Изображения страниц

that every Democratic orator in that campaign, in Pennsylvania and in the North and West, insisted that this principle of "popular sovereignty," legiti mately and fairly carried out, was the principle which would banish the discussion of the slavery question from Congress, and localize the subject in the Territories, unless it did form an epoch on the subject, and commence the Democratic Olympiad in the admission of new States, from which, and not anterior to which, precedents were to be quoted? Let us inquire; what national precedent have we had, since the passage of the Kansas Nebraska bill, which we, who are opposed to "Lecompton," now proudly refer to, as indorsing our views? Sir, at the last session of Congress a bill was passed by this body, for the establishment of a territorial government in Minnesota, and the formation of a State government, in which it was affirmatively provided that the constitution should be submitted for the approval or rejection of her people. This was the first and only precedent that can appropriately be applied to the existing Kansas question; and we, as the Representatives of the people, should indorse, approve, and insist upon the application of this precedent in the admission of Kansas, as recommended in the President's annual message. In the last presidential campaign, “popular sovereignty" was, to the Democracy of the North, in its beneficient influence among the people, what the sermon on the Mount was to the early Christians, fixing the belief of the former in the truth of republican principles, as in the latter case in the purity of Christianity.

Let me refer to the vote upon this issue in the Union, for the purpose of proving that if its fair and honest application is ignored by this House, the entire body of the voters in the free States, at least, will be deceived worse than the ten thousand majority of citizens against the Lecompton constitution will be in Kansas.

Mr. Buchanan received in the free States..

Mr. Fillmore....

Mr. Fremont..

In the South Mr. Buchanan received.

Mr. Filimore...

Mr. Fremont.

1,272,783 votes.


[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Mr. Buchanan received in the North 694,006 more popular votes than he received in the South.

Mr. Fillmore received 70,274 more votes in the South than he received in the North.

It will be seen that a large majority of those who voted for Mr. Buchanan were from the free States, who believed in the honesty of the professions of the party in favor of "popular sovereignty." Not only did the vote in the free States elect him, but he was nominated by the delegates from those States in the Cincinnati convention. The entire South, with but a few exceptions, were against his nomination, although after it was made that section reluctantly supported him in preference to Frémont. Mr. Buchanan therefore owes his nomination and election to the free States; yet he now presents to the world the spectacle of ignoring their rights, inside and outside of the Democratic party, as it appears to me, for no other purpose than to appease the clamor of Southern malcontents who are continually talking about a dissolution of the Union. For myself, I love the Union as much as any one of my countrymen; but rather than be put in a state of vassalage to the minority of the people of the Union, south of Mason and Dixon's line, by the falsification of the platform of my party, and the disgrace and destruction of that party, I would consent to the withdrawal of some of those southern States whose Representatives on this floor talk so rashly of secession, provided they can legally and constitutionally do so, if, upon mature reflection, a majority of their people, in violation of their national compact, shall deem it to their interests to "let the Union slide." Millions of our people having, in 1856, decided in favor of the principle of non-intervention by Congress, and of the people of Kansas regulating their own affairs, I shall never hereafter, unless the Kansas-Nebraska act be repealed, consent to the admission of any new State whose constitution is not submitted to the people for approval or rejection. The adoption of a constitution by a territorial convention will not be sufficient, unless the power to do so is expressly delegated to them. The Southern Senators and Representatives passed the Kansas-Nebraska bill and repealed the Missouri compromise. Until the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, it was believed by northern Democrats that the legal Territorial Legislature in Kansas had the power to prohibit slavery there. But the dicta of that court has shaken the belief with

some; and the extreme Southern, Calhoun doctrine, is indorsed by the President, that there can be no interference with slavery in the Territories, until a State constitution and government exist. Well, in the long battle waged upon this subject, the South has now the vantage ground under judicial sanction. But in the application of the principle of "popular sovereignty," they made the bargain and entered into the contract, and agreed to sustain it. I imagine they will gain nothing; but we of the North expect them to do as we intend doing, "live up to the bargain."

I have been surprised to hear gentlemen on this side of the Hall indulge in flings at compromises. Society itself is a compromise. The Federal Constituton is a great compromise. Calhoun, Clay, Webster, and the greatest minds the country ever produced, originated and supported compromises. In my judgment, so far as the extension of slavery into new territory is concerned, the repeal of the Missouri compromise was the most fatal error the South ever committed; and I believe that if Mr. Calhoun had been living he would have opposed that repeal. Duty and good faith now require the South to live up to the bond; and if, in the competition of emigration, they should be beaten, certain it is that they cannot be any worse off than they now are if they are always protected in their rights at home. The President, Mr. Clay, and other statesmen of the country, have been averse to the extension of slavery into free territory. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I can do the country more service, or better justify my course to my constituents, than by copying, as a part of my remarks, the beautiful exodium of our President in his celebrated speech in the Senate, June 8, 1844, upon the annexation of Texas, though, from a perusal, it will be discovered, when compared with his present attitude on the Kansas question, and the condition of affairs there, and the continuance of slavery in the States, to which he then so feelingly alluded, that he miscalculated the tenacity with which the slaveholding States would cling to their peculiar institution, upon which they rely to maintain that control in the Union which it is the recent boast of a distinguished champion of the South (Mr. HAMMOND) they have held for sixty years past.

"Mr. President, the present is a question of transcendent importance. For weal or woe, for good or for evil, it is more momentous than any question which has been before the Senate since my connection with public affairs. To confine the consequences of our decision to the present generation would be to take a narrow and contracted view of the subject. The life of a great nation is not to be numbered by the few and fleeting years which limit the period of man's existence, The life of such a nation must be counted by centuries, and not by years. Nations unborn and ages yet behind' will be deeply affected in their moral, political, and social relations, by the final determination of this question: Shall Texas [Kansas] become a part of our glorious Confederacy? Shall she be bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh? or shall she become our dangerous and hostile rival! Shall our future history and that of hers diverge more and more from the present point, and exhibit those mutual jealousies and wars which, according to the history of the world, have ever been the misfortune of neighboring and rival nations? or shall their history be blended together in peace and harmony? These are the alternatives between which we must decide.

"In arriving at the conclusion to support this treaty, I had to encounter but one serious obstacle, and this was the question of slavery. Whilst I ever have maintai: ed, and ever shall maintain, in their full force and vigor, the constitutional rights of the southern States over their slave property, I yet feel a strong repugnance, by any act of mine, to extend the present limits of the Union over a new slaveholding Territory. After mature reflection, however, I overcame these scruples, and now believe that the acquisition of Texas will be the means of limiting, not enlarging, the dominion of slavery. In the government of the world. Providence generally produces great changes by gradual means. There is nothing rash in the counsels of the Almighty. May not, then, the acquisition of Texas be the means of gradually drawing the slaves far to the south, to a climate more congenial to their nature; and may they not finally pass off into Mexico, and there mingle with a race where no prejudice exists against their | color? The Mexican nation is composed of Spaniards, Indians, and negroes, blended together in every variety, who would receive our slaves on terms of perfect social equality. To this condition they never can be admitted in the United States. That the acquisition o. Texas would ere long convert Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and probably others of the more northern slave States into free States, I entertain not a doubt.”

In my opposition to the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, I am actuated by no feeling of hostility to the President or the South. There are those here who know that I was one of the earliest, most dovoted, and most serviceable of Mr. Buchanan's friends for his nomination and election. I am still his friend. But I cannot here stultify myself by voting to legalize what I deem the most stupendous fraud that Congress has ever been called upon to countenance, upon the plea of expediency—a word the Democracy have ever despised that good may come of evil. That gross and infamous frands were committed by the pro-slavery party in December and January last, at the elec tions in Kansas, is patent in every hamlet and workshop in the country. "According to the official returns of the vote of December 21, on the Lecompton constitution, the result stood as follows:

Constitution with slavery.....
Constitution with no slavery...





"At this election 3,347 votes are officially reported as having been polled in the following precincts:



Fort Scott..





329 .1,017


"The evidence of the judges and clerk of the election of December 21, who have testified before the Board of Commissioners to investigate the Kansas frauds, prove that the actal vote was:

Oxford precinct....

Shawnee precinct.
Fort Scott precinct,
Kickapoo precinct..

Total .....






"It will be seen, therefore, that of the 6,143 votes counted in the 'official returns' as having been poiled, 2,655 were fraudulent; which, deducted from said official returns, leave but 3,488 votes for the Lecompton constitution, a portion of which were no doubt as fraudulent as those of Oxford, Kickapoo, &c."

The frauds proven to have been committed by the pro-slavery party in Johnson, Shawnee, Oxford, and McGee counties, and at Kickapoo and Delaware Crossing, are sufficient to forever disgrace self-created president and would-beSenator Calhoun, who, like a thimble rigger, holds the destinies of the Kansas Legislature and her State officers under his thumb, and offers to wager five, ten, or twenty you can't tell where the little joker is." From what we know of him, it is plain that he will cheat everybody in making his final returns, but himself. How humiliating and insulting to the nation to have the admission of a sister State depending upon such a man, whose whole power as a dictator attempting to cheat and defraud the people of Kansas of their rights has been derived through his being an officer of the Federal Government-the surveyor general of Kansas-performing no duty as such, but supported and liberally paid out of the United States Treasury for over a year past, while engaged in forging chains for an oppressed people!

When California applied for admission into the Union, Senators Mason and Hunter, of Virginia; Butler and Barnwell, of South Carolina; Turney, of Tennessee; Soule, of Louisiana; Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi; Atchison, of Missouri; and Morton and Yulee, of Florida-all Domoerats-signed a protest which was entered upon the Journals of the Senate, objecting to the passage of the bill admitting her as a State into the Union, for the following reasons,

"1. That it gave the sanction of law, and thus imparted validity, to an unauthorized action by a portion of the inhabitants of California.

"2. Without any legal census, or other evidence of their possessing the number of citizens necessary to authorize the representation they may e ai. "3. Without any of those safeguards about the ballot-box which can only be provided by law, and which are necessary to ascertain the true sense of a people.

"4. As not having sufficient evidence of its (the constitution) having the assent of a majority of the people for whom it was signed.""

This is exactly what Wise, Walker, and Douglas are now saying about the admission of Kansas; and yet the Senators who set the example on California now purpose to read them out of the party for following the text too closely.

Mr. Chairman, the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people is too dear to me, to forsake its just application here, to gratify those who dispense patronage. In speaking of it, De Tocqueville says:

"Whenever the political laws of the United States are to be discussed, it is with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people that we must begin. In America the principle of the sovereignty of the people is not either barren, or concealed; it is recognized by the customs, and proclaimed by the laws; it spreads freely, and arrives without impediment at its most remote consequen ces." * "From their origin the sovereignty of the people was the fundamental principle of the greater number of the British colonies in America."


Montesquien, in his "Spirit of the Laws," says:

"There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole. But in a popular State one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue. When virtue is banished, ambition invades the hearts of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community. The desires now change their objects; what they were proud of before now becomes indifferent; they were free while under the restraint of law; they will now be free to act against law; and as every citizen is like a slave escaped from his master's house, what was a maxim of equity they call rigor, what was a rule of action they call constraint, and to precaution they give the name of fear. Frugality, and not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice. Formerly, the wealth of individuals constituted the public treasure; but now the public treasure has become the patrimony of private persous. The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its trength is only the power of some citizens, and the licentiousness of the whole ommunity."

I have thus quoted from the philosophical Montesquieu, because what he 30 ably wrote in the last century, is applicable to the present state of affairs in our Republic. Corruption stalks abroad throughout the land. It is to be discovered in the municipal, in the State, and in the Federal Governments, and few objects other than amassing fortunes, right or wrong, now actuate those who seek and obtain positions of power and patronage. The old fashioned Democratic party in the better days of the Republic viewed offices as a necessi. ty to carry on the Government, and sought only integrity of purpose in those who were to occupy them, repudiating the thought that Federal officials were in any manner to interfere with, much less control, the people. But, alas, the times have changed and are now "sadly out of joint." An army of Federal officials has usurped where it could the polls, and the servants of the people have attempted to become their masters. The Administration has erected a test of Democratic orthodoxy by insisting that all who desire its smiles or favor must ignore the principle upon which it lives, and stultify and disgrace themselves, under penalty of being called “Republicans." It has erected, too, the standard of patronage against principle, and with revengeful hand strips of the former, all Democrats who have independence and character, in order to confer it upon more servile tools. I fear that this Administration is doomed to the fate of Dr. Guillotine, who fell by an instrument which he had invented to cut off the heads of others.

Mr. Chairman, I really regret the position of the Administration in its Federal attempt to force Kansas into the Union under the usurped Lecompton constitution, thus creating a State out of a population of about fifty thousand people, not half so large, intelligent, or wealthy, as that of the congressional district I have the honor to represent; and thus forcing two Senators into the Senate of the United States, and one Representative in this House This latter fact alone would induce me to hesitate before voting for her adinission, if she were not, as she is under the Lecompton constitution, covered all over with damning frauds, Sir, the President may yet live to see his error in this matter; and, in considering the injustice done the northern Democracy, may have reason to exclaim, had I served the North with half the zeal I served the South, they would not, at mine age, have left me naked to mine enemies."

[graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

Delivered in the Senate of the United States, March 12th, 1858.

r. CHANDLER. Mr. President, it was not intention originally to participate in the debate he Lecompton constitution. I had intended leave the subject to older and abler and more erienced colleagues; but the occasion seems ne to be so great, and the consequences which 7 result from our decision so dangerous, that I not permit this bill to pass without, at least, ering my protest against it. I shall oppose bill for the following reasons: First, because whole matter was conceived and executed in d; second, because this constitution does not anate from the people of Kansas Territory, or press their will; third; because it is one of a les of aggressions on the part of the slave ver, which, if permitted to be consummated, st end in the subversion of the Constitution the Union; and, fourth, because it strikes a th blow at State sovereignty and popular rights. hall proceed as briefly as possible to give the Bons upon which I base these objections.

t is well known, sir, that, at the close of the olutionary war, and at the formation of this deral Government, all the States of the Union e slave States, but all looked upon slavery as unmitigated evil; and all looked forward hopey to the day when it should no longer exist. man, then, was bold enough to advocate the ension of slavery or even its long continuance, all looked forward to an early period when it uld cease to exist. These views being preent throughout the land, one of the early acts the Continental Congress was the adoption of ordinance of 1787, forever prohibiting slavery involuntary servitude in all the then Territoof these United States. This was itself a thern measure to a considerable extent, alugh, at that time, there was no diversity of nion in regard to it. Some of the northeru tes, as was well known, intended to abolish ery at a very early day, while. some of the thern States desired that it might be deferred much later period. Those States which exted to be cursed, as they then termed it, with institution for a longer period, desired the

power of reclaiming their fugitives from service or labor if they should escape. Those States that proposed soon to abolish the institution yielded that power; and upon that compromise the ordinance of 1787 was adopted. Many of the members of the Constitutional Convention were likewise members of the Continental Congress, and the ordinance of 1787 was one of the compromises which led to the adoption of the Constitution itself; and, without that ordinance, it is extremely doubtful whether that instrument would ever have been adopted by the States.

This was a finality upon the slavery question. It settled that question forever. No further agitation ever could take place upon the subject of slavery, it was supposed, under that compromise. The settlement was this: slavery was a creature of municipal law; it was left to the States in which it then existed to continue it or abolish it, whenever they might see fit; and in all the Territories of the United States it was forever prohibited. This was the finality of a finality. There never could be any further agitation of the question of slavery in the Union, under it.

Under this settlement, the country remained in peace for more than thirty years. No agitation of the subject took place, and none could take place, for it was not in a position to be agitated. I say the country remained in peace for more than thirty years, and until the State of Missouri applied for admission into the Union as a slave State. During the intermediate time, the Louisiana territory had been purchased, and Louisiana had been admitted as a slave State, without objection on the part of the North. It was quietly assented to; scarcely a protest was entered against it; but when Missouri applied for admission as a slave State, the North objected to the admission of any more slave States, and declared that it was not only distinctly understood, but agreed to, that no more slave States should ever be admitted into this Union. The North claimed that that was the basis of the original compromise-the ordinance of 1787. Agitation ran high. The South then, as now, threatened a dissolution of the Union,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »