upon that score. The 
 bill itself provides that it shall not operate upon any of the rights or 
 lands of the Indians, nor shall they be included within the limits of 
 those Territories, until they shall, by treaty with the United States, 
 expressly consent to come under the operations of the act, and be 
 incorporated within the limits of the Territories. This provision cer 
 tainly is broad enough, clear enough, explicit enough, to protect all 
 the rights of the Indians as to their persons and their property. 
 
 Upon the other point, that pertaining to the question of slavery in 
 the Territories, it was the intention of the committee to be equally 
 explicit. We took the principles established by the Compromise acts 
 of 1850 as our guide, and intended to make each and every provision 
 of the bill accord with those principles. Those measures established 
 and rest upon the principles of self-government, that the people 
 should be allowed to decide the question of their domestic institu 
 tions for themselves, subject only to such limitations and restrictions 
 as are imposed by the Constitution of the United States, instead of 
 having them determined by an arbitrary or geographical line. 
 
 The original bill, reported by the committee as a substitute for the 
 bill introduced by the senator from Iowa (Mr. Dogde), was believed 
 to have accomplished this object. The amendment which was sub 
 sequently reported by us was only designed to render that clear and 
 specific, which seemed, in the minds of some, to admit of doubt and 
 misconstruction. In some parts of the country the original substi 
 tute was deemed and construed to be an annulment or a repeal of 
 what has been known as the Missouri Compromise, while in other 
 parts it was otherwise construed. As the object of the committee 
 was to conform to the principles established by the Compromise 
 measures of 1850, and to carry those principles into effect in the 
 
72 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Territories, we thought it was better to recite in the hill precisely 
 what we understood to have heen accomplished by those measures, 
 viz., that the Missouri Compromise, having been superseded by the 
 legislation of 1850, has become and ought to be declared inoperative ; 
 and hence we propose to leave the question to the people of the 
 States and the Territories, subject only to the limitations and provi 
 sions of the Constitution. 
 
 Sir, this is all that I intended to say, if the question had been 
 taken up for consideration on Tuesday last; but since that time oc 
 currences have transpired which compel me to go more fully into 
 the discussion. It will be borne in mind that the senator from Ohio 
 (Mr. Chase) then objected to the consideration of the bill, and 
 asked for its postponement until this day, on the ground that there 
 had not been time to understand and consider its provisions ; and 
 the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) suggested that the 
 postponement should be for one week for that purpose. These sug 
 gestions seeming to be reasonable, in the opinions of senators 
 around me, I yielded to their request, and consented to the post 
 ponement of the bill until this day. 
 
 Sir, little did I suppose, at the time that I granted that act of 
 courtesy to those two senators, that they had drafted and published 
 to the world a document, over their own signatures, in which they 
 arraigned me as having been guilty of a criminal betrayal of my 
 trust, as having been guilty of an act of bad faith and been engaged 
 in an atrocious plot against the cause of free government. Little 
 did I suppose that these two senators had been guilty of such con 
 duct when they called upon me to grant that courtesy, to give them 
 an opportunity of investigating the substitute reported by the com 
 mittee. I have since discovered that on that very morning the " Na- 
 tionel Era," the abolition organ in this city, contained an address, 
 signed by certain abolition confederates, to the people, in which the 
 bill is grossly misrepresented, in which the action of the committee 
 is grossly perverted, in winch our motives are arraigned and our 
 characters calumniated. And, sir, what is more, I find that there 
 was a postscript added to. the address, published that very morning, 
 in which the principal amendment reported by the committee was 
 set out, and then coarse epithets applied to me by name. Sir, had 
 I known those facts at the time that I granted that act of indulgence, 
 I should have responded to the reque.-t of those senators in such 
 terms a^ their conduct deserved, so far as the rules of the Senate arid 
 a respect for my own character would have permitted me to do. In 
 order to show the character of this document, of which I shall havo 
 much to say in the course of ray argument, I will read certain pas 
 sages : 
 
 We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge ; as a criminal 
 betrayal of precious rights : as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude 
 froma vast unoccupied region emigrants from the Old World, and free laborers 
 from our own States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited 
 by masters and slaves." 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 7o 
 
 A SENATOR. By whom is the address signed ? 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. It is signed " S. P. Chase, senator from Ohio ; 
 Charles Sumner, senator from Massschusetts ; J. R. Giddings and 
 Edward Wade, representatives from Ohio ; Gerrit Smith, represen 
 tative from New York; Alexander De Witt, representative from 
 Massachusetts;" including, as I understand, all the abolition party in 
 Congress. 
 
 Then, speaking of the Committee on Territories, these confederates 
 use this language : 
 
 " The pretences, therefore, that the Territory, covered by the positive prohi 
 bition of 1820, sustains a similar relation to slavery with that acquired from 
 Mexico, covered by no prohibition except that of disputed constitutional or 
 Mexican law, and that the compromises of 1850 require the incorporation of 
 the pro-slavery clauses of the Utah and New Mexico Bill in the Nebraska Act, 
 are mere inventions, designed to cover up from public reprehension meditated bad 
 faith." 
 
 "Mere inventions to cover up bad faith." Again: 
 
 ; Servile demagogues may tell you that the Union can be maintained only 
 by submitting to the demands of slavery." 
 
 Then there is a postscript added, equally offensive to myself, in 
 which I am mentioned by name. The address goes on to make an 
 appeal to the legislatures of the different States, to public meetings, 
 and to ministers of the Gospel in their pulpits, to interpose and 
 arrest the vile proceeding which is about to be consummated by 
 the senators who are thus denounced. That address, sir, bears date 
 Sunday, January 22, 1854. Thus it appears that, on the holy Sab 
 bath, while other senators were engaged in divine worship, these 
 abolition confederates were assembled in secret conclave, plotting by 
 what means they should deceive the people of the United States, and 
 prostrate the character of brother senators. This was done on the 
 Sabbath day, and by a set of politicians, to advance their own po 
 litical and ambitious purposes, in the name of our holy religion. 
 
 But this is not all. It was understood from newspapers that reso 
 lutions were pending before the legislature of Ohio proposing to 
 express their opinions upon this subject. It was necessary for these 
 confederates to get up some exposition of the question by which they 
 mio-ht facilitate the passage of the resolutions through that legisla 
 ture Hence you find that, on the same morning that this document 
 appears over the names of these confederates in the abolition organ 
 of this city, the same document appears in the New York papers 
 certainly in the "Tribune," "Times" and "Evening Post" in 
 which it is stated, by authority, that it is " signed by the senators 
 and a majority of the representatives from the State of Ohio a 
 statement which I have every reason to believe was utterly false, and 
 known to be so at the time that these confederates appended it to 
 the address. It was necessary, in order to carry out this work ot 
 
 4 
 
74 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 deception, and to hasten the action of the Ohio legislature, nnder a 
 misapprehension of the real facts, to state that it was signed, not 
 only by the abolition confederates, but by the whole Whig repre 
 sentation, and a portion of the Democratic representation in the other 
 house from the State of Ohio. 
 
 MR. CHASE. Mr. President 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I do not yield the floor. A senator 
 who has violated ail the rules of courtesy and propriety, who showed 
 a consciousness of the character of the act he was doing by conceal 
 ing from me all knowledge of the fact who came to me with a 
 smiling face, and the appearance of friendship, even after that docu 
 ment had been uttered who could get up in the Senate and appeal 
 to my courtesy in order to get time to give the document a wider 
 circulation before its infamy could be exposed; such a senator has 
 no right to my courtesy upon this floor. 
 
 MR. CHASE. Mr. President, the senator mistates the facts 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I decline to yield the floor. 
 
 MR. CHASE. And I shall make my denial pertinent when the time 
 comes. 
 
 THE PRESIDENT. Order! 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Sir, if the senator does interpose, in violation of 
 the rules of the Senate, a denial of the fact, it may be that I shall bo 
 able to nail that denial, as I shall the statements in this address 
 which are over his own signature, as a wicked fabrication, and prove 
 it by the solemn legislation of this country. 
 
 MR. CHASE. 1 call the senator to order. 
 
 THE PRESIDENT. The senator from Illinois is certainly out of 
 order. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Then I will only say that I shall confine myself to 
 this document, and prove its statements to be false by the legisla 
 tion of the country. Certainly that is in order. 
 
 MR. CHASE. You cannot do it. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. The argument of this manifesto is predicated upon 
 the assumption that the policy of the fathers of the republic was to 
 prohibit slavery in all the territory ceded by the old States to the 
 Union, and made United States territory, for the purpose of being 
 organized into new States. I take issue upon that statement. Such 
 was not the practice in the early history of the government. It is 
 true that in the territory northwest of the Ohio River slavery was 
 prohibited by the Ordinance of 1787; but it is also true that in the 
 territory south of the Ohio River, slavery was permitted and pro 
 tected ; and it is also true that in the organization of the Territory 
 of Mississippi, in 1798, the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787 were 
 applied to it, with the exception of the sixth article, which prohibited 
 slavery. Then, sir, you find upon the statute-books under Washing 
 ton and the early Presidents, provisions of law showing that in the 
 southwestern territories the right to hold slaves was clearly implied 
 or recognized, while in the northwest territories it was prohibited. 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 
 
 The only conclusion that can be fairly and honestly drawn from that 
 legislation is, that it was the policy of the fathers of the republic to 
 prescribe a line of demarkation between free Territories and slave- 
 holding Territories by a natural or a geographical line, being sure to 
 make that line correspond, as near as might be, to the laws of cli 
 mate, of production, and all those other causes that would control 
 the institutions and make it either desirable or undesirable to the 
 people inhabiting the respective Territories. 
 
 Sir, I wish you to bear in mind, too, that this geographical line, 
 established by the founders of the republic between free Territories 
 and slave Territories, extended as far westward as our territory then 
 reached ; the object being to avoid all agitation upon the slavery 
 question by settling that question forever, as far as our territory 
 extended, which was then to the Mississippi Eiver. 
 
 When, in 1803, we acquired from France the territory known as 
 Louisiana, it became necessary to legislate for the protection of the 
 inhabitants residing therein. It will be seen, by looking into the 
 bill establishing the Territorial government in 1805 for the Territory 
 of New Orleans, embracing the same country now known as the 
 State of Louisiana, that the Ordinance of 1787 was expressly ex 
 tended to that Territory, except the sixth section, which prohibited 
 slavery. That act implied that the Territory of New Orleans was 
 to be a slaveholding Territory by making that exception in the law. 
 But, sir, when they carne to form what was then called the Territory 
 of Louisiana, subsequently known as the Territory of Missouri, 
 north of the thirty-third parallel, they used different language. They 
 did not extend to it any of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787. 
 They first provided that it should be governed by laws made by the 
 governor and the judges, and, when in 1812 Congress gave to that 
 Territory, under the name of the Territory of Missouri, a Territorial 
 government, the people were allowed to do as they pleased upon the 
 subject of slavery, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution 
 of the United States. Now what is the inference from that legisla 
 tion ? That slavery was, by implication, recognized south of the 
 thirty-third parallel ; and north of that the people were left to exer 
 cise "their own judgment and do as they pleased upon the subject, 
 without any implication for or against the existence of the institu 
 tion. 
 
 This continued to be the condition of the country in the Missouri 
 Territory up to 1820, when the celebrated act which is now called 
 the Missouri Compromise was passed. Slavery did not exist in, 
 nor was it excluded from, the country now known as Nebraska. There 
 was no code of laws upon the subject of slavery either way : First, 
 for the reason that slavery had never been introduced into Louisiana, 
 and established by positive enactment. It had grown up there by a 
 sort of common law, and been supported and protected. When a 
 common law grows up, when an institution becomes established 
 under a usage, it carries it so far as that usage actually goes, and no 
 
76 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 further. It it had been established by direct enactment, it might 
 have carried it so far as the political jurisdiction extended ; but, be 
 that as it may, by the act of 1812, creating the Territory of Missouri, 
 that Territory was allowed to legislate upon the subject of slavery 
 as it saw proper, subject only to the limitations which I have stated ; 
 and the country not inhabited or thrown open to settlement was set 
 apart as Indian country, and rendered subject to Indian laws. 
 Hence, the local legislation of the State of Missouri did not reach 
 into that Indian country, but was excluded from it by the Indian 
 code and Indian laws. The municipal regulations of Missouri could 
 not go there until the Indian title had been extinguished, and the 
 country thrown open to settlement. Such being the case, the only 
 legislation in existence in Nebraska Territory at the time that the 
 Missouri act passed, namely, the Gth of March, 1820, was a provision, 
 in effect, that the people should be allowed to do as they pleased 
 upon the subject of slavery. 
 
 The Territory of Missouri having been left in that legal condition, 
 positive opposition was made to the bill to organize a State govern 
 ment, with a view to its admission into the Union ; and a senator 
 from my State, Mr. Jesse B. Thomas, introduced an amendment, 
 known as the eighth section of the bill, in which it was provided that 
 slavery should be prohibited north of 36 30 north latitude, in all the 
 country which we had acquired from France. What was the object 
 of the enactment of that eighth section? Was it not to go back to 
 the original policy of prescribing boundaries to the limitation of free 
 institutions, and of slave institutions, by a geographical line, in order 
 to avoid all controversy in Congress upon the subject? Hence they 
 extended that geographical line through all the territory purchased 
 from France, which was as far as our possessions then reached. It 
 was not simply to settle the question on that piece of country, but it 
 was to carry out a great principle, by extending that dividing line 
 as far west as our territory went, and running it onward on each 
 new acquisition of territory. True, the express enactment of the 
 eighth section of the Missouri act, now called the Missouri Compro 
 mise, only covered the territory acquired from France ; but the 
 principles of the act, the objects of its adoption, the reasons in its 
 support, required that it should be extended indefinitely westward, 
 so far as our territory might go, whenever new purchases should be 
 made. 
 
 Thus stood the question up to 1845, when the joint resolution for 
 the annexation of Texas passed. There was inserted in that joint re 
 solution a provision, suggested in the first instance and brought be 
 fore the House of Representatives by myself, extending the Missouri 
 Compromise line indefinitely westward through the Territory of 
 Texas. Why did I bring forward that proposition ? Why did the 
 Congress of the United States adopt it? ]STot because it was of the 
 least practical importance, so far as the question of slavery within 
 the limits of Texas was concerned ; for no man ever dreamed that it 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. YY 
 
 had any practical effect there. Then why was it brought forward ? 
 It was for the purpose of preserving the principle, in order that it 
 might be extended still further westward, even to the Pacific Ocean, 
 whenever we should acquire the country that far. I will here read 
 that clause. It is the third article, second section, and is in these 
 words : 
 
 " New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition 
 to said State of Texas having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the con 
 sent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled 
 to admission under the provisions of the federal Constitution. And such States 
 as may be formed out of that portion of said Territory lying south of thirty-six 
 degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Com 
 promise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the 
 people of each State asking admission may desire. And, in such State or 
 States as shall be formed out of said Territory north of said Missouri Compro 
 mise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be pro 
 hibited." 
 
 It will be seen that it contains a very remarkable provision, which 
 is, that when States lying north of 36 30 apply for admission, 
 slavery shall be prohibited in their constitutions. I presume no one 
 pretends that Congress could have power thus to fetter a State ap 
 plying for admission into this Union ; but it was necessary to pre 
 serve the principle of the Missouri Compromise line, in order that it 
 might afterward be extended ; and it was supposed that while Con 
 gress had no power to impose any such limitation, yet, as that was a 
 compact with the State of Texas, that State could consent for her 
 self that, when any portion of her own Territory, subject to her own 
 jurisdiction and control, applied for admission, her constitution 
 should be in a particular form ; but that provision would not bo 
 binding on the new State one day after it was admitted into the 
 Union. The other provision was that such States as should lie south 
 of 36 30 should come into the Union with or without slavery, as 
 each should decide in its constitution. Then, by that act, the 
 Missouri Compromise was extended indefinitely westward, so far as 
 the State of Texas went, that is, to the Rio del Norte ; for our Gov 
 ernment at that time recognized the Rio del JSTorte as its boundary. 
 We recognized, in many ways, and among them by even paying 
 Texas for it ten millions of dollars, in order that it might be in 
 cluded in and form a portion of the Territory of New Mexico. 
 
 Then, sir, in 1848, we acquired from Mexico the country between 
 the Rio del ISTorte and the Pacific Ocean. Immediately after that ac 
 quisition, the Senate, on my own motion, voted into a bill a provi 
 sion to extend the Missouri Compromise indefinitely westward to the 
 Pacific Ocean, in the same sense and with the same understanding 
 with which it was originally adopted. That provision passed this 
 body by a decided majority, I think by ten at least, and went to the 
 House of Representatives, and was defeated there by northern votes. 
 
 Novr, si", let us pause and consider for a moment. The first time 
 
78 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 that the principles of the Missouri Compromise were ever abandoned, 
 the first time they were ever rejected by Congress, was by the defeat 
 of that provision in the House of Representatives in 1848. By 
 whom was that defeat effected? By northern votes with Freesoil 
 proclivities. It was the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that 
 reopened the slavery agitation with all its fury. It was the defeat 
 of that Missouri Compromise that created the tremendous struggle 
 of 1850. It was the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that 
 created the necessity for making a new compromise in 1850. Had 
 we been faithful to the principles of the Missouri Compromise in 
 1848, this question would not have arisen. Who was it that was 
 faithless ? I undertake to say it was the very men who now insist 
 that the Missouri Compromise was a solemn compact, and should 
 never be violated or departed from. Every man who is now assail 
 ing the principle of the bill under consideration, so far as I am ad 
 vised, was opposed to the Missouri Compromise in 1848. The very 
 men who now arraign me for a departure from the Missouri Com 
 promise are the men who successfully violated it, repudiated it, and 
 caused it to be superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850. 
 Sir, it is with rather bad grace that the men who proved faithless 
 themselves, should charge upon me and others, who were ever faith 
 ful, the responsibilities and consequences of their own treachery. 
 
 Then, sir, as I before remarked, the defeat of the Missouri Com 
 promise in 1848 having created the necessity for the establishment 
 of a new one in 1850, let us see what that compromise was. 
 
 The leading feature of the Compromise of 1850 was Congressional 
 non-intervention as to slavery in the Territories ; that the people of 
 the Territories, and of all the States, were to be allowed to do as 
 they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject only to the provi 
 sions of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 That, sir, was the leading feature of the Compromise measures of 
 1850. Those measures, therefore, abandoned the idea of a geogra 
 phical line as the boundary between free States and slave States ; 
 abandoned it because compelled to do it from an inability to main 
 tain it ; and in lieu of that, substituted a great principle of self- 
 government, which would allow the people to do as they thought 
 proper. Now the question is, when that new compromise, resting 
 upon that great fundamental principle of freedom, was established, 
 was it not an abandonment of the old one the geographical line ? 
 Was it not a supersedure of the old one within the very language of 
 the substitute for the bill which is now under consideration ? I say 
 it did supersede it, because it applied its provisions as well to the 
 north as to the south of 36 30 . It established a principle which, 
 was equally applicable to the country north as well as south of the 
 parallel of 36 30 a principle of universal application. The 
 authors of this abolition manifesto attempted to refute this pre 
 sumption, and maintain that the Compromise of 1850 did not super 
 sede that of 1820, by quoting the proviso to the first section of tin 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. TO 
 
 act to establish the Texan boundary, and create the Territory of 
 New Mexico. That proviso was added, by way of amendment, on 
 motion of Mr. Mason, of Virginia. 
 
 I repeat, that in order to rebut the presumption, as I before 
 stated, that the Missouri Compromise was abandoned and super 
 seded by the principles of the Compromise of 1850, these confede 
 rates cite the following amendment, oifered to the bill to establish 
 the boundary of Texas and create the Territory of New Mexico in 
 1850: 
 
 "Provided, That nothing herein, contained shall be construed to impair or 
 qualify anything contained in the third article of the second section of the 
 joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 
 1845, either as regards the number of States that may hereafter be formed out 
 of the States of Texas or otherwise." 
 
 After quoting this proviso, they make the following statement, 
 and attempt to gain credit for its truth by suppressing material facts 
 which appear upon the face of the same statute, and which, if pro 
 duced, would conclusively disprove the statement : 
 
 " It is solemnly declared in the very compromise acts, that nothing herein 
 contained shall be construed to impair or qualify the prohibition of slavery north 
 of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes ; and yet, in the face of this declaration, 
 that sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown. Can presumption further 
 go?" 
 
 I will now proceed to show that presumption could notTgo fur 
 ther than is exhibited in this declaration. 
 
 They suppress the following material facts, which, if produced, 
 would have disproved their statement. They first suppress the fact 
 that the same section of the act cuts off from Texas, and cedes to 
 the United States all that part of Texas which lies north of 36^ 30 . 
 They then suppress the further fact that the same section of the 
 law cuts off from Texas a large tract of country on the west, more 
 than three degrees of longitude, and adds it to the territory of the 
 United States. They then suppress the further fact that this terri 
 tory thus cut off from Texas, and to which the Missouri Compromise 
 line applied, was incorporated into the Territory of New Mexico. 
 And then what was done? It was incorporated into that lerntory 
 with this clause : 
 
 " That, when admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the 
 same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their con 
 stitution may prescribe at the time of its adoption. 
 
 Yes sir the very bill and section from which they quote, cuts off 
 all that part of Texas which was to be free by the Missouri Compro 
 mise, together with some on the south side of the line, incorporates 
 it into the Territory of New Mexico, and then says that the TWTI- 
 
80 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 tory, and every portion of the same, shall come into the Union with 
 or without slavery, as it sees proper. 
 
 What else does it do? The sixth section of the same act provides 
 that the legislative power and authority of this said Territory of 
 New Mexico shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation con 
 sistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions 
 of the act, not excepting slavery. Thus the New Mexican Bill, 
 from which they make that quotation, contains the provision that 
 New Mexico, including that part of Texas which was cut off, should 
 come into the Union with or without slavery, as it saw proper ; and 
 in the meantime that the Territorial legislature should have all the 
 authority over the subject of slavery that they had over any other 
 subject, restricted only by the limitation of the Constitution of the 
 United States and the provisions of the act. Now, I ask those 
 senators, do not those provisions repeal the Missouri Compromise, 
 so far as it applied to the country cut off from Texas ? Do they not 
 annul it? Do they not supersede it? If they do, then the address 
 which has been put forth to the world by these confederates is an 
 atrocious falsehood. If they do not, then what do they mean when 
 they charge me with having, in. the substitute first reported from 
 the committee, repealed it, with having annulled it, with having 
 violated it, when I only copied those precise words ? I copied the 
 precise words into my bill, as reported from the committee, which 
 were contained in the New Mexico Bill. They say my bill annuls 
 the Missouri Compromise. If it does, it had already been done be 
 fore byHhe act of 1850; for these words were copied from the act 
 of 1850. 
 
 MR. WADE. "Why did you do it over again ? 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I will come to that point presently. I am now 
 dealing with the truth and veracity of a combination of men who 
 have assembled in secret caucus upon the Sabbath day, to arraign 
 rny conduct and belie my motives. I say, therefore, that their 
 manifesto is a slander either way ; for it says that the Missouri 
 Compromise was not superseded by the measures of 1850, and then 
 it says that the same words in my bill do repeal and annul it. 
 They must be adjudged guilty of one falsehood in order to sustain 
 the other assertion. 
 
 Now, sir, I propose to go a little further, and show what was the 
 real meaning of the amendment of the senator from Virginia, out 
 of which these gentlemen have manufactured so much capital in 
 the newspaper press, and have succeeded by that misrepresentation 
 in procuring an expression of opinion from the State of Ehode 
 Island in opposition to this bill. 1 will state what its meaning is. 
 
 Did it mean that the States north of 36 J 30 should have a clause 
 in their constitutions prohibiting slavery? I have shown that it 
 did not mean that, because the same act says that they might come 
 in with slavery, if they saw proper. I say it could not mean that 
 lor another reason : The same section containing that proviso cut 
 
STEPHEN A. DO UGLA.S. 81 
 
 off all that part of Texas north of 36 30 , and hence there was 
 nothing for it to operate upon. It did not, therefore, relate to the 
 country cut off. What did it relate to ? Why, it meant simply 
 this: By the joint resolution of 1845, Texas was annexed, with the 
 right to form four additional States out of her territory ; and such 
 States as were south of 36 30 were to come in with or without 
 slavery, as they saw proper ; and in such State or States as were 
 north of that line, slavery should be prohibited. When we had cut 
 off all north of 36 30 , and thus circumscribed the boundary and 
 diminished the territory of Texas, the question arose, how many 
 States will Texas be entitled to under this circumscribed boundary. 
 Certainly not four, it will be argued. Why ? Because the original 
 resolution of annexation provided that one of the States, if not 
 more, should be north of 36 30 . It would leave it, then, doubtful 
 whether Texas was entitled to two or three additional States under 
 the circumscribed boundary. 
 
 In order to put that matter to rest, in order to make a final set 
 tlement, in order to have it explicitly understood what was the 
 meaning of Congress, the senator from Virginia offered the amend 
 ment that nothing therein contained should impair that provision, 
 either as to the number of States or otherwise, that is, that Texas 
 should be entitled to the same number of States with her reduced 
 boundaries as she would have been entitled to under her larger 
 boundaries ; and those States shall come in with or without slavery, 
 as they might prefer, being all south of 36 30 , and nothing to im 
 pair that right shall be interred from the passage of the act. Such, 
 sir, was the meaning of that proposition. Any other construction 
 of it would stultify the very character and purpose of" its mover, 
 the senator from Virginia. Such, then, was not only the intent of 
 the mover, but such is the legal effect of the law; and I say that 
 no man, after reading the other sections of the bill, those to which 
 I have referred, can doubt that such was both the intent and the 
 legal effect of that law. 
 
 Then I submit to the Senate if I have not convicted this mani 
 festo, issued by the abolition confederates, of being a gross falsifica 
 tion of the laws of the land, and by that falsification that an 
 erroneous and injurious impression has been created upon the pub 
 lic mind. I am sorry to be compelled to indulge in language of 
 severity ; but there is no other language that is adequate to express 
 the indignation with which I see this attempt, not only to mislead 
 the public, but to malign my character by deliberate falsification of 
 the public statutes and the public records. 
 
 In order to give greater plausibility to the falsification of the 
 terms of the Compromise measures of 1850, the confederates also 
 declare in their manifesto that they (the Territorial bills for the or 
 ganization of Utah and New Mexico) "applied to the territory 
 acquired from Mexico, and to that only. They were intended as a 
 bettlement of the controversy growing out of that acquisition, nnd 
 
 4* 
 
82 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 of that controversy only. They must stand or fall by their own 
 merits. 1 
 
 I submit to the Senate if there is an intelligent man in America 
 who does not know that that declaration is falsified by the statute 
 from which they quoted. They say that the provisions of that bill 
 was confined to the territory acquired from Mexico, when the very 
 section of the law from which they quoted that proviso did pur 
 chase a part of that very territory from the State of Texas. And 
 the next section of the law included that territory in the Territory 
 of New Mexico. It took a small portion also of the old Louisiana 
 purchase, and added that to the Territory of New Mexico, and made 
 up the rest out of the Mexican acquisitions. Then, sir, your statutes 
 show, when applied to the map of the country, that the Territory 
 of New Mexico was composed of country acquired from Mexico, 
 and also of territory acquired from Texas, and of territory acquired 
 from France ; and yet in defiance of that statute, and in falsification 
 of its terms, we are told, in order to deceive the people, that the 
 bills were confined to the purchase made from Mexico alone ; and 
 in order to give it greater solemnity, they repeat it twice, fearing 
 that it would not be believed the first time. What is more, the 
 Territory of Utah was not confined to the country acquired from 
 Mexico. That Territory, as is well known to every man who under 
 stands the geography of the country, includes a large tract of rich 
 and fertile country, acquired from France in 1803, and to which the 
 eighth section of the Missouri Act applied in 1820. If these con 
 federates do not know to what country I allude, I only reply that 
 they should have known before they uttered the falsehood, and im 
 puted a crime to me. 
 
 But I will tell you to what country I allude. By the treaty of 
 1819, by which we acquired Florida and a fixed boundary between 
 the United States and Spain, the boundary was made of the Arkan 
 sas River to its source, and then the line ran due north of the source 
 of the Arkansas to the 42d parallel, then along on the 42d parallel 
 to the Pacific Ocean. That line, due north from the head of the 
 Arkansas, leaves the whole middle part, described in such glowing 
 terms by Colonel Fremont, to the east of the line, and hence a part 
 of the Louisiana purchase. Yet, inasmuch as that middle part i.s 
 drained by the waters flowing into the Colorado, when we formed 
 the territorial -limits of Utah, instead of running that air-line, wo 
 ran along the ridge of the mountains, and cut off that part from 
 Nebraska, or from, the Louisiana purchase, and included it within 
 the limits of the Territory of Utah. 
 
 Why did we do it? Because we sought for a natural and conve 
 nient boundary, and it was deemed better to take the mountains as 
 a boundary, than by an air-line to cut the valleys on one side of the 
 mountains, and annex them to the country on the other side. And 
 why did we take these natural boundaries, setting at defiance the 
 old boundaries ? The simple reason was that so long as we acted 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 83 
 
 upon the principle of settling the slave question by a geographical 
 line, so long we observed those boundaries strictly and rigidly ; but 
 when that was abandoned, in consequence of the action of free- 
 soilers and abolitionists when it was superseded by the Compromise 
 measures of 1850, which rested upon a great universal principle 
 there Avas no necessity for keeping in view the old and unnatural 
 boundary. For that reason, in making the new Territories, we 
 formed natural boundaries, irrespective of the source whence our 
 title was derived. In writing these bills I paid no attention to the 
 fact whether the title was acquired from Louisiana, from France, or 
 from Mexico ; for what difference did it make ? The principle which 
 we had established in the bill would apply equally well to either. 
 
 In fixing those boundaries, I paid no attention to the fact whether 
 they included old territory or new territory whether the country 
 was covered by the Missouri Compromise or not. Why ? Because 
 the principles established in the bills superseded the Missouri Com 
 promise. For that reason we disregarded the old boundaries ; dis 
 regarded the territory to which it applied, and disregarded the 
 source from whence the title was derived. I say, therefore, that a 
 close examination of those acts clearly establishes the fact that it 
 was the intent, as well as the legal effect of the Compromise mea 
 sures of 1850, to supersede the Missouri Compromise, and all geo 
 graphical and territorial lines. 
 
 Sir, in order to avoid any misconstruction, I will state more 
 distinctly what my precise idea is upon this point. So far as the 
 Utah and IsTew Mexico bills included the territory which had been 
 subject to the Missouri Compromise provision, to that extent they 
 absolutely annulled the Missouri Compromise. As to the unor 
 ganized territory not covered by those bills, it was superseded by 
 the principles of the Compromise of 1850. We all know that the 
 object of the Compromise measures of 1850 was to establish certain 
 great principles, which would avoid the slavery agitation in all time 
 to come. Was it our object simply to provide for a temporary evil? 
 Was it our object to heal over an old sore, and leave it to break out 
 again? Was it our object to adopt a mere miserable expedient to 
 apply to that territory, and to that alone, and leave ourselves 
 entirely at sea, without compass, when new territory was acquired, 
 or new territorial organizations were to be made? 
 
 Was that the object for which the eminent and venerable senator 
 from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) came here and sacrificed even his last 
 energies upon the altar of his country? Was that the object for 
 which Webster, Clay, Cass, and all the patriots of that day, strug 
 gled so long and so strenuously ? Was it merely the application of 
 a temporary expedient, in agreeing to stand by past and dead legis 
 lation, that the Baltimore platform pledged us to sustain the Com 
 promise of 1850 ? Was it the understanding of the Whig party, 
 when they adopted the Compromise measures of 1850 as an article 
 of political faith, that they were only agreeing to that which wait 
 
S4: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 past, and had no reference to the future ? If that was their mean 
 ing ; if that was their ohject, they palmed off an atrocious fraud 
 upon the American people. Was it the meaning of the Democratic 
 party, when we pledged ourselves to stand by the Compromise of 
 1850, that we spoke only of the past, and had no reference to the 
 future ? If so, it was a gross deception. When we pledged our 
 President to stand by the Compromise measures, did we not under 
 stand that we pledged him as to his future action? Was it as to his 
 past conduct ? If it had been in relation to past conduct only, the 
 pledge would have been untrue as to a very large portion of the 
 Democratic party. Men went into that convention who had been 
 opposed to the Compromise measures men who abhorred those 
 measures when they were pending men who never would have 
 voted affirmatively on them. But, inasmuch as those measures had 
 been passed and the country had acquiesced in them, and it was im 
 portant to preserve the principle in order to avoid agitation in 
 the future, these men said, we waive our past objections, and we 
 will stand by you and with you in carrying out these principles in 
 the future. 
 
 Such I understand to be the meaning of the two great parties at 
 Baltimore. Such I understand to have been the effect of their 
 pledges. If they did not mean this, they meant merely to adopt 
 resolutions which were never to be carried out, and which were 
 designed to mislead and deceive the people for the mere purpose of 
 carrying an election. 
 
 I hold, then,- that, as to the territory covered by the Utah and 
 New Mexico bills, there was an express annulment of the Missouri 
 Compromise ; and as to all the other unorganized territories, it was 
 superseded by the principles of that legislation, and we are bound to 
 apply those principles to the organization of all new territories, to 
 all which we now own, or which we may hereafter acquire. If this 
 construction be given, it makes that compromise a final adjustment. 
 No other construction can possibly impart finality to it. By any 
 other construction, the question is to be reopened the moment you 
 ratify a new treaty acquiring an inch of country from Mexico. By 
 any other construction, you reopen the issue every time you make 
 a new Territorial government. But, sir, if you treat the Compro 
 mise measures of 1850 in the light of great principles, sufficient to 
 remedy temporary evils, at the same time that they prescribe rules 
 of action applicable everywhere in all time to come, then you avoid 
 the agitation forever, if you observe good faith to the provisions 
 of these enactments, and the principles established by them. 
 
 Mr. President, I repeat that, so far as the question of slavery is 
 concerned, there is nothing in the bill under consideration which 
 does not carry out the principle of the Compromise measures of 
 1850, by leaving the people to do as they please, subject only to the 
 provisions of the Constitution of the United States. If that princi 
 ple is wrong, the bill is wrong. If that principle is right, the bill is 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 85 
 
 right. It is unnecessary to quiblle about phraseology or words ; it 
 is not the mere words, the mere phraseology, that our constituents 
 wish to judge by. They wish to know the legal effect of our legis 
 lation. 
 
 The legal effect of this bill, if it be passed as reported by the 
 Committee on Territories, is neither to legislate slavery into these 
 Territories nor out of them, but to leave the people to do as they 
 please, under the provisions and subject to the limitations of the 
 Constitution of the United States. Why should not this principle 
 prevail? Why should any man, North or South, object to it? I 
 will especially address the argument to my own section of country, 
 and ask why should any northern man object to this principle ? If 
 you will review the history of the slavery question in the United 
 States, you will see that all the great results in behalf of free insti 
 tutions which have been worked out, have been accomplished by 
 the operation of this principle, and by it alone. 
 
 When these States were colonies of Great Britain, every one of 
 them was a slaveholding province. When the Constitution of the 
 United States was formed, twelve out of the thirteen were slave- 
 holding States. Since that time six of those States have become 
 free. How has this been effected ? Was it by virtue of abolition 
 agitation in Congress ? Was it in obedience to the dictates of the 
 Federal Government ? Not at all ; but they have become free States 
 under the silent but sure and irresistible working of that great 
 principle of self-government which teaches every people to do that 
 which the interests of themselves and their posterity morally and 
 pecuniarily may require. 
 
 Under the operation of this principle, New Hampshire became 
 free, while South Carolina continued to hold slaves ; Connecticut 
 abolished slavery, while Georgia held on to it ; Khode Island aban 
 doned the institution, while Maryland preserved it ; New York, New 
 Jersey and Pennsylvania abolished slavery, while Virginia, North 
 Carolina, and Kentucky retained it. Did they do it at your bid 
 ding ? Did they do it at the dictation of the Federal Government ? 
 Did they do it in obedience to any of your Wilmot Provisoes or Ordi 
 nances of 87? Not at all; they did it by virtue of their rights as 
 freemen under the Constitution of the United States, to establish and 
 abolish such institutions as they thought their own good required. 
 
 Let me ask you, where have you succeeded in excluding slavery 
 by an act of Congress from one inch of the American soil ? You 
 may tell me that you did it in the Northwest Territory by the Ordi 
 nance of 1787. 1 will show you by the history of the country that 
 you did not accomplish any such thing. You prohibited slavery 
 there by law, but you did not exclude it in fact. .Illinois was a part 
 of the Northwest Territory. With the exception of a few French 
 and white settlements, it was a vast wilderness, filled with hostile 
 savages, when the Ordinance of 1787 was adopted. Yet, sir, when 
 Illinois was organized into a Territorial government, it established 
 
86 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 and protected slavery, and maintained it in spite of your Ordinance 
 and in defiance of its express prohibition. It is a curious fact, that, 
 so long as Congress said the Territory of Illinois should not have 
 slavery, she actually had it ; and on the very day when you with 
 drew your Congressional prohibition the people of Illinois, of their 
 own free will and accord, provided for a system of emancipation. 
 
 Thus you did not succeed in Illinois Territory with your Ordinance 
 or your Wilmot Proviso, because the people there regarded it as an in 
 vasion of their rights. They regarded it as a usurpation on the part of 
 the Federal Government. They regarded it as violative of the great 
 principles of self-government, and they determined that they would 
 never submit even to have freedom so long as you forced it upon them. 
 
 Nor must it be said that slavery was abolished in the constitution 
 of Illinois in order to be admitted into the Union as a State, in com 
 pliance with the Ordinance of 1787 ; for they did no such thing. In 
 the Constitution with which the people of Illinois were admitted into 
 Union, they absolutely violated, disregarded, and repudiated your 
 Ordinance. The Ordinance said that slavery should be forever pro 
 hibited in that country. The constitution with which you received 
 them into the Union as a State provided that all slaves then in the 
 State should remain slaves for life, and that all persons born of slave 
 parents after a certain day should be free at a certain age, and that 
 all persons born in the State after a certain other day, should be free 
 from the time of their birth. Thus their State constitution, as well 
 as their Territorial legislation, repudiated your Ordinance. Illinois, 
 therefore, is a case in point to prove that whenever you have 
 attempted to dictate institutions to any part of the United States, 
 you have failed. The same is true, tbough not to the same extent, 
 with reference to the Territory of Indiana, where there were many 
 slaves during the time of its Territorial existence, and I believe also 
 there were a few in the Territory of Ohio. 
 
 But, sir, these abolition confederates, in their manifesto, have also 
 referred to the wonderful results of their policy in the States of Iowa 
 and the Territory of Minnesota. Here, again, they happen to be in 
 fault as to the laws of the land. The act to organize the Territory 
 of Iowa did not prohibit slavery, but the people of Iowa were 
 allowed to do as they pleased under the Territorial government ; for 
 the sixth section of that act provided that the legislative authority 
 should extend to all rightful subjects of legislation except as to 
 the disposition of the public lands, and taxes in certain cases, but 
 not excepting slavery. It may, however, be said by some that 
 slavery was prohibited in Iowa by virtue of that clause in the Iowa 
 act which declared the laws of Wisconsin to be in force therein, in 
 asmuch as the Ordinance of 1787" was one of the laws of Wisconsin. 
 If, however, they say this, they defeat their object, because the very 
 clause which transfers the laws of Wisconsin to Iowa, and makes 
 them of force therein, also provides that those laws are subject to be 
 altered, modified, or repealed by the Territorial legislature of Iowa. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 87 
 
 Iowa, therefore, was left to do as she pleased. Iowa, when she 
 came to form a constitution and State government, preparatory to 
 admission into the Union, considered the subject of free and slave 
 institutions calmly, dispassionately, without any restraint or dicta 
 tion, and determined that it would be to the interest of her people in 
 their climate, and with their productions, to prohibit slavery ; arid 
 hence Iowa became a free State by virtue of this great principle of 
 allowing the people to do as they please, and not in obedience to any 
 federal command. 
 
 The abolitionists are also in the habit of referring to Oregon as 
 another instance of the triumph of their abolition policy. There 
 again they have overlooked or misrepresented the history of the 
 country. Sir, it is well known, or if it is not, it ought to be, that for 
 about twelve years you forgot to give Oregon any government or 
 any protection ; and during that period the inhabitants of that 
 country established a government of their own, and by virtue of 
 their own laws, passed by their own representatives before you ex 
 tended your jurisdiction over them, prohibited slavery by a unani 
 mous vote. Slavery was prohibited there by the action of the people 
 themselves, and not by virtue of any legislation of Congress. 
 
 It is true that, in the midst of the tornado which swept over the 
 country in 1848. 1849 and 1850, a provision was forced into the Ore 
 gon bill prohibiting slavery in that Territory ; but that only goes to 
 show that the object of those who pressed it was not so much to 
 establish free institutions as to gain a political advantage by giving 
 an ascendency to their peculiar doctrines in the laws of the land ; 
 for slavery having been already prohibited there, and no man pro 
 posing to establish it, what was the necessity for insulting the people 
 of Oregon by saying in your law that they should not do that which 
 they had unanimously said they did not wish to do ? That was the 
 only effect of your legislation so far as the Territory of Oregon was 
 concerned. 
 
 How was it in regard to California ? Every one of these abolition 
 confederates, who have thus arraigned me and the Committee on 
 Territories before the country, and have misrepresented our position, 
 predicted that unless Congress interposed by law, and prohibited 
 slavery in California, it would inevitably become a slaveholding 
 State. Congress did not interfere; Congress did not prohibit 
 slavery. There was no enactment upon the subject ; but the people 
 formed a State constitution, and therein prohibited slavery. 
 
 ME. AV r ELLEE. The vote was unanimous in the convention of Cali 
 fornia for prohibition. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. So it was in regard to Utah and New Mexico. In 
 1850, we who resisted any attempt to force institutions upon the 
 people of those Territories inconsistent with their wishes and their 
 right to decide for themselves, were denounced as slavery propagan 
 dists. Every one of us who was in favor of the Compromise mea 
 sures of 1850 was arraigned for having advocated a 
 
88 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 ing to introduce slavery into those Territories, and the people were 
 told, and made to believe, that, unless we prohibited it by act of 
 Congress, slavery would necessarily and inevitably be introduced 
 into these Territories. 
 
 "Well, sir, we did establish the Territorial governments of Utah 
 and New Mexico without any prohibition. We gave to these abo 
 litionists a full opportunity of proving whether their predictions 
 would prove true or false. Years have rolled round, and the result 
 is before us. The people there have not passed any law recognizing, 
 or establishing, or introducing, or protecting slavery in the Terri 
 tories. 
 
 I know of but one Territory of the United States where slavery 
 does exist, and that one is where you have prohibited it by law ; 
 and it is this very Nebraska country. In defiance of the eighth sec 
 tion of the act of 1820, in defiance of Congressional dictation, there 
 have been, not many, but a few slaves introduced. I heard a minis 
 ter of the Gospel the other day conversing with a member of the 
 Committee on Territories upon this subject. This preacher was 
 from that country, and a member put this question to him : " Have 
 you any negroes out there ?" He said there were a few held by the 
 Indians. 1 asked him if there were not some held by white men ? 
 He said there were a few under peculiar circumstances, and he gave 
 an instance. An abolition missionary, a very good man, had gone 
 there from Boston, and he took his wife with him. He got out into 
 the country but could not get any help; hence he, being a kind- 
 hearted man, went down to Missouri and gave $1,000 for a negro, 
 and took him up there as "help." (Laughter.) So, under peculiar 
 circumstances, when these freesoil and abolition preachers and mis 
 sionaries go into the country, they can buy a negro for their own 
 use, but they do not like to allow any one else to do the same thing. 
 (Renewed laughter.) I suppose the fact of the matter is simply this: 
 there the people can get no servants no "help," as they are called 
 in the section of country were I was born and from the necessity of 
 the case, they must do the best they can, and for this reason a few 
 slaves have been taken there. I have no doubt that whether you 
 organize the Territory of Nebraska or not, this will continue for 
 some little time to come. It certainly does exist, and it will in 
 crease as long as the Missouri Compromise applies to the Territory ; 
 and I suppose it will continue for a little while during their Terri 
 torial condition, whether a prohibition is imposed or not. But 
 when settlers rush in when labor becomes plenty, and therefore 
 cheap, in that climate, with its productions it is worse than folly 
 to think of its being a slaveholding country. 1 do not believe there 
 is a man in Congress who thinks it could be permanently a slave- 
 holding country. I have no idea that it could. All I have to say 
 on that subject is, that, when you create them into a Territory, you 
 thereby acknowledge that they ought to be considered a distinct 
 political organization. And when you give them in addition a lugis- 
 
STEP HEN A DOUGLA8. SO 
 
 lature, you thereby confess that they are competent to exercise the 
 powers of legislation. If they wish slavery, they have a right to it. 
 If they do not want it, they will not have it, and you should not 
 attempt to force it upon them. 
 
 I do not like, I never did like, the system of legislation on our 
 part, by which a geographical line, in violation of the laws of nature, 
 and climate and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to estab 
 lish institutions for a people contrary to their wishes ; yet, out of a 
 regard for the peace and quiet of the country, out of respect for past 
 pledges, and out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all compromises, 
 I sustained the Missouri compromise so long as it was in force, and 
 advocated its extension to the Pacific ocean. Now, when that has 
 been abandoned, when it has been superseded, when a great princi 
 ple of self-government has been substituted for it, I choose to cling 
 to that principle, and abide in good faith, not only by the letter, but 
 by the spirit of the last compromise. 
 
 Sir, I do not recognize the right of the abolitionists of this coun 
 try to arraign me for being false to sacred pledges, as they have 
 done in their proclamations. Let them show when and where I 
 have ever proposed to violate a compact. I have proved that I 
 stood by the compact of 1820 and 1845, and proposed its continu 
 ance and observance in 1848. I have proved that the freesoilers 
 and abolitionists were the guilty parties who violated that com 
 promise then. I should like to compare notes with the abolition 
 confederates about adherence to compromises. When did they stand 
 by or approve of any one that was ever made ? 
 
 Did not every abolitionist and freesoiler in America denounce the 
 Missouri Compromise in 1820? Did they not for years hunt down 
 ravenously, for his blood, every man who assisted in making that 
 compromise? Did they not in 1845, when Texas was annexed, 
 denounce all of us who went for the annexation of Texas, and for 
 the continuation of the Missouri Compromise line through it ? Did 
 they not, in 1848, denounce me as a slavery propagandist for stand 
 ing by the principles of the Missouri Compromise, and proposing to 
 continue it to the Pacific Ocean ? Did they not themselves violate 
 and repudiate it then ? Is not the charge of bad faith true as to 
 every abolitionist in America, instead of being true as to me and the 
 committee, and those who advocate this bill ? 
 
 They talk about the bill being a violation of the Compromise mea 
 sure of 1850. Who can show me a man in either house of Congress 
 who was in favor of those Compromise measures in 1850, and who is 
 not now in favor of leaving the people of Nebraska and Kansas to do as 
 they please upon the subject of slavery, according to the principle of 
 my bill ? Is there one ? If so, I have not heard of him. This tornado 
 has been raised by abolitionist, and abolitionists alone. They have made 
 an impression upon the public mind, in the way in which I have men 
 tioned, by a falsification of the law and the facts; and this whole 
 organization against the Compromise measures of 1850 is an abolition 
 
00 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 movement. I presume they had some hope of getting a few tender- 
 footed Democrats into their plot ; and, acting on what they supposed 
 they might do, they sent forth publicly to the world the falsehood 
 that their address was sighed by the senators and a majority of the 
 representatives from the State of Ohio ; but when we come to 
 examine signatures, we find no one Whig there, no one Democrat 
 there ; none but pure, unmitigated, unadulterated abolitionists. 
 
 Much effect, I know, has been produced by this circular, coming 
 as it does with the imposing title of a representation of a majority 
 of the Ohio delegation. What was the reason for its effect ? Be 
 cause the manner in which it was sent forth implied that all the 
 Whig members from that State had joined in it; that part of the 
 Democrats had signed it ; and then that the two abolitionists had 
 signed it, and that made a majority of the delegation. By this 
 means it frightened the Whig party and the Democracy in the State 
 of Ohio, because they supposed their own representatives and friends 
 had gone into this negro movement, when the fact turns out to be 
 that it was not signed by a single Whig or Democratic member from 
 Ohio. 
 
 Tow, I ask the friends and the opponents of this measure to look 
 at it as it is. Is not the question involved the simple one, whether 
 the people of the Territories shall be allowed to do as they please 
 upon the question of slavery, subject only to the limitations of the 
 Constitution ? That is all the bill provides ; and it does so in clear, 
 explicit and unequivocal terms. I know there are some men, Whigs 
 and Democrats, who, not willing to repudiate the Baltimore plat 
 form of their own party, would be willing to vote for this principle, 
 provided they could do so in such equivocal terms that they could 
 deny that it means what it was intended to mean in certain localities. 
 
 1 do not wish to deal in any equivocal language. If the principle is 
 right, let it be avowed and maintained. If it is wrong, let it be 
 repudiated. Let all this quibbling about the Missouri Compromise, 
 about the territory acquired from France, about the act of 1820, be 
 cast behind you; for the simple question is, will you allow the peo 
 ple to legislate for themselves upon the subject of slavery ? Why 
 should you not ? 
 
 When you propose to give them a Territorial government, do you 
 not acknowledge that they ought to be erected into a political organi 
 zation ; and when you give them a legislature, do you not acknow 
 ledge that they are capable of self-government? Having made that 
 acknowledgment, why should you not allow them to exercise the 
 rights of legislation ? Oh, these abolitionists say they are entirely 
 willing to concede all this, with one exception. They say they are 
 willing, to trust the Territorial legislature, under the limitations of the 
 Constitution, to legislate upon the rights of inheritance, to legislate in 
 regard to religion, education, and moral?, to legislate in regard to the 
 relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, of guardian and 
 ward, upon everything pertaining to the dearest rights and interests 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 91 
 
 of white men, but they are not willing to trust them to legislate in 
 regard to a few miserable negroes. That is their single exception. 
 They acknowledge that the people of the Territories are capable of 
 deciding for themselves concerning white men, but not in relation 
 to negroes. The real gist of the matter is this : Does it require any 
 higher degree of civilization, and intelligence, and learning, and 
 sagacity, to legislate for negroes than for white men ? If it does, we 
 ought to adopt the abolition doctrine, and go with them against this 
 bill. If it does not if we are willing to trust the people with the 
 great, sacred, fundamental right of prescribing their own institutions, 
 consistent with the Constitution of the country we must vote for 
 this bill. That is the only question involved in the bill. I hope I 
 have been able to strip it of all the misrepresentation, to wipe away 
 all of that mist and obscurity with which it has been surrounded by 
 this abolition address. 
 
 I have now said all I have to say upon the present occasion. For 
 all, except the first ten minutes of these remarks, the abolition con 
 federates are responsible. My object, in the first place, was only to 
 explain the provisions of the bill, so that they might be distinctly 
 understood. I was willing to allow its assailants to attack it as much 
 as they pleased, reserving to myself the right, when the time should 
 approach for taking the vote, to answer in a concluding speech all 
 the arguments which might be used against it. I still reserve what 
 I believe common courtesy and parliamentary usage awards to the 
 chairman of a committee and the author of a bill the right of sum 
 ming up after all shall have been said which has to be said against 
 this measure. 
 
 I hope the compact which was made on last Tuesday, at the sug 
 gestion of these abolitionists, when the bill was proposed to be taken 
 up, will be observed. It was that the bill, when taken up to-day, 
 should continue to be considered from day to day until finally dis 
 posed of. I hope they will not repudiate and violate that compact, 
 as they have the Missouri Compromise and all others which have 
 been entered into. I hope, therefore, that we may press the bill 
 to a vote; but not by depriving persons of an opportunity of 
 speaking. 
 
 I am in favor of giving every enemy of the bill the most ample 
 time. Let us hear them all patiently, and then take the vote and 
 pass the bill. We who are in favor of it know that the principle 
 on which it is based is right. Why, then, should we gratify the 
 abolition party in their effort to get up another political tornado 
 of fanaticism, and put the country again in peril, merely for the 
 purpose of electing a few agitators to the Congress of the United 
 States? We intend to stand by the principle of the Compromise 
 measures of 1850. 
 
92 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 
 
 Delivered in the Senate, March 3, 1854. 
 
 ME. PEESIDENT : before I proceed to the general argument upon 
 the most important branch of this question, I must say a few words 
 in reply to the senator from Tennessee (Mr. Bell), who has spoken 
 upon the bill to-day. He approves of the principles of the bill ; he 
 thinks they have great merit ; but he does not see his way entirely 
 clear to vote for the bill, because of the objections which he haa 
 stated, most of which relate to the Indians. 
 
 Upon that point, I desire to say that it has never been the custom 
 in territorial bills to- make regulations concerning the Indians within 
 the limits of the proposed Territories. All matters relating to them 
 it has been thought wise to leave to subsequent legislation, to be 
 brought forward by the Committee on Indian Affairs. I did venture 
 originally in this bill to put in one or two provisions upon that sub 
 ject; but, at the suggestion of many senators on both sides of the 
 chamber, they were stricken out, in order to allow the appropriate 
 committee of the Senate to take charge of that subject. I think, 
 therefore, since we have stricken from the bill all those provisions 
 which pertain to the Indians, and reserved the whole subject for the 
 consideration and action of the appropriate committee, we have 
 obviated every possible objection which could reasonably be urged 
 upon that score. AVe have every reason to hope and trust that the 
 Committee on Indian Affairs will propose such measures as will do 
 entire justice to the Indians, without contravening the objects of 
 Congress in organizing these Territories. 
 
 But, sir, allusion has been made to certain Indian treaties, and it 
 has been intimated, if not charged in direct terms, that we were vio 
 lating the stipulations of those treaties in respect to the rights and 
 lands of the Indians. The senator from Texas (Mr. Houston), made 
 a very long and interesting speech on that subject; but it so hap 
 pened that most of the treaties to which he referred were with In 
 dians not included within the limits of this bill. We have been in 
 formed, in the course of the debate to-day, by the chairman of the 
 Committee on Indian Affairs (Mr. Sebastian), that there is but one 
 treaty in existence relating to lands or Indians within the limits of 
 either of the proposed Territories, and that is the treaty with the 
 Ottawa Indians, about two hundred persons in number, owning 
 about thirty-four thousand acres of land. Thus it appears that the 
 whole argument of injustice to the red man, which in the course of 
 this debate has called forth so much sympathy and indignation, is 
 confined to two hundred Indians, owning less than two townships 
 of land. Now, sir, is it possible that a country, said to be five hun- 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 93 
 
 dred thousand square miles in extent, and large enough to make 
 twelve such States as Ohio, is to be consigned to perpetual barbarism 
 merely on account of that small number of Indians, when the bill 
 itself expressly provides that those Indians and their lands are not 
 to be included within the limits of the proposed Territories, nor to 
 be subject to their laws or jurisdiction? I would not ailow this 
 measure to invade the rights of even one Indian, and hence I inserted 
 in the first section of the bill that none of the tribes with whom we 
 nave treaty stipulations should be embraced within either of the 
 Territories, unless such Indians shall voluntarily consent to be in 
 cluded therein by treaties hereafter to be made. If any senator can 
 furnish me with language more explicit, or which would prove 
 more effectual in securing the rights of the Indians, I will cheerfully 
 adopt it. 
 
 Well, sir, the senator from Tennessee, in a very kind spirit, here 
 raises the objection for me to answer, that this bill includes Indians 
 within the limits of these Territories with whom we have no trea 
 ties ; and he desires to know what we are to do with them. I will 
 say to him, that that is not a matter of inquiry which necessarily or 
 properly arises upon the passage of this bill ; that is not a proper 
 inquiry to come before the Committee on Territories. You have in 
 all your Territorial bills included Indians within the boundaries of 
 the Territories. When you erected the Territory of Minnesota, you 
 had not extinguished the Indian title to one foot of land in that Ter 
 ritory west of the Mississippi River, and to the major part of that 
 Territory the Indian title remains uuextinguished to this day. In 
 addition to those wild tribes, you removed Indians from Wisconsin 
 and located them within Minnesota since the Territory was organ 
 ized. It will be a question for the consideration of the Committee 
 on Indian Affairs, and for the action of Congress, when, in settle 
 ment and civilization, it shall become necessar/to change the present 
 policy in respect to the Indians. When you erected the Territorial 
 government of Oregon, a few years ago, you embraced within it all 
 the Indians living in the Territory without their consent, and with 
 out any such reservations in their behalf as are contained in this bill. 
 You had not at that time made a treaty with those Indians, nor ex 
 tinguished their title to an acre of land in that Territory, nor indeed 
 have you done so to this day. So it is in the organization of Wash 
 ington Territory. You ran the lines around the country which you 
 thought ought to be within the limits of the Territory, and you em 
 braced all the Indians within those lines ; but you made no provision 
 in respect to their rights or lands ; you left that matter to the Com 
 mittee on Indian Affairs, to the Indian laws, and to the proper de 
 partment, to be arranged afterward as the public interests might 
 require. The same is true in reference to Utah and New Mexico. 
 
 In fact, the policy provided for in this bill, in respect to the In 
 dians, is that which is now in force in every one of the Territories. 
 Therefore, any senator who objects to this bill on that score should 
 
94: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 have objected to and voted against every Territorial bill which you 
 have now in existence. Yet my friend from Texas has taken occa 
 sion to remind the Senate several times that it was a matter of pride 
 and it ought to be a matter of patriotic pride with him that he 
 voted for every measure of the Compromise of 1850, including the 
 Utah and New Mexico Territorial bills, embracing all the Indians 
 within their limits. My friend from Tennessee, too, has been very 
 liberal in voting for most of the Territorial bills ; and I therefore 
 trust that the same patriotic and worthy motives which induced him 
 to vote for the Territorial acts of 1850 will enable him to give his 
 support to the present bill, especially as he approves of the great 
 principle of popular sovereignty upon which it rests. 
 
 The senator from Tennessee remarked further, that the proposed 
 : limits of these two Territories were too extensive ; that they were 
 large enough to be erected into eight different States ; and why, he 
 asked, the necessity of including such a vast amount of country 
 within the limits of these two Territories ? I must remind the sena 
 tor that it has always been the practice to include a large extent of 
 country within one Territory, and then to subdivide it fronrthne to 
 time as the public interest might require. Such was the case with 
 the old Northwest Territory. It was all originally included within 
 one Territorial government. Afterward Ohio was cut off; and then 
 Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin, were successively erected 
 into separate Territorial governments, and subsequently admitted 
 into the Union as States. 
 
 At one period, it will be remembered, the Territory of Wisconsin 
 included the country embraced within the limits of the States of 
 Wisconsin and Iowa, and a part of the State of Michigan, and the 
 Territory of Minnesota. There is country enough within the Terri 
 tory of Minnesota to make two or three States of the size of New 
 York. Washington Territory embraces about the same area. Ore 
 gon is large enough to make three or four States as extensive a3 
 Pennsylvania; Utah two or three, and New Mexico four or five of 
 like dimensions. Indeed, the whole country embraced within the 
 proposed Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, together with the 
 States of Arkansas, Missouri and Iowa, and the larger part of Min 
 nesota, and the whole of the Indian country west of Arkansas, once 
 constituted a Territorial government, under the name of the Mis 
 souri Territory. In view of this course of legislation upon the sub 
 ject of Territorial organization, commencing before the adoption of 
 the Constitution of the United States and coming down to the last 
 session of Congress, it surely cannot be said that there is anything 
 unusual or extraordinary in the size of the proposed Territory which 
 should compel a senator to vote against the bill, while he approves 
 of the principles involved in the measure. 
 
 Y It has also been urged in debate that there is no necessity for these 
 \ Territorial organizations; and I have been called upon to point out 
 \ any public and national considerations which require action at this 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 95 
 
 time. Senators seem to forget that our immense and valuable pos 
 sessions on the Pacific are separated from the States and organized 
 Territories on this side of the Rocky Mountains by a vast wilder 
 ness, filled by hostile savages ; that nearly a hundred thousand emi 
 grants pass through this barbarous wilderness every year, on their 
 way to California and Oregon ; that these emigrants are American 
 citizens, our own constituents, who are entitled to the protection of 
 law and government ; and that they are left to make their way, as 
 best they may, without the protection or aid of law or governmentj 
 
 The United States mails for New Mexico and Utah, and all official 
 communications between this government and the authorities of 
 those Territories, are required to be carried over these wild plains, 
 and through the gorges of the mountains, where you have made no 
 provision for roads, bridges, or ferries, to facilitate travel, or forts 
 or other means of safety to protect life. As often as I have brought 
 forward and urged the adoption of measures to remedy these evils, 
 and afford security against the dangers to which our people are con 
 stantly exposed, they have been promptly voted down as not being 
 of sufficient importance to command the favorable consideration of 
 Congress. Now, when I propose "to organize the Territories, and 
 allow the people to do for themselves what you have so often re-j 
 fused to do for them, I am told that there are not white inhabitants 
 enough permanently settled in the country to require and sustain a ; 
 government. True, there is not a very large population there, for * 
 the very good reason that your Indian code and intercourse laws ex- \ 
 elude the settlers, and forbid their remaining there to cultivate the } 
 soil. You refuse to throw the country open to settlers, and then J 
 object to the organization of the Territories upon the ground that 
 there is not a sufficient number of inhabitants. 
 
 The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) has made a long argu 
 ment to prove that there are no inhabitants in the proposed Terri 
 tories, because nearly all of those who have gone and settled there 
 have done so in violation of certain old acts of Congress which for 
 bid the people to take possession of and settle upon the public lands 
 until after they should be surveyed and brought into market. 
 
 I do not propose to discuss the question whether these settlers are 
 technically legal inhabitants or not. It is enough for me that they 
 are a part of our own people ; that they are settled on the public 
 domain ; that the public interests would be promoted by throwing 
 that public domain open to settlement ; and that there is no good 
 reason why the protection of law and the blessings of government 
 should not be extended to them. I must be permitted to remind 
 the senator that the same objection existed in its full force to Mirine 
 sota, to Oregon and to Washington, when each of those Territories 
 were organized; and that I have no recollection that he deemed it 
 his duty to call the attention of Congress to the objection, or con 
 sidered it of sufficient importance to justify him in recording his 
 vote against the organization of either of those Territories. 
 
96 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Mr. President, I do not feel called upon to make any reply to the 
 argument which the senator from Connecticut has urged against the 
 passage of this bill upon the score of expense in sustaining these Ter 
 ritorial governments, for the reason that, if the public interests re 
 quire the enactment of the law, it follows as a natural consequence 
 that all the expenses necessary to carry it into effect are wise and 
 proper. 
 
 1 will now proceed to the consideration of the great principle in 
 volved in the bill, without omitting, however, to notice some of 
 Ihose extraneous matters which have been brought into this discus 
 sion with the view of producing another anti-slavery agitation. We 
 ihave been told by nearly every senator who has spoken in opposition 
 to this bill, that at the time of its introduction the people were in a 
 state of profound quiet and repose ; that the anti-slavery agitation 
 had entirely ceased ; and that the whole country was acquiescing 
 cheerfully and cordially in the Compromise measures of 1850, as a 
 final adjustment of this vexed question. 
 
 Sir, it is truly refreshing to hear senators who contested every 
 inch of ground in opposition to those measures when they were 
 under discussion, who predicted all manner of evils and calamities 
 from their adoption, and who raised the cry of repeal, and even 
 resistance, to their execution, after they had become the laws of the 
 land I say it is really refreshing to hear these same senators now 
 bear their united testimony to the wisdom of those measures, and to 
 the patriotic motives which induced us to pass them in defiance of 
 their threats and resistance, and to their beneficial effects in restor 
 ing peace, harmony and fraternity to a distracted country. These 
 are precious confessions from the lips of those who stand pledged 
 never to assent to the propriety of those measures, and to make war 
 upon them so long as they shall remain upon the statute-book. I 
 well understand that these confessions are now made, not with the 
 view of yielding their assent to the propriety of carrying those 
 enactments into faithful execution, but for the purpose of having a 
 pretext for charging upon me, as the author of this bill, the responsi 
 bility of an agitation which they are striving to produce. They say 
 that 1, and not they, have revived theagitation. YWhat have 1 done 
 to render me obnoxious to this chargeFjThey sayT*Vrote and intro 
 duced this Nebraska Bill. That is frue; but I was not a volunteer 
 in the transaction. The Senate, by a unanimous vote, appointed me 
 chairman of the Territorial Committee, and associated five intelligent 
 and patriotic senators with me, and thus made it our duty to take 
 charge of all Territorial business. In like manner, and with the 
 concurrence of these complaining senators, the Senate referred to us 
 a distinct proposition to organize this Nebraska Territory, and re 
 quired us tc report specifically upon the question. 1 repeat, then, 
 we were not volunteers in this business. The duty was imposed 
 upon us by the Senate. We were not unmindful of the delicacy and 
 responsibility of the position. Wo were aware that from 1820 to 
 
STEPHEN A.DOUGLAS. 97 
 
 1850 the abolition doctrine of Congressional interference with slavery 
 in the Territories arid new States had so far prevailed as to keep up 
 an incessant slavery agitation in Congress and throughout the coun 
 try, whenever any new Territory was to be acquired or organized. 
 We were also aware that, in 1850, the right of the people to decide 
 this question for themselves, subject only to the Constitution, was 
 substituted for the doctrine of Congressional intervention. The first 
 question, therefore, which the committee were called upon to decide, 
 and indeed the only question of any material importance, in framing 
 this bill, was this : Shall we adhere to and carry out the principle 
 recognized by the Compromise measures of 1850, or shall we go 
 back to the old exploded doctrine of Congressional interference, as 
 established in 1820 in a large portion of the country, and which it 
 was the object of the Wilmot Proviso to give a universal applica 
 tion, not only to all the Territory which we then possessed, but all 
 which we might hereafter acquire ? There were no other alterna 
 tives. We were compelled to frame the bill upon the one or the 
 other of these two principles. The doctrine of 1820 or the doctrine 
 of 1850 must prevail. In the discharge of the duty imposed upon us 
 by tlie Senate, the committee could not hesitate upon this point, 
 whether we consulted our individual opinions and principles, or 
 those which were known to be entertained and boldly avowed by a 
 large majority of the Senate. The two great political parties of the 
 country stood solemnly pledged before the world to adhere to the 
 Compromise measures of 1850, "in principle and substance." A 
 large majority of the Senate, indeed every member of the body, I 
 believe, except the two avowed abolitionists (Mr. Chase and Mr. 
 Sumner), profess to belong to the one or the other of these parties, 
 and hence was supposed to be under a high moral obligation to carry 
 out the "principle and substance" of those measures in all new Ter 
 ritorial organizations. The report of the committee was in accord 
 ance with this obligation. 1 am arraigned, therefore, for having 
 endeavored to represent the opinions and principles of the Senate 
 truly ; for having performed my duty in conformity with the parlia 
 mentary law ; for having been faithful to the trust reposed in me by 
 the Senate. Let the vote this night determine whether 1 have thus 
 faithfully represented your opinions. When a majority of the Senate 
 shall have passed the bill ; when a majority of the States shall have 
 indorsed it through their representatives upon this floor ; when a 
 majority of the South and a majority of the North shall have sanc 
 tioned it ; when a majority of the Whig party and a majority of the 
 Democratic party shall have voted for it; when each of these pro 
 positions shall be demonstrated by the vote this night on the final 
 passage of the bill, I shall be willing to submit the question to the 
 country, whether, as the organ of the committee, 1 performed iny 
 duty in the report and bill which have called down upon my head 
 so much denunciation and abuse. 
 
 Mr. President, the opponents of this measure have had much to 
 
98 THE LIFE A X D SPEECHES OF 
 
 say about the mutations and modifications which this bill lias under 
 gone since it was first introduced by myself, and about the alleged 
 departure of the bill, in its present form, from the principle laid 
 down in the original report of the committee as a rule of action in 
 all future Territorial organizations. Fortunately there is no neces 
 sity, even if your patience would tolerate such a course of argument 
 at this late hour of the night, for me to examine these speeches in 
 detail, and to reply to each charge separately. Each speaker seems 
 to have followed faithfully in the footsteps of his leader in the path 
 marked out by the abolition confederates in their manifesto, which 
 T exposed on a former occasion. You have seen them on their wind 
 ing way, meandering the narrow and crooked path in Indian file, 
 each treading close upon the heels of the other, and neither ventur 
 ing to take a step to the right or left, or to occupy one inch of ground 
 which did not bear the foot-print of the abolition champion. To 
 answer one, therefore, is to answer the whole. The statement to 
 which they seem to attach the most importance, and which they 
 have repeated oftener perhaps than any other, is, that, pending the 
 Compromise measures of 1850, no man in or out of Congress ever 
 dreamed of abrogating the Missouri Compromise; that from that 
 period down to the present session, nobody supposed that its validity 
 had been impaired, or anything done which rendered it obligatory 
 upon us to make it inoperative hereafter ; that at the time of sub 
 mitting the report and bill to the Senate, on the 4th of January last, 
 neither I nor any member of the committee ever thought of such a 
 thing ; and that we could never be brought up to the point of abro 
 gating the eighth section of the Missouri act until after the senator 
 from Kentucky introduced his amendment to my bill. 
 
 Mr. President, before I proceed to expose the many misrepresenta 
 tions contained in this complicated charge, I must call the attention 
 of the Senate to the false issue which these gentlemen are endeavor 
 ing to impose i.\ on the country, for the purpose of diverting public 
 attention from the real issue contained in the bill. They wish to 
 have the people believe that the abrogation of what they call the 
 Missouri Compromise was the main object and aim of the bill, and 
 that the only questic n involved is, whether the prohibition of slavery 
 north of 86 30* shall be repealed or not? That which is a mere 
 incident, they choose to consider the principal. They make war on 
 the means by which we propose to accomplish an object, instead of 
 openly resisting the object itself. The principle which we propose 
 to carry into effect by the bill is this : That Congress shall neither 
 legislate slavery into any Territories or State, nor out of the same ; 
 but the people shall be left free to regulate their domestic concerns 
 in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 In order to carry this principle into practical operation, it becomes 
 necessary to remove whatever legal obstacles might be found in the 
 way of its free exercise. It is snly for the purpose of carrying out 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 99 
 
 this great fundamental principle of self-government that the bill 
 renders the eighth section of the Missouri act inoperative and 
 void. 
 
 Now, let me ask, will these senators who have arraigned me, or 
 any one of them, have the assurance to rise in his place and declare 
 that this great principle was never thought of or advocated as appli 
 cable to Territorial bills in 1850; that, from that session until the 
 present, nobody ever thought of incorporating this principle in all 
 new Territorial organizations; that the Committee on Territories 
 did not recommend it in their report; and that it required the 
 amendment of the senator from Kentucky to bring us up to that 
 point ? Will any one of my accusers dare to make this issue, and 
 let it be tried by the record ? I will begin with the compromises of 
 1850. Any senator who will take the trouble to examine our jour 
 nals will find that on the 25th of March of that year I reported from 
 the Committee on Territories two bills including the following mea 
 sures : The admission of California, a Territorial government for 
 Utah, a Territorial government for New Mexico, and the adjustment 
 of the Texas boundary. These bills proposed to leave the people of 
 Utah and New Mexico free to decide the slavery question for them 
 selves, in the precise language of the Nebraska Bill now under dis 
 cussion. A few weeks afterward, the Committee of Thirteen took 
 those two bills and put a wafer between them, and reported them 
 back to the Senate as one bill, with some slight amendments. One 
 of those amendments was, that the Territorial legislatures should 
 not legislate upon the subject of African slavery. I objected to that 
 provision upon the ground that it subverted the great principle of 
 self-government upon which the bill had been originally framed by 
 the Territorial Committee. On the the first trial, the Senate refused 
 to strike it out, but subsequently did so, after full debate, in order 
 to establish that principle as the rule of action in Territorial organi 
 zations. 
 
 Upon this point I trust I will be excused for reading one or two 
 sentences from some remarks I made in the Senate on the 3d of June, 
 1850: 
 
 The position that I have ever taken has been that this, the slavery question, 
 and all other questions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic policy of 
 the Territories, ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves, and 
 that we ought to be content with whatever way they would decide the ques 
 tion, because they have a much deeper interest in these matters than we have, 
 and know much better what institutions will suit them, than we, who have 
 never been there, can decide for them." 
 
 Again, in the same debate, I said : 
 
 " I do not see how those of us who have taken the position which we have 
 taken, (that of non-interference,) and have argued in favor of the right of the 
 people to legislature for themselves on this question, can support such a pro 
 vision without abandoning .all the arguments which we urged in the Presiden 
 
100 THE LIFE ANT SPEECHES OF 
 
 tial campaign in the year 1848, and the principli 
 senator from Michigan in that letter which is known as the Nicholson letter. 
 We are required to abandon that platform ; we are required to abandon those 
 principles, and to stultify ourselves, and to adopt the opposite doctrine; and 
 for what? In order to say that the people of the Territories shall not have 
 such institutions as they shall deem adapted to their condition and their wants. 
 I do not see, sir, how such a provision as that can be acceptable either to the 
 people of the North or the South." 
 
 Mr. President, I could go on and multiply extract after extract 
 from my speeches in 1850, and prior to that date, to show that this 
 doctrine of leaving the people to decide these questions for them 
 selves is not an u after-thought " with me, seized upon, this session, 
 for the first time, as my calumniators have so frequently and boldly 
 charged in their speeches during this debate, and in their manifesto 
 to the public. I refused to support the celebrated Omnibus Bill in 
 1850 until the obnoxious provision was stricken out, and the principle 
 of self-government restored, as it existed in my original bill. ISTo 
 sooner were the Compromise measures of 1850 passed, than the 
 abolition confederates, who lead the opposition to this bill now, 
 raised the cry of repeal in some sections of the country, and in others 
 forcible resistance to the execution of the law. In order to arrest 
 and suppress the treasonable purposes of these abolition confederates, 
 and avert the horrors of civil war, it became my duty, on the 28(1 
 of October, 1850, to address an excited and frenzied multitude at 
 Chicago, in defence of each and all of the Compromise measures of 
 that year. I will read one or two sentences from that speech, to 
 show how those measures were then understood and explained by 
 their advocates : 
 
 1" These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that every 
 people ought to possess the right of fm^ming and regulating their own internal 
 concerns and domestic institutions in their awn way. 1 
 
 Again : 
 
 \ " These things are all confided by the Constitution to each State to decide 
 \ for itself, and I KNOW OF NO REASON WHY THE same principle should not be con- 
 \Jlded to the Territories. 1 
 
 In this speech it will be seen that I lay down a general principle 
 of universal application, and make no distinction between Terri 
 tories north or south of 36 30 . 
 
 I am aware that some of the abolition confederates have perpe 
 trated a monstrous forgery on that speech, and are now circulating 
 through the abolition newspapers the statement that I said that 
 I would " cling with the tenacity of life to the compromise of 1820 " 
 This statement, false as it is a deliberate act of forgery, as it is 
 known to be by all who have ever seen or read the speech referred 
 to constitutes the staple article out of which mo- 1 of the abolition 
 orators at the small anti-oSTebraska meetings manufacture the greater 
 part of their speeches. I now declare that there is not a sentence, 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 101 
 
 a line, even a word in that speech, which imposes the slightest limi 
 tation on the application of the great principle embraced in this 
 bill in all new Territorial organizations, without the least reference 
 to the line of 30 30 . 
 
 At the session of 1850-51, a few weeks after this speech was 
 made at Chicago, and when it had been published in pamphlet form 
 and circulated extensively over the States, the legislature of Illinois 
 proceeded to revise its action upon the slavery question, and define 
 its position on the compromise of 1850. After rescinding the reso 
 lutions adopted at a previous session, instructing my colleague and 
 myself to vote for a proposition prohibiting slavery in the Territories, 
 resolutions were adopted approving the Compromise measures of 
 1 850. I will read one of the resolutions, which was adopted in the 
 House of Representatives, by a vote of 61 yeas to 4 nays : 
 
 " Resolved, That our liberty and independence are bashed upon the right of 
 the people to form for themselves such a government as they may choose ; 
 that this great privilege the birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, secured 
 to us by the blood of our ancestors ought to be extended to future generations ; 
 and no limitation ought to be applied to this power, in the organization of any 
 Territory of the United States, of either a Territorial government or a State 
 Constitution : Provided, The government so established shall be republican, 
 and in conformity with the Constitution." 
 
 Another series of resolutions having passed the Senate almost 
 unanimously, embracing the same principle in different language, 
 they were concurred in by the House. Thus was the position of 
 Illinois, upon the slavery question defined at the first session of the 
 legislature after the adoption of the Compromise of 1850. 
 
 Now, sir, what becomes of the declaration which has been made 
 by nearly every opponent of this bill, that nobody in this whole 
 Union ever dreamed that the principle of the Utah and New Mexican 
 bill was to be incorporated into all future Territorial organizations ? 
 I have shown that my own State so understood and declared it at 
 the time in the most implicit and solemn manner. Illinois declared 
 that our "liberty and independence" rest upon this "principle;" 
 that the principle "ought to be extended to future generations;" 
 and that "NO LIMITATION OUGHT TO BE APPLIED TO THIS POWER IN 
 
 T1IE OEGANIZATION OF ANY TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES." No 
 
 exception is made in regard to Nebraska. No Missouri Compromise 
 lines ; no reservations of the country north of 36 30 . The principle 
 is declared to be be the " birthright of freemen :" the " gift of Hea 
 ven, to be applied without limitation," in Nebraska as well as Utah, 
 north as well as south of 36 30 . 
 
 It may not be out of place here to remark that the legislature of 
 Illinois, at its recent session, has passed resolutions approving the 
 Nebraska Bill ; and among the resolutions is one in the precise 
 language of the resolution of 1851, which I have just read to the 
 Senate. 
 
102 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Thus I have shown, Mr. President, that the legislature and people 
 of Illinois have always understood the Compromise measures of 1850 
 as establishing certain principles as rules of action in the organization 
 of all new Territories, and that no limitation was to be made on 
 either side of the geographical line of 36 30 . 
 
 Neither my time nor your patience will allow me to take up the 
 resolutions of the different States in detail, and show what has been 
 the common understanding of the whole country upon this point. I 
 am now vindicating myself and my own action against the assaults 
 of my calumniators ; and, for that purpose, it is sufficient to show 
 that, in the report and bill which I have presented to the Senate, I 
 have only carried out the known principles and solemnly declared 
 will of the State whose representative I am. I will now invite the 
 attention of the Senate to the report of the committee, in order that 
 it may be known how much, or rather how little, truth there is for 
 the allegation which has been so often made and repeated on this 
 floor, that the idea of allowing the people in Nebraska to decide the 
 slavery question for themselves was a " sheer after-thought," con 
 ceived since the report was made, and not until the senator from 
 Kentucky proposed his amendment to the bill. 
 
 I read from that portion of the report in which the committee 
 lay down the principle by which they propose to be governed : 
 
 " In the judgment of your committee, those measures (Compromise of 1850) 
 were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the 
 mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of 
 Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, 
 which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but in all 
 lime to come avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question 
 of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and committing it to 
 the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in and alone responsible 
 for its consequences. 1 
 
 After making a brief argument in defence of this principle, the 
 report proceeds, as follows : 
 
 "From these provisions, it is apparent that the Compromise measures of 1850 
 affirm and rest upon the following propositions: 
 
 " First, that all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in 
 the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the 
 people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by 
 them for that purpose." 
 
 And in conclusion, the report proposes a substitute for the bill 
 introduced by the senator from Iowa, and concludes as follows : 
 
 "The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and 
 which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry 
 these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the precise lan 
 guage of the Compromise measures of 1850." 
 
 Mr. President, as there has been so much misrepresentation upor 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUG-LAS. 103 
 
 this point, I must be permitted to repeat that the doctrine of the 
 report of the committee, as has been conclusively proved by these 
 extracts, is 
 
 Fir^t, That the whole question of slavery should *be withdrawn 
 from the halls of Congress, and the political arena, and committed 
 to the arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in and 
 alone responsible for its existence. 
 
 Second, The applying this principle to the Territories and the new 
 States to be formed therefrom, all questions pertaining to slavery 
 were to be referred to the people residing therein. 
 
 Third, That the committee proposed to carry these propositions 
 and principles into effect in the precise language of the compromise 
 measures of 1850. 
 
 Are not these propositions identical with the principles and pro 
 visions of the bill on your table ? If there is a hair s breadth of dis 
 crepancy between the two, I ask any senator to rise in his place and 
 point it out. Both rest upon the great principle, which forms the 
 basis of all our institutions, that the people are to decide the question 
 for themselves, subject only to the Constitution. 
 
 But my accusers attempt to raise up a false issue, and thereby 
 divert public attention from the real one, by the cry that the Mis 
 souri Compromise is to be repealed or violated by the passage of this 
 bill. Well, if the eighth section of the Missouri Act, which attempted 
 to fix the destinies of future generations in those Territories for all 
 time to come, in utter disregard of the rights and wishes of the 
 people when they should be received into the Union as States, be 
 inconsistent with the great principle of self-government and the 
 Constitution of the United States, it ought to be abrogated. The 
 legislation of 1850 abrogated the Missouri Compromise, so far as the 
 country embraced within the limits of Utah and New Mexico was 
 covered by the slavery restriction. It is true, that those acts did 
 not in terms and by name repeal the act of 1820, as originally adopted, 
 or as extended by the resolutions annexing Texas in 1845, any more 
 than the report of the Committee on Territories proposes to repeal 
 the same acts this session. But the acts of 1850 did authorize the 
 people of those Territories to exercise * all rightful powers of legis 
 lation consistent with the Constitution," not excepting the question 
 of slavery ; and did provide that, when those Territories should be 
 admitted into the Union, they should be received with or with - ut 
 slavery as the people thereof might determine at the date of their 
 admission. These provisions were in direct conflict with a clause in 
 a former enactment, declaring that slavery should be forever pro 
 hibited in any portion of said Territories, and hence rendered such 
 clause inoperative and void to the extent of such conflict. This was 
 an inevitable consequence, resulting from the provisions in those 
 acts which gave the people the right to decide the slavery question 
 for themselves, in conformity with the Constitution. It was not 
 necessary to go further and declare that certain previous enactmenti. 
 
104 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 which were incompatible with the exercise of the powers conferred 
 in the bills, " are hereby repealed." The very act of granting those 
 powers and rights have the legal effect of removing all obstructions 
 to the exercise of them by the people, as prescribed in those Terri 
 torial bills. Following that example, the Committee on Territories 
 did not consider it necessary to declare the eighth section of the 
 Missouri act repealed. We were content to organize Nebraska in 
 the precise language of the Utah and New Mexican bills. Our 
 object was to leave the people entirely free to form and regulate their 
 domestic institutions and internal concerns in their own way, under 
 the constitution ; and we deemed it wise to accomplish that object 
 in the exact terms in which the same thing had been done in Utah 
 and New Mexico by the acts of 1850. This was the principle upon 
 which the committee reported ; and our bill was supposed, and is 
 now believed, to have been in accordance with it. When doubts 
 were raised whether the bill did fully carry out the principle laid 
 down in the report, amendments were made, from time to time, in 
 order to avoid all misconstruction, and make the true intent of the 
 act more explicit. The last of these amendments was adopted yes 
 terday, on the motion of the distinguished senator from North 
 Carolina (Mr. Badger), in regard to the revival of any laws or 
 regulations which may haye existed prior to 1820. That amendment 
 was not intended to change the legal effect of the bill. Its object 
 was to repel the slander which had been propagated by the enemies 
 of the measures in the North, that the southern supporters of the 
 bill desired to legislate slavery into these Territories. The south 
 denies the right of Congress either to legislate slavery into any 
 Territory or State, or out of any Territory or State. Non-interven 
 tion by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories is the 
 doctrine of the bill, and all the amendments which have been agreed 
 to have been made with the view of removing all doubts and cavil 
 as to the true meaning and object of the measure. 
 
 Mr. President, I think I have succeeded in vindicating myself and 
 the action of the committee from the assaults which have been made 
 upon us in consequence of these amendments. It seems to be the 
 tactics of our opponents to direct their arguments against the unim 
 portant points and incidental questions which are to be affected by 
 carrying out the principle, with the hope of relieving themselves 
 from the necessity of controverting the principle itself. The senator 
 from Ohio (Mr. Chase) led off gallantly in the charge that the com 
 mittee, in the report and bill first submitted, did not contemplate the 
 repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and could not be brought to that 
 point until after the senator from Kentucky offered his amendment. 
 The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) followed his lead, and 
 repeated the same statement. Then came the other senator from 
 Ohio (Mr. Ward), and the senator from New York (Mr. Seward), 
 and senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), all singing the same 
 song, only varying the tune. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. lOo 
 
 Let me ask those senators what they mean by this statement ? 
 Do they wish to be understood as saying that the report and first 
 form of the bill did not provide for leaving the slavery question to 
 the decision of the people in the terms of the Utah Bill ? Surely 
 they will not dare to say that, for I have already shown that the 
 two measures were identical in principle and enactment. Do they 
 mean to say that the adoption of our first bill would not have had 
 the legal effect to have rendered the eighth section of the Missouri 
 Act "inoperative and void," to use the language of the present bill ? 
 If this be not their meaning, will they rise in their places and inform 
 the Senate what their meaning w T as? They must have had some 
 object in giving so much prominence to this statement, and in repeat 
 ing it so often. I address the question to the senators from Ohio 
 and Massachusetts (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner). I despair in extort 
 ing a response from them , for, no matter in what way they may 
 answer upon this point, I have in my hand the evidence over their 
 own signatures, to disprove the truth of their answer. I allude to 
 their appeal or manifesto to the people of the United States, in which 
 they arraign the bill and report, in coarse and savage terms, as a 
 
 E reposition to repeal the Missouri Compromise, to violate plighted 
 lith, to abrogate a solemn compact, etc. etc. This document was 
 signed by those two senators in their official capacity, and published 
 to the world before any amendments had been offered to the bill. 
 It was directed against the committee s first bill and report, and 
 against them alone. If the statements in this document be true, 
 that the first bill did repeal the eighth section of the Missouri Act, 
 what are we to think of the statements in their speeches since, that 
 such was not the intention of the committee, was not the recom 
 mendation of the report, and was not the legal effect of the bill ? 
 On the contrary, if the statements in their subsequent speeches are 
 true, what apology do those senators propose to make to the Senate 
 and country for having falsified the action of the committee in a 
 document over their own signatures, and thus spread a false alarm 
 among the people, and misled the public mind in respect to our pro 
 ceedings ? These senators cannot avoid the one or the other of these 
 alternatives. Let them seize upon either, and they stand condemned 
 and self-convicted ; in the one case by their manifesto, and in the 
 other by their speeches. 
 
 In fact, it is clear that they have understood the bill to mean the 
 same thing, and to have the same legal effect in whatever phase it 
 has been presented. When first introduced, they denounced it as a 
 proposition to abrogate the Missouri restriction. "When amended, 
 they repeated the same denunciation, and so on each successive 
 amendment. They now object to the passage of the bill for the same 
 reason, thus proving conclusively that they have not the least faith 
 in the correctness of their own statements in respect to the mutations 
 and changes in the bill. 
 
 They seem very unwilling to meet the real issue. They do not 
 
 5* 
 
106 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 like to discuss the principle. There seems to be something which 
 strikes them with terror when you invite their attention to this great 
 fundamental principle of popular sovereignty. Hence you find that 
 all the memorials they have presented are against repealing the Mis 
 souri Compromise, and in favor of the sanctity of compacts in favor 
 of preserving plighted faith. The senator from Ohio is cautious to 
 dedicate his speech with some such heading as "Maintain Plighted 
 Faith." The object is to keep the attention of the people as far as 
 possible from this principle of self-government and constitutional 
 rigl its. 
 
 Well, sir. what is this Missouri Compromise, of which we have 
 heard so much of late ? It has been read so often that it is not 
 necessary to occupy the time of the Senate in reading it again. It 
 was an act of Congress, passed on the 6th of March, 1820, to author 
 ize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and a State govern 
 ment, preparatory to the admission of such State into the Union. 
 The first section provided that Missouri should be received into the 
 Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects 
 whatsoever." The last and eighth section provided that slavery 
 should be " for ever prohibited " in all the territory which had been 
 acquired from France north of 36 30 , and not included within the 
 limits of the State of Missouri. There is nothing in the terms of the 
 law that purports to be a compact, or indicates that it was anything 
 more than an ordinary act of legislation. To prove that it was more 
 than it purports to be on its face, gentlemen must produce other 
 evidence, and prove that there was such an understanding as to 
 create a moral obligation in the nature of a compact. Have they 
 shown it? 
 
 I have heard but one item of evidence produced during this whole 
 debate, and that was a short paragraph from Niles s Register, pub 
 lished a few days after the passage of the act. But gentlemen aver 
 that it was a solemn compact, which could not be violated or abro 
 gated without dishonor. According to their understanding, the con 
 tract was that, in consideration of the admission of Missouri into the 
 Union, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects 
 whatsoever, slavery should be prohibited forever in the Territories 
 north of 36 30 . Now, who were the parties to this alleged com 
 pact ? They tell us that it was a stipulation between the North and 
 the South. Sir, I know of no such parties under the Constitution. 
 I am unwilling that there shall be any such parties known in our 
 legislation. If there is such a geographical line, it ought to be obli 
 terated for ever, and there should be no other parties than those 
 provided for in the Constitution, viz. : the States of this Union. 
 These are the only parties capable of contracting under the Consti 
 tution of the United States. 
 
 Now, if this was a compact, let us see how it was entered into. 
 The bill originated in the House of Representatives, and passed that 
 body without a southern vote in its favor. It is proper to remark, 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 107 
 
 However, that it did not at that time contain the eighth section, pro 
 hibiting slavery in the Territories ; but in lieu of it, contained a pro 
 vision prohibiting slavery in the proposed State of Missouri. In the 
 Senate, the clause prohibiting slavery in the State was stricken out, 
 and the eighth section added to the end of the bill, by the terms of 
 which slavery was to be forever prohibited in the Territory not 
 embraced in the State of Missouri north of 36 30 . The vote on 
 adding this section stood, in the Senate, 34 in the affirmative, and 10 
 in the negative. Of the northern senators, 20 voted for it and 2 
 against it. On the question of ordering the bill to a third reading as 
 amended, which was the test vote on its passage, the vote stood 24 
 yeas and 20 nays. Of the northern senators, ~4= only voted in the 
 affirmative, and 18 in the negative. Thus it will be seen that, if it 
 was intended to be a compact, the North never agreed to it. The 
 northern senators voted to insert the prohibition of slavery in the 
 Territories ; and then, in the proportion of more than four to one 
 voted against the passage of the bill. The North, therefore, never 
 signed the compact, never consented to it, never agreed to be bound 
 by it. This fact becomes very important in vindicating the character 
 of the North for repudiating this alleged compromise a few months 
 afterward. The act was approved and became a law on the 6th of 
 March, 1820. In the summer of that year, the people of Missouri 
 formed a constitution and State government, preparatory to admis 
 sion into the Union, in conformity with the act. At the next session 
 of Congress the Senate passed a joint resolution, declaring Missouri 
 to be one of the States of the Union, on an equal footing with the 
 original States. This resolution was sent to the House of Represen 
 tatives, where it was rejected by northern votes, and thus Missouri 
 was voted out of the Union, instead of being received into the Union 
 under the act of the 6th of March, 1820, now known as the Missouri 
 Compromise. Now, sir, what becomes of our plighted faith, if the 
 act of the 6th of March, 1820, was a solemn compact, as we are now 
 told ? They have all rung the changes upon it, that it was a sacred 
 and irrevocable compact, binding in honor, in conscience, and morals, 
 which could not be violated or repudiated without perfidy and dis 
 honor ! The two senators from Ohio (Mr. Chase and Mr. Wade), 
 the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Simmer), the senator from Con 
 necticut (Mr. Smith), the senator from New York (Mr. Seward), and 
 perhaps others, have all assumed this position. 
 
 ME. SEWAED. Whoever will refer to my antecedents will find 
 that in the year 1850 I expressed opinions on the subject of legisla 
 tive compromises between the North and South, which, at that day 
 were rejected and repudiated. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. If the object of the senator is to go hack, and go 
 through all his opinions, I cannot yield the floor to him ; but if his 
 object is now to show that the North did not violate the Missouri 
 compromise, I will yield. 
 
 ME. SEWAED. If the honorable senator will allow me just one 
 
108 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 inin ute and a half, without dictating what I shall say within that 
 minute and a half, I shall be satisfied. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Certainly, I will consent to that. 
 
 MR. SEWARD. I find that the honorable senator from Illinois is 
 standing upon the ground upon which I stood in 1850. I have 
 nothing to say now in favor of that ground. On this occasion, I 
 stand upon the ground, in regard to compromises, which has been 
 adopted by the country. Then, when the senator tells me that the 
 North did not altogether, willingly, and unanimously, consent to the 
 compromise of 1820, I agree to it ; but I have been overborne in the 
 country, on the ground that if one northern man carried with him a 
 majority of Congress he bound the whole North. And so I hold in 
 regard to the compromise of 1820, that it was carried by a vote 
 which has been held by the South and by the honorable senator 
 from Illinois to bind the North. The South having received their 
 consideration and equivalent, I only hold him, upon his own doctrine 
 and the doctrine of the South, bound to stand to it. That is all I 
 have to say upon that point. 
 
 A few words more will cover all that I have to say about what 
 the honorable senator may say hereafter as to the North repudiating 
 this contract. When I was absent, I understood the senator alluded 
 to the fact that my name appeared upon a paper which was issued 
 by the honorable senator from Ohio, and some other members of 
 Congress, to the people, on the subject of this bill. Upon that point 
 it has been my intention throughout to leave to the honorable 
 senator from Illinois, and those who act with him, whatever there 
 is of merit, and whatever there is of responsibility for the present 
 measure, and for all the agitation and discussion upon it. Therefore, 
 as soon as I found, when I returned to the Capitol, that my name 
 was on that paper, I caused it to be made known and published, as 
 fully and extensively as I could, that I had never been consulted in 
 regard to it ; that I know nothing about it ; and that the merit of 
 the measure, as well as the responsibility, belonged to the honorable 
 senator from Ohio, and those who cooperated with him ; and that I 
 had never seen the paper on which he commented ; nor have I in 
 any way addressed the public upon the subject. 
 
 MB. DOUGLAS. I wish to ask the senator from New York a question. 
 If I understood his remarks when he spoke, and if I understand his 
 speech as published, he averred that the Missouri Compromise was a 
 compact between the North and the South ; that the North performed 
 it on its part ; that it had done so faithfully for thirty years ; that 
 the South had received all its benefits, and the moment these benefits 
 had been fully realized, the South disavowed the obligations under 
 which it had received them. Is not that his position? 
 
 MR. SEWAKD. I am not accustomed to answer questions put to me, 
 unless they are entirely categorical, and placed in such a shape that 
 I may know exactly, and have time to consider, their whole extent 
 The honorable senator from Illinois has put a very broad question 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 109 
 
 What I mean to say, however, and that will answer his purpose, is, 
 that his position, and that the position of the South is, that this was 
 a compromise ; and I say that the North has never repudiated that 
 compromise. Indeed, it has never had the power to do so. Missouri 
 came into the Union, and Arkansas came into the Union, under that 
 compromise ; and, whatever individuals may have said, whatever 
 individuals, more or less humhle than myself, may have contended, 
 the practical effect is, that the South has had all that she could get 
 by that compromise, and that the North is now in the predicament 
 of being obliged to defend what was left to her. I believe that 
 answers the question. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Now, Mr. President, I choose to bring men directly 
 up to this point. The senator from New York has labored in his 
 whole speech to make it appear that this was a compact ; that the 
 North had been faithful ; and that the South acquiesced until she got 
 all its advantages, and then disavowed and sought to annul it. This 
 he pronounced to be bad faith ; and he made appeals about disorder. 
 The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) did the same thing, and 
 so did the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), and the senator 
 from Ohio (Mr. Chase). That is the point to which the whole aboli 
 tion party are now directing all their artillery in this battle. Now, 
 I propose to bring them to the point. If this was a compact, and if 
 what they have said is fair, or just, or true, who was it that repudi 
 ated the compact ? 
 
 MR. SUMXER. Mr. President, the senator from Illinois, I know, does 
 not intend to misstate my position. That position, as announced in 
 the language of the speech which I addressed to the Senate, and 
 which I now hold in my hand, is, "this is an infraction of solemn 
 obligations, assumed beyond recall by the South, on the admission of 
 Missouri into the Union as a slave State ;" which was one year after 
 the act of 1820. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I shall corne to that ; and I wish to 
 see whether this was an obligation which was assumed beyond 
 recall." If it was a compact between the two parties, one party has 
 been faithful, it is beyond recall by the other. If, however, one party 
 has been faithless, what shall we think of them, if, while faithless, 
 they ask a performance ? 
 
 MR. SEWARD. Show it. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. That is what I am coming to. I have already 
 stated that, at the next session of Congress, Missouri presented a 
 constitution in conformity with the act of 1820 ; that the Senate passed 
 a joint resolution to admit her ; and that the House refused to admit 
 Missouri in conformity with the alleged compact, and, I think, on 
 three distinct votes, rejected her. 
 
 ME. SEWARD. I beg my honorable friend, for I desire to call him 
 so, to answer me frankly whether he would rather I should say what 
 I have to say in this desultory way, or whether he would prefer that 1 
 should answer him afterward ; because it is with me a rule in the Se 
 nate never to interrupt a gentleman, except to help him in his argument 
 
110 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. I would rather hear the senator now. 
 
 ME. SEWARD. What I have to say now, and I acknowledge the 
 magnanimity of the senator from Illinois in allowing me to say it, is, 
 that the North stood by that compact until Missouri came in with a 
 constitution, one article of which denied to colored citizens of other 
 States the equality of privileges which were allowed to all other 
 citizens of the United Sates, and then the North insisted on the right 
 of colored men to be regarded as citizens, and entitled to the privi 
 leges and immunities of citizens. Upon that a new compromise was 
 necessary. I hope I am candid. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. The senator is candid, I have no doubt, as he 
 understands the facts ; but I undertake to maintain that the North 
 objected to Missouri because she allowed slavery, and not because of 
 the free-negro clause alone. 
 
 MR. SEWARD. No sir. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Now I will proceed to prove that the North did 
 not object, solely on account of the free-negro clause ; but that in 
 House of Representatives at that time, the North objected as well 
 because of slavery as in regard to free negroes. Here is the evidence. 
 In the House of Representatives, on the 12th of February, 1821, Mr. 
 Mallory, of Vermont, Amoved to amend the Senate joint resolution 
 for the admission of Missouri, as follows : 
 
 " To amend the said amendment, by striking out all thereof after the words 
 respects, and inserting the following : Whenever people of the said State, by 
 a convention, appointed according to the manner provided by the act to autho 
 rize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and State government, and 
 for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the 
 original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories, approved March- 
 6, 1820, adopt a constitution conformably to the provisions of said act, and 
 shall, ix ADDITION to said provisions, further provide, in and by said constitution, 
 that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever be allowed in said State of 
 Missouri, unless inflicted as a punishment for crimes committed against the 
 laws of said State, whereof the party accused shall be duly convicted : Pro 
 vided, That the civil condition of those persons who now are held to service in 
 Missouri shall not be affected by this last prevision. " 
 
 Here I show, then, that the proposition was made that Missouri 
 should not come in unless, in addition to complying with the Mis 
 souri Compromise, so called, she would go further, and prohibit 
 slavery within the limits of the State. 
 
 MR. SEWARD. Now, then, for the vote. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS.-: The vote was taken by yeas and nays. I hold it 
 in my hand. Sixty-one northern men voted for that amendment, 
 and thirty-three against it. Thus the North, by a vote of nearly two 
 to one, expressly repudiated a solemn compact upon the very matter 
 in controversy, to wit : that slavery should not be prohibited in the 
 State of Missouri. 
 
 MR. WELLEE. Let the senator from New York answer that. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. I should like to hear his answer. 
 
 MR. SEWARD. I desire, if I shall be obtrusive by speaking in this 
 way, that senators will at once signify, or that any senator will sig^- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Ill 
 
 nify, that lam obtrusive. But I make these explanations in this 
 Tray, for the reason that I desire to give the honorable senator from 
 Illinois the privilege of hearing my answer to him as he goes along. It 
 is simply this : That this doctrine of compromises is, as it has been 
 held, that if so many northern men shall go with so many southern 
 men as to fix the law, then it binds the North and South alike. I there 
 fore have but one answer to make : the vote for the restriction was 
 less than the northern vote given against the compromise. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Well, now, we come to this point : We have been 
 told, during this debate, that you must not judge of the North by the 
 minority, but by the majority. You have been told, that the mi 
 nority, who stood by the Constitution and the rights of the South, 
 were dough-faces. 
 
 ME. SEWAED. I have not said so. I will not say so. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. You have all said so in your speeches, and you 
 have asked us to take the majority of the North. 
 
 ME. SEWAED. I spoke of the practical fact. I never said anything 
 about dough-faces. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. You have asked us to take the majority instead of 
 the minority. 
 
 ME. SEWAED. The majority of the country. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I am talking of the majority of the northern vote. 
 
 ME. SEWAED. No, sir. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I hope the senator will hear me. I wish to recall him 
 to the issue. 1 stated that the North in the House of Eepresentatives 
 voted against admitting Missouri into the Union under the act of 
 1820, and caused the defeat of that measure; and he said that they 
 voted against it on the ground of the free-negro clause in her consti 
 tution, and not upon the ground of slavery. Now, I have shown by, 
 the evidence that it was upon the ground of slavery, as well as upon . 
 the other ground ; and that a majority of the North required not I 
 only that Missouri should comply with the compact of 1820, so | 
 called, but that she should go further, and give up the whole consi 
 deration which the senator says the South received from the North 
 for the Missouri Compromise. The compact, he says, was that, in j 
 consideration of slavery being permitted in Missouri, it should be 
 prohibited in the Territories. After having procured the prohibition 
 in the Territories, the North, by a majority of votes, refused to 
 admit Missouri as a slaveholding State, and in violation of the alleged 
 compact, required her to prohibit slavery as a further condition of 
 her admission. This repudiation of the alleged compact by the North 
 is recorded by yeas and nays, sixty-one to thirty-three, and entered 
 upon the Journal, as an imperishable evidence of the fact. With this 
 evidence before us, against whom should the charge of perfidy be 
 preferred ? 
 
 Hlr, if this was a compact, what must be thought of those who 
 violated it almost immediately after it was formed ? I say it was a 
 calumny upon the North to say that it was a compact : I should feel 
 
1 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 a flush of shame upon my cheek, as a northern man, if I were to say 
 that it was a compact, and that the section of the country to which 
 I belong received the consideration, and then repudiated the obliga 
 tion in eleven months after it was entered into. I deny that it was a 
 compact in any sense of the term. But if it was, the record proves 
 that faith was not observed ; that the contract was never carried 
 into eifect ; that after the North had procured the passage of the 
 act prohibiting slavery in the Territories, with a majority in the 
 House large enough to prevent its repeal, Missouri was refused admis 
 sion into the Union as a slaveholding State, in conformity with the 
 act of March 6, 1820. If the proposition be correct, as contended 
 for by the opponents of this bill, that there was a solemn compact 
 between the North and the South, that, in consideration of the pro 
 hibition of slavery in the Territories, Missouri was to be admitted 
 into the Union in conformity with the act of 1820, that compact was 
 repudiated by the North and rescinded by the joint action of the 
 two parties within twelve months from its date. Missouri was never 
 admitted under the act of the 6th of March, 1820. She was refused 
 admission under that act. She was voted out of the Union by 
 northern votes, notwithstanding the stipulation that she should bo 
 received ; and, in consequence of these facts, a new compromise was 
 rendered necessary, by the terms of which Missouri was to be ad 
 mitted into the Union conditionally admitted on a condition not 
 embraced in the act of 1820, and, in addition, to full compliance 
 with all the provisions of said act. If, then, the act of 1820, by the 
 eighth section of which slavery was prohibited in the Territories, 
 was a compact, it is clear to the comprehension of every fair-minded 
 inn.ii that the refusal of the North to admit Missouri, in compli 
 ance with its stipulations, and without further conditions, imposes 
 upon us a high moral obligation to remove the prohibition of slavery 
 in the Territories, since it has been shown to have been procured 
 upon a condition never performed. 
 
 Mr. President, inasmuch as the senator from New York has taken 
 great pains to impress upon the public mind of the North the con 
 viction that the act of 1820 was a solemn compact, the violation or 
 repudiation of which by either party involves perfidy and dishonor, 
 I wish to call the attention of that senator (Mr. Seward) to the fact, 
 that his own State was the first to repudiate the compact and to 
 instruct her senators in Congress not to admit Missouri into the 
 Union in compliance with it, nor unless slavery should be prohibited 
 in the State of Missouri. 
 
 MR. SEWARD. That is so. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. I have the resolutions before me, in the printed 
 Journal of the Senate. The senator from New York is familiar with 
 the fact, and frankly admits it: 
 
 "STATE OF NKW YORK, I 
 
 IN ASSEMBLY, November 13, 1820. f 
 " Whereas the legislature of this State, at the last session, did instruct, theif 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 113 
 
 senators and request their representatives in Congress to oppose the admission, 
 as a State, into the Union, of any territory not comprised within the original 
 boundaries of the United States, without making the prohibition of slavery 
 therein an indispensable condition of admission ; and whereas this legislature 
 is impressed with the correctness of the sentiments so communicated to our 
 senators and representatives : Therefore 
 
 " Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur herein), That this legislature 
 does approve of the principles contained in the resolutions of the last session ; 
 and further, if the provisions contained in any proposed constitution of a new 
 State deny to any citizens of the existing States the privileges and immunities 
 of citizens of such new State, that such proposed constitution should not be 
 accepted or confirmed ; the same, in the opinion of this legislature, being void 
 by the Constitution of the United States. And that our senators be instructed, 
 and our representatives in Congress be requested, to use their utmost exer 
 tions to prevent the acceptance and confirmation of any such constitution." 
 
 It will be seen by these resolutions, that at the previous session 
 the New York legislature had " instructed " the senators from that 
 State " to oppose the admission, as a State, into the Union of any 
 territory not comprised within the original boundaries of the United 
 States, without making the prohibition of slavery therein an indis 
 pensable condition of admission." 
 
 These instructions are not confined to territory north of 36 80 . 
 They apply, and were intended to apply, to the whole territory west 
 of the Mississippi, and to all territory which might hereafter be 
 acquired. They deny the right of Arkansas to admission as a slave- 
 holding State, as well as Missouri. They lay down a general princi 
 ple to be applied and insisted upon everywhere, and in all cases, arid 
 under all circumstance??. These resolutions were first adopted prior 
 to the passage of the act of March 6, 1820, which the senator now 
 chooses to call a compact. But they were renewed and repeated on 
 the 13th of November, 1820, a little more than eight months after 
 the Missouri Compromise, as instructions to the New York senators 
 to resist the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding State, notwith 
 standing the stipulations in the alleged compact. Now, let me ask 
 the senator from New York by what authority he declared and pub 
 lished in his speech that the act of 1820, was a compact which could 
 not be violated or repudiated without a sacrifice of honor, justice 
 and good faith. Perhaps he will shelter himself behind the resolu 
 tions of his State, which he presented this session, branding this bill 
 as a violation of plighted faith. 
 
 ME. SEWAUD. Will the senator allow me a word of explanation ? 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Certainly, with a great deal of pleasure. 
 
 ME. SEWARD. I w T ish simply to say that the State of New York, 
 for now thirty years, has refused to make any compact on any terms 
 by which a concession should be made for the extension of slavery. 
 But, by the practical action of the Congress of the United States, 
 compromises have been made, which, if is held by the honorable 
 senator from Illinois and by the South, bind her against her consent 
 and approval. And, therefore, she stands throughout this wholo 
 matter upon the same ground always refusing to enter into a^om 
 
114: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 promise, always insisting upon the prohibition of slavery within the 
 Territories of the United States. But, on this occasion, we stand 
 here with a contract which has stood for 30 years, notwithstanding 
 our protest and dissent, and in which there is nothing left to be ful 
 filled except that part which is to be beneficial to us. All the rest has 
 been fulfilled, and we stand here with our old opinions on the whole 
 subject of compromises, demanding fulfillment on the part of the 
 South, which the honorable senator from Illinois on the present 
 occasion represents. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the senator undoubtedly speaks for 
 himself very frankly and very candidly. 
 
 MK. SEWAED. Certainly I do. 
 
 Mu. DOUGLAS. But I deny that on this point he speaks for the 
 State of New York. 
 
 ME. SEWAED. We shall see. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. I will state the reason why I say so. He has pre 
 sented here resolutions of this State of New York which have been 
 adopted this year, declaring the act of March 6, 1820, to be a " solemn 
 compact." 
 
 I read from the second resolution : 
 
 " But at the same time duty to them&elves and to the other Stales of the 
 Union demands that when an effort is making to violate a solemn compact 
 whereby the political power of the State and the privileg-es as well as the 
 honest sentiments of its citizens will be jeoparded and invaded, they should 
 raise Iheir voice in protest against the threatened infraction of their rights, 
 and declare that the negation or repeal by Congress of the Missouri Compro 
 mise will be regarded by them as a violation of right and of faith, and destruc 
 tive of that confidence and regard which should attach, to the enactment of the 
 federal legislature." 
 
 Mr. President, I cannot let the senator off on the plea that I, for 
 the sake of the argument, in reply to him and other opponents of 
 tliis bill, have called it a compact ; or that the South have called it 
 a compact ; or that other friends of Nebraska have called it a com 
 pact which has been violated and rendered invalid. He and his 
 abolition confederates have arraigned me for a violation of a com 
 pact, which, they say, is binding in morals, in conscience and honor. 
 I have shown that the legislature of New York, at its present session, 
 has declared it to be " a solemn compact," and that its repudiation 
 would " be regarded by them as a violation of right, and of faith, 
 and destructive of confidence and regard." I have also shown, that 
 if it be such a compact, the State of New York stands self-con 
 demned and self-convicted as the first to repudiate and violate it. 
 
 But since the senator has chosen to make an issue with me in 
 respect to the action of New York, with the view of condemning my 
 conduct here, I will invite the attention of the senator to another 
 portion of these resolutions. Referring to the fourteenth section of 
 the Nebraska Bill, the legislature of New York says: 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 115 
 
 " That the adoption of this provision would be in derogation of the truth, a 
 gross violation of plighted faith, and an outrage and indignity upon the free 
 States of the Union, whose assent has been yielded to the admission into the 
 Union of Missouri and of Arkansas, with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful 
 observance of the provision (now sought to be abrogated) known as the Mis 
 souri Compromise, whereby slavery was declared to be "forever prohibited 
 in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of 
 Louisiana, which lies north of 36 30 north latitude, not included within the 
 limits of the State of Missouri." 
 
 I have no comments to make upon the courtesy and propriety 
 exhibited in this legislative declaration, that a provision in a bill, 
 reported by a regular committee of the Senate of the United States, 
 and known to be approved by three-fourths of the body, and which 
 has since received the sanction of their votes, is "in derogation of 
 truth, a gross violation of plighted faith, and an outrage and indig 
 nity," etc. The opponents of this measure claim a monopoly of all 
 the courtesies and amenities, which should be observed among gen 
 tlemen, and especially in the performance of official duties ; and I 
 am free to say that this is one of the mildest and most respectful 
 forms of expression in which they have indulged. But there is a 
 declaration in this resolution to which I wish to invite the particular 
 attention of the Senate and the country. It is the distinct allega 
 tion that "the free States of the Union," including New York, 
 yield their " assent to the admission into the Union of Missouri and 
 Arkansas, with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful observance of 
 the provision known as the Missouri Compromise." 
 
 Now, sir, since the legislature of New York has gone out of its 
 way to arraign the State on matters of truth, I will demonstrate 
 that this paragraph contains two material statements in direct 
 " derogation of truth." I have already shown, beyond controversy, 
 by the records of the legislature and by the journals of the Senate, 
 that New York never did give her assent to the admission of Mis 
 souri with slavery! Hence, I must be permitted to say, in the 
 polite language of her own resolutions, that the statement that New 
 York yielded her assent to the admission of Missouri with slavery is 
 in "derogation of truth!" and, secondly, the statement that such 
 assent was given " in reliance upon the faithful observance of the 
 Missouri Compromise " is equally " in derogation of truth." New 
 York never assented to the admission of Missouri as a slave State, 
 never assented to what she now calls the Missouri Compromise, 
 never observed its stipulations as a compact, never had been willing 
 to carry it out ; but, on the contrary, has always resisted it, as I 
 have demonstrated by her own records. 
 
 Mr. President, I have before me other journals, records and in 
 structions, which prove that New York was not the only free State 
 that repudiated the Missouri Compromise of 1820 within twelve 
 months from its date. I will not occupy the time of the Senate at 
 this late hour of the night by referring to them, unless some oppo 
 nent of the bill renders it necessary. In that event, I may be ablo 
 
116 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 to place other senators and their States in the same unenviable posi 
 tion in which the senator from New York has found himself and hia 
 State. 
 
 I think I have shown, that to call the act of the 6th of March, 
 1820, a compact, binding in honor, is to charge the northern States 
 of this Union with an act of perfidy unparalleled in the history of 
 legislation or of civilization. I have already adverted to the facts, 
 that in the summer of 1820 Missouri framed her constitution, in con 
 formity with the act of the Oth of March ; that it was presented to 
 Congress at the next session; that the Senate passed a joint resolu 
 tion declaring her to be one of the States of the Union, on an equal 
 footing with the original States ; and that the Ilouse of Representa 
 tives rejected it, and refused to allow her to come into the Union, 
 because her constitution did not prohibit slavery. 
 
 These facts created the necessity for a new compromise, the old 
 one having failed of its object, which was, to bring Missouri into the 
 Union. At this period in the order of events in February, 1821, 
 when the exc itement was almost beyond restraint, and a great fun 
 damental principle, involving the right of the people of the new 
 States 1o regulate their own domestic institutions, was dividing ihe 
 Union into two great hostile parties Henry Clay, of Kentucky, 
 came forward with a new compromise, which had the effect to 
 change the issue, and make the result of the controversy turn 
 upon a different point, lie brought in a resolution for the admission 
 of Missouri into the Union, not in pursuance of the act of 1820, not 
 in obedience to the understanding when it was adopted, and not 
 with her constitution as it had been formed in conformity with that 
 act, but he proposed to admit Missouri into the Union upon a fun 
 damental condition," which condition was to be in the nature of a 
 solemn compact between the United States on the one part and the 
 State of Missouri on the other part, and to which " fundamental con 
 dition " the State of Missouri was required to declare her assent in 
 the form of " a solemn public act." This joint resolution passed, and 
 was approved March 2, 1821, and is known as Mr. Clay s Missouri 
 Compromise, in contradistinction to that of 1820, which was intro 
 duced into the Senate by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois. In the month of 
 June, 1821, the legislature of Missouri assembled and passed the 
 "solemn public act, and furnished an authenticated copy thereof to 
 the President of the United States, in compliance with Mr. Clay s 
 compromise, or joint resolution. On August 10, 1821, James Mon 
 roe, President of the United States, issued his proclamation, in which, 
 after reciting the fact that on the 2d of March, 1821, Congress had 
 passed a joint resolution "providing for the admission of the State of 
 Missouri into the Union, on a certain condition ;" and that the gene 
 ral assembly of Missouri, on the 26th of June, having, "by a solemn 
 public act, declared the assent of the said State of Missouri to the 
 fundamental condition contained in said joint resolution, "and having 
 furnished him with an authentic copy thereof, he, u in pursuance <tf 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 117 
 
 the resolution of Congress aforesaid," declared the admission of Mis 
 souri to be complete. 
 
 I do not deem it necessary to discuss the question whether the 
 conditions upon which Missouri was admitted were wise or unwise. 
 It is sufficient for my present purpose to remark, that the " funda 
 mental condition " of her admission related to certain clauses in the 
 constitution of Missouri in respect to the migration of free negroes 
 into that State; clauses similar to those now in force in the consti 
 tutions of Illinois and Indiana, and perhaps other States ; clauses 
 similar to the provisions of law in force at that time in many of the 
 old States of the Union ; and, I will add, clauses which, in my opin 
 ion, Missouri had a right to adopt under the Constitution of the 
 United States. It is no answer to this position to say, that those 
 clauses in the constitution of Missouri were in violation of the Con 
 stitution. If they did conflict with the Constitution of the United 
 States, they were void ; if they were not in conflict, Missouri had a 
 right to put them there, and to pass all laws necessary to carry them 
 into effect. Whether such conflict did exist is a question which, by 
 the Constitution, can only be determined authoritatively by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States. Congress is not the appropri 
 ate and competent tribunal to adjudicate and determine questions of 
 conflict between the constitution of a State and that of the United 
 States. Had Missouri been admitted without any condition or re 
 striction, she would have had an opportunity of vindicating her con 
 stitution and rights in the Supreme Courtthe tribunal created by 
 the Constitution for that purpose. 
 
 By the condition imposed on Missouri, Congress not only deprived 
 that State of a right which she believed she possessed under the con 
 stitution of the United States, but denied her the privilege of vindi 
 cating that right in the appropriate and constitutional tribunals, by 
 compelling her, " by a solemn public act, 7 to give an irrevocable 
 pledge never to exercise cr claim the right. Therefore Missouri 
 came in under a humiliating condition a condition not imposed by 
 the Constitution of the United States, and which destroys the prin 
 ciple of equality which should exist, and by the Constitution does not 
 exist, between all the States of this Union. This inequality resulted 
 from Mr. Clay s compromise of 1821, and is the principle upon which 
 that compromise was constructed. I own that the act is couched in 
 general terms and vague phrases, and therefore may possibly be so 
 construed as not to deprive the State of any right she might pos 
 sess under the Constitution. Upon that point I wish only to say, 
 that such a construction makes the "fundamental condition" void, 
 while the apposite constructioti would demonstrate it to be uncon 
 stitutional. I have before me the "solemn public act" of Missouri 
 to this fundamental condition, whoever will take the trouble to 
 read it will find it the richest specimen of irony and sarcasm that has 
 ever been incorporated into a publie act. 
 
 Sir, in view of these facts I desire to call the attention of the sen 
 
118 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 ator from New York to a statement in his speech, upon which the 
 greater part of his argument rested. His statement was, and it is 
 now being published in every abolition paper, and repeated by the 
 whole tribe of abolition orators and lecturers, that Missouri was 
 admitted as a slaveholding State, under the act of 1820 ; while I have 
 shown, by the President s proclamation of August 10, 1821, that she 
 Avas admitted in pursuance of the resolution of March 2, 1821. 
 Thus it is shown that the material point of his speech is contra 
 dicted by the highest evidence the record in the case. The same 
 statement I believe was made by the senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
 Smith), and the senators from Ohio (Mr. Chase and Mr. Wade), and 
 the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner). Each of these sena 
 tors made and repeated this statement, and upon the strength of this 
 erroneous assertion called upon us to carry into effect the eighth sec 
 tion of the same act. The material fact upon which their arguments 
 rested being overthrown, of course their conclusions are erroneous 
 and deceptive. 
 
 ME. SEWAED. I hope the senator will yield for a moment, because 
 I have never had so much respect for him as I have to night. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I see what course I have to pursue in order to com 
 mand the senator s respect. I know now how to get it. (Laughter,) 
 
 ME. SEWAED. Any man who meets me boldly commands my res 
 pect. I say that Missouri would not not have been adraittted at all 
 into the Union by the United States except upon the compromise 
 of 1820. "When that point was settled about the restriction of sla 
 very it was settled in this way ; that she should corne in with slavery 
 and that all the rest of the Louisiana purchase, which is now known 
 as Nebraska, should be forever free from slavery. Missouri adopted 
 a constitution, which was thought by the northern States to infringe 
 upon the right of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution of the 
 United States, which was a new point altogether ; and upon that 
 point debate was held, and upon it a new compromise was made, and 
 Missouri came into the Union upon the agreement, that, in regard to 
 that question, she submitted to the Constitution of the United States, 
 and so she ras admitted into the Union. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I must remind the senator again 
 that I have already proven that he was in error in stating that the 
 _ jrth objected to the admission of Missouri merely on account of the 
 free-negro clause in her constitution. I have proven by the vote 
 that the North objected to her admission because she tolerated sla 
 very ; this objection was sustained by the North by a vote of nearly 
 two to one. He cannot shelter himself, therefore, tinder the free- 
 negro dodge, so long as there is a distinct vote of the North objecting 
 to her admission; because, in addition to complying with the act of 
 1820, she did not also prohibit slavery, which was the only consider 
 ation that the South was to have for agreeing to the prohibition of 
 slavery in the Territories. Then, having deprived the senator, by 
 conclusive evidence from the records, of that pretext, what do I drive 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 119 
 
 him to ? I compel him to acknowledge that a new compromise was 
 made. 
 
 MR. SEWARD. Certainly there was. 
 
 MB. DOUGLAS. Then, I ask, why was it made? Because the 
 North would not carry out the first one. And the best evidence 
 that the North did not carry out the first one is the senator s admis 
 sion that the South was compelled to submit to a new one. Then, if 
 there was a new compromise made, did Missouri come in under tho 
 new one or the old one? 
 
 MR. SEWAED. Under both. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. This is the first time, in this debate, it has been 
 intimated that Missouri came in under two acts of Congress. The 
 senator did not allude to the resolution of 1821 in his speech; none 
 of the opponents of this bill have said it. But it is now admitted 
 that she did not come into the Union under the act of 1820 alone. 
 She had been voted out under the first compromise, and this vote 
 compelled her to make a new one, and she came in under the new 
 one ; and yet the senator from New York, in his speech, declared to 
 the world that she came in under the first one. This is not an imma 
 terial question. His whole speech rests upon that misapprehension or 
 inisstatement of the record. 
 
 MR. SEWARD. You had better say misapprehension. 
 
 MB. DOUGLAS. Very well. We will call it by that name. His 
 whole argument depends upon that misapprehension. After stating 
 that the act of 1820 was a compact, and that the North performed its 
 part of it in good faith, he arraigns the friends of this bill for propos 
 ing to annul the eighth section of the act of 1820 without first turn 
 ing Missouri out of the Union, in order that slavery may be abo 
 lished therein by the act of Congress. He says to us, in substance : 
 u Gentlemen, if you are going to rescind the compact, have respect 
 for that great law of morals, of honesty, and of conscience which 
 compels you first to surrender the consideration which you have 
 received under the compact. " I concur with him in regard to 
 the obligation to restore the consideration when a contract is 
 rescinded. And inasmuch as the prohibition in the Territories north 
 of 36 30 was obtained, according to his own statement, by an 
 agreement to admit Missouri as a slaveholding State on an equal 
 footing with the original States, " in all respects whatsoever," as spe 
 cified in the first section of the act of 1820 ; and, inasmuch as 
 Missouri was refused admission under said act, and was compelled to 
 submit to a new compromise in 1821, and was then received into the 
 Union on a fundamental condition of inequality, I call on him and 
 his abolition confederates to restore the consideration which they 
 have received, in the shape of a prohibition of slavery north of 36 
 30 , under a compromise which they repudiated, and refused to carry 
 into effect. I call on them to correct the erroneous statement in 
 respect to the admission of Missouri, and to make a restitution of 
 the consideration by voting for this bill. I repeat, that this is not 
 
320 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 an immaterial statement. It is the point upon which the abolitionists 
 rest their whole argument. They could not get up a show of pre 
 text against the great principle of self-government involved in this 
 bill, if they could not repeat all the time, as the senator from New 
 York did in his speech, that Missouri came into the Union with 
 slavery, in conformity to the compact which was made by the act 
 of 1820, and that the South, having received the consideration, is 
 now trying to cheat the North out of her part of the benefits. I 
 have proven that, after abolitionism had gained its points so far as 
 the eighth section of the act prohibited slavery in the Territory, 
 Missouri was denied admission by northern votes until she entered 
 into a compact by which she was understood to surrender an impor 
 tant right now exercised by several States of the Union. 
 
 Mr. President, I did not wish to refer to these things. I did not 
 understand them fully in all their bearings at the time I made my 
 first speech on this subject; and, so far as I was familiar with them, 
 I made as little reference to them as was consistent with my duty ; 
 because it was a mortifying reflection to me, as a northern man, that 
 we had not been able, in consequence of the abolition excitement 
 at the time, to avoid the appearance of bad faith in the obsenanro 
 of legislation, which has been denominated a compromise. There 
 were a few men then, as there are now, who had the moral counige 
 to perform their duty to the country and the Constitution, regardless 
 of consequences personal to themselves. There were ten northern 
 men who dared to perform their duty by voting to admit Missouri 
 into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and with 
 no other restriction than that imposed by the Constitution. I am 
 aware that they were abused and denounced as we are now ; that 
 they were branded as dough-faces, traitors to freedom, and to the 
 eection of the country whence they come. 
 
 MR. GEYER. They honored Mr. Lanman, of Connecticut, by burn 
 ing him in effigy. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir; these abolitionists honored Mr. Lanman 
 in Connecticut just as they are honoring me in Boston, and other 
 places, by burning me in effigy. 
 
 MR. CASS. It w r ill do you no harm. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Well, sir, I know it will not ; but why this burning 
 in effigy? It is the legitimate consequences of the address which 
 was sent forth to the world by certain senators, whom I denominated, 
 on a former occasion, as the abolition confederates. The senator 
 from Ohio presented here the other day a resolution he says unin 
 tentionally, and I take it so declaring that every senator who advo 
 cated this bill was a traitor to his country, to humanity, and to God ; 
 and even he seemed to be shocked at the results of his own advice 
 when it was exposed. Yet he did not seem to know that it was, in 
 substance, what he had advised in his address, over his own signa 
 ture, when he called upon the people to assemble in public meetinga 
 and thunder forth their indignation at the criminal betrayal of pre- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 121 
 
 cious rights ; when he appealed to ministers of the Gospel to desecrato 
 their holy calling, and attempted to inflame passions, and fanaticism, 
 and prejudice against senators who would not consider themselves 
 very highly complimented by being called his equals ? And yet, when 
 the natural consequences of his own action and advice came back 
 upon him, and he presents them here, and is called to an account for 
 the indecency of the act, he professes his profound regret and surprise 
 that anything should have occurred which could possibly be deemed 
 unkind or disrespectful to any member of this body ! 
 
 ********* 
 
 The senator s explanation does not help him at all. He says he 
 did not state under what act Missouri came in; but he did say, as I 
 understood him, that the act of 1820 was a compact, and that, accord 
 ing to that compact, Missouri was to come in with slavery, provided 
 slavery should be prohibited in certain Territories, and did come in 
 in pursuance of the compact. He now uses the word " compact." 
 To what compact does he allude ? Is it not to the act of 1820 ? If he 
 did not, what becomes of his conclusion that the eighth section of that 
 act is irrepealable? He will not venture to deny that his reference 
 was to the act of 1820. Did he refer to the joint resolution of 1821, 
 under which Missouri was admitted? If so, we do not propose to 
 repeal it. We admit that it was a compact, and that its obligations 
 are irrevocably fixed. But that joint resolution does not prohibit 
 slavery in the Territories. The Nebraska Bill does not propose to 
 repeal it, or impair its obligation in any way. Then, sir, why not 
 take back your correction, and admit that you did mean the act of 
 1820, when you spoke of irrevocable obligations and compacts? 
 Assuming then, that the senator meant what he is now unwilling 
 either to admit or deny, even while professing to correct me, that 
 Missouri came in under the act of 1820, I aver that I have proven 
 that she did not come into the Union under that act. I have proven 
 that she was refused admission under that alleged compact. I 
 have, therefore, proven incontestably that the material statement 
 upon which his argument rests is wholly without foundation, and 
 unequivocally contradicted by the record. 
 
 Sir, I believe I may say the same of every speech which has been 
 made against the bill, upon the ground that it impared the obligation 
 o % compacts. There has not been an argument against the measure, 
 every word of which in regard to the faith of compacts is not con 
 tradicted by the public records. What I complain of is this: The 
 people may think that a senator, having the laws and journals before 
 him, to which he could refer, would not make a statement in contra 
 diction of those records. They make the people believe these things, 
 and cause them to do great injustice to others, under the delusion 
 that they have been wronged, and their feelings outraged. Sir, this 
 address did for a time mislead the whole country. It made the legis 
 lature of New York believe that the act of 1820 was a compact which 
 it would be disgraceful to violate; and, acting under that delusion, 
 
 6 
 
122 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 they framed a series of resolutions, which, if true and just, convict 
 that State of an act of perfidy and treachery unparalleled in the his 
 tory of free governments. You see, therefore, the consequence of 
 these inisstatements. You degrade your own State, and induce the 
 people, under the impression that they have been injured, to get up 
 a violent crusade against those whose fidelity and truthfulness will in 
 the end command their respect and admiration. In consequence of 
 arousing passions and prejudices, I am now to be found in effigy, 
 hanging by the neck, in all the towns where you have the influence 
 to produce such a result. In all these excesses, the people are yield 
 ing to an honest impulse, under the impression that a grievous 
 wrong has been perpetrated. You have had your day of triumph. 
 You have succeeded in directing upon the heads of others a torrent 
 of insult and calumny from which even you shrink with horror, when 
 the fact is exposed that you have become the conduits for conveying 
 it into this hall. In your State, sir (addressing himself to Mr. Chase) 
 I find I am burnt in effigy in your abolition towns. All this is done 
 because I have proposed, as it is said, to violate a compact! Now, 
 what will those people think of you when they find out that you 
 have stimulated them to these acts, which are disgraceful to your 
 State, disgraceful to your party, and disgraceful to your cause, under 
 a misrepresentation of the facts, which misrepresentation you ought 
 to have been aware of, and should never have been made. 
 
 ME. CHASE. Will the senator permit me to say a few words ? 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Certainly. 
 
 MR. CHASE. Mr. President, I certainly regret* that anything has 
 occurred in my State which should be otherwise than in accordance 
 with the disposition which I trust I have ever manifested to treat 
 the senator from Illinois with entire courtesy. I do not wish, how 
 ever, to be understood, here or elsewhere, as retracting any state 
 ment which I have made, or being ^unwilling to reassert that state 
 ment when it is directly impeached. I regard the admission of Mis 
 souri, and the facts of the transaction connected with it, as constitut 
 ing a compact between the two sections of the country ; a part of 
 which was fulfilled in the admission of Missouri, another part in the 
 admission of Arkansas, and other parts of which have been fulfilled in 
 the admission of Iowa, and the organization of Minnesota, but which 
 yet remains to be fulfilled in respect to the Territory of Nebraska, 
 and which, in my judgment, will be vioalated by the repeal of the 
 Missouri prohibition. That is my judgment. I have no quarrel with 
 senators who differ with me ; but upon the whole facts of the trans 
 action, however, I have not changed my opinion at all, in conse 
 quence of what has been said by the honorable senator from Illinois. 
 1 say that the facts of the transaction, taken together, and as under 
 stood by the country for more than thirty years, constitute a cam- 
 pact binding in moral force; though, as I have always said, being 
 embodied in a legislative act, it may be repealed by Congress, if Con 
 gress see fit. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 123 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I am sorry that the senator from 
 Ohio lias repeated the statement that Missouri came in under the 
 compact which he says was made by the act of 1820. How many 
 times have I to disprove the statement? Does not the vote to which 
 J have referred show that such was not the case? Does not the fact; 
 that there was a necessity for a new compromise show it ? Have I 
 not proved it three times over? and is it possible that the senator 
 from Ohio will repeat it in the face of the record, with the vote star 
 ing him in the face, and with the evidence which I have produced ? 
 Does he suppose that he can make his own people believe that his 
 statement ought to be credited in opposition to the solemn record ? 
 I am amazed that the senator should repeat the statement again 
 unsustained by the fact, by the record, and by the evidence, and 
 overwhelmed by the whole current and weight of the testimony 
 which I have produced. 
 
 The senator says, also, that he never intended to do me injustice, 
 and he is sorry that the people of his State have acted in the manner 
 to which 1 have referred. Sir, did he n-ot say, in the same document 
 to which I have already alluded, that I was engaged, with others, in 
 "a criminal betrayal of precious rights," in an "atrocious plot?" 
 Did he not say that I and others were guilty of " meditated bad 
 faith ?" Are riot these his exact words ? Did he not say that " ser 
 vile demagogues" might make the people believe certain things, or 
 attempt to do so ? Did he not say everything calculated to produce 
 and bring upon my head all the insults to which I have been sub 
 jected publicly and privately not even excepting the insulting let 
 ters which I have received from his constituents, rejoicing at my 
 domestic bereavements, and praying that other and similar calami 
 ties may befall me ? All these have resulted from that address. I 
 expected such consequences when I first saw it. In it he called upon 
 the preachers of the Gospel to prostitute the sacred desk in stimu 
 lating excesses ; and then, for fear that the people would not know 
 who it was that was to be insulted and calumniated, he told them, 
 in a postscript, that Mr. Douglas was the author of all this iniquity, 
 and that they ought not to allow their rights to be made the hazard 
 of a Presidential game ! After having used such language, he says 
 meant no disrespect he meant nothing unkind ! He was amazed 
 that I said in my opening speech that there was anything offensive 
 in this address ; and he could not suffer himself to use harsh epithets, 
 or to impugn a gentleman s motives! No! not he! After having 
 deliberately written all these insults, impugning motive and charac 
 ter, and calling upon our holy religion to sanctify the calumny, he 
 could not think of losing his dignity by bandying epithets, or using 
 harsh and disrespectful terms ! 
 
 Mr. President, 1 expected all that has occurred, and more than 
 has come, as the legitimate result of that address. The things to 
 which I referred are the natural consequences of it. The only re 
 venge I seek is to expose the authors, and leave them to bear, as best 
 
124: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 they may, the just indignation of an honest community, when tha 
 people discover how their sympathies and feelings have been out 
 raged, by making them the instruments in performing such desper 
 ate acts. 
 
 Sir, even in Boston 1 have been hung in effigy. I may say that I 
 expected it to occur even there, for the senator from Massachusetts 
 lives there. He signed his name to that address ; and for fear the 
 Boston abolitionists would not know that it was he, he signed it 
 " Charles Simmer, senator from Massachusetts." The first outrage 
 was in Ohio, where the address was circulated under the signature 
 of " Salmon P. Chase, senator from Ohio." The next came from 
 Boston the same Boston, sir, which, under the direction of the 
 same leaders, closed Faneuil Hall to the immortal Webster in 1850, 
 because of his support of the Compromise measures of that year, 
 which all now confess have restored peace and harmony to a dis 
 tracted country. Yes, sir, even Boston, so glorious in her early his 
 tory Boston, around whose name so many historical associations 
 cling, to gratify the heart and exalt the pride of every American 
 could be led astray by abolition misrepresentations so far as to deny 
 a hearing to her own great man, who had shed so much glory upon 
 Massachusetts and her metropolis I I know that Boston now feels 
 humiliated and degraded by the act. And, sir (addressing himself to 
 Mr. Surnncr), you will remember that when you came into the Sen 
 ate, and sought an opportunity to put forth your abolition incendi 
 arism, you appealed to our sense of justice by the sentiment, "Strike, 
 but hear me first." But when Webster went back in 1850 to speak 
 to his constituents in his own self-defence, to tell the truth, and to 
 expose his slanderers, you would not hear him, but you struck first! 
 
 Again, sir, even Boston, with her Faneuil Hall consecrated to 
 liberty, was so far led astray by abolitionism, that when one of her 
 gallant sons gallant by his own glorious deeds, inheriting a heroic 
 Revolutionary name, had given his life to his country upon the bloody 
 field of Buena Vista; and when his remains were brought home, 
 even that Boston, under abolition guidance and abolition preaching, 
 denied him a (>ecent burial, because he lost his life in vindicating his 
 country s honor upon the southern frontier ! Even the name of Lin 
 coln, and the deeds of Lincoln, could not secure for him a decent 
 interment, because abolitionism follows a patriot beyond the grave. 
 (Applause in the galleries.) 
 
 THE PRESIDING OFFICER (ME. MASON in the chair). Order must 
 be preserved. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, with these facts before me, how 
 could I hope to escape the fate which had followed these great and 
 good men ? While I had no right to hope that I might be honored as 
 they had been, under abolition auspices, have I not a right to be 
 proud of the distinction and the association ? Mr. President, I regret 
 these digressions. I have not been abla to follow the line of argu 
 ment which I had marked out for myself, because of the many inter* 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 125 
 
 ruptions. I do not complain of them. It is fair that gentlemen 
 should make them, inasmuch as they have not the opportunity 01 
 replying; hence I have yielded the floor, and propose to do so cheer 
 fully whenever any senator intimates that justice to him or his posi 
 tion requires him to say anything in reply. 
 
 Returning to the pomt from which I was diverted : 
 
 I think I have shown that, if the act of 182$ called the Missouri 
 Compromise, was a compact, it was violated and repudiated by a 
 solemn vote of the House of Representatives in 1821, within eleven 
 months after it was adopted. It was repudiated by the North by a 
 majority vote, and that repudiation was so complete and successful as 
 to compel Missouri to make a new compromise, and she was brought 
 into the Union under the new compromise of 1821, and not under 
 the act of 1820. This reminds me of another point made in nearly 
 all the speeches against this bill, and, if I recollect right, was- alluded 
 to in the abolition manifesto; to which, I regret to say, I had occa 
 sion to refer so often. I refer to the significant hint that Mr. Clay 
 was dead before any one dared to bring forward a proposition to 
 undo the greatest work of his hands, the senator from New York 
 (Mr. Seward) has seized upon this insinuation, and elaborated it, per 
 haps, more fully than his compeers; and now the abolition press 
 suddenly, and as if by miraculous conversion, teems with eulogies 
 upon Mr Clay and his Missouri Compromise of 1820. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, does not each of these senators know that Mr. 
 Clay was not the author of the act of 1820? Do they not know that 
 he disclaimed it in 1850 in this body? Do they not know that the 
 Missouri restriction did not originate in the house of which he was a 
 member? Do they not know that Mr. Clay never came into the Mis 
 souri controversy as a compromiser until after the compromise of 
 1820 was repudiated, and it became necessary to make another ? I 
 dislike to be compelled to repeat what I have conclusively proven, 
 that the compromise which Mr Clay effected was the act of 1821, un 
 der which Missouri came into the Union, and not the act of 1820. 
 Mr. Clay made that compromise after you had repudiated the first 
 one. How, then, dare you call upon the spirit of that great and gal 
 lant statesman to sanction your charge of bad faith against the South 
 on this question ? 
 
 ME. SEWARD. "Will the senator allow me a moment? 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Certainly. 
 
 ME. SEWAED. In the year 1851 or 1852, 1 think 1851, a medal was 
 struck in honor of Henry Clay, of gold, which cost a large sum of 
 money, which contained eleven acts of the life of Henry Clay. It 
 was presented to him by a committee of citizens of New York, by 
 whom it had been made. One of the eleven acts of his life which 
 was celebrated on that medal, which he accepted, was the Missouri 
 Compromise of 1820. This is my answer. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Are the words " of 1820 " upon it? 
 
 ME, SEWAED. It commemorates the Missouri Compromise. 
 
126 LIFE OF STEPHEN A . DOUGLAS. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Exactly. I have seen that medal ; and my recol 
 lection is that it does not contain the words " of 1820." One of the 
 great acts of Mr. Clay was the Missouri Compromise, but what Mis 
 souri Compromise? Of course, the one which Henry Clay made, the 
 one which he negotiated, the one which brought Missouri into the 
 Union, and which settled the controversy. That was the act of 1821, 
 and not the act of 1820. It tends to confirm the statement which I 
 have made. History is misread and misquoted, and these statements 
 have been circulated and disseminated broadcast through the country, 
 concealing the truth. Does not the senator know that Henry Clay, 
 when occupying that seat in 1850 (pointing to Mr. Clay s chair), in 
 his speech of the 6th of February of that year, said that nothing had 
 struck him with so much surprise as the fact that historical circum 
 stances soon passed out of recollection ; and he instanced, as a casein 
 point, the error of attributing to him the act of 1820. (Mr. Seward 
 nodded assent.) The senator from New York says that he does 
 remember that Mr. Clay did say so. If so, how is it, then, that he 
 presumes now to rise and quote that medal as evidence that Henry 
 Clay was the author of the act of 1820? 
 
 MB. SKWAED. I answer the senator in this way : that Henry Clay, 
 while he said he did not disavow or disapprove of that compromise, 
 transferred the merit of it to others who were more active in procur 
 ing it than he, while he had enjoyed the praise and the glory which 
 were due from it. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. To that I have only to say, that it cannot be the 
 reason; fur Henry Clay, in that same speech, did take to himself the 
 merit of the compromise of 1821, and hence it could not have been 
 modesty which made him disavow the other. He said that he did 
 not know whether he had voted for the act of 1820 or not; but lie 
 supposed that he had done so. He furthermore said that it did not 
 originate in the house of which he was a member, and that he never 
 did approve of its principles; but that he may have voted, and pro 
 bably did vote for it, under the pressure of the circumstances. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, as I have been doing justice to Mr. Clay on 
 this question, perhaps I may as well do justice to another great man, 
 who was associated with him in carrying through the great measures 
 of 1850, which mortified the senator from New York so much, 
 because they defeated his purpose of carrying on the agitation. I 
 allude to Mr. "Webster. The authority of his great name has been 
 quoted for the purpose of proving that he regarded the Missouri Act 
 as a compact an irrepealable compact. Evidently the distinguished 
 senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett) supposed that he was doing 
 Mr. Webster entire justice when he quoted the passage which he read 
 from Mr. "Webster s speech of the 7th of March, 1850, when he said 
 that he stood upon the position that every part of the American con 
 tinent was fixed for freedom or for slavery by irrepeal&ole law. 
 
 The senator says that, by the expression "irrepealable law," Mr. 
 Webster meant to include the compromise of 1820. Now, I will 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 127 
 
 show that that was not Mr. Webster s meaning that he was never 
 guilty of the mistake of saying that the Missouri Act of 1820 was an 
 irrepealable law. Mr. Webster said in that speed), that every foot 
 of territory in the United States was fixed as to its character for free 
 dom or slavery by an irrepealable law. He then inquired if it was 
 not so in regard to Texas? He went on to prove that it was; be 
 cause, he said, there was a compact in express terms between Texas 
 and the United States. He said the parties were capable of contract 
 ing, and that there was a valuable consideration ; and hence, he con 
 tended, that in that case there was a contract binding in honor, and 
 morals, and law ; and that it was irrepealable without a breach of 
 faith. 
 
 He went on to say : 
 
 "Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded from 
 those Territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it 
 in Texas I mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law of the 
 formation of the earth." 
 
 That was the irrepealable law which he said prohibited slavery in 
 the Territories of Utah and New Mexico. He next went on to speak 
 of the prohibition of slavery in Oregon, and he said it was an "en 
 tirely useless, and, in that connection, senseless proviso." 
 
 He went farther, and said : 
 
 " That the whole territory of the States in the United States, or in the 
 newly-acquired territory of the United States, has a fixed and settled character, 
 now iixed and settled by law, which cannot be repealed in the case of Texas 
 without a violation of public faith, and cannot be repealed by any human 
 ]>o\ver in regard to California or New Mexico ; that, under one or other of these 
 laws, every foot of territory in the States, or in the Territories, has now 
 received a fixed and decided character." 
 
 What irrepealable laws? "One or the other " of those which he 
 had stated. One was the Texas compact, the other the law of nature 
 and physical geography ; and he contended that one or the other 
 fixed the character of the whole American continent for freedom or 
 for slavery. He never alluded to the Missouri Compromise, unless it 
 was by the allusion to the Wilmot Proviso in the Oregon Bill, and 
 there he said it was a useless, and, in that connection, seaseless 
 thing. Why was it a useless and a senseless thing ? Because it was 
 re-enacting the law of God; because slavery had already been pro 
 hibited by physical geography. Sir, that was the meaning of Mr. 
 Webster s speech. My distinguished friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
 Everett), when he reads the speech again, will be utterly amazed to 
 see how he fell into such an egregious error as to suppose that Mr. 
 Webster had so far fallen from his high position as to say that thb 
 Missouri Act of 1820 was an irrepealable law. 
 
 ME. EVEEETT. Will the gentleman give way for a moment? 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. With great pleasure. 
 
 MB. EVEEETT. What I said on that subject was, that Mr. Webster, 
 
128 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 in my opinion, considered the Missouri Compromise as of the nature 
 of a compact. It is true, as the senator from Illinois has just stated, 
 that Mr. Webster made no allusion, in express terms, to the subject 
 of the Missouri restriction. But I thought then, and I think now, 
 that he referred in general terms to that as a linal settlement of the 
 question, in the region to which it applied. It was not drawn in 
 question then on either side of the House. Nobody suggested that 
 it was at stake. Nobody intimated that there was a question before the 
 Senate whether that restriction should be repealed or should remain in 
 force. It was not distinctly, and in terms, alluded to, as the gentle 
 man correctly says, by Mr. Webster or anybody else. What he said 
 in reference td Texas, applied to Texas alone. W hat he said in refer 
 ence to Utah and New Mexico, applied to them alone ; and what he 
 said with regard to Oregon, to that Territory alone. But he stated 
 in general terms, and four or five times, in the speech of the 7th of 
 March, 1850, that there was not a foot of land in the United States 
 or its Territories, the character of which, for freedom of slavery, was 
 not fixed by some irrepealable law ; and I did think then, and I 
 think now, that by the " irrepealable law," as far as concerned the 
 territory north of 36 30 and included in the Louisiana purchase, 
 Mr. Webster had reference to the Missouri restriction, as regarded as 
 of the nature of a compact. That restriction was copied from one 
 of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787, which are declared in 
 that instrument itself to be articles of compact. The Missouri 
 restriction is the article of the Ordinance of 1787 applied to tho 
 Louisiana purchase. That this is the correct interpretation of Mr. 
 Webster s language, is confirmed by the fact that he said more than 
 once, and over again, that all the North lost by the arrangement of 
 1859, was the non-imposition of the Wilmot Proviso upon Utah and 
 New Mexico. If, in addition to that, the North had lost the Missouri 
 restriction over the whole of the Louisiana purchase, could he have 
 used language of that kind, and would he not have attempted, in 
 some way or other, to reconcile such a momentous fact with his 
 repeated statements that the measures of 1850 applied only to the 
 territories newly acquired from Mexico ? 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I will explain that matter very 
 quickly. Mr. Webster s speech was made on the 7th of March, 1850, 
 and the Territorial bills and the Texas boundary bill were first re 
 ported to the Senate by myself on the 25th of the same month. Mr. 
 Webster s speech was made upon Mr. Clay s resolution, when there 
 was no bill pending. Then the Omnibus Bill was formed about the 
 1st of May subsequently; and hence this explains the reason why 
 Mr. Webster did not refer to the principle involved in these acts, and 
 to the necessary effect of carrying out the principle. 
 
 MR. EVEEETT. The expression of Mr. Webster, which I quoted in 
 my remarks on the 8th of February, was from a speech of Mr. Soule s 
 amendment, offered, I think, in June. In addition to this, I have 
 before me an extract from a still later speech of Mr. Webster, made 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 129 
 
 quite lato in the session, on the 17th of July, 1850, in which he reit 
 erated that statement. In it he said : 
 
 " And now, sir, what do Massachusetts and the North, the anti-slavery States, 
 lose by this adjustment? What is it they lose ? I put that question to every 
 gentleman here, and to every gentleman in the country. They lose the appli 
 cation of what is called the Wilmot Proviso to these Territories,, and that is 
 all. There is nothing else, I suppose, that the whole North are not ready to do. 
 They wish to get California into the Union ; they wish to quiet New Mexico ; 
 they desire to terminate the dispute about the Texan boundary in any reason 
 able manner, cost what it reasonably may. They make no sacrifice in all that. 
 What they do sacrifice is exactly this : The application of the Wilmot Proviso 
 to the Territory of New Mexico and the Territory of Utah, and that is all." 
 
 Could Mr. Webster have used language like this if he had under 
 stood that, at the same time, the non-slaveholding States were losing 
 the Missouri restriction, as applied to the whole vast territory in 
 cluded in the bills now before the Senate ? 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Of course that was all, and if he regarded the Mis 
 souri prohibition in the same light that he did the Oregon prohibi 
 tion, it was a useless, and, in that connection, a senseless proviso ; 
 and hence the North lost nothing by not having that same senseless, 
 useless proviso applied to Utah and New Mexico. Now, to show the 
 senator that he must be mistaken as to Mr. Webster s authority, let 
 me call his attention back to this passage in his 7th of March speech : 
 
 " Under one or other of these laws, every foot of territory in the States or 
 Territories has now received a fixed and decided character. * 
 
 What laws did he refer to when he spoke of " one or other of these 
 laws?" He had named but two, the Texas compact and the law of 
 nature, of climate, and physical geography, which excluded slavery. 
 He had mentioned none other ; and yet he says " one or other" pro 
 hibited slavery in all the States or Territories thus including Ne 
 braska, as well as Utah and New Mexico. 
 
 MR. EVEEETT. That was not drawn in question at all. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Then if it was not drawn in question, the speech 
 should not have been quoted in support of the Missouri Compromise. 
 It is just what I complain of, that, if it was not thus drawn in ques 
 tion, that use ought not to have- been made of it. Now, Mr. Presi 
 dent, it is well known that Mr. Webster supported the Compromise 
 measures of 1850, and the principle involved in them, of leaving the 
 people to do as they pleased upon this subject. I think, therefore, 
 that I have shown that these gentlemen are not authorized to quote 
 the name either of Mr. Webster or Mr. Clay in support of the posi 
 tion which they take, that this bill violates the faith of compacts. 
 Sir, it was because Mr. Webster went for giving the people in the 
 Territories the right to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, 
 and because he was in favor of carrying out the Constitution in re 
 gard to fugitive slaves, that he was not allowed to speak in FaneuiJ 
 Hall. 
 
 6* 
 
130 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 MR. EVERETT. That was not my fault. 
 
 MR. DOUG-LAS. I know it was not ; but I say it was because ha 
 took that position ; it was because he did not go for a prohibitory 
 policy ; it was because he advocated the same principles which I now 
 advocate, because he went for the same provisions in the Utah Bill 
 which I now sustain in this bill, that Boston abolitionists turned 
 their backs upon him, just as they burnt me in effigy. Sir, if identity 
 of principle, if identity of support as friends, if identity of enemies 
 fix Mr. Webster s position, his authority is certainly with us, and not 
 with the abolitionists. I have a right, therefore, to have the sympa 
 thies of his Boston friends with me, as I sympathized with him when 
 the same principle was involved. 
 
 Mr. President, I am sorry that I have taken up so much time ; but 
 I must notice one or two points more. So much has been said about 
 the Missouri Compromise Act, and about a faithful compliance with 
 it by the North, that I must follow that matter a little further. The 
 senator from Ohio (Mr. Wade) has referred, to-night, to the fact that 
 I went for carrying out the Missouri Compromise in the Texas reso 
 lutions of 1845, and in 1848, on several occasions; and he actually 
 proved that I never abandoned it until 1850. He need not have 
 taken the pains to prove that fact ; for he got all his information on 
 the subject from my opening speech upon this bill. I told you then 
 that I was willing, as a northern man, in 1845, when the Texas ques 
 tion arose, to carry the Missouri Compromise line through that State, 
 and in 1848 I offered it as an amendment to the Oregon Bill. Al 
 though I did not like the principle involved in that act, yet I was 
 willing, for the sake of harmony, to extend to the Pacific, and abide 
 by it in good faith, in order to avoid the slavery agitation. The 
 Missouri Compromise was defeated then by the same class of politi 
 cians who are now combined in opposition to the Nebraska Bill. It 
 was because we were unable to carry out that compromise, that a 
 necessity existed for making a new one in 1850. And then we estab 
 lished this great principle of self-government which lies at the foun 
 dation of all our institutions. What does his charge amount to ? 
 He charges it, as a matter of offence, that I struggled in 1845 and in 
 1848 to observe good faith; and he and his associates defeated my 
 purpose, and deprived me of the ability to carry out what he now 
 says is the plighted faith of the nation. 
 
 Sir, as I have said, the South were willing to agree to the Missouri 
 Compromise in 1848. When it was proposed by me to the Oregon 
 Bill, as an amendment, to extend that line to the Pacific, the South 
 agreed to it. The Senate adopted that proposition, and the House 
 voted it down. In 1850, after the Omnibus Bill had broken down, 
 and we proceeded to pass the Compromise measures separately, I 
 proposed, when the Utah Bill was under discussion, to make a slight 
 variation of the boundary of that Territory, so as to include the Mor 
 mon settlements, and not with reference to any other question ; and 
 it, was suggested that we should take the line of 30 30 . That would 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 131 
 
 have accomplished the local objects of the amendment very well. 
 But when I proposed it, what did these freesoilers say ? What did 
 the senator from Kew Hampshire (Mr. Hale), who was then their 
 leader in this body, say ? Here are his words : 
 
 " MR. HALE. I wish to say a word as a reason why I shall vote against the 
 amendment. I shall vote against 36 30 , because I think there is an implica 
 tion in it. (Laughter.) I Avill vote for 37 or 36 either, just as it is conve 
 nient ; but it is idle to shut our eyes to the fact that here is an attempt in this 
 bill I will not say it is the intention of the mover to pledge this Senate and 
 Congress to the imaginary line of 36 30 , because there are some historical 
 recollections connected with it in regard to this controversy about slavery. I 
 will content myself with saying that I never will, by vote or speech, admit or 
 submit to anything that may bind the action of our legislation here to make 
 the parallel of 30 30 the boundary line between slave and free territory. And 
 when I say that, I explain the reason why I go against the amendment." 
 
 These remarks of Mr. Hale were not made on a proposition to ex 
 tend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, but on a proposition 
 to fix 36 30 as the southern boundary line of Utah, for local rea 
 sons. He was against it because there might be, as he said, an impli 
 cation growing out of historical recollections in favor of the imaginary 
 line between slavery and freedom. Does that look as if his object 
 was to get an implication in favor of preserving sacred this line, in 
 regard to which gentlemen now say there was a solemn compact ? 
 That proposition may illustrate what I wish to say in this connection 
 upon a point which has been made by the opponents of this bill, as 
 to the effect of an amendment inserted on the motion of the senator 
 from Virginia (Mr. Mason), into the Texas Boundary Bill. The oppo 
 nents of this measure rely upon that amendment to show that the 
 Texas compact was preserved by the acts of 1850. I have already 
 shown, in my former speech, that the object of the amendment was 
 to guaranty to the State of Texas, with her circumscribed boundaries, 
 the same number of States which she would have had under her 
 larger boundaries, and with the same right to come in with or with 
 out slavery, as they please. 
 
 We have been told over and over again that there was no such 
 thing intimated in debate as that the country cut off from Texas was 
 to be relieved from the stipulation of that compromise. This haa 
 been asserted boldly and unconditionally, as if there could be no 
 doubt about it. The senator from Georgia (Mr. Toombs), in his 
 speech, showed that, in his address to his constituents of that State, 
 he had proclaimed to the world that the object was to establish a 
 principle which would allow the people to decide the question of 
 slavery for themselves, north as well as south of 36 30 . The line 
 of 36 30 was voted down as the boundary of Utah, so that there 
 should not be even an implication in favor of an imaginary line to 
 divide freedom and slavery. Subsequently, when the Texas Boun 
 dary Bill was under consideration, on the next day after the amend 
 ment of tho senator from Virginia had been adopted, the record 
 
132 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 " MR. SEBASTIAN movedto add to the second article the following : 
 " On the condition that the territory hereby ceded may be, at the proper 
 time, formed into a State, and admitted into the Union, with a constitution 
 with or without the prohibition of slavery therein, as the people of the said 
 Territory may at the time determine. " 
 
 Then the senator from Arkansas did propose that the territory cut 
 off should be relieved from that restriction in express terms, and 
 allowed to come in according to the principles of this bill. "What 
 was done ? The debate continued : 
 
 "MR. FOOTE. Will my friend allow me to appeal to him to move this 
 amendment when the Territorial Bill for New Mexico shall be up for consider 
 ation ? It will certainly be a part of that bill, and I shall then vote for it with 
 pleasure. Now it will only embarrass our action." 
 
 Let it be remarked, that no one denied the propriety of the provi 
 sion. All seemed to acquiesce in the principle ; but it was thought 
 better to insert it in the Territorial bills, as we are now doing, instead 
 of adding it to the Texas Boundary Bill. The debate proceeded : 
 
 " MR. SEBASTIAN My only object in offering the amendment is to secure 
 
 the assertion of this principle beyond a doubt. The principle was acquiesced 
 in without difficulty in regard to the Territorial government established for 
 Utah, a part of this acquired territory, and it is proper, in my opinion, that it 
 should be incorporated in this bill. 
 
 "MESSRS. CASS, FOOTE, and others Oh, withdraw it. 
 
 "MR. SEBASTIAN. I think this is the proper place for it. It is uncertain 
 whether it will be incorporated in the other bill referred to, and the bill itself 
 may not pass." 
 
 It will be seen that the debate goes upon the supposition that the 
 effect was to release the country north of 36 30 from the obligation 
 of the prohibition ; and the only question, was whether the declara 
 tion that it should be received into the Union "with or without 
 slavery," should be inserted in the Texas Bill or the Territorial Bill. 
 
 The* debate was continued, and I will read one or two other pas 
 sages : 
 
 "MR. FOOTE. I wish to state to the senator a fact of which, I think, he is 
 not observant at this moment ; and that is, that the senator from Virginia has 
 introduced an amendment, which is now a part of the bill, which recognizes 
 the Texas compact of annexation in every respect. 
 
 "MR. SEBASTIAN. I was aware of the effect of the amendment of the sena 
 tor from Virginia. It is in regard to the number of States to be formed out 
 of Texas, and is referred to only in general terms." 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the senator from Arkansas then explained 
 the amendment of the senator from Virginia, which had been 
 adopted, in precisely the same way in which I explained il in my 
 opening speech. The senator from Arkansas continued: 
 
 " If this amendment be the same as that offered by the senator from Vir 
 ginia, there can certainly be no harm in reaffirming it iu this bill, to which I 
 think it property belongs." 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 133 
 
 Thus it will be seen that nobody disputed that the restriction was 
 to be removed; and the only question was, as to the bill in which 
 that declaration would be put. It seems, from the record, that I 
 took part in the debate, and said : 
 
 "Mil. DOUGLAS. This boundary as now fixed, would leave New Mexico 
 bounded on the east by the 103 of longitude up to 36 30 , and then east to 
 100 ; and it leaves a narrow neck of land between 36 30 and the old bound 
 ary of Texas, that would not naturally and properly go to New Mexico when it 
 should become a State. This amendment would compel us to include it in 
 New Mexico, or to form it into another State. When the principle shall come 
 up in the bill for the organization of a Territorial government for New Mexico, 
 no doubt the same vote which inserted it in the Omnibus Bill, and the Utah 
 Bill, will insert it there. 
 
 " Several senators. No doubt of it."- 
 
 Upon that debate the amendment of the senator from Arkansay 
 was voted down, because it was avowed and distinctly understood 
 that the amendment of the senator from Virginia, taken in connection 
 with the remainder of the bill, did release the country ceded by 
 Texas north of 36 30 from the restriction; and it was agreed that 
 if we did not put it into the Texas Boundary Bill it should go into 
 the Territorial Bill. I stated, as a reason why it should not go into 
 the Texas Boundary Bill, that if it did it would be a compact, and 
 would compel us to put the whole ceded country into one State, 
 when it might be more convenient and natural to make a different 
 boundary. I pledged myself then that it should be put into the 
 Territorial Bill; and when we considered the Territorial bill for 
 New Mexico, we put in the same clause, so far as the country ceded 
 by Texas was embraced within that Territory, and it passed in that 
 shape. When it went into the house, they united the two bills 
 together, and thus this clause passed in the same bill, as the senator 
 from Arkansas desired. 
 
 Now, sir, have I not shown conclusively that it was the under 
 standing in that debate that the effect was to release the country 
 north of 36 30 , which formerly belonged to Texas, from the opera 
 tion of that restriction, and to provide that it should come into the 
 Union with or without slavery, as its people should see proper? 
 
 That being the case ; I ask the senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) if 
 he ought not to have been cautious when he charged over and over 
 again that there was not a word or a syllable uttered in debate to 
 that effect? Should he not have been cautious when he said that 
 it was a mere after-thought on my part? Should he not have been 
 cautious when he said that I never even dreamed of it up to the 4th 
 of January of this year? Whereas the record shows that I made a 
 speech to that effect during the pendency of the bills of 1850. The 
 same statement was repeated by nearly every senator who followed 
 him in debate in opposition to this bill ; and it is now being circulated 
 over the country, published in every abolition paper, and read on 
 every stump by every abolition orator, in order to get up a prejudice 
 
134: TJIE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 against me and the measure I have introduced. Those gentlemen 
 should not have dared to utter the statement without knowing 
 whether it was correct or not. These records are troublesome things 
 sometimes. It is not proper for a man to charge another with a 
 mere after-thouirht because he did not know that he had advocated 
 the same principles before. Because he did not know it he should 
 not take it for granted that nobody else did. Let me tell the senators 
 that it is a very unsafe rule for them to rely upon. They ought to 
 have had sufficient respect for a brother senator to have believed, 
 when he came forward with an important proposition, that he had 
 investigated it. They ought to have had sufficient respect for a 
 committee of this body to have assumed that they meant what they 
 said. 
 
 When I see such a system of misinterpretation and misrepresenta 
 tion of views, of laws, of records, of debates, all tending to mislead 
 the public, to excite prejudice, and to propagate error, have I not a 
 right to expose it in very plain terms, without being arraigned for 
 violating the courtesies of the Senate ? 
 
 Mr. President, frequent reference has been made in debate to the 
 admission of Arkansas as a slaveholding State, as furnishing evidence 
 that the abolitionists and freesoilers, who have recently become so 
 much enamored with the Missouri Compromise, have always been 
 faithful to its stipulations and implications. I will show that tha 
 reference is unfortunate for them. When Arkansas applied foi 
 admission in 1836, objection was made in consequence of the provi 
 sions of her constitution in respect to slavery. When the abolition 
 ists and freesoilers of that day were arraigned for making that 
 objection, upon the ground that Arkansas was south of 36 30 , they 
 replied that the act of 1820 was never a compromise, much less a 
 compact, imposing any obligation upon the successors of those who 
 passed the act to pay any more respect to its provisions than to any 
 other enactment of ordinary legislation. I have the debates before 
 me, but will occupy the attention of the Senate only to read one or 
 two paragraphs. Mr. Hand of New York, in opposition to the 
 admission of Arkansas as a slaveholding State, said : 
 
 " I am aware, it will be, as it has already been contended, that by the 
 Missouri Compromise, as it has been preposterously termed, Congress has 
 parted with its right to prohibit the introduction of slavery into the territory 
 south of 36 30 north latitude." 
 
 He acknowledged that by the Missouri Compromise, as he said it 
 was preposterously termed, the North was estopped from denying 
 the right to hold slaves south of that line; but, he added: 
 
 " There are, to my mind, insuperable objections to the soundness of that 
 proposition." 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 135 
 
 if it had done so, it was a mere legislative act, that could not bind their suc 
 cessors ; it would be subject to a repeal at the will of any succeeding Congress." 
 
 I give these passages as specimens of the various speeclies made in 
 opposition to the admission of Arkansas by the same class of politi 
 cians who now oppose the Nebraska Bill upon the ground that it 
 violates a solemn compact. So much for the speeches. Now for 
 the vote. The journal which I hold in my hand, shows that forty- 
 nine northern votes were recorded against the admission of Arkansas. 
 
 Yet, sirs, in utter disregard and charity leads rne to hope, in pro 
 found ignorance of all these facts, gentlemen are boasting that the 
 North always observed the contract, never denied its validity, never 
 wished to violate it ; and they have even referred to the cases of 
 the admission of Missouri and Arkansas as instances of their good 
 faith. 
 
 Now, is it possible that gentlemen could suppose these things could 
 be said and distributed in their speeches without exposure ? Did 
 they presume that, inasmuch as their lives were devoted to slavery 
 agitation, whatever they did not know about the history of that 
 question did not exist ? I am willing to believe, I hope it may be 
 the fact, that they were profoundly ignorant of all these records, all 
 these debates, all these facts, which overthrow every position they 
 have assumed. I wish the senator from Maine (Mr. Fesscnden), who 
 delivered his maiden speech here to-night, and who made many 
 sly stabs at me, had informed himself upon the subject before he re 
 peated all these groundless assertions. I can excuse him for the 
 reason that he has been here but a few days, and having enlisted 
 under the banner of the abolition confederates, was unwise and sim 
 ple enough to believe that what they had published could be relied 
 upon as stubborn facts. He may be an innocent victim. I hope he 
 can have the excuse of not having investigated the subject. I am 
 willing to excuse him on the ground that he did not know what he 
 was talking about, and it is the only excuse which I can make for 
 him. I will say, however, that I do not think he was required by 
 his loyalty to the abolitionists to repeat every disreputable insinua 
 tion which they made. Why did he throw into his speech that foul 
 innuendo about " a northern man with southern principles," and then 
 quote the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) as his authority ? 
 Ay, sir, I say that foul insinuation. Did not the senator from Mas 
 sachusetts, who first dragged it into this debate, wish to have the 
 public understand that I was known as a northern man with southern 
 principles? Was not that the allusion? If it was, he availed himself 
 of a cant phrase in the public mind, in violation of the truth of his 
 tory. I know of but one man in this country who ever made it a 
 boast that he was "a northern man with southern principles," and 
 Tie (turning to Mr. Sumner) was your candidate for the Presidency in 
 1848. (Applause in the galleries.). 
 
 THE PEESIDIXG OFFICER (ME. MASON). Order, order. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. If his sarcasm was intended for Martin Van Bureu, 
 
136 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 it involves a family quarrel, with which I have no disposition to 
 interfere. I will only add that I have been able to discover nothing 
 in the present position or recent history of that distinguished states 
 man, which would lead me to covet the sobriquet by which he is 
 known "a northern man with southern principles." 
 
 Mr. President, the senators from Ohio and Massachusetts (Mr. Chase 
 and Mr. Sumner), have taken the liberty to impeach my motives in 
 bringing forward this measure. I desire to know by what right they 
 arraign me, or by what authority they impute to me other and dif 
 ferent motives than those which I have assigned. I have shown from 
 the record that I advocated and voted for the same principles and 
 provisions in the compromise acts of 1850, which are embraced in 
 this bill. I have proven that I put the same construction upon those 
 measures immediately after their adoption that is given in the report 
 which I submitted this session from the Committee on Territories. 
 I have shown the legislature of Illinois at its first session, after those 
 measures were enacted, passed resolutions approving them, and de 
 claring that the same great principles of self-government should be 
 incorporated into all Territorial organizations. Yet, sir, in the face of 
 these facts, these senators have the hardihood to declare that this was 
 all an " afterthought" on my part, conceived for the first time dur 
 ing the present session ; and that the measure is offered as a bid for 
 Presidential votes ! Are they incapable of conceiving that an honest 
 man can do a right thing from worthy motives? I must be permitted 
 to tell those senators that their experience in seeking political prefer 
 ment does not furnish a safe rule by which to judge the character and 
 principles of other senators ! 
 
 I must be permitted to tell the senator from Ohio that I did not 
 obtain my seat in this body, either by a corrupt bargain or a dis 
 honorable coalition! I must be permitted to remind the senator 
 from Massachusetts that I did not enter into any combinations or 
 arrangements by which my character, my principles, and my honor, 
 were set up at public auction or private sale in order to procure a 
 seat in the Senate of the United States ! I did not come into the 
 Senate by any such means. 
 
 ME. WELLEE. But there are some men whom I know that did. 
 
 ME. CHASE (to Mr. Weller.) Do you say that I came here by a 
 bargain ? Whoever says that I came here by a corrupt bargain states 
 what is false. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. It will not do for the senator from Ohio to return 
 offensive expressions after what I have said and proven. Nor can 
 I permit him to change the issue, and thereby divert public attention 
 from the enormity of his offence, in charging me with unworthy 
 motives ; while performing a high public duty, in obedience to the 
 expressed wish and known principles of my State. I choose to 
 maintain my own position, and leave the public to ascertain, )t they 
 do not understand how and by what means he was elected to the 
 Senate. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 137 
 
 MR. CHASE. If the senator will allow me, I will say, in reply to 
 the remarks which the senator has just made, that I did not under 
 stand him as calling upon me for any explanation of the statement 
 which he said was made in regard to a Presidential bid. The exact 
 statement in the address was this it was a question addressed to the 
 people: "Would they allow their dearest rights to be made the 
 hazards of a Presidential game?" That was the exact expression. 
 Now, sir, it is well known that all these great measures in the country 
 are influenced, more or less, by reference to the great public canvasses 
 which are going on from time to time. I certainly did not intend 
 to impute to the senator from Illinois and I desire always to do 
 justice in that any improper motive. I do not think it is an 
 unworthy ambition to desire to be a President of the United States. 
 I do not think that the bringing forward of a measure with refer 
 ence to that object would be an improper thing, if the measure be 
 proper in itself. I differ from the senator in my judgment of the 
 measure. I do not think the measure is a right one. In that I 
 express the judgment which I honestly entertain. I do not condemn 
 his judgment, 1 do not make, and I do not desire to make, any perso 
 nal imputations upon him in reference to a great public question. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I wish to examine the explanation of the senator 
 from Ohio, and see whether I ought to accept it as satisfactory. He 
 has quoted the language of the address. It is undeniable that that 
 language clearly imputed to me the design of bringing forward this 
 bill with a view of securing my own election to the Presidency. 
 Then, by way of excusing himself for imputing to me such a pur 
 pose, the senator says that he does not consider it " an unworthy 
 ambition;" and hence he says that, in making the charge, he does 
 not impugn my motives. I must remind him that, in addition to 
 that insinuation, he only said, in the same address, that my bill was a 
 "criminal betrayal of precious rights;" he only said it was "an 
 atrocious plot against freedom and humanity;" he only said that it 
 was " meditated bad faith;" he only spoke significantly of "servile 
 demagogues;" he only called upon the preachers of the Gospel and 
 the people at their public meetings to denounce and resist such a 
 monstrous iniquity. In saying all this, and much of the same sort, 
 he now assures me in the presence of the Senate, that he did not 
 mean the charge to imply an "unworthy ambition ;" that it was not 
 intended as a " personal imputation " upon my motives or character ; 
 and that he meant "no personal disrepect" to me as the author of 
 the measure. In reply, I will content myself with the remark, that 
 there is a very wide difference of opinion between the senator from 
 Ohio and myself in respect to the meaning of words, and especially 
 in regard to the line of conduct which, in a public man, does not 
 constitute an unworthy ambition. 
 
 ME. STJMNEE. Will the senator from Illinois yield the floor to me 
 for a moment ? 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. As I presume it is on the same point, I wi ll hear 
 the testhnouy. 
 
138 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 ME. SUMNEE. Mr. President, I shrink always instinctively from 
 any effort to repel a personal assault. I do not recognize the juris 
 diction of this body to try rny election to the Senate ; but I do state, 
 in reply to the senator from Illinois, that if he means to. suggest that 
 I came into the body by any waiver of principles ; by any abandon 
 ment of my principles of any kind ; by any effort or activity of my 
 own, in any degree, he states that which cannot be sustained by tlio 
 facts. I never sought, in any way, the office which I now hold ; 
 nor was I a party, in any way, directly or indirectly, to those efforts 
 which placed me here. 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Sir, the senator from Massachusetts comes up with 
 a very bold front, and denies the right of any man to put him on 
 defence for the manner of his election. He says it is contrary to his 
 principles to engage in personal assaults. If he expects to avail him 
 self of the benefit of such a plea, he should act in accordance with 
 his professed principles, and refrain from assaulting the character 
 and impugning the motives of better men than himself. Everybody 
 knows that he came here by a coalition or combination between 
 political parties holding opposite and hostile opinions. But it is not 
 my purpose to go into the morality of the matters involved in his 
 election. The public know the history of that notorious coalition, 
 and have formed its judgment upon it. It will not do for the senator 
 to say that he was not a party to it, for he thereby betrays a con 
 sciousness of the immorality of the transaction, without acquitting 
 himself of the responsibilities which justly attach to him. As well 
 might the receiver of stolen goods deny any responsibility for the 
 larceny, while luxuriating in the proceeds of the crime, as the sena 
 tor to avoid the consequences resulting from the mode of his election, 
 while he clings to the office. I must be permitted to remind him of 
 what he certainly can never forget, that when he arrived here to 
 take his seat for the first time, so firmly were senators impressed 
 with the conviction that he had been elected by dishonorable and 
 corrupt means, there were very few who, for a long time, could 
 deem it consistent with personal honor to hold private intercourse 
 with him. So general was that impression, that for a long time ho 
 was avoided and shunned as a person unworthy of the association 
 of gentlemen. Gradually, howe rer, these injurious impressions were 
 worn away by his bland manners and amiable deportment ; and I 
 regret that the senator should now, by a violation of all the rules of 
 courtesy and propriety, compel me to refresh his mind upon these un 
 welcome reminiscences. 
 
 ME. CHASE. If the senator refers to me, he is stating a fact of 
 which I have no knowledge at all. I came here 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. I was not speaking of the senator from Ohio, but 
 of his confederate in slander, the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
 Sumner). I have a word now to say to the other senator from Ohio 
 (Mr. Wade), On the day when 1 exposed this abolition address, so 
 full of slanders and calumnies, he arose and stated that, although his 
 name was signed to it, he had never read it; and so willing was he 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 139 
 
 to indorse an abolition document, that he signed it in blank, with 
 out knowing what it contained. 
 
 The senator from New York (Mr. Seward), when I was about to 
 call him to account for this slanderous production, promptly denied 
 that he ever signed the document. Now, I say, it has been circu 
 lated with his name attached to it ; then I want to know of the 
 senators who sent out the document, who forged the name of the 
 senator from New York ? 
 
 ME. CHASE. I am glad that the senator has asked that question. 
 I have only to say in reference to that matter, that I have not the 
 slightest knowledge in regard to the manner in which various names 
 were appended to that document. It was prepared to be signed, and 
 was signed, by the gentlemen here who are known as Independent 
 Democrats, and how any other names came to be added to it is more 
 than I can tell. 
 
 MB. DOUGLAS. It is not a satisfactory answer, for those who con 
 fess to the preparation and publication of a document filled with 
 insult and calumny, with forged names attached to it for the purpose 
 of imparting to it respectability, to interpose a technical denial that 
 they committed the crime. Somebody did forge other people s 
 names to that document. The senators from Ohio and Massachusetts 
 (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner), plead guilty to the authorship and pub 
 lication ; upon them rests the responsibility of showing who com 
 mitted the forgery. 
 
 Mr. President, I have done with these personal matters. I regret, 
 the necessity which compelled me to devote so much time to them. 
 All I have done and said has been in the way of self-defence, as the 
 Senate can bear me witness. 
 
 Mr. President, I have also occupied a good deal of time in exposing 
 the cant of these gentlemen about the sanctity of the Missouri Com 
 promise, and the dishonor attached to the violation of plighted faith. 
 I have exposed these matters in order to show that the object of 
 these men is to withdraw from public attention the real principle 
 involved in the bill. They well know that the abrogation of tho 
 Missouri Compromise is the incident and not the principal of the bill. 
 They well understand that the report of the committee and the bill 
 propose to establish the principle in all Territorial organizations, that 
 the question of slavery shall be referred to the people to regulate for 
 themselves, and that such legislation should be had as was necessary 
 to remove all legal obstructions to the free exercise of this right by 
 the people. 
 
 The eighth section of the Missouri Act standing in the way of this 
 great principle must be rendered inoperative and void whether ex 
 pressly repealed or not, in order to give the people the power of regu 
 lating their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only 
 to the Constitution. 
 
 Now, sir, if these gentlemen have entire confidence in the correct 
 ness of their own position, why do they not meet the isi ie boldly 
 
140 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 and fairly, and controvert the soundness of this great principle of 
 popular sovereignty in obedience to the Constitution ? They know 
 full well that this was the principle upon which the colonies separa 
 ted from the crown of Great Britain, the principle upon which tlio 
 battles of the Kevolution were fought, and the principle upon which 
 our republican system was founded. They cannot be ignorant of the 
 fact that the Revolution grew out of the assertion of the right on the 
 part of the imperial government to interfere with the internal affairs 
 and domestic concerns of the colonies. In this connection I will 
 invite attention to a few extracts frm the instructions of the differ 
 ent colonies to their delegates in the Continental Congress, with a 
 view of forming such a union as would enable them to make success 
 ful resistance to the efforts of the crown to destroy the fundamental 
 principle of all free government by interfering with the domestic 
 affairs of the colonies. 
 
 I will begin with Pennsylvania, whose devotion to the principles 
 of human liberty, and the obligations of the Constitution, has 
 acquired for her the proud title of the Key-stone in the arch of 
 republican States. In her instructions is contained the following 
 reservation : 
 
 " Reserving to the people of this colony thft sole and exclusive right of regu 
 lating the internal government and police of the same." 
 
 And, in a subsequent instruction, in reference to suppressing the 
 British authority in the colonies, Pennsylvania uses the following 
 emphatic language : 
 
 " Unanimously declare our willingaess to concur in a vote of the Congress 
 declaring the United Colonies free and independent States, provided the form 
 ing the government and the regulation of the internal police of this colony be 
 always reserved to the people of the said colony." 
 
 Connecticut, in authorizing her delegates to vote for the Declara 
 tion of Independence, attached to it the following condition : 
 
 " Saving that the administration of government, and the power of forming 
 governments for, and the regulation of the internal concerns and police of 
 each colony, ought to be left and remain to the respective colonial legisla 
 tures." 
 
 ]S"ew Hampshire annexed this proviso to her instructions 
 delegates to vote for independence : 
 
 to her 
 
 " Provided the regulation of our internal police be under the direction of our 
 own assembly." 
 
 New Jersey imposed the following condition: 
 
 " Always observing that, whatever plan of confederacy you enter into, the 
 regulating the internal police of this province is to be reserved to the colonial 
 legislature." 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 Maryland gave her consent to the Declaration of Independence 
 upon the condition contained in this proviso : 
 
 " And that said colony will hold itself bound by the resolutions of a majority 
 of the United Colonies in the premises, provided the sole and exclusive right 
 of regulating the internal government and police of that colony be reserved to 
 tne people thereof." 
 
 Virginia annexed the following condition to her instructions to 
 vote for the Declaration of Independence : 
 
 " Provided that the power of forming government for, and the regulations 
 of the internal concerns of the colony, be left to respective colonial legisla 
 tures." 
 
 I will not weary the Senate in multiplying evidence upon this 
 point. It is apparent that the Declaration of Independence had its 
 origin in the violation of that great fundamental principle which 
 secured to the people of the colonies the right to regulate their own 
 domestic atfairs in their own way : and that the Revolution resulted 
 in the triumph of that principle, and the recognition of the right as 
 serted by it. Abolitionism proposes to destroy the right, and extin 
 guish the principle for which our forefathers waged a seven years 
 bloody war, and upon which our whole system of free government 
 is founded. They not only deny the Application of this principle to 
 the Territories, but insist upon fastening the prohibition upon all the 
 States to be formed out of those Territories. Therefore, the doctrine 
 of the abolitionists the doctrine of the opponents of the Nebraska 
 and Kansas Bill, and of the advocates of the Missouri restriction 
 demand Congressional interference with slavery, not only in the Ter 
 ritories, but in all the new States to be formed therefrom. It is the 
 same doctrine when applied to the Territories and new States of this 
 Union, which the British government attempted to enforce by th 
 sword upon the American colonies. It is this fundamental principle 
 of self-government which constitutes the distinguishing feature of 
 the Nebraska Bill. The opponents of the principle are consistent in 
 opposing the bill. I do not blame them for their opposition. I only 
 ask them to meet the issue fairly and openly, by acknowledging that 
 they are opposed to the principle which it is the object of the bill to 
 carry into operation. It seems that there is no power on earth, no 
 intellectual power, no mechanical power that can bring them to a 
 far discussion of the true issue. If they hope to delude the people, 
 and escape detection for any considerable length of time under the 
 catch-word Missouri Compromise," and "faith of compacts," they 
 will find that the people of this country have more penetration and 
 intelligence than they have given them credit for. 
 
 Mr. President, there is an important fact connected with this sla 
 very resolution, which should never be lost sight of. It has always 
 arisen from one and the same cause. Whenever that cause lias been 
 
142 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 removed, the agitation lias ceased ; and whenever the cause has been 
 renewed, the agitation has sprung into existence. That cause is, and 
 ever has been, the attempt on the part of Congress to interfere with 
 the question of slavery in the Territories and new States formed 
 therefrom. Is it not wise, then, to confine our action within the 
 sphere of our legitimate duties, and leave this vexed question so take 
 care of itself in each State and Territory, according to the wishes of 
 the people thereof, in conformity to the forms and in subjection to 
 the provisions of the Constitution ? 
 
 The opponents of the bill tell us that agitation is no part of their 
 policy, that their great desire is peace and harmony ; and they com 
 plain bitterly that I should have disturbed the repose of the country 
 by the introduction of this measure. Let me ask these professed 
 friends of peace and avowed enemies of agitation, how the issue 
 could have been avoided ? They tell me that I should have let the 
 question alone that is, that I should have left Nebraska unorganized, 
 the people unprotected, and the Indian barrier in existence, until the 
 swelling tide of emigration should burst through, and accomplish by 
 violence what it is the part of wisdom and statesmanship to direct 
 and regulate by law. How long could you have postponed action 
 with safety ? How long could you maintain that Indian barrier, and 
 restrain the onward march of civilization. Christianity, and free 
 government by a barbarian wall ? Do you suppose that you could 
 keep that vast country a howling wilderness in all time to come, 
 roamed over by hostile savages, cutting off all safe communication 
 between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions? I tell you that the 
 time for action has come, and cannot be postponed. It is a case in 
 which the u let-alone " policy would precipitate a crisis which must 
 inevitably result in violence, anarchy, and strife. 
 
 You cannot fix bounds to the onward inarch of this great and 
 growing country. You cannot fetter the limbs of the young giant. 
 He will burst all your chains. He will expand, and grow, and in 
 crease, and extend civilization, Christianity, and liberal principles. 
 Then, sir, if you cannot check the growth of the country in that 
 direction, is it not the part of wisdom to look the danger in the face, 
 and provide for an event which you cannot avoid? I tell you, sir, 
 you must provide for continuous lines of settlement from the Missis 
 sippi Valley to the Pacific Ocean. And in making this provision, 
 you must decide upon what principles the Territories shall be or 
 ganized; in other words, whether the people shall be allowed to 
 regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, according to 
 the provisions of this bill, or whether the opposite doctrine of Con 
 gressional interference is to prevail. Postpone it, if you will; but 
 whenever you do act,Hhis question must be met and decided. 
 
 The Missouri Compromise was interference ; the Compromise of 
 1850 was non-interference, leaving the people to exercise their rights 
 under the Constitution. The Committee on Territories were com 
 pelled to act on this subject. I, as their chairman, was bound to 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 14:3 
 
 meet tne question. I chose to take the responsibility, regardless of 
 consequence personal to myself. I should have done the same tiling 
 last year, if there had been time : but we know, considering the late 
 period at which the bill then reached us from the House, that there 
 was not sufficient time to consider the question fully, and to prepare 
 a report upon the subject. I was therefore persuaded by friends to 
 allow the bill to be reported to the Senate, in order that such action 
 might be taken as should be deemed wise and proper. 
 
 The bill was never taken up for action, the last night of the ses 
 sion having been exhausted in debate on the motion to take up the 
 bill. This session, the measure was introduced by my friend from 
 Iowa (Mr. Dodge) and referred to the Territorial Committee during 
 the first week of the session. We have abundance of time to con 
 sider the subject; it was a matter of pressing necessity, and there 
 was no excuse for not meeting it directly and fairly. We were com 
 pelled to take our position upon the doctrine either of intervention 
 or non-intervention. We chose the latter, for two reasons ; first, 
 because we believed that the principle was right ; and, second, be 
 cause it was the principle adopted in 1850, to which the two great 
 political parties of the country were solemnly pledged. 
 
 There is another reason why I desire to see this principle recog 
 nized as a rule of action in all time to come. It will have the effect 
 to destroy all sectional parties and sectional agitations. If, in the 
 language of the report of the committee, you withdraw the slavery 
 question from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and com 
 mit it to the arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in 
 and alone responsible for its consequences, there is nothing left out 
 of which sectional parties can be organized. It never was done, an 
 never can be done on the bank, tariff, distribution, or any other par 
 ty issue which has existed, or may exist, after this slavery question 
 is withdrawn from politics. On every other political question these 
 have always supporters and opponents in every portion of the Union 
 in each State, county, village, and neighborhood residing togeth 
 er in harmony and good-fellowship, and combating each othe-r s opin 
 ions and correcting each other s errors in a spirit of kindness and 
 friendship. These differences of opinion between neighbors and 
 friends, ami the discussions that grow out of them, and the sympa 
 thy which each feels with the advocates of his own opinions in eve 
 ry other portion of this wide-spread republic, adds an overwhelming 
 and irresistible moral weight to the strength of the confederacy. 
 
 Aii ection for the Union can never be alienated or diminished by 
 any other party issues than those which are joined upon sectional 
 or geographical lines. When the people of the North shall all be 
 rallied under one banner, and the whole South marshalled under an 
 other banner, and each section excited to frenzy and madness by 
 hostility to the institutions of the other, then the patriot may well 
 tremble for the perpetuity of the Union. Withdraw the slavery 
 question from the political arena, and remove it to tho States and 
 
144 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Territories, each to decide for itself, such a catastrophe can never 
 happen. Then you will never be able to tell, by any senator s vote 
 for or against any measure, from what State or section of the Unisn 
 he comes. 
 
 "Why, then, can we not withdraw this vexed question from poli 
 tics ? Why can we not adopt the principle of this bill as a rule of 
 action in all new Territorial organizations ? Why can we not deprive 
 these agitators of their vocation, and render it impossible for sena 
 tors to come here upon bargains on the slavery question? I believe 
 that the peace, the harmony, and perpetuity of the Union require us 
 to go back to the doctrines of the Eevolution, to the principles of 
 the Constitution the Compromise of 1850, and leave the people, 
 under the Constitution, to do as they may see proper in respect to 
 their own internal affairs. 
 
 Mr. President, I have not brought this question forward as a nor 
 thern man or as a southern man. I am unwilling to recognize such 
 divisions and distinctions. I have brought it forward as an Ameri 
 can senator, representing a State which is true to this principle, and 
 which has approved of my action in respect to the Nebraska Bill. 
 i have brought it forward not as an act of justice to the South more 
 Uiau to the North. I have presented it especially as an act of justice 
 $o the people of those Territories, and of the States to be formed 
 therefrom, now and in all time to come. 
 
 I have nothing to say about northern rights or southern rights. I 
 know of no such divisions or distinctions under the Constitution. 
 The bill does equal and exact justice to the whole Union, and every 
 part of it ; it violates the rights of no State or Territory, but places 
 each on a perfect equality, and leaves the people thereof to the free 
 enjoyment of all their rights under the Constitution. 
 
 >. ow, sir, I wish to say to our southern friends, that if they desire to 
 sec this great principle carried out, n DW is their time to rally around 
 it, to cherish it, preserve it, make it the rule of action in all future 
 time. If they fail to do it now, and thereby allow the doctrine of 
 interference to prevail, upon their heads the consequence of that in 
 terference must rest. To our northern friends, on the other hand, I 
 desire to say, that from this day henceforward, they must rebuke the 
 slander which has been uttered against the South, that they desire to 
 legislate slavery into the Territories. The South has vindicated her 
 sincerity, her honor on that point, by bringing forward a provision, 
 negativing, in express terms, any such efl ect as the result of this bill. 
 I am rejoiced to know that, while the proposition to abrogate the 
 eighth section of the Missouri Act comes from a free State, the pro 
 position to negative the conclusion that slavery is thereby introduced 
 comes from a slaveholding State. Thus, both sides furnish conclu 
 sive evidence that they go for the principle, and the principle only, 
 and desire to take no advantage of any possible misconstruction. 
 
 Mr. President, I feel that I owe an apology to the Senate for hav 
 ing occupied their attention so long, and a still greater apology fo? 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 145 
 
 having discussed the question in such an incoherent and desultory 
 manner. But I could not forbear to claim the right of closing this 
 debate. I thought gentlemen would recognize its propriety when 
 they saw the manner in which I was assailed and misrepresented in 
 the course of this discussion, and especially by assaults still more 
 disreputable, in some portions of the country. These assaults have 
 had no other effect upon me than to give me courage and energy for 
 a still more resolute discharge of duty. I say frankly that, in my 
 opinion, this measure will be as popular at the North as at the South, 
 when its provisions and principles shall have been fully developed 
 and become well understood. The people at the JSTorth are attached 
 to the principles of self-government ; and you cannot convince them 
 that that is self-government which deprives a people of the right of 
 legislating for themselves, and compels them to receive laws which 
 are forced upon them by a legislature in which they are not repre 
 sented. "We are willing to stand upon this great principle of self- 
 government everywhere ; and it is to us a proud reflection that, in 
 this whole discussion, no friend of the bill has urged an argument in 
 its favor which could not be used with the same propriety in a free 
 State as in a slave State, and vice versa. But no enemy of the bill 
 has used an argument which would bear repetition one mile across 
 Mason and Dixon s line. Our opponents have dealt entirely in sec 
 tional appeals. The friends of the bill have discussed a great prin 
 ciple of universal application, which can be sustained by the sanio 
 reasons, and the same arguments, in every time and in every corner 
 of the Union. 
 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 ON BRITISH AGGRESSION. 
 
 On the 7th of June, 1858, the subject of British Aggre* 
 Bion being under consideration, Mr. Douglas said : 
 
 I agree, Mr. President, with most that has been said by my friend 
 from Georgia (Mr. Toombs), and especially that \ve ought to deter 
 mine what we are to do in reference to the outrages upon our flag in 
 the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies before we decide the amount 
 of money we shall vote for war purposes. If we are going to con 
 tent ourselves with simple resolutions that we will not submit to that 
 which we have resolved for half a century should never be repeated, 
 I see no use in additional appropriations for navy or for army ; if we 
 are going to be contented with loud-sounding speeches, with defiance 
 to the British lion, with resolutions of the Senate alone, not con 
 curred in by the other house, conferring no power on the Executive, 
 merely capital for the country, giving no power to the Executive to 
 avenge insults or prevent their repetition, what is the use of voting 
 money? I find that patriotic gentlemen are ready to talk loud, re 
 solve strong; but are they willing to appropriate the money are 
 they willing to confer on the Executive power to repel these insults, 
 and to avenge them whenever they may be perpetrated? Let us 
 know whether wo are to submit and protest, or whether we are to 
 authorize the President to resist and to prevent the repetition of 
 these offences. If senators are prepared to vote for a law reviving 
 the act of 1839, putting the army, the navy, volunteers, and money 
 at the disposal of the President* to prevent the repetition of these 
 acts, and. to punish them if repeated, then I am ready to give the 
 ships and the money ; but I desire to know whether we are to sub 
 mit to these insults with a simple protest, or whether we are to re 
 pel them. 
 
 Gentlemen ask us to vote ships and money, and they talk to us 
 about the necessity of a ship in China, and about outrages in Tam- 
 pico, and disturbances in South America, and Indian difficulties in 
 Pnget Sound. Every enemy that can be found on the face of the 
 earth is defied, except the one that defies us. Bring in a proposi 
 tion here to invest the President with power to repel British aggres 
 sion on American ships, and what is the response? High-sounding 
 resolutions, declaring in effect, if not in terms, that whereas Great 
 Britain has perpetrated outrages on our flag and our shipping, which 
 are intolerable and insufferable, and must not be repeated ; therefore, 
 if she does so again, we will whip Mexico, or we will pounce down 
 upon Nicaragua, or we will get up a fight with Costa Rica, or we 
 will chastise New Granada, or we will punish the Chinese, or we 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 14:7 
 
 will repel the Indians from Pnget Sound (laughter) ; but not a word 
 about Great Britain ! What I desire to know, is whether we are to 
 meet this issue with Great Britain ? I am told we shall do it when 
 we are prepared. Sir, when will you be prepared to repel an insult, 
 unless when it is given ? 
 
 England has her ships of war, of various sizes, searching our ves 
 sels, firing across their bows, firing into their rigging, subject 
 ing them to search, not only in the Gulf of Mexico, but in the Carib 
 bean sea and upon the Atlantic. It is not confined to one captain, 
 or one vessel, or one locality, but the outrages are committed by 
 various ships, by the Styx, on the coast of Cuba ; by the Forward, 
 five hundred miles east of there ; by the Buzzard, a thousand miles 
 from Cuba. Every arrival at our ports brings us information of the 
 repetition of these offences, clearly demonstrating the fact that they 
 are not accidental. They are not confined to one locality. They are 
 not the acts of one ship or of one officer. They are the result of 
 orders from Great Britain to execute this system of outrages on the 
 American flag and American commerce. Are we to submit to it ? 
 If so, let us not say another word about it, pass no resolutions, make 
 no speeches, vote no extra appropriations that we would not vote if 
 these things had not occurred. If, on the contrary, we are not going to 
 submit to them, why not act as we did on the northeastern boundary 
 question in 1839 ? "When the news arrived here on the 2d of March, 
 1839, that an American citizen had been taken prisoner on the dis 
 puted boundary of Maine, showing a disposition on the part of Great 
 Britain to insist on her claim to the exclusive possession of that 
 country, instantly the Senate, by a unanimous vote, passed a bill 
 authorizing the President to repel any attempt on the part of Great 
 Britain to enforce that claim, and, for that purpose, putting at his 
 disposal the army, the navy, the militia, fifty thousand volunteers, 
 and ten millions of money, to enable him to execute the will of the 
 nation in that respect. 
 
 Now, sir, why not revive that act, striking out the disputed boun 
 dary and inserting " her claims to the right of visitation and search," 
 and then every provision of that bill would be applicable to the pre 
 sent case. My friend from Missouri (Mr. Green) calls my attention 
 to the vote of the House of Representatives on that occasion. It 
 stood 197 in the affirmative, and 6 in the negative. The vote in the 
 Senate was forty-one in the affirmative, none in the negative. Your 
 Clays, your Calhouns, your Websters, the great men of former times, 
 were here then ; men differing in politics in times of high party 
 strife, at a period when Mr. Yan Buren was President, and Clay, 
 Webster, and Calhoun led the opposition. Still, th moment this 
 outrage was perpetrated by Great Britain upon our rights, all party 
 dissensions were hushed ; the opposition and the administration 
 stood as one man when the honor of the nation was assaulted. They 
 did not hesitate to confer upon Mr. Yan Buren the power to resist 
 the outrages committed by Great Britain, in case they should bw 
 persevered in. 
 
148 THE LTFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Why not now revive the same law which was then passed by a 
 unanimous yote in the Senate, and with only six dissenting voices in 
 the other house, and confer upon President Buchanan the same 
 power and authority which was then conferred upon President Van 
 Buren on the motion of Mr. Senator Buchanan? Do that, and then 
 I am prepared to vote the ships, the money, the men, anything, 
 everything, necessary to indicate our firm resolve. Yes, sir, I will 
 go further, I will vote the ships and the money even now, trusting 
 that Congress, before it adjourns, will arm the President with the 
 necessary power and authority to prevent a repetition of these aggres 
 sions. I ain, however, extremely unwilling to bury up the outrages of 
 Great Britain under all the talk and noise that is made about the injuries 
 perpetrated by the South American republics. I know that in South 
 America outrages have been perpetrated on our commerce, on our 
 citizens and their property, which ought to have been punished on 
 the spot. I know they are continuing, and will continue, from day 
 to day, and year to year, until you clothe the Executive with the 
 authority to punish them as promptly as the British government 
 punish similar outrages on their commerce and their rights ; but 
 these things have been going on in South America for years. They 
 are weak, feeble, unstable powers, entitled to our sympathy and our 
 contempt mingled together. While I would clothe the Executive 
 with power to punish them, I would only do it after I had avenged 
 the insults perpetrated by Great Britain, or I would in the same act 
 authorize the President to avenge them. 
 
 Sir, I tr.emble for the fame of America, for her honor, and for her 
 character, when we shall be silent in regard to British outrages ; and 
 avenge ourselves by punishing the weaker powers instead of grap 
 pling with the stronger. I never did fancy that policy, nor admire 
 that chivalry which induced a man, when insulted by a strong man 
 of his own size, to say that he would whip the first boy he found in 
 the street, in order to vindicate his honor ; er, as is suggested by a 
 gentleman behind me, that he would go home and whip his wife 
 (laughter), in order to show his courage, inasmuch as he was afraid 
 to tackle the full grown man who had committed the aggression. 
 
 Sir, these outrages cannot be concealed, they cannot have the go 
 by; we must meet them face to face. Now is the time when 
 England must give up her claim to search American vessels, or we 
 must be silent in our protests and resolutions and valorous speeches 
 against that claim. It will not do to raise a navy for the Chinese 
 seas, nor for Puget Sound, nor for Mexico, nor for the South Ameri 
 can republics. It may be used for those purposes, but England 
 must first be dealt with. Sir, we shall be looked upon as showing 
 the vyhite feather, if we strike a blow at any feeble power, until these 
 English aggressions and insults are first punished, and security is 
 obtained that they are not to be repeated. 
 
 I shall vote for the amendment offered by my friend from Florida, 
 under the authority of Committee on Naval Affairs, providing for 
 ten sloops-of-war. I shall also vote for the proposition of my friend 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 149 
 
 from North Carolina for the ten gun-boats. I wish he had increased 
 the number to fifty, because I understand they can be constructed 
 for about $100,000 apiece, and $5,000,000 would give you fifty gun 
 boats, vessels of a character more serviceable for coast defence than 
 any other vessels you could have. They could enter every harbor, 
 every creek, every bay, every nook where it is necessary to afford 
 protection, and each one of them singly would be strong enough in 
 time of war to capture an enemy s merchant vessel, and bring it into 
 port or sink it, as easily as a seventy-four, or the largest class of 
 ships of war. I would increase the number of gun-boats to fifty I 
 would give the sloops asked for by the committee, but I would never 
 permit this Congress to adjourn, after all the resolutions we have had 
 reported and all the brave speeches we have made, until we give the 
 President power, and thereby make it his duty, to repel in future 
 every repetition of these British outrages on our flag ; and to use the 
 army, the navy, the militia, and the treasury, to any extent which 
 may be necessary for that purpose. 
 
 I concur entirely with the senator from Virginia in the reasons he 
 has given for the necessity of applying the provisions of the bill 
 which he has reported from the Committee on Foreign Eelations, as 
 a substitute for one I introduced, to Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Kica 
 and ISTew Granada ; but I do not perceive the necessity of limiting 
 the application to those countries, and riot extending it beyond them. 
 If his objection be true that my proposition was to confer a war- 
 making power upon the President, then, by applying the whole 
 power of these provisions to Mexico, and the other three countries, 
 he confers a war-making power to that extent. I suppose, if it is no 
 violation of principle to give the President a war-making power as 
 applied to one country, it is no more so to give it to him generally. 
 The objection I had to his provision was this : I had introduced a 
 bill to authorize the President, in cases of flagrant violations of the 
 law of nations, under circumstances admitting of no delay, to repel 
 and punish the aggression. The senator from Virginia takes the 
 provisions of that bill and indorses them as to four feeble, crippled 
 powers, and omits the very country that is now committing outrages 
 upon our flag and our shipping. I had introduced a bill, general in 
 its provisions, applicable to England, France, Spain, Mexico, Central 
 America, South America everywhere where there were flagrant 
 violation upon our flag, under circumstances admitting of no delay. 
 
 It does not follow that for every belligerent act we shall declare 
 war. The senator from Virginia, in his report, as chairman of the 
 Committee on Foreign Eelations, quoted Chief Justice Marshall to 
 show that the practice of the right of search was a belligerent act. 
 All belligerent acts do not necessarily produce war. You may repel 
 them, you may grant letters of marque and reprisal there are 
 various remedies short of war for repelling and redressing belligerent 
 acts. It docs not follow, by any means, when one nation perpe 
 trates a violation of right against another, which, of itself, is a bel- 
 
150 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 ligerent act, that war is the inevitable consequence, any more than 
 it follows, when one gentleman says something offensive to another, 
 that a peremptory challenge is a necessary result. A demand for 
 explanation may be necessary. There are preludes to a declaration. 
 So it is between nations. There may be a belligerent act performed. 
 It leads to negotiation, to remonstrance. "When these means fail, 
 then the question comes, whether our rights or our honor are 
 involved to such an extent as to make it imperative to go to war as 
 a final resort ? 
 
 If this violation of the freedom of the seas were a new thing ; if 
 the assertion of the right to search American vessels were now 
 made for the first, or evea the second time, we might not, although 
 treating it as a belligerent act, deem it necessary to go to war. But 
 when the question has gone through half a century of dispute ; when 
 it has reached such a point that we refuse to discuss the question of 
 right any further ; when we have asserted that the argument is ex 
 hausted, and that the only thing left is to resort to resistance if it be 
 persevered in any further ; it will not do for us, in the face of these 
 outrages repeated each day, to be silent with regard to them, and 
 proceed to legislate for the punishment of Mexico, Nicaragua, and 
 other weak and feeble powers at a distance. The bill reported by 
 the senator from Virginia would be right if it were brought for 
 ward at a time when the aggravation came from those countries, 
 and not from England. I will vote for it. But to pass that by 
 itself, and remain silent with regard to these British outrages, is to 
 confess to the world that we are afraid of Great Britain, but we will 
 maintain our courage by punishing some smaller, feebler, weaker 
 power. I do not bring forward the proposition to revive the act of 
 the 3d of March, 1839, as a substitute for the bill reported by the 
 senator from Virginia, as he imagines. On the contrary, the two 
 bills ought to go together. The one which I bring forward is 
 applicable to England, and to her alone. It covers the present quar 
 rels between us and England ; not as a war measure, but as a peace 
 measure. The only change that I make between that act, as 1 bring 
 it forward now, and as it was in the shape in which it originally 
 passed, is to strike out the words "territory in dispute," and insert 
 " the claim of the right of search." Then the two cases are paral 
 lel, and the provision is as applicable to one as it is to the other. 
 
 Sir, there was one member of this body, who, when the measure 
 was brought in, in 1839, was disposed to treat it as an act of war, 
 until the great minds of the Senate, the patriots of that day, came 
 forward, and said : no, Great Britain is performing a belligerent act ; 
 we must resist it at all hazards ; if she perseveres in the wrong, 
 then the consequences be on her head, for having persevered in tho 
 wrong. Hence, you find that Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Buchanan, 
 and the leaders of the Senate of all parties of that day, united with 
 entire unanimity in conferring upon President Van Buren the power 
 to resist it. One man only hesitated. A distinguished and re- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 151 
 
 spected senator from New Jersey made the very point that is now 
 being made, as to its being an act of war ; but a distinguished sena 
 tor from Mississippi appealed to him, after a prelimin ary vote had 
 been taken, and it was ascertained that the Senate were unanimous 
 with one exception, not to persevere in his opposition, but allow the 
 Senate to stand unanimous in the assertion of a principle upon which 
 all agreed; and Mr. Southard, in deference to the opinion of the 
 remainder of the Senate, waived his objections, and allowed the bill 
 to pass by a unanimous vote. 
 
 Sir, did it turn out to be a measure of war then ? On the con 
 trary, it resulted in peace, and you were saved from a war with 
 Great Britain on the northeastern boundary question, by the unani 
 mity of Congress, at that time, in preparing to repel the assault. 
 The vote in the Senate was unanimous, and in the House of Repre 
 sentatives it was 197 against 6. This unanimity among the American 
 people, as manifested by their representatives, saved the two coun 
 tries from war, and preserved peace between England and the United 
 States upon that question. If the Senate had been nearly equally 
 divided in 1839 ; if there had been but half a dozen majority for the 
 passage of that measure ; if the vote had been nearly divided in the 
 House of Representatives, England would have taken courage from the 
 divisions in our own councils ; she would have pressed her claim to a 
 point that would have been utterly inadmissible, and incompatible 
 with our honor, and war would have been the inevitable conseqiien.ee. 
 
 The true peace measure is that which resents the insult and re 
 dresses the wrong promptly upon the spot with a unanimity that 
 shows the nation cannot be divided. Unanimity now, prompt action, 
 and determined resistance to this claim of the right of search is the 
 best peace measure, and the only peace measure to which you can 
 resort. You have said that this nation will not submit to the right 
 of search ; every department of this government has repeated it, 
 all political parties unite in the sentiment ; there is one point on 
 which the American people are united, and on which they have 
 stood for half a century. It is violated now. The question is, whe 
 ther we shall present the same unanimity in resistance that we do in 
 denying the right to commit the outrage. Unanimity on our part, 
 unanimity in our councils, firm resolve, but kind and respectful words 
 will preserve peace. Sir, I desire peace. I would lament a war 
 with England, or with any other power, as much as any other man 
 in the Senate. Nor do I think that my constituents desire war, but, 
 I believe that the true way to prevent it is to be prepared to resist 
 aggression the moment it is made. What is the argument we hear 
 used to-day? The senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hammond), 
 who knows that I have for him the highest respect, portrays to us 
 our weak, feeble, and defenceless condition ; our thousands of miles 
 of coast ; our small navy ; our limited resources ; to show that we 
 are not ready for a war now. Sir, let Great Britain belie v r e that 
 picture, and she will be ready now for a war with us. 
 
152 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Our vacillation, our hesitation, our nervousness about the defence 
 less condition of our coasts and of our cities, are the sources of en 
 couragement to England. 
 
 Sir, I repel the idea that the American coast is so defenceless aa 
 represented. I have passed round a great portion of the British 
 coast, and I undertake to assert that the American coast is in a bet 
 ter condition of defence than that of Great Britain. New York ia 
 better defended than Liverpool or London to-day. It is easier for a 
 fleet to enter the harbor of Liverpool or London than New York. 
 There are not as many obstacles in the way in the British cities as 
 in the American. It is possible that a steam fleet might run by the 
 fortifications into either. It is not probable it would ever escape 
 from there if it did ; but it is possible that it might effect its escape. 
 But, sir, I do not believe that our coast is more exposed than hers, and I 
 do not believe our commerce is more exposed than hers. I do not 
 believe England is any better prepared for war with us than we are 
 with her. If s"he has a larger navy, she has a more exposed interest 
 to protect by that navy. She has her troubles in India ; she has 
 them at the Cape ; she has them all over the world ; and her navy is 
 divided, and her army divided to protect them in those detached 
 places on every continent, and every island of the globe. Sir, the 
 extent of her power spreading all around the globe is one of tlio 
 greatest sources of her weakness ; and the other fact that she is a 
 commercial nation, and we are an agricultural people shows that 
 she may be ruined, and her citizens starved, while we, although at 
 war abroad, are happy and prosperous at home. Her statesmen have 
 more respect for us in this particular than we have for ourselves. 
 They will never push this question to the point of war. They will 
 look you in the eye, march to you steadily, as long as they find it is 
 prudent. If you cast the eye down, she will rush upon you. If 
 you look her in the eye steadily, she will shake hands with you as 
 friends, and have respect for you. 
 
 Suppose she should not, my friend from South Carolina asks me. 
 If she does not, then we will appeal to the God of battles ; we will 
 arouse the patriotism of the American nation ; we will blot out all 
 distinction of party ; and the voice of faction will be hushed ; the 
 American people will be a unit ; none but the voice of patriotism 
 will be heard ; and from the North and the South, from the East 
 and the "West, we will come up as a band of brothers, animated by a 
 common spirit and a common patriotism, as were our fathers of the 
 Revolution, to repel the foreign enemy, and afterward diifer as we 
 please, and discuss at our leisure, matters of domestic dispute. 
 
 As to my proposition for fifty gun-boats instead of twenty, I have 
 only to say that I prefer the larger number ; and with all the respect 
 I have for the senator from Mississippi and his superior knowledge 
 on all matters of military defence, I must be permitted to entertain 
 doubts whether he is correct in this particular. As to the usefulness 
 of those vessels called gun-boats, the experience of the last few 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 153 
 
 years shows that a gun-boat can wander from the Carolina coast, 
 and can venture to sea. England constructed immense numbers of 
 them expressly for the Black Sea and the Baltic during the Russian 
 war; and she used them with great effect. She used them in the 
 Gulf of Finland and at Sweaborg. They were built expressly for that 
 service, and had to go three thousand miles to get to the Black Sea, 
 and nearly two thousand to get into the Gulf of Finland. England 
 has sent them to the "West Indies ; and the very outrages of which we 
 now complain are being perpetrated by gun-boats. The Forward, 
 that seized our vessels five hundred miles east of the Island of Cuba, 
 on the high seas, is a gun-boat. The Buzzard, that seized our 
 vessels one thousand miles from Cuba, off in the Atlantic ocean, is a 
 gun-boat. All the vessels England is using now, for the annoyance 
 of our commerce, are gun-boats that very despised little crafl 
 which the senator from Mississippi thinks will never venture out 
 from shore. I think that if a gun-boat is powerful enough to stop 
 our merchantmen on the high seas, search them, and take them into 
 port, or do what she pleases with them, such vessels will be efficient 
 enough in time of war for us to annoy the enemy s commerce with. 
 I think daily experience proves that these gun-boats are efficient not 
 only in the defence of harbors, in running into the mouths of rivers 
 and shallow bays, but in annoying the enemy s commerce, as they 
 are being used by England for that very purpose at this time. 
 
 It so happens that only one of the vessels of Great Britain that 
 have been perpetrating these outrages on our commerce, which lias 
 hovered around the coast of Cuba, is not a gun-boat, but small 
 wheel steamer the Styx. 
 
154: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 OX THE INVASION OF STATES, 
 
 AND EEPLT TO ME. FESSENDEX. 
 
 Delivered in tlie Senate of the United States, January 23, 1860. 
 
 The hour having arrived for the consideration of the special order, 
 the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted 
 by Mr. Douglas on the 16th instant: 
 
 "Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report a bill 
 for the protection of each State and Territory of the Union against invasion by 
 the authorities or inhabitants of any other State or Territory ; and for the sup 
 pression and punishment of conspiracies or combinations in any State or 
 Territory with intent to invade, assail, or molest the government, inhabitants, 
 property, or institutions of any other State or Territory of the Union." 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, the 
 Governor of Virginia addressed an official communication to the 
 President of the United States, in which he said : 
 
 " I have information from various quarters, upon which I relv, that a con 
 spiracy of formidable extent, in means and numbers, is formed in Ohio, Penn 
 sylvania, NCAV York, and other States, to rescue John Brown and his associates, 
 prisoners at Chaiicstown, Virginia. The information is specific enough to be 
 reliable 
 
 " Places in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have been occupied as depots 
 and rendezvous by these desperadoes, and unobstructed by guards or other 
 wise, to invade this State, and we are kept in continual apprehension of out 
 rage from fire and rapine. I apprise you of these facts in order that you may 
 take steps to preserve peace between the States." 
 
 To this communication, the President of the United States, on the 
 28th of November, returned a reply from which I read the following 
 sentence : 
 
 " I am at a loss to discover any provision in the Constitution or laws of the 
 United States which would authorize me to take steps for this purpose." 
 [That is, to preserve the peace between the States.] 
 
 This announcement produced a profound impression upon the 
 public mind and especially in the slaveholding States. It was 
 generally received and regarded as an authoritative announcement 
 that the Constitution of the United States confers no power upon 
 the Federal Government to protect each of the States of this Union 
 ftgainst invasion from the other States. I shall not stop to inquire 
 whether the President meant to declare that the existing laws confer 
 no authority upon him, or that the Constitution empowers Congress 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 155 
 
 to enact laws which would authorize the federal interposition to pro 
 tect the States from invasion ; my object is to raise the inquiry, and 
 to ask the judgment of the Senate and of the House of Representa 
 tives on the question, whether it is not within the power of Con 
 gress, and the duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to enact all 
 laws which may be necessary and proper for the protection of each 
 and every State against invasion, either from foreign powers or from 
 any portion of the United States. 
 
 The denial of the existence of such a power in the Federal Govern 
 ment has induced an inquiry among conservative men men 
 loyal to the Constitution and devoted to the Union as to what 
 means they have of protection, if the Federal Government is not 
 authorized to protect them against external violence. It must be 
 conceded that no community is safe, no State can enjoy peace or 
 prosperity, or domestic tranquillity, without security against external 
 violence. Every State and nation of the world, outside of this 
 Republic, is supposed to maintain armies and navies for this precise 
 purpose. It is the only legitimate purpose for which armies and 
 navies are maintained in time of peace. They may be kept up for 
 ambitious purposes, for the purposes of aggression and foreign war ; 
 but the legitimate purpose of a military force in time of peace is to 
 insure domestic tranquillity against violence or aggression from with 
 out. The States of this Union would possess that power, were it 
 not for the restraints imposed upon them by the federal Constitution. 
 When that Constitution was made, the States surrendered to the 
 Federal Government the power to raise and support armies, and the 
 power to provide and maintain navies, and not only thus surrendered 
 the means of protection from invasion, but consented to a prohibition 
 upon themselves which declares that no State shall keep troops or 
 vessels of war in time of peace. 
 
 The question now recurs, whether the States of this Union are in 
 that helpless condition, with their hands tied by the Constitution, 
 stripped of all means of repelling assaults and maintaining their 
 existence, without a guaranty from the Federal Government, to pro 
 tect them against violence. Jf the people of this country shall settle 
 down into the conviction that there is no power in the Federal Go 
 vernment under the Constitution to protect each and every State 
 from violence, from aggression, from invasion, they will demand that 
 the cord be severed, and that the weapons be restored to their hands 
 with which they may defend themselves. This inquiry involves the 
 question of the perpetuity of the Union. The means of defence, the 
 means of repelling assaults, the means of providing against invasion, 
 must exist as a condition of the safety of the States and the existence 
 of the Union. 
 
 ISTow, sir, I hope to be able to demonstrate that there is no wrong 
 in this Union for which the Constitution of the United States has 
 not provided a remedy. I believe, and I hope I shall be able to 
 maintain, that a remedy is furnished for every wrong which can be 
 
156 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 perpetrated within the Union, if the Federal Government performs ita 
 whole duty. I think it is clear, on a careful examination of tho 
 Constitution, that the power is conferred upon Congress, first, to 
 yrovide for repelling invasion from foreign countries ; and, secondly, 
 to protect each State of this Union against invasion from any other 
 State, Territory, or place, within the jurisdiction of the United States. 
 I will first turn your attention, sir, to the power conferred upon 
 Congress to protect the United States including States, Territories, 
 and the District of Columbia; including every inch of ground within 
 our limits and jurisdiction against foreign invasion. In the eighth 
 section of the first article of the Constitution, you find that Congress 
 has power 
 
 " To raise and support armies ; to provide and maintain a navy; to make 
 rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces ; to pro 
 vide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress 
 insurrections, and repel invasions." 
 
 These various clauses confer upon Congress power to use the whole 
 military fore of the country for the purpose specified in the Consti 
 tution. They shall provide for the execution of the laws of the 
 Union ; and, secondly, suppress insurrections. The insurrections 
 there referred to are insurrections against the authority of the United 
 States insurrections against a State authority being provided for in 
 a subsequent section, in which the United States cannot interfere, 
 except upon the application of the State authorities. The invasion 
 which is to be repelled by this clause of the Constitution is an inva 
 sion of the United States. The language is, Congress shall have 
 power to " repel invasions." That gives the authority to repel the 
 invasion, no matter whether the enemy shall laud within the limits 
 of Virginia, within the District of Columbia, within the Territory of 
 ]STew Mexico, or anywhere else within the jurisdiction of the United 
 States. The power to protect every portion of the country against 
 invasion from foreign nations having thus been specifically conferred, 
 the fraraers of the Constitution then proceeded to make guaranties 
 for the protection of each of the States by federal authority. I will 
 read the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution : 
 
 " The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican 
 form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion ; and, on 
 application of the legislature, or of the Executive, (when the legislature can 
 not be convened,) against domestic violence." 
 
 This clause contains three distinct guaranties : first, the United 
 States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form 
 of government ; second, the United States shall protect each of them 
 against invasion ; third, the United States shall, on application of tho 
 legislature, or of the Executive, when the legislature cannot be con 
 vened, protect them against domestic violence. Now, sir, I submit 
 to you whether it is not clear, from the very language of the Consti- 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 157 
 
 tution, that this clause was inserted for the purpose of making it the 
 duty of the Federal Government to protect each of the States against 
 invasion from any other State, Territory, or place within the juris 
 diction of the United States? For what other purpose was the 
 clause inserted ? The power and duty of protection as against foreign 
 nations had already been provided for. This clause occurs among 
 the guaranties from the United States to each State, for the benetit 
 of each State, for the protection of each State, and necessarily from 
 other States, inasmuch as the guaranty had been given previously as 
 against foreign nations. 
 
 If any further authority is necessary to show that such is the truo 
 construction of the Constitution, it way be found in the forty- third 
 number of the " Federalist," written by James Madison. Mr. Madi 
 son quotes the clause of the Constitution which I have read, giving 
 these three guaranties ; and, after discussing the one guaranteeing to 
 each State a republican form of government, proceeds to consider 
 the second, which makes it the duty of the United States to protect 
 each of the States against invasion. Here is what Mr. Madison says 
 upon that subject : 
 
 " A protection against invasion is due/rom every society to the parts compos 
 ing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, 
 not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enter 
 prises of its more powerful neighbors. The history both of ancient and modern 
 confederacies proves that the weaker members of the Union ought not to be 
 insensible to the policy of this article." 
 
 The number of the " Federalist," like all the others of that cele 
 brated work, was written after the Constitution was made, and before 
 it was ratified by the States, and with a view to securing its ratifica 
 tion ; hence the people of the several States, when they ratified this 
 instrument, knew that this clause was intended to bear the construc 
 tion which I now place upon it. It was intended to make it the 
 duty of every society to protect each of its parts ; the duty of the 
 Federal Government to protect each of the States ; and, he says, the 
 smaller States ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article 
 of the Constitution. 
 
 Then, sir, if it be made the imperative duty of the Federal Govern 
 ment, by the express provision of the Constitution, to protect each 
 of the States against invasion or violence from the other States, or 
 from combinations of desperadoes within their limits, it necessarily 
 follows that it is the duty of Congress to pass all laws necessary and 
 proper to render that guaranty effectual. While Congress, in the 
 early history of the government, did provide legislation, which is 
 supposed to be ample to protect the United States against invasion 
 from foreign countries and the Indian tribes, they have failed, up to 
 this time, to make any law for the protection of each of the States 
 against invasion from within the limits of the Union. I am unable 
 to account for this omission ; but I presume the reason is to be found 
 
158 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 in the fact that no Congress ever dreamed that such legislation would 
 ever become necessary for the protection of one State of this Union 
 against invasion and violence from her sister States. "\Ylio, until the 
 Harper s Ferry outrage, ever conceived that American citizens could 
 be so forgetful of their duties to themselves, to their country, to the 
 Constitution, as to plan an invasion of another State, with a view of 
 inciting servile insurrection, murder, treason, and every other crime 
 that disgraces humanity? While, therefore, no blame can justly be 
 attached to our predecessors in failing to provide the legislation 
 necessary to render this guaranty of the Constitution effectual; still, 
 since the experience of last year, we cannot stand justified in omit 
 ting longer to perform this imperative duty. 
 
 The question then remaining is, what legislation is necessary and 
 proper to render this guaranty of the Constitution effectual? I pre 
 sume there will be very little difference of opinion that it will bo 
 necessary to place the whole military power of the government at the 
 disposal of the President, under proper guards and restrictions against 
 abuse, to repel and suppress invasion when the hostile force shall be 
 actually in the field. But, sir, that is not sufficient. Such legislation 
 would not be a full compliance with this guaranty of the Constitu 
 tion. The framers of that instrument meant more when they gave 
 the guaranty. Mark the difference in language between the provi 
 sion for protecting the United States against invasion and that for 
 protecting the States. When it provided for protecting the United 
 States, it said Congress shall have power to " repel invasion." When 
 it came to make this guaranty to the States it changed the language 
 and said the United States shall "protect " each of the States against 
 invasion. In one instance, the duty of the government is to repel; 
 in the other, the guaranty is that they w r ill protect. In other words, 
 the United States are not permitted to wait until the enemy shall be 
 upon your borders; until the invading army shall have been organ 
 ized and drilled and placed in march with a view to the invasion ; 
 but they must pass all laws necessary and proper to insure protection 
 and domestic tranquillity to each State and Territory of this Union 
 against invasion or hostilities from other States and Territories. 
 
 Then, sir, I hold that it is not only necessary to use the military 
 power when the actual case of invasion shall occur, but to authorize 
 the judicial department of the government to suppress all conspiracies 
 and combinations in the several States with the intent to invade a 
 State, or molest or disturb its government, its peace, its citizens, its 
 property, or its institutions. You must punish the conspiracy, the 
 combination with intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it 
 in advance. There is no principle more familiar to the legal profes 
 sion than that wherever it is proper to declare an act to be a crime, it 
 is proper to punish a conspiracy or combination with intent to perpe 
 trate the act. Look upon your statute books, and I presume you will 
 find an enactment to punish the counterfeiting of the coin of the 
 United States ; and then another section to punish a man for having 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 159 
 
 oountefeit coin in his possession with intent to pass it; and another 
 section to punish him for having the molds, or dies, or instruments 
 for counterfeiting, with intent to use them. This is a familiar princi 
 ple in legislative and judicial proceedings. If the act of invasion is 
 criminal, the conspiracy to invade should also be made criminal. If 
 it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run oft* fugitive 
 slaves, why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combi na 
 tions in the several States with intent to do the act? We have been 
 told that a notorious man who has recently suffered death for his 
 crimes upon the gallows, boasted in Cleaveland, Ohio, in a public 
 lecture, a year ago, that he had then a body of men employed in 
 running away horses from the slaveholders of Missouri, and pointed 
 to a livery stable in Cleaveland which was full of the stolen horses 
 at that time. 
 
 I think it is within our competency, and consequently our duty, 
 to pass a law making every conspiracy or combination in any State 
 or Territory of this Union to invade another with intent to steal or 
 run away property of any kind, whether it be negroes, or horses, or 
 property of any other description, into another State, a crime, and 
 punish the conspirators by indictment in the United States courts, 
 and confinement in the prisons or penitentiaries of the State or Ter 
 ritory where the conspiracy may be formed and quelled. Sir, I 
 would carry these provisions of law as far as our constitutional 
 power will reach. I would make it a crime to form conspiracies 
 with a view of invading States or Territories to control elections, 
 whether they be under the garb of Emigrant Aid Societies of New 
 England, or Blue Lodges of Missouri. (Applause in the galleries.) 
 In other words, this provision of the Constitution means more than 
 the mere repelling of an invasion when the invading army shall 
 reach the border of a State. The language is, it shall protect the 
 State against invasion ; the meaning of which is, to use the lan 
 guage of the preamble to the Constitution, to insure to each State 
 domestic tranquillity against external violence. There can be no 
 peace, there can be no prosperity, there can be no safety in any 
 community, unless it is secured against violence from abroad. AVhy, 
 sir, it has been a question seriously mooted in Europe, whether it 
 was not the duty of England, a power foreign to France, to pass laws 
 to punish conspiracies in England against the lives of the princes of 
 France. I shall not argue the question of comity between foreign 
 States. I predicate my argument upon the Constitution by which 
 we are governed, and which we have sworn to obey, and demand 
 that the Constitution be executed in good faith so as to punish ai;d 
 suppress every combination, every conspiracy, either to invade a 
 State or to molest its inhabitants, or to disturb its property, or to 
 subvert its institutions and its government. I believe this cart be 
 effectually done by authorizing the United States courts in the 
 several States to take jurisdiction of the offence, and punish the 
 violation of the law with appropriate punishments. 
 
160 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 It cannot be said that the time has not yet arrived for such legis 
 lation. It cannot be said with truth that the Harper s Ferry case 
 will not be repeated, or is not in danger of repetition. It is only 
 necessary to inquire into the causes which produced the Harper s 
 Ferry outrage, and ascertain whether those causes are yet in active 
 operation, and then you can determine whether there is any ground 
 for apprehension that that invasion will be repeated. Sir, what 
 were the causes which produced the Harper s Ferry outrage? 
 Without stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no hesitation 
 in expressing my firm and deliberate conviction that the Harper s 
 Ferry crime was the natural, logical, inevitable result of the doc 
 trines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained and 
 enforced in their platform, their partisan presses, their pamphlets 
 and books, and especially in the speeches of their leaders in and out 
 of Congress. (Applause in the galleries.) 
 
 I was remarking that I considered this outrage at Harper s Ferry 
 as the logical, natural consequence of the teachings and doctrines of 
 the Republican party. I am not making this statement for the 
 purpose of crimination or partisan effect. I desire to call the atten 
 tion of members of that party to a reconsideration of the doctrines 
 that they are in the habit of enforcing, with a view to a fair judg 
 ment whether they do not lead directly to those consequences, on 
 the part of those deluded persons who think that all they say is 
 meant, in real earnest, and ought to be carried out. The great 
 principle that underlies the Republican party is violent, irreconcila 
 ble, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery, with 
 the view of its ultimate extinction throughout the land ; sectional 
 war is to be waged until the cotton field of the South shall be culti 
 vated by free labor, or the rye fields of New York, and Massachu 
 setts shall be cultivated by slave labor. In furtherance of this 
 article of their creed, you find their political organization not only 
 sectional in its location, but one whose vitality consists in appeals to 
 northern passion, northern prejudice, northern ambition against 
 southern States, southern institutions, and southern people. I have 
 had some experience in fighting this element within the last few 
 years, and I find that the source of their power consists in exciting 
 the prejudices and the passions of the northern section against those 
 of the southern section. They not only attempt to excite the North 
 against the South, but they invite the South to assail and abuse and 
 traduce the North. Southern abuse, by violent men, of northern 
 statesmen and northern people, is essential to the triumph of the 
 Republican cause. Hence the course of argument which we have to 
 meet is not only repelling the appeals to northern passion and preju 
 dice, but we have to encounter their appeals to southern men to 
 assail us, in order that they may justify their assaults upon the plea 
 of self-defence. 
 
 Sir, when I returned home in 1858, f >r the purpose of canvassing 
 Illinois, with a view to reelection, I had to moet this issue of the 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 1GJ 
 
 44 irrepressible conflict." It is true that the senator from Xew York 
 had not then made his Rochester speech, and did not for four months 
 afterward. It is true that he had not given the doctrine that precise 
 name and form ; but the principle was in existence, and had been 
 proclaimed by the ablest and the most clear-headed men of the 
 party. I will call your attention, sir, to a single passage from a 
 speech, to show the language in which this doctrine was stated in 
 Illinois before it received the name of the " irrepressible conflict." 
 The Republican party assembled in State convention in June, 1858, 
 in Illinois, and unanimously adopted Abraham Lincoln as their 
 candidate for United States "senator. Mr. Lincoln appeared before 
 
 the convention, accepted the nomination, and made a speech 
 
 which had been previously written and agreed to in caucus by most 
 of the leaders of the party. I will read a single extract from that 
 speech : 
 
 " In my opinion, it [the slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall 
 have been re-ached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. 
 I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. 
 I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. 
 It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery 
 will arrest the further spread of it. and place it where the public mind shall 
 rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction : or its advocates 
 will push forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States old a= well 
 as new, North as well as South." 
 
 Sir, the moment I landed upon the soil of Illinois, at a vast gather- 
 
 the perpetuity of this Republic. That is not merely the individual 
 opinion of Mr. Lincoln; nor is it the individual opinion merely of the 
 senator from Xew York, who four months afterward asserted the 
 same doctrine in different language ; but, so far as I know, it is the 
 general opinion of the members of the Abolition or Republican party. 
 They tell the people of the Xorth that unless they rally as one man, 
 under a sectional banner, and make war upon the South with a view 
 to the ultimate extinction of slavery, slavery will overrun the whole 
 North, and fasten itself upon all the free States. They then tell the 
 South, unless you rally as one man, binding the whole southern peo- 
 
 Ele into a sectional party, and establish slavery all over the free 
 tales, the inevitable consequence will be that we shall abolish it in 
 the slayeholding States. The same doctrine is held by the senator 
 from Xew York in his Rochester speech. He tells us that the 
 States must all become free, or all become slave; that the South, 
 in other words, must conquer and subdue the North, or the North 
 must triumph over the South, and drive slavery from within its 
 limits. 
 
 Mr. President, in order to show that I have not misinterpreted the 
 position of the senator from Xew York, in notifying the South that, 
 
162 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 if they wish to maintain slavery within their limits, they must also 
 fasten it upon the northern States, I will read an extract from his 
 Rochester speech : 
 
 " It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces : and 
 it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either 
 entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cot 
 ton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisiana, 
 will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become 
 marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat 
 fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their 
 farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and 
 New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls 
 of men." 
 
 Tims, sir, you perceive that the theory of the Republican party is, 
 that there is a conflict between two different systems of institutions 
 in the respective classes of States not a conflict in the same States, 
 but an irrepressible conflict between the free States and the slave 
 States ; and they argue that these two systems of State cannot per 
 manently exist in the same Union ; that the sectional warfare must 
 continue to rage and increase with increasing fury until the free 
 States shall surrender, or the slave States shall be subdued. Hence, 
 while they appeal to the passions of our own section, their object is 
 to alarm the people of the other section, and drive them to madness, 
 with the hope that they will invade our rights as an excuse for some 
 of our people to carry on aggressions upon their rights. I appeal to 
 the candor of senators, whether this is not a fair exposition of the 
 tendency of the doctrines proclaimed by the Republican party. 
 The creed of that party is founded upon the theory that, because 
 slavery is not desirable in our States, it is not desirable anywhere; 
 because free labor is a good thing with us, it must be the best thing 
 everywhere. In other words, the creed of their party rests upon the 
 theory that there must be uniformity in the domestic institutions 
 and internal polity of the several States of this Union. There, in my 
 opinion, is the fundamental error upon which their whole system 
 rests. In the Illinois canvass, I asserted, and now repeat, that uni 
 formity in the domestic institutions of the different States is neither 
 possible nor desirable. That is the very issue upon which I con 
 ducted the canvass at home, and it is the question which I desire 
 to present to the Senate. I repeat, that uniformity in domestic 
 institutions of the different States, is neither possible nor desirable. 
 
 Was such the doctrine of the framers of the Constitution ? I wish 
 the country to bear in mind that when the Constitution was adopted, 
 the Union consisted of thirteen States, twelve of which were slave- 
 holding States, and one a free State. Suppose this doctrine of uni 
 formity on the slavery question hat/ prevailed in the Federal Con 
 vention, do the gentlemen on that side of the House think that free 
 dom would have triumphed over slavery? Do they imagine that the 
 one free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 163 
 
 and thus have abolished slavery throughout the land by a Consti 
 tutional provision? On the contrary, if the test had then been 
 made, if this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery question had then 
 been proclaimed and believed in, with the twelve slaveholding States 
 against one free State, would it not have resulted in a constitutional 
 provision fastening slavery irrevocably upon every inch of American 
 soil, North as well as South ? Was it quite fair in those days for the 
 friends of free institutions to claim that the Federal Government 
 must not touch the question, but must leave the people of each State 
 to do as they pleased, until under the operation of that principle they 
 secured the majority, and then wield that majority to abolish slavery 
 in the other States of the Union ? 
 
 Sir, if uniformity in respect to domestic institutions had been 
 deemed desirable when the Constitution was adopted, there was 
 another mode by which it could have been obtained. The natural 
 mode of obtaining uniformity was to have blotted out the State 
 governments, to have abolished the State Legislatures, to have con 
 ferred upon Congress legislative power over the municipal and 
 domestic concerns of the people of all the States, as well as upon 
 Federal questions affecting the whole Union ; and if this doctrine of 
 uniformity had been entertained and favored by the framers of the 
 Constitution, such would have been the result. But, sir, the framers 
 of that instrument knew at that day, as well as we now know, that 
 in a country as broad as this, with so great a variety of climate, of 
 soil, and of production, there must necessarily be a corresponding 
 diversity of institutions and domestic regulations, adapted to the 
 wants and necessities of each locality. The framers of the Constitu 
 tion knew that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to 
 the mountains and valleys of New England, were ill-suited to 
 the rice plantations and the cotton-fields of the Carolinas. They 
 knew that our liberties depended upon reserving the right to the 
 people of each State to make their own laws and establish their own 
 institutions, and control them at pleasure, without interference from 
 the Federal Government, or from any other State or Territory, or 
 any foreign country. The Constitution, therefore, was based, and 
 the Union was founded, on the principle of dissimilarity in the 
 domestic institutions and internal polity of the several States. The 
 Union was founded on the theory that each State had peculiar 
 interests, requiring peculiar legislation, and peculiar institutions, dif 
 ferent and distinct Irom every other State. The Union rests on the 
 theory that no two States would be precisely alike in their domestic 
 policy and institutions. 
 
 Hence, I assert that this doctrine of uniformity in the domestic 
 institutions of the different States is repugnant to the Constitution, 
 subversive of the principles upon which the Union was based, revo 
 lutionary in its character, and leading directly to despotism if it is 
 ever established. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs in a coun 
 try of great extent is despotism, always. Show me centralism pre- 
 
164: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 pcribing uniformity from the capital to all of its provinces in their 
 local and domestic concerns, and I will show yon a despotism aa 
 odious and as insufferable as that of Austria or of Naples. Dissimi 
 larity is the principle upon which the Union rests. It is founded 
 upon the idea that each State must necessarily require different 
 regulations ; that no two States have precisely the same interests, 
 and hence do not need precisely the same laws ; and you cannot 
 account for this confederation of States upon any other principle. 
 
 Then, sir, what becomes of this doctrine that slavery must be es 
 tablished in all the States or prohibited in all the States ? If we 
 only conform to the principles upon which the Federal IMon was 
 lormed, there can be no conflict. It is only necessary to recognize 
 the right of the people of every State to have just such institutions 
 as they please, without consulting your wishes, your views, or your 
 prejudices, and there can be no conflict. 
 
 And, sir, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States con 
 fers upon Congress the power coupled with the duty of protecting 
 each State against external aggression, and inasmuch as that includes 
 the power of suppressing and punishing conspiracies in one State 
 against the institutions, property, people, or government of every 
 other State, I desire to carry out that power vigorously. Sir, give 
 us such a law as the Constitution contemplates and authorizes, and I 
 will show the senator from New York that there is a constitutional 
 mode of repressing the u irrepressible conflict." I will open the 
 prison door to allow conspirators against the peace of the Republic 
 and the domestic tranquility of our States to select their cells wherein 
 to drag out a miserable life, as a punishment for their crimes against 
 the peace of society. 
 
 Can any man say to us that although this outrage has been perpe 
 trated at Harper s Ferry, there is no danger of its recurrence ? Sir, 
 is not the Republican party still embodied, organized, confident of 
 success, and defiant in its pretensions ? Does it not now hold and 
 proclaim the same creed that it did before this invasion? It is true 
 that most of its representatives here disavow the acts of John Brown 
 at Harper s Ferry. I am glad that they do so ; I am rejoiced that 
 they have gone thus far ; but I must be permitted to say to them that 
 it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless they also repudi 
 ate and denounce the doctrines and teachings which produced the 
 act. Those doctrines remain the same ; those teachings are being 
 poured into the minds of men throughout the country by means of 
 speeches and pamphlets and books and through partisan presses. 
 The causes that produced the Harper s Ferry invasion are now in 
 active operation. It is true that the people of all the border States 
 are required by the Constitution to have their hands tied, without 
 the power of self-defence, and remain patient under a threatened in 
 vasion in the day or in the night ? Can you expect people to be 
 patient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night without first 
 stationing sentinels around their houses to see if a buL.d of marauders 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 165 
 
 and murderers are not approaching with torch and pistol ? Sir, it 
 requires more patience than freemen ever should cultivate, to submit 
 to constant annoyance, irritation and apprehension. If we expect to 
 preserve this Union, we must remedy, within the Union and in obe 
 dience to the Constitution, every evil for which disunion would fur 
 nish a remedy. If the Federal Government fails to act, either from 
 choice or from an ppprehension of the want of power, it cannot bo 
 expected that the States will be content to remain unprotected. 
 
 Then, sir, I see no hope of peace, of fraternity, of good feeling, be 
 tween the different portions of the United States, except by bringing 
 to bear the power of the Federal Government to the extent author 
 ized by the Constitution to protect the people of all the States 
 against any external violence or aggression. I repeat, that if the 
 theory of the Constitution shall be carried out by conceding the right 
 of the people of every State to have just such institutions as they 
 choose, there cannot be a conflict, much less an "irrepressible con 
 flict," between the free and the slaveholding States. 
 
 Mr. President, the mode of preserving peace is plain. This system 
 of sectional warfare must cease. The Constitution has given the 
 power, and all we ask of Congress is to give the means, and we, by 
 indictments and convictions in the federal courts of our several 
 States, will make such examples of the leaders of these conspiracies 
 as will strike terror into the hearts of the others, and there will be 
 an end of this crusade. Sir, you must check it by crushing out the 
 conspiracy, the combination, and then there can be safety. Then we 
 shall be able to restore that spirit of fraternity which inspired our 
 revolutionary fathers upon every battle-field ; which presided over 
 the deliberations of the convention that framed the Constitution, and 
 filled the hearts of the people who ratified it. Then we shall be ablo 
 to demonstrate to you that there is no evil unredressed in the Union 
 for which disunion would furnish a remedy. Then, sir, let us exe 
 cute the Constitution in the spirit in which it was made. Let Con 
 gress pass all the laws necessary and proper to give full and complete 
 effect to every guaranty of the Constitution. Let them authorize 
 the punishment of conspiracies and combinations in any State or 
 Territory against the property, institutions, people or government 
 of any other State or Territory, and there will be no excuse, no de 
 sire, for disunion. Then, sir, let us leave the people of every State 
 perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their 
 own way. Let each of them retain slavery just as long as it pleases, 
 and abolish it when it chooses. Let us act upon that good old 
 golden principle which teaches all men to mind their own business 
 nnd let their neighbors alone. Let this be done, and this Union can 
 endure forever as our fathers made it, composed of free and slave 
 States, just as the people of each, State may determine for them 
 selves. 
 
 Mr. Fessenden having replied at some length to Mr. Doug 
 las, he made the following rejoinder : 
 
106 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 MB. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I shall not follow the senator from 
 Maine through his entire speech, but simply notice such points as 
 demand of me some reply. He does not know why I introduced my 
 resolution ; he cannot conceive any good motive for it ; he thinks 
 there must be some other motive besides the one that has been 
 avowed. There are some men, I know, who cannot conceive that a 
 man can be governed by a patriotic or proper motive ; but it is not 
 among that class of men that I look for those who are governed by 
 motives of propriety. I have no impeachment to make of his mo 
 tives. I brought in this resolution because I thought the time had 
 arrived when we should have a measure of practical legislation. I 
 had seen expressions of opinion against the power from authorities 
 so high that I felt it my duty to bring it to the attention of the Sen 
 ate. I had heard that the senator from Virginia had intimated some 
 doubt on the question of power, as well as of policy. Other senators 
 discussed the question here for weeks when I was confined to my 
 sick bed. "Was there anything unreasonable in my coming before 
 the Senate at this time, expressing my own opinion, and confining 
 myself to the practical legislation indicated in the resolution ? Nor, 
 sir, have I in my remarks gone outside of the legitimate argument 
 pertaining to the necessity for this legislation. I first showed that 
 there had been a great outrage ; I showed what I believed to be the 
 causes that had produced the outrage, and that the causes which pro 
 duced it were still in operation ; and argued that, so long as tho 
 party to which the gentlemen belong remains embodied in full force, 
 those causes will still threaten the country. That was all. 
 
 The senator from Maine thinks he will vote for the bill that will 
 be proposed to carry out the objects referred to in my resolution. 
 Sir, whenever that senator and his associates on the other side of 
 the chamber will record their votes for a bill of the character 
 described in my resolution and speech, I shall congratulate the coun 
 try upon the progress they are making toward sound principles. 
 Whenever he and his associates will make it a felony for two or 
 more men to conspire to run oif fugitive slaves, and punish the 
 conspirators by confinement in the penitentiary, I shall consider 
 that wonderful changes have taken place in this country. I tell the 
 senator that it is the general tone of sentiment in all those sections 
 of the country where the Republican party predominate, so far as I 
 know, not only not to deem it a crime to rescue a fugitive slave, but 
 to raise mobs to aid in the rescue. He talks about slandering the 
 Republican party when we intimate that they are making a warfare 
 upon the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Sir, where, in the 
 towns and cities with Republican majorities, can you execute the 
 Fugitive Slave Law ? Is it in the town where the senator from New- 
 York resides ? Do you not remember the Jerry rescuers ? Is it at 
 Oberliu, where the mob was raised that made the rescue last year 
 and produced the riot ? 
 
 Why not make it a crime to form conspiracies and combinations 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 167 
 
 to run off fugitive slaves, as well as to run off horses, or any other 
 property ? I am talking about conspiracies which are so common in 
 all our northern States, to invade and enter, through their agents, 
 the slave States, and seduce away slaves and run them off by the 
 underground railroad, in order to send them to Canada. It is these 
 conspiracies to perpetrate crime with impunity, that keep up the irri 
 tation. John Brown could boast, in a public lecture in Cleveland, 
 that he and his band had been engaged all the winter in stealing 
 horses and running them off from the slaveholders in Missouri, and 
 that the livery stables were then filled with stolen horses, and yet 
 the conspiracy to do it could not be punished. 
 
 Sir, I desire a law that will make it a crime, punishable by impri 
 sonment in the penitentiary, after conviction in the United States 
 court, to make a conspiracy in one State, against the people, pro 
 perty, government, or institutions, of another. Then we shall get 
 at the root of the eviL I have no doubt that gentlemen on the other 
 side will vote for a law which pretends to comply with the guaranties 
 of the Constitution, without carrying any force or efficiency in its 
 provisions. I have heard men abuse the Fugitive Slave Law, and 
 express their willingness to vote for amendments; but when you 
 fame to the amendments which they desired to adopt, you found 
 they were such as would never return a fugitive to his master. 
 They would go for any fugitive slave law that had a hole in it big 
 enough to let the negro drop through and escape ; but none that 
 would comply with the obligations of the Constitution. So we shall 
 lind that side of the chamber voting for a law that will, in terms, 
 disapprove of unlawful expeditions against neighboring States, with 
 out being efficient in affording protection. 
 
 But the senator says it is a part of the policy of the northern 
 Democracy to represent the Republicans as being hostile to southern 
 institutions. Sir, it is a part of the policy of the northern Demo 
 cracy, as well as their duty, to speak the truth on that subject. I 
 did riot suppose that any man would have the audacity to arraign a 
 brother senator here for representing the Republican party as deal 
 ing in denunciation and insult of the institutions of the South. 
 Look to your Philadelphia platform, where you assert the sovereign 
 power of Congress over the Territories for their government, and 
 demand that it shall be exerted against those twin relics of barbar 
 ism polygamy and slavery. 
 
 Mr. President, for what purpose does the Republican party appeal 
 to northern passions and northern prejudices against southern insti 
 tutions and the southern people, unless it is to operate upon those 
 institutions ? They represent southern institutions as no better than 
 polygamy ; the slaveholder as no better than the polygamist ; and 
 complain that we should intimate that they did not like to associate 
 with the slaveholder any better than with the polygamist. 
 
 1 have always noticed that those men who were so far off from 
 the slave States that they did not know anything about them, are 
 
168 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 most anxious for the fate of the poor slave. Those men who are so 
 far off that they do not know what a negro is, are distressed to death 
 about the condition of the poor negro. (Laughter.) But, sir, go into 
 the horder States, where we associate across the line, where the civil 
 ities of society are constantly interchanged ; where we trade with 
 ea?.h other, and have social and commercial intercourse, and there 
 you will find them standing by each other like a band of brothers. 
 Take southern Illinois, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, and that 
 part of Pennsylvania bordering on Maryland, and there you will 
 find social intercourse ; commercial intercourse ; good feeling ; 
 because those poople know the condition of the slave on the oppo 
 site side of the line ; but just in proportion as you recede from the 
 slave States, just in proportion as the people are ignorant of the 
 facts, just in that proportion party leaders can impose on their sym 
 pathies and honest prejudices. 
 
 Sir, I know it is the habit of the Republican party, as a party, 
 wherever I have met them, to make the warfare in such a way as to 
 try to rally the whole North on sectional grounds against the "South. 
 I know that it is to be the issue, and it is proven by the speech of the 
 senator from New York, which I quoted before, and that of Mr. Lincoln, 
 so far as they are authority. I happen to have those speeches before 
 me. The senator from Maine has said that neither of these speeches 
 justified the conclusion that they asserted, that the free States and the 
 slave States cannot coexist permanently in the same republic. Let ug 
 see whether they do or not. Mr. Lincoln says : 
 
 " A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government 
 cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free." 
 
 Then he goes on to say they must all be one thing or all the other, 
 or else the Union cannot endure. What is the meaning of that 
 language, unless it is that the Union cannot permanently exist, half 
 slave and half free that it must all become one thing or all become 
 the other? That is the declaration. The declaration is that the 
 North must combine as a sectional party, and carry on the agitation 
 so fiercely, up to the very borders of the slaveholding States, that the 
 master dare not sleep at night for fear that the robbers, the John 
 Browns, will come and set his house on fire, and murder the women 
 and children, before morning, It is to surround the slaveholding 
 States by a cordon of free States, to use the language of the senator ; 
 to hem them in, in order that you may smother them out. The 
 senator avowed, in his speech to-day, their object to be to horn in the 
 slave States, in order that slavery may die out. How die out ? Con 
 fine it to its present limits; let the ratio of increase go on by the 
 laws of nature ; and just in proportion as the lands in the slaveholding 
 States wear out, the negroes increase, and you will seon reach that 
 point where the soil will not produce enough to feed the slaves ; then 
 hem them in, and let them starve out let them die out by starvation. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOI7GLAS. 169 
 
 That is the policy hem them in, and starve them out. Do as the 
 French did in Algeria, when the Arabs took to the caverns smoke 
 them out, by making tires at the mouths of the caverns, and keep them 
 burning until they die. The policy is, to keep up this agitation along 
 the line ; make slave property insecure in the border States ; keep the 
 master constantly in apprehension of assault, till he will consent to 
 abandon his native country, leaving his slaves behind him, or to 
 remove them further south. If you can force Kentucky thus to 
 abolish slavery, you make Tennessee the border State, and begin the 
 same operation upon her. 
 
 But sir, let us see whether the senator from ISTew York did not 
 proclaim the doctrine that free States and slave States cannot perma 
 nently exist in the same republic. He said : 
 
 "It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces ; and 
 it means that the United States must, and will, sooner or later, become either 
 entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation." 
 
 The opposing conflict is between the States ; the Union cannot 
 remain as it now is, part free and part slave. The conflict between 
 free States and slave States must go on until there is not a slave State 
 left, or until they are all slave States. That is the declaration of the 
 senator from New York. The senator from Maine tried to make the 
 Senate believe that I had misrepresented the senator from New York 
 and Mr. Lincoln, of Illinois, in stating that they referred to a conflict 
 between States. He said that all they meant was that it was a con 
 flict between free labor and slave labor in the same State. 
 
 Now, sir, let me submit to that man s candor whether he will 
 insist on that position. They both say the contest will go on until 
 the States become all free or all slave. Then, when is the con 
 test going to end ? When they become all slave ? Will there not 
 be the same conflict between free labor and slave labor, after every 
 State has become a slave State, that there is JQOW ? If that was the 
 meaning, would the conflict between slave labor and free labor cease 
 even when every State had become slaveholding ? Have not all the 
 slaveholding States a large number of free laborers within their 
 limits ; and if there is an irrepressible conflict between free labor and 
 slave labor, will you remove that conflict by making the States all 
 slave ? Yet, the senator from New York says they must become all 
 slave or all free before the conflict ceases. Sir, that shows that the 
 senator from New York meant what I represented him as meaning. 
 It shows that a man who knows the meaning of words, and has the 
 heart to express them as they read, cannot fail to know that that 
 was the meaning of those senators. The boldness with w r hich a 
 charge of misrepresentation may be made in this body will not give 
 character to it when it is contradicted by the facts. I dislike to 
 have to repel these charges of unfairness and misrepresentation ; yet 
 the senator began with a series of innuendoes, with a series of com- 
 
 8 
 
170 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 plaints of misrepresentation, showing that he was afraid to meet tho 
 rt*l issues of his party, and would make up for that by personal 
 assaults and innuendoes against the opposite party. 
 
 He goes hack to a speech of mine in opposition to the Lecompton 
 constitution, in which I said that if you would send that constitu 
 tion hack and let the people of Kansas Tote for or against it, if they 
 voted for a free State or a slave State I would go for it without 
 caring whether they voted slavery up or down. He thinks it is a 
 great charge against me that I do not care whether the people vote 
 it up or vote it down. 
 
 The idea is taken from a speech in the Senate the first speech I 
 made against the Lecompton constitution. It was quoted all over 
 Illinois by Mr. Lincoln in the canvass, and I repeated the sentiment 
 each time it was quoted against me, and repeated it in the South as 
 well as the North. I say this : if the people of Kansas want a slave 
 State, it is their business, not mine ; if they want a free State, they 
 have a right to have it ; and hence, I do not care, so far as regards 
 my action, whether they make it a free State or not ; it is none of 
 my business. But the senator says h does care, he has a preference 
 between freedom and slavery. How long would this preference last 
 if he was a sugar planter in Louisiana, residing on his estate, instead 
 of living in Maine? Sir, I hold the doctrine that a wise statesman 
 will adapt his laws to the wants, conditions and interests of the 
 people to be governed by them. Slavery may be very essential in 
 one climate and totally useless in another. If I were a citizen of 
 Louisiana I would vote for retaining and maintaining slavery, be 
 cause I believe the good of that people would require it. As a citi 
 zen of Illinois I am utterly opposed to it, because our interests would 
 not be promoted by it. I should like to see the Abolitionist who 
 would go and live in a southern country that would not get over his 
 scruples very soon and have a plantation as quickly as he could get 
 the money to buy it. 
 
 I have said and repeat that this question of slavery is one of 
 climate, of political economy, of self-interest, not a question of legis 
 lation. Wherever the climate, the soil, the health of the country 
 are such that it cannot be cultivated by white labor, you will have 
 African labor, and compulsory labor at that. Wherever white labor 
 can be employed cheapest and -most profitably, there African labor 
 will retire and white labor will take its place. 
 
 You cannot force slavery by all the acts of Congress you may take 
 on one inch of territory against the will of the people, and you can 
 not by any law you can make keep it out from one inch of American 
 territory where the people want it. You tried it in Illinois. By the 
 Ordinance of 1787, slavery was prohibited, and yet our people, be 
 lieving that slavery would be profitable to them, established heredi 
 tary servitude in the Territory by territorial legislation, in defiance 
 of your federal ordinance. We maintained slavery there just so long 
 as Congress said we should not have it, and we abolished it at jnst 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 171 
 
 the moment you recognized us as a State, with the right to do as we 
 pleased. When we established it, it was on the supposition that it 
 was our interest to do so. When we abolished it, we did so because 
 experience proved that it was not our interest to have it. I hold 
 that slavery is a question of political economy, to be determined by 
 climate, by soil, by production, by self-interest, and hence the people 
 to be "affected by it are the most impartial jury to try the fact, 
 whether their interest requires them to have it or not. 
 
 But the senator thinks it is a great crime for me to say that I do 
 not care whether they have it or not. I care just this far : I want 
 every people to have that kind of government, that system of laws, 
 that class of institutions, which will best promote their welfare, and 
 I want them to decide for themselves ; and so that they decide it to 
 suit themselves, I am satisfied, without stopping to inquire or caring 
 which way they decide it. That is what I meant by that declara 
 tion, and I am ready to stand by it. 
 
 The senator has made the discovery I suppose it is very new, for 
 he would not repeat anything that was old, after calling me to ac 
 count for expressing an idea that had been heard of before that I 
 re-opened the agitation by bringing in the Nebraska Bill in 1854; 
 and he tries to put the responsibility of the crimes perpetrated by his 
 political friends, and in violation of the law, upon the provisions of 
 the law itself. We passed a bill to allow the people of Kansas to 
 form and regulate their own institutions to suit themselves. No 
 sooner had we placed that law on the statute-book, than his political 
 friends formed conspiracies and combinations in the different New 
 England States to import a set of desperadoes into Kansas to control 
 the elections and the institutions of that country in fraud of the law 
 of Congress. 
 
 Sir, I desire to make the legislation broad enough to reach con 
 spiracies and combinations of that kind ; and I would also include 
 combinations and conspiracies on the other side. My object is to 
 establish firmly the doctrine that each State is to do its own voting, 
 establish its own institutions, make its own laws without interference, 
 directly or indirectly, from any outside power. The gentleman says 
 that is squatter sovereignty. Call it squatter sovereignty, call it 
 popular sovereignty, call it what you please, it is the great principle 
 of self-government on which this Union was formed, and by the pre 
 servation of which alone it can be maintained. It is the right of the 
 people of every State to govern themselves and make their own laws, 
 and be protected from outside violence or interference, directly or 
 indirectly. Sir, I confess the object of the legislation I contemplate 
 is to put down this outside interference; it is to repress this "irre 
 pressible conflict;" it is to bring the government back to the true 
 principles of the Constitution, and let each people in this Union res 1 , 
 secure in the enjoyment of domestic tranquillity without apprehen 
 sion from neighboring States. 
 
172 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 ON THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS UNDER THE WYAN- 
 DOTT CONSTITUTION. 
 
 IN REPLY TO ME. SEWAED AET> ME. TBTTMBUXL. 
 
 Delivered in the Senate of the United States, February 29, 1860. 
 
 MR. PEESIDENT : I trust I shall be pardoned for a few remarks upon 
 so much of the senator s speech as consists in an assault on the De 
 mocratic party, and especially with regard to the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, of which I was the responsible author. It has become fashion 
 able now-a-days for each gentleman making a speech against the D^- 
 mocratic party to refer to the Kansas-Nebraska Act as the cause of ail 
 the disturbances that have since ensued. They talk about the repeal 
 of a sacred compact that had been undisturbed for more than a quar 
 ter of a century, as if those who complained of violated faith had 
 been faithful to the provisions of the Missouri Compromise. Sir, 
 wherein consisted the necessity for the repeal or abrogation of that 
 act, except it was that the majority in the northern States refused 
 to carry out the Missouri Compromise in good faith ? I stood willing 
 to extend it to the Pacific Ocean, and abide by it forever, and the 
 entire South, without one exception in this body, was willing thus 
 to abide by it ; but the freesoil element of the northern States was 
 so strong as to defeat that measure, and thus open the slavery ques 
 tion anew. The men who now complain of the abrogation of that 
 act were the very men who denounced it, and denounced all of us 
 who were willing to abide by it so long as it stood upon the statute- 
 book. Sir, it was the defeat, in the House of Representatives, of the 
 enactment of the bill to extend the Missouri Compromise to the 
 Pacific Ocean, after it had passed the Senate on my own motion, that 
 opened the controversy of 1850, which was terminated by the adop 
 tion of the measures of that year. 
 
 We carried those Compromise measures over the head of the sena 
 tor from New York and his present associates. "We, in those mea 
 sures, established a great principle, rebuking his doctrine of inter 
 vention by the Congress of the United States to prohibit slavery in 
 the Territories. Both parties, in 1852, pledged themselves to abide 
 by that principle, and thus stood pledged not to prohibit slavery in 
 the Territories by act of Congress. The Whig party affirmed that 
 pledge, and so did the Democracy. In 1854 we only carried out, in 
 the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the same principle that had been affirmed 
 in the Compromise measures of 1850. I repeat that their resistance 
 to carrying out in good faith the settlement of 1820, their defeat o* 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 173 
 
 the bill for extending it to the Pacific Ocean, was the sole cause of 
 tho agitation of 1850, and gave rise to the necessity of establishing 
 the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the 
 Territories. 
 
 Hence I am not willing to sit here and allow the senator from 
 New York, with all the weight of authority he has with the powerful 
 party of which he is the head, to arraign me and the party to which 
 I belong with the responsibility for that agitation which rests solely 
 upon him and his associates. Sir, the Democratic party was willing 
 to carry out the Compromise in good faith. Having been defeated 
 in that for the want of numbers, and having established the principle 
 of non-intervention in the Compromise measures of 1850, in lieu of 
 it, the Democratic party from that day to this has been faithful to 
 the new principle of adjustment. Whatever agitation has grown 
 out of the question since, has been occasioned by the resistance of 
 the party of which that senator is the head, to this great principle 
 which has been ratified by the American people at two Presidential 
 elections. If he was willing to acquiesce in the solemn and repeated 
 judgment of that American people to which he appeals, there would 
 be no agitation in this country now. 
 
 But, sir, the whole argument of that senator goes far beyond the 
 question of slavery, even in the Territories. His entire argument 
 rests on the assumption that the negro and the white man were equal 
 by Divine law, and hence that all laws and constitutions and govern 
 ments in violation of the principle of negro equality are in violation 
 of the law of God. That is the basis upon which his speech rests. 
 
 He quotes the Declaration of Independence to show that the fathers 
 of the Revolution understood that the negro was placed on an equality 
 with the white man, by quoting the clause, " we hold these truths to 
 be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed 
 by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are 
 life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Sir, the doctrine of that 
 senator and of his party is and I have had to meet it for eight 
 years that the Declaration of Independence intended to recognize 
 the negro and the white man as equal under the Divine law, and 
 hence that all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States 
 which recognize slavery are in violation of the Divine law. In other 
 words, it is an argument against the Constitution of the United 
 States upon the ground that it is contrary to the law of God. Tho 
 senator from New York has long held that doctrine. The senator 
 from New York has often proclaimed to the world that the Consti 
 tution of the United States was in violation of the Divine law, and 
 that senator will not contradict the statement. I have an extract 
 from one of his speeches now before me, in which that proposition is 
 distinctly put forth. In a speech made in the State of Ohio, in 184.8, 
 ho said : 
 
 " Slavery is the sin of not some of the States only, but of them all ; of not 
 one nationality, but of all nations. It perverted and corrupted the moral senso 
 
174: THE LIFE AND SP ^M CHE 
 
 of mankind deeply and universally, and this perversion became a universal 
 habit. Habits of thought become fixed principles. No American State has 
 yet delivered itself entirely from these habits. We, in New York, are guilty 
 of slavery still by withholding the right of suffrage from the race we have 
 emancipated. You, in Ohio, are guilty in the same way by a system of black 
 laws still more aristocratic and odious. It is written in the Constitution of the 
 United States that five slaves shall count equal to three freemen as a basis o_ 
 representation ; and it is written, also, IN VIOLATION OF DIVINE LAW/ 
 that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at our firesides from 
 his relentless pursuer." 
 
 There you find his doctrine clearly laid down, that the Constitution 
 of the United States is " in violation of the Divine law," and there 
 fore, is not to be obeyed. You are told that the clause relating to 
 fugitive slaves, being in violation of the Divine law, is not binding 
 on mankind. This has been the doctrine of the senator from New 
 York for years. I have not heard it in the Senate to-day for the 
 first time. I have met in my own State, for the last ten years, this 
 same doctrine, that the Declaration of Independence recognized the 
 negro and the white man as equal ; that the negro and white man 
 are equals by Divine law, and that every provision of our Constitu 
 tion and laws which establishes inequality between the negro and 
 the white man, is void, because contrary to the law of God. 
 
 The senator from New York says, in the very speech from which 
 I have quoted, that New York is yet a slave State. Why ? Not 
 that she has a slave within her limits, but because the Constitution 
 of New York does not allow a negro to vote on an equality with a 
 white man. For that reason he says New York is still a slave State ; 
 for that reason every other State that discriminates between tho 
 negro and the white man is a slave State, leaving but a very few 
 States in the Union that are free from his objection. Yet, notwith 
 standing the senator is committed to these doctrines, notwithstanding 
 the leading men of his party are committed to them, he argues that 
 they have been accused of being in favor of negro equality, and 
 says the tendency of their doctrine is the equality of the white man. 
 He introduces the objection, and fails to answer it. He states the 
 proposition and dodges it, to leave the inference that he does not 
 indorse it. Sir, I desire to see these gentlemen carry out their prin 
 ciples to their logical conclusion. If they will persist in the decla 
 ration that the negro is made the equal of the white man, and that 
 any inequality is in violation of the Divine law, then let them carry 
 it out in their legislation by conferring on the negroes all the rights of 
 citizenship the same as on white men. For one. I never held to any 
 such doctrine. I hold that the Declaration of Independence wa-; 
 only referring to the white man to the governing race of this coun 
 try, who were in conflict with Great Britain, and had no reference to 
 the negro race at all, when it declared that all men were created 
 equal. 
 
 Sir, if the signers of that declaration had understood the instru 
 ment then as the senator from New York now construes it, were 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 175 
 
 thy not bound on that day, at that very hour, to emancipate all 
 their slaves ? If Mr. Jefferson had meant that his negro slaves wero 
 created by the Almighty his equals, was he not bound to emancipate 
 the slaves on the very day that he signed his name to the Declaration 
 of Independence ? Yet no one of the signers of that declaration 
 emancipated his slaves. ISTo one of the States on whose behalf the 
 declaration was signed, emancipated its slaves until after the Revo 
 lution was over. Every one of the original colonies, every one of 
 the thirteen original States, sanctioned and legalized slavery until 
 after the Revolution was closed. These facts show conclusively that 
 the Declaration of Independence was never intended to bear the 
 construction placed upon it by the senator from New York, and by 
 that enormous tribe of lecturers that go through the country deliver 
 ing lectures in country school-houses and basements of churches to 
 abolitionists, in order to teach the children that the Almighty had 
 put his seal of condemnation upon any inequality between the white 
 man and the negro. 
 
 Mr. President, I am free to say here what I have said over and 
 over again at home that, in my opinion, this government was made 
 by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for 
 ever, and should be administered by white men, and by none other 
 whatsoever. 
 
 ME. DOOLITTLE. I will ask the honorable senator, then, why not 
 give the Territories to white men? 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I am in favor of throwing the Ter 
 ritories open to all the white men, and all the negroes, too, that 
 choose to go, and then allow the white men to govern the Territory. 
 I would not let one of the negroes, free or slave, either vote or hold 
 office anywhere, where I had the right, under the Constitution, to 
 prevent it. I am in favor of each State and each Territory of this 
 Union taking care of its own negroes, free or slave. If they want 
 slavery, let them have it ; if they desire to prohibit slavery, let them 
 do it ; it is their business, not mine. We in Illinois tried slavery 
 while we were a Territory, and found it was not profitable ; and 
 hence we turned philanthropists and abolished it, just as our British 
 friends across the ocean did. They established slavery in all their 
 colonies, and when they found they could not make any more money 
 out of it, abolished it. I hold that the question of slavery is one of 
 political economy, governed by the laws of climate, soil, productions, 
 and self-interest, and not by mere statutory provision. I repudiate 
 the doctrine, that because free institutions may be best in one climate 
 they are, necessarily, the best everywhere ; or that because slavery may 
 be indispensable in one locality, therefore it is desirable everywhere. 
 I hold that a wise statesman will always adapt his legislation to the 
 wants, interests, condition, and necessities of tho people to be go 
 verned by it. One people will bear different institutions from 
 another. One climate demands different institutions from another. 
 
176 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 I repeat, then, what I have often had occasion to say, that I do not 
 think uniformity is either possible or desirable. I wish to see no two 
 States precisely alike in their domestic institutions in this Union. 
 Our system rests on the supposition that each State has something 
 in her condition or climate, or her circumstances, requiring laws and 
 institutions different from every other State of the Union. Hence I 
 answer the question of the senator from Wisconsin, that I am willing 
 that a Territory settled by white men shall have negroes, free or 
 slave, just as the white men shall determine, but not as the negroes 
 shall prescribe. 
 
 The senator from New York has coined a new definition of the 
 States of the Union labor States and capital States. The capital 
 States, I believe, are the slaveholding States ; the labor States are 
 the non-slaveholding States. It has taken that senator a good many 
 years to coin that phrase and bring it into use. I have heard him 
 discuss these favorite theories of his for the last ten years, 1 think, 
 and I never heard of capital States and labor States before. It 
 strikes me that something has recently occurred up in New England 
 that makes it politic to get up a question between capital and labor, 
 and take the side of the numbers against the few. We have seen 
 some accounts in the newspapers of combinations and strikes among 
 the journeymen shoemakers in the towns there labor against capi 
 tal. The senator has a new word ready coined to suit their case, 
 and make the laborers believe that he is on the side of the most 
 numerous class of voters. 
 
 What produced that strike among the journeymen shoemakers? 
 .Why are the mechanics of New England, the laborers and the em 
 ployees, novv reduced to the starvation point? Simply because, by 
 your treason, by your sectional agitation, you have created a strife 
 between the North and the South, have driven away your southern 
 customers, and thus deprive the laborers of the means of support. 
 This is the fruit of your Republican dogmas. It is another step, fol 
 lowing John Brown, of the " irrepressible conflict." Therefore we 
 now get this new coinage of " labor States " he is on the side of 
 the shoemakers (laughter), and " capital States " he is against 
 those that furnish the hides. (Laughter.) I think those shoemakers 
 will understand this business. They know why it is that they do 
 not get so many orders as they did a few months ago. It is not 
 confined to the shoemakers ; it reaches every mechanic s shop and 
 every factory. All the large laboring establishments of the North 
 feel the pressure produced by the doctrine of the "irrepressible con 
 flict." This new coinage of words will not save them from the just 
 responsibility that follows the doctrines they have been inculcating. 
 If they had abandoned the doctrine of the "irrepressible conflict," 
 and proclaimed the true doctrine of the Constitution, that each State 
 is entirely free to do just as it pleases, have slavery as long as it 
 chaoses, and abolish it when it wishes, there would be no conflict ; 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 177 
 
 the northern and southern States would be brethren ; there would 
 be fraternity between us, and your shoemakers would not strike for 
 higher prices. 
 
 ******** 
 
 Sir, the feeling among the masses of the South we find typified in 
 the dress of the senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason) ; they are deter 
 mined to wear the homespun of their own productions rather than 
 trade with the North. That is the feeling which has produced this 
 state of distress in our manufacturing towns. 
 
 The senator from New York has also referred to the recent action 
 of the people of New Mexico, in establishing a code for the protection 
 of property in slaves, and he congratulates the country upon the 
 final success of the advocates of free institutions in Kansas. He 
 could not fail, however, to say, in order to preserve what he thought 
 was a striking antithesis, that popular sovereignty in Kansas meant 
 State sovereignty in Missouri. No, sir, popular sovereignty in 
 Kansas was stricken down by unholy combination in New England 
 to ship men to Kansas rowdies and vagabonds with the Bible in 
 one hand and Sharpe s rifle in the other, to shoot down the friends 
 of self-government. Popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken 
 down by the combinations in the northern States to carry elections 
 under pretence of emigrant aid societies. In retaliation, Missouri 
 formed aid societies too ; and she, following your example, sent men 
 into Kansas, and then occurred the conflict. Now, you throw tho 
 blame upon Missouri merely because she followed your example, and 
 attempted to resist its consequences. I condemn both ; but I con 
 demn a thousand-fold more those that set the example and struck 
 the first blow, than those who thought they would act upon the 
 principle of fighting the devil with his own weapons, and resorted to 
 the same means that you had employed. 
 
 But, sir, notwithstanding the efforts of emigrant aid societies, 
 the people of Kansas have had their own way, and the people 
 of New Mexico have had their own way. Kansas has adopted a 
 free State ; New Mexico has established a slave Territory. I am 
 content with both. If the people of New Mexico want slavery, let 
 them have it, and I never will vote to repeal their slave code. If 
 Kansas does not want slavery, I will not help anybody to force it on 
 her. Let each do as it pleases. When Kansas comes to the conclu 
 sion that slavery will not suit her, and promote her interest better 
 than the prohibition, let her pass her own slave code ; I will not 
 pass it for her. Whenever New Mexico gets tired of her code, she 
 must repeal it for herself ; I will not repeal it for her. Non-inter 
 vention by Congress with slavery in the Territories is the platform 
 on which I stand. 
 
 But I want to know why will not the senator from New York 
 carry out his principles to their logical conclusions ? Why is there 
 not a man in that whole party, in this body or the House of Kepre- 
 eentatives, bold enough to redeem the pledges which that party has 
 
 8* 
 
173 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 made to the country ? I believe you said, in your Philadelphia 
 platform, that Congress had sovereign power over the Territories 
 for their government, and that it was the duty of Congress, to pro 
 hibit, in all the Territories, those twin relics of barbarism, slavery 
 and polygamy. Why do you not carry out your pledges ? Why do 
 y ou not introduce your bill ? The senator from New York says they 
 have no new measures to originate ; no new movement to make; no 
 new bill to bring forward. Then what confidence shall the Ameri 
 can people repose in your faith and sincerity, when, having the 
 power in one House, you do not bring forward a bill t* carry out 
 your principles ? The fact is, these principles are avowed to get 
 votes in the North, but not to be carried into effect by acts of Con 
 gress. You are afraid of hurting your party if you bring in your 
 bill to repeal the slave code of New Mexico ; afraid of driving off the 
 conservative men; you think it is wise to wait until after the election. 
 I should be glad to have confidence enough in the sincerity of the 
 other side of the chamber to suppose that they had sufficient 
 courage to bring forward a law to carry out their principles to their 
 logical conclusions. I find nothing of that. They wish to agitate, 
 to excite the people of the North against the South to get votes for 
 the Presidential election ; but they shrink from carrying out their 
 measures lest they might throw off some conservative voters who do 
 not like the Democratic party. 
 
 But, sir, if the senator from New York, in the event that he is 
 made President, intends to carry out his principles to their logical 
 conclusions, let us see where they will lead him. In the same speech 
 that I read from a few minutes ago, I find the following. Address 
 ing the people of Ohio, he said : 
 
 " You blush not at these things, because they have become as familiar as 
 household words ; and your pretended free-soil allies claim peculiar merit for 
 maintaining these miscalled guaranties of slavery, which they find in the na 
 tional compact. Does not all this prove that the Whig party have kept up 
 with the spirit of the age ; that it is as true and faithful to human freedom as 
 the inert conscience of the American people will permit it to be ? What then, 
 you say, can nothing be done for freedom, because the public conscience re 
 mains inert? Yes, much can be done, everything can be done. Slavery can 
 be limited to its present bounds." 
 
 That is the first thing that can be done slavery can be limited to 
 its present bounds. What else ? 
 
 "It can be ameliorated. It can and must be abolished, and you and I can and 
 must do it." 
 
 There you find are two propositions : first, slavery was to be limited 
 to the States in which it was then situated. It did not then exist in 
 any Territory. Slavery was confined to the States. The first pro 
 position was that slavery must be restricted, and confined to those 
 States. The second was, that he, as a New Yorker, and the}-, the 
 people of Ohio, must and would abolish it; that is to say, abolish it 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 179 
 
 in the States. They could abolish it nowhere else. Every appeal they 
 make to Northern prejudice and passion, is against the institution of 
 slavery everywhere, and they would not be able to retain their abo 
 lition allies, the rank and file, unless they held out the hope that it was 
 the mission of the Republican party, if successful, to abolish slavery 
 in the States as well as in the Territories of the Union. 
 
 And again in the same speech, the senator from New York advised 
 the people to disregard constitutional obligations in these words : 
 
 " But we must begin deeper and lower than the composition and combination 
 of factions or parties, wherein the strength and security of slavery lie. You 
 answer that it lies in the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions 
 and laws of slaveholding States. Not at all. It is in the erroneous sentiment 
 of the American people. Constitutions and laws can no more rise above the 
 virtue of the people than the limpid stream can climb above its native spring. 
 Inculcate the love of freedom and the equal rights of man under the paternal 
 roof; see to it that they are taught in the schools and in the churches ; reform 
 your own code ; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary 
 limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal gods ; correct 
 your own error, that slavery is a constitutional guaranty which may not be 
 released, and ought not to be relinquished." 
 
 I know they tell us that all this is to be done according to the 
 Constitution; they would not violate the Constitution except so far 
 as the Constitution violates the law of God that is all and they are 
 to be the judges of how far the Constitution does violate the law of 
 God. They say that every clause of the Constitution that recognizes 
 property in slaves, is in violation of the Divine law, and hence should 
 not be obeyed ; and with that interpretation of the Constitution, they 
 turn to the South and say, "We will give you all your rights under 
 the Constitution, as we explain it." 
 
 Then the senator devoted about a third of his speech to a very 
 beautiful homily on the glories of our Union. All that he has said, 
 all that any other man has ever said, all that the most eloquent 
 tongue can ever utter, in behalf of the blessings and the advantages of 
 this glorious Union, I fully indorse. But still, sir, I am prepared to say, 
 that the Union is glorious only when the Constitution is preserved 
 inviolate. He eulogized the Union. I, too, am for the Union ; I in 
 dorse the eulogies ; but still, what is the Union worth, unless the Con 
 stitution is preserved and maintained inviolate in all its provisions? 
 
 Sir, I have no faith in the Union-loving sentiments of those who 
 will not carry out the Constitution in good faith, as our fathers made 
 it. Professions of fidelity to the Union will be taken for naught, un 
 less they are accompanied by obedience to the Constitution upon 
 which the Union rests. I have a right to insist that the Constitution 
 shall be maintained inviolate in all its parts, notonly that which suits 
 the temper of the North, but every clause of that Constitution, whe 
 ther you like it or dislike it. Your oath to support the Constitution 
 binds you to every line, word, and syllable of the instrument. You 
 have no right to say that any given clause is in violation of the Divine 
 
ISO THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 law, and that, therefore, you will not observe it. The man who dis* 
 obeys any one clause on the pretext that it violates the Divine law, 
 or on any other pretext, violates his oath of office. 
 
 But, sir, what a commentary is this pretext that the Constitution is 
 a violation of the Divine law, upon those revolutionary fathers whose 
 eulogies we have heard here to-day. Did the framers of that instru 
 ment make a Constitution in violation of the law of God ? If so, how 
 do your consciences alloAv you to take the oath of office? If the sena 
 tor, from New York still holds to his declaration that the clause in the 
 Constitution relative to fugitive slaves is a violation of the Divine 
 law, how dare he, as an honest man, take an oath to support the in 
 strument ? Did he understand that he was defying the authority of 
 Heaven when he took the oath to support that instrument ? 
 
 Thus, we see, the radical difference between the ^Republican party 
 and the Democratic party is this : we stand by the Constitution as 
 our fathers made it, and by the decisions of the constituted authori 
 ties as they are pronounced in obedience to the Constitution. They 
 repudiate the instrument, substitute their own will for that of the 
 constituted authorities, annul such provisions as their fanaticism, or 
 prejudice, or policy, may declare to be in violation of God s law, and 
 then say : " We will protect all your rights under the Constitution as 
 expounded by ourselves ; but not as expounded by the tribunal cre 
 ated for that purpose." 
 
 Mr. President, I shall not occupy further time in the discussion of 
 this question to-night. I did not intend to utter a word; and I 
 should not have uttered a word upon the subject, if the senator from 
 New York had not made a broad arraignment of the Democratic 
 party, and especially of that portion of the action of the party for 
 which I was most immediately responsible. Everybody knows that I 
 brought forward and helped to carry through the Kansas-Nebraska 
 act, and that I was active in support of the compromise measures of 
 1850. I have heard bad faith attached to the Democratic party for 
 that act too long to be willing to remain silent and seem to sanction 
 it even by tacit acquiescence. 
 
 MR. TRTTMBULL having replied, 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS responded as follows : I have but a few words to 
 say, in reply to my colleague ; and first on the question, whether 
 Illinois was a slave Territory or not, and whether we ever had 
 slavery in the State. I dislike technical denials, conveying an idea 
 contrary to the fact. My colleague well knows, and so do I, that, 
 practically, we had slaves there while a Territory, and after we be 
 came a State. I have seen him dance to the music of a negro slave 
 in Illinois many a time, and I have danced to the same music myself. 
 [Laughter.] We have both had the same negro servants to black our 
 boots and wait upon us, and they were held as slaves. We know, 
 therefore, that slavery did exist in the State in fact, and slavery did 
 exist in the Territory in fact; and his denial relates exclusively to 
 the question whether slavery was legal. Whether legal or not, it 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 181 
 
 existed in fact. The master exercised his dominion over the slave, 
 and those negroes were held as slaves until 1847, when we estab 
 lished the new Constitution. There are gentlemen around me here, 
 who know the fact gentlemen who were nursed by slaves in 
 Illinois. No man familiar with the history of Illinois will deny the 
 fact. The quibble is, that the Territorial laws authorizing the intro 
 duction of slaves were void because the ordinance of 1787 said slavery 
 was prohibited. 
 
 Notwithstanding that ordinance, the old French inhabitants, who 
 had slaves before the ordinance, paid no attention to it, and held 
 slaves still. Slaves were held there all the time that Illinois was a 
 Territory ; and after it became a State they were held till they 
 all died out, and their children became emancipated under the con 
 stitution. It is a fact; we all know it. That gentlemen have seen 
 many of those old French slaves, who were held in defiance of the 
 ordinance. Whether they were lawfully held or not, the Territorial 
 authorities sustained the rights of the master. Not only were slaves 
 held by the French before the ordinance, but the Territorial legisla 
 ture passed a law in substance to this effect : any citizen might go to 
 Kentucky, or any other State or Territory, where slaves were held, 
 and bring slaves into the Territory of Illinois, take them to a county 
 court, and in open court enter into an indenture by which the slave 
 and his posterity were to serve him for ninety-nine years ; and in 
 the event that the slave refused to enter into the indenture, the 
 master should have a certain time to take him out of the Territory 
 and sell him. The senator now says that law was not valid. Valid 
 or not, it was executed ; slaves were introduced, and they were 
 held ; they were used ; they were worked ; and they died slaves. 
 That is the fact. I have had handed to me a book showing the number 
 of slaves in Illinois at the taking of the various censuses, by which it 
 appears that, when the census of 1810 was taken, there were in Illi 
 nois 168 slaves ; in 1820, 917 ; in 1830, 747 ; and in 1840, 331. In 
 1850 there were none, for the reason that, in 1847, we adopted a 
 new constitution that prohibited slavery entirely, and by that time 
 they had nearly all died. The census shows that at one time there 
 were as many as nine hundred slaves, and at all times the dominion 
 of the master was maintained. 
 
 The fact is, that the people of the Territory of Illinois, when it was 
 a Territory, were almost all from the southern States, particularly 
 from Kentucky and Tennessee. The southern end of the State was 
 the only part at first settled that part called Egypt because it is 
 the land of letters and of plenty. Civilization and learning all origi 
 nated in Egypt. The northern part of the State, where the political 
 friends of my colleague now preponderate, was then in the possession 
 of the Indians, and so were northern Indiana and northern Ohio ; 
 and a Yankee could not get to Illinois at all, unless he passed down 
 through Virginia and over iuto Tennessee and through Kentucky. 
 The consequence was, that ninety-nine out of a hundred of the set- 
 
132 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 tiers were from the slave States. They carried the old family 
 servants with them, and kept them. They were told, " Here is an 
 ordinance of Congress passed against your holding them." They 
 said, a What has Congress to do with our domestic institutions? 
 Congress had better mind its own business, and let us alone ; we 
 know what we want better than Congress ;" and hence they passed 
 this law to bring them in and make them indentured. Under that, 
 they established slavery and held slaves as long as they wanted them. 
 When they assembled to make the constitution of Illinois, in 1818, 
 for admission into the Union, nearly every delegate to the convention 
 brought his negro along with him to black his boots, play the fiddle, 
 wait upon him, and take care of his room. They had a jolly time 
 there ; they were dancing people, frolicksome people, people who 
 enjoyed life ; they had the old French habits. Slaves were just as 
 thick there as blackberries. 
 
 But they said "Experience proves that it is not going to be profit 
 able in this climate." There were no scruples about it. Every one 
 of them was nursed by it. His mother and his father held slaves. 
 They had no scruples about its being right, but they said, u We can 
 not make any money by it, and as our State runs way off north up to 
 those eternal snows, perhaps we shall gain population faster if we 
 stop slavery and invite in the northern population ;" and, as a matter 
 of political policy, state policy, they prohibited slavery themselves. 
 How did they prohibit it? Not by emancipating, setting at liberty, 
 the slaves then in the State, for I believe that has never been done by 
 any legislative body in America, and I doubt whether any one will 
 ever arrogate to itself the right to divest property already there ; but 
 they provided that all slaves then in the State should remain slaves 
 for life ; that all indentured persons should fulfill the terms of their 
 indentures. Ninety-nine years was about long enough, I reckon, for 
 grown persons at least. 
 
 All persons of slave parents, after a certain time, were to be free 
 at a certain age, and all born after a certain other period, were to be 
 free at their birth. It was a gradual system of emancipation. Hence, 
 I now repeat, that so long as the ordinance of 1787, passed by Con 
 gress, said Illinois should not have slavery, she did have it ; and the 
 very first day that our people arrived at that condition that they 
 could do as they pleased, to wit, when they became a State, they 
 adopted a system of gradual emancipation; but still slavery continued 
 in the State, as the census of 1820, the census of 1830, and the census 
 of 1840, show, until the new constitution of 1847, when nearly all those 
 old slaves had died out, and probably there were riot a halt-dozen 
 alive. That was the way slavery was introduced and expired in 
 Illinois. Whatever quibbles there may be about legal construction, 
 legal right, these are the facts. 
 
 Look into the Territorial legislation, and you will finf as rigorous 
 a code for the protection of slave property as in any State ; a code 
 prescribing the control of the master, providing that if a negro slavo 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 183 
 
 should leave his master s farm "without leave, or in the night time, 
 he should be punished by so many stripes, and if he committed such 
 an offence he should receive so many stripes, and so on; as rigorous 
 a code as ever existed in any southern State of this Union. Not 
 only that, but after the State caino into the Union, the State of 
 Illinois reenacted that code, and continued it up to the time that 
 slavery died out under the operation of the State constitution. 
 
 I dislike, sir, to have a controversy with my colleague about histo 
 rical facts. I suppose the Senate of the United States has no parti 
 cular interest in the early history of Illinois, but it has become 
 obligatory on me to vindicate my statement to that extent. 
 
 Now, sir, a word about the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 
 I have had occasion to refer to that before in the Senate, and I am 
 sorry to have to refer to it again. 
 
 My colleague arraigns me as chairman of the Committee on Terri 
 tories against myself as a member of the Senate in 1854. upon the 
 Nebraska Bill. He says that, as chairman of the committee, I 
 reported that we did not see proper to depart from the example of 
 1850 ; that as the Mexican laws were not then repealed in terms, we 
 did not propose in terms to repeal the Missouri restriction, but 
 there the senator stops, and there the essense of the report begins 
 but, the report added, this committee proposes to carry out the prin 
 ciples embodied in the Compromise measures of 1850 in precise 
 language, and then we go on to state what those principles were; 
 and one was, that the people of a Territory should settle the question 
 of slavery for themselves, and we reported a bill giving them that- 
 power. 
 
 But inasmuch as the power to introduce slavery, notwithstanding 
 the Mexican laws, was conferred on the Territorial legislatures under 
 the compromise measures of 1850, the right to introduce it into 
 Kansas, notwithstanding the Missouri restriction, was also proposed 
 to be conferred without expressly repealing the restriction. The 
 legal effect was precisely the same. Afterward some gentlemen 
 said they would rather have the legal effect expressed in plain lan 
 guage. 
 
 I said, "If you want a repealing act, have it: it does not alter 
 the legal effect." I said so at the time, as the debates show ; and 
 hence I put in the express provision that the Missouri act was 
 thereby repealed. It did not change the legal effect of the bill ; but 
 that variation of language has been the staple of a great many stump 
 speeches, a great many miserable quibbles of county court lawyers, 
 a great many attempts to prove inconsistency by small politicians in 
 the country. Be it so. The people understand that thing. The 
 object I had in view was to allow the people to do as they pleased. 
 The first bill accomplished that ; the amendment accomplished it. 
 "Whether that was the object of others or not, is another question. 
 That was my object. The two bills, in my opinion, had the same 
 legal effect ; but I said if any one doubts it, I will make it plain. 
 
184: THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 Some said, " we doubt whether that gives the right." Then I mado 
 it plain, and brought it in in express terms, and he calls a change of 
 language, without varying the legal effect, a change of policy. My 
 colleague is welcome to make the most out of that. I have had 
 that arraignment over and over again. 
 
 The senator has some doubt as to whether I am in good 
 standing in my own party ; whether I am a good represen 
 tative of northwestern Democracy. I have nothing to say about 
 that. I will allow the people to speak in their conventions on that 
 subject. Whether I represent the Democracy of Illinois or not, I 
 shall not say. The people understand all that. I can only say that 
 I have been in the Democratic party all my life, and I know what 
 our Democrats mean. My colleague indorsed and approved the 
 compromise measures of 1850. He was a Democrat a few years ago. 
 Even in 1856, he declared, I believe, that he could not vote for me, 
 if nominated, but he would vote for Mr. Buchanan ; but, after the 
 nomination, he did not like the platform, and he went over. Lhavo 
 no objection to that ; it is all right enough. I never intended to 
 taunt him with inconsistency ; but I do not think he is as safe and as 
 authoritative an expounder of the Republican party as the senator 
 from New York. The senator from New York says that a State 
 that does not allow a negro to vote on an equality with a white man 
 is a slave State. I read his speech here to-day. I suppose the sena 
 tor from New York is a pretty good Republican. I thought he spoke 
 with some authority for his party. 1 did not suppose those neo 
 phytes who had just come into the party were going to unsettle and 
 unhorse the leader and embodiment of the party so quickly, and 
 prescribe a platform that would rule out the senator from New 
 York. I must be permitted, therefore, to take the authority of the 
 leaders of the party in preference to those who are kept in the rank 
 and file until they have served an apprenticeship. (Laughter.) 
 
 The senator from New York says it is slavery not to allow the 
 negro to vote. Well, sir, I hold that that is political slavery. If 
 you disfranchise a man, you make him a political slave. Deprive a 
 white man of a voice in his government, and, politically, he is a 
 slave. Hence the inequality you create is slavery to that extent. 
 My colleague will not allow a negro to vote. He lives too far south 
 in Illinois for that, decidedly. He has to expound the creed down 
 in Egypt. They have other expositions up north. The creed is 
 pretty black in the north end of the State ; about the centre it is a 
 pretty good mulatto, and it is almost white when you get down into 
 Egypt. It assumes paler shades as you go south. The Democrats 
 of Illinois have one creed, and we can proclaim it everywhere alike. 
 
 The senator, my colleague, complains that I represent his party to 
 be in favor of negro equality. No such thing, says he : "I tell my 
 colleague to his teeth it is not so." There is something very fearful 
 in the manner in which he said it ! Senators know that he is a 
 dangerous man who says things to a man s teeth, and I shall be verjr 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 185 
 
 cautious how I reply. But lie says he does hold that by the law of 
 God the negro and the white man are created equal ; that is, he 
 says, in a state of nature ; and, therefore, he says he indorses that 
 clause of the Declaration of Independence as including the negro as 
 well as the white man. I do not think I misstate my colleague. He 
 thinks that clause of the Declaration of Independence includes the 
 negro as well as the white man. He declares, therefore, that the 
 negro and the white man were created equal. What does that 
 Declaration also say : " We hold these truths to be self-evident ; 
 that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 
 ights,- among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 
 .f the negro and the white man are created equal, and that equality 
 .s an inalienable right, by what authority is my colleague and his 
 party going to deprive the negro of that inalienable right which he 
 got directly from God ? He says the Eepublican party is not in 
 favor of according to the negro an inalienable right which he re 
 ceived directly from his Maker. Oli, no ; he tells me to my teeth 
 that they are not in favor of that ; they will not obey the laws of 
 God at all. Their creed is to to take away inalienable rights. 
 Well, I have found that out before, and that is just the reason 
 I complain of them, that they are for taking away inalienable 
 righ ts, 
 
 If they will cling to the doctrine that the Declaration of Inde 
 pendence conferred certain inalienable rights, among which, we are 
 told, is equality between the white man and the negro, they are 
 bound to make the human laws they establish conform to those God- 
 given rights which are inalienable. If they believe the first propo 
 sition, as honest men, they are bound to carry the principle to its 
 logical conclusion, and give the negro his equality and voice in the 
 government ; let him vote at elections, hold office, serve on juries, 
 make him judge, governor, (" senator.") No, they cannot make him 
 a senator, because the Supreme Court has decided that he is not a 
 citizen. The Dred Scott decision is in the way. Perhaps that is 
 the reason of the objection to the Dred Scott decision, that a negro 
 cannot be a senator. I say, if you hold that the Almighty created 
 the negro the equal of the white man, and that equality be an in 
 alienable right, you are bound to confer the elective franchise and 
 every other privilege of political equality on the negro. The senator 
 from New York stands up to it like a man. His logic drove him 
 there, and he had the honesty to avow the consequence of his own 
 doctrine. That is to say, he did it before the Harper s Ferry raid. 
 He did not say it quite as plainly to-day ; for I will do the senator 
 from New York the justice to say, that, in his speech to-day, I think 
 he made the most successful effort, considered as an attempt to con 
 ceal what he meant. (Laughter.) He dealt in vague generalities ; 
 he dealt in disclaimers and general denials ; and he covered it all up 
 with a verbiage that would allow anybody to infer just what he 
 pleased, but not to commit the senator to anything ; and to let the 
 
186 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
 
 country know that there was no danger from the success of the Ee- 
 publican party ; that they did not mean any harm ; that if men, be 
 lieving in the truth of their doctrines, did go and commit invasions, 
 murders, robberies, and treason, all they had to do was to disavow 
 the men who were fools enough to believe them, and they are not 
 responsible for the consequences of their own action! 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I wish my colleague were equally as frank as 
 the senator from New York. That senator is in favor of the equal 
 ity of the negro with the white man, or else he would not say that 
 the Almighty guaranteed to them an inalienable right of equality. 
 My colleague dare not deny the inalienable rights of the negro, for 
 if he did, the Abolitionists would quit him He dare not avow it k 
 lest the old line "Whigs should quit him ; hence he is riding double 
 on this question. I have no desire to conceal my opinions ; and I 
 repeat that I do not believe the negro race is any part of the govern 
 ing element in this country, except as an element of representation 
 in the manner expressly provided in the Constitution. This is a 
 white man s government, made by white men for the benefit of 
 white men, to be administered by white men and nobody else ; and 
 I should regret the day that we ever allowed the negroes to have a 
 hand in its administration. Not that the negro is not entitled to 
 any privileges at all ; on the contrary, I hold that humanity requires 
 us to allow the unfortunate negro to enjoy all the rights and privi 
 leges that he may safely exercise consistent with the good of society. 
 We may, with safety, give them some privileges in Illinois that 
 would not be safe in Mississippi; because we have but few, while 
 that State has many. We will take care of our negroes, if Missis 
 sippi will take care of hers. Each has a right to decide for itself 
 what shall be the relation of the negro to the white man within its 
 own limits, and no other State has a right to interfere with its de 
 termination. 
 
 On that principle there is no " irrepressible conflict ;" there is no 
 conflict at all. If we will just take care of our own negroes, and 
 inind our own business, we shall get along very well; and we ask 
 our southern friends to do the same, and they seem pretty well dis 
 posed to do it. Therefore, I am in favor of just firing a broadside 
 into our Republican friends over there, who will keep interfering 
 with other people s business. That is the complaint I have of them. 
 They*keep holding up the negro for us to worship, and when they 
 get the power, they will not give him the rights they claim for him ; 
 they will not give him his inalienable rights. New York has not 
 given the negro those inalienable rights of suffrage yet. The sena 
 tor from New York represents a slave State, according to his own 
 speech ; because New York does not allow the negro to vote on an 
 equality with a white man. It is true, in New York they do allow 
 a negro to vote, if he owns $250 worth of property, but not with 
 out. They suppose $250 just compensates for the diflference be 
 tween a rich negro and a poor white man. (Laughter.) They 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 187 
 
 allow the rich negro to vote, and do not allow the poor one ; and 
 the senator from New York thinks that is a system of slavery. It 
 may be ; let New York decide that ; it is her business. I do not 
 want to interfere with it. Just let us alone. We do not want 
 negro suffrage. We say "non-interference;" hands off. If you 
 like the association of the negroes at the polls, that is your business ; 
 if you want them to hold office, so that they do not come here, give 
 offices to them, if you choose ; if you want them for magistrates, that 
 is your business ; but you must not send them here ; because we do 
 not allow anybody but citizens to hold seats on this floor ; and, 
 thank God, the Dred Scott case has decided that a negro is not a 
 citizen. 
 

 KBTUKN 
 
 LOAN DEPT 
 
 
 j 2lA-60m-10, 65 
 (F7763slO)476B 
 
 Berkeley 
 
YB 374 
 
 U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 o*,- 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY