iii

Advertisement.

THE single end of this book is the presentation, in a compact and convenient form, of the more important facts, votes, resolves, letters, speeches, reports and other documents, which elucidate the political contest now agitating this country. It has been our aim to let every candidate and other important personage speak for himself, make his own platform, and vindicate (if he may) his own consistency and the soundness of his views on the great questions which underlie our current politics.

Of course, such a work can have but a comparative merit. Make it ever so large, and still many things must be omitted that the compiler would wish to insert; and every critic will plausibly ask, "Why insert this and omit that? Why give so much of A. and so little of B.?" Beside, it is not always possible to remember, or, if remembered, to find, all that would be valued in a work like this. We can only say that we have done our best: let him do better who can.

Inaccuracy of citation is one of the chief vices of our political discussions. You can hardly listen to a set speech, even from a well-informed and truthful canvasser, which is not marred by some misapprehension or unconscious misstatement of the position and views of this or that prominent statesman. Documents, heedlessly read and long since lost or mislaid, are quoted from with fluency and confidence, as though with indubitable accuracy, when the citations so made do gross injustice to their author, and tend to mislead the hearer. We believe the documents collected in this work are so printed that their general accuracy may be safely relied on.

By canvassers of all parties, we trust our Text-Book will be found convenient, not to say indispensable. But those who only listen, and read, and reflect, will also find it a manifest help to a clear understanding of the issues and contentions of the day. They will be interested in comparing the actual positions taken by Mr. Lincoln, or Mr. Douglas, or Gen. Cass, or Mr. Everett, as faithfully set forth in this work, with those confidently attributed to that statesman in the fluent harangue of some political opponent, who is intent on blazoning his inconsistency or proving his insincerity. To verify and correct

iv

the citations of a frothy declaimer is sometimes the easiest and most convincing refutation of his speech.

If a trace of partisan bias is betrayed in the thread of narrative which partially unites the successive reports, bills, votes, etc., presented in this work, the error is unintentional and regretted. Our purpose was to compile a record acceptable and convenient to men of all parties, and which might be consulted and trusted by all. Whatever is original herein is regarded as of no use or merit, save as a necessary elucidation of the residue. Without apology, therefore, or further explanation, the Text-Book is commended to the favor of the American public.

NEW-YORK, August 1st, 1860.

9

National Caucuses, Conventions, and Platforms.

Introduction.

National Conventions for the nomination of candidates are of comparatively recent origin. In the earlier political history of the United States, under the Federal Constitution, candidates for President and Vice-President were nominated by congressional and legislative caucuses. Washington was elected as first President under the Constitution, and reelected for a second term by a unanimous, or nearly unanimous, concurrence of the American people; but an opposition party gradually grew up in Congress, which became formidable during his second term, and which ultimately crystalized into what was then called the Republican party. John Adams, of Massachusetts, was prominent among the leading Federalists, while Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, was preeminently the author and oracle of the Republican party, and, by common consent, they were the opposing candidates for the Presidency, on Washington's retirement in 1796-7.

Mr. Adams was then chosen President, while Mr. Jefferson, having the largest electoral vote next to Mr. A., became Vice-President.

The first Congressional Caucus to nominate candidates for President and Vice-President, is said to have been held in Philadelphia in the year 1800, and to have nominated Mr. Jefferson for the first office, and Aaron Burr for the second. These candidates were elected after a desperate struggle, beating John Adams and Charles C. Pinckney, of South Carolina. In 1804, Mr. Jefferson was reelected President, with George Clinton, of New-York, for Vice, encountering but Blight, opposition: Messrs. Charles C. Pinckney and Rufus King, the opposing candidates, receiving only 14 out of 176 Electoral Votes. We have been unable to find my record as to the manner of their nomination. In January, 1808, when Mr. Jefferson's second term was about to close, a Republican Congressional Caucus was held at Washington, to deride as to the relative claims of Madison and Monroe for the succession, the Legislature of Virginia, which had been said to exert a potent influence over such questions, being, on this occasion, unable to agree as to which of her favored sons should have the preference. Ninety-four of the 136 Republican members of Congress attended this caucus, and declared their preference of Mr. Madison, who received 83 votes, the remaining 11 being divided between Mr. Monroe and George Clinton. The Opposition supported Mr. Pinckney; but Mr. Madison was elected by a large majority.

Toward the close of Mr. Madison's earlier term, he was nominated for reelection by a Congressional Caucus held at Washington, in May, 1812. In September of the same year, a convention of the Opposition, representing eleven States, was held in the city of New York, which nominated De Witt Clinton, of New-York, for President. He was also put in nomination by the Republican Legislature of New-York. The ensuing canvass resulted in the reelection of Mr. Madison, who received 128 electoral votes to 89 for De Wilt Clinton.

In 1816, the Republican Congressional Caucus nominated James Monroe, who received, in the caucus, 65 votes to 51 for Wm. H. Crawford, of Georgia. The Opposition, or Federalists, named Rufus King, of New-York, who received only 34 electoral votes out of 217. There was no opposition to the reelection of Mr. Monroe in 1820, a single (Republican) vote being cast against him, and for John Quincy Adams.

In 1824, the Republican party could not be induced to abide by the decision of a Congressional Caucus. A large majority of the Republican members formally refused to participate in such a gathering, or be governed by its decision; still, a Caucus was called and attended by the friends of Mr. Crawford alone. Of the 261 members of Congress at this time, 216 were Democrats or Republicans, yet only 66 responded to their names at roll-call, 64 of whom voted for Mr. Crawford as the Republican nominee for President. This nomination was very extensively repudiated throughout the country, and three competing Republican, candidates

10

were brought into the field through legislative and Other machinery — viz., Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and John Quincy Adams. The result of this famous "scrub race" for the Presidency was, that no one was elected by the people, Gen. Jackson receiving 99 electoral votes, Mr. Adams 84, Mr. Crawford 41, and Mr. Clay 37. The election then devolved on the House of Representatives, where Mr. Adams was chosen, receiving the votes of 13 States, against 7 for Gen. Jackson, and 4 for Mr. Crawford. This was the end of "King Caucus." Gen. Jackson was immediately thereafter put in nomination for the ensuing term by the Legislature of Tennessee, having only Mr. Adams for an opponent in 1828, when he was elected by a decided majority, receiving 178 Electoral Votes to 83 for Mr. Adams. Mr. John C. Calhoun, who had at first aspired to the Presidency, in 1824, withdrew at an early stage from the canvass, and was thereupon chosen Vice-President by a very large electoral majority — Mr. Albert Gallatin, of Pennsylvania, (the caucus candidate on the Crawford ticket,) being his only serious competitor. In 1828, Mr. Calhoun was the candidate for Vice-President on the Jackson ticket, and of course reelected. It was currently stated that the concentration of the Crawford and Calhoun strength on this ticket was mainly effected by Messrs. Martin Van Buren and Churchill C. Cambreleug, of New-York, during a southern tour made by them in 1827. In 1828, Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania, was the candidate for Vice-President on the Adams ticket.

U. S. Anti-Masonic Convention — 1830.

The first political National Convention in this country of which we have any record was held at Philadelphia in September, 1830, styled the United States Anti-Masonic Convention. It was composed of 96 delegates, representing the States of New-York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Maryland and the Territory of Michigan. Francis Granger of New-York presided; but no business was transacted beyond the adoption of the following resolution

Resolved, That it is recommended to the people of the United States, opposed to secret societies, to meet in convention on Monday the 26th day of September, 1831, at the city of Baltimore, by delegates equal in number to their representatives in both houses of Congress, to make nominations of suitable candidates for the office of President, and Vice-President, to be supported at the next election, and for the transaction of such other business as the cause of Anti-Masonry may require.

In compliance with the foregoing call, a National Anti-Masonic Convention was held at Baltimore, in September, 1831, which nominated William Wirt, of Maryland, for President, and Amos Ellmaker, of Pennsylvania, for Vice-President. The convention was attended by 112 delegates from the States of Maine, New-Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Delaware and Maryland — only Massachusetts, New-York and Pennsylvania being fully represented. John C. Spencer, of New-York, presided over the deliberations of the Convention, and the nominees received each 108 votes. The candidates accepted the nomination and received the electoral vote of Vermont only. The Convention did not enunciate any distinct platform of principles, but appointed a committee to issue an Address to the people. In due time, the address was published. It is quite as prolix and verbose as modern political addresses; and, after stating at great length the necessary qualifications for the Chief of a great and free people, and presenting a searching criticism on the institution of free-masonry in its moral and political bearings, somewhat intensified from the excitement caused by the (then recent) alleged murder of William Morgan, for having revealed the secrets of the Masonic Order, the Address comes to the conclusion that, since the institution had become a political engine, political agencies must be used to avert its baneful effects — in other words, "that an enlightened exercise of the right of suffrage is the constitutional and equitable mode adopted by the Anti-Masons is necessary to remove the evil they suffer, and produce the reforms they seek."

Democratic or Jackson National Convention — 1832.

There was no open opposition in the Democratic party to the nomination of Gen. Jackson for a second term; but the party were not so well satisfied with Mr. Calhoun, the Vice-President; so a Convention was called to meet at Baltimore in May, 1832, to nominate a candidate for the second office. Delegates appeared and took their seats from the States of Maine, New-Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.

Gen. Robert Lucas, of Ohio, presided, and the regular proceedings were commenced by the passage of the following resolution

Resolved, That each State be entitled, in the nomination to be made for the Vice-Presidency, to a number of votes equal to the number to which they will be entitled in the electoral colleges, under the new apportionment, in voting for President and Vice-President; and that two-thirds of the whole number of the votes in the Convention shall be necessary to constitute a choice.

This seems to have been the origin of the famous "two-thirds" rule which has prevailed of late in Democratic National Conventions.

The Convention proceeded to ballot for a candidate for Vice-President, with the following result

For Martin Van Buren: Connecticut, 8; Illinois, 2; Ohio, 21; Tennessee, 15; North Carolina, 9; Georgia, 11; Louisiana, 5; Pennsylvania, 30; Maryland, 7; NewJersey, 8; Mississippi, 4; Rhode Island, 4; Maine, 10; Massachusetts, 14; Delaware, 3; New-Hampshire, 7; New-York, 42; Vermont, 7; Alabama, 1 — Total, 208.

For Richard M. Johnson: Illinois, 2; Indiana, 9; Kentucky, 15 — Total, 26.

For Philip P. Barbour: North Carolina, 6; Virginia, 23; Maryland, 3; South Carolina, 11; Alabama, 6 — Total, 49.

Mr. Van Buren, having received more than two-thirds of all the votes cast, was declared

11

duly nominated as the candidate of the party for Vice-President.

The Convention passed a resolution cordially concurring in the repeated nominations which Gen. Jackson had received in various parts of the country for reelection as President.

Mr. Archer, of Virginia, from the committee appointed to prepare an address to the people, reported tha

The committee, having interchanged opinions on the subject submitted to them, and agreeing fully in the principles and sentiments which they believe ought to be embodied in an address of this description, if such an address were to be made, nevertheless deem it, advisable under existing circumstances, to recommend the adoption of the following resolution:
Resolved, That it be recommended to the several delegations in this Convention, in place of a General Address from this body to the people of the United States, to make such explanations by address, report, or otherwise, to their respective constituents of the object, proceedings and result of the meeting, as they may deem expedient.

The result of this election was the choice of General Jackson, who received the electoral vote of the following States

Maine 10; New-Hampshire, 7; New-York, 42; New-Jersey, 8; Pennsylvania, 30; Maryland, 3; Virginia, 23; North Carolina, 15; Georgia, 11; Tennessee, 15; Ohio, 21; Louisiana, 5; Mississippi, 4; Indiana, 9; Illinois, 5; Alabama, 7; Missouri, 4 — Total, 219.

For Mr. Clay: Massachusetts, 14; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 8; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 5; Kentucky, 15 — Total, 49.

For John Floyd, of Virginia: South Carolina, 11.

For William Wirt, of Maryland: Vermont, 7.

Mr. Van Buren received only 189 votes for Vice-President, Pennsylvania, which cast her vote for Jackson, having voted for William Wilkins of that State for Vice-President. John Sergeant, for Vice-President, received the same vote as Mr. Clay for President. South Carolina voted for Henry Lee of Massachusetts, for Vice-President.

National Republican Convention — 1831.

The National Republicans met in convention at Baltimore, Dec. 12, 1831. Seventeen States and the District of Columbia were represented by l57 delegates, who cast a unanimous vote for Henry Clay, of Kentucky, for President, and John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, for Vice-President. James Barbour, of Virginia, presided, and the States represented were Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana and Indiana. The Convention adopted no formal platform of principles, but issued an Address, mainly devoted to a criticism on the Administration of Gen. Jackson, asserting, among other things, that —

The political history of the Union for the last three years exhibits a series of measures plainly dictated in all their principal features by blind cupidity or vindictive party spirit, marked throughout by a disregard of good policy, justice, and every high and generous sentiment, and, terminating in a dissolution of the Cabinet under circumstances more discreditable than any of the kind to be met with in the annals of the civilized world.

The address alludes to the charge of incapacity and corruption leveled against his immediate predecessor (J. Q. Adams) by Gen. Jackson in his Inaugural Address, and adds

The indecorum of this denunciation was hardly less glaring than its essential injustice, and can only be paralleled by that of the subsequent denunciation of the same adminstration, on the same authority, to a foreign government.

Exception is taken to the indiscriminate removal of all officers within the reach of the President, who were not attached to his person or party. As illustrative of the extent to which this political proscription was carried, it is stated that, within a month after the inauguration of General Jackson, more persons were removed from office than during the whole 40 years that had previously elapsed since the adoption of the constitution. Fault is also found with the Administration in its conduct of our foreign affairs. Again the Address says

On the great, subjects of internal policy, the course of the President has been so inconsistent and vacillating, that, it is impossible for any party to place confidence in his character, or to consider him as a true and effective friend. By avowing his approbation of a judicious tariff, at the same time recommending to Congress precisely the same policy which had been adopted as the best plan of attack by the opponents of that measure; by admitting the constitutionalty and expediency of Internal Improvements of a National character, and at the same moment negativing the most important bills of this description which were presented to him by Congress, the President has shown that he is either a secret enemy to the system, or that, he is willing to sacrifice the most important national objects in a vain attempt to conciliate the conflicting interests, or rather adverse party feeling and opinions of different sections of the country.

Objection is taken to Gen. Jackson's war on the United States Bank, and the necessity and usefulness of that institution are argued at considerable length. The outrageous and inhuman treatment of the Cherokee Indians by the State of Georgia, and the failure of the National Administration to protect them in their rights, acquired by treaty with the United States, is also the subject of animadversion in the Address.

A resolve was adopted, recommending to the young men of the National Republican Party to hold a Convention in the city of Washington on the following May.

Such a Convention was accordingly held at the Capital on the 11th of May, 1832, over which William Cost Johnson, of Maryland, presided, and at which the following, among other resolves, were adopted

Resolved, That an adequate Protection to American Industry is indispensable to the prosperity of the country; and that, an abandonment of the policy at this period would be attended with consequences ruinous to the best interests of the Nation.

Resolved, That a uniform system of Internal Improvements, sustained and supported by the General Government, is calculated to secure, in the highest degree, the harmony, the strength and the permanency of the Republic.

Resolved, That the indiscriminate removal of public offices, for a mere difference of political opinion, is a gross abuse of power; and that the doctrine lately boldly preached in the United States Senate, that "to the victors belong the spoils of the vanquished," is detrimental to the interest, corrupting to the morals, and dangerous to the liberties of the people of this country.

Democratic National Convention, 1835.

In May, 1835, a National Convention representing twenty-one States, assembled at

12

Baltimore to nominate candidates for President and Vice-President. The Hon. Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, was chosen president, with half a dozen vice-presidents and four secretaries. A rule was adopted that two-thirds of the whole number of votes should be necessary to make a nomination or to decide any question connected therewith. On the first ballot for President, Mr. Van Buren was nominated unanimously, receiving 265 votes. For Vice-President, Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, received 178, and William C. Rives, of Virginia, 87. Mr. Johnson, having received more than two-thirds of all the votes cast, was declared duly nominated as candidate for Vice-President. This Convention adopted no platform.

The Opposition in 1836.

In 1835, Gen. Wm. H. Harrison, of Ohio, was nominated for President, with Francis Granger, for Vice-President, by a Whig State Convention at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and also by a Democratic Anti-Masonic Convention held at the same place. A Whig State Convention in Maryland also nominated Gen. Harrison for President, with John Tyler, of Virginia, for Vice Gen. H. also received nominations in New York, Ohio and other States.

Hugh L. White, of Tennessee was nominated by the Legislatures of Tennessee and Alabama, as the Opposition or Anti-Jackson candidate; while Mr. Webster was the favorite of the Opposition in Massachusetts, and Willie P. Mangum, of N. C. received the vote of S. C., 11. The result of the contest of 1836 was the election of Mr. Van Buren, who received the electoral votes of the States of

Maine, 10; New-Hampshire, 7; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 8; New York, 42; Pennsylvania, 30; Virginia, 23; North Carolina, 15; Louisiana, 5; Mississippi, 4; Illinois, 5; Alabama, 7; Missouri, 4; Arkansas, 3; Michigan, 3 — Total 170.

Gen. Harrison received the votes of

Vermont 7; New- Jersey, 8; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 10; Kentucky, 15; Ohio, 21; and Indiana, 9 — Total, 73.

Hugh L. White received the vote of Georgia, 11, and Tennessee, l5; total, 26. Mr. Webster received the vote of Massachusetts, 14.

Whig National Convention, — 1839.

A Whig National Convention representing twenty one States met at Harrisburg, Pa., Dec. 4, 1839. James Barbour, of Virginia, presided, and the result of the first ballot was the nomination of Gen. William H. Harrison, of Ohio, who received 148 votes to 90 for Henry Clay, and 16 for Gen. Winfield Scott. John Tyler, of Virginia, was unanimously nominated as the Whig candidate for Vice-President. The Convention adopted no platform of principles; but the party in conducting the memorable campaign of 1840, assailed the Administration of Mr. Van Buren for its general mismanagement of public affairs and its profligacy, and the result was the triumphant election of Harrison and Tyler, Van Buren receiving the electoral vote of only seven States; viz

New-Hampshire, 7; Virginia, 23; South Carolina, 11; Illinois 5; Alabama, 7; Missouri, 4, and Arkansas, 3 — Total, 60.

South Carolina refused to vote for Richard M. Johnson for Vice-President, throwing away her 11 votes on Littleton W. Tazewell, of Virginia. Harrison and Tyler received the votes of the following States

Maine, 10; Massachusetts, 14; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 8; Vermont, 7; New-York 42; New-Jersey, 8; Pennsylvania, 30; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 10; North Carolina, 15; Georgia, 11; Kentucky, 15; Tennessee, 15; Ohio, 21; Louisiana, 5; Mississippi, 4; Indiana, 9; Michigan, 3 — Total, 234.

Abolition Convention, — 1839.

A Convention of Abolitionists was held at Warsaw, N. Y., on the 13th of November, 1839, which adopted the following

Resolved, That, in our judgment, every consideration of duty and expediency which ought to control the action of Christian freemen, requires of the Abolitionists of the U. S. to organize a distinct and independent political party, embracing all the necessary means for nominating candidates for office and sustaining them by public suffrage.

The Convention then nominated for President James G. Birney, of New York, and for Vice-President Francis J. Lemoyne, of Pennsylvania. These gentlemen subsequently declined the nomination. Nevertheless they received a total of 7,609 votes in various Free States.

Democratic National Convention, 1840.

A Democratic National Convention met at Baltimore, May 5th, 1840, to nominate candidates for President and Vice-President. Delegates were present from the States of Maine, New-Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, and Arkansas. Gov. William Carroll, of Tennessee, presided, and the Convention, before proceeding to the nomination of candidates, adopted the following platform — viz.

1. Resolved, That the Federal Government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power shown therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government, and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.

2. Resolved, That the Constitution does not confer upon the General Government the power to commence or carry on a general system of internal improvement.

3. Resolved, That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the Federal Government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several States, contracted for local internal improvements or other State purposes; nor would such assumption be just or expedient.

4. Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the interest of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country — that every citizen and every section of the country has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete and ample protection of persons and property from domestic violence or foreign aggression.

13

5. Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the government.

6. Resolved, That Congress hits no power to charter a United States Bank, that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people.

7. Resolved, That Congress has no power, under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States; and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything pertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts, by abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most, alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought, not to be countenanced by any friend to our Political Institutions.

8. Resolved, That the separation of the moneys of the government from banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the government and the rights of the people.

9. Resolved, That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the Constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith; and every attempt to abridge the present privilege of becoming citizens, and the owners of soil among us ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the Alien and Sedition Laws from our statute book.

The Convention then unanimously nominated Mr. Van Buren for reelection as President; but, there being much diversity of opinion as to the proper man for Vice-President, the following preamble and resolution were adopted:
Whereas, Several of the States which have nominated Martin Van Buren as a candidate for the Presidency, have put in nomination different individuals as candidates for Vice-President, thus indicating a diversity of opinion as to the person best entitled to the nomination; and whereas some of the said States are not represented in this Convention, therefore,

Resolved, That the Convention deem it expedient at the present time not to choose between the individuals in nomination, but to leave the decision to their Republican fellow-citizens; in the several States, trusting that before the election shall take place, their opinions will become so concentrated as to secure the choice of a Vice-President by the Electoral College.

Whig National Convention, 1844.

A Whig National Convention assembled in Baltimore, on the 1st of May, 1844, in which every State in the Union was represented. Ambrose Spencer, of New-York, presided, and Mr. Clay was nominated for President by acclamation. For Vice-President, there was some diversity of preference, and Mr. Frelinghuysen, of N. J., was nominated on the third ballot as follows

BALLOTS
  1st. 2d. 3rd.
T. Frelinghuysen, N. J. 101 118 155
John Davis, Mass. 83 74 79
Millard Fillmore, N. Y. 53 51 40
John Sergeant, Pa. 38 32 withdrawn
Total 275 275 274

The principles of the party were briefly summed up in the following resolve, which was adopted by the Convention

Resolved, That these principles may be summed as comprising a well regulated National currency — a Tariff for revenue to defray the necessary expenses of the Government, and discriminating; with special reference to the Protection of the Domestic Labor of the country — the Distribution of the proceeds from the sales of the Public Lands — a single term for the Presidency — a republic form of executive usurpations — and generally such an administration of the affairs of the country, as shall impart to every branch of the public service the greatest, practicable efficiency, controlled by a well-regulated and wise economy.

The contest resulted in the choice of the Democratic candidates (Polk and Dallas,) who received 170 electoral votes as follows: Maine, 9; New-Hampshire, 6; New-York, 36; Pennsylvania, 26; Virginia, 17; South Carolina, 9; Georgia, 10; Alabama, 9; Mississippi, 6; Louisiana, 6; Indiana, 12; Illinois, 9; Missouri, 7; Arkansas, 3; Michigan, 5 — 170.

For Clay and Frelinghuysen: Vermont, 6; Massachusetts, 12; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 6; New-Jersey, 7; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 8; North Carolina, 11; Tennessee, 13; Kentucky, 12; Ohio, 23 — 105.

Democratic National Convention, 1844.

A Democratic National Convention assembled at Baltimore on the 27th May, 1844, adopted the two-third rule and, after a stormy session of three days, James K. Polk, of Tennessee, was nominated for President, and Silas Wright, of New York, for Vice-President. Mr. Wright, declined the nomination, and George M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, was subsequently selected to fill the second place on the ticket.

The ballotings for President were as follows:

BALLOTS.
  1st. 2d. 3rd. 4th. 5th. 6th. 7th. 8th. 9th.
M. VanBuren 146 127 121 111 103 101 99 104 2
Lewis Cass 83 94 92 105 107 116 123 114 29
R. M. Johnson 29 33 38 32 26 25 21
James Buchanan 4 9 11 17 29 23 22 2
J. C. Calhoun 1 2 1 1 1 1 2
Levi Woodbury 2
Com. Stewart 1
James K. Polk 22 233

Mr. Van Buren's name was withdrawn after the 8th ballot.

The platform adopted by the Convention was the same as that of 1840, with the following additions

Resolved, That the proceeds of the Public Lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution, and that we are opposed to the laws lately adopted, and to any law for the Distribution of such proceeds among the States, as alike inexpedient in policy and repugnant to the Constitution.

Resolved, That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the President the qualified veto power by which he is enabled, under restrictions and responsibilities amply sufficient to guard the public interest, to suspend the passage of a bill, whose merits cannot secure the approval of two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, until the judgement of the people can be obtained thereon, and which has thrice saved the American People from the corrupt and tyrannical domination of the Bank of the United States.

Resolved, That our title to the whole of the Territory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable; that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England or any other power; and that the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of Texas at the earliest practicable period are great American measures, which this Convention recommends to the cordial support of the Democracy of the Union.

Liberty Party National Convention, 1843.

The Liberty Party National Convention met at Buffalo, on the 30th of August. Leicester

14

King, of Ohio, presided, and James G. Birney, of Michigan, was unanimously nominated for President, with Thomas Morris, of Ohio, for Vice-President. Among the resolves adopted were the following

Resolved, That human brotherhood is a cardinal principle of true Democracy, as well as of pure Christianity, which spurns all inconsistent limitations; and neither the political party which repudiates it, nor the political system which is not based upon it, can be truly democratic or permanent.

Resolved, That the party, placing itself upon this broad principle, will demand the absolute and unqualified divorce of the General Government from slavery, and also the restoration of equality of rights, among men, in every State where the party exists, or may exist.

Resolved, That the Liberty Party has not been organized for any temporary purpose by interested, politicians, but has arisen from among the people in consequence of a conviction, hourly gaining ground, that no other party in the country represents the true principles of American liberty, or the true spirit of the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved, That the Liberty Party has not been organized merely for the overthrow of slavery; its first decided effort must indeed, be directed against slaveholding as the greatest and most revolting manifestation of despotism, but, it will also carry out the principle of equal rights into all its practical consequences and applications, and support every just measure conducive to individual and social freedom.

Resolved, That the Liberty Party is not a sectional party but a national party; was not originated in a desire to accomplish a single object, but in a comprehensive regard to the great interests of the whole country; is not a new party, nor a third party, but is the party of 1776, reviving the principles of that memorable era, and striving to carry them into practical application.

Resolved, That it was understood in the times of the Declaration and the Constitution, that the existence of slavery in some of the States, was in derogation of the principles of American Liberty, and a deep stain upon the character of the country, and the implied faith of the States and the Nation was pledged, that slavery should never be extended beyond its then existing limits, but should be gradually, and yet, at no distant day, wholly abolished by State authority.

Resolved, That the faith of the States and the Nation thus pledged, was most nobly redeemed by the voluntary Abolition of Slavery in several of the States, and by the adoption of the Ordinance of l787, for the government of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio, then the only Territory in the United States, and consequently the only territory subject in this respect to the control of Congress by which Ordinance Slavery was forever excluded from the vast regions which now compose the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and the Territory of Wisconsin, and an incapacity to bear up any other than freemen, was impressed on the soil itself.

Resolved, That the faith of the States and Nation thus pledged, has been shamefully violated by the omission on the part of many of the States, to take any measures whatever; for the Abolition of slavery within their respective limits; by the continuance of Slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the Territories of Louisiana and Florida; by the Legislation of Congress; by the protection afforded by national legislation and negotiation to slaveholding in American vessels, on the high seas, employed in the coastwise Slave Traffic; and by the extension, of slavery far beyond its original limits, by acts of Congress, admitting new Slave States into the Union.

Resolved, That the fundamental truths of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, was made the fundamental law of our National Government, by that amendment of the Constitution which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

Resolved, That we recognize as sound, the doctrine maintained by slaveholding jurists, that slavery is against natural rights, and strictly local, and that its existence and continuance rests on no other support than State Legislation, and not on any authority of Congress.

Resolved, That the General Government has, under the Constitution, no power to establish or continue Slavery anywhere, and therefore that all treaties and acts of Congress establishing, continuing or favoring Slavery in the District of Columbia, in the Territory of Florida, or on the high seas, are unconstitutional, and all attempts to hold men as property within the limits of exclusive national jurisdiction, ought to be prohibited by law.

Resolved, That the provision of the Constitution of the United States, which confers extraordinary political powers on the owners of slaves, and thereby constituting the two hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders in the Slave States, a privileged aristocracy; and the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves from service are Anti-Republican in their character, dangerous to the liberties of the people, and ought to be abrogated.

Resolved, That the practical operation of the second of these provisions, is seen in the enactment of the act of Congress respecting persons escaping from their masters, which act, if the construction given to it by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania be correct, nullifies the habeas corpus acts of all the States, takes away the whole legal security of personal freedom, and ought therefore to be immediately repealed.

Resolved, That the peculiar patronage and support hitherto extended to slavery and Slaveholding, by the General Government, ought to be immediately withdrawn, and the example and influence of National authority ought to be arrayed on the side of Liberty and Free Labor.

Resolved, That the practice of the General Government, which prevails in the Slave States, of employing Slaves upon the public works, instead of free laborers, and paying aristocratic masters, with a view to secure or reward political services, is utterly indefensible and ought to be abandoned.

Resolved, That freedom of speech, and of the press, and the right of petition, and the right of trial by jury, are sacred and inviolable; and that all rules, regulations and laws, in derogation of either are oppressive, unconstitutional, and not to be endured by free people.

Resolved, That we regard voting in an eminent degree, as a moral and religious duty, which, when exercised, should be by voting for those who will do all in their power for Immediate Emancipation.

Resolved, That this Convention recommend to the friends of Liberty in all those Free States where any inequality of rights and privileged exists on account of color, to employ their utmost energies to remove all such remnants and effects of the Slave system.

Whereas, The Constitution of these United States is a series of agreements, covenants, or contracts between the people of the United States, each with all and all with each; and

Whereas, It is a principle of universal morality, that the moral laws of the Creator are paramount to all human laws; or, in the language of an Apostle, that "we ought to obey God rather than men;" and,

Whereas, The principle of common law — that any contract, covenant, or agreement, to do an act derogatory to natural right, is vitiated and annulled by its inherent immorality — has been recognized by one of the justices of the supreme Court of the United States, who in a recent case expressly holds that "any contract that rests upon such a basis is void;" and,

Whereas, The third clause of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, when construed as providing for the surrender of a Fugitive Slave, does "rest upon such a basis," in that it is a contract to rob a man of a natural right — namely, his natural right to his own liberty, and is, therefore, absolutely void. Therefore

Resolved, That we hereby give it to be distinctly understood by this nation and the world, that, as abolitionists, considering that the strength of our cause lies in its righteousness, and our hope for it in our conformity to the laws of God, and our respect for the RIGHTS OF MAN, we owe it to the Sovereign Ruler of the universe, as a proof of our allegiance to him, in all our civil relations and offices, whether as private citizens or as public functionaries sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, to regard and to treat the third clause of the fourth article of that instrument, whenever applied to the case of a fugitive slave, as utterly null and void, and consequently as forming no part of the Constitution of the United States, whenever we are called upon or sworn to support it.

Resolved, That the power given to Congress by the Constitution, to provide for calling out, the militia to suppress insurrection, does not make it the duty of the Government to maintain Slavery by military force, much less does it make it the duty of the citizens to form a part of such military force. When freemen unsheath the sword it should be to strike for Liberty, not for Despotism.

Resolved, That to preserve the peace of the citizens, and secure the blessings of freedom, the Legislature of each of

15

the Free States ought to keep in force suitable statutes rendering it penal for any of its inhabitants to transport, or aid in transporting from such State, any person ought ,to be thus transported, merely because subject to the slave laws of any other State; this remnant of independence being accorded to the Free States, by the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Prigg vs. the state of Pennsylvania.

Whig National Convention, 1848.

A Whig National Convention met at Philadelphia, on the 7th of June 1848, over which John M. Morehead, of North Carolina, presided. After a rather stormy session of three days, Gen. Zachary Taylor, of Louisiana, was nominated for President, and Millard Fillmore, of New-York, for Vice-President. Gen. Taylor was nominated on the fourth ballot, as follows:

BALLOTINGS.
  1st. 2d. 3d. 4th.
Taylor 111 118 133 171
Clay 97 86 74 32
Scott 43 49 54 63
Webster 22 22 17 13
Clayton 4 4 1 -
McLean 2 1 - -
Total 279 280 279 279

Mr. Fillmore was nominated for Vice-President on the second ballot, by the following vote:

BALLOTINGS.
  1st. 2d.
M. Fillmore 115 173
Abott Lawrence 109 83
Scattering 50 4
Total 274 260

Of the scattering vote cast on the first ballot, George Evans of Maine, received 6; T. M. T. McKennen of Pa., 13; Andrew Stewart, of Pa., 14, and John Sergeant, of Pa., 6.

The Convention adopted no Platform of Principles. After it had been organized, and a resolution offered to go into a ballot for candidates for President and Vice-President, Mr. Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, moved to amend as follows

Resolved, That no candidate shall be entitled to receive the nomination of this Convention for President or Vice-President, unless he has given assurances that he will abide by and support the nomination; that if nominated he will accept the nomination; that he will consider himself the candidate of the Whigs, and use all proper influence to bring into practical operation the principles and measures of the Whig Party.

This resolution met with decided opposition, and the president ruled it out of order, from which decision Mr. Campbell appealed, and in a speech contended that it was strictly in order to define what sort of candidate should be voted for, and to declare that none but sound Whigs should receive important nominations at the hands of a Whig National Convention. The appeal was tabled.

Mr. Fuller, of New York, offered the following

Resolved, That as the first duty of the representatives of the Whig Party is to preserve the principles and integrity of the party, the claims of no candidate can be considered by this Convention unless such candidate stands pledged to support, in good faith, the nominees and to be the exponent of Whig Principles.

The president ruled this resolution out of order, and Mr. Fuller appealed, insisting that no true Whig could reasonably object to his proposition. This appeal was also laid on the table.

After Gen. Taylor had been nominated, Mr. Charles Allen, of Massachusetts, offered the following

Resolved, That the Whig Party, through its representatives here, agrees to abide by the nomination of Gen. Zachary Taylor, on condition that he will accept the nomination as the candidate of the Whig Party, and adhere to its great fundamental principled — no extension of slave territory — no acquisition of foreign territory by conquest — protection to American industry, and opposition to Executive usurpation.

The president immediately decided the resolution out of order, and no further notice war taken of it.

After the nomination for Vice-President had been made, Mr. McCullough, of New-Jersey, offered the following

Resolved, That Gen. Zachary Taylor, of Louisiana, and Millard Fillmore, of New-York, be, and they are hereby unanimously nominated as the Whig candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States. Mr. D. K. Tilden, of Ohio, proposed the following, expressing the opinion that some such declaration by the Convention would be necessary, in order to secure the vote of Ohio for the nominee

Resolved, That while all power is denied to Congress, under the Constitution, to control, or in any way interfere with the institution of Slavery within the several States of this Union, it nevertheless has the power and it is the duty of Congress to prohibit the introduction or existence of Slavery in any territory now possessed, or which may hereafter be acquired by the United States.

This resolution, like all others affirming Whig or Anti-Slavery principled, was ruled out of order, and laid on the table. A motion was made to divide Mr. McCullough's resolve, so that the vote could be taken separately on President and on Vice-President, when, after discussion, the resolve was withdrawn.

Mr. Hilliard, of Alabama, offered a resolve indorsing Gen. Taylor's letter to Captain Allison, which, meeting opposition, was withdrawn; so the Convention adjourned without passing any resolves having reference to Whig principles, the issues before the country, or of concurrence in the nominations.

Ratification Meeting at Philadelphia.

On the evening of the last day of the session (9th June), a ratification meeting was held at Philadelphia, at which Gov. Wm. F. Johnston, of Pa., presided, and at which speeches, were delivered by Governor Morehead, Gen. Leslie Coombs, of Ky., and several others, and at which the following resolves, reported by W. S. Price, of Pennsylvania, were adopted

1. Resolved, That the Whigs of the United States, here assembled by their Representatives, heartily ratify the nominations of Gen. Zachary Taylor as resident, and Millard Fillmore as Vice-President of the United States, and pledge themselves to their support.

2. Resolved, That in the choice of Gen. Taylor as the Whig Candidate for President, we are glad to discover sympathy with a great popular sentiment throughout the nation — a sentiment which, having its origin in admiration of great military success, has been strengthened by, the development, in every action and every word, of sound conservative opinions, and of true fidelity to the great example of former days, and to the principles of the Constitution as administered by its founders.

3. Resolved, That Gen. Taylor, in saying that, had he voted in 1844, he would have voted the Whig ticket,

16

gives us the assurance — and no better is needed from a consistent, and truth speaking man — that his heart, was with us at the crisis of our political destiny, when Henry Clay was our candidate and when not only Whig principles were well defined and clearly asserted, but Whig measures depended on success. The heart that was with us then is with us now, and we have a soldiers word of honor, and a life of public and private virtue, as the security.

4. Resolved, That we look on Gen. Taylor's administration of the Government as one conducive of Peace, Prosperity and Union of Peace — because no one better knows, or has greater reason to deplore, what he has Been sadly on the field of victory, the horrors of war, and especially of a foreign and aggressive war. Of Prosperity — now more than ever needed to relieve the nation from a burden of debt, and restore industry — agricultural, manufacturing and commercial — to its accustomed and peaceful functions and influences. Of Union — because we have a candidate whose very position as a southwestern man, reared on the banks of the great stream whose tributaries, natural and artificial, embrace the whole Union, renders the protection of the interests of the whole country his first trust, and whose varied duties in past life have been rendered, not on the soil, or under the flag of any State or section, but over the wide frontier, and under the broad banner of the Nation.

5.Resolved, That standing, as the Whig Party does, on the broad and firm platform of the Constitution, braced up by all its inviolable and sacred guarantees and compromises, and cherished in the affections because protective of the interests of the people, we are proud to have, as the exponent of our opinions, one who is pledged to constitute it by the wise and generous rules which Washington applied to it, and who has said, (and no Whig desires any other assurance) that he will make Washington's Administration the model of his own.

6. Resolved, That as Whigs and Americans, we are proud to acknowledge our gratitude for the great military services which, beginning at Palo Alto, and ending at Buena Vista, first awakened the American people to a just estimate of him who is now our Whig Candidate. In the discharge of a painful duty — for his march into the enemy's country was a reluctant one; in the command of regulars at one time, and volunteers at another, and of both combined; in the decisive though punctual discipline of his camp, where all respected and beloved him; in the negotiation of terms for a dejected and desperate enemy; in the exigency of actual conflict, when the balance was perilously doubtful — we have found him the same — brave, distinguished and considerate, no heartless spectator of bloodshed, no trifler with human life or human happiness; and we do not know which to admire most, has heroism in withstanding the assaults of the enemy in the most hopeless fields of Buena Vista — mourning in generous sorrow over the graves of Kinggold, of Clay, or of Hardin — or in giving in the heat of battle terms of merciful capitulation to a vanquished foe at Monterey, and not being ashamed to avow that he did it to spare women and children, helpless infancy, and more helpless age, against whom no American soldier ever wars. Such a military man, whose triumphs are neither remote nor doubtful, whose virtues these trials have tested, we are proud to make our Candidate.

7. Resolved, That, in support of such a nomination we ask our Whig friends throughout the nation to unite, to co-operate zealously, resolutely, with earnestness in behalf of our Candidate, whom calumny cannot reach, and with respectful demeanor to our adversaries, whose Candidates have yet to prove their claims on the gratitude of the nation.

This election resulted in the choice of the Whig Candidates, as follows

Taylor and Finmore — Vermont, 6; Massachusetts, 12; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 6; New-York, 36; New Jersey, 7; Pennsylvania, 26; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 8; North Carolina 11; Georgia, 10; Louisiana, 6; Tennessee 13; Kentucky, 12; Florida, 3 — 163.

Cass and Butler — Maine, 9; New-Hampshire, 6; Virginia 17; South Carolina, 9; Alabama, 9; Mississippi, 6; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 12; Illinois, 9; Missouri, 7; Arkansas, 3; Michigan, 5, Texas, 4; Iowa, 4; Wisconsin, 4 — 127.

Democratic Convention, 1848.

The Democratic National Convention for 1848, assembled in Baltimore on the 22d of May. Andrew Stevenson of Va., presided. New-York had sent a double delegation: ("Barn-burners" for Van Buren and Hunkers for Dickinson). The Convention decided to admit both delegations, which satisfied neither, and both declined to take part in the proceedings. The two-third rule was adopted, and Gen. Lewis Cass was nominated for President on the 4th ballot as follows: [170 votes necessary to a choice.]

  1st. 2d. 3d. 4th.
Cass 125 133 156 179
Woodbury of N. H. 53 56 53 33
Buchanan 55 54 40 33
Calhoun 9 - - -
Dallas 3 3 - -
Worth 6 5 6 1
Butler of Ky. - - - 3

The first ballot for Vice-President resulted as follows:

William O. Butler 114 William R. King 29
John A. Quitman 74 James J. McKay 18
John Y. Mason 24 Jefferson Davis 1

No choice. Gen. Butler was unanimously nominated on the third ballot.

The Convention adopted the following platform

1. Resolved, That the American Democracy place their trust in the intelligence, the patriotism, and the discriminating justice of the American people.

2. Resolved, That we regard this as a distinctive feature of our political creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world, as the great moral element in a form of government, springing from and upheld by the popular will: and we contrast it with the creed and practice of federalism, under whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy the will of the constituent, and which conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity.

3. Resolved, Therefore, that, entertaining these views the Democratic party of this Union, through the delegates assembled in general convention of the States, coming together in a spirit of concord, of devotion to the doctrines and faith of a free representative government and appealing to their fellow-citizens for the rectitude of their intentions, renew and reassert before the American people, the declaration of principles avowed by them on a former occasion, when in general convention, they presented their candidates for the popular suffrage.

Then follow resolutions 1, 2, 3, 4, of Platforms of 1840 and '44. The 5th resolution is that of 1840 with an addition about providing for war debts, and as amended, reads as follows

Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the government, and for the gradual but certain extinction of the debt created by the prosecution of a just and necessary war, after peaceful relations shall have been restored.

The next (Anti-National Bank and pro Sub-Treasury) was amended by the addition of the following

And that the results of Democratic Legislation, in this and all other financial measures upon which issues have been made between the two political parties of the country, have demonstrated to candid and practical men of all parties, their soundness, safety and utility in all business pursuits.

Here follow resolutions 7, 8, 9, of the platform of 1840, which we omit.

Resolved, That the proceeds of the Public Lands ought to be sacredly applied to the National objects specified in the Constitution; and that we are opposed to any law for the distribution of such proceeds among the States as alike inexpedient in policy and repugnant to the Constitution.

Resolved, That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the President the qualified veto power, by which he is enabled, under restrictions and responsibilities amply sufficient to guard the public interests, to suspend the passage of a bill whose merits cannot secure the approval

17

of two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives until the judgment of the people can be obtained thereon, and which has saved the American people from the corrupt and tyrannical domination of the bank of the United States, and from a corrupting system of general internal improvements.

Resolved, that the war with Mexico, provoked on her part, by years of insult and injury, was commenced by her army crossing the Rio Grande, attacking the American troops and invading our Sister State of Texas, and that upon all the principles of patriotism and the Laws of Nations, it is a just and necessary war on our part in which every American citizen should have shown himself on the side of his Country, and neither morally nor physically, by word or by deed, have given "aid and comfort to the enemy."

Resolved, That we would be rejoiced at the assurance of a peace with Mexico, founded on the just principles of indemnity for the past and security for the future; but that while the ratification of the liberal treaty offered to Mexico remains in doubt, it is the duty of the country to sustain the administration and to sustain the country in every measure necessary to provide for the vigorous prosecution of the war, should that treaty be rejected.

Resolved, That the officers and soldiers who have carried the arms of their country into Mexico, have crowned it with imperishable glory. Their unconquerable courage, their daring enterprise, their unfaltering perseverance and fortitude when assailed on all sides by innumerable foes and that more formidable enemy — the diseases of the climate — exalt their devoted patriotism into the highest heroism, and give them a right to the profound gratitude of their country, and the admiration of the world.

Resolved, That the Democratic National Convention of 30 states composing the American Republic tender their fraternal congratulations to the National Convention of the Republic of France, now assembled as the free-suffrage Representatives of the Sovereignty of thirty-five millions of Republicans to establish government on those eternal principles of equal rights for which their Lafayette and our Washington fought side by side in the struggle for our National Independence; and we would especially convey to them and to the whole people of France, our earnest wishes for the consolidation of their liberties, through the wisdom that shall guide their councils, on the basis of a Democratic Constitution, not derived from the grants or concessions of kings or dynasties, but originating from the only true source of political power recognized in the States of this Union; the inherent and inalienable right of the people, in their sovereign capacity, to make and to amend their forms of government in such manner as the welfare of the community may require.

Resolved, That the recent development of this grand political truth, of the sovereignty of the people and their capacity and power for self-government, which is prostrating thrones and erecting Republics on the ruins of despotism in the old world, we feel that a high and sacred duty is devolved, with increased responsibility, upon the Democratic party of this country, as the party of the people, to sustain and advance among us Constitutional liberty, Equality and Fraternity, by continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles and compromises of the Constitution which are broad enough and strong enough to embrace and uphold the Union as it was the Union as it is, and the Union as it shall be in the full expansion of the energies and capacity of this great and progressive people.

Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded through the American minister at Paris, to the National Convention of the Republic of France.

Resolved, That the fruits of the great political triumph of 1844, which elected James K. Polk and George M. Dallas President and Vice-President of the United States, have fulfilled the hopes of the Democracy of the Union to defeating the declared purposes of their opponents in creating a National Bank, in preventing the corrupt and unconstitutional distribution of the Land Proceeds from the common treasury of the Union for local purposes, in protecting the Currency and Labor of the country from ruinous fluctuations; and guarding the money of the country for the use of the people by the establishment of the Constitutional treasury; in the noble impulse given to the cause of Free Trade by the repeal of the tariff of 1842, and the creation of the more equal, honest, and productive tariff of 1846; and that, in our opinion it would be a fatal error to weaken the bands of a political organization by which these great reforms have been achieved, and risk them in the hands of their known adversaries, with whatever delusive appeals they may solicit our surrender of that vigilance which is the only safeguard of liberty.

Resolved, That the confidence of the Democracy of the Union, in the principles, capacity, firmness and integrity of James K. Polk, manifested by his nomination and election in 1841, had been signally justified by the strictness of his adherence to sound Democratic doctrines, by the purity of purpose, the energy and ability which have characterized his administration in all our affairs at home and abroad; that we tender to him our cordial congratulations upon the brilliant success which has hitherto crowned his patriotic efforts, and assure him in advance, that at the expiration of his Presidential term he will carry with him to his retirement, the esteem, respect, and admiration of a grateful country.

Resolved, That this Convention hereby present to the people of the United States, Lewis Cass, of Michigan, as the candidate of the Democratic party for the office of President, and William O. Butler of Ky., for Vice-President of the U.S.

The following resolution was offered by Mr. Yancy, of Ala

Resolved, That the doctrine of non-interference with the rights of property of any portion of the people of this Confederacy, be it in the States or Territories thereof, by any other than the parties interested in them, is the true Republican doctrine recognized by this body.

This resolution was rejected: Yeas, 36; nays, 216 — the yeas being: Georgia, 9; South Carolina, 9; Alabama, 9; Arkansas, 3; Florida, 3; Maryland, 1; Kentucky, 1.

Free Democratic Convention.

The Barnburners of New York, who were disgusted with the proceedings of the National Convention which had nominated Cass and Butler for President and Vice-President, met in Convention at Utica, on the 22d of June, 1848. Delegates were also present from Ohio, Wisconsin and Massachusetts. Col. Samuel Young presided over the deliberations of this Convention; and Martin Van Buren was nominated for President, with Henry Dodge, of Wisconsin, for Vice-President. Gen. Dodge subsequently declined.

On the 9th of August following, a Convention was held at Buffalo, which was attended by delegates from the States of Maine, New-Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, and the District of Columbia. Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, presided, and the Convention nominated Messrs. Van Buren and Adams as candidates for President and Vice-President, and adopted the following Resolves, since known as

THE BUFFALO PLATFORM.

Whereas, We have assembled in Convention, as a union of freemen, for the sake of freedom, forgetting all past political differences in a common resolve to maintain the rights of free labor against the aggressions of the Slave Power, and to secure free soil to a free people.

And Whereas, The political Conventions recently assembled at Baltimore and Philadelphia, the one stifling the voice of a great constituency, entitled to be heard in its deliberations, and the other abandoning its distinctive principles for mere availability, have dissolved the National party organizations heretofore existing, by nominating for the Chief Magistracy of the United States, under the slaveholding dictation, candidates, neither of whom can be supported by the opponents of Slavery Extension without a sacrifice of consistency, duty and self-respect;

And whereas, These nominations so made, furnish the occasion and demonstrate the necessity of the union of the people under the banner of free Democracy, in a solemn

18

and formal declaration of their independence of the slave power, and of their fixed determination to rescue the Federal Government from its control;

Resolved, therefore, That we, the people here assembled, remembering the example of our fathers, in the days of the first Declaration of Independence, putting our trust in God for the triumph of our cause, and invoking his guidance in our endeavors to advance it, do now plant ourselves upon the National platform of Freedom in opposition to the sectional platform of Slavery.

Resolved, That Slavery in the several States of this Union which recognize its existence, depends upon State laws alone, which cannot be repealed or modified by the Federal Government, and for which laws that government is not responsible. We therefore propose no interference by Congress with Slavery within the limits of any State.

Resolved, That the Proviso of Jefferson, to prohibit the or existence of Slavery after 1800, in all the Territories of the United States, Southern and Northern; the votes of six States and sixteen delegates, in the Congress of 1784, for the Proviso, to three States and seven delegates against it; the actual exclusion of Slavery from the Northwestern Territory, by the Ordinance of 1787, unanimously adopted by the States in Congress; and the entire history of that period, clearly show that it was the settled policy of the Nation not to extend, nationalize or encourage, but to limit, localize and discourage Slavery; and to this policy, which should never have been departed from, the Government ought to return.

Resolved, That our fathers ordained the Constitution of the United States, in order, among other great national objects, to establish justice, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty; but expressly denied to the Federal Government, which they created, all constitutional power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due legal process.

Resolved, That in the judgment of this Convention, Congress has no more power to make a Slave than to make a King; no more power to institute or establish Slavery than to institute or establish a Monarchy: no such power can be found among those specifically conferred by the Constitution, or derived by just implication from them.

Resolved, That it is the duty of the Federal Government to relieve itself from all responsibility for the existence or continuance of slavery wherever the government possesses constitutional authority to legislate on that subject, and it is thus responsible for its existence.

Resolved, That the true, and in the judgment of this Convention, the only safe means of preventing the extension of Slavery into Territory now Free, is to prohibit its extension in all such Territory by an act of Congress.

Resolved, That we accept the issue which the Slave power has forced upon us; and to their demand for more Slave States, and more Slave Territory, our calm but final answer is, no more Slave States and no more Slave Territory. Let the soil of our extensive domains be kept free for the hardy pioneers of our own land, and the oppressed and banished of other lands, seeking homes of comfort and fields of enterprise in the new world.

Resolved, That the bill lately reported by the committee of eight in the Senate of the United States, was no compromise, but an absolute surrender of the rights of the Non-Slaveholders of all the States; and while we rejoice to know that a measure which, while opening the door for the introduction of Slavery into Territories now free, would also have opened the door to litigation and strife among the future inhabitants thereof, to the ruin of their peace and prosperity, was defeated in the House of Representatives, its passage, in hot haste, by a majority, embracing several senators who voted in open violation of the known will of their constituents, should warn the people to see to it, that their representatives be not suffered to betray them. There must be no more Compromises with Slavery; if made they must be repealed.

Resolved, That we demand freedom and established institutions for our brethren in Oregon, now exposed to hardships, peril and massacre by the reckless hostility of which the Slave Power to the establishment of Free Government for Free Territories; and not only for them, but for our new brethren in California and New-Mexico.

Resolved, It is due not only to this occasion, but to the whole people of the United States, that we should also declare ourselves on certain other questions of National Policy: therefore,

Resolved, That we demand Cheap Postage for the People; retrenchment of the expenses and patronage of the federal Government; the abolition of all unnecessary offices and salaries; and the election by the people of all civil officers in the service of the government, so far as the same may be practicable.

Resolved, That River and Harbor improvements, when demanded by the safety and convenience of commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, are objects of national concern, and that it is the duty of Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to provide therefor.

Resolved, That the free grant to actual settlers, in consideration of the expenses they incur in making settlements in the wilderness, which are usually fully equal to their actual cost, and of the public benefits resulting therefrom, of reasonable portions of the public lands, under suitable limitations, is a wise and just measure of public policy, which will promote in various ways the interests of all the States of this Union; and we therefore recommend it to the favorable consideration of the American people.

Resolved, That the obligations of honor and patriotism require the earliest practicable payment of the national debt, and we are therefore in favor of such a tariff of duties as will raise revenue adequate to defray the necessary expenses of the Federal Government, and to pay annual installments of our debt, and the interest thereon

Resolved, That we inscribe on our own banner, "Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men," and under it we will fight on, and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.

Whig National Convention, 1852.

This body assembled at Baltimore on the 16th of June, and chose Gen. John G. Chapman, of Md., as presiding officer, and, after an exciting session of six days, nominated Gen. Winfield Scott as President, on the 53d ballot, as follows:

Ballots Scott Fillmore Webster
1. 131 133 29
2. 133 131 29
3. 133 131 29
4. 134 130 29
5. 130 133 30
6. 133 131 29
7. 131 133 28
8. 133 131 28
9. 133 133 29
10. 135 130 29
11. 134 131 28
12 134 130 28
13. 134 130 28
14. 133 130 29
15 133 130 29
16 135 129 28
17 132 131 29
18 132 131 28
19 132 131 29
20 132 131 29
21 133 131 28
22 132 130 30
23 132 130 30
24 133 128 31
25 133 128 31
26 134 128 30
27 134 128 30
28. 134 128 30
29. 134 128 30
30. 134 128 29
31. 134 128 30
32. 134 128 30
33. 134 128 29
34. 134 126 28
35. 134 128 28
36. 136 127 28
37. 133 128 28
38. 136 127 29
39. 134 128 30
40. 132 129 32
41 132 129 32
42 134 128 30
43 134 128 30
44 133 129 30
45 133 127 32
46 134 127 31
47 135 129 29
48 137 124 30
49 139 122 30
50 142 122 28
51 142 120 29
52 146 119 27
53 159 112 21
Necessary to choose — 147

William A. Graham, of North Carolina, was nominated for Vice-President on the second ballot.

The Convention adopted the following

PLATFORM:

The Whigs of the United States, in Convention assembled, adhering to the great conservative principles by which they are controlled and governed, and now as ever relying upon the intelligence of the American people, with an abiding confidence in their capacity for self-government, and their devotion to the Constitution and the Union, do proclaim the following as the political sentiments and determination for the establishment and maintenance of which their national organization as a party was effected.

First. The government of the United States is of a limited character, and it is confined to the exercise of powers expressly granted by the Constitution, and such as may be necessary and proper for carrying the granted powers into full execution, and that powers not granted or necessarily implied are reserved to the States respectively and to the people.

Second. The State Governments should be held secure

19

to their reserved rights, and the General Government sustained on its constitutional powers, and that the Union should be reveled and watched over as the palladium of our liberties.

Third. That while struggling freedom everywhere enlists the warmest sympathy of the Whig party, we still adhere to the doctrines of the Father of his Country, as announced in his Farewell Address, of keeping ourselves free from all entangling alliances with foreign countries, and of never quitting our own to stand upon foreign ground; that our mission as a republic is not to propagate our opinions, or impose on other countries our forms of government, by artifice or force; but to teach by example, and show by our success, moderation and justice, the blessings of self-government, and the advantage of free institutions.

Fourth. That, as the people make and control the Government, they should obey its constitution, laws and treaties as they would retain their self-respect, and the respect, which they claim and will enforce from foreign powers.

Fifth. Government should be conducted on principles of the strictest economy; and revenue sufficient for the expenses thereof, in time, ought to be derived mainly from a duty on imports, and not from direct taxes; and on laying such duties sound policy requires a just discrimination, and, when practicable, by specific duties, whereby suitable encouragement may be afforded to American industry, equally to all classes and to all portions of the country; an economical administration of the Government, in time of peace, ought to be derived from duties on imports, and not from direct taxation; and in laying such duties, sound policy requires a just discrimination, whereby suitable encouragement may be afforded to American industry, equally to all classes, and to all parts of the country.

Sixth. The Constitution vests in Congress the power to open and repair harbors, and remove obstructions from navigable rivers, whenever such improvements are necessary for the common defense, and for the protection and facility of commerce with foreign nations, or among the States — said improvements being in every instance national and general in their character.

Seventh. The Federal and State Governments are parts of one system, alike necessary for the common prosperity, peace and security, and ought to be regarded alike with a cordial, habitual and immovable attachment. Respect for the authority of each, and acquiescence in the just, constitutional measures of each, are duties required by the plainest considerations of National, State and individual welfare.

Eighth. That the series of acts of the 32d Congress, the Act known as the Fugitive Slave law included, are received and acquiesced in by the Whig party of the United States as a settlement in principle and substance of the dangerous and exciting questions which they embrace; and, so far as they are concerned, we will maintain them, and insist upon their strict enforcement, until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against the evasion of the laws on the one hand and the abuse of their powers on the other — not impairing their present efficiency; and we deprecate all further agitation of the question thus settled as dangerous to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation, whenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be made; and we will maintain this system as essential to the nationality of the Whig party, and the integrity of the Union.

The above propositions were unanimously adopted with the exception of the last, which was carried by a vote of 212 to 70: the delegates who voted against it being supporters of Scott as against Fillmore and Webster in the ballotings above given.

The vote by States, on this (Compromise) resolution, was as follows

YEAS — Maine, 4; New-Hampshire, 5; Vermont, 5; Massachusetts, 3; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 4; New-York, 11; New-Jersey, 7; Pennsylvania, 21; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 8; Virginia, 14; North Carolina, 10; South Carolina, 8; Georgia, 10; Alabama, 9; Mississippi, 7; Louisiana, 6; Ohio, 8; Kentucky, 12; Tennessee, 12; Indiana, 7; Illinois, 6; Missouri, 9; Arkansas, 4; Florida, 3; Iowa, 4; Wisconsin, 4; Texas, 4; — 212.

NAYS — Maine, 4; Connecticut, 1; New-York, 22; Pennsylvania, 6; Ohio, 15; Wisconsin, 1; Indiana, 6; Illinois, 5; Michigan, 6; California, 4 — 70.

GEN. SCOTT'S ACCEPTANCE.

Gen. Scott accepted the nomination and Platform in the following letter.

WASHINGTON, June 24th, 1852.

SIR: I have had the honor to receive from your hands the official notice of any unanimous nomination as the Whig candidate for the office of President of the United States, together with a copy of the resolutions passed by the Convention, expressing their opinions upon some of the most prominent questions of national policy.

This great distinction, conferred by a numerous, intelligent and patriotic body, representing millions of my countrymen, sinks deep into my heart; and remembering the very eminent names which were before the Convention in amicable competition with my own, I am made to feel, oppressively, the weight of responsibility belonging to my new position. Not having written a word to procure this distinction, I lost not a moment after it had been conferred in addressing a letter to one of your members, to signify what would be, at the proper time, the substance of my reply to the Convention: and I now have the honor to repeat, in a more formal manner, as the occasion justly demands, that I accept the nomination with the resolutions annexed. The political principles and measures laid down in those resolutions are so broad that but little is left for me to add. I therefore barely suggest in this place, that, should I, by the partiality of my countrymen, be elevated to the Chief Magistracy of the Union, I shall be ready, in my connection with Congress, to recommend or approve of measures in regard to the management of the public domain, so as to secure an early settlement of the same, favorable to actual settlers, but consistent, nevertheless, with a due regard to the equal rights of the whole American people in that vast national inheritance; and also to recommend or approve of a single alteration in our naturalization laws, suggested by my military experience, viz: Giving to all foreigners the right of citizenship, who shall faithfully serve, in time of war, one year on board of our public ships, or in our land forces, regular or volunteer, on their receiving an honorable discharge from the service. In regard to the general policy of the administration, if elected, I should, of course, look among those who may approve that policy for the agents to carry it into execution; and I should seek to cultivate harmony and fraternal sentiments throughout the Whig party, without attempting to reduce its members, by proscription, to exact uniformity to my own views.

But I should at the same time be rigorous in regard to qualifications for office, retaining and appointing no one either deficient in capacity or integrity, or in devotion to liberty, to the Constitution and the Union. Convinced that harmony or good will between the different quarters of our broad country is essential to the present and the future interests of the Republic, and with a devotion to those interests that can know no South and no North, I should neither countenance nor tolerate any sedition, disorder, faction or resistance to the law or the Union on any pretext, in any part of the land, and I should carry into the civil administration this one principle of military conduct — obedience to the legislative and judicial departments of government, each in its constitutional sphere, saving only in respect to the Legislature, the possible resort to the veto power, always to be most cautiously exercised, and under the strictest restraints and necessities.

Finally, for my strict adherence to the principles of the Whig party, as expressed in the resolutions of the Convention, and herein suggested, with a sincere and earnest purpose to advance the greatness and happiness of the Republic, and thus to cherish and encourage the cause of constitutional liberty throughout the world, avoiding every act and thought that might involve our country in an unjust or unnecessary war, or impair the faith of treaties, and discountenancing all political agitations injurious to the interests of society and dangerous to the Union, I can offer no other pledge or guarantee than the known incidents of a long public life, now undergoing the severest examination. Feeling myself highly fortunate in my associate on the ticket, and with a lively sense of my obligations to the Convention, and to your personal courtesies, I have the honor to remain, sir, with great esteem, your most obedient servant,
WINFIELD SCOTT.

To HON. J. G. CHAPMAN, President of the Whig National Convention.

20

Democratic Convention — 1852.

This Convention assembled at Baltimore on the 1st of June, John W. Davis, of Indiana, presided, and the two-thirds rule was adopted. Gen. Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, was nominated for President on the 49th ballot, as follows:

Ballots Cass Buchanan Douglas Marcy Butler Houston Dodge Lane Dickinson Pierce
1. 116 93 20 27 2 8 3 13 1
2. 118 95 23 27 1 6 3 13 1
3. 119 94 21 26 1 7 3 13 1
4. 115 89 31 25 1 7 3 13 1
5. 114 88 34 26 1 8 3 13 1
6. 114 88 34 26 1 8 3 13 1
7. 113 88 34 26 1 9 3 13 1
8. 113 88 34 26 1 9 3 13 1
9. 112 87 39 27 1 8 13 1
10. 111 86 40 27 1 8 13 1
11. 101 87 50 27 1 8 13 1
12. 98 88 51 27 1 9 13 1
13. 98 88 51 26 1 10 13 1
14. 99 87 51 26 1 10 13 1
15. 99 87 51 26 1 10 13 1
16. 99 87 51 26 1 10 13 1
17. 99 87 50 26 1 10 13 1
18. 96 85 56 25 1 11 13 1
19. 89 88 51 27 1 9 13 1
20. 81 92 64 26 1 10 13 1
21. 60 102 64 26 13 9 13 1
22. 53 104 77 26 15 9 13 1
23. 37 107 78 26 19 11 13 1
24. 33 103 80 26 23 9 13 1
25. 34 101 81 26 24 9 13 1
26. 33 10 80 26 23 9 13 1
27. 32 98 85 26 24 10 13 1
28. 28 96 88 26 25 11 13 1
29. 27 93 91 26 25 12 13 1
30. 33 91 92 26 20 12 13 1
31. 64 79 92 26 16 10 1
32. 98 74 80 26 16 10 1
33. 123 72 60 25 2 6 1
34. 130 49 53 23 1 5 1
35. 131 89 52 44 1 5 1 15
36. 122 28 43 58 1 5 1 30
37. 120 28 37 70 1 5 1 29
38. 122 28 33 84 1 5 1 29
39. 122 28 33 85 1 5 1 29
40. 106 27 33 85 1 5 1 29
41. 107 27 33 85 1 5 1 29
42. 101 27 33 85 1 5 1 29
43. 101 27 33 91 1 5 1 29
44. 101 27 33 91 1 5 1 29
45. 96 27 32 97 1 5 1 30
46. 78 28 32 97 1 5 1 44
47. 75 28 33 95 1 5 1 49
48. 73 28 33 90 1 6 1 55
49. 2 2 2 282

The first vote for Vice-President was as follows:

Wm. R. King, of Ala. 126
G. J. Pillow, of Tenn. 25
D. R.Archison, of Mo. 25
T. J. Rusk of Texas 12
Jeff Davis, of Miss. 2
Wm. O. Butler of Ky. 27
Robt. Strange, of N. C. 23
S. U. Downs, of La. 30
J . B. Weller, of Cal. 28
Howell Cobb, of Ga. 2

Wm. R. King, of Alabama, was unanimously nominated on the second ballot.

THE PLATFORM.

The Platform was made up of resolves. Here follow 1, 2, and 3, of that of 1848, with 1, 2, 3, and 4 of that of 1840, (see them heretofore), to which were added the following

Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the Government, and for the gradual but certain extinction of the public debt.

Resolved, That Congress has no power to charter a National Bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and that above the laws and the will of the people; and that the results of Democratic legislation, in this and all other financial measures, upon which issues have been made between the two political parties of the country have demonstrated to candid and practical men of all, parties, their soundness safely, and utility, in all business pursuits.

Resolved, That the separation of the moneys of the Government from Banking Institutions, is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the Government, and the rights of the people.

Resolved, That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the Constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty, and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith; and every attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute book.

Resolved, That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere with, or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, and prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of Slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

Resolved, That the foregoing proposition covers, and is intended to embrace, the whole subject of Slavery agitation in Congress; and therefore, the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this National Platform, will abide by, and adhere to, a faithful execution of the acts known as the Compromise measures settled by the last Congress — the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor included; which act, being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the Slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

[Here follow the Resolutions of 1848, against the distribution of the proceeds of the Public Land Sales, and against the abridgment of the veto power of the President.]

Resolved, That the Democratic party will faithfully abide by and uphold the principles laid down in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1792 and 1798, and in the report of Mr. Madison to the Virginia Legislature in 1799; that it adopts those principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political creed, and is resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and import.

Resolved, That the war with Mexico, upon all the principles of patriotism and the law of nations, was a just and necessary war on our part, in which no American citizen should have shown himself opposed to his country, and neither morally nor physically, by word or deed, given aid and comfort to the enemy.

Resolved, That we rejoice at the restoration of friendly relations with our sister Republic of Mexico, and earnestly desire for her all the blessings and prosperity which we enjoy under Republican Institutions, and we congratulate the American people on the results of that war which have so manifestly justified the policy and conduct of the Democratic party, and insured to the United States indemnity for the past, and security for the future.

Resolved, That, in view of the condition of popular institutions in the Old World, a high and sacred duty is devolved with increased responsibility upon the Democracy of this country, as the party of the people, to uphold and maintain the rights of every State, and thereby the Union of States, and to sustain and advance among them constitutional liberty, by continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation or the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles and compromises of the CONSTITUTION, which are broad enough and strong enough to embrace and uphold the Union as it is, and the Union as it should be, in the full expansion of the energies and capacity of this great and progressive people.

21

Free Democratic Convention — 1852.

The Free-Soil Democracy held a National Convention at Pittsburgh, on the 11th August, 1852, Henry Wilson, of Mass., presiding. All the Free States were represented, together with Delaware, Virginia, Kentucky and Maryland. John P. Hale, of N. H., was nominated for President, with Geo. W. Julian, of Indiana, for Vice-President.

The Convention adopted the following

PLATFORM:

Having assembled in National Convention as the Democracy of the United States, united by a common resolve to maintain right against wrong, and Freedom against Slavery: confiding in the intelligence, patriotism, and discriminating justice of the American people, putting our trust in God for the triumph of our cause, and invoking his guidance in our endeavors to advance it, we now submit to the candid judgment of all men the following declaration of principles and measures:
1. That governments, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, are instituted among men to secure to all those inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with which they are endowed by their Creator, and of which none can be deprived by valid legislation, except for crime.

2. That the true mission of American Democracy is to maintain the Liberties of the People, the Sovereignty of the States, and the perpetuity of the Union, by the impartial application to public affairs, without sectional discriminations of the fundamental principles of human right, strict justice and an economical administration.

3. That the Federal Government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the Government, and it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.

4. That the Constitution of the United States, ordained to form a more perfect Union, to establish Justice and secure the blessings of Liberty, expressly denies to the General Government all power to deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; and, therefore, the Government, having no more power to make a slave than to make a king, and no more power to establish Slavery than to establish a Monarchy, should at once proceed to relieve itself from all responsibility for the existence of Slavery, wherever it possesses constitutional power to legislate for its extinction.

5. That, to the persevering and importunate demands of the Slave power for more Slave States, new Slave Territories and the nationalization of Slavery, our distinct and final answer is — no more Slave States, no Slave Territory, no nationalized Slavery, and no national Legislation for the extradition of slaves.

6. That Slavery is a sin against God, and a crime against man, which no human enactment nor usage can make right; and that Christianity, humanity, and patriotism alike demand its abolition.

7. That the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, is repugnant to the Constitution, to the principles of the common law, to the spirit of Christianity, and to the sentiments of the civilized world. We therefore deny its binding force upon the American people, and demand its immediate and total repeal.

8. That the doctrine that any human law is a finality, and not subject to modification or repeal, is not in accordance with the creed of the founders of our Government, and is dangerous to the liberties of the people.

9. That the Acts of Congress, known as the Compromise Measures of 1850, by making the admission of a Sovereign State contingent upon the adoption of other measures demanded by the special interest of Slavery; by their omission to guarantee freedom in the free Territories; by their attempt to impose unconstitutional limitations on the power of Congress and the people — to admit new States; by their provisions for the assumption of five millions of the State debt of Texas, and for the payment of five millions more, and the cession of a large territory to the same State under menace, as an inducement to the relinquishment of a groundless claim, and by their invasion of the sovereignty of the States and the liberties of the people through the enactment of an unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional Fugitive slave Law, are proved to be inconsistent with all the Principles and maxims of Democracy, and wholly inadequate to the settlement of the questions of which they are claimed to be an adjustment.

10. That no permanent settlement of the Slavery question can be looked for except in the practical recognition of the truth that Slavery is sectional and Freedom national; by the total separation of the General Government from Slavery, and the exercise of its legitimate and constitutional influence on the side of Freedom; and by leaving to the States the whole subject of Slavery and the extradition of fugitives from service.

11. That all men have a natural right to a portion of the soil; and that as the use of the soil is indispensable to life, the right of all men to the soil is as sacred as their right to life itself.

12. That the Public Lands of the United States belong to the People, and should not be sold to individuals nor granted to corporations, but should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to landless settlers.

13. That a due regard for the Federal Constitution, a sound administrative policy, demand that the funds of the General Government be kept separate from Banking institutions; that inland and ocean postage should be reduced to the lowest possible point; that no more revenue should be raised than is required to defray the strictly necessary expenses of the public service, and to pay off the public Debt; and that the power and patronage of the Government should be diminished, by the abolition of all unnecessary offices, salaries, and privileges, and by the election, by the people, of all civil officers in the service of the United States, so far as may be consistent with the prompt and efficient transaction of the public business.

14. That River and Harbor Improvements, when necessary to the safety and convenience of commence with foreign nations, or among the several States, are objects of national concern; and it is the duty of Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to provide for the same.

15. That emigrants and exiles from the old world should find a cordial welcome to homes of comfort and fields of enterprise in the new; and every attempt to abridge their privilege of becoming citizens and owners of the soil among us, ought to be resisted with inflexible determination.

16. That every nation has a clear right to alter or change its own government, and to administer its own concerns in such manner as may best secure the rights and promote the happiness of the people; and foreign interference with that right is a dangerous violation of the law of nations, against which all independent governments should protest, and endeavor by all proper means to prevent; and especially is it the duty of the American Government, representing the Chief Republic of the world, to protest against, and by all proper means to prevent the intervention of kings and emperors against Nations seeking to establish for themselves Republican or constitutional governments.

17. That the Independence of Hayti ought to be recognized by our Government, and our commercial relations with it placed on the footing of the most favored nations.

18. That as by the Constitution, "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," the practice of imprisoning colored seamen of other States, while the vessels to which they belong lie in port, and refusing the exercise of the right to bring such cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, to test the legality of such proceedings, is a flagrant violation of the Constitution, and an invasion of the rights of the citizens of other States utterly inconsistent with the professions made by the slaveholders, that they wish the provisions of the Constitution faithfully observed by every State in the Union.

19. That we recommend the introduction into all treaties hereafter to be negotiated between the United States and foreign nations, of some provision for the amicable settlement of difficulties by a resort to decisive arbitrations.

20. That the Free Democratic Party is not organized to aid either the Whig or Democratic wing of the great Slave Compromise party of the nation, but to defeat them both; and that repudiating and renouncing both, as hopelessly corrupt, and utterly unworthy of confidence, the purpose of the Free Democracy is to take possession of the Federal Government, and administer it for the better protection of the rights and interests of the whole people.

21. That we inscribe on our banner, Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Men, and under it will fight on and fight ever until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.

22. That upon this Platform the Convention presents to the American people as a candidate for the office of

22

President of the United States, JOHN P. HALE, of New-Hampshire, and as a candidate for the office of Vice-President of the United States, GEORGE W. JULIAN, of Indiana, and earnestly commend them to the support of all Freemen and all parties.

The result of this contest was an overwhelming triumph of the regular Democracy: Pierce and King carrying every State except Massachusetts, Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, which cast their votes for Gen. Scott. The Free Democratic vote in several States would have given those States to Scott, had it been cast for him.

Republican National Convention — 1856.

This Convention met at Philadelphia on the 17th of June, and chose Col. Henry S. Lane, of Indiana, as presiding officer. An informal ballot for President resulted as follows:

States Fremont McLean
Maine 13 11
New-Hampshire 15 -
Vermont 16 -
Massachusetts 33 -
Rhode Island 12 -
Connecticut 18 -
New-York 98 3
New-Jersey 7 14
Pennsylvania 10 71
Delaware - 9
Maryland 4 3
Ohio 30 39
Indiana 13 21
Illinois 14 19
Michigan 18 -
Wisconsin 15 -
Iowa 12 -
Minnesota - 3
Kansas 9 -
Nebraska - 3
Kentucky 5 -
California 12 -
  359 196

New-York also gave two votes for Sumner and one for Seward.

Col. John C. Fremont was thereupon unanimously nominated.

William L. Dayton was nominated for Vice-President, receiving, on the informal ballot, 259 votes to 43 for David Wilmot; 110 for Abraham Lincoln; 7 for Thomas Ford; 35 for Charles Sumner; 4 for Cassius M. Clay; 15 for Jacob Collamer; 2 for J. R. Giddings; 2 for W. F. Johnston; 46 for N. P. Banks; 1 for A. C. M. Pennington; 5 for Henry Wilson; 9 for John A. King; 3 for Henry C. Carey; and 8 for Gen. S. C. Pomeroy of Kansas. A formal ballot was then taken, when Mr. Dayton was nominated unanimously.

The Convention adopted the following:

PLATFORM:

This Convention of Delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, to the policy of the present Administration, to the extension of Slavery into Free Territory; in favor of admitting Kansas as a Free State, of restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson, and who purpose to unite in presenting candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, do resolve as follows:
Resolved, That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution is essential to the preservation of our Republican Institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the Union of the States, shall be preserved.

Resolved, That with our republican fathers we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior designs of our Federal Government were, to secure these rights to all persons within its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in any territory of the United States, by positive legislation prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

Resolved, That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the territories of the United States for their government, and that in the exercise of this power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy and Slavery.

Resolved, That while the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established by the people in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty, and contains ample provisions for the protection of the life, liberty and property of every citizen, the dearest constitutional rights of the people of Kansas have been fraudulently and violently taken from them — their territory has been invaded by an armed force — spurious and pretended legislative, judicial and executive officers have been set over them, by whose usurped authority, sustained by the military power of the Government, tyrannical and unconstitutional laws have been enacted and enforced — the rights of the people to keep and bear arms have been infringed — test oaths of an extraordinary and entangling nature have been imposed as a condition of exercising the right of suffrage and holding office — the right of an accused person to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury has been denied — the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures has been violated — they have been deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law — that the freedom of speech and of the press has been abridged — the right to choose their representatives has been made of no effect — murders, robberies and arsons have been instigated and encouraged, and the offenders have been allowed to go unpunished — that all these things have been done with the knowledge, sanction and procurement of the present Administration, and that for this high crime against the Constitution, the Union and Humanity, we arraign the Administration, the President, his advisers, agents, supporters, apologists and accessories, either before or after the facts, before the country and before the world, and that it is our fixed purpose to bring the actual perpetrators of these atrocious outrages, and their accomplices, to a sure and condign punishment hereafter.

Resolved, That Kansas should be immediately admitted as a State of the Union, with her present free Constitution, as at once the most effectual way of securing to her citizens the enjoyment of the rights and privileges to which they are entitled; and of ending the civil strife now raging in her territory.

Resolved, That the highwayman's plea, that "might makes right," emboded in the Ostend Circular, was in every respect unworthy of American diplomacy, and would bring shame and dishonor upon any government or people that gave it their sanction.

Resolved, That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean, by the most central and practicable route, is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country, and that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and, as an auxiliary thereto, the immediate construction of an emigrant route on the line of the railroad.

Resolved, That appropriations by Congress for the improvement of rivers and harbors, of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of our existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation of government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.

This contest resulted in the election of the Democratic nominees, Buchanan and Breckinridge, who received the electoral votes of:

New-Jersey, 7; Pennsylvania, 27; Delaware, 3; Virginia, 15; North Carolina, 10; South Carolina, 8; Georgia, 10; Alabama, 9; Mississippi, 7; Louisiana, 6; Tennessee, 12; Kentucky, 12; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Missouri, 9; Arkansas, 4; Florida, 3; Texas 4; California, 4 — 174.

For Fremont and Dayton: Maine, 8; New-Hampshire, 5; Vermont, 5; Massachusetts, 13; Rhode Island, 4;

23

Connecticut, 6; New-York, 35; Ohio, 23; Michigan, 6; Iowa, 4; Wisconsin, 5 — 114.

Fillmore and Donelson, Maryland, 8.

American National Convention — 1856.

The American National Council met in Philadelphia February 19, 1856. All the States except four or five were represented. E. B. Barrlett, of Ky., President of the National Council presided, and, after a rather stormy session of three days, devoted mainly to the discussion a of a Party Platform, the following, on the 21st, was adopted

AMERICAN PLATFORM.

1. An humble acknowledgment to the Supreme Being, for his protecting care vouchsafed to our fathers in their successful Revolutionary struggle and hitherto manifested to us, their descendants, in the preservation of the liberties, the independence, and the union of these States.

2. The perpetuation of the Federal Union and Constitution, as the palladium of our civil and religious liberties, and the only sure bulwarks of American Independence.

3. Americans must rule America; and to this end native-born citizens should be selected for all State, Federal and municipal offices of government employment, in preference to all others. Nevertheless,

4. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily abroad, should be entitled to all the rights of native-born citizens.

5. No person should be selected for political station (whether of native or foreign birth), who recognizes any allegiance or obligation of any description to any foreign prince, potentate or power, or who refuses to recognize the Federal and State Constitutions (each within its sphere) as paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action.

6. The unqualified recognition and maintenance of the reserved rights of the several States, and the cultivation of harmony and fraternal good will between the citizens of the several States, and to this end, non-interference by Congress with questions appertaining solely to the individual States and non-intervention by each State with the affairs of any other State.

7. The recognition of the right of native-born and naturalized Citizens of the United States, permanently residing in any territory thereof, to frame their constitution and laws, and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the Union whenever they have the requisite population for one Representative in Congress: Provided always, that none but those who are citizens of the United States, under the Constitution and laws thereof and who have a fixed residence in any such Territory, ought to participate in the formation of the Constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said Territory or State.

8. An enforcement of the principles that no State or territory ought to admit others than citizens to the right or suffrage, or of holding political offices of the United States.

9. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued residence of twenty-one years, of all not heretofore provided for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, and excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of crime, from landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners.

10. Opposition to any union between Church and state; no interference with the religious faith or workshop, and no test oaths for office.

11. Free and the thorough investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public functionaries, and a strict economy in public expenditures.

12. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws constitutionally enacted until said laws shall be repealed, or shall be declared null and void by competent judicial authority.

13. Opposition to the reckless and unwise policy of the present Administration in the general management of our national affairs, and more especially as shown in removing "Americans" (by designation) and Conservatives in principle, from office, and placing foreigners and Ultraists in their places; as shown in a truckling subservience to the stronger, and an insolent and cowardly bravado toward the weaker powers; as shown in reopening sectional agitation, by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; as shown in granting to unnaturalized foreigners the right, of suffrage in Kansas and Nebraska; as shown in its vacillating course on the Kansas and Nebraska question; as shown in the corruptions which pervade some of the Departments of the Government; as shown in disgracing meritorious naval officers through prejudice or caprice: and as shown in the blundering mismanagement of our foreign relations.

14. Therefore, to remedy existing evils, and prevent the disastrous consequences otherwise resulting therefrom, we would build up the "American Party" upon the principles herein before stated.

15. That each State Council shall have authority to amend their several constitutions, so as to abolish the several degrees and substitute a pledge of honor, instead of other obligations, for fellowship and admission into the party.

16. A free and open discussion of all political principles embraced in our Platform.

On the following day (Feb. 22,) the American National Nominating Convention, composed mostly of the same gentlemen who had deliberated as the National Council, organized at Philadelphia, with 227 delegates in attendance, Maine, Vermont, Georgia, and South Carolina, being the only States not represented. Ephraim Marsh, of New-Jersey, was chosen to preside, and the Convention remained in session till the 25th, and, after disposing of several cases of contested seats, discussed at considerable length, and with great warmth, the question of the power of the National Council to establish a Platform for the Convention, which should be of binding force upon that body. Finally, Mr. Killinger, of Pennsylvania, proposed the following

Resolved, That the National Council has no authority to prescribe a Platform of principles for this Nominating Convention, and that we will nominate for President and Vice-President no man who is not in favor of interdicting the introduction of Slavery into Territory north 36 0 80 0 by congressional action.

A motion to lay this resolution on the table was adopted, 141 to 59. A motion was then made to proceed to the nomination of a candidate for President, which was carried, 151 to 51, the Anti-Slavery delegates, or North Americans, as they were called, voting in the negative, and desiring to postpone the nomination.

But being beaten at all points, they (to the number of about 50) either withdrew or refused to take any further part in the proceedings of the Convention, and many of them subsequently supported Col. Fremont for President. An informal ballot was then taken for President, which resulted as follows:

M. Fillmore, of N. Y. 71
George Law, N. Y. 27
Garrett Davis, Ky. 13
John McLean, Ohio 7
R. F. Stockton, N. J. 8
Sam Houston, Texas 6
John Bell, Tennessee 5
Kenneth Raynor, N. C. 2
Erastus Brooks, N. Y. 3
Lewis D. Campbell, Ohio 1
John M. Clayton, Del. 1

A formal ballot was then taken, when Mr Fillmore was nominated as follows

Fillmore, 179; Law, 24; Raynor, 14; McLean, 13, Davis, 10; Houston, 3.

Necessary to a choice, 122.

Millard Fillmore was then declared to be the nominee.

A ballot was then taken for Vice-President, and Andrew Jackson Donelson, of Tennessee, was nominated as follows

A. J. Donelson, Ten., 181; Percy Walker, Ala., 8; Henry J. Gardner, Mass., 8; Kenneth Raynor, N. C., 8.

Mr. Donelson was then declared to be

24

unanimously nominated, and the Convention adjourned.

Democratic National Convention — 1856.

This Convention met at Cincinnati on the 2d of June, and chose John E. Ward, of Georgia, to preside, and nominated James Buchanan on the 17th ballot, as follows:

Ballots Buchanan. Pierce. Douglas. Cass.
1. 135 102 83 5
2. 139 119˝ 3˝ 6
3. 139˝ 119 32 5˝
4. 141˝ 119 30 5˝
5. 140 119˝ 31 5˝
6. 125 117˝ 28 5˝
7. 143˝ 89 58 5˝
8. 147˝ 87 56 5˝
9. 146 87 56 1
10. 15˝ 8˝ 59˝ 5˝
11. 147˝ 80 68 5˝
12. 148 79 63˝ 5˝
13. 150 77˝ 63 5˝
14. 152˝ 75 63 5˝
15. 168˝ 3˝ 118˝ 4˝
16. 168 - 121 6
17. 296 - - -

Mr. Buchanan having been unanimously nominated for President, the Convention proceeded to ballot for a candidate for Vice-President, the first ballot resulting as follows:

J. A. Quitman, Miss. 59
Linn Boyd, Ky. 33
A. V. Brown, Tenn. 29
J. A. Bayard, Del. 31
T. J. Rusk, Texas 2
J. C. Breckinrdge, Ky. 55
B. Fitzpatrick, Ala. 11
H. V. Johnson, Ga. 31
Trusten Polk, Mo. 5
J. C. Dobbin, N. C. 13

On the second ballot, the name of Gen. Quitman was withdrawn, as were also those of other heading candidates, and Mr. Breckinridge was unanimously nominated.

The Convention adopted the following

PLATFORM:

Resolved, That the American Democracy place their trust in the intelligence, the patriotism, and the discriminating justice of the American people.

Resolved, That we regard this as a distinctive feature of our political creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world as a great moral element in a form of government springing from and upheld by the popular will; and we contrast it with the creed and practice of Federalism, under whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy the will of the Constituent, and which conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity.

Resolved, therefore, That entertaining these views, the Democratic party of this Union, through their delegates, assembled in general Convention, coming together in a spirit of concord, of devotion to the doctrines and faith of a free representative government, and appealing to their fellow-citizens for the rectitude of their intentions, renew and reassert before the American people, the declarations of principles avowed by them, when, on former occasions, in general Convention, they have presented their candidates for the popular suffrage

1. That the Federal Government is one of limited power, derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the Government, and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.

2. That the Constitution does not confer upon the General Government the power to commence and carry on a general system of internal improvements.

3. That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the Federal Government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several States, contracted for local and internal improvements, or other State purposes, nor would such assumption be just or expedient.

4. That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion of our common country; that every citizen and every section of the country has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and a complete and ample protection of persons and property from domestic violence and foreign aggression.

5. That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the government, and gradual but certain extinction of the public debt.

6. That the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution, and that we are opposed to any law for the distribution of such proceeds among the States, as alike inexpedient in policy, and repugnant to the Constitution.

7. That Congress has no power to charter a National Bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interest of this country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power and above the laws and will of the people; and the results of the Democratic legislation in this and all other financial measures upon which issues have been made between the two political parts of the country, have demonstrated to candid and practical men of all parties their soundness, safety and utility in all business pursuits.

8. That the separation of the moneys of the Government from banking institutions is indispensable to the safety of the funds of the Government and the rights of the people.

9. That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the President the qualified Veto power, by which he is enabled, under restrictions and responsibilities amply sufficient to guard the public interests, to suspend the passage of a bill whose merits cannot secure the approval of two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, until the judgment of the people can be obtained thereon, and which has saved the American people from the corrupt and tyrannical dominion of the Bank of the United States, and from a corrupting system of general internal improvements.

10. That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the Constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith; and every attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil among us ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute hooks.

And whereas, Since the foregoing declaration was uniformly adopted by our predecessors in National Convention, an adverse political and religious test has been secretly organized by a party claiming to be exclusively American, and it is proper that the American Democracy should clearly define its relations thereto; and declare its determined opposition to all secret political societies, by whatever name they may be called.

Resolved, That the foundation of this Union of States having been laid in, and its prosperity, expansion, and preeminent example of free government, built upon entire freedom in makers of religious concernment, and no respect of persons in regard to rank, or place of birth, no party can justly be deemed national, constitutional or in accordance with American principles, which bases its exclusive organization upon religious opinions and accidental birth-place. And hence a political crusade in the nineteenth century, and in the United States of America, against Catholics and foreign-born, is neither justified by the past history nor future prospects of the country nor in unison with the spirit of toleration, and enlightened freedom which peculiarly distinguishes the American system of popular government.

Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well considered declarations of former conventions upon the sectional issue of domestic slavery and concerning the reserved rights of the States —

1. That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institution of the several States, and that all such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to the own affairs not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of Slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

2. That the foregoing proposition covers and was intended to embrace the whole subject of Slavery agitation in Congress, and therefore the Democratic party of the

25

Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the Compromise Measures, settled by the Congress of 1850: "the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor" included; which act, being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

3. That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the Slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

4. That the Democratic Party will faithfully abide by and uphold the principles laid down in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1797 and 1798, and in the report of Mr. Madison to the Virginia Legislature in 1799 — that it adopts these principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political creed, and is resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and import.

And that we may more distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party, subsisting exclusively on Slavery agitation, now relies to test the fidelity of the people, North and South, to the Constitution and the Union —

1. Resolved, That claiming fellowship with and desiring the cooperation of all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue, and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic Slavery, which seek to embroil the States and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Territories, and whose avowed purpose, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion, the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the Slavery question, upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservation of the Union, and non-interference of Congress with Slavery in the Territories or in the District of Columbia.

2. That this was the basis of the compromises of 1850, confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in National Conventions, ratified by the people in the election of 1852, and rightly applied to the organization of the Territories in 1851.

3. That by the uniform application of the Democratic principle to the organization of Territories, and the admission of new States with or without domestic Slavery, as they may elect, the equal rights of all the States will be preserved intact, the original compacts of the Constitution maintained inviolate, and the perpetuity and expansion of the Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing, in peace and harmony, every future American State that may be constituted or annexed with a republican form of government.

Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of the majority of the actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a Constitution, with or without domestic Slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States.

Resolved, finally, That in view of the condition of popular institutions in the Old World (and the dangerous tendencies of sectional agitation, combined with the attempt to enforce civil and religious disabilities against the rights of acquiring and enjoying citizenship in our own land), a high and sacred duty is involved with increased responsibility upon the Democratic Party of this country, as the party of the Union, to uphold and maintain the rights of every State and thereby the Union of the States — and to sustain and advance among us constitutional liberty, by continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles and compromises of the Constitution — which are broad enough and strong enough to embrace and uphold the Union as it was, the Union as it is, and the Union as it shall be — in the full expression of the energies and capacity of this great and progressive people

1. Resolved, That there are questions connected with the foreign policy of this country which are inferior to no domestic question whatever. The time has come for the people of the United States to declare themselves in favor of free seas, and progressive free trade throughout the world, and, by solemn manifestations, to place their moral influence at the side of their successful example.

2. Resolved, That our geographical and political position with reference to the other states of this continent, no less than the interest of our commerce and the development of our growing power, requires that we should hold sacred the principles involved in the Monroe doctrine. Their bearing and import admit of no misconstruction, and should be applied with unbending rigidity.

3. Resolved, That the great highway, which nature as well as the assent of States most immediately interested in its maintenance has marked out for free communication between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, constitutes one of the most important achievements realized by the spirit of modern times, in the unconquerable energy of our people; and that result would be secured by a timely and efficient exertion of the control which we have the right to claim over it; and no power on earth should be suffered to impede or clog its progress by any interference with relations that it may suit our policy to establish between our Government and the government of the States within whose dominions it lies; we can under no circumstance surrender our preponderance in the adjustment of all questions arising out of it.

4. Resolved, That, in view of so commanding an interest, the people of the United States cannot but sympathize with the efforts which are being made by the people of Central America to regenerate that portion of the continent which covers the passage across the inter-oceanic isthmus.

5. Resolved, That the Democratic Party will expect of the next Administration that every proper effort be made to insure our ascendancy in the Gulf of Mexico, and to maintain permanent protection to the great outlets through which are emptied into its waters the products raised out of the soil and the commodities created by the industry of the people of our western valleys and of the Union at large.

Resolved, That the Administration of Franklin Pierce has been true to Democratic principles, and therefore true to the great interests of the country; in the face of violent opposition, he has maintained the laws at home, and vindicated the rights of American citizens abroad; and therefore we proclaim our unqualified admiration of his measures and policy.

Whig Convention — 1856.

A Whig National Convention met at Baltimore on the 17th of Sept., 1856 — Edward Bates, of Missouri, presiding. The nominations of Millard Fillmore for President, and Andrew J. Donelson for Vice-President, were unanimously concurred in. The Convention adopted the following

PLATFORM:

Resolved, That the Whigs of the United States, now here assembled, hereby declare their reverence for the Constitution of the United States, their unalterable attachment to the National Union, and a fixed determination to do all in their power to preserve them for themselves and their posterity. They have no new principles to announce; no new platform to establish; but are content to broadly rest — where their fathers rested — upon the Constitution of the United States, wishing no safer guide, no higher law.

Resolved, That we regard with the deepest interest and anxiety the present disordered condition of our national affairs — a portion of the country ravaged by civil war, large sections of our population embittered by mutual recriminations; and we distinctly trace these calamities to the culpable neglect of duty by the present national administration.

Resolved, That the Government of the United States was formed by the conjunction in political unity of wide spread geographical sections materially differing, not only in climate and products, but in social and domestic institutions; and that any cause that shall permanently array the different sections of the Union in political hostility and organized parties founded only on geographical distinctions must inevitably prove fatal to a continuance of the National Union.

Resolved, That the Whigs of the United States declare, as a fundamental article of political faith, an absolute necessity for avoiding geographical parties. The danger, so clearly discerned by the Father of his Country, has now become fearfully apparent in the agitation now convulsing the nation, and must be arrested at once if we would preserve our Constitution and our Union from dismemberment, and the name of America from being blotted, out from the family of civilized nations.

26

Resolved, That all who revere the Constitution and the Union, must look with alarm at the parties in the field in the present Presidential campaign — one claiming only to represent sixteen Northern States, and the other appealing mainly to the passions and prejudices of the Southern States; that the success of either faction must add fuel to the flame which now threatens to wrap our dearest interests in a common ruin.

Resolved, That the only remedy for an evil so appalling is to support a candidate pledged to neither of the geographical sections now arrayed in political antagonism, but holding both in a just and equal regard. We congratulate the friends of the Union that such a candidate exists in Millard Fillmore.

Resolved, That, without adopting or referring to the peculiar doctrines of the party which has already selected Mr. Fillmore as a candidate, we look to him as a well-tied and faithful friend of the Constitution and the Union, eminent alike for his wisdom and firmness — for his justice and moderation in our foreign relations — for his calm and pacific temperament, so well becoming the head of a great nation — for his devotion to the Constitution in its true spirit — his inflexibility in executing the laws; but, beyond all these attributes, in possessing the one transcendent merit of being a representative of neither of the two sectional parties now struggling for political supremacy.

Resolved, That in the present exigency of political affairs, we are not called upon to discuss the subordinate questions of administration in the exercising of the Constitutional powers of the Government. It is enough to know that civil war is raging, and that the Union is in peril; and we proclaim the conviction that the restoration of Mr. Fillmore to the Presidency will furnish the best if not the only means of restoring peace.

In the election which ensued, Mr. Fillmore received the vote of Maryland only, while Mr. Buchanan obtained those of the 14 other Slave states, and of New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and California, making 172 in all. Col. Fremont received the votes of the eleven other Free States, making 114 in all. Pennsylvania and Illinois, had they voted for Col. Fremont, would have given him the election.

Republican Convention — 1860.

A Republican National Convention assembled at Chicago, Illinois, on Wednesday, May 16th, 1860, delegates being in attendance from all the Free States, as also from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas, the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and the District of Columbia.

Gov. Morgan, of New-York, as Chairman of the National Executive Committee, nominated David Wilmot as temporary Chairman, and he was chosen. The usual Committees on permanent organization, credentials, etc., were appointed, and the Convention was permanently organized by the selection of George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, as President, with a Vice-President and a Secretary from each State and Territory represented. A Committee, of one from each State and Territory, was appointed to draft suitable resolutions, or in other words a Platform, and the Convention adjourned.

On the following day, an interesting debate arose on a proposition to require a vote equal to a majority of full delegations from all the States to nominate candidates for President and Vice-President; which, with the delegates actually in attendance, would have been about equivalent to a two-third rule. This proposition was voted down, and the Convention decided, by a vote of 331 to 130, that only a majority of those present and voting should be required nominate candidates. The following platform was adopted, and, without taking a ballot for President, the Convention again adjourned.

PLATFORM OF 1860.

Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States, in Convention assembled, in discharge of the duty we owe to our constituents and our country, unite in the following declarations:
1. That the history of the nation, during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph.

2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States, must and shall be preserved.

3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surprising development of material resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for Disunion, come from whatever source they may: And we congratulate the country that no Republican member of Congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of Disunion so often made by Democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendancy, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant People sternly to rebuke and forever silence.

4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehensions, in its measureless subservience to the exactions of a sectional interest as especially evinced in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton Constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas; in construing the personal relation between master and servant, to involve an unqualified property in persons; in its attempted enforcement, everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of Congress and of the Federal courts of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest; and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power intrusted to it by a confiding people.

6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored Partisans; while the recent starting developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded.

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force carries Slavery into any or all of the Territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature

27

individuals, to give legal existence to slavery Territory of the United States.

9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African slave-trade of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

10. That in the recent votes, by their Federal Government of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska prohibiting Slavery in those Territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of intervention and Popular Sovereignty embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.

11. That Kansas should, of right, be immediately admitted as a state under the Constitution recently formed and adopted by her people, and accepted by the House of Representatives.

12. That while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country: and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labour and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.

13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the Public Lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the Homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty; and we demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfactory Homestead measure which has already passed the House.

14. That the Republican Party is opposed to any change in our Naturalization Laws or any State legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.

15. That appropriations by Congress for River and Harbor improvements of a National character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligations of Government, to protect the lives and property of its citizens.

16. That a Railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily Overland Mail should be promptly established.

17. Finally, having thus set forth our distinctive principles and views, we invite the cooperation of all citizens, however differing in other questions, who substantially agree with us in their affirmance and support.

On the following day, Friday, May 18th, the Chair having announced that the naming of candidates for President was in order, Wm. M. Evarts, of New-York, named William H. Seward.

Mr. Judd, of Illinois, named Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Dudley, of New-Jersey, nominated Wm. L. Dayton. Gov. Reeder, of Pennsylvania nominated Simon Cameron. Mr. Carter, of Ohio nominated Salmon P. Chase. Francis P. Blair of Maryland, nominated Edward Bates, of Missouri.

Indiana seconded the nomination of Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Austin Blair, of Michigan, seconded the nomination of Mr.Seward; so also did Carl Schurz, of Wisconsin, Mr. Worth, of Minnesota, and Mr. Wilder, of Kansas.

Mr. Corwin, of Ohio, nominated Judge McClean.

Mr. Delano, of Ohio, seconded the nomination of Mr. Lincoln, as did also one of the delegates from Iowa.

The balloting then proceeded, with the following result:

FIRST BALLOT.
States. Seward. Lincoln. Wade. Cameron. Bates. McLean. Read. Chase. Dayton. Sumner. Fremont. Collamer.
Maine 10 6 - - - - - - - - - -
New-Hampshire 1 7 - - - - - 1 - - 1 -
Vermont - - - - - - - - - - - 10
Massachusetts 21 4 - - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island - - - - 1 5 1 - - - - -
Connecticut - 2 1 - 7 - - 2 - - - -
New-York 70 - - - - - - - - - - -
New-Jersey - - - - - - - - 14 - - -
Pennsylvania 1˝ 4 - 47˝ - 1 - - - - - -
Maryland 3 - - - 8 - - - - - - -
Delaware - - - - 6 - - - - - - -
Virginia 8 14 - 1 - - - - - - - -
Kentucky 5 6 2 - - - - - - - - -
Ohio - 8 - - - 4 - 34 - - - -
Indiana - 26 - - - - - - - - - -
Missouri - - - - 18 - - - - - - -
Michigan 12 - - - - - - - - - - -
Illinois - 22 - - - - - - - - - -
Texas 4 - - - 2 - - - - - - -
Wisconsin 10 - - - - - - - - - - -
Iowa 2 2 - 1 1 - - - - - - -
California 8 - - - - - - - - - - -
Minnesota 8 - - - - - - - - - - -
Oregon - - - - 5 - - - - - - -
Territories.
Kansas 6 - - - - - - - - - - -
Nebraska 2 1 - 1 - - - 2 - - - -
Dis. of Columbia 2 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 173˝ 102 3 50˝ 48 12 1 49 14 1 1 10

Whole number of votes, 465.

Necessary to a choice, 233.

The second ballot was then taken.

Mr. Cameron's name was withdrawn.

SECOND BALLOT
States. Seward. Lincoln. Bates. Cameron. McLean. Chase. Dayton. C. M. Clay
Maine 10 6 - - - - - -
New-Hampshire 1 9 - - - - - -
Vermont - 10 - - - - - -
Massachusetts 22 4 - - - - - -
Rhode Island - 3 - - 2 3 - -
Connecticut - 4 4 - - 2 - 2
New-York 70 - - - - - - -
New- Jersey 4 - - - - - 10 -
Pennsylvania 2˝ 48 - 1 2˝ - - -
Maryland - - - - - - - -
Delaware - 6 - - - - -> -
Virginia 8 14 - 1 - - - -
Kentucky 7 9 - - - 6 - -
Ohio - 14 - - 3 29 - -
Indiana - - - - - - - -
Missouri - - 18 - - - - -
Michigan 12 - - - - - - -
Illinois - - - - - - - -
Texas 6 - - - - - - -
Wisconsin 10 - - - - - - -
Iowa 2 5 - - ˝ - - -
California - - - - - - - -
Minnesota 8 - - - - - - -
Oregon - - 5 - - - - -
Territories.
Kansas 6 - - - - - - -
Nebraska 3 1 - - - 2 - -
District of Columbia 2 - - - - - - -
Total 184˝ 181 35 2 8 42˝ 10 2

The third ballot was taken amid excitement, and cries for "the ballot." Intense feeling existed during the voting, each vote being awaited in breathless silence and expectancy,

The progress of the ballot was watched with most intense interest, especially toward the last, the crowd becoming silent as the contest narrowed down. The States, as called, voted as follows:

28

States Seward Bates Chase Lincoln McLean Dayton C. M. Clay
Maine 10 - - 6 - - -
New-Hampshire 1 - - 9 - - -
Vermont - - - 10 - - -
Massachusetts 8 - - 18 - - -
Rhode Island 1 - 1 5 1 - -
Connecticut 1 4 2 4 - - 1
New-York 70 - - - - - -
New-Jersey 5 - - 8 - 1 -
Pennsylvania - - - 52 2 - -
Maryland 2 - - 9 - - -
Delaware - - - 6 - - -
Virginia 8 - - 14 - - -
Kentucky 6 - 4 13 - - -
Ohio - - 15 29 2 - -
Indiana - - - 26 - - -
Missouri - 18 - - - - -
Michigan 12 - - - - - -
Illinois - - - 22 - - -
Texas 6 - - - - - -
Wisconsin 10 - - - - - -
Iowa 2 - ˝ 5˝ - - -
California 8 - - - - - -
Minnesota 8 - - - - - -
Oregon 1 - - 4 - - -
Territories
Kansas 6 - - - - - -
Nebraska 3 - 2 1 - - -
Dist. of Columbia 2 - - - - - -
  180 22 24˝ 231˝ 5 1 1

This gave Lincoln 231˝ votes, or within 2˝ of a nomination.

Before the result was announced, Mr. Carter, of Ohio, said — I rise, Mr. Chairman, to announce the change of four votes from Ohio from Mr. Chase to Abraham Lincoln.

This announcement, giving Mr. Lincoln a majority, was greeted by the audience with the most enthusiastic and thundering applause.

Mr. McCrillis, of Maine, making himself heard, said that the young giant of the West is now of age. Maine casts for him her 16 votes.

Mr. Andrew, of Massachusetts, changed the vote of that State, giving 18 to Mr. Lincoln and 8 to Mr. Seward.

Mr. B. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, desired to change the 18 votes of Missouri to the gallant son of the West, Abraham Lincoln. Iowa, Connecticut, Kentucky, and Minnesota also changed their votes. The result of the third ballot was announced:
Whole number of votes cast — 466
Necessary to a choice — 234

Abraham Lincoln had received 354, and was declared duly nominated.

On motion of Wm. M. Evarts, of New-York, seconded by Mr. Andrew, of Massachusetts, the nomination was then made unanimous.

On motion of Mr. Evarts, of New-York, the Convention now took a recess till 5 o'clock, to afford time for consultation as to Vice-President

[NOTE. — Col. Fremont had sent a letter by one of the delegates from California, withdrawing his name from the list of candidates for President. This letter was published before the meeting of the Convention.]

At 5 o'clock the Convention reassembled, listened to nominations, and then proceeded to ballot.

The following is a record of the ballotings for Vice-President:

States C. M. Clay Banks Reeder Hickman Hamlin Read H. W. Davis Dayton Houston
Maine - - - - 16 - - - -
New Hampshire - - - - 10 - - - -
Vermont - - - - 10 - - - -
Massachusetts - 20 1 1 1 - - - -
Rhode Island - - - - 8 - - - -
Connecticut 2 1 - 2 5 - - - -
New-York 9 4 2 11 35 1 8 - -
New-Jersey 1 - 7 - 6 - - - -
Pennsylvania 4 2˝ 24 7 11 - - 3 -
Maryland 2 - - 1 8 - - - -
Delaware 3 - - 1 2 - - - -
Virginia 23 - - - - - - - -
Kentucky 23 - - - - - - - -
Ohio - - - - 48 - - - -
Indiana 18 - - - 8 - - - -
Missouri - 9 - 9 - - - - -
Michigan 4 - - - 8 - - - -
Illinois 2 - 16 2 2 - - - -
Texas - - - - - - - - 6
Wisconsin 5 - - - 5 - - - -
Iowa - 1 1 - 8 - - - -
California - - - 8 - - - - -
Minnesota 1 - - 1 6 - - - -
Oregon - 1 - 3 1 - - - -
Territories
Kansas 1 - - 5 - - - - -
Nebraska 1 - - 5 - - - - -
Dist. of Columbia 2 - - - - - - - -
Total 101˝ 38˝ 51 58 194 1 8 3 6

Total 461. Necessary to a choice, 232.

States Hamlin. Clay. Hickman.
Maine 16 - -
New-Hampshire 10 - -
Vermont 10 - -
Massachusetts 26 - -
Rhode Island 8 - -
Connecticut 10 - 8
New-York 70 - -
New-Jersey 14 - -
Pennsylvania 54 - -
Maryland 10 1 -
Delaware 6 - -
Virginia - 23 -
Kentucky - 28 -
Ohio 46 - -
Indiana 12 14 -
Missouri 13 6 -
Michigan 8 4 -
Illinois 20 2 -
Texas - 6 -
Wisconsin 5 5  
Iowa 3 - -
California 7 1 -
Minnesota 7 1 -
Oregon 3 - 2
Territories
Kansas 2 1 3
Nebraska - - 6
District of Columbia 2 - -
Total 367 86 13

Massachusetts withdrew the name of Mr. Banks, and cast 26 votes for Mr. Hamlin.

Pennsylvania withdrew the name of Gov. Reeder, and cast 54 votes for Mr. Hamlin.

On motion of Mr. Blakey, of Kentucky, the nomination was made unanimous.

Mr. J. R. Giddings, of Ohio, offered and the Convention adopted the following

Resolved, That we deeply sympathize with those men who have been driven, some from their native states and others from the States of their adoption, and are now exiled from their homes on account of their opinions and we hold the Democratic party responsible for the gross violations of that clause of the Constitution which declares that citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.

29

Mr. Ashmun made a brief speech, and the Convention adjourned sine die, with nine hearty cheers for the ticket.

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE.

The Convention previous to its adjournment made choice of the following gentlemen as the National Committee for the next four years:
Maine — Charles J. Gilman, Brunswick.
New-Hampshire — George G. Fogg, Concord.
Vermont — Lawrence Brainard, St. Albans.
Massachusetts — John Z. Goodrich, Stockbridge.
Rhode Island — Thomas G. Turner, Providence.
Connecticut — Gideon Welles, Hartford.
New-York — Edwin D. Morgan, Albany.
New-Jersey — Denning Duer, N. Y. City.
Pennsylvania — Edward McPherson, Gettysburg
Delaware — Nathaniel B. Smithers, Dover.
Maryland — James F. Wagner, Baltimore.
Virginia — Alfred Caldwell, Wheeling.
Ohio — Thomas Spooner, Reading, Hamilton Co.
Indiana — Solomon Meredith, Centerville.
Illinois — Norman B. Judd, Chicago.
Michigan — Austin Blair, Jackson.
Wisconsin — Carl Schurz, Milwaukee.
Iowa — Andrew J. Stevens, Des Moines.
Minnesota — John McKusick, Stillwater
Missouri — Asa S. Jones, St. Louis.
Kentucky — Cassius M. Clay, Whitehall,
California — D. W. Cheesman, Oroville.
Oregon — W. Frank Johnson, Oregon City.
Kansas — William A. Phillips, Lawrence.
Nebraska — O. H. Irish, Nebraska City.
Dist. of Columbia, — Joseph Gerhardt, Washington.

At a meeting held in Chicago, May 18th, 1860, the Committee organized by choosing the Hon. E. D. Morgan, of New-York, Chairman, and George G. Fogg, of New-Hampshire, Secretary. Subsequently, the following persons were constituted the Executive Committee:
E. D. Morgan, of New-York.
Gideon Welles, of Connecticut.
N. B. Judd, of Illinois.
Carl Schurz, of Wisconsin.
John Z. Goodrich, of Massachusetts.
Denning Duer, of New-Jersey.
Geo. G. Fogg, of New-Hampshire.

Constitutional Union Convention — 1860.

A Convention of Delegates, coming from twenty States, and claiming to represent the "Constitutional Union Party," met at Baltimore on the 9th of May, and nominated for President John Bell, of Tennessee, and for Vice-President Edward Everett, of Massachusetts. The ballotings for President resulted as follows:

  1st. 2d.
John Bell 68˝ 138
Sam. Houston 57 69
John M. Botts 9˝ 7
John McLean 21 1
J. J. Crittenden 28 1
Edward Everett 25 9˝
Wm. L. Goggin 3
Wm. A. Graham 22 18
Wm. L. Sharkey 7 8˝
Wm. C. Rives 13

Necessary to a choice, 1st ballot, 128; second ballot, 127.

The nomination of Mr. Bell was thereupon made unanimous.

Mr. Everett was unanimously nominated for Vice-President. The Convention adopted the following as their

PLATFORM.

Whereas, Experience has demonstrated that Platforms adopted by the partisan Conventions of the country have had the effect to mislead and deceive the people, and at the same time to widen the political divisions of the country, by the creation and encouragement of geographical and sectional parties; therefore,

Resolved, That it is both the part of patriotism and of duty to recognize no political principle other than THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COUNTRY, THE UNION OF THE STATES AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS, and that, as representatives of the Constitutional Union, men of the country in National Convention assembled, we hereby pledge ourselves to maintain, protect and defend, separately and unitedly, these great principles of public liberty and national safety, against all enemies at home and abroad, believing that thereby peace may once more be restored to the country, the rights of the People and of the States reestablished, and the Government again placed in that condition, of justice, fraternity and equality, which, under the example and Constitution of our fathers, has solemly bound every citizen of the United States to maintain a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Democratic Convention — 1860.

A Democratic National Convention assembled at Charleston, S. C., on the 23d of April, 1860, with full delegations present from every State in the Union, and double delegations from Illinois and New-York. One of the New-York delegations was elected by the State Nominating Convention which met at Syracuse the preceding autumn; while its rival was elected by districts, and led by Fernando Wood, Mayor of the commercial emporium. From Illinois, one of the delegations was favorable to Senator Douglas, and the other opposed to that gentleman. Tickets of admission were given by the National Committee to the former or "Soft" Delegation from New York, thus deciding, so far as their power extended, against the Wood or "Hard" contestants, who were understood to be opposed to the nomination of Douglas.

Francis B. Flournoy, of Arkansas, was chosen temporary chairman, and the Convention opened with an angry and stormy debate on the question of the disputed seats. Mr. Fisher, of Va., presented a protest from Mayor Wood, on behalf of his delegation, against their exclusion from the Hall. The reading of the protest was ruled out of order, and, after a wrangling debate, committees were appointed on Permenant Organization and Credentials, and the communication of Mayor Wood was referred without reading to the latter.

On the following day, the Committee on Organization reported the name of Caleb Cushing, of Mass., for President, with one Vice-President and one Secretary from each State, which report was adopted. They also reported a rule "that in any State in which it has not "been provided or directed by its State Convention how its vote may be given, the Convention will recognize the right of each delegate to cast his individual vote." Which was also adopted.

A Committee on Resolutions and Platform was now appointed; and it was voted that no ballot for President and Vice-President should be taken till after the adoption of a Platform. Adjourned.

On the following day, the only progress made by the Convention was the settlement of the question of contested seats, by continuing the sitting delegates; that is, the "Softs" from New-York, and the Douglas men from Illinois. On the 26th, no progress was made, though there was much angry debate and many threats

30

of bolting on the part of delegates from the Cotton States, unless their views in regard to Platform should be adopted.

On the 27th, the Platform Committee, failing to agree, presented an assortment of Platforms, from which the Convention was expected to make its selection. The majority report, presented by Mr. Avery, of N. C., was as follows

Resolved, That the Platform adopted at Cincinnati be affirmed, with the following resolution:
That the National Democracy of the United States hold these cardinal principles on the subject of Slavery in the Territories: First, that Congress has no power to abolish Slavery in the Territories; second, that the Territorial Legislature has no power to abolish Slavery in the Territories, nor to prohibit the introduction of slaves therein, nor any power to destroy or impair the right of property in slaves by any legislation whatever.

Resolved, That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effects.

Resolved, That it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect the rights of person and property on the high seas, in the Territories, or wherever else its jurisdiction extends.

Resolved, That it is the duty of the Federal Government of the United States to afford protection to naturalized citizens from foreign countries.

Resolved, That it is the duty of the Government of the United States to acquire Cuba at the earliest practicable moment.

The principal minority report, which was presented by Mr. Henry B. Payne, of Ohio, and signed by the members of the committee from Maine, New-Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New-Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, New-York, and Pennsylvania, (all the Free States except California, Oregon, and Massachusetts), reaffirmed the Cincinnati Platform; declared that all rights of property are judicial in their character, and that the Democracy pledge themselves to defer to the decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject; ample protection to citizens, native or naturalized, at home or abroad; aid to "a Pacific Railroad;" the acquisition of Cuba, and that all State resistance to the Fugitive Slave Law is revolutionary and subversive of the Constitution.

Gen. Benj. F. Butler, of Massachusetts, presented another minority report, reaffirming the Cincinnati Platform, and declaring Democratic principles unchangeable in their nature when applied to the same subject matter, and only recommending, in addition to the Cincinnati Platform, a resolution for the protection of all citizens, whether native or naturalized.

Mr. Payne stated that his report, although a minority one, represented one hundred and seventy-two electoral votes, while the majority report represented only one hundred and twenty-seven electoral votes.

Mr. James A. Bayard (U. S. Senator), of Delaware, presented another series of resolutions, as follows:
The first affirmed the Cincinnati Platform.

The second declared that Territorial Governments are provisional and temporary, and that during their existence all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle in the Territories without their rights of either person or property being destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial Legislation.

The third, that it is the duty of the Government to protect the rights of persons or property on the high seas, in the Territories, or wherever else its constitutional authority extends.

The fourth that, when the settlers in a Territory have adequate population to form a State Constitution, the right of Sovereignty commences, and, being consummated by their admission into the Union, they stand upon an equal footing with the citizens of other States, and that a State thus organized is to be admitted into the Union, Slavery or no Slavery.

The day was spent in fierce debate, without coming to a vote on any of these various propositions.

On the 28th, Senator Wm. Bigler, of Pennsylvania, moved that the majority and minority reports be recommitted to the Convention, with instructions to report in an hour, the following resolutions

Resolved, That the Platform adopted by the Democratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed, with the following explanatory resolution:
Resolved, That the Government of a Territory, organized by an act of Congress is provisional and temporary, and, during its existence, all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle in the Territory, without their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial Legislation.

Resolved, That the Democratic party stands pledged to the doctrine that it is the duty of Government to maintain all the constitutional rights of property, of whatever kind, in the Territories, and to enforce all the decisions of the Supreme Court in reference thereto.

Resolved, That it is the duty of the United States to afford ample and complete protection to all its citizens, whether at home or abroad, and whether native or foreign.

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 Government aid as will insure the construction of a railroad to the Pacific coast at the earliest practical period.

Resolved, That the Democratic Party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island 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, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

Mr. Bigler moved the previous question.

Mr. W. Montgomery (M. C.), of Pennsylvania, moved to lay Mr. Bigler's motion on the table. He did not regard as a compromise a proportion for a Congressional Slave Code and the reopening of the African Slave Trade; but, learning that the adoption of his motion would have the effect of tabling the whole subject, he withdrew it. A division of the question was called for, and the vote was first taken on the motion to recommit, which was carried, 152 to 151, but the proposition to instruct the committee was laid on the table, 242˝ to 56˝, as follows

YEAS. — Maine, 8; New-Hampshire, 5; Vermont, 5; Massachusetts, 12˝; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 5; New-York, 35; Pennsylvania, 8; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 5˝; Virginia, 15; North Carolina, 10; South Carolina, 8; Georgia, 10; Florida, 3; Alabama, 9; Louisiana, 6; Mississippi, 7; Texas, 4; Arkansas, 4; Missouri, 4; Kentucky, 5; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 4; California, 3˝ — 242˝.

NAYS. — Massachusetts,˝; Connecticut, 1; New-Jersey, 7; Pennsylvania, 15; Maryland, 2˝; Missouri, 9; Tennessee, 11; Kentucky, 7; Indiana, 6; Wisconsin, 5, California,˝; Oregon, 3 — 56˝.

Subsequently, on the same day, Mr. Avery,

31

from the majority of the Committee on Platform, reported the following

Resolved, That the platform adopted by the Democratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed, with the following explanatory Resolutions

First. That the government of a Territory organized by an act of Congress, is provisional and temporary; and, during its existence, all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territory without their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or impaired by congressional or territorial legislation.

Second. That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends.

Third. That when the settlers in a Territory having an adequate population form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences, and, being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States; and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of Slavery.

Fourth. That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain, at the earliest practicable moment.

Fifth. That the enactments of State legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

Sixth. That the Democracy of the United States recognize it as the imperative duty of this Government to protect the naturalized citizen in all his rights, whether at home or in foreign lands, to the same extent as its native born citizens.

Whereas, one of the greatest necessities of the age, in a political, commercial, postal and military point of view, is a speedy communication between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Democratic party do hereby pledge themselves to use every means in their power to secure the passage of some bill, to the extent of the constitutional authority of Congress, for the construction of a Pacific Railroad, from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, at the earliest practicable moment.

Mr. Avery took the floor, and spoke at length, in favor of his report, and in the course of his remarks said: I have stated that we demand at the hands of our Northern brethren upon this floor that the great principle which we cherish should be recognized, and in that view I speak the common sentiments of our constituents at home; and I intend no reflection upon those who entertain a different opinion, when I say that the results and ultimate consequences to the Southern States of this confederacy, if the Popular Sovereignty doctrine be adopted as the doctrine of the Democratic party, would be as dangerous and subversive of their rights as the adoption of the principle of Congressional intervention or prohibition. We say that, in a contest for the occupation of the Territories of the United States, the Southern men encumbered with slaves cannot compete with the Emigrant Aid Society at the North. We say that the Emigrant Aid Society can send a voter to one of the Territories of the United States, to determine a question relating to slavery, for the sum of $200, while it would cost the Southern man the sum of $1500. We say, then, that wherever there is competition between the South and North, that the North can and will, at less expense and difficulty, secure power, control and dominion over the Territories of the Federal Government; and if, then, you establish the doctrine that a Territorial Legislature which may be established by Congress in any Territory has the right, directly or indirectly, to affect the institution of Slavery, then you can see that the Legislature by its action, either directly or indirectly, may finally exclude every man from the slaveholding States as effectually as if you had adopted the Wilmot Proviso out and out . . . .

But we are told that, in advocating the doctrine we now do, we are violating the principles of the Cincinnati platform. They say that the Cincinnati platform is a Popular Sovereignty platform; that it was intended to present and practically enforce that great principle. Now, we who made this report deny that this is the true construction of the Cincinnati platform. We of the South say that when we voted for the Cincinnati platform we understood, from the fact that the Territories stand in the same position as the district of Columbia, that non-interference and non-intervention in the Territories was that same sort of non-interference and non-intervention forbidden in the District of Columbia. Now, we maintain that Congress has no right to prohibit or abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia. Why? Because it is an existing institution. It becomes the duty of Congress under the Constitution to protect and cherish the right of property in slaves in that District, because the Constitution does not give them the power to prohibit or establish Slavery. Every session of Congress, Northern men, Southern men, men of all parties, are legislating to protect, cherish and uphold the institution of Slavery in the District of Columbia . . . .

It is said that the Cincinnati platform is ambiguous, and that we must explain it. At the South, we have maintained that it had no ambiguity; that it did not mean Popular Sovereignty; but our northern friends say that it does mean Popular Sovereignty. Now, if we are going to explain it and to declare its principles, I say let us either declare them openly, boldly, squarely, or let us leave it as it is in the Cincinnati Platform. I want, and we of the South want, no more doubtful platforms upon this or any other question. We desire that this Convention should take a bold, square stand. What do the minority of the committee propose? Their solution is to leave the question to the decision of the Supreme Court, and agree to abide by any decision that may be made by that tribunal between the citizens of a Territory upon the subject. Why, gentlemen of the minority, you cannot help yourselves. That is no concession to us. There is no necessity for putting that in the platform, because I take it for granted that you are all law-abiding citizens. Every gentleman here from a non-slaveholding State is a law-abiding citizen; and if he be so, why we know that when there is a decision of the Supreme Court, even adverse to his views, he will submit to it . . . .

You say that this is a judicial question. We say that it is not. But if it be a judicial question, it is immaterial to you how the platform is made, because all you will have to say is, "this is a judicial question; the majority of the Convention were of one opinion; I may entertain my own opinion upon the question; let the Supreme Court settle it . . . .

Let us make a platform about which there can be no doubt, so that every man, North and south, may stand side by side on all issues connected with Slavery, and advocate the same principles. That is all we ask. All we demand at your hands is, that there shall be no equivocation and no doubt in the popular mind as to what our principles are.

Mr. H. B. Payne, of Ohio, replied at length, and, in the course of his argument, said

The question of Slavery had distracted the Courts and the party since 1820, and we hoped by the Compromise measures of 1850, the Kansas law of 1854, and the Platform of 1852 and 1856, that the policy of the Democratic party was a united and settled policy in respect to African slavery . . . . The Democracy of the North have, throughout, stood by the South in vindication of; their constitutional rights. For this they claim no credit. They have simply discharged their constitutional duty; and though some Southern Senators may rise in, their places and stigmatize us as unsound and rotten, we say we have done it in good faith, and we challenge contradiction. We have supposed that this doctrine of Popular Sovereignty was a final settlement of the Slavery difficulty. You so understood it in the South. We are not claiming anything in our Platform but what the Cincinnati Platform was admitted to have established . . . .

What was the doctrine of 1856? Non-intervention by Congress with the question of Slavery and the submission of the question of Slavery in the Territories, under the Constitution, to the People.

It is said that one construction has been given to the Platform at the South and another at the North. He could prove from the congressional debates that from 1850 to 1856 there was not a dissenting opinion expressed in Congress on this subject.

To show that Squatter Sovereignty had been generally accepted as the true-Democratic doctrine, Mr. Payne quoted from eminent-Southern Democratic Statesmen as follows

FROM A SPEECH OF HON. HOWELL COBB, OF GEORGIA.

"I stand upon a principle. I hold that the will of the majority of the people of Kansas should decide this question, and I say here to-night, before this people and before this country, that I, for one, shall abide the decision of the people there. I hold to the right of the People to self-government. I am willing for them to decide this question."

FROM THE SAME.

"I would not plant Slavery upon the soil of any portion of God's earth against the will of the people. The

32

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."

FROM A SPEECH OF VICE-PRESIDENT BRECKINRIDGE.

"But those who hold that the Territorial Legislature cannot pass a law prohibiting Slavery, admit that, unless the Territorial Legislature pass laws for its protection, Slavery will not go there. Therefore, practically, a majority of the people represented in the Territorial Legislature decides the question. Whether they decide it by prohibiting it, according 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."

FROM THE SAME.

"But if non-intervention by Congress be the principle that underlies the Compromise of 1850, then the prohibition of 1820, being inconsistent with that principle, should be removed, and perfect non-intervention thus be established by law.

"Among 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 Nebraska and Kansas. Sir, if the bill contained such a feature it would not receive my vote. The right to establish involves the correlative right to prohibit, and, denying both, I would vote for neither."

FROM THE SAME.

"Upon the distracting question of domestic Slavery, their position is clear. The whole power of the Democratic organization is pledged to the following propositions:
That Congress shall not interpose upon this subject in the States, in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia; that the people of each Territory shall determine 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 allowance or prohibition of Slavery."

FROM A SPEECH BY HON. JAMES L. ORR, OF S. C.

"Now, I admit that there is a difference of opinion amongst Democrats as to whether this feature of Squatter Sovereignty be in the bill or not. But the great point upon which the Democratic party at Cincinnati rested was, that the government of the Territories had been transferred from Congress, and, carrying out the spirit and genius of our institutions, had been given to the people of the Territories."

FROM A SPEECH BY HON. A. H. STEPHENS, OF GEORGIA.

"The whole question of Slavery or No Slavery was to be left to the people of the Territories, whether North or South of 36° 30, or any other line. The question was to be taken out of Congress, where it had been improperly thrust from the beginning, and to be left to the people concerned in the matter to decide for themselves. This, I say, was the position originally held by the South when the Missouri Restriction was at first proposed. The principle upon which that position rests, lies at the very foundation of all our Republican institutions: it is that the citizens of every distinct and separate community or State should have the right to govern themselves in their domestic matters as they please, and that they should be free from intermeddling restriction and arbitrary dictation on such matters, from any other Power or Government, in which they have no voice."

Mr. Payne continued. But for consuming time, he could read for half an hour, to show that every eminent Southern man had held the same opinion on the doctrine of popular sovereignty.

Mr. Payne would read from the Cincinnati Platform to show what it laid down. All should be familiar with it:
"The American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws, establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the ‘Slavery Question’ upon which the great National idea of the People of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union — non-interference by Congress with Slavery in State and Territory, or in the District of Columbia."

They nominated Mr. Buchanan on that Platform, agreed on by the representatives of every State in the Union, as the official record would show. There was not one dissenting voice in the whole list of States. In casting the vote of North Carolina, his friend, Mr. Avery, then acting as Chairman of his Delegation, and now presenting the majority report announced:
"North Carolina gives ten votes for the Platform, and will give ten thousand majority in November."

In his letter of acceptance, Mr. Buchanan, in an emphatic and clear manner, thus expressed his views of this Platform:
"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 on 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."

Mr. Payne had extracts yet behind of speeches from Stephens, of Georgia, one of the most distinguished Statesmen of the South — from Mr. Benjamin, of Louisiana — Mason, of Virginia — more qualified, he admitted, but still emphatic. The Senator from Delaware, too, Mr. Bayard, had fully indorsed the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty.

So had Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, and Judge Butler of South Carolina. Mr. Hunter of Virginia, certainly one of the wisest and purest statesmen which the Democracy now numbers amongst her leaders in the land — he, also, says that the people shall have the right to decide on all questions relating to their domestic institutions. In his speech, he used these words, almost identical with the Platform of the minority:
"The bill provides that the Legislatures of these Territories shall have power to legislate over all rightful subjects of legislation consistently with the Constitution. And, if they should assume powers which are thought to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the Courts will decide that question whenever it may be raised. There is a difference of opinion among the friends of this measure as to the extent of the limits which the Constitution imposes upon the Territorial Legislatures. This bill proposes to leave these differences to the decision of the Courts. To that tribunal I am willing to leave this decision, as it was once before proposed to be left by the celebrated Compromise of the Senator from Delaware."

He also read an extract of a similar character from a speech by Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, one of the boldest men on the floor of the American Senate, taking ground, in favor of non-intervention by Congress.

Need he accumulate these extracts to show that not a single statesman who has figured in Congress, of late years, but has taken this high ground?

Mr. Samuels, of Iowa, presented the following report on behalf of the minority of the Platform Committee

1. Resolved, That we, the Democracy of the Union, in Convention assembled, hereby declare our affirmance 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; and we recommend as the only further resolutions the following:
Inasmuch as differences of opinion exist in the Democratic Party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of Slavery within theTerritories:

2. Resolved, That the Democratic Party will abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on the questions of Constitutional law.

3. Resolved, That it is the duty of the United States to afford ample and complete protection to all its citizens, whether at home or abroad, and whether native or foreign.

4. 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 Government aid as will insure the construction of a railroad to the Pacific coast, at the earliest practicable period.

5. Resolved, That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain.

6. Resolved, That the enactments of State Legislature to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

Gen. Butler of Massachusetts, again reported

33

(as a minority) the Cincinnati Platform without alteration.

It was evident, even before the report of the majority was presented, that it would not be sustained by the Convention, though the Free-State majority evinced not only willingness but anxiety to conciliate their Southern brethren at any sacrifice not absolutely ruinous.

The majority of the Convention, confident of their power to reject the majority report, were anxious for a vote; but the minority seemed determined to stave off definite action for that day, and carried their point by a system currently termed "filibustering," which would have done no discredit to the House of Representatives at Washington. The confusion and hub-bub which prevailed may be comprehended perhaps, by the following extract from the official report of the proceedings

Mr. Bigler obtained the floor, and desired to suggest to the Convention that, by common consent, and without any further struggle, they should adjourn. (Cries of "I object!" "I object!")

Mr. Hunter, of Louisiana. — I appeal to my Democratic friends of the South and my Democratic friends from all parts of the Union — (Cries of "order!" "order!" and the greatest disorder prevailing in the Hall.)

The President — The Chair begs leave, once for all, to state — and the Chair entreats the Convention to listen to this declaration — that it is physically impossible for the chair to go on in a contest with six hundred men as to who shall cry out loudest; and unless the Convention will come to order, and gentlemen take their places and proceed in order, the Chair will feel bound in duty to the Convention as well as to himself, to leave the chair. (Applause.) The Chair will wait to see whether it is possible to have order in the House.

Mr. Samuels, of Iowa, appealed to the Convention to listen to a proposition of Mr. Hunter of Louisiana.

The President. — The Chair will entertain no motion until the Convention is restored to order, and when that is done, the Chair desires to make another suggestion to the Convention. The Chair has already stated that it is physically impossible for him to go on with the business of the Convention, so long as one-half of the members are upon their feet and engaged in clamor of one sort or another. The Chair begs leave to repeat that he knows but one remedy for such disorder, and that is for your residing officer to leave the chair. He, of course, would deeply regret that painful necessity; but it would be a less evil than that this incessant confusion and disorder, presenting such a spectacle to the people of South Carolina, should continue to prevail in this most honorable body of so many respectable gentlemen of the highest standing in the community, engaged in debate and deliberation upon the dearest interests of the country. (Applause.)

It was finally agreed that the vote should be taken the next day — or rather the following Monday, and the Convention adjourned.

On Monday the 30th, the President stated the question as follows

The Convention will remember that, in the first place, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Avery) reported the resolutions of the majority of the committee. Thereupon the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Samuels) moved an amendment to these resolutions, by striking out all after the word "resolved," and to insert the resolutions proposed by him, in behalf of a portion of minority of the committee. After which, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Butler) moved, in behalf of another portion of the minority committee, to amend the amendment, by striking out all after the word "resolved inserting the proposition proposed by him on behalf of that minority. The first question will be, therefore, upon the amendment moved by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Butler). If that amendment falls, the Convention will then come to a vote upon the amendment moved by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Samuels). If, however, the amendment of Mr. Butler prevails, then that amendment will have taken the place of the amendment moved by Mr. Samuels, and the next question will be upon substituting it in the place of the original resolution proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Butler's Platform affirms the Cincinnati Platform, and adds a resolution for the protection of citizens abroad.

The vote was then taken by States on Mr. Butler's amendment, with the following result; yeas 105, nays 198:
Yeas — Maine, 3; Massachusetts, 8; Connecticut, 2˝; New-Jersey, 5; Pennsylvania, 16˝; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 5˝; Virginia, 12˝; North Carolina, 10; Georgia, 10; Missouri, 4˝; Tennessee, 11; Kentucky, 9; Minnesota, 1˝; Oregon, 3 — 105.

Nays — Maine, 5; New-Hampshire, 5; Vermont, 5; Massachusetts, 5; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 3˝; New-York, 35; New-Jersey, 2; Pennsylvania, 10˝; Maryland, 2˝; Virginia, 2˝; South Carolina, 8; Florida, 3; Alabama, 9; Louisiana, 6; Mississippi, 7; Texas, 4; Arkansas, 4; Missouri, 4˝; Tennessee, 1; Kentucky, 3; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 2˝; California, 4 — 198.

So the amendment was rejected.

The minority report (that of Mr. Samuels) was then read, and, after ineffectual attempts to table the subject and proceed to a nomination, the vote was taken and the minority report was adopted as an amendment or substitute, as follows

Yeas — Maine, 8; New-Hampshire, 5; Vermont, 5; Massachusetts, 7; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 6; New-York, 35; New-Jersey, 5; Pennsylvania, 12; Maryland, 3˝; Virginia, 1; Missouri, 4; Tennessee, 1; Kentucky, 2˝; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 4 — 165.

Nays — Massachusetts, 6; New-Jersey, 2; Pennsylvania, 15; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 4˝; Virginia, 14; North Carolina, 10; South Carolina, 8; Georgia, 10; Florida, 3; Alabama, 9; Louisiana, 6; Mississippi, 7; Texas, 4; Arkansas, 4; Missouri, 5; Tennessee, 11; Kentucky, 9˝; California, 4; Oregon, 3 — 188.

The question was then taken on the adoption of the report as amended, the vote being taken on each resolution separately, and with the exception of the one pledging the Democratic party to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject of Slavery in the Territories — which was rejected — they were adopted by a vote which was nearly unanimous.

The delegation from Alabama, by its Chairman, then presented a written protest, signed by all its members, announcing their purpose to withdraw from the Convention. They were followed by the delegations from Mississippi, Florida, Texas, all the Louisiana delegation except two, all the South Carolina delegation except three, three of the Arkansas delegation, two of the Delaware delegation (including Senator Bayard) and one from North Carolina.

The order of their withdrawal was as follows:

ALABAMA PROTESTS AND WITHDRAWS.

Mr. Walker, of Alabama. — Mr. President, I am instructed by the Alabama delegation to submit to this Convention a communication, and, with your permission, I will read it.

TO THE HON. CALEB CUSHING,

President of the Democratic National Convention, now in session in the City of Charleston South Carolina:

The undersigned delegates, representing the State of Alabama in this Convention, respectfully beg leave to lay before your honorable body the following statements of facts:
On the eleventh day of January, 1860, the Democratic party of the State of Alabama met in Convention, in the city of Montgomery, and adopted, with singular unanimity, a series of resolutions herewith submitted

1. Resolved by the Democracy of the State of Alabama in Convention assembled, That holding all issues and principles upon which they have heretofore affiliated and acted with the National Democratic Party to be inferior in dignity and importance to the great question of Slavery, they content themselves

34

with a general re-affirmance of the Cincinnati platform as to such issues, and also indorse said platform as to Slavery, together with the following resolutions:

2. Resolved further, That we re-affirm so much of the first resolution of the platform adopted in the Convention by the Democracy of this State, on the 8th of January, 1856, as relates to the subject of Slavery, to-wit: "The unqualified right of the people of the Slaveholding States to the protection of their property in the States, in the Territories, and in the wilderness, in which Territorial Governments are as yet unorganized."

3. Resolved further, That in order to meet and clear away all obstacles to a full enjoyment of this right in the Territories, we re-affirm the principle of the 9th resolution of the Platform adopted in Convention by the Democracy of this State, on the l4th of February, 1848, to wit: "That it is the duty of the General Government, by all proper legislation, to secure an entry into those Territories to all the citizens of the United States, together with their property of every description, and that the same should be protected by the United States while the Territories are under its authority."

4. Resolved further, That the Constitution of the United States is a compact between sovereign and co-equal States, united upon the basis of perfect equality of rights and privileges.

5. Resolved further, That the Territories of the United States are common property, in which the States have equal rights, and to which the citizens of every State may rightfully emigrate, with their slaves or other property recognized as such in any of the States of the Union, or by the Constitution of the United States.

6. Resolved farther, That the Congress of the United States has no power to abolish Slavery in the Territories, or to prohibit its introduction into any of them.

7. Resolved further, That the Territorial Legislatures, created by the legislation of Congress, have no power to abolish Slavery, or to prohibit the introduction of the same, or to impair by unfriendly legislation the security and full enjoyment of the same within the Territories; and such constitutional power certainly does not belong to the people of the Territories in any capacity, before, in the exercise of a lawful authority, they form a Constitution preparatory to admission as a State into the Union; and their action, in the exercise of such lawful authority, certainly cannot operate or take effect before their actual admission as a State into the Union.

8. Resolved further, That the principles, enunciated by Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, deny to the Territorial Legislature the power to destroy or impair, by any legislation whatever, the right of property in slaves, and maintain it to be the duty of the Federal Government, in all of its departments, to protect the rights of the owner of such property in the Territories; and the principles so declared are hereby asserted to be the rights of the South, and the South should maintain them.

9. Resolved further, That we hold all of the foregoing propositions to contain cardinal principles — true in themselves — and just and proper, and necessary for the safety of all that is hear to us; and we do hereby instruct our delegates to the Charleston Convention to present them for the calm consideration and approval of that body — from whose justice and patriotism we anticipate their adoption.

10. Resolved further, That our delegates to the Charleston Convention are hereby expressly instructed to insist that said Convention shall adopt a platform of principles, recognizing distinctly the rights of the South, as asserted in the foregoing resolutions; and if the said National Convention shall refuse to adopt, in substance, the propositions embraced in the preceding resolutions, prior to nominating candidates, our delegates to said Convention are hereby positively instructed to withdraw therefrom.

11. Resolved further, That our delegates to the Charleston Convention shall cast the vote of Alabama as a unit, and a majority of our delegates shall determine how the vote of this State shall be given.

12. Resolved further, That an Executive Committee, to consist of one from each Congressional District, be appointed, whose duty it shall be, in the event that our delegates withdraw from the Charleston Convention, in obedience to the 10th resolution, to call a Convention of the Democracy of Alabama to meet at an early day to consider what is best to be done.

Under these resolutions, the undersigned received their appointment, and participated in the action of this Convention.

By the resolution of instruction, the tenth in the series, we were directed to insist that the platform adopted by this Convention should embody, "in whole," the propositions embraced in the preceding resolutions, prior to nominating candidates.

Anxious, if possible, to continue our relations with this Convention, and thus to maintain the nationality of the Democratic party, we agreed to accept, as the substance of the Alabama platform, either of the two reports submitted to this Convention by the majority of the Committee on Resolutions — this majority representing not only a majority of the States of the Union, but also the only States at all likely to be carried by the Democratic party In the Presidential election. We beg to make these reports a part of this communication.

[See heretofore the two sets of resolutions reported by Mr. Avery.]

These reports received the indorsement in the Committee on Resolutions of every Southern State, and, had either of them been adopted as the platform of principles of the Democratic party, although possibly in some respects subject to criticism, we should not have felt ourselves in duty bound to withhold our acquiescence.

But it has been the pleasure of this Convention, by an almost exclusive sectional vote, not representing a majority of the Democratic electoral vote, to adopt a platform which does not, in our opinion, nor in the opinion of those who urge it, embody in substance the principles of the Alabama resolutions. That Platform is as follows: [Here follow Mr. Samuels' resolutions as adopted. See Platform.

The points of difference between the Northern and Southern Democracy are:
1st. As regards the status of Slavery as a political institution in the Territories whilst they remain Territories, and the power of the people of a Territory to exclude it by unfriendly legislation; and

2d. As regards the duty of the Federal Government to protect the owner of slaves in the enjoyment of his property in the Territories so long as they remain such.

This Convention has refused, by the Platform adopted, to settle either of these propositions in favor of the South. We deny to the people of a Territory any power to legislate against the institution of Slavery; and we assert that it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect the owner of slaves in the enjoyment of his property in the Territories. These principles, as we state them, are embodied in the Alabama Platform.

Here, then, is a plain, explicit and direct issue between this Convention and the constituency which we have the honor to represent in this body.

Instructed as we are, not to waive this issue, the contingency, therefore, has arisen, when, in our opinion, it becomes our duty to withdraw from this Convention. We beg, sir, to communicate this fact through you, and to assure the Convention that we do so in no spirit of anger, but under a, sense of imperative obligation, properly appreciating its responsibilities and cheerfully submitting to its consequences.

L. P. WALKER, Chairman.
J. S. LYON,
JOHN A. WINSTON,
ROBERT G. SCOTT,
A. B. MEEK,
J. R. BREARE,
H. D. SMITH,
JAS. IRWIN,
W. L. YANCEY,
D. W. BAINE,
N. H. R. DAWSON,
R. M. PATTON,
W. C. McIVER,
O.O. HARPER,
LEWIS H. CATO,
JNO. W. PORTIS,
F. G. NORMAN,
W. C. GUILD,
JULIUS C. B. MITCHELL,
W. C. SHERROD,
G. G. GRIFFIN,
J. T. BRADFORD,
T. J. BURNETT,
A. G. HENRY,
WM. M. BROOKS,
R. CHAPMAN.

Mr. Walker also presented a resolution to the effect that no other person than the retiring delegates had any authority to represent Alabama in the Convention.

The Alabama delegation then withdrew from the hall.

MISSISSIPPI WITHDRAWS.

Mr. Barry, of Mississippi. — I am instructed by the Mississippi delegation to state that they retire from the Convention with the delegation from Alabama. (Cheers.) They have prepared a protest, which they desire to submit, but by accident it is not now here. I desire also to state that they have adopted unanimously a resolution that they are the only delegates — which is uncontested — and that no one is or shall be authorized to represent them in their absence upon the floor of the Convention. (Cheers.)

Mr. Mouton, of Louisiana. — Mr. President, I have but a short communication to make to the Convention. I do not do it as an individual. I am authorized to say by the delegates representing Louisiana in this Convention, that they will not participate any longer in the proceedings of this Convention. (Cheers.) Heretofore we have been in the habit of saying that the Democracy of the country was harmonious. (Laughter.) Can we say so to-day with any truth? Are we not divided, and divided in such a manner that we can never be reconciled, because we are divided upon principle? Can we agree to the Platform adopted by the majority of the Convention, and then go home to our constituents and put one construction on it, while Northern Democrats put another? No, Mr. President, I think I speak the sentiment of my State when I say that she will never play such a part. (Cheers.) If we are to fight the Black Republicans together, let us do it with a bold front; let us use the same arms; let us sustain the same principles. I was willing

35

morning, in order to do away with the necessity of all these votes, and to ascertain if there was a majority here ready to impose upon us such a Platform — I was willing, myself, that the majority Convention should retire and prepare such a Platform as suited them, and to take a vote upon it, and if that Platform did not give us those guarantees which we are entitled to under the constitution then we would have been ready to do what we are now doing. The Platform which the majority of this convention has adopted does not give us those guarantees which we are entitled to for the protection of our property in the Territories. We wish to wear no two faces in this contest. We wish to meet the Black Republicans with their abominable doctrines boldly; and if our friends, the Democrats from the Free States, cannot join us and fight with us, we must fight our own battle. We are ready to meet the issue made by the Black Republicans like men, but we shall battle for what we conceive to be the truth and not for profit. For these reasons, I am authorized by my delegation to announce that they withdraw from the Convention. At the same time, I should state the fact that two of the delegation do not join us in this movement. (Loud cheers.) At the same time, I should state that those who sent us here instructed us to vote as a unit, and we contend, therefore, that we are entitled to give the whole vote of the State, and that no one else is entitled to give it or to divide it.

Mr. Mouton made some additional remarks, but owing to the confusion which prevailed in the hall, the reporter was unable to hear them.

Mr. Glenn, of Mississippi. — Mr. President and gentlemen of this Convention: For the first time, for the only time, for the last time, in the name of the State that I have the honor in part to represent here, I desire to say but a few words to this Convention. I hold in my hand the solemn act of her delegation upon this floor, and I say to you, gentlemen, that it is not a hasty action; that it is not one conceived in passion, or carried out in caprice or disappointment. It is the firm resolve of the great body of the people whom we represent, which was expressed in the Convention that sent us here, and that resolve, that people, and we, their representatives, will maintain at all cost and at all hazards. (Loud cheers.)

We came here not to dictate to the representatives of other sovereign States. Since we have been here, our intercourse has been courteous so far as personalities are concerned. We have all sought, and I believe have all been able, to conduct ourselves as gentlemen. But we did not come here to exercise the courtesies of life alone. We came to settle the principles upon which our party must rest and must stand. We came here, gentlemen of the North, not to ask you to adopt a principle which you could say was opposed to your consciences and to your principles. We did not believe it to be so. We came as equal members of a common confederacy, simply to ask you to acknowledge our equal rights within that confederacy. (Cheers.) Sir, at Cincinnati we adopted a Platform on which we all agreed. Now answer me, ye men of the North, of the East, of the South, and of the West, what, was the construction placed upon that Platform in different sections of the Union? You at the West said it meant one thing, we of the South said it meant another. Either we were right or you were right; we were wrong or you were wrong. We came here to ask you which was right and which was wrong. You have maintained your position. You say that you cannot give us an acknowledgment of that right, which I tell you here now, in coming time will be your only safety in your contests with the Black Republicans of Ohio and of the North. (Cheers.)

Why sir, turn back to the history of your own leading men. There sits a distinguished gentleman, (Hon. Charles E. Stuart, of Michigan,) once a representative of one of the sovereign States of the Union in the Senate, who then voted that Congress had the constitutional power to pass the Wilmot Proviso, and to exclude Slavery from the territories; and now, when the Supreme Court has said that it has not that power, he comes forward and tells Mississippians that the same Congress is impotent to protect that same species of property. There sits my distinguished friend, the Senator from Ohio, (Mr. Pugh,) who, but a few nights since, told us from that stand that if a territorial Government totally misused their powers or abused them, Congress could wipe out that Territorial government all together. And yet, when we come here and ask him to give us protection in case that Territorial Government robs us of our property and strikes the star which answers to the name of Mississippi from the flag of the Union, so far as the Constitution gives her protection, he tells us with his hand upon heart — as Gov. Payne, of Ohio had before done — that they will part with their lives before they will acknowledge the principle which we contend for.

Gentlemen, in such a situation of things in the Convention of our great party, it is right that we should part. Go your way, and we will go ours. The South leaves you — -not like Hagar, driven into the wilderness, friendless and alone — but I tell Southern men here, and for them, I tell the North, that, in less than sixty days, you will find a united South standing side by side with us. (Prolonged and enthusiastic cheering.)

We stand firm and immovable, and while we respect you, we must respect ourselves. And, gentlemen, let me say to you of the North now, that the time may come when you will need us more than we need you. I speak to those who represent "the green hills of New England;" I speak to the "imperial center" of the Union. There slumbers in your midst, a latent spark — not of political sectionalism, but of social discord — which may yet require the conservative principles of the South to save your region of country from anarchy and confusion. We need not your protection. The power of the Black Republicans is nothing to us. We are safe in our own strength and security, so long as we maintain our rights.

Gentlemen, I have detained you too long. I ask, in conclusion, that the few words which are here written — words of courtesy, but words of truth so far as my glorious State is concerned — may be read in your hearing.

Mr. Mathews, of Mississippi, then read the following document.

To the President of the Democratic Convention:
SIR: As Chairman of the delegation, which has the honor to represent the State of Mississippi upon this floor, I desire to be heard by you and by the Convention.

In common consultation we have met here, the representatives of sister States, to resolve the principles of a great party. While maintaining principles, we profess no spirit save that of harmony, conciliation, the success of our party, and the safety of our organization. But to the former the latter must yield — for no organization is valuable without it, and no success is honorable which does not crown it.

We came here simply asking a recognition of the equal rights of our State under the laws and Constitution of our common Government; that our right to property should be asserted, and the protection of that property, when necessary, should be yielded by the Government which claims our allegiance. We had regarded government and protection as correlative ideas, and that so long as the one was maintained the other still endured.

After a deliberation of many days, it has been announced to us by a controlling majority of Representatives of nearly one-half the States of this Union, and that too, in the most solemn and impressive manner, that our demand cannot be met and our rights cannot be recognized. While it is granted that the capacity of the Federal Government is ample to protect all other property within its jurisdiction, it is claimed to be impotent when called upon to act in favor of a species of property recognized in fifteen sovereign States. Within those States, even Black Republicans admit it to be guaranteed by the Constitution, and to be only assailed by a Higher Law; without them, they claim the power to prohibit or destroy it. The controling majority of Northern representatives on this floor, while they deny all power to destroy, equally deny all power to protect; and this, they assure us, is, and must, and shall be the condition of our cooperation in the next Presidential election.

In this state of affairs, our duty is plain and obvious. The State which sent us here, announced to us her principles. In common with seventeen of her sister States, she has asked a recognition of her Constitutional rights. These have been plainly and explicitly denied to her. We have offered to yield everything except an abandonment of her rights — everything except her honor — and it has availed us nothing.

As the Representatives of Mississippi, knowing her wishes — as honorable men, regarding her commands — we withdraw from the Convention, and, as far as our action is concerned, absolve her from all connection with this body, and all responsibility for its action.

To you, sir, as presiding officer of the Convention while it has existed in its integrity, we desire, collectively as a delegation, and individually as men, to tender the highest assurances of our profound respect and consideration.

Signed: D. C. Glen, Chairman of the Mississippi delegation; George H. Gordon, James Drone, Beverly Mathews, J. T. Simms, Joseph R. Davis, W. S. Wilson, Isaac Enloe, Charles Edward Hooker, W. H. H. Tison, Ethelbert Barksdale, W. S. Barry, J. M. Thomson.

Mr. Mathews then announced that a meeting

36

of all those who sympathized with them in this movement, would be held at 8 o'clock this evening, in St. Andrew's Hall.

The Mississippi delegation then withdrew from the Convention.

SOUTH CAROLINA WITHDRAWS.

The Hon. James Silmons of South Carolina. — Mr. President I am directed by the dellegation from South Carolina respectfully to present the following document.

TO THE HON. CALEB CUSHING

President of the Charleston Convention:
We, the undersigned Delegates appointed by the Democratic State Convention of South Carolina, beg leave respectfully to state that, according to the principles enunciated in their Platform at Columbia, the power, either of the Federal Government or of its agent, the Territorial Government, to abolish or legislate against property in slaves, by either direct or indirect legislation, is especially denied; and as the Platform adopted by the Convention palpably and intentionally prevents any expression affirming the incapacity of the Territorial Government so to legislate, that they would not be acting in good faith to their principles, or in accordance with the wishes of their constituents, to longer remain in this Convention, and they hereby respectfully announce their withdrawal therefrom.

JAMES SIMONS,
S. McGOWAN,
B. H. WILSON,
R. B. BOYLSTON,
JAS. H. WITHERSPOON,
E. W. CHARLES,
THOS. Y. SIMONS,
JAS. PATTERSON,
B. H. BROWN,
J. A. METTS,
JOHN S. PRESTON,
FRANKLAND GAILLARD
G. N. REYNOLDS, Jr.

The reading of this paper was greeted with frequent bursts of most enthusiastic cheering on the floor and in the galleries.

I am further instructed to say, that the communication is signed by all the delegation but three members.

The South Carolina delegation then withdrew from the Convention amidst loud cheering.

FLORIDA RETIRES.

Mr. Milton, of Florida. — Mr. President: Representing the State of Florida, it is with feelings of sadness that I present myself before you to bid adieu to the men of talent and men of high and noble feelings from the North and West, who have met us here upon this occasion. But differences have arisen between us which, as honorable men, we cannot adjust. It has been asked, time and again, why we should invite gentlemen from the Northwest, the North and the East, to come and occupy higher ground than we did when we stood together and triumphed on the Cincinnati Platform? Since that time, gentlemen, according to your own report, a mighty power has arisen in your midst, deriving much of its strength and support from the Democrats of the North. I allude to the Black Republican party — a party which promulgates to the country that they have a higher law, a law known only to themselves — I hope not known to you — but superior to the Constitution. And, gentlemen, let me tell you that we came here expecting to be met hand in hand, and heart in heart, and to have formed a line shoulder to shoulder with you to drive back this swelling tide of fanaticism. But, gentlemen, how have we been met by you? I am proud to say that we have been met with high-toned generosity by Oregon and California. (Cheers.) I am proud to say that supporters of our claim for equal rights have boldly presented themselves from the good old State of Pennsylvania. (Cheers.) While we have entertained great respect for your talent and integrity, yet we bid adieu to you of the Northwest without so much feeling of regret, as you have hardened your hearts and stiffened your necks against the rights of the South. (Cheers and laughter.) But, we say to you, gentlemen from Oregon and California, and Pennsylvania and other States, who have come forward with the hand of fellowship, that we part from you with feelings of heartfelt sorrow.

Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania — And New-Jersey.

Mr. Milton. — I did not forget New-Jersey, nor could I forget Massachusetts. My remark was general. Wherever and whenever a gentlemen from the North, the East or the West, has had the manliness to rise up and vindicate our rights, our hearts have been at his command. (Cheers.)

We thank you, gentlemen, for the courtesies we have received amongst you, and which we have returned with the kindest feelings of our hearts. We part from you without any unkind feeling. We respect you as gentlemen, but differing, as we do upon principles vital to our most sacred interests, in the same spirit of wisdom and affection which caused Abraham and Lot to pass on, one in one direction and the other in a different one, we bid you a most respectful adieu. (Loud cheers.) One more remark, and I have done. The delegation from the State of Florida has unanimously passed a resolution that no one is authorized, when we shall retire, to represent Florida in this Convention. I confess, in all frankness, that I deem the resolution wholly unnecessary, because I believe there is too high a sense of honor amongst gentlemen here from the North, and the East, and the West, to permit any man to skulk in here to represent Florida.

Mr. Eppes, of Florida, then read the following protestation

TO THE HON. CALEB CUSHING,
President of the Democratic National Convention:
The undersigned, Democratic delegates from the State of Florida, enter this their solemn protest against the action of the Convention in voting down the Platform of the majority.

Florida, with her Southern sisters, is entitled to a clear and unambiguous recognition of her rights in the Territories, and this being refused by the rejection of the majority report, we protest against receiving the Cincinnati Platform with the interpretation that it favors the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty in the Territories — which doctrine, in the name of the people represented by us, we repudiate.

T. J. Eppes, B. F. Wardlaw, John Milton, J. B. Owens, C. F. Dyke, delegates from Florida.

The delegates from Florida, before retiring, have unanimously adopted the following Resolution:
Resolved, That no person, not a regularly appointed delegate, has a right to cast the vote of the State of Florida in this Convention.

JOHN MILTON, Chairman of Delegation.

TEXAS WITHDRAWS.

Mr. Bryan, of Texas, who was received with loud cheers, said: Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention — Texas, through her delegates on this floor, on the land at Calhoun, where "truth, justice and the Constitution" was proclaimed to the South, says to the South — this day you stand erect. (Loud cheers.) Whilst we deprecate the necessity which calls for our parting with the delegates from the other States of this Confederacy, yet it is an event that we, personally, have long looked to. Educated in a Northern College, I there first learned that there was a North and a South; there were two literary Societies, one Northern and the other Southern. In the Churches the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Church, are North and South. Gentlemen of the North and Northwest, God grant that there may be but one Democratic party! It depends upon your action, when you leave here, whether it shall be so. Give not aid and comfort, to the Black Republican hosts; but say to the South, "You are our equals in this Confederacy, and your lives, your persons and property, equally with those of the Northern States, are protected by the Constitution of the Federal Union." What is it that we, the Southern Democrats, are asking you to acknowledge? Analyze it and see the meaning; and it is this — that we will not ask quite as much of you as the Black Republicans, and if you only grant what we ask, we can fight them. We blame you not if you really hold these opinions, but declare them openly, and let us separate, as did Abraham and Lot. I have been requested to read this protest on the part of the delegates from Texas, and to ask the courtesy of the Convention that it be spread upon the minutes of its proceedings.

HON. CALEB CUSHING,
President of the Democratic National Convention:
The undersigned, delegates from the State of Texas, would respectfully protest against the late action of this Convention, in refusing to adopt the report of the majority of the Committee on Resolutions, which operates as the virtual adoption of principles affirming doctrines in opposition to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, and in conflict with the Federal Constitution, and especially opposed to the platform of the Democratic party of Texas, which declares:
1st. That the Democratic party of the State of Texas reaffirm and concur in the principles contained in the platform of the National Democratic Convention, held at Cincinnati in June, 1856, as a true expression of political faith and opinion, and herewith reassert and set forth the

37

principles therein contained, as embracing the only doctrine which can preserve the integrity of the Union and the equal rights of the States, "expressly rejecting any interpretation thereof favoring the doctrine known as Squatter Sovereignty," and that we will continue to adhere to and abide by the principles and doctrines of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 and 1799 and Mr. Madison's report relative thereto.

2d. That it is the right of every citizen to take his property, of any kind, including slaves, into the common territory belonging equally to all the States of the Confederacy, and to have it protected there under the Federal Constitution. Neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature, nor any human power, has any authority, either directly or indirectly, to impair these sacred rights; and they having been affirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, we declare that it is the duty of the Federal Government, the common agent of all the States, to establish such government, and enact such laws for the Territories, and so change the same, from time to time, as may be necessary to insure the protection and preservation of these rights, and prevent every infringement of the same. The affirmation of this principle of the duty of Congress to simply protect the rights of property, is nowise in conflict with the heretofore established and well-organized principles of the Democratic party, that Congress does not possess the power to legislate Slavery into the Territories, or to exclude it therefrom.

Recognizing these declarations of principles as instructions to us for our government in the National Convention, and believing that a repudiation of them by all the Northern States, except the noble States of Oregon and California, the whole vote of which is more than doubtful in the ensuing Presidential election, demand from us our unqualified disapproval.

The undersigned do not deem this the place or time to discuss the practical illustration that has been given of the irrepressible conflict between the Northern and Southern States, that has prevailed in this Convention for the last week.

It is sufficient to say that, if the principles of the Northern Democracy are properly represented by the opinion and action of the majority of the delegates from that section on this floor, we do not hesitate to declare that their principles are not only not ours, but, if adhered to and enforced by them, will destroy this Union.

In consideration of the foregoing facts, we cannot remain in the Convention. We consequently respectfully withdraw, leaving no one authorized to cast the vote of the State of Texas.

Guy M. Bryan, Chairman; F. R. Lubbock, F. S. Stockdale, E. Greer, H. R. Runnells, Wm. B. Ochiltree, M. W. Covey, Wm. H. Parsons, R. Ward, J. F. Crosby.

ARKANSAS RETIRES.

Mr. Burrow, of Arkansas, read the following protest.

HON. CALEB CUSHING,
President of Charleston Convention:
The undersigned, delegates accredited by the Democracy of Arkansas to represent said Democracy in the Convention, of the Democracy of the United States, assembled on the 23d April, 1860, beg leave to submit the following protest, against certain actions of this Convention, and statement of the causes which, in their opinion, require them to retire from this Convention

1st. The Convention of the Democracy of the State of Arkansas, convened at Little Rock on the 2d day of April, l860, passed among other things, the following resolutions, viz.:
1st. Resolved, We the Democracy of Arkansas, through our representatives in Convention assembled, proclaim our confidence in the virtue and intelligence of the people, and unabated faith in the principles of the Democracy.

2d. We re-affirm the political principles enunciated in the Cincinnati platform by the Democracy of the United States in June 1856, and assert as illustrative thereof, that neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature, whether by direct legislation or by legislation of an indirect and unfriendly character possess the power to annul or impair the constitutional rights of any citizen of the United States to take his slave property into the common Territories, and there hold and enjoy the same, and that if experience should at any time prove the judiciary and executive power do not possess the means to insure 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 the deficiency.

3d. That the representatives of the Democracy of Arkansas in the Charleston Convention be instructed to insist upon the recognition by said Convention of the purpose hereinbefore declared, prior to balloting for any candidate for the Presidency; and if said Convention refuse to recognize the rights of the South in the Territories of the United States, the representatives of the Democracy of Arkansas be instructed to retire from said Convention, and refuse to aid in the selection of any candidate whomsoever by said Convention.

4th. That the unity of the Democratic party and the safety of the South demands the adoption of the two-thirds rule by the Charleston Convention of the Democracy of the United States, and that our delegates to said Convention be required to insist upon and maintain the adoption thereof as an indispensable necessity.

In accordance with the instructions contained in resolution 3d above, one of the undersigned had the honor, on the second day of the session of this Convention, to offer to the consideration of this Convention the following resolution, viz.:
"Resolved, That the Convention will not proceed to nominate a candidate for the Presidency until the Platform shall have been made" —

Which said resolution was passed by the Convention with great unanimity. Subsequently, the Committee on Resolutions and Platform, appointed by the Convention, in accordance with the usages and customs of the Democratic party of the United States, agreed upon and reported to this Convention a platform of principles, recognizing the principle contained in the resolutions of the Democracy of Arkansas, above recited, and fully asserting the equal rights of the Southern States in the common Territories of the United States, and the duty of the Federal Government to protect those rights when necessary, according to the usages and customs of the Democracy of the United States, as developed by the practice of said Democracy assembled in Convention on former occasions, and in strict accordance, as is believed by the undersigned, with the compact and agreement made by and between the Democrats of the several States, upon which the Conventions of the Democracy of the United States were agreed first to be founded, and assented to by the several Southern States. The report and determination of the Committee on Platform became and was henceforward the platform of the Democracy of the United States, and this Convention had no duty to perform in relation thereto but to receive, confirm and publish the same, and cause it to be carried into effect wherever in the respective States the Democracy were able to enforce their decrees at the ballot box.

The undersigned are confirmed in this opinion by reference not only to the history of the past, which shows that in all instances the sovereignty of the states, and not the electoral votes of the States, has uniformly been represented in the Committee on Platforms, and that the report of the Committee has invariably been registered as the supreme law of the Democratic party by unanimous consent of the entire Convention, without changing or in any manner altering any part or portion thereof. It is asserted, as a part of our traditional policy, and confidently believed, that the Democracy of those United States, by a peculiar system of checks and balances, formed after the fashion of the Federal Government, were contracted and bound themselves to fully recognize the sovereignty of the States in making the platform, and the population or masses of the States in naming the candidate to be placed on the platform. That many States have been uniformly allowed to vote the full strength of their electoral college in these Conventions when it was well known that said States never heretofore, and probably would never hereafter give a single electoral vote at the polls to the candidate which they had so large a share in nominating, cannot be accounted for on any other principle than that it was intended only as a recognition of the sovereignty and equality of said States.

Would it be right at this time for the numerical majority to deprive all the Black Republican States represented on this floor of their representation, which by custom they have so long enjoyed, simply because it is now evident that they are or will be unable to vote the Democratic ticket in the next Presidential election?

By common consent we say that a reckless numerical majority should not be thus allowed to tread under foot the vested rights of those States and well established usages and customs of the party.

If thus it be wrong for the numerical majority to deprive the Black Republican States of this long vested right, how much more unjust is it for the numerical majority to deprive all the States of their vested right to make and declare the platform in the usual and customary manner? and when we call to mind that the numerical majority resides chiefly in the Black Republican States, to whom the South has uniformly accorded so large a privilege, in naming candidates who were alone to be elected by Southern votes, we have much reason to believe that he to whom you gave an inch seems emboldened thereby to demand an ell.

The undersigned beg leave to state that many patriotic States' Right Democrats in the South, have long contended that these Conventions of the Democracy, representing

38

in fact the whole consolidated strength of the Union, acting through party sympathy upon the individual members of society, would ultimate in a despotic, colossal centralism, possessed of power to override and destroy at its will and pleasure the constitutions and reserved rights of any and all the States. The South, however, has heretofore felt safe because of the checks and balances imposed upon the machinery of the Conventions. The South felt that where she retained an equal power to write the creed of faith, she could trust her Northern sisters, with their immense populations, to name the candidate; and all would alike support the creed and the candidate.

The undersigned, well knowing the hostility of the Northern masses toward the "peculiar institutions" of the South, and calling to mind the relative numbers of the Northern and Southern States, assert with confidence that no Southern State in the Union would ever have consented to surrender, so abjectly and hopelessly, all their fortunes to the numerical majority who have just now voted to set aside the Platform, unless upon the full assurance that the States were entitled by agreement to make and establish the creed of faith and prescribe the rule of action. This violation of plighted faith on the part of the numerical majority — this violation of the well established usage and custom of the party — drive us to the conclusion that we cannot longer safely trust the fortunes of Slaveholding States to the chances of the numerical majority in a Convention, where all the Black Republicans of the Union, the immense populations of Massachusetts, New-York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and other Northern States, are fully represented, on the one side, against the small populations from the slave States on the other. Had these populations adhered strictly to the usages and customs of the party, longer association might have been practicable; but annihilation is staring us in the face, and we are admonished of our duty to stand upon our reserved rights.

We declare, therefore, that we believe our mission to this Convention at an end:
1st. Because the numerical majority have usurped the prerogatives of the States in setting aside the Platform made by the States, and have thus unsettled the basis of this Convention, and thereby permanently disorganized its constitution. Its decrees, therefore, become null and void.

2d. Because we were positively instructed by the Democracy of Arkansas to insist on the recognition of the equal rights of the South in the common Territories, and protection to those rights by the Federal Government, prior to any nomination of a candidate; and as this Convention has refused to recognize the principle required by the State of Arkansas, in her popular Convention first, and twice subsequently re-asserted by Arkansas, together with all her Southern sisters, in the report of a Platform to this Convention; and as we cannot serve two masters, we are determined first to serve the Lord our God. We cannot ballot for any candidate whatsoever.

3d. In retiring, we deny to any person, or persons, any right whatever to cast hereafter, in this Convention, either our vote or the vote of Arkansas on any proposition which may, or can, possibly come up for consideration. The Delegates of Arkansas cannot take any part in placing a sound candidate on an unsound platform, because it would disgrace any sound Southern man who would consent to stand on such a platform; and, as a Squatter Sovereignty Platform has been adopted, we believe good faith and honor requires that the Chief of Squatter Sovereignty should be placed on it. We wish no part or lot in such misfortune, nor do we believe that we can safely linger under the shade of the upas tree, this day planted certainly.

P. JORDAN,
B. BURROW,
VAN H. MANNING.

Mr. Burrow stated, after reading the paper, that the gentlemen who had signed represented both wings of the State — all its public men, its hopes, it character, and its fortunes.

Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas, as Chairman of the Arkansas delegation, desired to say a single word to go along with the paper which had been read. It was his desire that that portion of the Arkansas delegation who had concluded to leave the Convention should have paused until the delegation could have had a consultation. Why did he hesitate? It was because he conceived that the stability of the Union itself was involved in the action taken here by the Southern representatives.

He had been taught from childhood to believe that if the Union was to be preserved at all, it was to be preserved by the Democratic party as a unit. (Cheers.) He wished to consult with other Southern men as to the best course to be pursued — (cheers) — reserving to himself the right to decide the question, which he would do in a few hours. His heart and all the feelings of his nature were with those Southern men who had seen proper to leave the Convention; but, at the same time, he hesitated between his personal feelings and his duty to his own people. If he could get a good sound Southern man for President, he would be willing to take him on this platform. (Cheers.)

The Georgia delegation asked leave to retire for consultation, which was granted.

Messrs. Bayard and Whiteley, two of the six delegates from Delaware, retired from the Convention and joined the seceders.

Mr. Saulsbury, (U. S. Senator,) of Delaware, stated his reason for not retiring with his colleagues, and the Convention adjourned.

On Tuesday, May 1st, the President stated the regular order of business to be the motions to reconsider, and the motions to lay the motions to reconsider on the table, by which the various resolutions constituting the Platform were adopted. Pending the determination of these questions, yesterday evening, the chairman of several of the delegations rose to questions of privilege, under which their delegations retired from the hall. When the Convention adjourned the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Merrick) was upon the door.

GEORGIA RETIRES.

Mr. Benning of Georgia. — Mr. President: On yesterday afternoon the delegation from Georgia obtained the leave of the Convention to retire for the purpose of consulting as to the course they would pursue in consequence of the action taken by the Convention in the previous part of the day. They retired, and they have since been engaged in consultation. They have considered the questions involved, with as much maturity and care as they could bestow upon them, and they have come to a conclusion as to the course they ought to pursue. That conclusion is contained in two resolutions which I hold in my hand, and which I will now read to the Convention.

Resolved, That, upon the opening of the Convention this morning, our Chairman he requested to state to the President that the Georgia delegation, after mature deliberation, have felt it be their duty, under existing circumstanecs, not to participate further in the deliberations of the Convention, and that, therefore, the delegation withdraw.

Resolved. That all who acquiesce in the foregoing resolution sign the same, and request the Convention, to enter it on their records.

(Signed,)
JUNIUS WlNGFIELD,
HENRY R. JACKSON,
J. M. CLARK,
WM. M. SLAUGHTER,
JOHN A. JONES,
DAVID C. BARROW,
JAS. J. DIAMAN ,
FRANKLIN HILL,
ED. L. STROHECKER,
O. C. GIBSON,
HENRY O. THOMAS,
HENRY L. BENNING,
P. TRACY,
JEFFERSON N. LAMAR,
EDMOND J. McGEBER,
GEO. HILLYER,
MARK JOHNSTON,
EDWARD R. HARDEN,
JOHN H. LUMPKIN.
G. G. FAIR,
JAMES HOGE,
W. J. JOHNSON.

The undersigned, delegates from Georgia, having voted in the meeting of the delegation against withdrawing from the Convention, yet, believe, under the instructions contained in the resolution of the Georgia Convention, that the vote of the majority should control our motion, and we therefore withdraw with the majority.

J. T. IRVIN,
JULIAN HARTRIDGE,
W. H. HULL,
L. H. DRISCOE.

This paper is signed by twenty-six out of the thirty-three or thirty-four delegates in that Convention from the State of Georgia.

I have now, Mr. President, discharged the duty which has been intrusted to me by my delegation.

The majority of the Georgia delegation then retired from the hall.

Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas. — I do not desire to detain this Convention for a moment. On yesterday evening, I stated to the Convention that I should come here this morning and tell them what was my conclusion, and what was the conclusion of the portion of the delegation from the State of Arkansas which then thought proper to remain in the Convention. We are now ready to take that step which our judgment dictates to be right. In accordance with our duty here, we wanted time to pause and

39

consider calmly with our sister Southern States, in relation to the proper course to be pursued. We have calmly and with deliberation considered the matter, and we believe it to be an imperative duty which we owe to the South, and we are ready to take our course.

Now, sir, I desire to appeal to Virginia, the mother of States, and the mother of Democracy, and to ask them whether the principle contained in the majority report of this Convention, signed by seventeen States, is right or is wrong? Did you indorse it, or did you not?

Mr. Smith, of Wisconsin, raised the question of order, that the gentleman had no right to make sectional appeals in this Convention.

Mr. Johnson. — I desire to do no such thing. I do not understand the principles of the majority report to be sectional. I understand them to be national. But, Mr. President, I only desire, in behalf of a portion of the delegates, to say that we came here with a view to stand by the principles of our people and of the Union, and when we have found the Convention acting in violation of those principles, we feel ourselves compelled to retire from the Hall. I will only remark in conclusion, that the Vice-President from my State has been charged with presenting a protest on the part of a portion of our declaration.

Mr. Terry, of Arkansas, then read the following paper to the Convention:
To the HON. CALEB CUSHING, President:
The undersigned, Delegates from Arkansas, ask permission to make the following statement: We have, thus far, abstained from taking any active part in the measures which were consummated on yesterday, in this Convention, by the withdrawal, in whole or in part, of several Southern States. We have counseled our Southern friends to patience and forbearance; and, while we were conscious of causes sufficient to induce them to this step, yet we still hoped some more auspicious event would transpire that would avert its necessity. Nothing has occurred to palliate these causes. Hence we cannot hesitate in our course, and therefore ask permission to withdraw and surrender to our State the high trust reposed in us. To you, sir, who have with so much ability presided over our deliberations, and meted out justice with an even hand, we part with sorrow. Hoping that the cloud which now hangs over our beloved country may be dispelled, and her counsels directed by some statesman like yourself — able, honest, just and true.

FRANCIS TERRY, Vice-President.
J. P. JOHNSON, Ch'n of Delegation.
P. W. HOADLEY. Secretary.
CHARLESTON, May 1st, 1860.

The Tennessee Delegation asked and obtained leave to retire for consultation.

The Delegation from Virginia, and portions of the Delegations from Kentucky, North Carolina and Maryland, had leave to retire for consultation.

Mr. Flournoy, of Arkansas. — May I be indulged in one remark? My voice is "Never give up the ship" — (applause) — though the fearful storm rages around us — though she may have lost some spars and masts — though she may have some cracked ribs. Sir, for myself, I will be one of that gallant crew who, though the storm rages, though the spars and masts are gone, though ribs be broken — I will, until the noble vessel be swallowed up by the devouring waves, continue to unite with them in the reiterated cry of "Live, live the Republic!" (Great applause.)

Mr. President, I am a Southern man. Yes, sir, I have been reared amidst the institution. All I have is the product of slave labor. I believe the institution a patriarchal one, and beneficial alike to master and slave. The bread which supports my own wife and tender babe is the product of slave labor. I trust, then, that, like Caesar's wife, I am "above suspicion."

LOUISIANA WITHDRAWS.

TO THE HON. CALEB CUSHING,
President of the Democratic Convention::
SIR: The undersigned delegates from the State of Louisiana, in withdrawing from the Convention, beg leave to make the following statement of facts:
On the 5th day of March, 1860, the Democracy of Louisiana assembled in State Convention at Baton Rouge, and unanimously adopted the following declaration of their principles

Resolved, That the Territories of the United States belong to the several States as their common property, and not to individual citizens thereof, that the Federal Constitution recognizes property in slaves; and as such, the owner thereof is entitled to carry his slaves into any Territory in the United States; to hold them there as property; and in case the people of the Territories, by inaction, unfriendly legislation or otherwise, should endanger the tenure of such property, or discriminate against it by withholding that protection given to other species of property in the Territories, it is the duty of the General Government to interpose, by the active exertion of its constitutional power, to secure the rights of the slaveholder.

The principles enunciated in the foregoing resolution are guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States, and their unequivocal recognition by the Democracy of the Union we regard as essential, not only to the integrity of the party, but to the safety of the States whose interests are directly involved. They have been embodied in both of the series of resolutions presented to the Convention by a majority of the States of the Union, and have been rejected by a numerical vote of the delegates.

The Convention has, by this vote, refused to recognize the fundamental principles of the Democracy of the State we have the honor to represent, and we feel constrained, in obedience to a high sense of duty, to withdraw from its deliberations, and unanimously to enter our solemn protest against its action.

We ask that the communication may be spread upon the minutes of the Convention, and beg leave to express our appreciation of, the justice and dignity which have characterized your action as its presiding officer.

[Signed,]
A. MOUTON,
JOHN TARLETON,
RICHARD TAYLOR,
EMILE LASERE,
F. H. HATCH,
E. LAWRENCE,
TALBOT,
B. W. PEARCE,
R. A. HUNTER,
D. D. WITHERS.

The undersigned, in explanation of their position, beg leave to annex the following statement, viz.:
Whilst we took the same view with our colleagues, that the platform of principles, as adopted by this Convention, was not what was expected by Louisiana, and desired by ourselves, as sufficient to guard the rights of that State, and of the whole South, under the Constitution, are now unwilling precipitately to retire from the Convention, until all hope of accommodation shall have been exhausted, and until the last moment had arrived, at which, in justice to our own honor, and the interest and dignity of our own State. We would be forced to retire. We, therefore, were opposed to the retirement of the delegation at the time it was made; but believing that the other members of the delegation were actuated by the same high motives which governed our own opinions, and desiring our State to present a firm, undivided front, we being in the minority of the delegation, were willing to yield, and did yield, our opinions to the judgment of the majority.

J. A. McHATTON,
CHARLES JONES,
CHARLESTON, S. C., May 1, 1860.

A VOICE FROM GEORGIA.

Mr. Gaulden, of Georgia, addressed the Convention, giving his reasons for not retiring with his colleagues, as follows

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW DEMOCRATS: As I stated to you a few moments ago, I have been confined to my room by severe indisposition, but, learning of the commotion and the intense excitement which were existing upon the questions before this body, I felt it to be my duty, feeble as I was, to drag myself out to the meeting of my delegation, and when there I was surprised to find a large majority of that delegation voting to secede at once from this body. I disagree with those gentlemen. I regret to disagree with my brethren from the South upon any of the great questions which interest our common country. I am a Southern States' Rights man; I am an African Slave-trader. I am one of those Southern men who believe that Slavery is right, morally, religiously, socially, and politically. (Applause.) I believe that the institution of Slavery has done more for this country, more for civilization, than all other interests put together. I believe if it were in the power of this country to strike down the institution of Slavery, it would put civilization back 200 years. Holding, then, this position, that Slavery is right in the point of view I have stated, I would demand of the General Government our whole rights in this regard. I believe that the General Government by the Constitution never had any right to legislate upon this subject. I believe that our Government was a confederation of States for certain specified objects with limited powers; that the domestic relations of each State are to be and should be left to themselves; that this eternal Slavery question has been the bone of contention between the North and South, which if kept in the halls of Congress must break up this Government. I am one of those who believe in non-intervention, either in the States or the Territories.

40

(Applause.) I am not in favor of breaking up this Government upon an impracticable issue, upon a mere theory. I believe that this doctrine of protection to Slavery in the Territories is a mere theory, a mere abstraction. (Applause.) Practically, it can be of no consequence to the South, for the reason that the infant has been strangled before it was born. (Laughter.) You have cut off the supply of Slaves; you have crippled the institution of Slavery in the States by your unjust laws, and it is mere folly and madness now to ask for protection for a nonentity, for a thing which is not there. We have no slaves to carry to these Territories. We can never make another Slave State with our present supply of slaves. But if we could, it would not be wise, for the reason, that if you make another Slave State from our new Territories with the present supply of slaves, you will be obliged to give up another State, either Maryland, Delaware, or Virginia, to Free Soil upon the North. Now, I would deal with this question, fellow-Democrats, as a practical one. When I can see no possible practical good to result to the country from demanding legislation upon this theory, I am not prepared to disintegrate and dismember the great Democratic party of this Union. I believe that the hopes of this country depend upon the maintenance of the great Democratic party North. It is no trouble for a man to be a saint in Heaven.

"When the devil was sick,
The devil a monk would be:
The devil got well,
But devil a monk was he." (Great laughter.)

We, the Democracy of the South, are mere carpet knights. It is no trouble for us to be Democrats (Applause and laughter.) When I look to the Northern Democrats, I see them standing up there and breasting the tide of fanaticism, oppression, wrong, and slander, with which they have to contend. I view in these men types of the old ancient Romans; I view in them all that is patriotic and noble; and, for one, I am not willing to cut loose from them. (Great cheering.) I say, then, that I will hold on to my Democratic friends of the North to the last day of the week — late in the evening. (Great laughter.) I am not willing to present to them a half issue of this sort. I am not willing to disintegrate, dismember, and turn them over to the ruthless hands of the thieving Black Republicans of the North. I would ask my friends of the South to come up in a proper spirit, ask our Northern friends to give us all our rights, and take off the ruthless restrictions which cut off the supply of slaves from foreign lands. As a matter of right and justice to the South, I would ask the Democracy of the North to grant us this thing, and I believe they have the patriotism and honesty to do it, because it is right in itself. I tell you, fellow-Democrats, that the African Slave-trader is the true Union man (Cheers and laughter.) I tell you that the Slave-trading of Virginia is more immoral, more unchristian in every possible point of view, than that African Slave-trade which goes to Africa and brings a heathen and worthless man here, makes him a useful man, Christianizes him, and sends him and his posterity down the stream of time to join in the blessings of civilization. (Cheers and laughter.) Now, fellow-Democrats, so far as any public expression of the State of Virginia — the great Slave-trading State of Virginia — has been given, they are all opposed to the African Slave trade.

Dr. Reed of Indiana. — I am from Indiana, and I am in favor of it.

Mr. Gaulden — Now, gentlemen, we are told, upon high authority, that there is a certain class of men who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Now, Virginia, which authorizes the buying of Christian men, separating them from their wives and children, from all the relations and associations amid whom they have lived for years, rolls up her eyes in holy horror when I would go to Africa, buy a savage, and introduce him to the blessings of civilization and Christianity. (Cheers and laughter.)

Mr. Rynders of N. Y. — You can get one or two recruits from New-York to join with you.

The President. — The time of the gentleman has expired. (Cries of "Go on! Go on!")

The President — stated that if it was the unanimous wish of the Convention, the gentleman could proceed.

Mr. Gaulden — Now, Fellow-Democrats, the slave trade in Virginia forms a mighty and powerful reason for its opposition to the African slave-trade, and in this remark I do not intend any disrespect to my friends from Virginia. Virginia, the Mother of States and of statesmen, the Mother of Presidents, I apprehend may err as well as other mortals. I am afraid that her error in this regard lies in the promptings of the almighty dollar. It has been my fortune to go into that noble old State to buy a few darkies, and I have had to pay from $1,000 to $2,000 a head, when I could go to Africa and buy better negroes for $50 apiece. (Great laughter.) Now, unquestionably, it is to the interest of Virginia to breakdown the African slave-trade when she can sell her negroes at $2,000. She knows that the African slave-trade would break up her monopoly, and hence her objection to it. If any of you Northern Democrats — for I have more faith in you than I have in the Carpet-Knight Democracy of the South — will go home with me to my plantation in Georgia, but a little way from here, I will, show you some darkies that I bought in Maryland, some that I bought in Virginia, some in Delaware, some in Florida, some in North Carolina, and I will also show you the pure African, the noblest Roman of them all. (Great laughter.) Now, Fellow-Democrats, my feeble health and failing voice, admonish me to bring the few remarks I have to make to a close. (Cries of "Go on, go on.") I am only sorry that I am not in a better condition than I am to vindicate before you to-day the words of truth, of honesty, and of light, and to show you the gross inconsistencies of the South in this regard. I came from the First Congressional District of the State of Georgia. I represent the African Slave-trade interests of that section. (Applause.) I am proud of the position I occupy in that respect. I believe that the African slave-trader is a true missionary, and a true Christian (applause), and I have pleaded with my delegation from Georgia to put this issue squarely to the Northern Democracy, and say to them, Are you prepared to go back to first principles, and take off your unconstitutional restrictions and leave this question to be settled by each State? Now do this, fellow-citizens, and you will have peace in the country. But so long as your Federal Legislature takes jurisdiction of this question, so long will there be war, so long will there be ill-blood, so long will there be strife, until this glorious Union of ours shall be disrupted and go out in blood and night forever. I advocate the repeal of the laws prohibiting the African Slave-trade, because I believe it to be the true Union movement. I do not believe that sections whose interests are so different as the Southern and Northern States can ever stand the shocks of fanaticism, unless they be equally balanced. I believe by reopening this trade, and giving us negroes to populate the Territories, that the equilbrium of the two sections will be maintained. But if the South lies supinely by, and allows the people of the North to people all the Territories, until we come to be a hopeless fraction in the Government, then that gallant band of Democrats North may in vain attempt to stay the torrent that will roll down upon us. It will not be in your power to do it. It should be the object of the South now to say to the North: Let us have all our rights in this matter; let us take off these restrictions against the African Slave-trade, and leave it to each State to settle for itself. Then we would want no protection, and then I would be willing to let you have as much Squatter Sovereignty as you wish. Give us an equal chance, and I tell you the institution of Slavery will take care of itself. We will give you all the Squatter Sovereignty that the North can desire, Mr. Douglas, or anybody else, if you will take off the unconstitutional restrictions on the Slave-trade and let the negroes come. Then, gentlemen, we should proceed harmoniously, go on to prosper and prospering, until the last trump o f God should sound; until time was merged in the ocean of eternity. (Applause.) I say, Fellow-Democrats, that I remained here because I have great faith in the Northern Democracy. If I am forced to part with you, it will be with a bleeding heart. I know not exactly what position I occupy here (laughter), for the majority of my delegation have voted to secede. We came here instructed to vote as a unit. Whether the minority are bound to go out with the majority is a question which I have not yet fully determined in my own mind, but at any rate, I told them this morning, and I tell them now, I will not go out yet; I intend to stay here; I intend to hold on to the great Democratic Party of the Union so long as I can consistently with honor and propriety, for I believe that if we break up in a row here, and the Democratic Party of the country is destroyed, this Union falls as certainly as the sun rises and sets. I warn you, seceders, if your action here to-day should have the effect of dismembering and destroying the great Democratic Party of the North, that you destroy this Government beyond all question (applause); and the Union falls, and falls forever! Now, I am not a disunionist. I love this Union for the memories of the past and for the hopes of the future. (Applause.) The blood of my ancestors was poured out around this city and throughout the South to rear aloft the proud banner of our glorious Union. I, as an humble descendant of theirs, feel bound to maintain this Union and the Constitution so long, and no longer than I can do it honorably and justly to myself and my country. But I do not yet despair of the Republic.

41

Entertaining, as I do, such profound respect, nay, almost veneration for the justice of the Democracy of the North, I will yet stand by you for a time. I will do all that in me lies to heal these differences. I trust that the result of our deliberations will be the nomination of such a man as will give peace to the country and success to the great Democratic National Party of the Union. (Great applause.)

The Convention having decided to proceed to ballot for President, at 4 P. M., Wm. Howard, of Tennessee, moved that two-thirds (202) of a full Convention (303) be required to nominate, which, after much discussion and confusion, was adopted — 141 to 112 — as follows

YEAS: — Maine, 3; Massachusetts, 8˝; Connecticut, 2˝; New-York, 35; New-Jersey 5˝; Pennsylvania 17˝; Delaware, 2; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 15; North Carolina, 10; South Carolina, 1; Missouri, 4˝; Tennessee, 11; Kentucky, 11; Minnesota 1˝; California, 4; Orgeon, 3 — 141

NAYS: — Maine, 5; New-Hampshire, 5; Vermont, 5;Massachusets, 4˝; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 3˝; New-Jersey, 1˝; Pennsylvania, 9˝; Maryland, 2; Arkansas, 1; Missouri, 4˝; Tennessee, 1; Kentucky, 1; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 2˝ — 112.

Candidates were put in nomination, and the Convention proceeded to ballot, as follows:

  Douglas Guthrie Hunter Dickinson A. Johnson Lane Jeff. Davis. Toucey F. Pierce
1st. Ballot 145˝ 35 42 7 12 6 1˝ 2˝ 1
2 147 36˝ 41˝ 6˝ 12 6 1 2˝ -
3 148˝ 42 36 6˝ 12 6 1 - -
4 149 37˝ 41˝ 5 12 6 1 - -
5 149˝ 37˝ 41˝ 5 12 6 1 - -
6 149˝ 39˝ 41 3 12 7 - - -
7 150˝ 38˝ 41 4 11 6 1 - -
8 15˝ 38˝ 40˝ 4˝ 11 6 1˝ - -
9 150˝ 41 39˝ 1 - 6 1˝ - -
10 150˝ 39˝ 39 4 12 5˝ 1˝ - -
11 150˝ 39˝ 38 4 12 6˝ 1˝ - -
12 150˝ 39˝ 38 4 12 6 1˝ - -
13 149˝ 39˝ 28˝ 1 12 20 1 - -
14 150 41 27 1˝ 12 20˝ 1 - -
15 150 41˝ 26˝ ˝ 12 20˝ 1 - -
16 150 42 26 ˝ 12 20˝ 1 - -
17 150 42 26 ˝ 12 20˝ 1 - -
18 150 41˝ 26 1 12 20˝ 1 - -
19 150 41˝ 26 12 20˝ 1 - -  
20 150 42 26 ˝ 12 20˝ 1 - -
21 150˝ 41˝ 26 ˝ 12 20˝ 1 - -
22 150˝ 41˝ 26 ˝ 12 20˝ 1 - -
23 152˝ 41˝ 25 ˝ 12 19˝ 1 - -
24 151˝ 25 1˝ 12 19˝ 1 - -  
25 151˝ 41˝ 25 1˝ 12 19˝ 1 - -
26 151˝ 41˝ 25 12 12 9 1 - -
27 151˝ 42˝ 25 12 12 8 1 - -
28 151˝ 42 25 12˝ 12 8 1 - -
29 151˝ 42 25 13 12 7˝ 1 - -
30 151˝ 45 25 13 11 5˝ 1 - -
31 151˝ 47˝ 32˝ 3 11 5˝ l - -
32 152˝ 47˝ 22˝ 3 11 5˝ 1 - -
33 152˝ 47˝ 22˝ 3 11 14˝ 1 - -
34 152˝ 47˝ 22˝ 5 11 12˝ 1 - -
35 152 47˝ 22 4˝ 12 13 1 - -
36 151˝ 48 22 4˝ 12 13 1 - -
37 151˝ 64˝ 16 5˝ ˝ 12˝ 1˝ - -
38 151˝ 66 16 5˝ - 13 - -  
39 151˝ 66˝ 16 5˝ - 12 1/1 - - -
40 151˝ 66˝ 16 5˝ - 12˝ - - -
41 151˝ 66˝ 16 5˝ - 12˝ - - -
42 151˝ 66˝ 16 5 - 13 - - -
43 151˝ 65˝ 16 5 - 13 1 - -
44 151˝ 65˝ 16 5 - 13 1 - -
45 151˝ 65˝ 16 5 - 13 1 - -
46 151˝ 65˝ 16 5 - 13 1 - -
47 151˝ 65˝ 16 5 - 13 1 - -
48 151˝ 65˝ 16 5 - 13 1 - -
49 151˝ 65˝ 16 4 - 14 1 - -
50 151˝ 65˝ 16 4 - 14 1 - -
51 151˝ 65˝ 16 4 - 14 1 - -
52 151˝ 65˝ 16 4 - 14 1 - -
53 151˝ 65˝ 16 4 - 14 1 - -
54 151˝ 61 20˝ 2 - 16 1 - -
55 151˝ 65˝ 16 4 - 14 1 - -
56 151˝ 65˝ 16 4 - 14 1 - -
57 151˝ 60˝ 16 4 - 14 1 - -

On the 3d of May, and the 10th day of the session, Mr. Russell, of Virginia, offered the following

Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns to-day, it adjourn to re-assemble at Baltimore, Md., on Monday, the 18th day of June, and that it be respectfully recommended to the Democratic party of the several States to make provision for supplying all vacancies in their respective delegations to this Convention when it shall reassemble. (Applause.)

After the failure of attempts to change the place of meeting to New-York, Philadelphia, etc., and also to change the time to a later period, the resolve was adopted — 195 to 55 — as follows

YEAS. — Maine, 5; New-Hampshire, 5; Vermont, 5; Massachusetts, 10; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 6; New-York, 35; New-Jersey, 2; Pennsylvania, 23˝; Maryland, 5; Virginia, 14˝; Arkansas, 1; Missouri, 6; Tennessee, 7; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 4; California 3 — 195.

NAYS: — Maine, 3; Connecticut, 3; New-Jersey, 5; Pennsylvania, 3; Maryland, 3; Virginia,˝; North-Carolina, 14; Missouri, 3; Tennessee, 5; Kentucky, 2 — 55.

Gen. Cushing, the President, made a brief speech, and the Convention adjourned to meet again in Baltimore, on the 18th of June succeeding.

SECEDERS.

The retiring delegates met at St. Andrew's Hall, and were waited on with manifestations of sympathy by a portion of the Wood Delegation, from New-York, who, however, were not invited or admitted to seats The seceders organized by the appointment of Senator James A. Bayard, of Delaware, as Chairman, and, after much animated discussion, adopted the following Platform

Resolved, That the Platform adopted by the Democratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed, with the following explanatory Resolutions

First, That the Government of a Territory organized by an act of Congress, is provisional and temporary, and, during its existence, all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territory without their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial Legislation.

Second, That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect when necessary the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its Constitutional authority extends.

Third, That when the settlers in a Territory having an adequate population form a State Constitution in pursuance of law, the right of sovereignty commences, and, being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States; and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of Slavery.

Fourth, That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain, at the earliest practicable moment.

Fifth, That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

Sixth, That the Democracy of the United States recognize it as the imperative duty of this Government to protect the naturalized citizen in all his rights, whether at home or in foreign lands, to the same extent as its native-born citizens.

Whereas, one of the greatest necessities of the age, in a Political, Commercial, Postal and Military point of view, is a speedy communication between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Democratic party do hereby pledge themselves to use every means in their power to secure the passage of some bill to the extent of the Constitutional authority of Congress for the construction of a Pacific Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, at the earliest practicable moment.

42

After talking for four days, the Seceders' Convention adjourned to meet in Richmond, Virginia, on the second Monday in June. Delegates were present from the following States: Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware.

THE SECEDERS AT RICHMOND.

According to adjournment, the Seceding delegates met at Richmond, Va., on the 11th June. Delegates were present from Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, 2d Congressional District of Tennessee, and the 7th Electoral District of Virginia. The Hon. John Erwin, of Alabama, was chosen President, with several Vice-Presidents and Secretaries. The Convention adopted the following resolutions, and on the 12th, at 12 o'clock, adjourned

Resolved, That as the delegation from States represented in this Convention are assembled upon the basis of the platform recommended by a majority of the States at Charleston, which we indorse, we deem it unnecessary to take any further action on the subject at the present time.

Resolved, That when this Convention adjourn it adjourn to meet in this city on Thursday, the 21st inst.; provided that the President of this Convention may call it together at an earlier or a later day, if it be deemed necessary.

The Convention reassembled on the 21st; but, without doing any business, adjourned to the following day, and so continued to meet and adjourn, awaiting the action of the Convention at Baltimore, till after the nomination of Breckinridge and Lane; when such of the Delegates as had not joined the Seceders in Baltimore, adopted the candidates and platform of the Breckinridge party, and adjourned sine die.

The National Democratic Convention at Baltimore.

In accordance with the adjournment at Charleston, the National Democratic Convention reassembled at Baltimore, on Monday, the 18th June, and held their sessions in the Front street theatre.

At eleven o'clock, President Cushing, who appeared on the platform but did not take the chair, directed the Secretary to call the roll of States in order to ascertain if the delegates were present. On the calling of the roll, the following States were found to be fully represented: Maine, New-Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New-York, New-Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, California, Oregon.

Connecticut was represented in part, there being some misunderstanding as to the hour of meeting, which had been fixed at 10 o'clock.

Two delegates were present from Delaware.

When the State of South Carolina was called, the Chair directed that only those States be called which were present at the adjournment of the Convention at Charleston, consequently South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas, were not called.

In consequence of a misapprehension as to the time, the President delayed calling the Convention to order till 12 o'clock, when he took the Chair and said:
GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION: Permit me, in the first place, to congratulate you upon your being reassembled here for the discharge of your important duties in the interests of the Democratic party of the United States; and I beg leave, in the second place, to communicate to the Convention the state of the various branches of its business, as they now come up for consideration below you.

Prior to the adjournment of the Convention, two principal subjects of action were before it. One, the adoption of the doctrinal resolutions constituting the platform of the Convention; the other, voting upon the question of the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency.

In the course of the discussion on the adoption of a platform, the Convention adopted a vote, the effect of which was to amend the report of the majority of the Committee on Platform by substituting the report of the minority of that Committee; and after the adoption of that motion, and the substitution of the minority for the majority report, a division was called for upon the several resolutions constituting that platform, being five in number. The 1st, 3d, 4th and 5th of those resolutions were adopted by the Convention, and the 2d was rejected After the vote on the adoption of the lst, 3d, 4th and 5th of those resolutions, a motion was made in each case to reconsider the vote, and to lay that motion of reconsideration upon the table. But neither of those motions to reconsider or to lay on the table was put, the putting of those motions having been prevented by the intervention of questions of privilege, and the ultimate vote competent in such case, to wit, on the adoption of the report of the majority as amended by the report of the minority, had not been acted upon by the Convention. So that at the time when the Convention adjourned there remained pending before it these motions, to wit; To reconsider the resolutions constituting the platform, and the ulterior question of adopting the majority as amended by the substitution of the minority report. Those questions, and those only, as the Chair understood the motions before the Convention, were not acted upon prior to the adjournment.

After the disposition of the intervening questions of privilege, a motion was made by Mr. McCook, of Ohio, to proceed to vote for candidates for President and Vice President. Upon that motion, the Convention instructed the Chair (not, as has been erroneously supposed, in the recess of the Convention, the Chair determining for the Convention, but the Convention instructing the Chair) to make no declaration of a nomination except upon a vote equivalent to two-thirds in the Electoral College of the United States, and upon that balloting, no such vote being given, that order was, upon the motion of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Russell), laid on the table, for the purpose of enabling him to propose a motion, which he subsequently did, that the Convention adjourn from the city of Charleston to the city of Baltimore, and with a provision concerning the filling of vacancies embraced in the same resolution, which resolution the Secretary will please read.

The Secretary read the resolution as follows

"Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns to-day it adjourn to reassemble at Baltimore, Md., on Monday, the 18th day of June, and that it be respectfully recommended to the Democratic party of the several States, to make provision for supplying all vacancies in their respective delegates to this Convention when it shall reassemble."

The President. — The Convention will thus perceive that the order adopted by it provided, among other things that it is respectfully recommended to the Democratic party of the several States to make provisions for supplying all vacancies in their respectives delegation to this Convention when it shall reassemble. What is the construction of that resolution? — what is the scope of its application? — is a question not for the Chair to determine or to suggest to the Convention, but for the Convention itself to determine.

However that may be, in the preparatory arrangements for the present assembling of this Convention, there were addressed to the Chair the credentials of members elected, or purporting to be elected, affirmed and confirmed by the original Conventions and accredited to this Convention. In three of those cases, or perhaps four, the credentials were authentic and complete presenting no question of controverting delegates. In four others, to wit — the States of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Delaware — there were contesting applications. Upon those applications the Chair was called to determine whether it possessed any power to determine prima facie membership of this Convention. That question was presented in its most absolute and complete form in the case of Mississippi, where there was no contest either through irregularity of form or of competing delegations, and so also in the cases of Florida, Texas and Arkansas. In those four States, there being an apparent authenticity of commission, the Chair was called upon to determine the naked, abstract question whether he had power, peremptorily and preliminarily, to determine the prima facie membership of alleged members of this Convention. The Chair would gladly have satisfied himself that he had this power, but upon examining the source of his power, to

43

wit — the rules of the House of Representatives — he was unable to discern that he had any authority, even prima facie, to scrutinize and canvass credentials, although they were such as, upon their face, were free from contest or controversy either of form or of substance, and therefore he deemed it his duty to reserve the determination of that question to be submitted to the Convention. And in due time the Chair will present that question as one of privilege to this body.

Gentlemen, the Convention is now in order for the transaction of business.

The Address of the President was delivered in a clear, loud voice, with much emphasis, and was listened to with close attention. The statement of the position in which the business was left at the time of the adjournment at Charleston, created an evident sensation, inasmuch as it indicated that, according to the opinion of the Chair, the platform question, as well as the resolution declaring that a vote equal to two-thirds of the full electoral college to be necessary to the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency, were each in a position to be again brought up for the action of the Convention.

ADMISSION OF DELEGATES.

Mr. Howard, of Tennessee, offered the following resolution

Resolved, that the President of this Convention direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to issue tickets of admission to the delegates of the Convention as originally constituted and organized at Charleston.

Mr. Cavanaugh, of Minnesota, moved to lay the resolution on the table, and upon that motion called for a vote by States; but by request withdrew his motion to permit Mr Sanford E. Church, of N. Y., to offer the following, which was read for the information of the Convention and created much excitement:
Resolved, That the credentials of all persons claiming seats in this Convention made vacant by the secession of delegates at Charleston be referred to the Committee on Credentials, and said Committee is hereby instructed, as soon as practicable, to examine the same and report the named of persons entitled to such seats, with the district — understanding, however, that every person accepting a seat in this Convention is bound in honor and good faith to abide by the action of this Convention and support its nominations.

After a running debate on questions of order, in which Messrs. Cochrane, of N. Y., Saulsbury, of Del., Clark, of Mo., Montgomery, of Pa., Cavanaugh, of Min., and the Chair participated.

Mr. Church moved his resolution as an amendment to that offered by Mr. Howard, and upon that he called for the previous question.

Messrs. Gilmor and Randall rose to debate the question, but the Chair ruled debate not in order.

Mr. Avery, of North Carolina. — I call for a division of the question, so that the first question shall be upon referring those credentials to the Committee, and the second question upon the proposition to initiate test-oaths in the Democratic Convention. [Applause.]

The Chair could not entertain such a proposition at that time, as the previous question had been demanded. The question was — Would the Convention second the demand for the previous question?

Mr. Russell, of Va. — I ask that this Convention will allow me to make a friendly, candid and sincere appeal to the gentleman who made the call for the previous question (Mr. Church, of New-York) to withdraw his call.

The President. — The Chair has no authority over that question.

Mr. Russell. — I ask the Chair to appeal to the gentleman to allow fair play in this Convention.

Mr. Stuart, of Mich. — I insist that the Chair preserve order.

The President. — The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Russell) is not in order.

Mr. Russell. — If we are to be constrained to silence, I beg gentlemen to consider the silence of Virginia as somewhat ominous. (Applause and hisses.)

The question was stated to be upon seconding the for the previous question. Being taken viva voce, the President stated that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. Richardson, of Ill., doubted the announcement, and asked that the vote be taken by States, which was ordered.

Mr. Brodhead, of Pa., stated that Mr. Church was willing to withdraw his call for the previous question.

The Chair decided that it was too late.

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, moved a recess to 4 P. M. Lost: 73˝ to 178˝.

Mr. Howard, of Tennessee. — I hold in my hand a respectful communication from one of the States of this Union, Mississippi, not now represented upon this floor, addressed to the President of this Convention. I desire that it be read for the information of the Convention.

The President. — It can only be done by common consent, as the seconding the demand for the previous question is now pending.

Cries of "object," "object," from various quarters.

The President. — Objection being made to reading this communication, the Secretary will proceed to call the roll of States upon the seconding the demand for the previous question.

The question being then taken by States upon seconding the demand for the previous question, it was not agreed to.

YEAS. — Maine, 6; New-Hampshire, 5; Vermont, 4˝; Massachusetts, 4; Connecticut, 3˝; New-Jersey, 2; Pennsylvania, 9˝; Maryland, 2; Missouri, 2˝; Tennessee, 3; Kentucky, 1˝; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 2˝ — 108˝.

NAYS. — Maine, 2; Vermont,˝; Massachusetts, 8˝; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 2 — one absent; New-York, 35; New-Jersey, 4˝; Pennsylvania, 16˝; Delaware, 2; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 15; North Carolina, 10; Arkansas, 1; Missouri, 6˝; Tennessee, 8; Kentucky, 10˝; Minnesota, 1˝; California, 4; Oregon, 3 — 140˝.

On calling the roll, the New-York delegation asked permission to retire for consultation, and during the interim there was an entire cessation of business. The vote of the State as a unit was finally rendered against the call for the previous question.

The question was then stated to be upon the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Gilmor, of Pennsylvania, offered the following amendment to Mr. Church's resolution:
Resolved, That the President of the Convention be directed to issue tickets of admission to seats in the Convention, to the delegates from the States of Texas, Florida, Mississippi, and Arkansas, in which States there are no contesting delegations.

Without taking a vote on Mr. Gilmor's resolution, the Convention, on motion of Mr. Randall, of Pa., took a recess till 5 P. M. When the Convention reassembled, the President said:
Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania, has the floor upon an amendment moved by Mr. Gilmor, of Pennsylvania.

Before proceeding in the debate, the Chair begs leave to state to the Convention that he has had placed in his hands the credentials of gentlemen claiming seats in the Convention, from the States of Delaware, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas, including in that enumeration the letter presented to the Convention, in his place, by Mr. Howard, of Tennessee, in behalf of the gentlemen claiming seats from the State of Mississippi, and in addition to that, there has been addressed to the Chair, a communication from Mr. Chaffee, claiming a seat from the State of Massachusetts. The Chair deems it his duty to communicate the fact to the Convention that those several documents have been placed in his hands, to be presented at the proper time to the consideration of the Convention.

Mr. Gilmor, of Pennsylvania. — I have made a small addition to the amendment I offered this morning to the amendment of the gentleman from New-York (Mr. Church), for the purpose of covering the cases mentioned by the Chair just now.

The amendment, as modified, was read as follows:
Resolved, That the President of the Convention be authorized to issue tickets of admission to seats in this Convention, to the delegates from the States of Arkansas, Texas, Florida, and Mississippi, in which States there are no contesting delegations, and that in those States, to wit: Delaware, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana, where there are contesting delegations, a Committee on Credentials shall be appointed, by the several delegations, to report upon said States.

After discussing points of order, Mr. Clark, of Missouri, offered a substitute for Mr. Gilmor's amendment, which was read for the information of the Convention, as follows:
Strike out the proviso in the amendment of Mr. Church, of New-York, and add the following:
Resolved, That the citizens of the several States of the Union have an equal right to settle and remain in the

44

Territories of the United States, and to hold therein, unmolested by any legislation whatever, their slave and other property; and that this Convention recognizes the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case, as a true exposition of the Constitution in regard to the rights of the citizens of the several States and Territories of the United States, upon all subjects concerning which it treats; and that the members of this Convention pledge themselves, and require all others who may be authorized as delegates to make the same pledge, to support the Democratic candidates, fairly and in good faith, nominated by this Convention according to the usages of the National Democratic Party.

Mr. Randall then took the floor and opposed the amendment of Mr. Church, and favored that of Mr. Gilmor.

The amendment of the gentleman from New York imposes a condition upon the returning members of the several States that seceded at Charleston. I deny the power of the Convention to impose any such condition. The right of their constituents is unqualified and beyond the power of this Convention, to send their representatives to this body without condition and without limitation. (Applause and hisses). It is an interference with the right of the constituents of seven seceding States to impose any qualification upon their representatives in this body. I deny its equity or its justice. We who sit here — the honorable gentleman who moved the amendment, the President, the Vice-Presidents of this body — all who sit here, are unfettered by any such limitation or condition. (Applause.) What justice in imposing upon others the condition that they shall come in here as slaves, with the bands and the iron fetters about them. With no right to exercise their judgment or their patriotism, except as the majority of this body may choose to indicate? I deny the power or the right. The proposition has been put in the least offensive shape.

It is said in the amendment that it is "understood." Understood! an apology for the broad declaration of a naked invasion of the rights of freemen. Not that the members of this body thus admitted have denied the right, but it is understood that they are pledged to do what other members are not pledged to do — to conform to the decision of the majority. Mr. President and gentlemen, I invoke you to look at the injustice of every such qualification — a qualification which no honorable man, except under very peculiar circumstances, could ever submit to; a qualification which it is known that the representatives of these seven seceding States will never submit to. (Applause and hisses.) But, Mr. President and brethren of the great Democratic family, who are now contending for the success of the Democratic cause, I ask you to halt, not simply upon the ground of right and justice, but of policy. Not a member of this body but knows that the representatives of those States will not give any such pledge (applause and hisses); that it is tantamount to a declaration of secession from the body. (Applause and hisses.)

The debate was continued by Messrs. Richardson, of Ill., Cochrane, of N. Y., Montgomery, of Pa., Menick, of Ill., King, of Mo., and West, of Ct., against Mr. Gilmor's amendment, and by Messrs. Russell, of Va., Ewing, of Tenn., Loring, of Mass., Hanter, of Mo., Avery, of N. C., and Atkins, of Tenn., in favor. At last, Mr. Atkins moved the previous question, which was sustained, 233 to 18˝, and the Convention adjourned till Tuesday morning.

On the reassembling of the Convention, Mr. Church asked and obtained unanimous consent to make a proposition which he thought would produce harmony. He said:
Upon consultation with the gentleman (Mr. Gilmor), who moved that amendment to my amendment, we have agreed, if it meets the approbation of this Convention, for the purpose of harmonizing the action of this Convention, to an arrangement alike honorable to both sides, and which, if carried out, will terminate the controversy as to pending questions. The proposition which has been made and accepted is simply this: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gilmor) is to withdraw his amendment to my amendment, and then I am to withdraw the latter part of my resolutions, leaving only a simple resolution of reference to the Committee on Credentials. (Applause).

This proposition was accepted, and the resolution, as thus amended, was adopted without a division. Vacancies in the Committee on Credentials were filled, and the committee, as now constituted, consisted of the following gentlemen:
C. D. Jameson, Me.; A. P. Hughes, N. H.; Stephen Thomas, Vt.; Oliver Stevens, Mass.; George H. Brown, R. I.; James Gallagher, Conn.; Delos De Wolfe, N. Y.; A. R. Spear, N. J.; H. M. Forth, Pa.; W. S. Gittings, Md.; E. W. Hubbard, Va.; R. R. Bridges, N. C.; B. F. Perry, S. C.; James B. Steadman, Ohio; W. H. Carrol, Tenn.; S. A. Hall, Ind.; W. J. Allen, Ill.; John M. Krum, Mo.; Benj. Follet, Mich.; D. O. Finch, Iowa; P. H. Smith, Wis.; H. H. Sibley, Minn.; J. H. Beverly, Del.; Isaac J. Stevens, Oregon; G. H. Morrow, Kentucky; D. S. Gregory, Cal.

A paper was presented from Mr O' Fallon, of Missouri, who had acted at Charleston in the place of one of the regularly appointed delegates from that State, but had been refused a ticket in Baltimore, asking admission. — His case was referred to the Committee on Credentials.

The memorial of the contesting delegates from Arkansas was also presented, and was handed to the Committee on Credentials. And the Committee took a recess till 5 P. M., at which time it reassembled, but, the Committee on Credentials not being ready to report, the Convention, without transacting any business, adjourned to 10 o'clock the following day, 20th.

The Convention met at the usual hour, on Wednesday, the 20th, but, in consequence of the delay of the Committee on Credentials in reporting, no business was transacted.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS.

On Thursday, the 21st, the Committee on Credentials presented their report, or rather reports, for there were three; the majority report being presented by Mr. Krum, of Missouri, as follows

1st. Resolved, That George H. Gordon, E. Barksdale, W. F. Barry, H. C. Chambers, Jos. R. Davis, Beverly Matthew, Charles Clarke, W. L. Featherston, P. F. Slidell, C. G. Armistead, W. F. Avaunt, and T. J. Hucston, are entitled to seats in this Convention as delegates from the State of Mississippi.

2d. Resolved, That Pierre Soule, F. Cotterman, R. C. Wickliffe, Michael Ryan, Maunsell White, Charles Bienvenala, Gustav Lenroy, J. C. Morse, A. S. Heron, N. D. Colburn, J. N. T. Richardson and J. L. Walker are entitled to seats in this Convention as delegates from the State of Louisiana.

3d. Resolved, That R. W. Johnson, T. C. Hindman, J. P. Johnson, Henry Carroll, J. Could, and John A. Jordan, be entitled to seats as Delegates from the State of Arkansas, with power to cast two votes, and that Thomas H. Bradley, M. Hooper, and D. C. Cross be also admitted to seats as delegates from the same State, with power to cast one vote; and, in case either portion of said delegates shall refuse or neglect to take their said seats and to cast their said votes, the other portion of said delegates taking seats in this Convention shall be entitled to cast the entire three votes of said State.

4th. Resolved, That J. M. Bryan, F. R. Lubbock, F. S. Stockdale, E. Green, H. R. Runnels, Wm. B. Ochiltree, M. W. Carey, Wm. H. Parrows, R. Ward, J. F. Crosby, B. Burrows, and V. H. Manning are entitled to seats from Texas.

5th. Resolved, That James A. Bayard and William G. Whiteley are entitled to seats from the county of New Castle, Del.

6th. Resolved, That K. S. Chaffee, who was duly admitted at Charleston as a delegate from the fifth congressional district of Massachusetts, is still entitled to said seat in this Convention, and that B. F. Hallett, who has assumed said seat, is not entitled thereto.

7th. Resolved, That John O' Fallon, who was duly admitted at Charleston as a delegate from the eighth electoral district of Missouri, is still entitled to said seat in this Convention, and that Johnson B. Gardy, who has assumed said seat, is not entitled thereto.

8th. Resolved, That R. A. Baker, D. C. Humphrey, John Forsyth, Wm. Jewett, I. I. Seibles, S. C. Posey, L. E. Parsons, Joseph C. Bradley, Thomas B. Cooper, James Williams, C. H. Brynan, Daniel W. Weakley, L. M. B. Martyr, John W. Howard, W. R. R. Wyatt, B. Hanson, Thos. M. Matthews, and Norbert M. Lord are entitled to seats in the Convention as delegates from the State of Alabama.

9th. Resolved, That the delegation from the State of Georgia, of which H. L. Benning is chairman, be admitted to seats in the Convention, with power to cast one half of the vote of said State, and that the delegation from said State, of which Col. Gardner is chairman, be also admitted to the Convention, with power to cast one half of the vote of said State; and if either of said delegations refuse or neglect to cast the vote as above indicated, that in said case the delegates present in the Convention be authorized to cast the full vote of said State.

45

Mr. Stevens, of Oregon. — I rise, Mr. President, to present the report of a minority of the Committee on credentials, and I will proceed to read it;

MINORITY REPORT.

To the President of the Democratic National Convention:
Sir: We, the undersigned, members of the Committee on Credentials, feel constrained to dissent from many of the views and a large portion of the action of the majority of the Committee in respect to the rights of delegates to seats referred to them by the Convention, and to respectfully recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:
1. Resolved, That B. F. Hallett is entitled to a seat in this Convention, as a delegate from the 5th Congressional district of the State of Massachusetts.

2. Resolved, That Johnson B. Gardy is entitled to a seat in this Convention as a delegate from the 8th Congressional district of the State of Missouri.

3. Resolved, That James A. Bayard and William G. Whiteley are entited to seats in this Convention as delegates from the State of Delaware.

4. Resolved, That the delegation headed by R. W. Johnson are entitled to seats in this Convention as delegates from the State of Arkansas.

5. Resolved, That the delegation of which George W. Bryan is chairman are entitled to seats in this Convention from the State of Texas.

6. Resolved, That the delegation of which John Tarleton is chairman are entitled to seats in this convention as delegates from the State of Louisiana.

7. Resolved, That the delegation of which L. P. Walker is chairman are entitled to seats in this Convention as delegates from the State of Alabama.

8. That the delegation of which Henry L. Benning is chairman are entitled to seats in this Convention as delegates from the State of Georgia.

9. Resolved, That the delegation from the State of Florida accredited to the Charleston Convention are invited to take seats in this Convention and cast the vote of the State of Florida.

This Committee presented an elaborately argued report to sustain their resolutions, which was signed by
I. I. STEVENS, Oregon,
R. SPEER, N. J.,
H. M. NORTH, Penn.,
JOHN H. BEWLEY, Del.,
E. W. HUBBARD, Va.,
R. R. BRIDGERS, N. C.,
W. H. CARROLL, Tenn.,
GEO. H. MORROW, Ky.,
D. S. GREGORY, Cal.

In the points of difference between the majority and minority reports of the Committee on Credentials, I concur in the conclusions of the minority report in the cases of Georgia, Alabama, Missouri and Massachusetts.
AARON V. HUGHES, New-Hampshire.

Mr. Gittings, of Maryland, presented still another report, concluding with the following resolutions

Resolved, That so much of the majority report of the Committee on Credentials as relates to Massachusetts, Missouri, Delaware, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas, be adopted.

Resolved, That the delegation of which L. P. Walker is chairman, be, and they are hereby, declared the only regularly authorized representatives of the State of Alabama, and as such are entitled to seats in the National Democratic Convention.

Mr. Stevens demanded the previous question, which was sustained by the Convention, and the main question was ordered, but, without taking the vote, the Convention adjourned.

When the Convention assembled on the 22d, Mr. Gittings withdrew his report, which brought the minority report proper — that of Mr. Stevens, of Oregon — first in order, and the question being put on the substitution of the whole minority report for the report of the majority, the motion was lost, 100˝ to 150, as follows

YEAS — Maine, 2˝; New-Hampshire,˝; Vermont, 1˝; Massachusetts, 8; Connecticut, 2˝; New-Jersey, 4; Pennsylvania, 17; Delaware, 2; Maryland, 5˝; Virginia, 14; North Carolina, 9; Arkansas,˝; Missouri, 5; Tennessee, 10; Kentucky, 10; Minnesota, 1˝; California, 4; Oregon, 3 — l00˝.

NAYS — Maine, 5˝; New-Hampshire, 4˝; Vermont, 3˝; Massachusetts, 5; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 3˝; New-York, 35; New-Jersey, 3; Pennsylvania, 10; Maryland, 2; Virginia, 1; North Carolina, 1; Arkansas,˝; Missouri, 4; Tennessee, 1; Kentucky, 2; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 2˝ — 150.

Maryland,˝ vote not voted; Tennessee, 1 vote not cast.

The question then recurred on adopting the majority report. A division being called for, the vote was taken on the first resolution, admitting the original delegates from Mississipsi, which was adopted almost unanimously, 250 to 2˝.

The vote was then taken on the second resolution, admitting the Soule (Douglas) Delegates from Louisiana, which resulted — Ays, 153; Nays, 98 — as follows:
YEAS — Maine, 5˝; New-Hampshire, 4˝; Vermont, 4˝; Massachusetts, 5; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 3˝; New-York, 35; New Jersey, 2˝; Pennsylvania, 10; Maryland, 2˝; Virginia, 1; North Carolina, 2; Arkansas,˝; Missouri, 4; Tennessee, 2; Kentucky, 2; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 2˝ — 153.

NAYS — Maine, 2˝; New-Hampshire,˝; Vermont,˝; Massachusetts, 8; Connecticut, 2˝; New-Jersey, 4˝; Pennsylvania, 17; Delaware, 2; Maryland, 5˝; Virginia, 13; North Carolina, 8; Arkansas,˝; Missouri, 5; Tennessee, 10; Kentucky, 10; Minnesota, 1˝; California, 4; Oregon, 3 — 93.

So the second resolution was adopted.

The question was then taken on the third resolution, admitting Col. Hindman and his colleagues (the original delegates) with power to cast two votes, and Mr. Hooper and his colleagues (the contestants) with power to cast one vote; and providing that, if either set of delegates refuse to take seats, the other shall be entitled to cast the whole vote of the State, (Arkansas).

A division of the question being called for, the President decided that the resolution was divisible.

The question was taken on the three several propositions, viz.: — 1st. The admission of the Hindman delegates, which was adopted, 182 to 69. 2d. The admission of the Hooper delegates, which was adopted, 150 to 100˝. 3d. On the giving power to one set to cast the whole vote if the other set withdrew, which was adopted without a division.

A vote was then taken on the fourth resolution of the majority report, admitting the original delegation from the State of Texas, which was adopted almost unanimously.

A vote was next taken on the fifth resolution, admitting Bayard and Whiteley from Delaware. Adopted without division.

The sixth resolution, giving R. L. Chaffee the seat in the Massachusetts delegation contested by Mr. Hallett, was then adopted — yeas, 138, nays, 111˝.

Mr. Stuart, of Michigan, at this point, made motions to reconsider each vote taken, and to lay the same on the table, it being understood that the motions were not to be put till votes on all the propositions had been taken.

The seventh resolution, declaring J. O' Fallon entitled to the seat in the Missouri delegation claimed by John B. Gardy, was then adopted — yeas, 138˝, nays, 112.

The eighth resolution, admitting the contesting delegates from Alabama, was next adopted. Yeas, 148˝; Nays, 101˝.

The question then being on the ninth and last resolution of the majority report, admitting both delegations from Georgia, and dividing the vote of the State between them, with the provision that, if either refused to take seats, the remaining delegates cast the vote of the State.

Before the vote was taken, Mr. Seward, of Georgia, presented a communication from Col. Gardner, Chairman of the contesting delegates from Georgia, withdrawing from the contest, and the resolution was lost — 106˝ to 145. The original (seceding) delegation from Georgia, headed by H. L. Benning, was subsequently admitted.

The President stated the next question to be upon laying upon the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Convention refused to substitute the resolutions reported by the minority of the Committee on Credentials for those reported by the majority of said Committee.

The question being then taken by States, the motion to lay on the table was not agreed to — yeas, 113˝; Nays, 128˝ — as follows:
YEAS — Maine, 5˝; New-Hampshire, 3; Vermont, 4˝; Massachusetts, 5; Rhode Island, 4, Connecticut, 3˝;

46

New-Jersey, 3˝; Pennsylvania, 10; Maryland, 2; North Carolina, 1; Arkansas,˝; Missouri, 4˝; Kentucky, 2; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 2˝ — 113˝.

NAYS — Maine, 2˝; New-Hampshire, 2; Vermont,˝; Massachusetts, 8; Connecticut, 2˝; New-York, 35; New-Jersey, 3˝; Pennsylvania, 17; Delaware, 2; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 15; North Carolina, 9; Arkansas,˝; Missouri, 4˝; Tennessee, 12; Kentucky, 10; Minnesota, 1˝; California, 4; Oregon, 3 — 138˝.

When New-York was called, her delegates asked time to consult, but finally gave her thirty-five votes against the motion to lay upon the table, which, had it prevailed, would have precluded all further reconsideration of the subject.

The question recurred upon the motion to reconsider the vote rejecting the minority resolutions.

Mr. Cessna, of Pa., moved the previous question, which was sustained, and the question being taken by States, the motion to reconsider was rejected — 103 to 149 — as follows:
YEAS — Maine, 2˝; New-Hampshire, 2; Vermont, 1; Massachusetts, 8; Connecticut, 2˝; New-Jersey, 4˝; Pennsylvania, 17; Delaware, 2; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 15; North Carolina, 9; Arkansas,˝; Missouri, 4˝; Tennessee, 10; Kentucky, 10; Minnesota, 1˝; California, 4; Oregon, 3 — 103.

NAYS — Maine, 5˝; New-Hampshire, 3; Vermont, 4; Massachusetts, 5; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 3˝; New-York, 35; New-Jersey, 2˝; Pennsylvania, 10; Maryland, 2; North Carolina, l; Arkansas,˝; Missouri, 4˝; Tennessee, 2; Kentucky, 2; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 2˝ — 149.

The several motions to lay on the table the question of reconsidering the votes by which each of the resolutions of the majority had been adopted, were then put and carried in the affirmative, and the several delegates who had been voted in were then admitted to seats.

VIRGINIA WITHDRAWS.

Mr. Russell, of Virginia. — If it be the pleasure of yourself, Mr. President and the Convention, I will now make the brief announcement of which I made mention this morning.

I will detain the Convention but a very brief time. I understand that the action of this Convention upon the various questions arising out of the reports from the Committee on Credentials has become final, complete and irrevocable. And it has become my duty now, by direction of a large majority of the delegation from Virginia, respectfully to inform this body that it is inconsistent with their convictions of duty to participate longer in its deliberations. (Loud applause in the Convention and in the galleries, with loud cries from the galleries.)

The disorder continued for some minutes, after which Mr. Russell resumed — The delegates from Virginia, who participate in this movement, have come to the conclusion which I have announced, after long, mature and anxious deliberation, and after, in their judgment, having exhausted all honorable efforts to obviate this necessity. In addition to the facts which appear upon your record, I desire the attention of this body long enough only to state that it is ascertained that the delegations to which you, sir, under the order of this Convention, have just directed tickets to be issued — some of them at least and all of them whom we regard as the representatives of the Democracy of their States — will decline to join here in the deliberations of this body. For the rest, the reasons which impel us to take this important step will be rendered to those to whom only we are responsible, the Democracy of the Old Dominion. To you, sir, and to the body over which you preside, I have only to say in addition that we bid you a respectful adieu.

The portion of the delegation from Virginia which retired then left their seats and proceeded out of the Hall, shaking hands with members of various delegations as they passed along.

Mr. Moffatt, of Virginia — made a speech in defense of his course, and that of his colleagues who remained in the Convention.

WITHDRAWAL OF NORTH CAROLINA.

Mr. Lander, of North Carolina. — Mr. President, painful as the duty is, it is, nevertheless, my duty to announce here, as a representative of the delegates from North Carolina, that a very large majority of them are compelled to retire permanently from this Convention on account of the unjust action, as we conceive, that has this day been perpetrated upon some of our sovereign States and fellow citizens of the South. We of the South have heretofore maintained and supported the Northern Democracy for the reason that they are willing to attribute to us in the South equality in the Union. The vote to-day has satisfied the majority of the North Carolina delegates that, that being refused by our brethren of the Northern Democracy, North Carolina — Rip Van Winkle, as you may call her — can no longer remain in this Convention. The rights of sovereign States and of gentlemen of the South have been denied by a majority of this body. We cannot act, as we conceive, in view of this wrong. I use the word "wrong" with no intention to reflect upon those gentlemen of the North Carolina delegation who differ with me or with the majority of the delegation. For these reasons, without assigning any more, as I have no idea of inflicting a speech upon this Convention, who are in no state of preparation to receive it, I announce that eight out of ten of the votes of North Carolina ask to retire.

WITHDRAWAL OF TENNESSEE.

Mr. Ewing, of Tennessee. — Mr. President, in behalf of the delegation from Tennessee, I beg leave to address this Convention upon this occasion, so important, and, to us, so solemn in its consequences. The delegation from Tennessee have exhibited, so far as they knew how, every disposition to harmonize this Convention, and to bring its labors to a happy result. They were the first, when the majority platform was not adopted, to seek for some proposition for compromise — something that would enable us to harmonize. They have a candidate who was dear to them. They cast away his prospect for the sake of harmony. They have yielded all that they can. They have endeavored, with all their power, to accomplish the result they came here for; but they fear that the result is not to be accomplished in a manner that can render a just and proper account to their constituents. We have consulted together, and, after anxious and long deliberation, without knowing exactly what phase this matter might finally present, we have not adopted any decisive rule for our action; but a large majority of our delegates — same twenty to four — have decided that, upon the result now obtained, we shall ask leave of this Convention to retire, that we may consult and announce our final action. We shall take no further part in the deliberations of this Convention, unless our minds should change; and of that I can offer you no reasonable hope.

A PORTION OF MARYLAND WITHDRAWS.

Mr. Johnson, of Maryland. — Mr. President, I am authorized by my colleagues to report the state of facts in regard to a portion of the Maryland delegation. Representing, in part, a district in Maryland upon which the first blood of the irrepressible conflict was shed, a district which sent fifteen men in midwinter to the rescue of Philadelphia and New-Jersey, we are obliged now to take a step which dissolves our connection with you, and to bid you a final adieu. We have made all sacrifices for the grand old Democratic party, whose mission it has been to preserve the Constitution and to care for the Republic for more than sixty years, until it now seems as if you were going to substitute a man in the place of principle. (Calls to order.) I desire to be respectful. I desire to say that the action of the majority of the late Convention — a majority created by the operation of a technical unit rule imposed upon the Convention contrary to Democratic precedent and usage — States have been disfranchised, and districts deprived of their rights, until, in our opinion, it is no longer consistent with our honor or our rights, or the rights of our constituents, to remain here. Cherishing deeply and warmly the remembrance of the many gallant deeds you have done for us in times past, hoping that hereafter no occasion may ever occur to weaken this feeling, I now, on behalf of the representatives of Maryland, tell you that in all future time, and in all future contests, our lot is cast with the people of the South. Their God shall be our God, and their country our country. (Applause.)

Mr. Glass, of Virginia, declined any further participation in the proceedings of the Convention, but did not indorse the action of his colleagues in withdrawing.

Mr. Watterson, of Tennessee, declined to withdraw.

CALIFORNIA WITHDRAWS — AN EXCITEMENT.

Mr. Smith, of California, said: While I cannot say with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jones) that my Democracy dates back to that time of which I have no recollection, yet I can say that it is unspotted as the vault of heaven. California is here with melancholy face — California is here with a lacerated heart, bleeding and weeping over the downfall and the destruction of the

47

Democratic party. (Applause and laughter.) Yes, sir, the destruction of the Democratic party, consummated by assassins now grinning upon this floor. (Loud cries of "order," "order," "put him out," and great confusion.)

DELAWARE WITHDRAWS.

Mr. Saulsbury did not desire to occupy the attention of the Convention but for a moment. The delegates from his State had done all in their power to promote the harmony and unity of this Convention, and it was their purpose to continue to do so. I am, however, instructed by the delegation to announce that they desire to be excused from voting on any further ballots or votes, unless circumstances should alter this determination. It is our desire to be left free to act or not act, their desire being to leave the question open for the consideration of their constituents after their return home.

Mr. Steele, of North Carolina, briefly addressed the Convention, stating that he, for the present, at least, should not retire.

After explanations and debate, the motion "Shall the main question be now put," (to go into nomination of candidates for President and Vice-President) was carried, and the Convention adjourned.

KENTUCKY WITHDRAWS IN PART.

On Saturday (23d), Mr. Caldwell, of Kentucky, in behalf of the delegation from that State, said:
The circumstances in which we (the Kentucky Delegation) are placed are exceedingly embarrassing, and we have not therefore been enabled to come to an entirely harmonious conclusion. The result, is, however, that nine of the delegates of Kentucky remain in the Convention. (applause.) There are ten delegates who withdraw from the Convention.

The exact character of their withdrawal is set forth in a single paragraph, with their names appended, which I desire the Secretary to read before I sit down. There are five others — completing the delegation — who desire for the present to suspend their connection with the action of this Convention. I will add here, that there may be no misunderstanding, that I myself am one of those five, and we have also signed a short paper, which I shall also ask the Secretary to read to the Convention.

I am requested by those who withdraw from the Convention, and by those who suspend their action for the present with the Convention, to say that it is their wish that their seats in this Convention shall not be filled or occupied by any others; and that no one shall claim the right to cast their votes. The right of those remaining in the Convention to cast their individual vote, is not by us questioned in any degree. But we enter our protest against any one casting our vote.

I will ask the Secretary to read the papers I have indicated, and also one which a gentleman of our delegation has handed me, which he desires to be read. I ask that the three papers be read.

The first paper read was signed James G. Leach, the writer of which animadverted in rather strong terms upon the action of the Convention, in the matter of the admission and rejection of delegates from certain States. The communication was regarded as disrespectful to the Convention, and, on motion of Mr. Payne, of Ohio, it was returned to the writer. The Secretary then read the other two communications from the Kentucky delegation as follows

To the Hon. Caleb Cushing, President of the National Democratic Convention, assembled in the city of Baltimore:
The Democratic Convention for the State of Kentucky, held in the city of Frankfort, on the 9th day of January, 1860, among others, adopted the following resolution:
Resolved, That we pledge the Democracy of Kentucky to an honest and industrious support of the nominee of the Charleston Convention.

Since the adoption of this resolution, and the assembling of this Convention, events have transpired not then contemplated, notwithstanding which we have labored diligently to preserve the harmony and unity of said Convention; but discord and disintegration have prevailed to such an extent that we feel that our efforts cannot accomplish this end.

Therefore, without intending to vacate our seats, or to join or participate in any other Convention or organization in this city, and with the intention of again cooperating with this Convention, should its unity and harmony be restored by any future event, we now declare that we will not participate in the meantime in the deliberations of this Convention, nor hold ourselves or constituents bound by its action, but leave both at full liberty to act as future circumstances may dictate.

N. W. WILLIAMSON,
G. A. CALDWELL,
W. BRADLEY,
SAMUEL B. FIELD,
THOS. J. YOUNG.

Resolved, That the Chairman of our delegation be instructed to inform the Convention in our behalf that, in the present condition of that body, we deem it inconsistent with our duty to ourselves and our constituents to participate further in its deliberations. Our reasons for so doing will be given to the Democracy of Kentucky.

JNO. DISHMAN,
J. S. KENDALL,
JOS. B. BECK,
D. W. QUARLES,
COLBERT CECIL,
L. GREEN,
R. M. JOHNSON,
CAL. BUTLER,
R. NICKEE,
JAMES G. LEACH.

Mr. Reed, of Ky., spoke briefly in defense of the course of the nine delegates from that State, who remained with the Convention.

MISSOURI DEFINES HER POSITION.

Mr. Clark, of Missouri, announced as the result of a consultation of a portion of the Missouri delegation, that two of that delegation had decided to withdraw from the Convention.

Mr. Hill, of N. C., who had refused to retire with his colleagues on the previous day, now announced his intention of withdrawing.

Mr. Cessna, of Pennsylvania, called for the vote upon his resolution to proceed to nominate candidates for President and Vice-President.

MR. CUSHING RESIGNS THE CHAIR.

Mr. Cushing resigned his post as presiding officer, in a brief speech, and left the chair.

Gov. Tod, of Ohio, immediately assumed the chair, and was greeted with enthusiastic and hearty cheers. After order was restored, he said

As the present presiding officer of this Convention by common consent of my brother Vice-Presidents, with great diffidence I assume the chair. When I announce to you that for thirty-four years I have stood up in that district so long misrepresented by Joshua R. Giddings, with the Democratic banner in my hand (applause), I know that I shall receive the good wishes of this Convention, at least, for the discharge of the duties of the chair. If there are no privileged questions intervening, the Secretary will proceed with the call of the States.

MASSACHUSETTS DESIRES A HEARING.

Mr. Butler, of Mass., addressed the chair, and desired to present a protest. Objection was made by Mr. Cavanaugh, of Minnesota, and the States were called on the question of proceeding to a vote for President. When Massachusetts was called, Mr. Butler said: Mr. President, I have the instruction of a majority of the delegation from Massachusetts to present a written protest, I will send it to the Chair to have it read. (Calls to order.) And further, with your leave, I desire to say what I think will be pleasant to this Convention. First, that, while a majority of the delegation from Massachusetts do not purpose further to participate in the doings of this Convention, we desire to part, if we may, to meet you as friends and Democrats again. We desire to part in the same spirit of manly courtesy with which we came together. Therefore, if you will allow me, instead of reading to you a long document, I will state, within parliamentary usage, exactly the reasons why we take the step we do.

Thanking the Convention for their courtesy, allow me to say that though we have protested against the action of this body excluding the delegates, although we are not satisfied with that action —

We have not discussed the question, Mr. President, whether the action of the Convention, in excluding certain delegates, could be any reason for withdrawal. We now put our withdrawal before you, upon the simple ground, among others, that there has been a withdrawal in part of a majority of the States, and further (and that, perhaps, more personal to myself), upon the ground that I will not sit in a Convention where the African

48

slave-trade — which is piracy by the laws of my country — is approvingly advocated. (Great sensation.)

A portion of the Massachusetts delegation here retired.

Mr. Stevens, of Massachusetts, said — I am not ready at this moment to cast the vote of Massachusetts, the delegation being in consultation as to their rights.

The call proceeded, the chairman of each Convention making a speech on delivering the vote of his State; and Mr. Stevens finally stated that, although a portion of the Massachusetts delegation had withdrawn, he was instructed by his remaining colleagues to cast the entire vote of the State.

Mr. Russell, of New York, withdrew the name of Horatio Seymour as a candidate. The following is the result of the ballotings for President:

  First Ballot. Second Ballot.
States Douglas Breckinridge Guthrie Douglas Breckinridge Guthrie
Maine 5˝ 7
New-Hampshire 5 6
Vermont 5 6
Massachusetts 10 10
Rhode Island 4 4
Connecticut 3˝ 1 3˝ ˝
New-York 35 35
New-Jersey 2˝ 2˝
Pennsylvania 10 3 3 10 7 2˝
Maryland 2˝ 2˝
Virginia 1˝ 3
North Carolina 1 1
Alabama 9 9
Louisiana 6 6
Arkansas 1 ˝ 1˝
Missouri 4˝ 1˝ 4˝ 1˝
Tennessee 3 3
Kentucky 4˝ 3 1˝
Ohio 23 28
Indiana 13 18
Illinois 11 11
Michigan 6 6
Wisconsin 6 5
Iowa 4 4
Minnesota 2˝ ˝ 1 4
Total 173˝ 5 10 181˝ 7˝ 5˝

On the first ballot, Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, received˝ a vote from Maryland; Bocock, of Va., received 1 vote from Virginia; Daniel S. Dickinson,˝ vote from Virginia and Horatio Seymour 1 vote from Pennsylvania.

On the announcement of the first ballot, Mr. Church, of New-York, offered the following:
Resolved unanimously, That Stephen A. Douglas, of the State of Illinois, having now received two-thirds of all the votes given in this Convention, is hereby declared, in accordance with the rules governing this body, and in accordance with the uniform customs and rules of former Democratic National Conventions, the regular nominee of the Democratic party of the United States, for the office of President of the United States.

Mr. Jones, of Pennsylvania, raised the point of order, that the resolution proposed practically to rescind a rule of the Convention (requiring two-thirds of a full Convention, 202 votes, to nominate), and could not, under the rules, be adopted without one day's notice.

The Chair ruled that the resolution was in order, and after a lengthy and animated debate it was withdrawn till after another ballot should be taken. When the result of the second ballot had been announced, Mr. Church's resolution was called up again and passed.

Benj. Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, was nominated for Vice-President, receiving 198˝ votes, and Mr. William C. Alexander, of N. J., 1. [Mr. Fitzpatrick declined the nomination two days afterward, and the National Committee supplied the vacancy, by the nomination of Hershel V. Johnson, of Georgia].

Gov. Wickliffe, of Louisiana, offered the following resolution as an addition to the Platform adopted at Charleston:
Resolved, That in its accordance with the interpretation of the Cincinnati Platform, that, during the existence of the Territorial Governments, the measure of restriction, whatever it may be, 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 enforced with promptness and fidelity by every branch of the General Government.

Mr. Payne, of Ohio, moved the previous question, and this resolution was adopted, with only two dissenting votes.

THE SECEDERS' CONVENTION.

The delegates who had withdrawn from the Convention at the Front-Street Theater, together with the delegations from Louisiana and Alabama, who were refused admission to that Convention, met at the Maryland Institute on Saturday the 28th of June. Twenty-one States were represented either by full or partial delegations.

The States not represented at all were Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New-Hampshire, New-Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

The Hon. Caleb Cushing, of Massachusetts, was chosen to preside, assisted by vice-presidents and secretaries.

The Convention adopted a rule requiring a vote of two-thirds of all the delegates present to nominate candidates for President and Vice-President; also that each delegate cast the vote to which he is entitled, and that each State cast only the number of votes to which it is entitled by its actual representation in the Convention.

The delegates from South Carolina and Florida accredited to the Richmond Convention, were invited to take seats in this.

A committee of five, of which Mr. Caleb Cushing was chairman, was appointed to address the Democracy of the Union upon the principles which have governed the Convention in making the nominations, and in vindication of the principles of the party. The Convention also decided that the next Democratic National Convention be held at Philadelphia.

Mr. Avery, of N. C., chairman of Committee on Resolutions, reported, with the unanimous sanction of the Committee, the Platform reported by the majority of the Platform Committee at Charleston, and rejected by the Convention, (see page 30) which was unanimously adopted.

The Convention adopted a resolution instructing the National Committee not to issue tickets of admission to their next National Convention in any case where there is a bona fide contestant.

The Convention then proceeded to ballot for a candidate for President; and John C. Breckinridge, of Ky., received the unanimous vote of the delegates present as follows:

Vermont ˝
Massachusetts 8
New-York 2
Pennsylvania 4
Maryland 4
Virginia 11˝
North Carolina 8˝
Georgia 10
Florida 3
Alabama 9
Louisiana 6
Mississippi 7
Texas 4
Arkansas 4
Missouri 1
Tennessee 9˝
Kentucky 4˝
Minnesota 1
California 4
Oregon 3
  105

For Vice-President Gen. Joseph Lane, of Oregon, received the unanimous vote of the Convention (105), on the first ballot. And then, after listening to a speech from Mr. Yancy, the Convention adjourned sine die.

49

A History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction. Mainly by Documents.

Slavery in the Colonies.

Lust of gold and power was the main impulse of Spanish migration to the regions beyond the Atlantic. And the soft and timid Aborigines of tropical America, especially of its islands, were first compelled to surrender whatever they possessed of the precious metals to the imperious and grasping strangers; next forced to disclose to those strangers the sources whence they were most readily obtained; and finally driven to toil and delve for more, wherever power and greed supposed they might most readily be obtained. From this point, the transition to general enslavement was ready and rapid. The gentle and indolent natives, unaccustomed to rugged, persistent toil, and revolting at the harsh and brutal severity of their Christian masters, had but one unfailing resource — death. Through privation, hardship, exposure, fatigue and despair, they drooped and died, until millions were reduced to a few miserable thousands within the first century of Spanish rule in America.

A humane and observant priest (Las Casas,) witnessing these cruelties and sufferings, was moved by pity to devise a plan for their termination. He suggested and urged the policy of substituting for these feeble and perishing "Indians" the hardier natives of Western Africa, whom their eternal wars and marauding invasions were constantly exposing to captivity and sale as prisoners of war, and who, as a race, might be said to be inured to the hardships and degradations of Slavery by an immemorial experience.

The suggestion was unhappily approved, and the woes and miseries of the few remaining Aborigines of the islands known to us as "West Indies," were inconsiderably prolonged by exposing the whole continent for unnumbered generations to the evils and horrors of African Slavery. The author lived to perceive and deplore the consequences of his expedient.

The sanction of the Pope having been obtained for the African Slave-trade by representations which invested it with a look of philanthropy, Spanish and Portuguese mercantile avarice was readily enlisted in its prosecution and the whole continent. North and South of the tropics, became a Slave-mart before the close of the sixteenth century.

Holland, a comparatively new and Protestant State, unable to shelter itself from the reproaches of conscience and humanity behind a Papal bull, entered upon the new traffic more tardily; but its profits soon overbore all scruples, and British merchants were not proof against the glittering evidences of their success. But the first slave ship that ever entered a North American port for the sale of its human merchandise, was a Dutch trading-vessel which landed twenty negro bondmen at Jamestown, the nucleus of Virginia, almost simultaneously with the landing of the Pilgrims of the Mayflower on Plymouth Rock, December 22d, 1620.

The Dutch slaver had chosen his market with sagacity. Virginia was settled by CAVALIERS — gentlemen-adventurers aspiring to live by their own wits and other men's labor — with the necessary complement of followers and servitors. Few other pioneers cherished any earnest liking for downright, persistent, muscular exertion; yet some exertion was urgently required to clear away the heavy forest which all but covered the soil of the infant colony, and grow the tobacco which early became its staple export, by means of which nearly everything required by its people but food was to be paid for in England. The slaves, therefore, found ready purchasers at satisfactory prices, and the success of the first venture induced others; until not only Virginia but every part of British America was supplied with African slaves.

This traffic, with the bondage it involved, had no justification in British nor in the early colonial laws; but it proceeded, nevertheless, much as an importation of dromedaries to replace with presumed economy our horses and oxen might now do. Georgia was the first among the colonies to resist and condemn it in her original charter under the lead other noble founder-governor, General Oglethorpe; but the evil was too formidable and inveterate for local extirpation, and a few years saw it established, even in Georgia; first evading or defying, and at length molding and transforming the law.

50

It is very common at this day to speak of our revolutionary struggle as commenced and hurried forward by a union of Free and Slave colonies; but such is not the fact. However slender and dubious its legal basis, Slavery existed in each and all of the colonies that united to declare and maintain their independence, Slaves were proportionately more numerous in certain portions of the South; but they were held with impunity throughout the North, advertised like dogs or horses, and sold at auction, or otherwise, as chattels. Vermont, then a territory in dispute between New-Hampshire and New-York, and with very few civilized inhabitants, mainly on its Southern and Eastern borders, is probably the only portion of the revolutionary confederation never polluted by the tread of a slave.

The spirit of liberty, aroused or intensified by the protracted struggle of the colonists against usurped and abused power in the mother country, soon found itself engaged in natural antagonism against the current form of domestic despotism. "How shall we complain of arbitrary or unlimited power exerted over us, while we exert a still more despotic and inexcusable power over a dependent and benighted race?" was very fairly asked. Several suits were brought in Massachusetts — where the fires of liberty burnt earliest and brightest — to test the legal right of slave-holding; and the leading Whigs gave their money and their legal services to support these actions, which were generally, on one ground or another, successful. Efforts for an express law of emancipation, however, failed even in Massachusetts; the Legislature, doubtless, apprehending that such a measure, by alienating the slave-holders, would increase the number and power of the Tories; but in 1777, a privateer having brought a lot of captured slaves into Jamaica, and advertised them for sale, the General Court, as the Legislative Assembly was called, interfered and had them set at liberty. The first Continental Congress which resolved to resist the usurpations and oppressions of Great Britain by force, had already declared that our struggle would be "for the rights of human nature," which the Congress of 1776, under the lead of Thomas Jefferson, expanded into the noble affirmation of the right of "all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," contained in the immortal preamble to the Declaration of Independence. A like averment that "all men are born free and equal," was in 1780 inserted in the Massachusetts Bill of Rights; and the Supreme Court of that State, in 1783, on an indictment of a master for assault and battery, held this declaration a bar to slave-holding henceforth in the State.

A similar clause in the second Constitution of New-Hampshire was held by the courts of that State to secure Freedom to every child, born therein after its adoption. Pennsylvania, in 1780, passed an act prohibiting the further introduction of slaves, and securing Freedom to all persons born in that State thereafter. Connecticut and Rhode-Island passed similar acts in 1784. Virginia, in 1778, on motion of Mr. Jefferson, prohibited the further importation of slaves; and in 1782, removed all legal restrictions emancipation: Maryland adopted both of these in 1783. North-Carolina, in 1786, declared the introduction of slaves into that State "of evil consequence, and highly impolitic," and imposed a duty of Ł5 per head thereon. New-York and New-Jersey followed the example of Virginia and Maryland, including the domestic in the same interdict with the foreign slave-trade. Neither of these States, however, declared a general emancipation until many years thereafter, and Slavery did not wholly cease in New-York until about 1830, nor in New-Jersey till a much later date. The distinction of Free and Slave States, with the kindred assumption of a natural antagonism between the North and South, was utterly unknown to the men of the Revolution.

Before the Declaration of Independence, but during the intense ferment which preceded it, and distracted public attention from everything else, Lord Mansfield had rendered his judgment from the King's Bench, which expelled Slavery from England, and ought to have destroyed it in the colonies as well. The plaintiff in this famous case was James Somerset, a native of Africa, carried to Virginia as a slave, taken thence by his master to England, and there incited to resist the claim of his master to his services, and assert his right to liberty. In the first recorded case, involving the legality of modern Slavery in England, it was held (1677) that negroes, "being usually bought and sold among merchants as merchandise, and also being infidels, there might be a property in them sufficient to maintain trover." But this was overruled by Chief Justice Holt from the King's Bench (1697,) ruling that "so soon as a negro lands in England, he is free;" and again, (1702) that "there is no such thing as a slave by the law of England." This judgment proving exceedingly troublesome to planters and merchants from slave-holding colonies visiting the mother country with their servants, the merchants concerned in the American trade, in 1729, procured from Yorke and Talbot, the Attorney General and Solicitor General of the Crown, a written opinion that negroes, legally enslaved elsewhere, might be held as slaves in England, and that even baptism was no bar to the master's claim. This opinion was, in 1749, held to be sound law by Yorke (now Lord Hardwicke,) sitting as judge, on the ground that, if the contrary ruling of Lord Holt were upheld, it would abolish Slavery in Jamaica or Virginia as well as in England; British law being paramount in each. Thus the law stood until Lord Mansfield, in Somerset's case, reversed it with evident reluctance, and after having vainly endeavored to bring about an accommodation between the parties. When delay would serve no longer, and a judgment must be rendered, Mansfield declared it in these memorable words

"We cannot direct the law: the law must direct us. . . . The state of Slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself whence it was created, is erased from the memory. It is so odious that nothing can be sufficient to support it but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say that this case is allowed or approved by the law of England, and therefore the black must be discharged."

51

The natural, if not necessary, effect of this decision on Slavery in these colonies had their connection with the mother country been continued, is sufficiently obvious.

Slavery Under the Confederation.

The disposition or management of unpeopled territories, pertaining to the thirteen recent colonies now confederated as independent States, early became a subject of solicitude and of bickering among those States, and in Congress. By the terms of their charters, some of the colonies had an indefinite extension westwardly, and were only limited by the power of the grantor. Many of these charters conflicted with each other — the same territory being included within the limits of two or more totally distinct colonies. As the expenses of the Revolutionary struggle began to bear heavily on the resources of the States, it was keenly felt by some that their share in the advantages of the expected triumph would be less than that of others. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New-York, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, laid claim to spacious dominions outside of their proper boundaries; while New-Hampshire (save in Vermont), Rhode Island, New-Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and South Carolina, possessed no such boasted resources to meet the war-debts constantly augmenting. They urged, therefore, with obvious justice, that these unequal advantages ought to be surrendered, and all the lands included within the territorial limits of the Union, but outside of the proper and natural boundaries of the several States, respectively, should be ceded to, and held by, Congress, in trust for the common benefit of all the States, and their proceeds employed in satisfaction of the debts and liabilities of the Confederation. This reasonable requisition was ultimately, but with some reservations, responded to.

The IXth Continental Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, assembled at Philadelphia, Nov. 3, 1783, but adjourned next day to Annapolis, Md. The House was soon left without a quorum, and so continued most of the time — of course, doing no business — till the 1st of March, 1784, when the delegates from Virginia, in pursuance of instructions from the Legislature of that State, signed the conditional deed of cession to the Confederation of her claims to territory northwest of the Ohio River. New-York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts had already made similar concessions to the Confederation of their respective claims to territory westward of their present limits. Congress hereupon appointed Messrs. Jefferson of Virginia, Chase of Maryland, and Howell of Rhode Island, a Select Committee to report a Plan of Government for the Western Territory. This plan, drawn up by Thomas Jefferson, provided for the government of all the Western territory, including that portion which had not yet been, but which, it was reasonably expected, would be, surrendered to the Confederation by the States of North Carolina and Georgia (and which now forms the States of Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi), as well as that which had already been conceded by the more northern States.

The report of the committee was in the following words

THE JEFFERSONIAN ORDINANCE, 1784.

Resolved, That the territory ceded, or to be ceded by individual States to the United States, whensoever the same shall have been purchased of the Indian inhabitants and offered for sale by the United States, shall be formed into additional States, bounded in the following manner, as nearly as such cessions will admit: that is to say, northwardly and southwardly by parallels of latitude, so that each State shall comprehend from south to north, two degrees of latitude, beginning to count from the completion of thirty-one degrees north of the equator; [the then southern boundary of the U. S.] but any territory northwardly of the forty-seventh degree shall make part of the State next below. And eastwardly and westwardly they shall be bounded, those on the Mississippi, by that river on one side, and the meridian of the lowest point of the rapids of the Ohio on the other; and those adjoining on the east, by the same meridian on their western side, and on their eastern by the meridian of the western cape of the mouth of the Great Kanawha. And the territory eastward of this last meridian, between the Ohio, Lake Erie, and Pennsylvania, shall be one State.

That the settlers within the territory so to be purchased and offered for sale shall, either on their own petition or on the order of Congress, receive authority from them, with appointments of time and place, for their free males of full age to meet together for the purpose of establishing a temporary government, to adopt the constitution and laws of any one of these States, so that such laws nevertheless shall be subject to alteration by their ordinary Legislature, and to erect, subject to a like alteration, counties or townships for the election of members for their Legislature.

That such temporary government shall only continue in force in any State until it shall have acquired twenty thousand free inhabitants, when, giving due proof thereof to Congress, they shall receive from them authority, with appointments of time and place, to call a convention of representatives to establish a permanent constitution and government for themselves: Provided, That both the temporary and permanent governments be established on these principles as their basis:
1. That they shall forever remain a part of the United States of America.

2. That in their persons, property, and territory, they shall be subject to the Government of the United States in Congress assembled, and to the Articles of Confederation in all those cases in which the original states shall be so subject.

3. That they shall be subject to pay a part of the Federal debts, contracted or to be contracted, to be apportioned on them by Congress, according to the same common rule and measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other States.

4. That their respective governments shall be in republican forms, and shall admit no person to be a citizen who holds a hereditary title.

5. That after the year 1800 of the Christian, era, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty.

That whenever any of the said States shall have, of free inhabitants, as many as shall then be in any one of the least numerous of the thirteen original States, such State shall be admitted, by its Delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the said original States; after which the assent of two-thirds of the United States, in Congress assembled, shall be requisite in all those cases wherein, by the Confederation, the assent of nine States is now required, provided the consent of nine States to such admission may be obtained according to the eleventh of the Articles of Confederation. Until such admission by their Delegates into Congress, any of the said States, after the establishment of their temporary government, shall have authority to keep a sitting member in Congress, with a right of debating, but not of voting.

That the territory northward of the forty-fifth degree, that is to say, of the completion of forty-five degrees from the equator, and extending to the Lake of the Woods, shall be called Sylvania; that of the territory under the forty-fifth and forty-fourth degress, that which lies westward of Lake Michigan, shall be called Michigania; and that which is eastward thereof, within the peninsula formed by the lakes and waters of Michigan, Huron, St. Clair, and Erie, shall be called Chersonesus, and shall include any part of the peninsula which may

52

extend above the forty-fifth degree. Of the territory under the forty-third and forty-second degrees, that to the westward, through which the Assenisipi or Rock River runs, shall be called Assenisipia; and that to the eastward, in which are the fountains of the Muskingum, the two Miamies of the Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, the Miami of the Lake, and the Sandusky rivers, shall be called Metropotamia. Of the territory which lies under the forty-first and fortieth degrees, the western, through which the river Illinois runs, shall be called Illinoia; that next adjoining to the eastward, Saratoga; and that between this last and Pennsylvania, and extending from the Ohio to Lake Erie, shall be called Washington. Of the territory which lies under the thirty-ninth and thirty-eighth degrees, to which shall be added so much of the point of land within the fork of the Ohio and Mississippi as lies under the thirty-seventh degree; that to the westward, within and adjacent to which are the confluences of the rivers Wabash, Shawanee, Tanisee, Ohio, Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri, shall be called Polypotamia; and that to the eastward, further up the Ohio, otherwise called the Pelisipi, shall be called Pelisipia.

That all the preceding articles shall be formed into a charter of compact, shall be duly executed by the President of the United States, in Congress assembled, under his hand and the seal of the United States, shall be promulgated, and shall stand as fundamental conditions between the thirteen original States and those newly described, unalterable but by the joint consent of the United States, in Congress assembled, and of the particular State within which such alteration is proposed to be made.

April 19, this reported plan came up for consideration in Congress. Mr. Spaight of N. C. moved that the 5th proposition (prohibiting Slavery after the year 1800) be stricken out of the plan of ordinance, and Mr. Read of S. C. seconded the motion. The question was put in this form: "Shall the words moved to be stricken out stand?" and on this question the Ayes and Noes were taken, and resulted as follows:

N. HAMPSHIRE Mr. Foster ay Ay.
Mr. Blanchard ay
MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Gerry ay Ay.
Mr. Partridge ay
RHODE ISLAND Mr. Ellery ay Ay.
Mr. Howell ay
CONNECTICUT Mr. Sherman ay Ay.
Mr. Wadsworth ay
NEW-YORK Mr. DeWitt ay Ay.
Mr. Paine ay
NEW-JERSEY Mr. Dick ay  
PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Mifflin ay Ay.
Mr. Montgomery ay
Mr. Hand ay
MARYLAND Mr. McHenry no No.
Mr. Stone no
VIRGINIA Mr. Jefferson ay No.
Mr. Hardy no
Mr. Mercer no
N. CAROLINA Mr. Williamson ay Divided
Mr. Spaight no
S. CAROLINA Mr. Read no No.
Mr. Beresford no

Here we find the votes sixteen in favor of Mr. Jefferson's restriction to barely seven against it, and the States divided six in favor to three against it. But the Articles of Confederation (Art. IX.) required an affirmative vote of a majority of all the States — that is, a vote of seven States — to carry a proposition; so this clause was defeated through the absence of one delegate from New-Jersey, in spite of a vote of more than two to one in its favor. Had the New-Jersey delegation been full, it must, to a moral certainty, have prevailed; had Delaware then been represented, it would probably have been carried, even without New-Jersey. Yet, it is this vote, so given and recorded, that Mr. Douglas in his "Harper" essay claims as sustaining his views of "non-intervention by Congress."

The Ordinance, thus depleted, after undergoing some further amendments, was finally approved April 23d — all the delegates, but those from South Carolina, voting in the affirmative.

In 1787, the last Continental Congress, sitting in New-York simultaneously with the Convention at Philadelphia which framed our Federal Constitution, took up the subject of the government of the Western Territory, raising a Committee thereon, of which Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, was Chairman. That Committee reported (July 11th), "An Ordinance for the government of the Territories of the United States, Northwest of the Ohio" — the larger area contemplated by Mr. Jefferson's bill not having been ceded by the Southern States claiming dominion over it. This bill embodied many of the provisions originally drafted and reported by Mr. Jefferson, but with some modifications, and concludes with six unalterable articles of perpetual compact, the last of them as follows

"There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, in the said Territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall be duly convicted."

To this was added, prior to its passage, the stipulation for the delivery of fugitives from labor or service, soon after embodied in the Federal Constitution; and in this shape, the entire ordinance was adopted (July 13th) by a unanimous vote, Georgia and the Carolinas concurring.

Under the Constitution.

The old Articles of Confederation having proved inadequate to the creation and maintenance of a capable and efficient national or central authority, a Convention of Delegates from the several States, was legally assembled in Philadelphia, in 1787 — George Washington, President; and the result of its labors was our present Federal Constitution, though some amendments mainly of the nature of restrictions on Federal power, were proposed by the several State Conventions assembled to pass upon that Constitution, and adopted. The following are all the provisions of that instrument, which are presumed to bear upon the subject of Slavery

(Preamble): We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Art. I. § 1. All legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

§ 2. . . .. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined, by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.

§ 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed, not exceeding ten dollars on each person.

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.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto laws shall be passed.

Art. III. § 3. Treason against the United States

53

shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Art. IV. § 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges of citizens, in the several States. No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

§ 4. 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 cannot be convened, against domestic violence.

Art. VI. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The above are all — and perhaps more than all — the clauses of the Constitution, that have been quoted on one side or the other as bearing upon the subject of Slavery.

It will be noted that the word "slave" or "slavery" does not appear therein. Mr. Madison, who was a leading and observant member of the Convention, and who took notes of its daily proceedings, affirms that this silence was designed — the Convention being unwilling that the Constitution of the United States should recognize property in human beings. In passages where slaves are presumed to be contemplated, they are uniformly designated as "persons," never as property. Contemporary history proves that it was the belief of at least a large portion of the delegates that Slavery could not long survive the final stoppage of the slave-trade, which was expected to (and did) occur in 1808. And, were Slavery this day banished forever from the country, there might, indeed, be some superfluous stipulations in the Federal compact or charter; but there are none which need be repealed, or essentially modified.

A direct provision for the restoration of fugitive slaves to their masters was, at least once, voted down by the Convention. Finally, the clause respecting persons "held to service or labor," was proposed by Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, and adopted with little or no opposition.

The following, among the amendments to the Constitution, proposed by the ratifying conventions of one or more States, and adopted, are supposed by some to bear on the questions now agitated relative to Slavery

Art. I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the Press, or of the rights of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Art. II. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Art. V. No persons shall be . . . . deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Cessions of Southern Territory.

The State of Kentucky was set off from the State of Virginia in 1790, by mutual agreement, and admitted into the Union by act of Congress, passed February 4th, 1791; to take effect June 1st, 1792. It was never a territory of the United States, nor under Federal jurisdiction, except as a State, and inherited Slavery from the "Old Dominion."

The State of North Carolina, like several others, claimed, during and after the Revolution, that her territory extended westward to the Mississippi.

On the 22d of December, 1799 — one month after the ratification of the Federal Constitution — North Carolina passed an act, ceding, on certain conditions, all her territory west of her present limits to the United States. Among the conditions exacted by her, and agreed to by Congress (Act approved April 2nd, 1790) is the following

Provided always, that no regulations made, or to be made, by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves.

Were it not then conceded that Congress had the power to make regulations for the territories which would "tend to emancipate slaves," this proviso would be utterly meaningless.

Georgia, in like manner, ceded (April 2nd, 1802) the territories lying west of her present limits, now forming the States of Alabama and Mississippi. Among the conditions exacted by her, and accepted by the United States, is the following

Fifthly. That the territory thus ceded shall become a State, and be admitted into the Union as soon as it shall contain sixty thousand free inhabitants, or, at an earlier period, if Congress shall think it expedient, on the same conditions and restrictions, with the same privileges, and in the same manner, as is provided in the ordinance of Congress of the 13th day of July, 1787, for the government of the Western territory of the United States; which ordinance shall, in all its parts, extend to the territory contained in the present act of cession, the article only excepted which forbids slavery.

Early Attempts to Override the Ordinance.

When Ohio (1802-3) was made a State, the residue of the vast regions originally conveyed by the ordinance of '87 was continued under Federal pupilage, by the name of "Indiana Territory" whereof Wm. Henry Harrison (since President) was appointed Governor. It was quite commonly argued that, though Slavery was injurious in the long run, yet, as an expedient while clearing away the heavy forests, opening settlements in the wilderness, and surmounting the inevitable hardships and privations of border life, it might be tolerated, and even regarded with favor. Accordingly, the new Territory of Indiana made repeated efforts to procure a relaxation in her favor of the restrictive clause of the Ordinance of '87, one of them through the instrumentality of a convention assembled in 1802-3, and presided over by the Territorial Governor; so he, with the great body of his fellow-delegates, memorialized Congress, among other things, to suspend temporarily the operation of the sixth article of the Ordinance aforesaid. This memorial was referred in the House to a select committee of three, two of them from Slave States, with the since celebrated John Randolph as chairman.

54

On the 2nd of March, 1803, Mr. Randolph made what appears to have been a unanimous report from this Committee, of which we give so much as relates to Slavery — as follows

The rapid population of the State of Ohio sufficiently evinces, in the opinion of your Committee, that the labor of slaves is not necessary to promote, the growth and settlement of colonies in that region; that this labor — demonstrably the dearest of any — can only be employed in the cultivation of products more valuable than any known to that quarter of the United States; that the Committee deem it highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the northwestern country, and to give strength and security to that extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of this sagacious and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants of Indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor, and of emigration.

The Committee proceed to discuss other subjects set forth in the prayer of the memorial, and conclude with eight resolves, whereof the only one relating to Slavery is as follows

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to suspend, for a limited time, the operation of the sixth article of the compact between the original States and the people and States west of the river Ohio.

This Report having been made at the close of the Session, was referred at the next to a new Committee, whereof Caesar Rodney, a new Representative from Delaware, was Chairman. Mr. Rodney, from this Committee, reported (February 17th, 1804)

That, taking into their consideration the facts stated in the said memorial and petition, they are induced to believe that a qualified suspension, for a limited time, of the sixth article of compact between the original States and the people and States west of the river Ohio, might be productive of benefit and advantage to said Territory.

The Report goes on to discuss the other topics embraced in the Indiana memorial, and concludes with eight resolves, of which the first (and only one relative to Slavery) is as follows

Resolved, That the sixth article of the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited Slavery within the said Territory, be suspended in a qualified manner, for ten years, so as to permit the introduction of slaves, born within the United States, from any of the individual States; provided, that such individual State does not permit the importation of slaves from foreign countries: and provided, further, that the descendants of all such slaves shall, if males, be free at the age of twenty-five years, and, if females, at the age of twenty-one years.

The House took no action on this Report.

The original memorial from Indiana, with several additional memorials of like purport, was again, in 1805-6, referred by the House to a select committee, whereof Mr. Garnett of Virginia was chairman, who, on the 14th of February, 1806, made a report in favor of the prayer of the petitioners — as follows

That, having attentively considered the facts stated in the said petitions and memorials, they are of opinion that a qualified suspension, for a limited time, of the sixth article of the compact between the original States, and the people and States west of the river Ohio, would be beneficial to the people of the Indiana Territory. The suspension of this article is an object almost universally desired in that Territory.

After discussing other subjects embodied in the Indiana memorial, the Committee close with a series of Resolves, which they commend to the adoption of the House. The first and only one germane to our subject is as follows

Resolved, That the sixth article of the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibits Slavery within the Indiana Territory, be suspended for ten years, so as to permit the introduction of slaves, born within the United States, from any of the individual States.

This report and resolve were committed and made a special order on the Monday following, but were never taken into consideration.

At the next session, a fresh letter from Gov. William Henry Harrison, inclosing resolves of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives in favor of suspending, for a limited period, the sixth article of compact aforesaid, was received (Jan. 21st, 1807) and referred to a Select Committee, whereof Mr. B. Parke, delegate from said Territory, was made Chairman. The entire Committee (Mr. Nathaniel Macon, of N. C., being now Speaker,) consisted of
MESSRS. ALSTON, of N.C.
MASTERS, of N. Y.
MORROW, of Ohio
RHEA, of Tenn.
SANDFORD, of Ky.
TRIGG, of Va.
PARKE, of Ind.

Mr. Parke, from this Committee, made (Feb. 12th,) a third Report to the House in favor of granting the prayer of the memorialists.

This report, with its predecessors, was committed, and made a special order, but never taken into consideration.

The same letter of Gen. Harrison, and resolves of the Indiana Legislature, were submitted to the Senate, Jan. 21st, 1807. They were laid on the table "for consideration," and do not appear to have even been referred at that session; but at the next, or first session of the fourth Congress, which convened Oct. 26th, 1807, the President (Nov. 7th) submitted a letter from Gen. Harrison and his Legislature — whether a new or old one does not appear — and it was now referred to a Select Committee, consisting of Messrs. J. Franklin, of N. C., Kitchel, of N. J., and Tiffin, of Ohio.

Nov. 13th, Mr. Franklin, from said committee, reported as follows

The Legislative Council and House of Representatives, in their resolutions, express their sense of the propriety of introducing Slavery into their Territory, and solicit the Congress of the United States to suspend, for a given number of years, the sixth article of compact, in the ordinance for the government of the Territory northwest of the Ohio, passed on the 13th day of July, 1787. That article declares: "There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude within the said Territory."

The citizens of Clark County, in their remonstrance, express their sense of the impropriety of the measure, and solicit the Congress of the United States not to act on the subject, so as to permit the introduction of slaves into the Territory; at least, until their population shall entitle them to form a Constitution and State Government.

Your Committee, after duly considering the matter, respectfully submit the following resolution:
Resolved, That it is not expedient at this time to suspend the sixth article of compact for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio.

And here ended, so far as we have been able to discover, the effort, so long and earnestly persisted in, to procure a suspension of the restriction in the Ordinance of 1787, so as to admit Slavery, for a limited term, into the Territory lying between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, now forming the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

The First Missouri Struggle.

The vast and indefinite Territory known as Louisiana, was ceded by France to the United States in the year 1803, for the sum of $15,000,000, of which $3,750,000 was devoted to the

55

payment of American claims on France. This territory had just before been ceded by Spain to France without pecuniary consideration. Slaveholding had long been allowed therein, alike under Spanish and French rule, and the Treaty of Cession contained the following stipulation

Art. III. The inhabitants 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 Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.

The State of Louisiana, embodying the southern portion of this acquired territory, was recognized by Congress in 1811, and fully admitted in 1812, with a State Constitution. Those who chose to dwell among the inhabitants of the residue of the Louisiana purchase, henceforth called Missouri Territory, continued to hold slaves in its sparse and small but increasing settlements, mainly in its southeastern quarter, and a pro-Slavery Court — perhaps any Court — would undoubtedly have pronounced Slavery legal anywhere on its vast expanse, from the Mississippi to the crests of the Rocky Mountains, if not beyond them, and from the Red River of Louisiana to the Lake of the Woods.

The XVth Congress assembled at Washington, on Monday, Dec. 1st, 1817. Henry Clay was chosen Speaker of the House. Mr. John Scott appeared on the 8th, as delegate from Missouri Territory, and was admitted to a seat as such. On the 16th of March following, he presented petitions of sundry inhabitants of Missouri, in addition to similar petitions already presented by him, praying for the admission of Missouri into the Union as a State, which were, on motion, referred to a Select Committee, consisting of Messrs. Scott, of Mo.; Poindexter, of Miss.; Robertson, of Ky.; Hendricks, of Ind.; Livermore, of N. H.; Mills, of Mass.; Baldwin, of Pa.

April 3d, Mr. Scott, from this Committee, reported a bill 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; which bill was read the first and second time, and sent to the Committee of the Whole, where it slept for the remainder of the session.

That Congress convened at Washington for its second session, on the 16th of November, 1818. Feb. 13th, the House went into Committee of the Whole — Gen. Smith, of Md., in the Chair — and took up the Missouri bill aforesaid, which was considered through that sitting, as also that of the 15th, when several amendments were adopted, the most important of which was the following, moved in Committee by Gen. James Tallmadge, of Duchess county, New-York, (lately deceased)

And provided also, That the further introduction of Slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall be duly convicted: and that all children of slaves, born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years.

On coming out of Committee, the Yeas and Nays were called on the question of agreeing to this amendment, which was sustained by the following vote: [taken first on agreeing to so much of it as precedes and includes the word "convicted."]

Yeas — For the Restriction:
New-Hampshire 4
Massachusetts 15
Rhode Island 1
Connecticut 7
Vermont 5
New-York 28
New-Jersey 5
Pennsylvania 20
Ohio 5
Indiana 1
Delaware 1

Total Yeas 87 — only one (Delaware) from a Slave State.

Nays — Against the Restriction:
Massachusetts 4
New-York 3
New-Jersey 1
New-Hampshire 1
Ohio 1
Illinois 1
Delaware 1
Maryland 9
Virginia 18
North Carolina 13
South Carolina 6
Georgia 4
Kentucky 9
Tennessee 4
Mississippi 1
Louisiana 1

Total Nays, 76 — 10 from Free States, 66 from Slave States.

The House now proceeded to vote on the residue of the reported amendment (from the word "convicted" above), which was likewise sustained. — Yeas, 82; Nays, 78.

So the whole amendment — as moved by Gen. Tallmadge in Committee of the Whole, and there carried — was sustained when reported to the House.

Mr. Storrs, of New York (opposed to the Restriction), now moved the striking out of so much of the bill as provides that the new State shall be admitted into the Union "on an equal footing with the original States" — which, he contended, was nullified by the votes just taken. The House negatived the motion.

Messrs. Desha, of Ky., Cobb, of Ga., and Rhea, of Tenn., declared against the bill as amended.

Messrs. Scott, of Mo., and Anderson, of Ky., preferred the bill as amended, to none.

The House ordered the bill, as amended, to a third reading; Yeas, 98; Nays, 56. The bill thus passed the House next day, and was sent to the Senate.

The following sketch of the debate on this question (Feb. 15th) is condensed from that in the Appendix to Niles's Register, vol. xvi.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEB. 16, 1819.

Mr. Tallmadge, of New York, having moved the following amendment on the Saturday preceding —

"And provided that the introduction of Slavery, or involuntary servitude, be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party has been duly, convicted; and that all children born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be declared free at the age of 25 years,"

Mr. Fuller, of Massachusetts, argued that, to effect a concert of interests, it was proper to make concessions. The States where Slavery existed not only claimed the right to continue it, but it was manifest that a general emancipation of slaves could not be asked of them. Their political existence would have been in jeopardy; both masters and slaves must have been involved in the most fatal consequences.

To guard against such intolerable evils, it is provided in the Constitution, "that the migration or importation of such persons, as any of the existing States think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited till 1808. — Art. 1, sec. 9. And it is provided elsewhere, that persons held to service by the laws of any State, shall be given up by other States, to which they may have escaped, etc. — Art. 4, sec. 2.

These provisions effectually reorganized the right in the

56

States, which, at the time of framing the Constitution, held the blacks in Slavery, to continue so to hold them until they should think proper to meliorate their condition. The Constitution is a compact among all the States then existing, by which certain principles of government are established for the whole, and for each individual State. The predominant principle in both respects is, that ALL MEN ARE FREE, and have an EQUAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY, and all other privileges; or, in other words, the predominant principle is REPUBLICANISM, in its largest sense. But, then, the same compact contains certain exceptions. The States then holding slaves are permitted, from the necessity of the case, and for the sake of union, to exclude the republican principle so far, and only so far, as to retain their slaves in servitude, and also their progeny, as had been the usage, until they should think it proper or safe to conform to the pure principle, by abolishing Slavery. The compact contains on its face the general principle and the exceptions. But the attempt to extend Slavery to the new States, is in direct violation of the clause which guarantees a republican form of government to all the States. This clause, indeed, must be construed in connection with the exceptions before mentioned; but it cannot, without violence, be applied to any other States than those in which Slavery was allowed at the formation of the Constitution.

The Speaker (Clay) cites the first clause in the 2d section of the 4th article — "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States," which he thinks would be violated by the condition proposed in the Constitution of Missouri. To keep slaves — to make one portion of the population the property of another — hardly deserves to be called a privilege, since what is gamed by the masters must be lost by the slaves. But, independently of this consideration, I think the observations already offered to the committee, showing that holding the black population in servitude is an exception to the general principles of the Constitution, and cannot be allowed to extend beyond the fair import of the terms by which that exception is provided, are a sufficient answer to the objection. The gentleman proceeds in the same train of reasoning, and asks, if Congress can require one condition, how many more can be required, and where these conditions will end? With regard to a republican constitution, Congress are obliged to require that condition, and that is enough for the present question; but I contend, further, that Congress has a right, at their discretion, to require any other reasonable condition. Several others were required of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Mississippi. The State of Louisiana, which was a part of the territory ceded to us at the same time with Missouri, was required to provide in her Constitution for trials by jury, the writ of habeas corpus, the principles of civil and religious liberty, with several others, peculiar to that State. These, certainly, are none of them more indispensable ingredients in a republican form of government than the equality of privileges of all the population; yet these have not been denied to be reasonable, and warranted by the National Constitution in the admission of new States. . . ..

One gentleman, however, has contended against the amendment, because it abridges the rights of the slaveholding States to transport their slaves to the new States, for sale or otherwise. This argument is attempted to be enforced in various ways, and particularly by the clause In the Constitution last cited. It admits, however, of a very clear answer, by recurring to the 9th section of article 1st, which provides that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States then existing shall admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress till 1808." This clearly implies that the migration and importation may be prohibited after that year. The importation has been prohibited, but the migration has not hitherto been restrained; Congress, however, may restrain. It, when it may be judged expedient.

The expediency of this measure is very apparent. The opening of an extensive slave market will tempt the cupidity of those who, otherwise, perhaps, might gradually emancipate their slaves. We have heard much, Mr. Chairman, of the Colonization Society; an institution which is the favorite of the humane gentlemen in the slave-holding States. They have long been lamenting the miseries of Slavery, and earnestly seeking for a remedy compatible with their own safety, and the happiness of their slaves. At last, the great desideratum is found — a colony in Africa for the emancipated blacks. How will the generous intentions of these humane persons be frustrated, if the price of slaves is to be doubled by a new and boundless market! Instead of emancipation of the slaves, it is much to be feared that unprincipled wretches will be found kidnapping those who are already free, and transporting and selling the hapless victims into hopeless bondage. Sir, I really hope that Congress will not contribute to discountenance and render abortive the generous and philanthropic views of this most worthy and laudable society.

Mr. Tallmadge, of New York, followed —

Sir, said he, it has been my desire and my intention to avoid any debate on the present painful and unpleasant subject. When I had the honor to submit to this House the amendment now under consideration, I accompanied it with a declaration that it was intended to confine its operation to the newly acquired Territory across the Mississippi; and I then expressly declared that I would in no manner intermeddle with the slave-holding States, nor attempt manumission in any one of the original States in the Union. Sir, I even went further, and stated that I was aware of the delicacy of the subject — and, that I had learned from Southern gentlemen the difficulties and the dangers of having free blacks intermingling with slaves; and, on that account, and with a view to the safety of the white population of the adjoining States, I would not even advocate the prohibition of Slavery in the Alabama Territory; because, surrounded as it was by slave-holding States, and with only imaginary lines of division, the intercourse between slaves and free blacks could not be prevented, and a servile war might be the result. While we deprecate and mourn over the evil of Slavery, humanity and good morals require us to wish its abolition, under circumstances consistent with the safety of the white population. Willingly, therefore, will I submit to an evil which we cannot safely remedy. I admitted all that had been said of the danger of having free blacks visible to slaves, and, therefore, did not hesitate to pledge myself that I would neither advise nor attempt coercive manumission. But, sir, all these reasons cease when we cross the banks of the Mississippi, into a Territory separated by a natural boundary — a newly acquired Territory, never contemplated in the formation of our government, not included within the Compromise or mutual pledge in the adoption of our Constitution — a new Territory acquired by our common fund, and which ought justly to be subject to our common legislation.

Sir, when I submitted the amendment now under consideration, accompanied with these explanations, and with these avowals of my intentions and of my motives I did expect that gentlemen who might differ from, me in opinion would appreciate the liberality of my views, find would meet me with moderation, as upon a fair subject for general legislation, I did expect, at least, that the frank declaration of my views would protect me from harsh expressions, and from the unfriendly imputations which have been cast out on this occasion. But, sir, such has been the character and the violence of this debate, and expressions of so much intemperance, and of an aspect so threatening have been used, that continued silence on my part would ill become me, who had submitted to this House the original proposition.

Sir, has it already come to this: that in the Congress of the United States — that, in the Legislative councils of Republican America, the subject of Slavery has become a subject of so much feeling — of such delicacy — of such danger, that it cannot safely be discussed? Are members who venture to express their sentiments on this subject, to be accused of talking to the galleries, with intention to excite a servile war; and of meriting the fate of Arbuthnot and Ambrister? Are we to be told of the dissolution of the Union, of civil war and of seas of blood? And yet, with such awful threatenings before us, do gentlemen in the same breath, insist upon the encouragement of this evil; upon the extension of this monstrous scourge of the human race? An evil so fraught with such dire calamities to us as individuals, and to our nation, and threatening, in its progress, to overwhelm the civil and religious institutions of the country, with the liberties of the nation, ought at once to be met, and to be controlled. If its power, its influence, and its impending dangers, have already arrived at such a point, that it is not safe to discuss it on this floor, and it cannot now pass under consideration as a proper subject for general legislation, what will be the result when it is spread through your widely-extended domain? Its present threatening aspect, and the violence of its supporters, so far from inducing me to yield to its progress, prompt me to resist its march. Now is the time. It must now be met, and the extension of the evil must now be prevented or the occasion is irrecoverably lost, and the evil can never be controlled.

Sir, extend your view across the Mississippi, over your newly-acquired Territory — a Territory so far surpassing, in extent, the limits of your present country, that country which gave birth to your nation — which achieved your Revolution — consolidated your Union — formed your Constitution, and has subsequently acquired so much

57

glory, hangs but as an appendage to the extended empire over which your Republican Government is now called to bear sway. Look down the long vista of futurity; see your empire, in extent, unequaled, in advantageous situation without a parallel, and occupying all the valuable part of one continent. Behold this extended empire, inhabited by the hardy sons of American freemen, knowing their rights, and inheriting the will to protect them — owners of the soil on which they live, and interested in the institutions which they labor to defend; with two oceans having your shores, and tributary to your purposes, bearing on their bosoms the commerce of our people; compared to yours, the governments of Europe dwindle into insignificance, and the whole world is without a parallel. But, sir, reverse this scene; people this fair domain with the slaves of your planters; extend Slavery, this bane of man, this abomination of heaven, over your extended empire, and you prepare its dissolution; you turn its accumulated strength into positive weakness; you cherish a canker in your breast; you put poison in your bosom; you place a vulture preying on your heart — nay, you whet the dagger and place it in the hands of a portion of your population, stimulated to use it, by every tie, human and divine. The envious contract between your happiness and their misery, between your liberty and their slavery, must constantly prompt them to accomplish your destruction. Your enemies will learn the source and the cause of your weakness. As often as external dangers shall threaten, or internal commotions await you, you will then realize that, by your own procurement, you have placed amidst your families, and in the bosom of your country, a population producing at once the greatest cause of individual danger, and of national weakness. With this defect, your government must crumble to pieces, and your people become the scoff of the world.

Sir, we have been told, with apparent confidence, that we have no right to annex conditions to a State, on its admission into the Union; and it has been urged that the proposed amendment, prohibiting the further introduction of Slavery, is unconstitutional. This position, asserted with so much confidence, remains unsupported by any argument, or by any authority derived from the Constitution itself. The Constitution strongly indicates an opposite conclusion, and seems to contemplate a difference between the old and the new States. The practice of the government has sanctioned this difference in many respects.

Sir, we have been told that this is a new principle for which we contend, never before adopted, or thought of. So far from this being correct, it is due to the memory of our ancestors to say, it is an old principle, adopted by them, as the policy of our country. Whenever the United States have had the right and the power, they have heretofore prevented the extension of Slavery. The States of Kentucky and Tennessee were taken off from other States, and were admitted into the Union without condition, because their lands were never owned by the United States. The Territory northwest of the Ohio is all the land which ever belonged to them. Shortly after the cession of those lands to the Union, Congress passed, in 1787, a compact, which was declared to be unalterable, the sixth article of which provides that, "there shall be neither Slavery nor involuantary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the parties shall have been, duly convicted." In pursuance of this compact, all the States formed from that Territory have been admitted into the Union upon various conditions, and, amongst which, the sixth article of this compact is included as one.

Let, gentlemen also advert to the law for the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union; they will find it filled with conditions. It was required not only to form a Constitution upon the principles of a republican government, but it was required to contain the "fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty." It was even required, as a condition of its admission, to keep its records, and its judicial and its legislative proceedings, in the English language; and also to secure the trial by jury, and to surrender all claim to unappropriated lands in the Territory, with the prohibition to tax any of the United States lands.

After this long practice and constant usage to annex conditions to the admission of a State into the Union, will gentlemen yet tell us it is unconstitutional, and talk of our principles being novel and extraordinary?

Mr. Scott, of Missouri, said

He trusted that his conduct, during the whole of the time in which he had had the honor of a seat in the House, had convinced gentlemen of his disposition not to obtrude his sentiments on any other subjects than those on which the interest of his constituents, and of the Territory he represented, were immediately concerned. But when a question such as the amendments proposed by the gentlemen from New York (Messrs. Tallmadge and Taylor), was presented for consideration, involving constitutional principles to a vast amount, pregnant with the future fate of the Territory, portending destruction to the liberties of that people, directly bearing on their rights of property, their state rights, their all, he should consider it as a dereliction of his duty, as retreating from his post, nay, double criminality, did he not raise his voice against their adoption.

Mr. Scott entertained the opinion, that, under the Constitution, Congress had not the power to impose this, or any other restriction, or to require of the people of Missouri their assent to this condition, as a pre-requisite to their admission into the Union. He contended this from the language of the Constitution itself, from the practice in the admission of new States under that instrument, and from the express terms of the treaty of cession. The short view he intended to take of those points would, he trusted, be satisfactory to all those who were not so anxious to usurp power as to sacrifice to its attainment the principle's of our government, or who were not desirous of prostrating the rights and independence of a State to chimerical views of policy or expediency. The authority to admit new States into the Union was granted in the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that "new States may be admitted by the Congress into the Union." The only power given to the Congress by this section appeared to him to be, that of passing a law for the admission of the new State, leaving it in possession of all the rights, privileges, and immunities, enjoyed by the other States; the most valuable and prominent of which was that of forming and modifying their own State Constitution, and over which Congress had no superintending control, other than that expressly given in the fourth section of the same article, which read, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government." This end accomplished, the guardianship of the United States over the Constitutions of the several States was fulfilled; and all restrictions, limitations and conditions beyond this, was so much power unwarrantably assumed. In illustration of this position, he would read an extract from one of the essays written by the late President Madison, contemporaneously with the Constitution of the United States, and from a very celebrated work: "In a confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchical innovations. The more intimate the nature of such an union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other, and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact, was entered into, should be substantially maintained. But this authority extends no further than to a guarantee of a republican form of government, which supposes a preexisting government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the Federal guarantee for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance."

Mr. Scott believed it to be a just rule of interpretation, that the enumeration of powers delegated to Congress weakened their authority in all cases not enumerated; and that beyond those powers enumerated they had none, except they were essentially necessary to carry into effect those that were given. The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," was satisfactory, to his judgment, that it was intended the citizens of each State, forming a part of one harmonious whole, should have, in all things, equal privileges; the necessary consequence of which was, that every man, in his own State, should have the same rights, privileges, and powers, that any other citizen of the United States had in his own State; otherwise, discontent and murmurings would prevail against the general government who had deprived him of this equality.

For example, if the citizens of Pennsylvania, or Virginia, enjoyed the right, in their own State, to decide the question whether they would have Slavery or not, the citizens of Missouri, to give them the same privileges, must have the same right to decide whether they would or would not tolerate Slavery in their State; if it were otherwise, then the citizens of Pennsylvania and Virginia would have more rights, privileges and powers in their

58

respective States, than the citizens of Missouri would have in theirs. Mr. S. said he would make another quotation from the same work he had before been indebted to, which he believed had considerable bearing on this subject. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution, to the Federal Government, are few and defined; those which are to remain in the State Governments, are numerous and indefinite; the former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which last the powers of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The applicability of this doctrine to the question under consideration was so obvious, that he would not detain the House to give examples, but leave it for gentlemen to make the application. . . . . ..

Mr. Scott believed, that the practice under the Constitution had been different from that now contended for by gentlemen; he was unapprised of any similar provision having ever been made, or attempted to be made, in relation to any other new State heretofore admitted. The argument drawn from the States formed out of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio, he did not consider as analogous; that restriction, if any, was imposed in pursuance of a compact, and only so far as Congress could do, carried into effect the disposition of Virginia in reference to a part of her own original Territory, and was, in every respect, more just, because that provision was made and published to the world at a time when but few, if any, settlements were formed within that tract of country; and the children of those people of color belonging to the inhabitants then there, have been, and still were, held in bondage, and were not free at a given age, as was contemplated, by the amendment under consideration; nor did he doubt but that it was competent for any of those States admitted in pursuance of the Ordinance of '87, to call a Convention, and so to alter their Constitution as to allow the introduction of slaves, if they thought proper to do so. To those gentlemen who had in their argument, in support of the amendments, adverted to the instance where Congress had, by the law authorizing the people of Louisiana to form a Constitution and State Government, exercised the power of imposing the terms and conditions on which they should be permitted to do so, he would recommend a careful examination and comparison of those terms with the Constitution of the United States, when, he doubted not, they would be convinced that these restrictions were only such as were in express and positive language defined in the latter instrustrument, and would have been equally binding on the people of Louisiana had they not been enumerated in the law giving them authority to form a Constitution for themselves.

Mr. S. said, he considered the contemplated conditions and restrictions, contained in the proposed amendments, to be unconstitutional and unwarrantitble, from the provisions of the Treaty of Cession, by the third article of which it was stipulated, that "the inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and, in the mean time, they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess."

The people were not left to the wayward discretion of this or any other government, by saying that they may be incorporated in the Union. The language was different and imperative: "they shall be incorporated." Mr. Scott understood by the term incorporated, that they were to form a constituent part of this republic; that they were to become joint partners in the character and councils of the country, and in the national losses and national gains; as a Territory they were not an essential part of the Government; they were a mere province, subject to the acts and regulations of the General Government in all cases whatsoever. As a Territory, they had not all the rights, advantages and immunities, of citzens of the United States. Mr. S. himself furnished an example, that, in their present condition, they had not all the rights of the other citizens of the Union. Had he a vote in this House? and yet these people were, during the war, subject to certain taxes imposed by Congress. Had those people any voice to give in the imposition of taxes to which they were subject, or in the disposition of the funds of the nation, and particularly those arising from the sales of the public lands, to which they already had, and still would largely contribute? Had they a voice to give in selecting the officers of this Government, or many of their own? In short, in what had they equal rights advantages and immunities, with the other citizens of the United States, but in the privilege to submit to a procrastination of their rights, and in the advantage to subscribe to your laws, your rules, your taxes, and your powers, even without a hearing? Those people were also "to be admitted into the Union as soon as possible." Mr. Scott would infer from this expression, that it was the understanding of the parties, that so soon as any portion of the Territory, of sufficient extent to form a State, should contain the number of inhabitants required by law to entitle them to a representative on the floor of this House, that they then had the right to make the call for admission, and this admission, when made, was to be, not on conditions that gentlemen might deem expedient, not on conditions referable to future political views, not on conditions that the Constitution the people should form should contain a clause that would particularly open the door for emigration from the North or from the South, not on condition that the future population of the State should come from a Slaveholding or Non-Slaveholding State, "but according to the principles of the Federal Constitution," and none other.

Mr. Scott had trusted that gentlemen who professed to be actuated by motives of humanity and principle would not encourage a course of dissimulation, or, by any vote of theirs, render it necessary for the citizens of Missouri to act equivocally to obtain their rights. He was unwilling to believe, that political views alone led gentlemen on this or any other occasion; but, from the language of the member from New-York (Mr. Taylor), he was compelled to suspect that they had their influence upon him. That gentlemen has told us, that if ever he left his present residence, it would be for Illinois or Missouri; at all events, he wished to send out his brothers and his sons. Mr. Scott begged that gentleman to relieve him from the awful apprehension excited by the prospect of this accession of population. He hoped the House would excuse him while he stated, that he did not desire that gentleman, his sons, or his brothers, in that land of brave, noble, and independent freemen. The member says that the latitude is too far North to admit of Slavery there. Would the gentleman cast his eye on the map before him, he would there see, that a part of Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland, were as far North as the Northern boundary of the proposed State of Missouri. Mr. Scott would thank the gentleman if he would condescend to tell him what precise line of latitude suited his conscience, his humanity, or his political views, on this subject. Could that member be serious, when he made the parallel of latitude the measure of his good-will to those unfortunate blacks? Or was he trying how far he could go in fallacious argument and absurdity, without creating one blush even on his own cheek, for inconsistency? What, starve the negroes out, pen them up in the swamps and morasses, confine them to Southern latitudes, to long, scorching days of labor and fatigue, until the race becomes extinct, that the fair land of Missouri may be tenanted by that gentleman, his brothers, and sons? He expected from the majority of the House a more liberal policy, and better evidence that they really were actuated by humane motives.

The House bill, thus passed, reached the Senate, February 17th, when it was read twice and sent to a Select Committee already raised on a like application from Alabama, consisting of Messrs. Tait, of Georgia; Morrow, of Ohio; Williams, of Mississippi; Edwards, of Illinois; Williams, of Tennessee.

On the 22nd, Mr. Tait, from this Committee, reported the bill with amendments, striking out the Anti-Slavery restrictions inserted by the House. This bill was taken up in Committee of the Whole, on the 27th, when, Mr. Wilson of New-Jersey moved its postponement to the 5th of March — that is, to the end of the session — negatived: Yeas 14; Nays 23.

The Senate then proceeded to vote on agreeing to the amendments reported by the Select Committee, viz.: 1, to strike out of the House bill the following

And that all children of slaves born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be Free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-one years.

Which was stricken out by the following vote.

Yeas — Against the Restriction — 27. Nays — For the Restriction — 7.

59

The Senate then proceeded to vote on the residue of the House Restriction, as follows

And provided also, That the further introduction of Slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

The vote on this clause was as follows

Yeas — For striking out the Restriction — 22. Nays — Against striking out — 16.

The bill thus amended was ordered to be engrossed, and was (March 2nd — last day but one of the Session) read a third time, and passed without a division. The bill was on that day returned to the House, and the amendments of the Senate read: whereupon, Mr. Tallmadge, of New-York, moved that the bill be postponed indefinitely. Yeas 69; Nays 74.

[The record shows hardly a vote changed from Yea, on thy original passage of the Restriction, to Nay now, but many members who voted then were now absent or silent.]

The vote was then taken on concurring in the Senate's amendments, as aforesaid, and the House refused to concur; Yeas 76; Nays 78.

[Hardly a vote changed; but more members voting than on the previous division, and less than when the Restriction was carried.]

The bill was now returned to the Senate, with a message of non-concurrence; when Mr. Tait moved that the Senate adhere to its amendment, which was carried without a division. The bill being thus remanded to the House, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved that the House adhere to its disagreement, which prevailed. Yeas 78; Nays 66. So the bill fell between the two Houses, and was lost.

The Southern portion of the then Territory of Missouri (organized by separation from Louisiana in 1812) was excluded from the proposed State of Missouri, and organized as a separate Territory, entitled Arkansas.

The bill being under consideration, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved that the foregoing restriction be applied to it also; and the clause, proposing that slaves born therein after the passage of this act be free at twenty-five years of age, was carried (February 17th) by 75 Yeas to 73 Nays; but that providing against the further introduction of Slaves was lost; Yeas 70; Nays 71. The next day, the clause just adopted was stricken out, and the bill ultimately passed without any allusion to Slavery. Arkansas of course became a Slave Territory, and ultimately (1836) a Slave State.

The Second Missouri Struggle.

A new Congress assembled on the 6th of December, 1819. Mr. Clay was again chosen Speaker. On the 8th, Mr. Scott, delegate from Missouri, moved that the memorial of her Territorial Legislature, as also of several citizens, praying her admission into the Union as a State, be referred to a Select Committee; carried, and Messrs. Scott, of Missouri, Robertson, of Kentucky, Terrell, of Georgia, Strother, of Virginia, and De Witt, of New-York, (all but the last from the Slave region,) were appointed said committee.

Mr. Strong, of New-York, that day gave notice of a bill "To prohibit the further extension of slavery in the United States."

On the 14th, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved a Select Committee on this subject, which was granted; and the mover, with Messrs. Livermore, of New-Hampshire, Barbour, (P. P.) of Virginia, Lowndes, of South-Carolina, Fuller, of Massachusetts, Hardin, of Kentucky, and Cuthbert, of Georgia, were appointed such committee. A majority of this Committee being Pro-Slavery, Mr. Taylor could do nothing; and on the 28th the Committee was, on motion, discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

On the same day, Mr. Taylor moved

That a Committee be appointed with instructions to report a bill prohibiting the further admission of slaves into the Territories of the United States West of the river Mississippi.

On motion of Mr. Smith, of Maryland, their resolve was sent to the Committee of the Whole, and made a special order for January 10th; but it was not taken up, and appears to have slept the sleep of death.

In the Senate, the memorial of the Missouri Territorial Legislature, asking admission as a State, was presented by Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, December 29th, and referred to the Judiciary Committee, which consisted o

Messrs. Smith, of South Carolina; Leake, of Mississippi, Burrill, of Rhode Island; Logan, of Kentucky; Otis of Massachusetts.

DANIEL WEBSTER ON SLAVERY EXTENSION.

The following is extracted from the "Memorial to the Congress of the United States, on the subject of restraining the increase of Slavery in New States to be admitted into the Union," in pursuance of a vote of the inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity, assembled at the State House on the 3d of December, 1819, which was drawn up by Daniel Webster, and signed by himself, George Blake, Josiah Quincy, James T. Austin, etc. It is inserted here instead of the resolves of the various New England Legislatures, as a fuller and clearer statement of the views of the great body of the people of that section during the pendency of the Missouri question

"MEMORIAL
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled:

The undersigned, inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity, beg leave most respectfully and humbly to represent: That the question of the introduction of Slavery into the new States to be formed on this west side of the Mississippi River, appears to them to be a question of the last importance to the future welfare of the United States. If the progress of this great evil is ever to be arrested, it seems to the undersigned that this is the time to arrest it. A false step taken now, cannot be retraced, and it appears to us that the happiness of unborn millions rests on the measure which Congress on this occasion may adopt. Considering this as no local question, nor a question to be decided by a temporary expediency, but as involving great interests of the whole United States, and affecting deeply and essentially those objects or common defense, general welfare, and the perpetuation of the blessings of liberty, for which the Constitution itself was formed, we have presumed, in this way, to offer our sentiments and express our wishes to the National Legislature. And, as various reasons have been suggested against prohibiting Slavery in the new States, it may perhaps be permitted to us to state our reasons, both for believing that Congress possesses the Constitutional power to make such prohibition a condition, on the admission of a new State into the Union, and that it is just and proper that they should exercise that power.

"And in the first place, as to the Constitutional authority of Congress. The Constitution of the United

60

States has declared that "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States: and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice the claims of the United States or of any particular State." It is very well known, that the saving in this clause of the claims of any particular State, was designed to apply to claims by the then existing States, of territory which was also claimed by the United States as their own property. It has, therefore, no bearing on the present question. The power, then, of Congress over its own Territories, is, by the very terms of the Constitution, unlimited. It may make all "needful rules and regulations," which of course include all such regulations as its own views of policy or expediency shall, from time to time, dictate. If, therefore, in its judgment it be needful for the benefit of a Territory to enact a prohibition of Slavery, it would seem to be as much within its power of Legislation as any other act of local policy. Its sovereignty being complete and universal as to the Territory, it may exercise over it the most ample jurisdiction in every respect. It possesses, in this view, all the authority which any State Legislature possesses over its own Territory; and if any State Legislature may, in its discretion, abolish or prohibit Slavery within its own limits, in virtue of its general Legislative authority, for the same reason Congress also may exercise the like authority over its own Territories. And that a State Legislature, unless restrained by some Constitutional provision, may so do, is unquestionable, and has been established by general practice. . . ..

If the constitutional power of Congress to make the proposed prohibition be satisfactorily shown, the justice and policy of such prohibition seem to the undersigned to be supported by plain and strong reasons. The permission of Slavery in a new State, necessarily draws after it an extension of that inequality of representation, which already exists in regard to the original States. It cannot be expected that those of the original States, which do not hold slaves, can look on such an extension as being politically just. As between the original States the representation rests on compact and plighted faith; and your memorialists have no wish that that compact should be disturbed, or that plighted faith in the slightest degree violated. But the subject assumes an entirely different character, when a new State proposes to be admitted. With her there is no compact, and no faith plighted; and where is the reason that she could come into the Union with more than an equal share of political importance and political power? Already the ratio of representation, established by the Constitution, has given to the States holding slaves twenty members of the House of Representatives more than they would have been entitled to, except under the particular provision of the Constitution. In all probability, this number will be doubled in thirty years. Under these circumstances, we deem it not an unreasonable expectation that the inhabitants of Missouri should propose to come into the Union, renouncing the right in question, and establishing a Constitution prohibiting it forever. Without dwelling on this topic, we have still thought it our duty to present it to the consideration of Congress. We present it with a deep and earnest feeling of its importance, and we respectfully solicit for it the full consideration of the National Legislature.

Your memorialists were not without the hope that the time had at length arrived when the inconvenience and the danger of this description of population had become apparent in all parts of this country and in all parts of the civilized world. It might have been hoped that the new States themselves would have had such a view of their own permanent interests and prosperity as would have led them to prohibit its extension and increase. The wonderful increase and prosperity of the States north of the Ohio is unquestionably to be ascribed, in a great measure, to the consequences of the ordinance of 1787; and few, indeed, are the occasions, in the history of nations, in which so much can be done, by a single act, for the benefit of future generations, as was done by that ordinance, and as may now be done by the Congress of the United States. We appeal to the justice and to the wisdom of the National Councils to prevent the further progress of a great and serious evil. We appeal to those who look forward to the remote consequences of their measures, and who cannot balance a temporary or trifling inconvenience, if there were such, against a permanent, growing, and desolating evil. We cannot forbear to remind the two Houses of Congress that the early and decisive measures adopted by the American Government for the abolition of the slave trade, are among the proudest memorials of our nation's glory. That Slavery was ever tolerated in the Republic is, as yet, to be attributed to the policy of another Government. No imputation, thus far, rests on any portion of the American Confederacy. The Missouri Territory is a new country. If its extensive and fertile field shall be opened as a market for slaves, the Government will seem to become a party to a traffic which, in so many acts, through so many years, it has denounced as impolitic, unchristian, inhuman. To enact, laws to punish the traffic, and, at the same time, to tempt cupidity and avarice by the allurements of an insatiable market, is inconsistent and irreconcilable. Government, by such a course, would only defeat its own purposes, and render nugatory its own measures. Nor can the laws derive support from the manners of the people, if the power of moral sentiment be weakened by enjoying, under the permission of Government, great facilities to commit offenses. The laws of the United States have denounced heavy penalties against the traffic in slaves, because such traffic is deemed unjust and inhuman. We appeal to the spirit of these laws. We appeal to this justice and humanity. We ask her whether they ought not to operate, on the present occasion, with all their force? We have a strong feeling of the injustice of any toleration of Slavery. Circumstances have entailed it on a portion of our community, which cannot be immediately relieved from it without consequences more injurious than the suffering of the evil. But to permit it in a new country, where yet no habits are formed which render it indispensable, what is it, but to encourage that rapacity, and fraud and violence, against which we have so long pointed the denunciations of our penal code? What is it, but to tarnish the proud fame of the country? What is it, but to throw suspicion on its good faith, and to render questionable all its professions of regard for the rights of humanity and the liberties of mankind?

As inhabitants of a free country — as citizens of a great and rising Republic — as members of a Christian community — as living in a liberal and enlightened age, and as feeling ourselves called upon by the dictates of religion and humanity, we have presumed to offer our sentiments to Congress on this question, with a solicitude for the event far beyond what a common occasion could inspire."

Instead of reprinting the Speeches elicited by this fruitful theme, which must necessarily, to a great extent, be a mere reproduction of ideas expressed in the debate of the last session, already given, we here insert the Resolves of the Legislatures of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Kentucky — the first three being unanimous expressions in favor of Slavery Restriction; the fourth, from a Slave State, also in favor of such Restriction, though probably not unanimously agreed to by the Legislature; the last against Restriction, and also (we presume) unanimous. The Legislatures of the Free States were generally unanimous for Restriction; those of the Slave States (Delaware excepted) against it. It is not deemed necessary to print more than the following

NEW-YORK.

State of New-York, in Assembly, Jan. 17, 1820:
Whereas, The inhibiting the further extension of Slavery in these United States is a subject of deep concern among the people of this State; and whereas we consider Slavery as an evil much to be deplored; and that every constitutional barrier should be interposed to prevent its further extension; and that the Constitution of the United States clearly gives Congress the right to require of new States, not comprised within the original boundaries of these United States, the prohibition of Slavery, as a condition of its admission into the Union: Therefore,
Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur herein), That our Senators be instructed, and our Representatives in Congress be requested, to oppose the admission as a State into the Union, any territory not comprised as aforesaid, without making the prohibition of Slavery therein an indispensable condition of admission; therefore,

Resolved, That measures be taken by the clerks of the Senate and Assembly of this State, to transmit copies of the preceding resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress.

(Unanimously concurred in by the Senate.)

61

NEW JERSEY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 24th, 1820.

Mr. Wilson, of N. J., communicated the following Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of New-Jersey, which were read

Whereas, A Bill is now depending in the Congress of the United States, on the application of the people in the Territory of Missouri for the admission of that Territory as a State into the Union, not containing provisions against Slavery in such proposed State, and a question is made upon the right and expediency of such provision,

The representatives of the people of New-Jersey, in Legislative Council and General Assembly of the said State, now in session, deem it a duty they owe to themselves, to their constituents, and posterity, to declare and make known the opinions they hold upon this momentous subject; and
1. They do resolve and declare, That the further admission of Territories into the Union, without restriction of Slavery, would, in their opinion, essentially impair the right of this and other existing States to equal representation in Congress (a right at the foundation of the political compact), inasmuch as such newly-admitted slaveholding States would be represented on the basis of their slave population; a concession made at the formation of the Constitution in favor of the then existing States, but never stipulated for new States, nor to be inferred from any article or clause in that instrument.

2. Resolved, That to admit the Territory of Missouri as a State into the Union, without prohibiting Slavery there, would, in the opinion of the representatives of the people of New-Jersey aforesaid, be no less than to sanction this great political and moral evil, furnish the ready means of peopling a vast Territory with slaves, and perpetuate all the dangers, crimes, and pernicious effects of domestic bondage.

3. Resolved, As the opinion of the Representatives aforesaid, That inasmuch as no Territory has a right to be admitted into the Union, but on the principles of the federal Constitution, and only by a law of Congress, consenting thereto on the part of the existing States, Congress may rightfully, and ought to refuse such law, unless upon the reasonable and just conditions, assented to on the part of the people applying to become one of the States.

4. Resolved, In the opinion of the Representatives aforesaid, That the article of the Constitution which restrains Congress from prohibiting the migration or importation of slaves, until after the year 1808, does, by necessary implication, admit the general power of Congress over the subject of Slavery, and concedes to them the fight to regulate and restrain such migration and importation after that time, into the existing, or any newly-to-be-created State.

5. Resolved, As the opinion of the Representatives of the people of New-Jersey aforesaid, That inasmuch as Congress have a clear right to refuse the admission of a Territory into the Union, by the terms of the Constitution, they ought, in the present case, to exercise that absolute discretion in order to preserve the political rights of the several existing States, and prevent the great national disgrace and multiplied mischiefs, which must ensure from conceding it, as a matter of right, in the immense Territories yet to claim admission into the Union beyond the Mississippi, that they may tolerate Slavery.

6. Resolved, (with the concurrence of Council,) That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of the Senators and Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States.

PENNSYLVANIA.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
December 11th, 1819.

A motion was made by Mr. Duane and Mr. Thackara, and read as follows

The Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, while they cherish the right of the individual States to express their opinion upon all public measures proposed in the Congress of the Union, are aware that its usefulness must in a great degree depend upon the discretion with which it is exercised; they believe that the right ought not to be resorted to upon trivial subjects or unimportant occasions; but they are also persuaded that there are momenta when the neglect to exercise it would be a dereliction of public duty.

Such an occasion, as in their judgment demands the frank expression of the sentiments of Pennsylvania, is now presented. A measure was ardently supported in the last Congress of the United States, and will probably be as earnestly urged during the existing session of that body, which has a palpable tendency to impair the political relations of the several States; which is calculated to mar the social happiness of the present and future generations; which, if adopted, would impede the march of humanity and Freedom through the world; and would transfer from a misguided ancestry an odious stain and fix it indelibly upon the present race — a measure, in brief, which proposes to spread the crimes and cruelties of Slavery from the banks of the Mississippi to the shores of the Pacific. When a measure of this character is seriously advocated in the republican Congress of America, in the nineteenth century, the several States are invoked by the duty which they owe to the Deity, by the veneration which they entertain for the memory of the founders of the Republic, and by a tender regard for posterity, to protest against its adoption, to refuse to covenant with crime, and to limit the range of an evil that already hangs in awful boding over so large a portion of the Union.

Nor can such a protest be entered by any State with greater propriety than by Pennsylvania. This Commonwealth has as sacredly respected the rights of other States as it has been careful of its own; it has been the invariable aim of the people of Pennsylvania to extend to the universe, by their example, the unadulterated blessings of civil and religious freedom; and it is their pride that they have been at all times the practical advocates of those improvements and charities among men which are so well calculated to enable them to answer the purposes of their Creator; and above all, they may boast that they were foremost in removing the pollution of Slavery from among them.

If, indeed, the measure, against which Pennsylvania considers it her duty to raise her voice, were calculated to abridge any of the rights guaranteed to the several States; if, odious as Slavery is, it was proposed to hasten its extinction by means injurious to the States upon which it was unhappily entailed, Pennsylvania would be among the first to insist upon a sacred observance of the Constitutional compact. But it cannot be pretended that the rights of any of the States are at all to be affected by refusing to extend the mischiefs of human bondage over the boundless regions of the West, a Territory which formed no part of the Union at the adoption of the Constitution; which has been but lately purchased from a European Power by the people of the Union at large; which may or may not be admitted as a State into the Union at the discretion of Congress; which must establish a Republican form of Government, and no other; and whose climate affords none of the pretexts urged for resorting to the labor of natives of the torrid zone; such a Territory has no right, inherent or acquired, such as those States possessed which established the existing Constitution. When that Constitution was framed in September, 1787, the concession that three-fifths of the slaves in the States then existing should be represented in Congress, could not have been intended to embrace regions at that time held by a foreign power. On the contrary, so anxious were the Congress of that day to confine human bondage within its ancient home, that on the 18th of July, 1787, that body unanimously declared that Slavery or involuntary servitude should not exist in the extensive Territories hounded by the Ohio, the Mississippi, Canada and the Lakes; and in the ninth article of the Constitution itself, the power of Congress to prohibit the emigration of servile persons after 1808, is expressly recognized; nor is there to be found in the statute-book a single instance of the admission of a Territory to the rank of a State, in which Congress have not adhered to the right, vested in them by the Constitution, to stipulate with the Territory upon the conditions of the boon.

The Senate and House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, therefore, cannot but deprecate any departure from the humane and enlightened policy pursued not only by the illustrious Congress which framed the Constitution, but by their successors without exception. They are persuaded that, to open the fertile regions of the West to a servile race, would tend to increase their numbers beyond all past example, would open a new and steady market for the lawless venders of human flesh, and would render all schemes for obliterating this most foul blot upon the American character, useless and unavailing.

Under these convictions, and in the full persuasion that upon this topic there is but one opinion in Pennsylvania —

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth, of Pennsylvania, That the Senators of this State in the Congress of the United States be, and they are hereby instructed, and that the Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States be, and they are hereby requested, to vote against the admission of any Territory as a State into the Union, unless said Territory shall stipulate and agree

62

that "the further introduction of Slavery or involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be prohibited; and that all children born within the said Territory, after its admission into the Union as a State, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years."

Resolved, That the Governor be, and he is hereby, requested to cause a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolution to be transmitted to each of the Senators and Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States.

Laid on the table.

THURSDAY, December 16, 1819.
Agreeably to the order of the day, the House resumed the consideration of the resolutions postponed on the 14th inst., relative to preventing the introduction of Slavery into States hereafter to be admitted into the Union. And on the question, "Will the House agree to the resolution?" the Yeas and Nays were required by Mr. Randall and Mr. Souder, and stood — Yeas 74 — (54 Democrats, 20 Federalists); Nays none. Among the Yeas were David R. Porter, late Governor, Josiah Randall of Philadelphia, late Whig, now a leading Democrat, William Wilkins, late minister to Russia, since in the State Senate, Dr. Daniel Sturgeon, late U. S. Senator, etc., etc. William Duane, editor of The Aurora, then the Democratic organ, also voted for the resolutions, as he had prominently advocated the principle they asserted.

The Senate unanimously concurred, and the Resolves were signed by Gov. William Findlay.

DELAWARE.

In Senate of the United States, early in 1820, Mr. Van Dyke communicated the following Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Delaware, which were read

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware, in General Assembly met: That it is, in the opinion of this General Assembly, the constitutional right of the United States, in Congress assembled, to enact and establish, as one of the conditions for the admission of a new State into the Union, a provision which shall effectually prevent the further introduction of Slavery into such State; and that a due regard to the true interests of such State, as well as of the other States, require that the same should be done.

Resolved, That a copy of the above and foregoing resolution be transmitted, by the Speaker of the Senate, to each of the Senators and Representatives from this State in the Congress of the United States.

KENTUCKY.

In Senate, January 24th, 1820, Mr. Logan communicated the following preamble and Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Kentucky, which were read

Whereas, The Constitution of the United States provides for the admission of new States into the Union, and it is just and proper that all such States should be established upon the footing of original States, with a view to the preservation of State Sovereignty, the prosperity of such new State, and the good of their citizens; and whereas, successful attempts have been heretofore made, and are now making, to prevent the People of the Territory of Missouri from being admitted into the Union as a State, unless trammeled by rules and regulations which do not exist in the original States, particularly in relation to the toleration of Slavery.

Whereas, also, if Congress can thus trammel or control the powers of a Territory in the formation of a State government, that body may, on the same principle, reduce its powers to little more than those possessed by the people of the District of Columbia, and whilst professing to make it a Sovereign State, may bind it in perpetual vassalage, and reduce it to the condition of a province; such State must necessarily become the dependent of Congress, asking such powers, and not the independent State, demanding rights. And whereas, it is necessary, in preserving the State Sovereignties in their present rights, that no new State should be subjected to this restriction, any more than an old one, and that there can be no reason or justice why it should not be entitled to the same privileges, when it is bound to bear all the burdens and taxes laid upon it by Congress.

In passing the following resolution, the General Assembly refrains from expressing any opinion either in favor or against the principles of Slavery; but to support and maintain State rights, which it conceives necessary to be supported and maintained, to preserve the liberties of the free people of these United States, it avows its solemn conviction, that the States already confederated under one common Constitution, have not a right to deprive new States of equal privileges with themselves. Therefore,

Resolved, by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That the Senators in Congress from this State be instructed, and the Representatives be requested, to use their efforts to procure the passage of a law to admit the people of Missouri into the Union, as a State, whether those people will sanction Slavery by their Constitution or not,

Resolved, That the Executive of this Commonwealth be requested to transmit this Resolution to the Senators and Representatives of this State in Congress, that it may be laid before that body for its consideration.

The bill authorizing Missouri to form a constitution, etc., came up in the House as a special order, Jan. 24th. Mr. Taylor, of N. Y., moved that it be postponed for one week: Lost: Yeas 87; Nays 88. Whereupon the House adjourned. It was considered in committee the next day, as also on the 28th and 30th, and thence debated daily until the 19th of February, when a bill came down from the Senate "to admit the State of Maine into the Union," but with a rider authorizing the people of Missouri to form a State Constitution, etc., without restriction on the subject of Slavery.

The House, very early in the session, passed a bill providing for the admission of Maine as a State. This bill came to the Senate, and was sent to its Judiciary Committee aforesaid, which amended it by adding a provision for Missouri as above. After several days' debate in Senate, Mr. Roberts, of Pa., moved to recommit, so as to strike out all but the admission of Maine; which was defeated (Jan. 14th, 1820) — Yeas 18; Nays 25. Hereupon Mr. Thomas, of Ill., (who voted with the majority, as uniformly against any restriction on Missouri) gave notice that he should "ask leave to bring a bill to prohibit the introduction of Slavery into the Territories of the United States North and West of the contemplated State of Missouri;"

— which he accordingly did on the 19th; when it was read and ordered to a third reading.

[NOTE. — Great confusion and misconception exists in the public mind with regard to the "Missouri Restriction," two totally different propositions being called by that name. The original Restriction, which Mr. Clay vehemently opposed, and Mr. Jefferson in a letter characterized as a "fire-bell in the night," contemplated the limitation of Slavery in its exclusion from the State of Missouri. This was ultimately defeated, as we shall see. The second proposed Restriction was that of Mr. Thomas, just cited, which proposed the exclusion of Slavery, not from the State of Missouri, but from the Territories of the United States North and West of that State. This proposition did not emanate from the original Missouri Restrictions, but from their adversaries, and was but reluctantly and partially accepted by the former.]

The Maine admission bill, with the proposed amendments, was discussed through several days, until, Feb. 16th, the question was taken on the Judiciary Committee's amendments (authorizing Missouri to form a State Constitution, and saying nothing of Slavery), which were adopted by the following vote

Yeas — Against the Restriction on Missouri, 28.
[20 from Slave States; 3 from Free States.]

Nays — For Restriction, 21.
[19 from Free States; 2 from Delaware.]

Mr. Thomas, of Ill., then proposed his amendment,

63

which, on the following day, he withdrew and substituted the following:
And be it further enacted, That in all that Territory ceded by France to the United States under the same of Louisiana which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, Slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited. Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from where 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 person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.

Mr. Trimble, of Ohio, moved a substitute for this, somewhat altering the boundaries of the regions shielded from Slavery, which was rejected: Yeas 20 (Northern); Nays 24 (Southern).

The question then recurred on Mr. Thomas's amendment, which was adopted, as follows:

Yeas — For excluding Slavery from all the Territory North and West of Missouri:
Messrs. Brown of La., Mellen of Mass.,
Burrill of R. I., Morrill of N. H.,
Dana of Conn., Otis of Mass.,
Dickerson of N. J., Palmer of Vt.,
Eaton of Tenn., Parrott of N. H.,
Edwards of Ill., Pinkney of Md.,
Horsey of Del., Roberts of Pa.,
Hunter of R. I., Ruggles of Ohio,
Johnson of Ky., Sanford of N. Y.,
Johnson of La., Stokes of N. C.,
King (Wm. R.of Ala., Thomas of Ill.
King (Rufus) of N. Y., Tichenor of Vt.,
Lamnan of Conn., Trimble of Ohio,
Leake of Miss., Van Dyke of Del.,
Lowrie of Pa., Walker of Ala.,
Lloyd of Md., Williams of Tenn.,
Logan of Ky., Wilson of N. J. — 34.
Nays — Against such Restriction:
Messrs. Barbour of Va., Pleasants of Va.,
Elliot of Ga., Smith (Wm.) of S. C.,
Gaillard of S. C., Taylor of Ind.,
Macon of N. C., Walker of Ga.,
Noble of Ind., Williams of Miss. — 10.

[It will here be seen that the Restriction ultimately adopted — that excluding Slavery from all territory then owned by the United States North and West of the Southwest border of the State of Missouri — was proposed by an early and steadfast opponent of the Restriction originally proposed, relative to Slavery in the contemplated State of Missouri, and was sustained by the votes of fourteen Senators from Slave States, including the Senators from Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana, with one vote each from North Carolina and Mississippi.

The current assumption that this Restriction was proposed by Rufus King, of New-York, and mainly sustained by the antagonists of Slavery Extension, is wholly mistaken. The truth, doubtless, is, that it was suggested by the more moderate opponents of the proposed Restriction on Missouri — and supported also by Senators from Slave States — as a means of overcoming the resistance of the House to Slavery in Missouri. It was, in effect, an offer from the milder opponents of Slavery Restriction to the more moderate and flexible advocates of that Restriction — "Let us have Slavery in Missouri, and we will unite with you in excluding it from all the uninhabited territories North and West of that State." It was in substance an agreement between the North and the South to that effect, though the more determined champions, whether of Slavery Extension or Slavery Restriction, did not unite in it.]

The bill, thus amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading by the following vote:

Yeas — For the Missouri Bill:
Messrs. Barbour of Va., Lloyd of Md.
Brown of La., Logan of Ky.
Eaton of Tenn., Parrott of N. H.,
Edwards of Ill., Pinkney of Md.,
Elliott of Ga., Pleasants of Va.,
Gaillard of S. C. Stokes of N. C.,
Horsey of Del., Thomas of Ill.,
Hunter of R. I., Van Dyke of Del.,
Johnson of Ky., Walker of Ala.,
Johnson of La., Walker of Ga.,
King of Ala., Williams of Miss.,
Leake of Miss., Williams of Tenn — 24.
Nays — Against the Bill:
Messrs. Burrill of R. I., Otis of Mass.,
Dana of Conn., Palmer of Vt.,
Dickerson of N. J., Roberts of Pa.,
King of N. Y., Ruggles of Ohio,
Lanman of Conn., Sanford of N. Y.,
Lowrie of Pa., Smith of S. C.,
Macon of N. C., Taylor of Ind.,
Mellen of Mass., Tichenor of Vt.,
Morrill of N. H., Tumble of Ohio,
Noble of Ind., Wilson of N. J. — 20.

The bill was thus passed (Feb. 18th) without further division, and sent to the House for concurrence. In the House, Mr. Thomas's amendment (as above) was at first rejected by both parties, and defeated by the strong vote of 159 to 18. The Yeas (to adopt) were,
Messrs. Baldwin of Pa.,
Bayly of Md.,
Bloomfield of N. J.,
Cocke of Tenn.,
Crafts of Vt.,
Culpepper of N. C.,
Kinsey of N. J.,
Lathrop of Mass.,
Little of Md.,
Meech, of Vt.,
Mercer of Va.,
Quarles of Ky.,
Ringgold of Md.,
Shaw of Mass.,
Sloan of Ohio,
Smith of N. J.,
Smith of Md.,
Tarr of Pa. — 18.

Prior to this vote, the House disagreed to the log-rolling of Maine and Missouri, into one bill by the strong vote of 93 to 72. [We do not give the Yeas and Nays on this decision; but the majority was composed of the representatives of the Free States with only four exceptions; and Mr. Louis McLane of Delaware, who was constrained by instructions from his legislature. His colleague, Mr. Willard Hall, did not vote.]

The members from Free States who voted with the South to keep Maine and Missouri united in one bill were,
Messrs. H. Baldwin of Pa.,
Bloomfield of N. J.,
Henry Meigs of N. Y.,
Henry Shaw of Mass.,

The House also disagreed to the remaining amendments, of the Senate (striking out the restriction on Slavery in Missouri) by the strong vote of 102 Yeas to 68 Nays.

[Nearly or quite every Representative of a Free State voted in the majority on this division, with the following from Slave States:
Louis McLane, Del.,
Alney McLean, Ky.
Nelson, Md.,
Trimble, Ky.]

So the House rejected all the Senate's amendments, and returned the bill with a corresponding message.

The Senate took up the bill on the 24th, and debated it till the 28th; when, on a direct vote, it was decided not to recede from the attachment of Missouri to the Maine bill: Yeas 21; (19 from Free States and two from Delaware;

64

Nays, 23; (20 from Slave States with Messrs. Taylor of Ind., Edwards and Thomas of Ill.)

The Senate also voted not to recede from its amendment prohibiting Slavery west of Missouri, and north of 36ş 80', north latitude. (For receding, 9 from Slave States, with Messrs. Noble and Taylor of Ind.: against it, 33 — (22 from Slave States, 11 from Free States.) The remaining amendments of the Senate were then insisted on without division, and the House notified accordingly.

The bill was now returned to the House, which, on motion of Mr. John W. Taylor of N. Y, voted to insist on its disagreement to all but Sec. 9 of the Senate's amendments, by Yeas 97 to Nays 76: (all but a purely sectional vote: Hugh Nelson of Va. voting with the North; Baldwin of Pa., Bloomfield of N. J., and Shaw of Mass., voting with the South), Sec. 9, (the Senate's exclusion of Slavery from the Territory north and west of Missouri) was also rejected — Yeas 160; Nays, 14, (much as before). The Senate thereupon (March 2nd) passed the House's Missouri bill, striking out the restriction of Slavery by Yeas 27 to Nays 15, and adding without a division the exclusion of Slavery from the territory west and north of said State. Mr. Trimble again moved the exclusion of Slavery from Arkansas also, but was again voted down, Yeas, 12; Nays, 30.

The Senate now asked a conference, which the House granted without a division. The Committee of Conference was composed of Messrs. Thomas of Illinois, Pinkney of Maryland, and Barbour of Va. (all anti-restrictioniats), on the part of the Senate, and Messrs. Holmes of Mass., Taylor of N. Y., Lowndes of S. C., Parker of Mass., and Kinsey of N. J., on the part of the House. (Such constitution of the Committee of Conference was in effect a surrender of the Restriction on the part of the House.) John Holmes of Mass., from this Committee, in due time (March 2nd), reported that,
1. The Senate should give up the combination of Missouri in the same bill with Maine.

2. The House should abandon the attempt to restrict Slavery in Missouri.

3. Both Houses should agree to pass the Senate's separate Missouri bill, with Mr. Thomas's restriction or compromising proviso, excluding Slavery from all Territory north and west of Missouri.

The report having been read, the first and most important question was put, viz:
Will the House concur with the Senate in so much of the said amendments as proposes to strike from the fourth section of the Missouri) bill the provision prohibiting Slavery or involuntary servitude, in the contemplated State, otherwise than la the punishment of crimes?

On which question the Yeas and Nays were demanded, and were as follows:
YEAS — For giving up Restrictions on Missouri:

MASSACHUSETTS. — Mark Langdon Hill, John Holmes, Jonathan Mason, Henry Shaw — 4.
RHODE ISLAND. — Samuel Eddy — 1.
CONNECTICUT. — Samuel A.. Fool, James Stephens — 2
NEW YORK. — Henry Meigs, Henry R. Storrs — 2.
NEW-JERSEY. — Joseph Bloomfield, Charles Kinsey, Bernard Smith — 3.
PENNSYLVANIA. — Henry Baldwin, David Fullerton — 2.

Total from Free-States 14.

DELAWARE. — Louis McLane — 1.
MARYLAND. — Stephenson Archer, Thomas Bayly. Thomas Culbreth, Joseph Kent, Peter Little, Raphael Neale, Samuel Ringgold, Samuel Smith, Henry B. Warfield — 9.
VIRGINIA. — Mark Alexander, William S. Archer, Philip P. Barbour, William A. Burwell, John Floyd, Robert S. Garnett, James Johnson, James Jones, William McCoy, Charles F. Mercer, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Nelson, Severn E. Parker, Jas. Pindall, John Randolph, Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, George F. Strother, Thomas Van Swearingen, George Tucker, John Tyler, Jared Willlams — 22.
NORTH CAROLINA. — Hutchins G. Burton, John Culpepper, William Davidson, Weldon N. Edwards, Charles Fisher, Thomas H. Hall, Charles Hooks, Thomas Settle, Jesse Slocumb, James S. Smith, Felix Walker, Lewis Williams — 12.
SOUTH CAROLINA — Josiah Brevard, Elias Earle, James Erwin, William Lowndes, James McCreary, James Overstreet, Charles Pinckney, Eldred Simkins, Sterling Tucker — 9.
GEORGIA. — Joel A. Abbot, Thomas W. Cobb, Joel Crawford, John A. Cuthbert, Robert R. Reid, William Terrill — 6.
ALABAMA. — John Crowell — 1.
MISSISSIPPI. — John Rankin — 1.
LOUISIANA. — Thomas Butler — 1.
KENTUCKY — Richard C. Anderson, jr., William Brown, Benjamin Hardin, Alney McLean, Thomas Metcalf, Tunstall Quarles, Geo. Robertaon, David Trimble — 8.
TENNESSEE. — Robert Allen, Henry H. Bryan, Newton Cannon, John Cocke, Francis Jones, John Rhea — 5.
Total Yeas from Slave States, 76, in all 90.

NAYS — Against giving up the Restriction on Slavery in Missouri:
NEW-HAMPSHIRE — Joseph Buffum, jr., Josiah Butler, Clifton Clagett, Arthur Livermore, William Plumer, Jr., Nathaniel Upham — 6.
MASSACHUSETTS (including Maine). — Benjamin Adams, Samuel C. Allen Joshua Cushman, Edward Dowse, Walter Folger, jr., Timothy Fuller, Jonas Kendall, Martin Kinsley, Samuel Lathrop, Enoch Lincoln, Marcus Morton, Jeremiah Nelson, James Parker, Zabdiel Sampson, Nathaniel Silsbee, Ezekiel Whitman — 16.
RHODE ISLAND. — Nathaniel Hazard — 1.
CONNECTICUT. — Jonathan O. Moseley, Elisha Phelps, John Russ, Gideon Tomlinson-4.
VERMONT. — Samuel C. Crafts, Rollin C. Mallary, Ezra Meech, Charles Rich, Mark Richards, William Strong — 6.
NEW-YORK. — Nathaniel Allen, Caleb Baker, Robert Clark, Jacob H. De Witt, John D. Dickinson, John Fay, William D. Ford, Ezra C. Gross, James Guyon, jr., Aaron Hackley, jr, George Hall, Joseph S. Lyman, Robert Monell, Nathaniel Pitcher, Jonathan Richmond, Randall S. Street, James Strong, John W. Taylor, Albert H. Tracy, Solomon Van Rensselear, Peter H. Wendover, Silas Wood — 22.
NEW-JERSEY. — Ephraim Bateman, John Linn, Henry Southard — 3.
PENNSYLVANIA. — Andrew Boden, William Darlington, George Dennison, Samuel Edwards, Thomas Forrest, Samuel Gross, Joseph Hemphill, Jacob Hibschrnan, Joseph Heister, Jacob Hostetter, William P. Maclay, David Marchand, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, John Murray, Thomas Patterson, Robert Philson, Thomas J. Rogers, John Sergeant, Christian Tarr, James M. Wallace — 21.
OHIO. — Philemon Beecher, Henry Brush, John W. Campbell, Samuel Herrick, Thomas R. Ross, John Sloane — 6.
INDIANA. — William Hendricks — 1.
ILLINOIS. — Daniel P. Cook — 1.
Total, Nays, 87 — all from Free States.

(The members apparently absent on this important division, were Henry W. Edwards of Conn., Walter Case and Honorius Peck of N. Y. and John Condit of N.J. from the Free States; with Lemuel Sawyer of N. C., and David Walker of Ky., from the Slave States. Mr. Clay of Ky., being Speaker, did not vote.)

This defeat broke the back of the Northern resistance to receiving Missouri as a Slave State.

Mr. Taylor, of N. Y., now moved an amendment, intended to include Arkansas Territory

65

under the proposed Inhibition of Slavery west of Missouri; but this motion was cut off by the Previous Question, (which then cut off amendments more rigorously, according to the rules of the House, than it now does), and the House proceeded to concur with the Senate in inserting the exclusion of Slavery from the territory west and north of Missouri, instead of that just stricken out by, 134 Yeas to 42 Nays, (the Nays being from the South). So the bill was passed in the form indicated above; and the bill admitting Maine as a State, (relieved, by a conference, from the Missouri rider,) passed both Houses without a divison, on the following day.

Such was the virtual termination of the struggle for the restriction of Slavery in Missouri, which was beaten by the plan of proffering instead an exclusion of Slavery from all the then federal territory west and north of that State. It is unquestionable that, without this compromise or equivalent, the Northern votes, which passed the bill, could not have been obtained for it.

The Third Missouri Struggle.

Though the acceptance of Missouri as a State, with a Slave Constitution, was forever settled by the votes just recorded, a new excitement sprang up on her presenting herself to Congress (Nov. 16, 1820) with a State Constitution, framed on the 19th of July, containing the following resolutions

The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws, First, for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, or without paying them, before such emancipation, a full equivalent for such slaves so emancipated; and, Second, to prevent bona fide emigrants to this State, or actual settlers therein, from bringing from any of the United States, or from any of their Territories, such persons as may there be deemed to be slaves, so long as any persons of the same description are allowed to be held as slaves by the laws of this State . . . . It shall be their duty, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary, First, to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to, and settling in, this State, under any pretext whatever.

The North, still smarting under a sense of its defeat on the question of excluding Slavery from Missouri, regarded this as needlessly defiant, insulting, and inhuman, and the section last quoted as palpably in violation of that clause of the Federal Constitution which gives to the citizens of each State (which blacks are, in several Free States), the rights of citizens in every State. A determined resistance to any such exclusion was manifested, and a portion of the Northern Members evinced a disposition to renew the struggle against the further introduction of slaves into Missouri. At the first effort to carry her admission, the House voted it down — Yeas, 79; Nays, 93. A second attempt to admit her, on condition that she would expunge the obnoxious clause (last quoted) of her Constituition, was voted down still more decisively — Yeas, 6; Nays 146.

The House now rested, until a joint resolve, admitting her with but a vague and ineffective qualification, came down from the Senate, where it was passed by a vote of 26 to 18 — six Senators from Free States in the affirmative. Mr. Clay, who had resigned in the recess, and been succeeded, as Speaker, by John W. Taylor, of New-York, now appeared as the leader of the Missouri admissionists, and proposed terms of compromise, which were twice voted down by the Northern members, aided by John Randolph and three others from the South, who would have Missouri admitted without condition or qualification. At last, Mr. Clay proposed a Joint Committee on this subject, to be chosen by ballot — which the House agreed to by 101 to 55; and Mr. Clay became its Chairman. By this Committee, it was agreed that a solemn pledge should be required of the Legislature of Missouri that the Constitution of that State should not be construed to authorize the passage of any Act, and that no Act should be passed, "by which any of the citizens of either of the States should be excluded from the enjoyment of the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled under the Constitution of the United States." The Joint Resolution, amended by the addition of this proviso, passed the House by 86 Yeas to 82 Nays; the Senate concurred (Feb. 27th, 1821,) by 26 Yeas to 16 Nays — (all Northern but Macon, of N. C.); Missouri complied with the condition, and became an accepted member of the Union. Thus closed the last stage of the fierce Missouri Controversy, which for a time seemed to threaten — as so many other controversies have harmlessly threatened — the existence of the Union.

Extension of Missouri.

The State of Missouri, as originally organized, was bounded on the west by a line already specified, which excluded a triangle west of said line, and between it and the Missouri, which was found, in time, to be exceedingly fertile and desirable. It was free soil by the terms of the Missouri compact, and was also covered by Indian reservations, not to be removed without a concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. Messrs. Benton and Linn, Senators from Missouri, undertook the difficult task of engineering through Congress a bill including this triangle (large enough to form seven Counties) within the State of Missouri; which they effected, at the long session of 1835-6, so quietly as hardly to attract attention. The bill was first sent to the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary, where a favorable report was procured from Mr. John M. Clayton, of Delaware, its Chairman; and then it was floated through both Houses without encountering the perils of a division. The requisite Indian treaties were likewise carried through the Senate; so Missouri became possessed of a large and desirable accession of territory, which has since become one of her most populous and wealthy sections, devoted to the growing of hemp, tobacco, etc., and cultivated by slaves. This is the most pro Slavery section of the State, in which was originated, and was principally sustained, that series of inroads into Kansas, corruptions of her ballot-boxes, and outrages upon her people, which earned for their authors the appellation of Border Ruffians.

The Annexation of Texas.

The name of Texas was originally applied to a Spanish possession or province, lying between the Mississippi and the Rio Grande del Norte, but not extending to either of these great rivers. It was an appendage of the Viceroyalty of

66

Mexico, but had very few civilized inhabitants down to the time of the separation of Mexico from Spain. On two or three occasions, bands of French adventurers had landed on its coast, or entered it from the adjoining French colony of Louisiana; but they had uniformly been treated as intruders, and either destroyed or made prisoners by the Spanish military authorities.

No line had ever been drawn between the two colonies; but the traditional line between them, south of the Red River, ran somewhat within the limits of the present State of Louisiana.

When Louisiana was transferred by France to the United States, without specification of boundaries, collisions of claims on this frontier was apprehended. General Wilkinson, commanding the United States troops, moved gradually to the west; the Spanish commandant in Texas likewise drew toward the frontier, until they stood opposite each other across what was then tacitly settled as the boundary between the two countries. This was never afterward disregarded.

In 1819, Spain and the United States seemed on the verge of war. General Jackson had twice invaded Florida, on the assumption of complicity on the part of her rulers and people — first with our British, then with our savage enemies — and had finally overrun, and, in effect, annexed it to the Union. Spain, on the other hand, had preyed upon our commerce during the long wars in Europe, and honestly owed our merchants large sums for unjustifiable seizures and spoliations. A negotiation for the settlement of these differences was carried on at Washington, between John Quincy Adams, Mr. Monroe's Secretary of State, and Don Onis, the Spanish embassador, in the course of which Mr. Adams set up a claim, on the part of this country, to Texas as a natural geographical appendage not of Mexico, but of Louisiana. This claim, however, he eventually waived and relinquished, in consideration of a cession of Florida by Spain to this country — our government agreeing, on its part, to pay the claims of our merchants for spoliations. Texas remained, therefore, what it always had been — a department or province of Mexico, with a formal quit-claim thereto on the part of the United States.

The natural advantages of this region in time attracted the attention of American adventurers, and a small colony of Yankees was settled thereon, about 1819-20, by Moses Austin, of Connecticut. Other settlements followed. Originally, grants of land in Texas were prayed for; and obtained of the Mexican Government, on the assumption that the petitioners were Roman Catholics, persecuted in the United States because of their religion, and anxious to find a refuge in some Catholic country. Thus all the early emigrants to Texas went professedly as Catholics, no other religion being tolerated.

Slavery was abolished by Mexico soon after the consummation of her independence, when, very few slaves were, or ever had been, in Texas. But, about 1834, some years after this event, a quiet, but very general, and evidently concerted, emigration, mainly from Tennessee and other southwestern States, began to concentrate itself in Texas. The emigrants carried rifles; many of them were accompanied by slaves; and it was well understood that they did not intend to become Mexicans, much less to relinquish their slaves. When Gen. Sam. Houston left Arkansas for Texas, in 1834-5, the Little Rock Journal, which announced his exodus and destination, significantly added: "We shall, doubtless, hear of his raising his fag there shortly." That was a foregone conclusion.

Of course, the new settlers in Texas did not lack pretexts or provocations for such a step. Mexico was then much as she is now, misgoverned, turbulent, anarchical, and despotic. The overthrow of her Federal Constitution by Santa Anna was one reason assigned for the rebellion against her authority which broke out in Texas. In 1835, her independence was declared; in 1836, at the decisive battle of San Jacinto, it was, by the rout and capture of the Mexican dictator, secured. This triumph was won by emigrants from this country almost exclusively; scarcely half a dozen of the old Mexican inhabitants participating in the revolution. Santa Anna, while a prisoner, under restraint and apprehension, agreed to a peace on the basis of the independence of Texas — a covenant which he had no power, and probably no desire, to give effect to when restored to liberty. The Texans, pursuing their advantage, twice or thrice penetrated other Mexican provinces — Tamaulipas, Coahuila, etc., — and waved their Lone-Star flag in defiance on the banks of the Rio Grande del Norte; which position, however, they were always compelled soon to abandon — once with severe loss. Their government, nevertheless, in reiterating their declaration of independence, claimed the Rio Grande as their western boundary, from its source to its mouth, including a large share of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, Durango, and by far the more important and populous portion of New Mexico. And it was with this claim, expressly set forth in the treaty, that President Tyler and his responsible advisers negotiated the first official project of annexation, which was submitted to the Senate, during the session of 1843-4, and rejected by a very decisive vote: only fifteen (mainly Southern) senators voting to confirm it. Col. Benton, and others, urged this aggressive claim of boundary, as affording abundant reason for the rejection of this treaty; but it is not known that the Slavery aspect of the case attracted special attention in the Senate. The measure, however, had already been publicly eulogized by Gen. James Hamilton, of S. C., as calculated to "give a Gibraltar to the South," and had, on that ground, secured a very general and ardent popularity throughout the South-West. And, more than a year previously, several northern members of Congress had united in the following:

TO THE PEOPLE OF THE FREE STATES OF THE UNION.

We, the undersigned, in closing our duties to our constituents and our country as members of the 27th Congress, feel bound to call your attention, very briefly, to the project, long entertained by a portion of the people of these United States, still pertinaciously adhered to, and intended soon to be consummated: THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS TO THIS UNION. In the press of business incidents

67

to the last days of a session of Congress, we have not time, did we deem it necessary, to enter upon a detailed statement of the reasons which force upon our minds the conviction that this project is by no means abandoned: that a large portion of the country, interested in the continuance of Domestic Slavery and the Slave-trade in these United States, have solemnly and unalterably determined that it shall be speedily carried into execution; and that, by this admission of new Slave Territory and Slave States, the undue ascendency of the Slave-holding power in the Government shall be secured and riveted beyond all redemption!!

That it was with these views and intentions that settlements were effected in the province, by citizens of the United States, difficulties fomented with the Mexican Government, a revolt brought about, and an Independent Government declared, cannot now admit of a doubt; and that, hitherto, all attempts of Mexico to reduce her revolted province to obedience have proved unsuccessful, is to be attributed to the unlawful aid and assistance of designing and interested individuals in the United States, and the direct and indirect cooperation of our own Government, with similar views is not the less certain and demonstrable.

The open and repeated enlistment of troops in several States of this Union, in aid of the Texan Revolution; the intrusion of an American Army, by order of the President, far into the territory of the Mexican Government, at a moment critical for the fate of the insurgents, under pretense of preventing Mexican soldiers from fomenting Indian disturbances, but in reality in aid of, and acting in singular concert and coincidence with, the army of the Revolutionists; the entire neglect of our Government to adopt any efficient measures to prevent the most unwarrantable aggressions of bodies of our own citizens, enlisted, organized and officered within our own borders, and marched in arms and battle array upon the territory, and against the inhabitants of a friendly government, in aid of freebooters and insurgents, and the premature recognition of the independence of Texas, by a snap vote, at the heel of a session of Congress, and that, too, at the very session when President Jackson had by special Message, insisted that "the measure would be contrary to the policy invariably observed by the United States in all similar cases," would be marked with great injustice to Mexico, and peculiarly liable to the darkest suspicions, inasmuch as the Texans were the almost all emigrants from the United States, AND SOUGHT THE RECOGNITION OF THEIR INDEPENDENCE WITH THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THEIR ANNEXATION TO THE UNITED STATES. These occurrences are too well known and too fresh in the memory of all, to need more than a passing notice. These have become matters of history, for further evidence upon all these and other important points, we refer to the memorable speech of John Quincy Adams, delivered in the House of Representatives during the morning hour in June and July, l838, and to his address to his constituents, delivered at Braintree, 17th September, 1842.

The open avowal of the Texans themselves — the frequent and anxious negotiations of our own Govemment — the resolutions of various States of the Union — the numerous declarations of members of Congress — the tone of the Southern press — as well as the direct application of the Texan Government, make it impossible for any man to doubt, that ANNEXATION, and the formation of several new Slaveholding States, were originally the policy and design of the Slaveholding States and the Executive of the Nation.

The same reference will show, very conclusively, that the particular objects of this new acquisition of Slave Territory were THE PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY AND THE CONTINUED ASCENDENCY OF THE SLAVE POWER.

The following extracts from a Report on that subject, adopted by the Legislature of Mississippi, from a mass of similar evidence which might be adduced, will show with what views the annexation was then urged

"But we hasten to suggest the importance of the annexation of Texas to this Republic upon grounds somewhat local in their complexion, but of an import infinitely grave and inter-Confederacy, where it known that a species of domestic Slavery is tolerated and protected by law, whose existence is prohibited by the legal regulations of other States of this Confederacy; which system of Slavery is held by all, who are familiarly acclaimed with its practical effects, to be of highly beneficial influence to the country within whose limits it is permitted to exist.

"The Committee feel authorized to say that this system is cherished by our constituents as the very palladium of their prosperity and happiness and whatever ignorant fanatics may elsewhere conjecture, the Committee are fully assured, upon the most diligent observation and reflection on the subject that the South does not posses within her limits a blessing with which the affections of her people are so closely entwined and so completely enfibred, and whose value is more highly appreciated, than that which we are now considering.

"It may not be improper here to remark that, during the last session of Congress, when a Senator from Mississippi proposed the acknowledgment of Texan independence, it was found, with a few exceptions, the members of that body were ready to take ground upon it, as upon the subject of Slavery itself.

"With all these facts before us, we do not hesitate in believing that these feelings influenced the New England Senators, but one voting in favor of the measure; and, indeed, Mr. Webster had been bold enough, in a public speech recently delivered in New-York, to many thousand citizens, to declare that me reason that influenced his opposition was his abhorrence of Slavery in the South, and that it might, in the event of its recognition, become a slaveholding State. He also spoke of the efforts making in favor of Abolition; and that, being predicated upon and aided by the powerful influence of religious feeling, it would become irresistible and overwhelming.

"This language coming from so distinguished an individual as Mr. Webster, so familiar with the feelings of the North and entertaining so high a respect for public sentiment in New England, speaks so plainly the voice of the North as not to be misunderstood.

"We sincerely hope there is enough good sense and genuine love of country among our fellow countrymen of the Northern States, to secure us final justice on this subject; yet we cannot consider it safe or expedient for the people of the South to entirely disregard the efforts of the fanatics and the opinions of such men as Webster, and, others who countenance such dangerous doctrines.

"The Northern States have no interests of their own which require any special safeguards for their defense, save only their domestic manufactures; and God knows they have already received protection from Government on a most liberal scale; under which encouragement they have improved and flourished beyond example. The South has very peculiar interests to preserve: interests already violently assailed and boldly threatened.

"Your Committee are fully persuaded that this protection to her best intrests will be afforded by the annexation of Texas, an equipoise of influence in the halls of Congress will be secured, which will furnish as a permanent guaranty of protection."

The speech of Mr. Adams, exposing the whole system of duplicity and perfidy toward Mexico, had marked the conduct of our Government; and the emphatic expressions of opposition which began to come up from all parties in the Free States, however, for a time, nearly silenced the clamors of the South for annexation, and the people of the North have been lulled into the belief that the project is nearly, if not wholly abandoned, and that at least, there is now no serious danger of its consummation.

Believing this to be a false and dangerous security; that the project has never been abandoned a moment, by its originators and abettors, but that it has been deferred for a more favorable moment for its accomplish merit, we refer to a few evidences of more recent development upon which this opinion is founded.

The last Election of President of the Republic of Texas, is understood to have turned, mainly, upon the question of annexation or no annexation, and the candidate favorable to that measure was successful by an overwhelming majority. The sovereign States of Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi, have recently adopted Resolutions, some, if not all of them, unanimously, in favor of annexation, and forwarded them to Congress.

The Hon. Henry A. Wise, a member of Congress from the District in which our present Chief Magistrate resided when elected Vice-President, and who is understood to be more intimately acquainted with the views and designs of the present administration than any other member of Congress, most distinctly avowed his desire for, and expectation of annexation, at the last session of Congress. Among other things, he said, is a speech delivered January 26, 1842

"True, if Iowa be added on the one side, Florida will be added on the other. But there the equation must stop. Let one more Northern State be admitted, and the equilibrium is gone; — gone forever. The balance of interests is gone — the safeguard of American property — of the American Constitution — of the American Union, vanished into thin air. This must be the inexitable result, unless by a treaty with Mexico, THE SOUTH CAN ADD MORE WEIGHT TO HER END OF THE LEVER? Let the South stop at the Sabine (the eastern boundary of Texas,) while the North may spread unchecked beyond the Rocky Mountains AND THE SOUTHERN SCALE MUST KICK THE BEAM."

Finding difficulties, perhaps, in the way of a cession by Treaty, in another speech delivered in April, 1842, on a motion made by Mr. Linn, of New-York, to strike out the salary of the Minister to Mexico, on the ground that the design of the EXECUTIVE in making the appointment, was to accomplish the annexation of Texas, Mr. Wise said,"he earnestly hoped and trusted that the President was as desirous (of annexation) as he was represented to be. We may well suppose the President to be in favor of it as every wise statesman must be who is not governed by fanaticism, or local sectional prejudices."

68

He said of Texas, that —

"While she was, as a State, weak and almost powerless in resisting invasion, she was herself irresistible as an invading and a conquering power. She had but a sparse population, and neither men nor money of her own, to raise and equip an army for her own defense; but let her once raise the flag of foreign conquest — let her once proclaim a crusade against the rich States to the south of her — and in a moment volunteers would flock to her standard in crowds, from all the States in the great valley of the Mississippi — men of enterprise mid vilor, before whom no Mexican troops could stand for an hour. They would leave their own towns, arm themselves, and travel on their own coat, and would come up in thousands, to plant the lone star of the Texan banner on the Mexican capitol. They would drive Santa Anna to the South, and in boundless wealth of captured towns and rifled churches and a lazy, vicious, and luxurious priesthood, would soon enable Texas, to pay her soldiery, and redeem her State debt, and push her victorious arms to the very shores of the Pacific. And would not all this extend the bounds of Slavery? Yes, the result would be, that, before another quarter of a century, the extension of Slavery would not stop short of the Western Ocean. We had but two alternatives before us; either to receive Texas into our fraternity of States, and thus make her our own, or to leave her to conquer Mexico, and become our most dangerous and formidable rival.

"To talk of restraining the people of the great Valley from emigrating to join her armies, was all in vain; and it was equally vain to calculate on their defeat by any Mexican forces, aided by England or not. They had gone once already; it was they that conquered Santa Anna at San Jacinto; and three-fourths of them, after winning that glorious field, had peaceably returned to their homes. But once set before them the conquest of the rich Mexican provinces, and you might as well attempt to stop the wind. This Government might send its troops to the frontier, to turn them back, and they would run over them like a herd of buffalo.

"Nothing could keep these booted loafers from rushing on, till they kicked the Spanish priests out of the temples they profaned."

Mr. Wise proceeded to insist that a majority of the people of the United States were in favor of the annexation; at all events, he would risk it with the Democracy of the North.

"Sir," said Mr. Wise, "it is not only the duty of the Government to demand the liquidation of our claims, and the liberation of our citizens, but to go further, and demand the non-invasion of Texas. Shall we sit still while the standard of insurrection is raised on our borders, and let a horde of slaves and Indians and Mexicans roll up to the boundary line of Arkansas and Louisiana? No. It is our duty at once to say to Mexico, ‘If you strike Texas, you strike us,’ and if England, standing by, should dare to intermeddle, and ask, ‘Do you take part with Texas?’ his prompt answer should be, ‘Yes, and against you.’

"Such, he would let gentlemen know, was the spirit of the whole people of the great valley of the West."

Several other members of Congress, in the same debate, expressed similar views and desires, and they are still more frequently expressed in conversation.

The Hon. Thomas W. Gilmer, a member of Congress from Virginia, and formerly a Governor of that State, numbered as one of the "Guard," and of course understood to be in the counsels of the Cabinet, in a letter bearing date the 10th day of January last, originally designed as a private and confidential letter to a friend, gives it as his deliberate opinion, after much examination and reflection, that TEXAS WILL BE ANNEXED TO THE UNION; and he enters into a specious argument, and presents a variety of reasons in favor of the measure. He says, among other things:
"Having acquired Louisiana and Florida, we have an interest and a frontier on the Gulf of Mexico, and along our interior to the Pacific, which will not permit us to close our eyes, or fold our arms, with indifference to the events which a few years may disclose in that quarter. We have already had one question of boundary with Texas; other questions must soon arise, under our revenue laws, and on other points of necessary intercourse, which it will be difficult to adjust. The institutions of Texas, and her relations with other governments, are yet in that condition which inclines her people (who are own countrymen,) to unite their destinies with ours. THIS MUST BE DONE SOON OR NOT AT ALL. There are numerous tribes of Indians along both frontiers, which can easily become the cause or the instrument of border tears."

None can be so blind now, as not to know that the real design and object of the South is, to "ADD NEW WEIGHT TO THE END OF HER LEVER." It was upon that ground that Mr. Webster placed his opposition, in his speech on that subject in New-York, in March, 1837. In that speech, after stating that he saw insurmountable objections to the annexation of Texas, that the purchase of Louisiana and Florida furnished no precedent for it, that the cases were not parallel, and that no such policy or necessity as led to that, required the annexation of Texas, he said:
"Gentlemen, we all see, that by whomsoever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slaveholding country; and I frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do anything which shall extend the Slavery of the African race on this continent, or add other slaveholding States to the Union. When I say that I regard Slavery as in itself a great moral, social, and political evil, I only use language which has been adopted by distinguished men, themselves citizens of Slaveholding States. I shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or encourage its further extension."

In conclusion he said:
"I see, therefore, no political necessity for the annexation of Texas to the Union; no advantages to be derived from it, and objections to it of a strong, and, in my judgment, decisive character.

"I believe it to be for the interest and happiness of the whole Union, to remain as it is, without diminution and without addition."

To prevent the success of this nefarious project — to preserve from such gross violation the Constitution of our country, adopted expressly "to secure blessings of liberty," and not the perpetuation of Slavery — and to prevent the speedy and violent dissolution of the Union — we invite you to unite, without distinction of party, in an immediate expression of your views on this subject, in such manner as you may deem best calculated to answer the end proposed.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,
SETH M. GATES,
WILLIAM SLADE,
WILLIAM B. CALHOUN,
JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS,
SHERLOCK J. ANDREWS,
NATHANIEL B. BORDEN,
THOMAS C. CHITTENDEN
JOHN MATTOCKS,
CHRISTOPHER MORGAN,
JOSHUA M. HOWARD,
VICTORY BIRDSEYE,
HILAND HALL.

WASHINGTON, March 3rd, 1843.

[NOTE. — The above address was drawn up by Hon. Seth M. Gates, of New-York, at the suggestion of John Quincy Adams, and sent to members of Congress at their residences, after the close of the session, for their signatures. Many more than the above approved heartily of its positions and objects, and would have signed it, but for its premature publication, through mistake. Mr. Winthrop, of Mass., was one of these, with Gov. Briggs, of course; Mr. Fillmore declined signing it.]

The letters of Messrs. Clay and Van Buren, taking ground against annexation, without the consent of Mexico, as an act of bad faith and aggression, which would necessarily result in war, which appeared in the spring of 1844, make slight allusions, if any, to the Slavery aspect of the case. In a later letter, Mr. Clay declared that he did not oppose annexation on account of Slavery, which he regarded as a temporary institution, which, therefore, ought not to stand in the way of a permanent acquisition.

And, though Mr. Clay's last letter on the subject, prior to the election of 1844, reiterated and emphasized all his objections to annexation under the existing circumstances, he did not include the existence of Slavery.

The defeat of Mr. Van Buren, at the Baltimore Nominating Convention — Mr. Polk being selected in his stead, by a body which had been supposed pledged to renominate the ex-President — excited considerable feeling, especially among the Democrats of New-York. A number of their leaders united in a letter, termed the "Secret Circular," advising their brethren, while they supported Polk and Dallas, to be careful to vote for candidates for Congress who would set their faces as a flint against annexation, which was signed by
GEORGE P. BARKER,
WILLIAM C. BRYANT,
J. W. EDMONDS,
DAVID DUDLEY FIELD,
THEODORE SEDGWICK,
THOMAS W. TUCKER,
ISAAC TOWNSEND.

Silas Wright, then a Senator of the United States, and who, as such, had opposed the Tyler Treaty of Annexation, was now run for Governor, as the only man who could carry the State of New-York for Polk and Dallas. In a democratic speech at Skaneateles, N. Y., Mr. Wright had recently declared that he could never consent to Annexation on any terms which would give Slavery an advantage over Freedom. This sentiment was reiterated and amplified in a great Convention of the Democracy,

69

which met at Herkimer, in the autumn of this year.

The contest proceeded with great earnestness throughout the Free States, the supporters of Polk and of Birney (the Abolition candidate for President), fully agreeing in the assertion that Mr. Clay's position was equally favorable to Annexation with Mr. Polk's. Mr. Birney in a letter published on the eve of the Election, declared that he regarded Mr. Clay's election as more favorable to Annexation than Mr. Polk's, because, while equally inclined to fortify and extend Slavery, he possessed more ability to influence Congress in its favor.

Before this time, but as yet withheld from, and unknown to, the public, Mr. Calhoun, now President Tyler's Secretary of State, and an early and powerful advocate of Annexation, had addressed to Hon. Wm. R. King, our Embassador at Paris, an official dispatch from which we make the following extracts:

MR. CALHOUN TO MR. KING.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, August, 12, 1844.

SIR — I have laid your dispatch, No. 1, before the President, who instructs me to make known to you that he has read it with much pleasure, especially the portion which relates to your cordial reception by the King, and his assurance of friendly feelings toward the United States. The President, in particular, highly appreciates the declaration of the King, that in no event, would any steps be taken by his government in the slightest degree hostile, or which would give to the United States just cause of complaint. It was the more gratifying from the fact, that our previous information was calculated to make the impression that the government of France was prepared to unite with Great Britain in a joint protest against the annexation of Texas, and a joint effort to induce her Government. to withdraw the proposition to annex, on condition that Mexico should be made to acknowledge her independence. He is happy to infer from your dispatch that the information, so far as it relates to France, is in all probability without foundation. You did not go further than you ought, in assuring the King that the object of Annexation would be pursued with unabated vigor, and in giving your opinion that a decided majority of the American people were in its favor, and that it would certainly be annexed at no distant day. I feel confident that your anticipation will be fully realized at no distant period.

Every day will tend to weaken that combination of political causes which led to the opposition of the measure, and to strengthen the conviction that it was not only expedient, but just and necessary.

But to descend to particulars: it is certain that while England, like France, desires the independence of Texas, with the view to commercial connections, it is not less so that one of the leading motives of England for desiring it, is the hope that, through her diplomacy and influence, Negro Slavery may be abolished there, and ultimately, by consequence, in the United States and throughout the whole of this continent. That its ultimate abolition throughout the entire continent is an object ardently desired by her, we have decisive proofs in the declaration of the Earl of Aberdeen, delivered to this Department, and of which you will find a copy among the documents transmitted to Congress with the Texan treaty. That she desires its abolition in Texas, and has used her influence and diplomacy to effect it there, the same document, with the correspondence of this Department with Mr. Packenham, also to be found among the documents, furnishes proof not less conclusive. That one of the objects of abolishing it there is to facilitate its abolition in the United States, and throughout the continent, is manifest from the declaration of the Abolition party and societies both in this country and in England. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the scheme of abolishing it in Texas, with a view to its abolition in the United States, and over the continent, originated with the prominent members of the party in the United States; and was first broached by them in the (so called) World's Convention, held in London in the year 1840, and through its agency brought to the notice of the British Government.

Now, I hold, not only that France can have no interest in the consummation of this grand scheme, which England hopes to accomplish through Texas, if she can defeat the Annexation, but that her interests, and those of all the Continental powers of Europe are directly and deeply opposed to it.

The election of James K. Polk as President, and George M. Dallas as Vice-President, (Nov. 1844) having virtually settled, affirmatively, the question of annexing Texas, the XXVIIIth Congress commenced its second session at Washington, on the 2d of December, 1844: — Mr. John Tyler being still acting President up to the end of the Congress, March 4th following.

Dec. 19. — Mr. John B. Weller, (then member from Ohio) by leave, introduced a joint resolution, No. 51, providing for the annexation of Texas to the United States, which he moved to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. E. S. Hamlin, of Ohio, moved a reference of said resolve to a Committee of one from each State, with instructions to report

Whether the annexation of Texas would not extend and perpetuate Slavery in the Slave States, and also, the internal Slave-trade; and whether the United States Government has any Constitutional power over Slavery in the States, either to perpetuate it there, or to do it away.

The question on commitment was instated upon, and first taken — Yeas, 109 (Democrats); Nays, 61 (Whigs); whereupon it was held that Mr. Hamlin's amendment was defeated, and the original proposition alone committed.

January 10th, 1845. — Mr. John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, (then a Democratic Representative, now a Republican Senator) proposed the following as an amendment to any act or resolve contemplating the annexation of Texas to this Union

Provided, That immediately after the question of boundary between the United States of America and Mexico shall have been definitively settled by the two Governments, and before any State formed out of the Territory of Texas shall be admitted into the Union, the said Territory of Texas shall be divided as follows, to wit: beginning at a point on the Gulf of Mexico, midway between the Northern and Southern boundaries thereof on the coast; and thence by a line running in a Northwesterly direction to the extreme boundary thereof, so as to divide the same as nearly as possible into two equal parts, and in that portion of said Territory lying South and West of the line to be run as aforesaid, there shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

And provided further, That this provision shall be considered as a compact between the people of the United States and the people of the said Territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by the consent of three-fourths of the States of the Union.

Mr. Hale asked a suspension of the rules, to enable him to offer it now, and have it printed and committed. Refused — Yeas, 92 (not two thirds); Nays, 81.

Yeas — All the Whigs and most of the Democrats from the Free States, with Messrs. Duncan L. Clinch and Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, and George W. Summers, of Virginia.

Nays — All the members from Slave States, except the above, with the following from Free States:
MAINE. — Sheppard Cary — 1.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE. — Edmund Burke, Moses Norris, jr. — 2.
NEW-YORK. — James G. Clinton, Selah B. Strong — 2.
PENNSYLVANIA. — James Black, Richard Brodhead, H. D. Foster, Joseph R. Ingersoll, Michael H. Jenks — 5.
OHIO. — Joseph J. McDowell — 1.
INDIANA. — Wm. J. Brown, J. W. Davis, John Pettit — 3.

70

ILLINOIS. — Orlando B. Ficklin, Joseph P. Hoge, Robert Smith — 3.
Total Democrats from Free States, 17.

December 12th. — Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported a Joint Resolution for annexing Texas to the Union, which was committed and discussed in Committee of the Whole from time to time, through the next month.

January 7th. — Mr. J. P. Hale presented resolves of the Legislature of New-Hampshire, thoroughly in favor of Annexation, and silent on the subject of Slavery, except as follows

Resolved, That we agree with Mr. Clay, that the reannexation of Texas will add more Free than Slave States to the Union; and that it would be unwise to refuse a permanent acquisition, which will exist as long as the globe remains, on account of a temporary institution.

January 13th. — Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, moved that all further debate on this subject be closed at 2 P. M. on Thursday next. Carried — Yeas, 136; Nays, 57; (nearly all the Nays from Slave States.)

January 25th. — The debate, after an extension of time, was at length brought to a close, and the Joint Resolution taken out of Committee, and reported to the House in the following form; (that portion relating to Slavery, having been added in Committee, on motion of Mr. Milton Brown, (Whig) of Tennessee

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled, That Congress both consent that the Territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the Republic 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 maybe admitted as one of the States of this Union.

2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guaranties, to wit:
First. Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this Government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments; and 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 1st day of January, 1846.

Second, said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defense, 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 Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas; and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct but in no event are 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 said State of Texas, and having suffice in population, may hereafter, by the consent 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 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.

Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, moved the previous question, which the House seconded — Yeas, 113; Nays, 106 — and then the amendment aforesaid was agreed to — Yeas, 118; Nays, 101.

Yeas — 114 Democrats, and Messrs. Milton Brown, of Tennessee; James Dellet, of Alabama; and Duncan L. Clinch, and Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, (4) Southern Whigs.

Nays — all the Whigs present from Free States with all from Slave States, but the four just named; with the following Democrats from Free States

MAINE. — Robert P. Dunlap, Hannibal Hamlin — 2.
VERMONT. — Paul Dillingham, jr. — 1.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE. — John P. Hale — 1.
CONNECTICUT. — George S. Catlin — 1.
NEW-YORK. — Joseph H. Andersen, Charles S. Benton, Jeremiah E. Carey, Amasa Dana, Richard D. Davis, Byram Green, Preston King, Smith M. Purdy, George Rathbun, Orville Robinson, David L. Seymour, Lemuel Stetson — 12.
OHIO. — Jacob Brinckerhoff, William C. McCauslen, Joseph Morris, Henry St. John — 1.
MICHIGAN. — James B. Hunt, Robert McClelland — 2.
Total Democrats from Free States, — 23
Total Whigs from Free and Slave States, — 78.

The House then ordered the whole proposition to a third reading forthwith — Yeas, 120; Nays, 97 — and passed it, Yeas, 120; Nays, 98.

Yeas — all the Democrats from Slave States, and all the Democrats from Free States, except as above; with Messrs. Duncan L. Clinch, Milton Brown, James Dellet, Willoughby Newton, of Virginia, (who therefrom turned Democrat), and Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, (now Democrat), from Slave States.

Nays — all the Whigs from Free States; all those from Slave States except as above; with 23 Democrats from Free States.

So the resolve passed the House, and was sent to the Senate for concurrence.

In Senate, several attempts to originate action in favor of Annexation were made at this session, but nothing came of them.

February 24th. — The joint resolution aforesaid from the House was taken up for consideration by 30 Yeas to 11 Nays (all Northern Whigs). On the 27th, Mr. Walker, of Wisconsin, moved to add an alternative proposition, contemplating negotiation as the means of effecting the meditated end.

Mr. Foster, (Whig) of Tennessee, propose

That the State of Texas, and such other States as may be formed out of that portion of the present Territory of Texas, 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, so hereafter asking admission, may desire.

On which the question was taken. Yeas, (all Whigs but 3) 18; Nays, 34.

Various amendments were proposed and voted down. Among them, Mr. Foster, of Tenn. moved an express stipulation that Slavery should be tolerated in all States formed out of the Territory of Texas, south of the Missouri line of 36° 80'.

Rejected — Yeas, 16 (Southern Whigs, and Sevier, of Arkansas); Nays, 33.

Mr. Miller, of N. J., moved that the existence of Slavery be forever prohibited in the northern and northwestern part of said Territory, west of the l00th degree of latitude west from Greenwich, so as to divide, as equally as may be, the whole of the annexed country between Slaveholding and Non-Slaveholding States.

Yeas, 11; all Northern Whigs, except Mr. Crittenden, Ky. Nays, 33.

The vote in the Senate on the joint resolution for Annexation stood. Yeas, 26, all Democrats

71

but 3; Nays, 25, (all Whigs). In the House, Yeas 134, all Democrats but 1; Nays, 77, (all Whigs).

The Wilmot Proviso.

Texas having been annexed during the summer of 1845, in pursuance of the joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress, a portion of the United States Army, under Gen. Taylor, was, early in the spring of 1846, moved down to the east bank of the Rio Grande Del Norte, claimed by Texas as her western boundary, but not so regarded by Mexico. A hostile collision ensued, resulting in war between the United States and Mexico.

It was early thereafter deemed advisable that a considerable sum should be placed by Congress at the President's disposal to negotiate an advantageous Treaty of Peace and Limits with the Mexican Government. A message to this effect was submitted by President Polk to Congress, August 8th, 1846, and a bill in accordance with its suggestions laid before the House, which preceded to consider the subject in Committee of the Whole. The bill appropriating $30,000 for immediate use in negotiations with Mexico, and placing $2,000,000 more at the disposal of the President, to be employed in making peace, Mr. David Wilmot, of Pa., after consultation with other Northern Democrats, offered the following Proviso, in addition to the first section of the bill

Provided, That as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said Territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall be first duly convicted.

This proviso was carried in Committee, by the strong vote of eighty-three to sixty-four — only three Members (Democrats) from the Free-States, it was said, opposing it. (So record is made of individual votes in Committee of the Whole.) The bill was then reported to the House, and Sir Rathbun, of N. Y., moved the previous question on its engrossment.

Mr. Tibbatts, of Ky., moved that it do lie on the table. Defeated — Yeas, 79; (Stephen A. Douglas, John A. McClernand, John Pettit, and Robert C. Schenck, voting with the South to lay on the table;) Nays 93; (Henry Grider and William P. Thomasson, of Ky. (Whigs) voting with the North against it.

The bill was then engrossed for its third reading by Yeas 85, Nays, 80; and thus passed without further division. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table — Yeas, 71; Nays, 83. So the bill was passed and sent to the Senate, where Mr. Dixon H. Lewis, of Alabama, moved that the Proviso above cited be stricken out; on which debate arose, and Mr. John Davis of Mass, was speaking when, at noon of August 10th, the time fixed for adjournment having arrived, both Houses adjourned without day.

The XXXth Congress assembled Dec. 6,1847. Feb. 28th 1848, Mr. Putnam of New-York moved the following

Whereas, In the settlement of the difficulties pending between this country and Mexico, territory may be acquired in which Slavery does not now exist.

And whereas, Congress, in the organization of a territorial government, at an early period of our political history, established a principle worthy of imitation in all future time, forbidding the existence of Slavery in tree territory; Therefore,
Resolved, That in any Territory, that may be acquired from Mexico, over which shall be established territorial governments, Slavery, or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be forever prohibited; and that in any act or resolution establishing such governments, a fundamental provision ought to be inserted to that effect.

Mr. R. Brodhead, of Penn., moved that this resolution lie on the table. Carried: Yeas, 105; Nays, 93.

Yeas — all the members from Slave States, but John W. Houston (Whig), of Delaware, with the following from Free States (all Democrats but Levin):
MAINE. — Asa W. H. Clapp, Franklin Clark, Jas. S. Wiley, Hezekiah Williams — 4.
NEW-YORK. — Ausburn Birdsall, David S. Jackson, Frederick W. Lord, William B. Maclay — 4.
PENNSYLVANIA. — Richard Brodhead, Charles Brown, Lewis C. Levin, Job Man — 4.
OHIO. — William Kennon, jr., John K. Miller, Thomas Richey, William Sawyer — 4
INDIANA. — Charles W. Cathcart, Thomas J. Henley, John Pettit, John L. Robinson, William W. Wick — 6.
ILLINOIS. — Orlando B. Ficklin, John A. McClernand, William A. Richardson, Robert Smith, Thomas J. Turner — 5.

Nays — all the Whigs and a large majority of the Democrats from Free States, with John W. Houston aforesaid.

This vote terminated all direct action in favor of the Wilmot Proviso for that Session.

July 18th. — In Senate, Mr. Clayton, of Del., from the Select Committee to which was referred, on the 12th inst., the bill providing a territorial government for Oregon, reported a bill to establish Territorial governments for Oregon, New Mexico, and California, which was read. (It proposed to submit all questions as to the rightful existence or extent of Slavery in the Territories to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.)

July, 24th. — Second reading. Mr. Baldwin, of Conn., moved to strike out so much of said bill as relates to California and New Mexico. Rejected: Yeas, 17 (Northern Free Soil men of both parties); Nays, 37.

The bill was discussed through several succeeding days. On the 26th, Mr. Clarke, of R. I., moved to add to the 6th section:
Provided, however, That no law, regulation, or act of the provisional government of said Territory permitting Slavery or involuntary servitude therein shall be valid, until the same shall be approved by Congress."

Rejected: Yeas, 19 [Col. Benton, and 18 Northern Freesoilers of both parties]; Nays, 33.

Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Md., moved to amend the bill by inserting

Except only, that in all cases of 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, that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States from the decision of the said Supreme Court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the district Courts created by this act, or of any judge upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom.

Carried; Yeas, 31 (all sorts); Nays, 19 (all Southern, but Bright, Dickinson, and Hannegan).

Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, moved an additional section, as follows:

72

Sec. 37. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the attorneys for said Territories, respectively, on the complaint of any person held in involuntary servitude therein, to make application in his behalf in due form of law, to the court next thereafter to be holden in said Territory, for a writ of habeas corpus, to be directed to the person so holding such applicant in service as aforesaid, and to pursue all needful measures in his behalf; and if the decision of such court shall be adverse to the application, or if, on the return of the writ, relief shall be denied to the applicant, on the ground that he is a slave held in servitude in said Territory, said attorney shall cause an appeal to be taken therefrom, and the record of all the proceedings in the case to be transmitted to the Supreme Court of the United States as speedily as may be, and to give notice thereof to the Attorney General of the United States, who shall prosecute the same before said Court, who shall proceed to bear and determine the same at the first term thereof.

Yeas, 15 (all Northern, except Benton); Nays, 31.

Mr. Davis, of Mass., moved to strike out section 12, and insert as follows

Sec. 12. And be it further enacted, That so much of the sixth section of the ordinance of the 13th July, 1787, as is contained in the following words; viz. ‘There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in the laid Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,’ shall be and remain in force in the Territory of Oregon.

This was defeated; Yeas, 21; Nays, 33.

The bill was then engrossed for a third reading; Yeas, 33; Nays, 22; as follows:

Yeas — For Clayton's Compromise:
Messrs. Atchison, Houston,
Atherton, Hunter,
Benton, Johnson, Md.,
Berrien, Johnson, La.,
Borland, Johnson, Ga.,
Breese, King,
Bright, Lewis,
Butler, Mangam,
Calhoun, Mason
Clayton, Phelps,
Davis, Miss., Rusk,
Dickinson, Sebastian,
Douglas, Spruance,
Downs, Sturgeon,
Foote, Turney,
Hannegan, Westcott,
Yulee — 33
Nays — Against Clayton's Bill:
Messrs. Allen, Felch,
Badger, Fitzgerald,
Baldwin, Greene,
Bell, Hale,
Bradbury, Hamlin,
Clarke, Metcalf,
Corwin, Miller,
Davis, Mass., Niles,
Dayton, Underwood,
Dix, Upham,
Dodge, Walker — 22.

So the bill was engrossed, and immediately passed without a division.

July 28th. — This bill reached the House, and was taken up and read twice.

Mr. A. H. Stephens, of Ga., moved that the bill do lie on the table. Yeas and Nays orderd, and the motion prevailed: Yeas, 112; Nays, 97.

Yeas, all the Free State Whigs, with 8 Whigs from Slave States; 20 Democrats from Free States.

Nays — 21 Democrats from Free States, with 76 Democrats and Whigs from Slave States.

Mr. Pollock, of Pa., moved that this vote be reconsidered, and that the motion to reconsider do lie on the table; which prevailed; Yeas, 113; Nays, 96.

So Mr. Clayton's project of Compromise was defeated.

The next session of the same Congress opened under very different auspices. The Mexican War had been terminated, so that none could longer be deterred from voting for Slavery Exclusion by a fear that the prosecution of hostilities would thereby be embarrassed. General Taylor had been elected President, receiving the votes of Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Florida — a moiety of the Slave States — over Gen. Cass, now the avowed opponent of Slavery Restriction. Many of the Northern Democrats considered themselves absolved by this vote from all extra-constitutional obligations to the South, and voted accordingly.

Dec. 13. — Mr. J. M. Root, of Ohio, offered the following

Resolved, That the Committee on Territories be instructed to report to this House, with as little delay as practicable, a bill or bills providing a Territorial Government for each of the Territories of New Mexico and California, and excluding Slavery therefrom.

A call of the House was had, and the previous question ordered.

Mr. W. P. Hall, of Mo., moved that the same do lie on the table. Lost: Yeas, 80; Nays, 106.

The resolve then passed: Yeas, 108; Nays, 80, viz.

Yeas — All the Whigs from Free States, and all the Democrats, but those noted as Nays below, including the following, who had voted against the same principle at the former session:
MAINE. — Asa W. H. Clapp, James S. Wiley — 2.
NEW-YORK. — Frederick W. Lord — 1.
OHIO. — Thomas Richey — 1.
INDIANA. — Charles W. Cathcart, Thomas J. Henley, John L. Robinson, William W. Wick — 4.
ILLINOIS. — Robert Smith- 1.

Messrs. Clark and H. Williams, of Maine, Birdsall and Maclay, of New-York, Brodhead and Mann, of Pa., Pettit, of Ind., Ficklin and McClelland, of Ill., who voted with the South at the former session — now failed to vote.

Mr. Jackson, of N. Y, who then voted with the South, had been succeeded by Mr. H. Greeley, who voted with the North.

Nays — All the Members voting from the Slave States, with the following from the Free States:
NEW-YORK. — Henry C. Murphy — 1.
PENNSYLVANIA. — Charles Brown, Charles J. Ingersoll — 2.
OHIO. — William Kennon, jun., John K. Miller, William Sawyer — 8.
ILLINOIS. — William A. Richardson — 1.
IOWA. — Shepherd Leffler — 1.

Total Nays from Free States — 8.

Mr. Robinson, of Ind., moved a reconsideration of this vote, which motion (Dec. 18), on motion of Mr. Wentworth, of Ill., was laid on the table: Yeas, 105; Nays, 83.

The Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation bill having passed the House in the usual form, came up to the Senate, where it was debated several days.

Feb. 21st. — Mr. Walker, of Wisc., moved an amendment, extending all the laws of the United States, so far as applicable, to the Territories acquired from Mexico.

Mr. Bell, of Tenn., moved to add further sections organizing the State of California, to be admitted into the Union on the 1st of October next. This was rejected: Yeas, 4 (Bell, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Davis); Nays, 39.

Feb. 26th. — Mr. Dayton, of N. J., moved that the President be vested with power to provide a suitable temporary government for the Territories. Rejected; Yeas, 8; Nays, 47.

73

The question recurred on Mr. Walker's amendment, which was carried: Yeas, 29; Nays, 27.

The bill being returned to the House, thus amended, this amendment was (March 2d) voted down: Yeas, 101; Nays, 115 — as follows

Yeas — all the members from the Slave States, with the following from the Free States, viz.:
MAINE. — Hezeklah Williams — 1.
NEW-YORK. — Ausburn Birdsall — 1,
PENNSYLVANIA. — Samuel A. Bridges, Richard Brodhead, Charles Brown, Charles J. Ingersoll, Lewis C. Levin — 5.
OHIO. — William Kennon, jr., William Sawyer — 2.
ILLINOIS. — Orlando B. Ficklin, John A. McClernand, William A. Richardson — 3.
IOWA. — Shepherd Leffler — 1.

Total, thirteen from Free States; eighty-eight from Slave States. (Only two from Slave States absent or silent.)

Nays — all the Whigs from Free States, and all the Democrats from Free States, except those called above.

So the House refused to concur in this amendment, and the bill was returned to the Senate accordingly.

The Senate resolved to insist on its amendment, and ask a conference, which was granted, but resulted in nothing. Messrs. Atherton, of N. H., Dickinson, of N. Y., and Berrien, of Ga., were managers on the part of the Senate, and insisted on its amendment, organizing the Territories without restriction as to Slavery. Messrs. Vinton, of Ohio, Nicoll, of N. Y., and Morehead, of Ky., were appointed on the part of the House. These, after a long sitting, reported their inability to agree, and were discharged.

The bill being now returned to the House, Mr. McClernand, of Ill., moved that the House do recede from its disagreement. Carried: Yeas, 111; Nays, 106.

Mr. R. W. Thompson, of Ind., moved that the House concur with the Senate, with an amendment, which was a substitute, extending the laws of the United States over said Territories, but leaving them unorganized, —

And that, until the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and fifty, unless Congress shall sooner provide for the government of said Territories, the existing laws thereof shall be retained and observed.

The question being reached on amending the Senate's proposition as proposed by Mr. Thompson, it was carried: Yeas, 111; Nays, 105.

(All the Southern members in the negative, with Levin and a few of the Northern Democrats; the residue, with all the Northern Whigs, in the affirmative.)

The House now proceeded to agree to the Senate's amendment, as amended: Yeas, 110; Nays, 103, (the same as before; the friends of the Senate's proposition voting against it, as amended, and vice versa, on the understanding that Mr. Thompson's amendment would exclude Slavery.)

The bill as thus amended being returned to the Senate, it refused to agree to the House's amendment, and receded from its own proposition; so the bill was passed and the session closed, with no provision for the government of the newly-acquired Territories.

Oregon.

Aug. 6, 1846 — Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, reported to the House a bill organizing the Territory of Oregon.

Said bill was discussed in Committee of the Whole, and the following amendment agreed to

And neither Slavery, nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in said Territory, except for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

On coming out of Committee, this amendment was agreed to — Yeas, 108; Nays, 44. (The Nays are all Southern, but Charles J. Ingersoll, Orlando B. Ficklin, and possibly one or two others; and all Democrats, but some half a dozen from the South, of whom Robert Toombs has since turned Democrat.) Stephen A. Douglas did not vote. The bill passed the House without further opposition, was read twice in the Senate, and referred; and Mr. Westcott, of Florida, made a report thereon from the Committee on Territories; but the session closed without further action on the bill.

This Congress reassembled, Dec. 7th, 1846. On the 23d, Mr. Douglas again reported his bill to provide a Territorial government for Oregon, which was read twice and committed: Jan. 11th, 1847, was discussed in Committee, as also on the 12th and 14th, when it was resolved, to close the debate. On the 15th, it was taken out of Committee, when Gen. Burt, of S. C., moved the following addition (already moved, debated, and voted down in Committee) to the clause forbidding Slavery in said Territory

In as much as the whole of said Territory lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, known as the line of the Missouri Compromise.

The purpose of this is clear enough. It was intended to recognize the Missouri line, not as limited to the Territories possessed by the United States at the time said line was established, but as extending to all that has since been, or hereafter should be, acquired, so as to legalize Slavery in any Territory henceforth to be acquired by us south of 36° 30'.

Mr. Burt's amendment was negatived: Yeas, 82; Nays, 114.

The vote was very nearly sectional; but the following members from Free States voted in the minority:
PENNSYLVANIA. — Charles J. Ingersoll — 1.
ILLINOIS. — Stephen A. Douglas, Robt. Smith — 2.
IOWA. — C. S. Hastings — 1. In all, 5.
No member from a Slave State voted in the majority. The bill then passed: Yeas, 134; Nays, 35, (all Southern).

Jan. 15. — The bill reached the Senate, and was sent to the Judiciary Committee, consisting of

Messrs. Ashley, Ark.
Berrien, Ga.
Westcott, Ha.
Breese, Ill.
Dayton, N. J.

Jan. 25. — Mr. Ashley reported the Oregon bill with amendments, which were ordered to be printed.

29. — Said bill, on motion of Mr. Westcott, was recommitted to the Judiciary Committee.

Feb. 10. — Mr. Ashley again reported it with amendments.

March 3. — It was taken up as in Committee of the Whole, when Mr. Evans, of Maine, moved that it be laid on the table. Defeated: Yeas,

74

19, (all Whigs but Calhoun, of S. C., and Yulee of Florida); Nays, 26, (24 Dem., with Corwin of Ohio, and Johnson of Louisiana.)

Mr.Westcott, of Fla., immediately moved that the bill do lie on the table, which prevailed: Yeas, 26; Nays, 18 (a mixed vote, evidently governed by various motives); but the negatives were all Democrats, but Corwin and Johnson aforesaid. This being the last day of the session, it was evident that the bill, if opposed, as it was certain to be, could not get through, and it was, doubtless, in behalf of other pressing business that many Senators voted to lay this aside. It was, of course, dead for the session.

Dec. 6, 1847. — The XXXth Congress assembled; Robert C. Winthrop (Whig) of Mass. was chosen Speaker of the House. President Polk, in his Annual Message, regretted that Oregon had not already been organized, and urged the necessity of action on the subject.

Feb. 9. — Mr. Caleb B. Smith, of Indiana, reported to the House a bill to establish the territorial government of Oregon; which, by a vote of two-thirds, was made a special order for March 14th. It was postponed, however, to the 28th; when it was taken up and discussed, as on one or two subsequent days. May 29th, it was again made a special order next after the Appropriation bills. The President that day sent a special message, urging action on this subject. July 25th, it was taken up in earnest; Mr. Wentworth, of Illinois, moving that debate on it in Committee cease at two o'clock this day.

Mr. Geo. S. Houston, of Ala., endeavored to put this motion on the table. Defeated; Yeas 85; Nays 89, (nearly, but not fully, a sectional division). Mr. Geo. W. Jones, of Tenn., moved a reconsideration, which was carried: Yeas, 100; Nays, 88; and the resolution laid on the table: Yeas, 96; Nays, 90.

The bill continued to be discussed, and finally (Aug. 1) was got out of Committee; when Mr. C. B. Smith moved the Previous Question thereon, which was ordered.

Aug. 2. — The House came to a vote on an amendment made in Committee, whereby the following provision of the original bill was stricken out

That the inhabitants of said Territory shall be entitled to enjoy all and singular, the rights, privileges, and advantages granted and secured to the people of the Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, by the articles of compact contained in the ordinance for the government of said Territory, passed the 13th day of July, seventeen hundred and eighty-seven; and shall be subject to all the conditions, and restrictions, and prohibitions in said articles of compact imposed upon the people of said territory, and —

The House refused to agree to this amendment: Yeas, 88; Nays, 114.

The Members from the Free States who voted with the South to strike out, were —

NEW-YORK. — Ausburn Birdsall — 1.
OHIO. — William Kennon, jun., John K. Miller — 2.
ILLINOIS. — Orlando B. Ficklin, John A. McClernand, William A. Richardson — 3.
INDIANA. — John L. Robinson, William W. Wick — 2.
Mr. John W. Houston of Delaware voted in the majority.

The bill was then passed: Yeas, 128; Nays, 71.

[This vote was almost completely sectional. Mr. Houston, of Delaware, voting in the majority as before: otherwise, members from the Free States in the affirmative; those from the Slave States in the negative.]

Aug. 3. — This bill reached the Senate, when Mr. Badger, of N. C., moved its indefinite postponement: negatived, 47 to 1, (Yulee). It was then sent to the Committee on Territories.

The Senate had had under consideration, from time to time through the Session, a bill of its own, reported by Mr. Douglas, which was finally referred to a select Committee — Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, Chairman — and by said committee reported some days before the reception of the House bill. It was then dropped.

Aug. 5. — Mr. Douglas reported the House bill, with amendments, which were printed.

Aug. 10. — After some days' debate, the Senate proceeded to vote. Mr. Foote, of Miss., moved that the bill do lie on the table. Defeated: Yeas, 15 (Southern); Nays, 36.

On the question of agreeing to this amendment

Inasmuch as the said Territory is north of thirty-six deg thirty min., usually known as the [line of the] Missouri Compromise.

It was rejected: Yeas, 2 (Bright and Douglas); Nays, 52.

Mr. Douglas moved to amend the bill, by inserting after the word "enacted:

That the line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude, known as the Missouri Compromise line, as defined in the eighth section of an act entitled, "An Act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a Constitutional 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," be, and the same is hereby, declared to extend to the Pacific Ocean; and the said eighth section, together with the compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in full force and binding, for the future organization of the Territories of the United States in the same sense, and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted; and —

Which was carried: Yeas, 33; Nays, 21; as follows:

Yeas — For recognizing the Missouri line as rightfully extending to the Pacific:
Messrs. Atchison, Hannegan,
Badger, Houston,
Bell, Hunter,
Benton, Johnson of Md.,
Berrien, Johnson of La.,
Borland, Johnson of Ga.,
Bright, King
Butler, Lewis,
Calhoun, Mangum,
Cameron, Mason,
Davis of Miss., Metcalf,
Dickinson, Pearce,
Douglas, Sebastian,
Downs, Spruance,
Fitzgerald, Sturgeon,
Foote of Miss., Turney
Underwood — 33.
Nays — Against recognizing said line:
Messrs. Allen, Dodge,
Atherton, Felch,
Baldwin, Greene,
Bradbury, Hale,
Breese, Hamlin,
Clarke, Miller,
Corwin, Niles,
Davis of Mass., Phelps,
Dayton, Upham,
Dix, Walker.
Webster — 21

The bill was then engrossed for a third reading: Yeas, 33; Nays, 22; (nearly the same as

75

before — Westcott of Florida added to the Nays — and thus passed).

Aug. 11. — The bill, thus amended, having been returned to the House, the amendment of Mr. Douglas, just recited, was rejected: Yeas, 82; Nays, 121.

Yeas from Free States:
NEW-YORK. — Ausburn Birdsall — 1.
PENNSYLVANIA. — Charles Brown, Charles J. Ingersoll — 2.
Total — 3.

Otherwise, from Slave States, all Yeas: from Free States, all Nays.

Aug. 12. — The Senate, after voting down various propositions to lay on the table, etc., finally decided to recede from its amendments to the Oregon bill, and pass it as it came from the House: Yeas, 29; Nays, 25 (all from Slave States).

So the bill became a law, and Oregon a Territory, under the original Jefferson or Dane Proviso against Slavery.

The Compromise of 1850.

The XXXIst Congress commenced its first Session at Washington, Dec. 3, 1849; but the House was unable to organize — no person receiving a majority of all the votes for Speaker — until the 22nd, when, the Plurality rule having been adopted by a vote of 113 to 106, Mr. Howell Cobb, of Ga., was elected, having 102 votes to 100 for Robert C. Winthrop of Mass., and 20 scattering. It was thereupon resolved — Yeas, 149; Nays, 35 — "That Howell Cobb be declared duly elected Speaker;" and on the 24th President Zachary Taylor transmitted to both Houses his first Annual Message, in the course of which he says

No civil government having been provided by Congress for California, the people of that Territory, impelled by the necessities of their political condition, recently met in Convention, for the purpose of forming a Constitution and State Government; which, the latest advices give me reason to suppose, has been accomplished; and it is believed they will shortly apply for the admission of California into the Union, as a Sovereign State. Should such be the case, and should their constitution be conformable to the requisitions of the Constitution of the United States, I recommend their application to the favorable consideration of Congress.

The people of New-Mexico will also, it is believed, at no very distant period, present themselves for admission into the Union. Preparatory to the admission of California and New-Mexico, the people of each will have instituted for themselves a republican form of government, laying its foundation in such principles, and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

By awaiting their action, all uneasiness may be avoided and confidence and kind feeling preserved. With a view of maintaining the harmony and tranquillity so dear to all, we should abstain from the introduction of those exciting topics of a sectional character which have hitherto produced painful apprehensions in the public mind; and I repeat the solemn warning of the first and most illustrious of my predecessors, against furnishing any ground for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations.

Jan. 4. — Gen. Sam. Houston, of Texas, submitted to the Senate the following proposition

Whereas, The Congress of the United States, possessing only a delegated authority, have no power over the subject of Negro Slavery within the limits of the United States, either to prohibit or interfere with it, in the States, Territories, or District, where, by municipal law, it now exists, or to establish it in any State or Territory where it does not exist; but, as an assurance and guaranty to promote harmony, quiet apprehension and remove sectional prejudice, which by possibility might impair or weaken love and devotion to the Union in any part of the country, it is hereby

Resolved, That, as the people in Territories have the same inherent rights of self-government as the people in the States, if in the exercise of such inherent rights the people in the newly-acquired Territories, by the Annexation of Texas and the acquisition of California and New-Mexico, south of the parallel of 36 degrees and 30 minutes of north latitude, extending to the Pacific Ocean, shall establish Negro Slavery in the formation of their state governments, it shall be deemed no objection to their admission as a State or States into the Union, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

Jan. 21. — Gen. Taylor, in answer to a resolution of inquiry, sent a message to the House, stating that he had urged the formation of State Governments in California and New Mexico.

Feb. 13, 1850. — Gen. Taylor communicated to Congress the Constitution (free) of the State of California.

Jan. 29, 1850. — Mr. Henry Clay, of Kentucky, submitted to the Senate the following propositions, with others, which were made a special order and printed

1. Resolved, That California, with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her application, to be admitted as one of the States of this Union, without the imposition by Congress of any restriction in respect to the exclusion or introduction of Slavery within those boundaries.

2. Resolved, That as Slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to provide by law either for its introduction into, or exclusion from, any part of the said Territory; and that appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by Congress, in all the said Territory, not assigned as within the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject of Slavery.

5. Resolved, That it is inexpedient to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, whilst that institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that State, without the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District.

6. But Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit, within the District, the slave-trade in slaves brought into it from States or places beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold therein as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets without the District of Columbia.

7. Resolved, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the requirement of the Constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any State, who may escape into any other State or Territory in the Union. And,

8. Resolved, That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the slaveholding States, but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular laws.

Feb. 28. — Mr. John Bell, of Tennessee, submitted to the Senate the following propositions

Whereas, Considerations of the highest interest to the whole country demand that the existing and increasing dissensions between the North and the South, on the subject of Slavery, should be speedily arrested, and that the questions in controversy be adjusted upon some basis which shall tend to give present quiet, repress sectional animosities, remove, as far as possible, the causes of future discord, and secure the uninterrupted enjoyment of those benefits and advantages which the Union was intended to confer in equal measure upon all its members;

And, whereas, It is manifest, under present circumstances, that no adjustment can be effected of the points of difference unhappily existing between the Northern and Southern sections of the Union, connected with the subject of Slavery, which shall secure to either section all that is contended for, and that mutual concessions upon questions of mere policy, not involving the violation of any constitutional right or principle, must be the basis of every project affording any assurance of a favorable acceptance;

And, whereas, The joint resolution for annexing

76

Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845, contains the following condition and guaranty — that is to say: "New states of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to 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 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 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:" Therefore,

1. Resolved, That the obligation to comply with the condition and guaranty above recited in good faith be distinctly recognized, and that, in part compliance with the same, as soon as the people of Texas shall, by an act of their legislature, signify their assent by restricting the limits thereof, within the Territory lying east of the Trinity and south of the Red River, and when the people of the residue of the territory claimed by Texas adopt a constitution, republican in form, they be admitted into Union upon an equal footing in all respects with the original States.

2. Resolved, That if Texas shall agree to cede, the United States will accept, a cession of all the unappropriated domain in all the Territory claimed by Texas, lying west of the Colorado and extending north to the forty-second parallel of north latitude, together with the jurisdiction and sovereignty of all the territory claimed by Texas, north of the thirty-fourth parallel of north latitude, and to pay therefor a sum not exceeding — — millions of dollars, to be applied in the first place to the extinguishment of any portion of the existing public debt of Texas, for the discharge of which the United States are under any obligation, implied or otherwise, and the remainder as Texas shall require.

3. Resolved, That when the population of that portion of the Territory claimed by Texas, lying south of the thirty-fourth parallel of north latitude and west of the Colorado, shall be equal to the ratio of representation in Congress, under the last preceding apportionment, according to the provisions of the Constitution, and the people of such Territory shall, with the assent of the new State contemplated in the preceding resolution, have adopted a State Constitution, republican in form, they be admitted into the Union as a State, upon an equal footing with the original States.

4. Resolved, That all the Territory now claimed by Texas, lying north of the thirty-fourth parallel of north latitude, and which may be ceded to the United States by Texas, be incorporated with the Territory of New-Mexico, except such part thereof as lies east of the Rio Grande and south of the thirty-fourth degree of north latitude, and that the Territory so composed form a State, to be admitted into the Union when the inhabitants thereof shall adopt a State Constitution, republican in form, with the consent of Congress; but in the mean time, and until Congress shall give such consent, provision be made for the government of the inhabitants of said Territory suitable to their condition, but without any restriction as to Slavery.

5. Resolved, That all the Territory ceded to the United States, by the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, lying west of said Territory of New Mexico, and east of the contemplated new State of California, for the present, constitute one Territory, and for which some form of government suitable to the condition of the inhabitants be provided, without any restriction as to Slavery.

6. Resolved, That the Constitution recently formed by the people of the western portion of California, and presented to Congress by the President, on the 13th day of February, 1850, be accepted, and that they be admitted into the Union as a State, upon an equal footing in all respects with the original States.

7. Resolved, That, in future, the formation of State Constitutions, by the inhabitants of the Territories of the United States, be regulated by law; and that no such Constitution be hereafter formed or adopted by the inhabitants of any Territory belonging to the United States, without the consent and authority of Congress.

8. Resolved, That the inhabitants of any Territory of the United States, when they shall be authorized by Congress to form a State Constitution, shall have the sole and exclusive power to regulate and adjust all questions of internal State policy, of whatever nature they may be, controlled only by the restrictions expressly imposed by the Constitution of the United States.

9. Resolved, That the Committee on Territories be instructed to report a bill in conformity with the spirit and principles of the foregoing resolutions.

A debate of unusual duration, earnestness, and ability ensued, mainly on Mr. Clay's Resolutions. They were regarded by uncompromising champions, whether of Northern or of Southern views, but especially of the latter, as conceding substantially the matter in dispute to the other side. Thus,

January 29th. — Mr. Clay having read and briefly commented on his propositions, seriatim he desired that they should be held over without debate, to give time for consideration, and made a special order for Monday or Tuesday following. But this was not assented to.

Mr. Foote, of Mississippi, spoke against them generally, saying

If I understand the resolutions properly, they are objectionable, as it seems to me,
1. Because they only assert that it is not expedient that Congress should abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia; thus allowing the implication to arise that Congress has power to legislate on the subject of Slavery in the District, which may hereafter be exercised, if it should become expedient to do so; whereas, I hold that Congress has, under the Constitution, no such power at all, and that any attempt thus to legislate would be a gross fraud upon all the States of the Union.

2. The Resolutions of the honorable Senator assert that Slavery does not now exist by law in the Territories recently acquired from Mexico; whereas, I am of opinion that the treaty with the Mexican republic carried the Constitution, with all its guaranties, to all the Territory obtained by treaty, and secured the privilege to every Southern slaveholder to enter any part of it, attended by his slave-property, and to enjoy the same therein, free from all molestation or hindrance whatsoever.

3. Whether Slavery is or is not likely to be introduced into these Territories, or into any of them, is a proposition too uncertain, in my judgment, to be at present positively affirmed; and I am unwilling to make a solemn legislative declaration on the point. Let the future provide the appropriate solution of this interesting question.

4. Considering, as I have several times heretofore formally declared, the title of Texas to all the Territory embraced in her boundaries, as laid down in her law of 1836, full, complete, and undeniable, I am unwilling to say anything, by resolution or otherwise, which may in the least degree draw that title into question, as I think is done in one of the resolutions of the honorable Senator from Kentucky.

6. As to the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, I see no particular objection to it, provided it is done in a delicate and judicious manner, and is not a concession to the menaces and demands of factionists and fanatics. If other questions can be adjusted, this one will, perhaps, occasion but little difficulty.

7. The resolutions which provide for the restoration of fugitives from laborer service, and for the establishment of territorial governments, free from all restriction on the subject of Slavery, have my hearty approval. The last resolution — which asserts that Congress has no power to prohibit the trade in slaves from State to State — I equally approve.

8. If all other questions connected with the subject of Slavery can be satisfactorily adjusted, I see no objection to admitting all California, above the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, into the Union; provided another new Slave State can be laid off within the present limits of Texas, so as to keep the present equiponderance between the Slave and Free States of the Union: and provided further, all this is done by way of compromise, and in order to save the Union, (as dear to me as to any man living.)

Mr. Mason, of Virginia, after expressing his deep anxiety to "go with him who went furthest, but within the limits of strict duty, in adjusting these unhappy differences," added

Sir, so far as I have read these resolutions, there is but one proposition to which I can give a hearty assent, and that is the resolution which proposes to organize Territorial governments at once in these Territories, without a declaration one way or the other as to their

77

domestic institutions. But there is another which I deeply regret to see introduced into this Senate, by a Senator from a slaveholding State; it is that which assumes that Slavery does not now exist by law in those countries. I understand one of these propositions to declare that, by law, Slavery is now abolished in New-Mexico and California. That was the very proposition advanced by the non-slaveholding States at the last session; combated and disproved, as I thought, by gentlemen from the slaveholding States and which the Compromise bill was framed to test. So far, I regarded the question of law as deposed of, and it was very clearly and satisfactorily shown to be against the spirit of the resolution of the Senator from Kentucky. If the contrary is true, I presume the Senator from Kentucky would declare that if a law is now valid in the Territories abolishing Slavery, that it could not be introduced there, even if a law was passed creating the institution, or repealing the statutes already existing; a doctrine never assented to, so far as I know, until now, by any Senator representing one of the slaveholding States. Sir, I hold the very opposite, and with such confidence, that at the last session I was willing and did vote for a bill to test this question in the Supreme Court. Yet this resolution assumes the other doctrine to be true, and our assent is challenged to it as a proposition of law.

Mr. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, objected specially to so much of Mr. Clay's propositions as relates to the boundary of Texas, to the slave-trade in the Federal district, and to Mr. Clay's avowal in his speech that he did not believe Slavery ever would or could be established in any part of the Territories acquired from Mexico. He continued

But, sir, we are called upon to receive this as a measure of compromise! As a measure in which we of the minority are to receive nothing. A measure of compromise! I look upon it as but a modest mode of taking that, the claim to which has been more boldly asserted by others; and, that I may be understood upon this question, and that my position may go forth to the country in the same columns that convey the sentiments of the Senator from Kentucky, I here assert, that never will I take less than the Missouri Compromise line extended to the Pacific Ocean, with the specific recognition of the right, to hold Slaves in the Territory below that line; and that, before such Territories are admitted into the Union as States, slaves may be taken there from any of the United States at the option of the owners. I can never consent to give additional power to a majority to commit further aggression upon the minority in this Union, and will never consent to any proposition which will have such a tendency, without a full guaranty or counteracting measure is connected with it.

Mr. Clay, in reply, said

I am extremely sorry to hear the Senator from Mississippi say that, he requires, first, the extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific; and also that he is not satisfied with that, but, requires, if I understood him correctly, a positive provision for the admission of Slavery south of that line. And now, sir, coming from a Slave State, as I do, I owe it to myself, I owe it to truth, I owe it to the subject, to state that no earthly power could induce me to vote for a specific measure for the introduction of Slavery where it had not before existed, either south or north of that line. Coming as I do from a slave State, it is my solemn, deliberate, and well-matured determination that no power — no earthly power — shall compel me to vote for the positive introduction of Slavery either south or north of that line. Sir, while you reproach, and justly, too, our British ancestors for the introduction of this institution upon the Continent of America, I am, for one, unwilling that the posterity of the present inhabitants of California and New-Mexico shall reproach us for doing just what we reproach Great Britain for doing to us. If the citizens of those Territories choose to establish slavery, I am for admitting them with such provisions in their Constitutions; but then, it will be their own work, and not ours, and their posterity will have to reproach them, and not us, for forming Constitutions allowing the institution of Slavery to exist among them. These are my views, sir, and I choose to express them; and I care not how extensively and universally they are known. The honorable Senator from Virginia has expressed his opinion that Slavery exists in these Territories, and I have no doubt that opinion is sincerely and honestly entertained by him; and I would say with equal sincerity and honesty, that I believe that Slavery nowhere exists within any portion of the Territory acquired by us from Mexico. He holds a directly contrary opinion to mine, as he has a perfect right to do and we will not quarrel about that difference of opinion.

Mr. William R. King, of Alabama, was inclined to look with favor on Mr. Clay's propositions, and assented to some of them; but he objected to the mode in which California had formed what is called a State Constitution. He preferred the good old way of first organizing Territories, and so training up their people "for the exercise and enjoyment of our institutions." Besides, he thought, "there was not that kind of population there that justified the formation of a State Government." On the question of Slavery in the new Territories, he said

We ask no act of Congress — as has been properly intimated by the Senator from Mississippi — to carry Slavery anywhere. Sir, I believe we have as much Constitutional power to prohibit Slavery from going into the Territories of the United States, as we have to pass an act carrying Slavery there. We have no right to do either the one or the other. I would as soon vote for the Wilmot Proviso as I would vote for any law which required that Slavery should go into any of the Territories.

Mr. Downs, of Louisiana, said

I must confess that, in the whole course of my life, my astonishment has never been greater than it was when I saw this (Mr. Clay's) proposition brought forward as a compromise; and I rise now, sir, not for the purpose of discussing it at all, but to protest most solemnly against it. I consider this compromise as no compromise at all. What, sir, does it grant to the South? I can see nothing at all.

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, said

As I understand it, the Senator from Kentucky's whole proposition of compromise is nothing more than this: That California is already disposed of, having formed a State Constitution, and that Territorial Governments shall be organized for Deseret and New-Mexico, under which, by the operation laws already existing, a slaveholding population could not carry with them, or own slaves there. What is there in the nature of a compromise here, coupled, as it is, with the proposition that, by the existing laws in the Territories, it is almost certain that slaveholders cannot, and have no right to, go there with their property? What is there in the nature of a compromise here? I am willing, however, to run the risks, and am ready to give to the Territories the governments they require. I shall always think that, under a Constitution giving equal rights to all panics, the slaveholding people, as such, can go to these Territories, and retain their property there. But, if we adopt this proposition of the Senator from Kentucky, it is clearly on the basis that Slavery shall not go there.

The debate having engrossed the attention of the Senate for nearly two months —

March 25. — Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, reported the following bills

Senate, 169. — A bill for the admission of California into the Union.

Senate, 170. — A bill to establish the Territorial Governments of Utah and New-Mexico, and for other purposes.

These bills were read, and passed to a second reading.

April 11. — Mr. Douglas moved that Mr. Belts resolves do lie on the table. Lost: Yeas, 26; Nays, 28.

April 15. — The discussion of Mr. Clay's resolutions still proceeding, Colonel Benton moved that the previous orders be postponed, and that the Senate now proceed to consider the bill (S.169) for the admission of the State of California.

Mr. Clay moved that this proposition do lie on the table. Carried: Yeas, 27 (for a Compromise); Nays, 24 (for a settlement without compromise).

The Senate now took up Mr. Bell's resolves

78

aforesaid, when Mr. Benton moved that they lie on the table. Lost: Yeas, 24; Nays, 28.

Mr. Benton next moved that they be so amended as not to connect or mix up the admission of California with any other question. Lost:Yeas, 23; Nays, 28.

Various modifications of the generic idea were severally voted down, generally by large majorities.

On motion of Mr. Foote, of Miss., it was no

Ordered, That the resolutions submitted by Mr. Bell on the 28th February, together with the resolutions submitted on the 29th of January, by Mr. Clay, be referred to a select Committee of thirteen; Provided, that the Senate does not deem it necessary, and therefore declines, to express in advance any opinion, or to give any instruction, either general or specific, for the guidance of the said Committee.

April 19. — The Senate proceeded to elect by ballot such Select Committee, which was composed as follows:
Mr. Henry Clay, of Ky., Chairman. Messrs. Dickinson, of N. Y.
Cooper, of Pa. Phelps, of Vt.
Downs, of La. Bell, of Tenn.
King, of Ala. Cass, of Mich.
Mangum, of N. C. Webster, of Mass.
Mason, of Va. Berrien, of Ga.
Bright, of Ind.

May 8. — Mr. Clay, from said Committee, reported at length, the views and recommendations of the report being substantially as follows

1. The admission of any new State or States formed out of Texas to be postponed until they shall hereafter present themselves to be received into the Union, when it will be the duty of Congress fairly and faithfully to execute the compact with Texas, by admitting such new State or States.

2. The admission forthwith of California into the Union, with the boundaries which she has proposed.

3. The establishment of Territorial Governments, without the Wilmot Proviso, for New-Mexico and Utah, embracing all the territory recently acquired by the United States from Mexico, not contained in the boundaries of California.

4. The combination of these two last mentioned measures in the same bill;

5. The establishment of the western and northern boundaries of Texas, and the exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New-Mexico, with the grant to Texas of a pecuniary equivalent; and the section for that purpose to be incorporated in the bill admitting California and establishing Territorial Governments for Utah and New-Mexico.

6. More effectual enactments of law to secure the prompt delivery of persons bound to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, who escape into another State; and,

7. Abstaining from abolishing Slavery; but, under a heavy penalty, prohibiting the slave-trade in the District of Columbia.

The Senate proceeded to debate from day to day the provisions of the principal bill thus reported, commonly termed "the Omnibus."

June 28. — Mr. Soule, of Louisiana, moved that all south of 86° 30' be cut off from California, and formed into a Territory entitled South California, and that said Territor

"shall, when ready, able, and willing to become a State, and deserving to be such, be admitted with or without Slavery, as the people thereof shall desire, and make known through their Constitution."

This was rejected: Yeas, 19 (all Southern); Nays, 36.

July 10. — The discussion was interrupted by the death of President Taylor. Millard Fillmore succeeded to the Presidency, and William R. King, of Alabama, was chosen President of the Senate, pro tempore.

July 15. — The bill was reported to the Senate and amended so as to substitute "that Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting" Slavery in the new Territories, instead respect to it. Yeas, 27; Nays, 25.

Mr. Seward moved to add at the 37th section

But neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude allowed in either of the Territories of New-Mexico or Utah, except on legal conviction for crime.

Which was negatived; Yeas and Nays not taken.

July 17. — The Senate resumed the consideration of the "Omnibus bill."

Mr. Benton moved a change in the proposed boundary between Texas and New-Mexico. Rejected: Yeas, 18; Nays, 36.

Mr. Foote moved that the 34th parallel of north latitude be the northern boundary of Texas throughout. Lost: Yeas, 20; Nays, 34.

July 19. — Mr. King moved that the parallel of 35° 30' be the southern boundary of the State of California. Rejected: Yeas, 20; Nays, 37.

Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, moved 36° 30'. Rejected: Yeas, 23; Nays, 32.

July 23d. — Mr. Turney, of Tenn., moved that the people of California be enabled to form a new State Constitution. Lost: Yeas, 19; Nays, 33.

Mr. Jeff. Davis, of Mississippi, moved to add

And that all laws and usages existing in said Territory at the date of its acquisition by the United States, which deny or obstruct the right of any citizen of the United States to remove to, and reside in, said Territory, with any species of property legally held in any of the States of this Union, be, and are hereby declared to be, null and void.

This was rejected: Yeas, 22; Nays, 33.

Yeas — For Davis's amendment:
Messrs. Atchison, Mo.
Barnwell, S. C.
Bell, Tenn.
Berrien, Ga.
Butler, S. C.
Clemens, Ala.
Davis, Miss.
Dawson, Ga.
Downs, La.
Houston, Texas.
Hunter, Va.
King, Ala.
Mangum, N. C.
Mason, Va.
Morton, Fla.
Pratt, Md.
Rusk, Texas.
Sebastian, Ark.
Soulé, La.
Turney,Tenn.
Underwood, Ky.
Yulee, Fla. — 22.

Nays — Against Davis's amendment:
Messrs. Badger, N. C.
Baldwin, Conn.
Benton, Mo.
Bradbury, Me.
Bright, Ind.
Cass, Mich.
Chase, Ohio.
Clarke, R. I.
Clay, Ky.
Cooper, Pa.
Davis, Mass.
Dayton, N. J.
Dickinson, N. Y.
Dodge, Wisc.
Dodge, Iowa.
Felch, Mich.
Greene, R. I.
Hale, N. H.
Hamlin, Me.
Jones, Iowa.
Miller, N. J.
Norris, N. H.
Pearce, Md.
Seward, N. Y.
Shields, Ill.
Smith, Conn.
Spruance, Del.
Sturgeon, Pa.
Upham, Vt.
Wales, Del.
Walker, Wisc.
Whitcomb, Ind. — 33.

Aug. 10. — The California bill was now taken up. Mr. Yulee, of Fla., moved a substitute, remanding California to a territorial condition, and limiting her southern boundary. Rejected: Yeas, 12 (all Southern); Nays, 35.

Mr. Foote moved a like project, cutting so much of California as lies south of 36 deg. 30 min., and erecting it into the Territory Colorado. Rejected: Yeas, 13 (ultra Southern); Nays, 29.

Aug. 12. — Still another proposition to limit

79

southwardly, by the line of 36 deg. 30 min., was made by Mr.Turney, and rejected: Yeas, 20 ( all Southern); Nays, 30. After defeating Southern motions to adjourn, postpone, and lay on the table, the bill was engrossed for third reading: Yeas, 33 (all the Senators from Free States, Bell, Benton, Houston, Spruance, Wales and Underwood); Nays, 19 (all Mr. Clay still absent, endeavoring to restore his failing health.

Aug. 13. — The California bill passed its third reading: Yeas 34; Nays, 18 (all Southern).

Aug. 14. — The Senate now took up the bill organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah (as it was originally reported, prior to its inclusion in Mr. Clay's "Omnibus").

Mr. Chase, of Ohio, moved to amend the bill by inserting

Nor shall there be in said Territory either Slavery or involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes thereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty.

Which was rejected: Yeas, 20; Nays, 25.

The bill was then reported complete, and passed to be engrossed.

Aug. 15. — Said bill had its third reading, and was finally passed: Yeas, 27; Nays, 10.

[The Senate proceeded to take up, consider, mature, and pass the Fugitive Slave bill, and the bill excluding the Slave-Trade from the District of Columbia; but the history of these is but remotely connected with our theme]. We return to the House.

Aug. 28. — The California bill was taken up, read twice, and committed.

The Texas bill coming up, Mr. Inge, of Ala. objected to it, and a vote was taken on its rejection: Yeas, 34; Nays, 168; so it was not rejected.

Mr. Boyd, of Ky., moved to amend it so as to create and define thereby the Territories of New-Mexico and Utah, to be slaveholding or not as their people shall determine when they shall come to form State governments. [In other words, to append the bill organizing the Territory of New Mexico to the Texas bill.]

Sept. 7. — The California bill now came up. Mr. Boyd moved his amendment already moved to the Texas bill. Mr. Vinton, of Ohio, declared it out of order. The Speaker again ruled it in order. Mr. Vinton appealed, and the House overruled the Speaker: Yeas (to sustain), 87; Nays, 115.

Mr. Jacob Thompson, of Miss., moved to cut off California all below 36° 80'. Rejected: Yeas, 76; Nays, 131.

The bill was now ordered to a third reading:
Yeas, 151; Nays, 57, and then passed: Yeas, 150; Nays, 56 (all Southern).

The Senate bill organizing the Territory of Utah (without restriction as to Slavery) was then taken up, and rushed through the same day: Yeas, 97; Nays, 85. [The Nays were mainly Northern Free Soil men; but some Southern men, for a different reason, voted with them.

Sept. 9. — The House having returned the Texas Boundary bill with an amendment (Linn Boyd's), including the bill organizing the Territory of New-Mexico therein, the Senate proceeded to consider and agree to the same:
Yeas, 31; Nays, 10, namely:
Messrs. Baldwin, Conn.,
Benton, Mo.,
Chase, Ohio,
Davis, Mass.,
Dodge, Wis.,
Ewing, Ohio,
Hamlin, Me.,
Seward, N. Y.,
Upham, Vt.,
Winthrop, Mass.

So all the bills originally included in Mr. Clays "Omnibus" were passed — two of them in the same bill — after the Senate had once voted to sever them.

The Kansas-Nebraska Struggle.

Out of the Louisiana Territory, since the admission first of Louisiana and then of Missouri as Slave States, there had been formed the Territories of Arkansas, Iowa, and Minnesota; the first without, and the two others with, Congressional inhibition of Slavery. Arkansas, in due course, became a Slave, Iowa and Minnesota Free States. The destiny of one tier of States, fronting upon, and westward of, the Mississippi, was thus settled. What should be the fate of the next tier?

The region lying immediately westward of Missouri, with much Territory north, as well as a more clearly defined district south of it, was long since dedicated to the uses of the Aborigines — not merely those who had originally inhabited it, but the tribes from time to time removed from the States eastward of the Mississippi. Very little, if any, of it was legally open to settlement by Whites; and, with the exception of the few and small military and trading posts thinly scattered over its surface, it is probable that scarcely two hundred white families were located in the spacious wilderness bounded by Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota on the east, the British possessions on the north, the crest of the Rocky Mountains on the west, and the settled portion of New-Mexico and the line of 36° 30' on the south, at the time when Mr. Douglas first, at the session of 1852-3, submitted a bill organizing the Territory of Nebraska, by which title the region above bounded had come to be vaguely indicated.

This region was indisputably included within the scope of the exclusion of Slavery from all Federal Territory north of 36° 30', to which the South had assented by the terms of the Missouri compact, in order thereby to secure the admission of Missouri as a Slave State. Nor was it once intimated, during the long, earnest, and searching debate in the Senate on the Compromise Measures of 1850, that the adoption of those measures, whether together or separately, would involve or imply a repeal of the Missouri Restriction. We have seen on a former page how Mr. Clay's original suggestion of a Compromise, which was substantially that ultimately adopted, was received by the Southern Senators who spoke on its introduction, with hardly a qualification, as a virtual surrender of all that the South had ever claimed with respect to the new Territories. And, from the beginning to the close of the long and able discussion which followed, neither friend nor foe of the Compromises, nor of any of them, hinted that one effect of their adoption would be the lifting of the Missouri restriction from the Territory now covered by it. When the Compromises of 1850 were accepted in 1852 by the National Conventiona of the two great parties, as a settlement of the distracting controversy therein contemplated,

80

no hint was added that the Nebraska region was opened thereby to Slavery.

Several petitions for the organization of a Territory westward of Missouri and Iowa were presented at the session of 1851-2, but no decisive action taken thereon, until the next session, when,

Dec. 13th. — Mr. W. P. Hall, of Mo., pursuant to notice, submitted to the House a bill to organize the Territory of Platte, which was read twice and sent to the Committee on Territories. From that Committee,

Feb. 2d, 1853. — Mr. W. A. Richardson, of Ill., reported a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska, which was read twice and committed.

Feb. 9th. — The bill was ordered to be taken out of Committee, on motion of W. P. Hall.

Feb. 10th. — The bill was reported from the Committee of the Whole to the House, with a recommendation that it do not pass.

Mr. Richardson moved the previous question, which prevailed.

Mr. Letcher, of Va., moved that the bill do lie on the table. Lost: Yeas, 49 (mainly Southern); Nays, 107.

The bill was then engrossed, read a third time, and passed. Yeas, 98; Nays, 43, (as before.)

Feb. 11th. — The bill reached the Senate and was referred to the Committee on Territories.

Feb. 17th. — Mr. Douglas reported it without amendment.

March 2d. — (Last day but one of the session), Mr. Douglas moved that the bill be taken up:
Lost: Yeas, 20; (all Northern but Atchison and Geyer, of Mo.;) Nays, 25; (21 Southern, 4 Northern.)

March, 3rd. — Mr. Douglas again moved that the bill be taken up.

Mr. Borland, of Ark., moved that it do lie on the table. Carried: Yeas, 23; (all Southern but 4;} Nays, 17; (all Northern but Atchison and Geyer.) So the bill was put to sleep for the session.

On the motion to take up — Mr. Rusk of Texas objecting — Mr. Atchison said

I must ask the indulgence of the Senate to say one word in relation to this matter. Perhaps there is not a State in the Union more deeply interested in this question than the State of Missouri. If not the largest, I will say the best, portion of that Territory, perhaps the only portion of it that in half a century will become a State, lies immediately west of the State of Missouri. It is only a question of time, whether we will organize the Territory at this session of Congress, or whether we will do it at the next session; and, for my own part, I acknowledge now that, as the Senator from Illinois well knows, when I came to this city, at the beginning of the last session, I was perhaps as much opposed to the proposition, as the Senator from Texas now is. The Senator from Iowa knows it; and it was for reasons which I will not now mention, or suggest. But, sir, I have from reflection and investigation in my own mind, and from the opinions of others — my constituents, whose opinions I am bound to respect — come to the conclusion that now is the time for the organization of this Territory. It is the most propitious time. The treaties with the various Indian tribes, the titles to whose possessions must be extinguished, can better be made now than at any future time; for, as the question is agitated, and as it is understood, white men, speculators, will interpose, and interfere, and the longer it is postponed the more we will have to fear from them, and the more difficult it will be to extinguish the Indian title in that country, and the harder the terms to be imposed. Therefore, Mr. President, for this reason, without going into detail, I am willing now that the question shall be taken, whether we will proceed to the consideration of the bill or not.

The meaning is here diplomatically veiled, yet is perfectly plain. Gen. Atchison had been averse to organizing this Territory until he could procure a relaxation of the Missouri Restriction as to Slavery; but, seeing no present hope of this, he was willing to waive the point, and assent to an organization under a bill silent with respect to Slavery, and of course leaving the Missouri Restriction unimpaired.

Gen. Pierce was inaugurated President on the 4th March, 1853.

The XXXIIId Congress assembled at Washington, Dec. 5th, 1853, with a large Administration majority in either House. Linn Boyd of Ky., was chosen Speaker of the House. The President's Annual Message contained the following allusion to the subject of Slavery

It is no part of my purpose to give prominence to any subject which may properly be regarded as set at rest by the deliberate judgment of the people. But, while the present is bright with promise, and the future full of demand and inducements for the exercise of active intelligence, the past can never be without useful lessons of admonition and instruction. If its dangers serve not as beacons, they will evidently fail to fulfill the object of a wise design. When the grave shall have closed over all, who are now endeavoring to meet the obligations of duty, the year 1850 will be recurred to as a period filled with anxious apprehension. A successful war had just terminated.

Peace brought with it a vast augmentation of territory. Disturbing questions arose, bearing upon the domestic institutions of one portion of the confederacy, and involving the constitutional rights of the States. But, not withstanding differences of opinion and sentiment which then existed in relation to details, and specific provisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, whose devotion to the Union can never be doubted, has given renewed vigor to our institutions, and restored a sense of repose and security to the public mind throughout the confederacy. That this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured.

Dec. 15. — Mr. A. C. Dodge of Iowa submitted to the Senate a bill (No. 2-2.) "To organize the Territory of Nebraska," which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Territories.

Jan. 4. — Mr. Douglas, from said Committee, reported said bill with amendments, which were printed. He said in his Report

The principal amendments which your committee deem it their duty to commend to the favorable action of the Senate, in a special report, are 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 new Territory.

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 propriety 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 Territories were organized.

It was a disputed point, whether Slavery was prohibited by law in the country acquired from Mexico. On the one hand, it was contended, as a legal proposition, that Slavery having been prohibited by the enactments 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.

81

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, whether 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 dispute, thus, among those who claimed that the Mexican laws were still in force, and, consequently, that Slavery was already prohibited in those Territories by valid enactments, there were many who insisted upon Congress making the matter certain, by enacting another prohibition. In like manner, some of those who argued that Mexican law had ceased to have any binding force, and that the Constitution tolerated and protected Slave property 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 Territories. . . . .

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 of the agitation. A due respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions of Senators, as well as a proper sense of patriotic duty, enjoins upon your Committee the propriety and necessity of a strict adherence to the principles, 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. These enactments embrace, among other things, less material to the matters 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 constitution 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 interfering 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.

Jan. 24. — The bill thus reported was considered in Committee of the Whole and postponed to Monday next, when it was made the order of the day.

The bill was further considered Jan. 31st, Feb. 3d, Feb. 5th, and Feb. 6th, when an amendment reported by Mr. Douglas, declaring the Missouri Restriction on Slavery "inoperative and void," being under consideration, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, moved to strike out the assertion that said Restrictio

"was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures."

This motion was defeated by Yeas, 13; Nays, 30.

Feb. 15. — The bill having been discussed daily until now, Mr. Douglas moved to strike out of his amendment the words above quoted (which the Senate had refused to strike out on Mr. Chase's motion,) 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 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 the Constitution of the United States

81

— which prevailed — Yeas, 25; Nays, 10 — as follows:

Yeas — For Douglas's new amendment:
Messrs. Adams, Gwin,
Atchison, Hunter,
Bayard, Johnson,
Bell, Jones, of Iowa,
Benjamin, Jones, of Tenn.,
Brodhead, Mason,
Brown, Morton,
Butler, Norris,
Cass, Pearce,
Clayton, Pettit,
Dawson, Pratt,
Dixon, Sebastian,
Dodge, of Iowa, Slidell,
Douglas, Stuart,
Evans, Thompson, of Ky.,
Fitzpatrick, Toombs,
Geyer, Weller,
Williams — 35
Nays — Against said amendment:
Messrs. Allen, Foot,
Chase, Houston,
Dodge, of Wisc., Seward,
Everett, Sumner,
Fish, Wade — 10.

[NOTE Prior to this move of Mr. Douglas, Mr. Dixon, (Whig) of Kentucky, had moved to insert a clause directly and plainly repealing the Missouri Restriction. Mr. Dixon thought if that was the object, (and he was in favor of it,) it should be approached in a direct and manly way. He was assailed for this in The Union newspaper next morning; but his suggestion was substantially adopted by Douglas, after a brief hesitation. Mr. Dixon's proposition, having been made in Committee, does not appear in the journal of the Senate, or it would here be given in terms.]

The bill was further discussed daily until March 2nd, when the vote was taken on Mr. Chase's amendment, to add to Sec. 14 the following words

Under which the people of the Territory, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of Slavery therein — which was rejected: Yeas, 10; Nays, 36, as follows:

Yeas — For Mr. Chase's amendment:
Messrs. Chase,
Dodge, of Wisc.,
Fessenden,
Fish,
Foot,
Hamlin,
Seward,
Smith,
Sumner,
Wade — 10.

Nays — Against Chase's amendment:
Messrs. Adams,
Atchison,
Badger,
Bell,
Benjamin,
Brodhead,
Brown,
Butler,
Clay, (C. C.),
Clayton,
Dawson,
Dixon,
Dodge, of Iowa,
Douglas,
Evans,
Fitzpatrick,
Gwin,
Houston,
Hunter,
Johnson,
Jones, of Iowa,
Jones, of Tenn.,
Mason,
Morton,
Norris,
Pettit,
Pratt,
Rusk,
Sebastian,
Shields,
Slidell,
Stuart,
Toucey,
Walker,
Weller,
Williams — 36.

Mr. Badger, of N. C., moved to add to the aforesaid section

Provided, That nothing herein, contained shall be construed to revive or put in farce any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing Slavery.

Carried: Yeas, 35; Nays, 6.

Mr. Clayton now moved to strike out so much of said Douglas amendment as permits emigrants

82

from Europe, who shall have declared their intention to become citizens, to vote. Carried: Yeas, 23; Nays, 21 — as follows:

Yeas — For Clayton's amendment:
Messrs. Adams, Dixon,
Atchison, Evans,
Badger, Fitzpatrick,
Bell, Houston,
Benjamin, Hunter,
Brodhead, Johnson,
Brown, Jones, of Tenn.,
Butler, Mason,
Clay, Morton,
Clayton, Pratt,
Dawson, Sebastian,
Slidell — 23.  
Nays — Against Clayton's amendment:
Messrs. Chase, Norris,
Dodge, of Wisc., Pettit,
Dodge, of Iowa, Seward,
Douglas, Shields,
Fessenden, Smith,
Fish, Stuart,
Foot, Sumner,
Gwin, Toucey,
Hamlin, Wade,
Jones, of Iowa, Walker,
Williams — 21.  

Mr. Chase moved to amend, by providing for the appointment of three Commissioners residing in the Territory to organize the Territory, divide it into election districts, notify an election on the first Monday in September then ensuing, etc., at which election the people should choose their own Governor, as well as a Territorial Legislature — the Governor to serve for two years, and the Legislature to meet not later than May, 1855.

This extension of the principle of "Squatter Sovereignty " was defeated — Yeas, 10; Nays, 30.

Mr. Douglas's amendment was then agreed to, and the bill reported from the Committee of the Whole to the Senate.

The question on the engrossment of the bill was now reached, and it was carried: Yeas, 29; Nays, 12.

March 3. — The rule assigning Fridays for the consideration of private bills having been suspended, on motion of Mr. Badger, the Senate proceeded to put the Nebraska-Kansas bill on its final passage, when a long and earnest debate ensued. At a late hour of the night Mr. Seward, of New York, addressed the Senate, in opposition to the bill, as follows

MR. PRESIDENT: I rise with no purpose of further resisting or even delaying the passage of this bill. Let its advocates have only a little patience, and they will soon reach the object for which they have struggled so earnestly and so long. The sun has set for the last time upon the guaranteed and certain liberties of all the unsettled and unorganized portions of the American continent that lie within the jurisdiction of the United States. To-morrow's sun will rise in dim eclipse over them. How long that obscuration shall last, is known only to the Power that directs and controls all human events. For myself, I know only this — that now no human power will prevent its coming on, and that its passing off will be hastened and secured by others than those now here, and perhaps by only those belonging to future generations.

Sir, it would be almost factious to offer further resistance to this measure here. Indeed, successful resistance was never expected to be made in this Hall. The Senate floor is an old battle-ground, on which have been fought many contests, and always, at least since 1820, with fortune adverse to the cause of equal and universal freedom. We were only a few here who engaged in that cause in the beginning of this contest. All that we could hope to do — all that we did hope to do — was to organize and prepare the issue for the House of Representatives, to which the country would look for its decision as authoritative, and to awaken the country that it might be ready for the appeal which would be made, whatever the decision of Congress might be. We are no stronger now. Only fourteen at the first, it will be fortunate if, among the ills and accidents which surround us, we shall maintain that number to the end.

We are on the eve of the consummation of a great national transaction — a transaction which will close a cycle in the history of our country — and it is impossible not to desire to pause a moment and survey the scene around us, and the prospect before us. However obscure we may individually be, our connection with this great transaction will perpetuate our names for the praise or for the censure of future ages, and perhaps in regions far remote. If, then, we had no other motive for our actions than but that of the honest desire for a just fame, we could not be indifferent to that scene and that prospect. But individual interests and ambition sink into insignificance in view of the interests of our country and of mankind. These interests awaken, at least in me, an intense solicitude.

It was said by some in the beginning, and it has been said by others later in this debate, that it was doubtful whether it would be the cause of Slavery or the cause of Freedom that would gain advantages from the passage of this bill. I do not find it necessary to be censorious, nor even unjust to others, in order that my own course may be approved. I am sure that the honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] did not mean that the Slave States should gain an advantage over the Free States; for he disclaimed it when he introduced the bill. I believe in all candor, that the honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] who comes out at the close of the battle as one of the chiefest leaders of the victorious party, is sincere in declaring his own opinion that the Slave States will gain no unjust advantage over the Free States, because he disclaims it as a triumph in their behalf. Notwithstanding all this, however, what has occurred here and in the country, during this contest, has compelled a conviction that Slavery will gain something, and Freedom will endure a severe, though I hope not an irretrievable, loss. The slaveholding States are passive, quiet, and content, and satisfied with the prospective boon; and the Free States are excited and alarmed with fearful forebodings and apprehensions. The impatience for the speedy passage of the bill, manifested by its friends, betrays a knowledge that this is the condition of public sentiment in the Free States. They thought in the beginning that it was necessary to guard the measure by inserting the Clayton amendment, which would exclude unnaturalized foreign inhabitants of the Territories from the right of suffrage. And now they seem willing, with almost perfect unanimity, to relinquish that safeguard, rather than to delay the adoption of the principal measure for at most a year, perhaps for only a week or a day. Suppose that the Senate should adhere to that condition, which so lately was thought so wise and so important — what then? The bill could only go back to the House of Representatives, which must either yield or insist! In the one case or in the other, a decision in favor of the bill would be secured; for even if the House should disagree, the Senate would have time to recede. But the majority will hazard nothing, even on a prospect so certain as this. They will recede at once, without a moment's further struggle, from the condition, and thus secure the passage of this bill now, to-night. Why such haste? Even if the question were to go to the country before a final decision here, what would there be wrong in that? There is no man living who will say that the country anticipated, or that he anticipated, the agitation of this measure in Congress, when this Congress was elected, or even when it assembled in December last.

Under such circumstances, and in the midst of agitation, and excitement, and debates, it is only fair to say, that certainly the country has not decided in favor of the bill. The refusal, then, to let the question go to the country, is a conclusive proof that the Slave States, as represented here, expect from the passage of this bill what the Free States insist that they will lose by it — an advantage, a material advantage, and not a mere abstraction. There are men in the Slave States, as in the Free Spates, who insist always too pertinaciously upon mere abstractions. But that is not the policy of the Slave States today. They are in earnest in seeking for, and securing, an object, and an important one. I believe they are going to have it. I do not know how long the advantage gained will last, nor how great or comprehensive it will be. Every Senator who agrees with me in opinion must feel as I do — that under such circumstances he can forego nothing that can be done decently, with due respect to difference of opinion, and consistently with the constitutional and settled rules of legislation, to place the true merits of the question before the country. Questions sometimes occur which seem to have two right sides. Such were the questions that divided the English nation between Pitt and Fox — such the contest between the assailant and the defender of Quebec. The judgment of the world was suspended by its sympathies,

83

and seemed ready to descend in favor of him who should be most gallant in conduct. And so, when both fell with equal chivalry on the same field, the survivors united in raising a common monument to the glorious but rival memories of Wolfe and Montcalm. But this contest involves a moral question. The Slave States so present it. They maintain that African Slavery is not erroneous, not unjust, not inconsistent with the advancing cause of human nature. Since they so regard it, I do not expect to see statesmen representing those States indifferent about a vindication of this system by the Congress of the United States. On the other hand, we of the Free States regard Slavery as erroneous, unjust, oppressive, and therefore absolutely inconsistent with the principles of the American Constitution and Government. Who will expect us to be indifferent to the decisions of the American people and of mankind on such an issue? . . . .

Sir, I am surprised at the pertinacity with which the honorable Senator from Delaware, mine ancient and honorable friend, [Mr. Clayton,] perseveres in opposing the granting of the right of suffrage to the unnaturalized foreigner in the Territories. Congress cannot deny him that right. Here is the third article of that convention by which Louisiana, including Kansas and Nebraska, was ceded to the United States:
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion they profess."

The inhabitants of Kansas and Nebraska are citizens already, and by force of this treaty must continue to be, and as such to enjoy the right of suffrage, whatever laws you make to the contrary. My opinions are well known, to wit: That Slavery is not only an evil, but a local one, injurious and ultimately pernicious to society, wherever it exists, and in conflict with the constitutional principles of society in this country. I am not willing to extend nor to permit the extension of that local evil into regions now free within our empire. I know that there are some who differ from me, and who regard the Constitution of the United States as an instrument which sanctions Slavery as well as Freedom. But if I could admit a proposition so incongruous with the letter and spirit of the Federal Constitution, and the known sentiments of its illustrious founders, and so should conclude that Slavery was national, I must still cherish the opinion that it is an evil; and because it is a national one, I am the more firmly held and bound to prevent an increase of it, tending, as I think it manifestly does, to the weakening and ultimate overthrow of the Constitution itself, and therefore to the injury of all mankind. I know there have been States which have endured long, and achieved much, which tolerated Slavery; but that was not the slavery of caste, like African Slavery. Such Slavery tends to demoralize equally the subjected race and the superior one. It has been the absence of such Slavery from Europe that has given her nations their superiority over other countries in that hemisphere. Slavery, wherever it exists, begets fear, and fear is the parent of weakness. What is the secret of that eternal, sleepless anxiety in the legislative halls, and even at the firesides of the Slave States, always asking new stipulations, new compromises and abrogation of compromises, new assumptions of power and abnegations of power, but fear? It is the apprehension, that, even if safe now, they will not always or long be secure against some invasion or some aggression from the Free States. What is the secret of the humiliating part which proud old Spain is acting at this day, trembling between alarms of American intrusion into Cuba on one side, and British dictation on the other, but the fact that she has cherished Slavery so long and still cherishes it, in the last of her American colonial possessions? Thus far Kansas and Nebraska are safe, under the laws of 1820, against the introduction of this element of national debility and decline. The bill before us, as we are assured, contains a great principle, a glorious principle; and yet that principle, when fully ascertained proves to be nothing less than the subversion of that security not only within the Territories of Kansas am Nebraska, but within all the other present and future Territories of the United States. Thus it is quite clear that it is not a principle alone that is involved, but that those who crowd this measure with so much zeal and earnestness must expect that either Freedom or Slavery shall gain something by it in those regions. The case then, stands thus in Kansas and Nebraska: Freedom may lose, but certainly can gain nothing; while Slavery may gain, but as certainly can lose nothing. So far us I am concerned, the time for looking on the dark side has passed. I feel quite sure that Slavery at most can get nothing more than Kansas; while Nebraska — the wider northern region — will, under existing circumstances, escape, for the reason that its soil and climate are uncongenial with the staples of slave culture rice, sugar, cotton, and tobacco. Moreover, since the public attention has been so well and so effectually directed toward the subject, I cherish a hope that Slavery may be prevented even from gaining a foothold in Kansas. Congress only gives consent, but it does not and cannot introduce Slavery there. Slavery will be embarrassed by its own over grasping spirit. No one, I am sure, anticipates the possible reestablishment of the African Slave-trade. The tide of emigration to Kansas is therefore to be supplied there solely by the domestic fountain of slave production. But Slavery has also other regions besides Kansas to be filled from that fountain. There are all of New Mexico and all of Utah already within the United States; and then there is Cuba, that consumes slave labor and life as fast as any one of the slaveholding States can supply it; and besides these regions, there remains all of Mexico down to the Isthmus. The stream of slave labor flowing from so small a fountain, and broken into several divergent channels will not cover so great a field; and it is reasonably to be hoped that the part of it nearest to the North Pole will be the last to be inundated. But African slave emigration is to compete with free emigration of white men, and the source of this latter tide is as ample as the civilization of the two entire continents. The honorable Senator from Delaware mentioned, as if it were a startling fact, that twenty thousand European immigrants arrived in New-York in one month. Sir, he has stated the fact with too much moderation. On my return to the capital a day or two ago, I met twelve thousand of these emigrants who had arrived in New-York on one morning, and who had thronged the churches on the following Sabbath, to return thanks for deliverance from the perils of the sea, and for their arrival in the land, not of Slavery but of Liberty. I also thank God for their escape, and for their coming. They are now on their way westward, and the news of the passage of this bill, preceding them, will speed many of them toward Kansas and Nebraska. Such arrivals are not extraordinary — they occur almost every week; and the immigration from Germany, from Great Britain, and from Norway, and from Sweden, during the European war, will rise to six or seven hundred thousand souls in a year. And with this tide is to be mingled one rapidly swelling from Asia and from the islands of the South Seas. All the immigrants under this bill, as the House of Representatives overruling you have ordered, will be good, loyal, Liberty-loving, Slavery-fearing citizens. Come on, then, gentlemen of the Slave States. Since there is no escaping your challenge, I accept it in behalf of the cause of Freedom. We will engage in competition for the virgin soil of Kansas, and God give the victory to the side which is stronger in numbers as it is in right.

There are, however, earnest advocates of this bill, who do not expect, and who, I suppose, do not desire, that Slavery shall gain possession of Nebraska. What do they expect to gain? The honorable Senator from Indiana (Mr. Pettit) says that by thus obliterating the Missouri Compromise restriction, they will gain a tabula rasa, on which the inhabitants of Kansas and Nebraska may write whatever they will. This is the great principle of the bill, as he understands it. Well, what gain is there in that? You obliterate a Constitution of Freedom. If they write a new constitution of freedom, can the new be better than the old? If they write a Constitution of Slavery, will it not be a worse one? I ask the honorable Senator that. But the honorable Senator says that the people of Nebraska will have the privilege of establishing institutions for themselves. They have now the privilege of establishing free institutions. Is it a privilege, then, to establish Slavery? If so, what a mockery are all our Constitutions, which prevent, the inhabitants from capriciously subverting free institutions and establishing institutions of Slavery! Sir, it is a sophism, a subtlety, to talk of conferring upon a country, already secure in the blessings of Freedom, the power of self-destruction.

What mankind everywhere want, is not the removal of the Constitutions of Freedom which they have, that they may make at their pleasure Constitutions of Slavery or of Freedom, but the privilege of retaining Constitutions of Freedom when they already have them, and the removal of Constitutions of Slavery when they have them, that they may establish Constitutions of Freedom in their place. We hold on tenaciously to all existing Constitutions of Freedom. Who denounces any man for diligently adhering to such Constitutions? Who would dare to denounce any one for disloyalty to our existing Constitutions, if they were Constitutions of Despotism and

84

Slavery? But it is supposed by some that this principle is less important in regard to Kansas and Nebraska than as a general one — a general principle applicable to all other present and future Territories of the United States. Do honorable Senators then indeed suppose they are establishing a principle at all? If so, I think they egregiously err, whether the principle is either good or bad, right or wrong. They are not establishing it, and cannot establish it in this way. You subvert one law capriciously, by making another law in its place. That is all. Will your law have any more weight, authority, solemnity, or binding force on future Congresses, than the first had? You abrogate the law of your predecessors — others will have equal power and equal liberty to abrogate yours. You allow no barriers around the old law, to protect it from abrogation. You erect none around your new law, to stay the hand of future innovators. . ..

Sir, in saying that your new principle will not be established by this bill, I reason from obvious, clear, well settled principles of human nature. Slavery and Freedom are antagonistical elements in this country. The founders of the Constitution framed it with a knowledge of that antagonism, and suffered it to continue, that it might work out its own ends. There is a commercial antagonism, an irreconcilable one, between the systems of free labor and slave labor. They have been at war with each other ever since the Government was established, and that war is to continue forever. The contest, when it ripens between these two antagonistic elements, is to be settled somewhere; it is to be settled in the seat of central power, in the Federal Legislature. The Constitution makes it the duty of the central Government to determine questions, as often as they shall arise, in favor of one or the other party, and refers the decision of them to the majority of the votes in the two Houses of Congress. It will come back here, then, in spite of all the efforts to escape from it.

This antagonism must end either in a separation of the antagonistic parties — the Slaveholding States and the Free States — or, secondly, in the complete establishment of the influence of the Slave power over the Free — or else, on the other hand, in the establishment of the superior influence of Freedom over the interests of Slavery. It will not be terminated by a voluntary secession of either party. Commercial intrests bind the Slave States and the Free States together in links of gold that are riveted with iron, and they cannot be broken by passion or by ambition. Either party will submit to the ascendency of the other, rather than yield the commercial advantages of this Union. Political ties bind the Union together — a common necessity, and not merely a common necessity, but the common interests of empire — of such empire as the world has never before seen. The control of the national power is the control of the great Western Continent; and the control of this continent is to be, in a very few years, the controlling influence in the world. Who is there, North, that hates Slavery so much, or who, South, that, hates emancipation so intensely, that he can attempt, with any hope of success, to break a Union thus forged and welded together? I have always heard, with equal pity and disgust, threats of disunion in the Free States, and similar threats in the Slaveholding States. I know that men may rave in the heat of passion, and under great political excitement; but I know that when it comes to a question whether this Union shall stand, either with Freedom or with Slavery, the masses will uphold it, and it will stand until some inherent vice in its Constitution, not yet disclosed, shall cause its dissolution. Now, entertaining these opinions, there are for me only two alternatives, viz.: either to let Slavery gain unlimited sway, or so to exert what little power and influence I may have, as to secure, if I can, the ultimate predominance of Freedom. . . ..

Sir, I have always said that I should not despond, even if this fearful measure should be effected: nor do I now despond. Although, reasoning from my present convictions, I should not have voted for the compromise of l820, I have labored, in the very spirit of those who established it, to save the landmark of Freedom which it assigned. I have not spoken irreverently even of the compromise of 1850, which, as all men know, I opposed earnestly and with diligence. Nevertheless, I have always preferred the compromises of the Constitution, and have wanted no others. I feared all others. This was a leading principle of the great statesman of the South, (Mr. Calhoun). Said he:
"I see my way in the Constitution; I cannot in a compromise. A compromise is but an act of Congress. It may be overruled at any time. It gives us no security. But the Constitution is stable. It is a rock on which we can stand, and on which we can meet our friends from the non-slaveholding States. It is a firm and stable ground, on which we can better stand in opposition to fanaticism than on the shifting sands of compromise. Let us be done with compromises. Let us go back and stand upon the Constitution."

I stood upon this ground in 1850, defending Freedom upon it as Mr. Calhoun did in defending Slavery. I was overruled then, and I have waited since without proposing to abrogate any compromises.

It has been no proposition of mine to abrogate them now; but the proposition has come from another quarter — from an adverse one. It is about to prevail. The shifting sands of compromise are passing from under my feet, and they are now, without agency of my own, taking hold again on the rock of the Constitution. It shall be no fault of mine if they do not remain firm. This seems to me auspicious of better days and wiser legislation. Through all the darkness and gloom of the present hour, bright stars are breaking, that inspire me with hope, and excite me to perseverance. They show that the day of compromises has past forever, and that hence forward all great questions between Freedom and Slavery legitimately coming here — and none other can come — shall be decided, as they ought to be, upon their merits, by a fair exercise of legislative power, and not by bargains of equivocal prudence, if not of doubtful morality.

Mr. Douglas closed the debate, reiterating and enforcing the views set forth in his Report already referred to; and at last the vote was taken, and the bill passed: Yeas, 87; Nays, 14; as follows:

Yeas — For the Kansas-Nebraska bill:
Messrs. Adams, Hunter,
Atchison, Johnson,
Badger, Jones, of Iowa,
Bayard, Jones, of Tenn.,
Benjamin, Mason,
Brodhead, Morton,
Brown, Norris,
Butler, Pettit,
Cass, Pratt,
Clay, of Ala., Rusk,
Dawson, Sebastian,
Dixon, Shields,
Dodge, of Iowa, Slidell,
Douglas, Stuart,
Evans, Thompson, of Ky.,
Fitzpatrick, Thomson, of N. J.,
Geyer, Toucey,
Gwin, Weller,
Williams — 37.  
Nays — Against the said bill:
Messrs. Bell, Houston,
Chase, James,
Dodge, of Wisc., Seward,
Fessenden, Smith,
Fish, Sumner,
Foot, Wade,
Hamlin, Walker — 14

So the bill was passed, and its title declared to be "An Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas," and the Senate adjourned over to the Tuesday following.

In the House, a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska had been noticed on the first day of the session, by Mr. John G. Miller, of Mo., who introduced it December 22d.

Jan. 24th. — Mr. Giddings gave notice of a bill to organize said Territory.

Jan. 30. — Mr. Pringle, of N.Y., endeavored to have the bill passed at the last session (leaving the Missouri Restriction intact), reported by the Committee on Territories; but debate arose, and his resolution lay over.

Jan. 31. — Mr. Richardson, of Ill., chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported a bill "To organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas," which was read twice and committed.

Mr. Richardson's bill was substantially Mr. Douglas's last bill, and was accompanied by no report. Mr. English, of Ind., submitted the

85

views of a minority of said Committee on Territories, proposing, without argument, the two following amendments:
1. Amend the section defining the boundary of Kansas, so as to make "the summit of the Rocky Mountains" the western boundary of said Territory.

2. Strike out of the 14th and 34th sections of Said bill all after the words "United States," and insert in each instance (the one relating to Kansas, and the other to Nebraska) as follows

Provided, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent the people of said Territory, through the properly constituted legislative authority, from passing such laws, in relation to the institution of Slavery, as they may deem best adapted to their locality, and most conducive to their happiness and welfare; and so much of any existing act of Congress as may conflict with the above right of the people to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

This appears to have been an attempt to give practical effect to the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty; but it was not successful.

May 8th. — On motion of Mr. Richardson, the House — Yeas, 109; Nays, 88 — resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, and took up the bill (House No. 236) to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, and discussed it — Mr. Olds, of Ohio, in the chair.

On coming out of Committee, Mr. George W. Jones, of Tenn., moved that the rules be suspended so as to enable him to move the printing of Senate bill (No. 22, passed the Senate as aforesaid) and the amendment now pending to the House bill. No quorum voted — adjourned.

May 9th. — This motion prevailed. After debate in Committee on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Committee found itself without a quorum, and thereupon rose and reported the fact to the House — only 106 Members were found to be present. After several fruitless attempts to adjourn, a call was ordered and a quorum obtained, at 9 P. M.

At 10, an adjournment prevailed.

May 10th. — Debate in Committee continued.

May 11th. — Mr. Richardson moved that all debate in Committee close to-morrow at noon.

Mr. English moved a call of the House: Refused; Yeas, 88; Nays, 97.

Mr. Mace moved that Mr. Richardson's motion be laid on the table: Defeated. Yeas, 95; Nays, 100.

Mr. Edgerton, of Ohio, moved a call of the House. Refused: Yeas, 45; Nays, 80.

The day was spent in what has come to be called "Filibustering" — that is, the minority moving adjournments, calls of the House, asking to be excused from voting, taking appeals, etc., etc. In the midst of this, Mr. Richardson withdrew his original motion, and moved instead that the debate in Committee be closed in five minutes after the House shall have resumed it.

The hour of noon of the 12th having arrived, Messrs. Dean and Banks raised points of order as to the termination of the legislative day. The Speaker decided that the legislative day could only be terminated by the adjournment of the House, except by constitutional conclusion of the session. Mr. Banks appealed, but at length withdrew his appeal.

Finally, at 11˝ o'clock, P. M., of Friday, 12th, after a continuous sitting of thirty-six hours, the House, on motion of Mr. Richardson, adjourned.

May 13th. — The House sat but two hours, and effected nothing.

May 15th. — Mr. Richardson withdrew his demand for the Previous Question on closing the debate, and moved instead that the debate close at noon on Friday the 19th instant. This he finally modified by substituting Saturday the 20th; and in this shape his motion prevailed by a two-thirds majority — Yeas, 137; Nays, 66 — the following opponents of the bill voting for the motion, namely:
MAINE. — Thomas J. D. Fuller, Samuel Mayall — 2.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE. — Geo. W. Kittredge, Geo. W. Morrison — 2.
MASSACHUSETTS. — Nathaniel P. Banks, jr. — 1.
CONNECTICUT. — Origen S. Seymour — 1.
NEW-YORK. — Gilbert Dean, Charles Hughes — 2;
PENNSYLVANIA. — Michael C. Trout — 1.
OHIO. — Alfred P. Edgerton, Harvey H. Johnson, Andrew Ellison, William D. Lindsley, Thomas Richey — 5.
INDIANA. — Andrew J. Harlan, Daniel Mace — 2.
ILLINOIS. — John Wentworth — 1.
MICHIGAN. — David A. Noble, Hestor L. Stevens — 2.
WISCONSIN. — John B. Macy — 1
VIRGINIA. — John S. Millson — 1.
Total — 21.

Mr. Richardson, having thus got in his resolution to close the debate, put on the previous question again, and the House — Yeas, 113; Nays, 59 — agreed to close the debate on the 20th.

Debate having been closed, the opponents of the measure expected to defeat or cripple it by moving and taking a vote in Committee on various propositions of amendment, kindred to those moved and rejected in the Senate; some of which it was believed a majority of the House would not choose or (dare) to vote down; and, though the names of those voting on one side or the other in Committee of the Whole are not recorded, yet any proposition moved and rejected there, may be renewed in the House after taking the bill out of committee, and is no longer cut off by the Previous Question, as it formerly was. But, when the hour for closing debate in Committee had arrived, Mr. Alex. H. Stephens moved that the enacting clause of the bill be stricken out; which was carried by a rally of the friends of the bill, and of course cut off all amendments. The bill was thus reported to the House with its head off; when, after a long struggle, the House refused to agree to the report of the Committee of the Whole — Yeas, (for agreeing) 97; Nays, 117 — bringing the House to a direct vote on the engrossment of the bill.

Mr. Richardson now moved an amendment, which was a substitute for the whole bill, being substantially the Senate's bill, with the clause admitting aliens, who have declared their intention to become citizens, to the right of suffrage. He thereupon called the Previous Question, which the House sustained — Yeas, 116; Nays, 90 — when the House adopted his amendment — Yeas, 115; Nays, 95 — and proceeded to engross the bill — Yeas, 112; Nays, 99 — when he put on the Previous Question again, and passed the bill finally — Yeas, 113; Nays 100 — as follows:

86

YEAS — 113.

FROM THE FREE STATES.
MAINE. — Moses McDonald — 1.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE. — Harry Hibbard — 1.
CONNECTICUT. — Colin M. Ingersoll — 1.
VERMONT. — None.
MASSACHUSETTS. — None.
RHODE ISLAND. — None.
NEW-YORK. — Thomas W. Cumming, Francis B. Cutting, Peter Rowe, John J. Taylor, William M. Tweed, Hiram Walbridge, William a Walker, Mike Walsh, Theo. R. Westbrook — 9.
PENNSYLVANIA. — Samuel A. Bridges, John L. Dawson, Thomas B. Florence, J. Clancy Jones, William H. Kurtz, John McNair, Asa Packer, John Bobbins, jr., Christian M. Straub, William H. Witte, Hendrick B. Wright — 11.
NEW-JERSEY. — Samuel Lilly, George Vail — 2.
OHIO. — David T. Disney, Frederick W. Green, Edson B. Olds, Wilson Shannon — 4.
INDIANA. — John G. Davis, Cyrus L. Dunham, Norman Eddy, William H. English, Thomas A. Hendricks, James H. Lane, Smith Miller — 7.
ILLINOIS. — James C. Allen, Willis Allen, Win. A. Richardson — 3.
MICHIGAN. — Samuel Clark, David Stuart — 2.
IOWA. — Bernhart Henn — 1.
WISCONSIN. — None.
CALIFORNIA. — Milton S. Latham, J. A. McDougall — 2.
Total — 44.

FROM THE SLAVE STATES.

DELAWARE. — George R. Riddle — 1.
MARYLAND. — William T. Hamilton, Henry May, Jacob Shower, Joshua Vansant — 4.
VIRGINIA. — Thomas H. Bayly, Thomas S. Bocock, John S. Caskie, Henry A. Edmundson, Charles J. Faulkner, William O. Goode, Zedekiah Kidwell, John Letcher, Paulus Powell, William Smith, John F. Snodgrass — 11.
NORTH CAROLINA. — William S. Ashe, Burton Craige, Thomas L. Clingman, John Kerr, Thos. Puffin, Henry M. Shaw — 6.
SOUTH CAROLINA. — William W. Boyce, President S. Brooks, James L. Orr — 3.
GEORGIA. — David J. Bailey, Elijah W. Chastain, Alfred H. Colquitt, Junius Hillyer, David A. Reese, Alex. H. Stephens — 6
ALABAMA. — James Abercrombie, Williamson R. W. Cobb, James F. Dowdell, Sampson W. Harris, George S. Houston, Philip Phillips, William R. Smith — 7.
MISSISSIPPI. — William S. Barry, William Barksdale, Otho R. Singleton, Daniel B. Wright — 4.
LOUISIANA. — William Dunbar, Roland Jones, John Perkins, jr. — 3
KENTUCKY. — John C. Breckinridge, James S. Chrisman, Leander M. Cox, Clement S. Hill, John M. Elliot, Benj. E. Grey, William Preston, Richard H. Stanton — 8.
TENNESSEE. — William M. Churchwell, George W. Jones, Charles Ready, Samuel A. Smith, Frederick P. Stanton, Felix Zollicoffer — 6.
MISSISSIPPI. — Alfred W. Lamb, James J. Lindley, John G. Miller, Mordecai Oliver, John S. Phelps — 5.
ARKANSAS. — Alfred B. Greenwood, Edwin A. Warren — 2.
FLORIDA. — Augustus E. Maxwell — 1.
TEXAS. — Peter H. Bell, Geo. W. Smyth — 2.
Total — 69.

Total, Free and Slave States — 113.

NAYS — 100.

FREE STATES.

MAINE. — Samuel P. Benson, E. Wilder Farley, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Samuel Mayall, Israel Washburn, jr. — 5.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE. — George W. Kittredge, George W. Morrison — 2.
MASSACHUSETTS. — Nathaniel P. Banks, jr., Samuel L. Crocker, ALEX DE WITT, Edward Dickinson, J. Wiley Edmunds, Thomas D. Eliot, John Z. Goodrich, Charles W. Upham, Samuel U. Walley, Tappan Wentworth — 10.
RHODE ISLAND. — Thomas Davis, Benjamin B. Thurston — 2.
CONNECTICUT. — Nathan Belcher, James T. Pratt, Origen S. Seymour — 3.
VERMONT. — James Meacham, Alvah Sabin, Andrew Tracy — 3.
NEW-YORK. — Henry Bennett, Davis Carpenter, Gilbert Dean, Caleb Lyon, Reupen E. Fenton, Thomas T. Flagler, George Hastings, Solomon G. Haven,, Charles Hugues, Daniel T. Jones, Orsamus B. Matteson, Edwin B. Morgan, William Murray, Andrew Oliver, Jared V. Peck, Rufus W. Peckham, Bishop Perkins, Benjamin Pringle, Russell Sage, George A. Simmons, GERRIT SMITH, John Wheeler — 22.
NEW-JERSEY. — Alex. C. M. Pennington, Charles Skelton, Nathan T. Stratton — 8.
PENNSYLVANIA. — Joseph R. Chandler, Carlton B. Curtis, John Dick, Augustus Drum, William Everhart, James Gamble, Galusha A. Grow, Isaac E. Hiester, Thomas M. Howe, John McCulloch, Ner Middleswarth, David Ritchie, Samuel L. Russell, Michael C. Trout — 14.
OHIO. — Edward Ball, Lewis D. Campbell, Alfred P. Edgerton, Andrew Ellison, JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS, Aaron Harlan, John Scott Harrison, H. H. Johnson, William U. Lindsey, M. H. Nichols, Thomas Richey, William R. Sapp, Andrew Stuart, John L. Taylor, EDWARD WADE — 15.
INDIANA. — Andrew J. Harlan, Daniel Mace, Samuel W. Parker — 3.
ILLINOIS. — James Knox, Jesse O. Norton, Elihu B. Washburne, John Wentworth, Richard Yates — 5.
MICHIGAN. — David A. Noble, Hestor L. Stevens — 2.
WISCONSIN. — Benjamin C. Eastman, Daniel Wells, jr. — 2.
IOWA. — None.
CALIFORNIA. — None.
Total — 91.

SOUTHERN STATES.

VIRGINIA. — John S. Millson — 1.
NORTH CAROLINA. — Richard C. Puryear, Sion H. Rogers — 2.
TENNESSEE. — Robert M. Bugg, William Cullom Emerson Etheridge, Nathaniel G.. Taylor — 4.
LOUISIANA. — Theodore G. Hunt — 1.
MISSOURI. — Thomas H. Benton — 1.
OTHER SOUTHERN STATES. — None.
Total — 9.

Total, Free and Slave States — 100.

Absent, or not voting — 21.

N. ENGLAND STATES. — William Appleton, of Mass — 1.
NEW-YORK. — Geo. W. Chase, James Maurice — 2.
PENNSYLVANIA. — None.
NEW-JERSEY. — None.
OHIO. — George Bliss, Moses B. Corwin — 2.
ILLINOIS. — Wm. H. Bissell — 1.
CALIFORNIA. — None.
INDIANA. — Eben M. Chamberlain — 1.
MICHIGAN. — None.
IOWA. — John P. Cook — 1.
WISCONSIN. — John B. Macy — 1.
Total from Free States — 9.

MARYLAND. — John R. Franklin, Augustus R. Sollers — 2.
VIRGINIA. — Fayette McMullen — 1.
NORTH CAROLINA. — None.
DELAWARE. — None.
SOUTH CAROLINA. — Wm. Aiken, Lawrence M. Keitt, John McQueen — 3.
GEORGIA. — Wm. B. W. Dent, James L. Seward — 2.
ALABAMA. — None.
MISSISSIPPI. — Wiley P. Harris — 1.
KENTUCKY. — Linn Boyd, (Speaker,) Presley Ewing — 2.
MISSOURI. — Samuel Caruthers — 1.
ARKANSAS. — None.
FLORIDA. — None.
TEXAS. — None.
TENNESSEE. — None.
LOUISIANA. — None.
Total from Slave States — 12.

Whigs in Italics. Abolitionists in CAPITALS. Democrats in Roman.

May 23d. — The bill being thus sent to the Senate (not as a Senate but as a House bill), was sent at once to the Committee of the Whole, and there briefly considered.

May 24th. — Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, moved to strike out the clause in section 5, which extends the right of suffrage to

those who shall have declared on oath their intention to become such, [citizens] and shall have taken at oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and the provisions of this act.

Negatived — Yeas: Bayard, Bell, Brodhead, Brown, Clayton, Pearce, and Thompson of Kentucky. Nays, 41. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed

87

for a third reading — Yeas; 85; Nays, 13, as follows:
Yeas — For Engrossing:
Messrs. Atchison, Mo.
Badger, N. C.,
Benjamin, La.,
Brodhead, Pa.,
Brown, Miss.,
Butler, S. C.
Cass, Mich.,
Clay, Ala.,
Dawson, Ga.,
Douglas, Ill.,
Fitzpatrick, Ala.,
Gwin, Cal.,
Hunter, Va.,
Johnson, Ark.,
Jones, Iowa,
Jones, Tenn.,
Mallory, Fla.,
Mason, Va.
Morton, Fla.,
Norris, N. H.,
Pearce, Md.,
Pettit, Ind.,
Pratt, Md.,
Rusk, Texas,
Sebastian, Ark.,
Shields, Ill.,
Slidell, La.,
Stuart, Mich.,
Thompson, Ky.,
Thomson, N. J.,
Toombs, Ga.,
Toucey, Ct.,
Weller, Cal.,
Williams, N. H.,
Wright, N. J., — 35.

Nays — Against Engrossing:
Messrs. Allen, R. I.,
Bell, Tenn.,
CHASE, Ohio,
Clayton, Del.,
Fish, N. .,
Foot, Vt.,
GILLETTE, Ct.,
Hamlin, Me.,
James, R. I.,
Seward, N. Y.
SUMNER, Mass.,
Wade, Ohio,
Walker, Wis.. — 13

Democrats in Roman; Whigs in Italics; Free Democrats in CAPS.

The bill was then passed without further division, and, being approved by the President, became a law. The clause in the 14th section, which repealed the Missouri Compromise, with the Badger proviso, is as follows

That the Constitution and all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within 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 sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which being inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, 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 the Constitution of the United States; Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of sixth of March, eighteen hundred and twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing Slavery.

Dec. 3, 1855. — The XXXIVth Congress convened at the Capitol, in Washington. — Jesse D. Bright, of Ind., holding over as President pro tempore of the Senate, in place of Vice-President William R. King, of Alabama, deceased. A quorum of either House was found to be present.

But the House found itself unable to organize by the choice of a Speaker, until after an unprecedented struggle of nine weeks' duration. Finally, on Saturday, Feb. 20, 1856, the plurality-rule was adopted — Yeas, 113; Nays, 104 — and the House proceeded under it to its one hundred and thirty-third ballot for speaker, when Nathaniel P. Banks, jr. (anti-Nebraska) of Massachusetts, was chosen, having 103 votes to 100, for William Aiken, of South Carolina. Eleven votes scattered on other persons did not count against a choice. It was therefore resolved — Yeas, 155; Nays, 40 — that Mr. Banks was duly elected Speaker.

But, during the pendency of this election, the President had transmitted to both Houses, first (Dec. 31st) his Annual Message, and next (Jan. 24th) a special message with regard to the condition of Kansas, in which he thus alludes to those who think Slavery not the best institution to make a prosperous and happy State, and to those who opposed the repeal of the Missouri restriction

This interference, in so far as concerns its primary causes and its immediate commencement, was one of the incidents of that pernicious agitation on the subject of the condition of the colored persons held to service in some of the States, which has so long disturbed the repose of our country, and excited individuals, otherwise patriotic and law-abiding, to toil with misdirected zeal in the attempt to propagate their social theories by the perversion and abuse of the powers of Congress.

The persons and parties whom the tenor of the act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas thwarted in the endeavor to impose, through the agency of Congress, their particular views of social organization on the people of the future new States, now perceiving that the policy of leaving the inhabitants of each State to judge for themselves in this respect was ineradicably rooted in the convictions of the people of the Union, then had recourse, in the pursuit of their general object, to the extraordinary measure of propagandist colonization of the Territory of Kansas, to prevent the free and natural action of its inhabitants in its internal organization and thus to anticipate or to force the determination of that question in this inchoate State.

The President makes the following reference to the action of the people of Kansas, who, claiming the right "peaceably to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances," did so assemble, and sent a petition to Congress, to permit them to form a State Government, with the Constitution submitted

Following upon this movement was another and more important one of the same general character. Persons confessedly not constituting the body politic, or all the inhabitant, but merely a party of the inhabitants, and without, law, have undertaken to summon a convention for the purpose of transforming the Territory into a State, and have framed a constitution, adopted it, and under it elected a governor and other officers, and a representative to Congress.

March 12. — In Senate, Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, from the Committee on Territories, made a report, on matters relating to Kansas affairs, in which he says

The act of Congress for the organization of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, was designed to conform to the spirit and letter of the Federal Constitution, by preserving and maintaining the fundamental principle of equality among all the States of the Union, notwithstanding the restriction contained in the 8th section of the act of March 6, 1820, (preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union,) which assumed to deny to the people forever the right to settle the question of Slavery for themselves, provided they should make their homes and organize States north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude. Conforming to the cardinal principles of State equality and self-government, in obedience to the Constitution, the Kansas-Nebraska act declared, in the precise language of the Compromise Measures of 1850, 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 constitutions may prescribe at the time of their admission."

He then refers to the formation of the "Emigrant Aid Company," which had been organized on the principle of "State equality" by the people of Massachusetts. This proceeding he calls "a perversion of the plain provisions" of the Kansas-Nebraska Act — that the only

88

kind of lawful emigration was "such as has filled up our new States and Territories, when each individual has gone on his own account, to improve his condition and that of his family." The report then states that the people of Missouri were greatly alarmed at the rapid filling up of Kansas by people opposed to Slavery — that this might endanger the existence of Slavery in Missouri — and that, as the people of Missouri had a right to defend their own institutions, they might properly resist the formation of an Anti-Slavery State in their neighborhood. The report continues

For the successful prosecution of such a scheme, the Missourians who lived in the immediate vicinity possessed peculiar advantages over their rivals from the more remote portions of the Union. Each family could send one of its members across the line to mark out his claim, erect a cabin, and put in a small crop, sufficient to give him as valid a right to be deemed an actual settler and qualified voter as those who were being imported by the Emigrant Aid Societies. In an unoccupied Territory, where the lands have not been surveyed, and where there were no marks or lines to indicate the boundaries of sections and quarter-sections, and where no legal title could be had until after the surveys should be made, disputes, quarrels, violence, and bloodshed might have been expected as the natural and inevitable consequences of such extraordinary systems of emigration, which divided and arrayed the settlers into two great hostile parties, each having an inducement to claim more than was his right, in order to hold it for some new-comer of his own party, and at the same time prevent persons belonging to the opposite party from settling in the neighborhood. As a result of this state of things, the great mass of emigrants from the northwest and from other States who went there on their own account, with no other object, and influenced by no other motives than to improve their condition and secure good homes for their families, were compelled to array themselves under the banner of one of these hostile parties, in order to insure protection to themselves and their claims against the aggressions and violence of the other.

On the 29th of November, 1854, the first election in the Territory was held for a delegate to Congress. This was a very short time after the arrival of the Free State emigrants in sufficient bodies to protect themselves. At this election, according to the returns, J. W. Whitfield had received 2,268 votes; other persons, 575. Whitfield, of course, received the Governor's certificate, but great dissatisfaction was expressed by the Free State settlers, charging that many of the votes received by Whitfield were given by men living in Missouri; and it afterward appeared that at the time of the first election there were but 1,114 legal voters in the Territory. Nevertheless, the report continues

Certain it is, that there could not have been a system of fraud and violence such as has been charged by the agents and supporters of the emigrant aid societies, unless the Governor and judges of election were parties to it; and your committee are not prepared to assume a fact so disreputable to them, and so improbable upon the state of facts presented, without specific charges and direct proof. In the absence of all proof and probable truth, the charge that the Missourians had invaded the Territory and controlled the congressional election by fraud and violence was circulated throughout the Free States, and made the basis of the most inflammatory appeals to all men opposed to the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act to emigrate or send emigrants to Kansas, for the purpose of repelling the invaders, and assisting their friends who were then in the Territory in putting down the slave-power, and prohibiting Slavery in Kansas, with the view of making it a Free State. Exaggerated accounts of the large number of emigrants on their way under the auspices of the emigrant aid companies, with the view of controlling the election for members of the Territorial Legislature, which was to take place on the 30th of March, 1855, were published and circulated. These accounts, being republished and believed in Missouri, where the excitement had already been inflamed to a fearful intensity, induced a corresponding effort to send at least an equal number, to counteract the apprehended result of the new importation.

The report then gives a history of the Legislature elected March 30th, 1855, its removal from Pawnee City to the Shawnee Mission, its subsequent quarrel with Gov. Reeder, and continues

A few days after, Governor Reeder dissolved his official relations with the legislature, on account of the removal of the seat of government, and while that body was still in session, a meeting was called by "many voters," to assemble at Lawrence, on the 14th or 15th of August 1855, "to take into consideration the propriety of calling a Territorial Convention, preliminary to the formation of a State Government, and other subjects of public interest." At that meeting, the following preamble and resolution's were adopted with but one dissenting voice

"Whereas, the people of Kansas Territory have been since the settlement, and now are, without any law-making power; therefore

"Be it resolved, That we, the people of Kansas Territory, in a mass meeting assembled, irrespective of party distinctions, influenced by a common necessity, and greatly desirous of promoting the common good, do hereby call upon and request all bona fide citizens of Kansas Territory, of whatever political views and predilections, to consult together in their respective election districts, and in mass convention or otherwise, elect three delegates for each representative in the legislative assembly, by proclamation of Governor Reeder of date 10th March, 1855; said delegates to assembly in convention at the town of Topeka, on the 19th day of September, 1855, then and there to consider and determine upon all subjects of public interest, and particularly upon that having reference to the speedy formation of a State Constitution, with an intention of an immediate application to be admitted as a State into the Union of the United States of America."

This meeting, so far as your Committee have been able to ascertain, was the first step in that series of proceedings which resulted in the adoption of a Constitution and State Government, to be put in operation on the 4th of the present month, in subversion of the Territorial Government established under the authority of Congress. The right to set up the State Government in defiance of the constituted authorities of the Territory, is based on the assumption "that the people of Kansas Territory have been since its settlement, and now are, without any law-making power;" in the face of the well-known fact, that the Territorial Legislature was then in session, in pursuance of the proclamation of Governor Reeder, and the organic law of the Territory.

The report then proceeds to narrate the circumstances attending the formation of a State Government in Michigan, Arkansas, Florida and California, and states that "in every instance the proceeding has originated with, and been conducted in subordination to, the authority of the local governments established or recognized by the Government of the United States." It then refers to the case of the effort to change the organic law, made in Rhode Island some years ago, from which it says the "insurgents" (as the Free State party in Kansas is called) "can derive no aid or comfort."

The following concludes the Report; the words in Italics below perhaps explain in what sense the people of a Territory are "perfectly free to form their own institutions, in their own way:

Without deeming it necessary to express any opinion on this occasion, in reference to the merits of that controversy, [referring to Rhode Island,] it is evident that the principles upon which it was conducted are not involved in the revolutionary struggle now going on in Kansas; for the reason, that the sovereignty of a Territory remains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people, until they shall he admitted into the Union as a State. In the meantime, they are entitled to enjoy and exercise all the privileges and rights of self-government, in subordination to the Constitution of the United States, and in obedience to their organic law passed by Congress in pursuance of that instrument. These rights and privileges are all derived from the Constitution, through the act of Congress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in subjection to all the limitations and restrictions which that Constitution imposes. Hence it is clear that the people of the Territory have no inherent sovereign right, under the Constitution of the United States to annul the laws and resist the authority of the Territorial government which Congress has established in obedience to the Constitution.

89

In tracing, step by step, the origin and history of these Kansas difficulties, your Committee have been profoundly impressed with trie significant fact, that each one has resulted from an attempt to violate or circumvent the principles and provisions of the act of Congress for the organization of Kansas and Nebraska. The leading idea and fundamental principle of the Kansas-Nebraska act, as expressed in the law itself, was to leave the actual settlers and bonafide inhabitants of each Territory "perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." While this is declared to be the "true intent and meaning of the act," those who were opposed to allowing the people of the Territory, preparatory to their admission into the Union as a State, to decide the Slavery question for themselves, failing to accomplish their purpose in the halls of Congress, and under the authority of the Constitution, immediately resorted, in their respective States, to unusual and extraordinary means to control the political destinies and shape the domestic institutions of Kansas, in defiance of the wishes, and regardless of the rights, of the people of that Territory, as guaranteed by their organic law. Combinations, in one section of the Union, to stimulate an unnatural and false system of emigration, with the view of controlling the elections, and forcing the domestic institutions of the Territory to assimilate to those of the non-slaveholding States, were followed, as might have been foreseen, by the use of similar means in the slaveholding States, to produce directly the opposite result. To these causes, and to these alone, in the opinion of your Committee, may be traced the origin and progress of all the controversies and disturbances with which Kansas is now convulsed.

If these unfortunate troubles have resulted, as natural consequences, from unauthorized and improper schemes of foreign interference with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of the Territory, it is apparent that the remedy must be sought in a strict adherence to the principles and rigid enforcement of the provisions of the organic law. In this connection, your Committee feel sincere satisfaction in commending the messages and proclamation of the President of the United States, in which we have the gratifying assurance that the supremacy of the laws will be maintained; that rebellion will be crushed; that insurrection will be suppressed; that aggressive intrusion for the purpose of deciding elections, or any other purpose, will be repelled; that unauthorized intermeddling in the local concerns of the Territory, both from adjoining and distant States, will be prevented; that the federal and local laws will be vindicated against all attempts at organized resistance; and that the people of the Territory will be protected in the establishment of their own institutions, undisturbed by encroachments from without, and in the full enjoyment of the rights of self-government assured to them by the Constitution and the organic law.

In view of these assurances, given under the conviction that the existing laws confer all the authority necessary to the performance of these important duties, and that the whole available force of the United States will be exerted to the extent required for their performance, your Committee repose in entire confidence that peace, and security, and law, will prevail in Kansas. If any further evidence were necessary to prove that all the collisions and difficulties in Kansas have been produced by the schemes of foreign interference which have been developed in this report, in violation of the principles and in evasion of the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska act, it may be found in the fact that in Nebraska, to which the emigrant-aid societies did not extend their operations, and into which the stream of emigration was permitted to flow in its usual and natural channels, nothing has occurred to disturb the peace and harmony of the Territory, while the principle of self-government, in obedience to the Constitution, has had fair play, and is quietly working out its legitimate results.

It now only remains for your Committee to respond to the two specific recommendations of the President, in his special message. They are as follows

"This, it seems to me, can be best accomplished by providing that, when the inhabitants of Kansas may desire it, and shall be of sufficient numbers to constitute a State, a convention of delegates, duly elected by the qualified voters, shall assemble to frame a Constitution, and thus prepare, through regular and lawful means, for its admission into the Union as a State. I respectfully recommend the enactment of a law to that effect,

"I recommend, also, that a special appropriation be made to defray any expense which may become requisite in the execution of the laws, or the maintenance of public order in the Territory of Kansas."

In compliance with the first recommendation, your Committee ask leave to report a bill authorizing the Legislature of the Territory to provide by law for the election of delegates by the people, and the assembling of a Convention to form a Constitution and State Government preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, so soon as it shall appear, by a census to be taken under the direction of the Governor, by the authority of the Legislature, that the Territory contains ninety-three thousand, four hundred and twenty inhabitants — that being the number required by the present ratio of representation for a member of Congress.

In compliance with the other recommendation, your Committee propose to offer to the appropriation bill an amendment appropriating such sum as shall be found necessary, by the estimates to be obtained, for the purpose indicated in the recommendation of the President.

All of which is respectfully submitted to the Senate by your Committee.

Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, the Republican member of same Committee, submitted a minority report, in which he says

Thirteen of the present prosperous States of this Union passed through the period of apprenticeship or pupilage of territorial training, under the guardianship of Congress, preparatory to assuming their proud rank of manhood as sovereign and independent States. This period of their pupilage was, in every case, a period of the good offices of parent and child, in the kind relationship sustained between the National and the Territorial Government, and may be remembered with feelings of gratitude and pride. We have fallen on different times. A territory of our government is now convulsed with violence and discord, and the whole family of our nation is in a state of excitement and anxiety. The National Executive power is put in motion, the army in requisition, and Congress is invoked for interference.

In this case, as in all others of difficulty, it becomes necessary to inquire what is the true cause of existing trouble, in order to apply effectual cure. It is but a temporary palliative to deal with the external and more obvious manifestations and developments, while the real, procuring cause lies unattended to, and uncorrected, and unremoved.

It is said that organized opposition to law exists in Kansas. That, if existing, may probably be suppressed by the President, by the use of the army, and so, too, may invasions by armed bodies from Missouri, if the Executive be sincere in its efforts; but when this is done, while the cause of trouble remains, the results will continue with renewed and increased developments of danger.

Let us, then, look fairly and undisguisedly at this subject, in its true character and history. Wherein does this Kansas Territory differ from all our other Territories which have been so peacefully and successfully carried through, and been developed into the manhood of independent States? Can that difference account for existing troubles? Can that difference, as a cause of trouble, be removed?

The first and great point of difference between the Territorial government of Kansas and that of the thirteen Territorial governments before mentioned, consists in the subject of Slavery — the undoubted cause of present trouble.

The action of Congress in relation to all these thirteen Territories was conducted on a uniform and prudent principle, to wit: To settle, by a clear provision, the law in relation to the subject of Slavery to be operative in the Territory, while it remained such; not leaving it in any one of those cases to be a subject of controversy within the same, while in the plastic gristle of its youth. This was done by Congress in the exercise of the same power which molded the form of their organic laws, and appointed their executive and judiciary, and sometimes their legislative officers; it was the power provided in the Constitution, in these words: "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." Settling the subject of Slavery while the country remained a Territory, was no higher exercise of power in Congress, than the regulation of the functions of the territorial government, and actually appointing its principal functionaries. This practice commenced with this National Government, and was continued, with uninterrupted uniformity, for more than sixty years. This practical contemporaneous construction of the constitutional power of this government is too clear to leave room for doubt, or opportunity for skepticism. The peace, prosperity, and success which attended this course, and the results which have ensued, in the formation and admission of the thirteen States therefrom, are most conclusive and satisfactory evidence, also, of the wisdom and prudence with which this power was exercised. Deluded must be that people who, in the pursuit of plausible theories, become deaf to the lessons, and blind to the results, of their own experience.

90

Let us next inquire by what rule of uniformity Congress was governed, in the exercise of this power of determining the condition of each Territory as to Slavery, while remaining a Territory, as manifested in those thirteen instances. An examination of our history will show that this was not done from time to time by agitation and local or party triumphs in Congress. The rule pursued was uniform and clear; and, whoever may have lost by it, peace and prosperity have been gained. That rule was this:
Where Slavery was actually existing in a country to any considerable or general extent, it was (though somewhat modified as to further importation in some instances, as in Mississippi and Orleans Territories) suffered to remain. The fact that it had been taken and existed there, was taken as an indication of its adaptation and local utility. Where Slavery did not in fact exist to any appreciable extent, the same was, by Congress, expressly prohibited; so that in either case the country was settled up without difficulty or doubt as to the character of its institutions. In no instance was this difficult and disturbing subject left to the people who had and who might settle in the Territory, to be there an everlasting bone of contention, so long as the Territorial government should continue. It was ever regarded, too, as a subject in which the whole country had an interest, and, therefore, improper for local legislation.

And though, whenever the people of a Territory come to form their own organic law, as an independent State, they would, either before or after their admission as a State, form and mold their institutions, as a Sovereign State, in their own way, yet it must be expected, and has always proved true, that the State has taken the character her pupilage has prepared her for, as well in respect to Slavery as in other respects. Hence, six of the thirteen States are Free States, because Slavery was prohibited in them by Congress, while Territories, to wit: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Seven of the thirteen are slaveholding States, because Slavery was allowed in them by Congress while they were Territories, to wit: Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri.

On the 6th of March, A. D. 1820, wag passed by Congress the act preparatory to the admission of the State of Missouri into the Union. Much controversy and discussion arose on the question whether a prohibition of Slavery within said State should be inserted, and it resulted in this: that said State should be admitted without such prohibition, but that Slavery should be forever prohibited in the rest of that country ceded to us by France lying north of 36° 80' north latitude, and it was so done. This contract is known as the Missouri Compromise. Under this arrangement, Missouri was admitted as a slaveholding State, the same having been a slaveholding Territory. Arkansas, south of the line, was formed into a Territory, and Slavery allowed therein, and afterward admitted as a slaveholding State, Iowa was made a Territory north of the line, and, under the operation of the law, was settled up without slaves, and admitted as a free State. The country now making the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, in 1820, was almost or entirely uninhabited, and lay north of said line, and whatever settlers entered the same before 1854, did so under that law, forever forbidding Slavery therein.

In 1854, Congress passed an act establishing two new Territories — Nebraska and Kansas — in this region of country, where Slavery had been prohibited for more than thirty years; and, instead of leaving said law against Slavery in operation, or prohibiting or expressly allowing or establishing Slavery, Congress left the subject in said Territories, to be discussed, agitated, and legislated on, from time to time, and the elections in said Territories to be conducted with reference to that subject, from year to year, so long as they should remain Territories; for, whatever laws might be passed by the Territorial legislatures on this subject, must be subject to change or repeal by those of the succeeding years. In most former Territorial governments, it was provided by law that their laws were subject to the revision of Congress, so that they would be made with caution. In these Territories, that was omitted.

The provision in relation to Slavery in Nebraska and Kansas is as follows; "The eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union (which being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as required by the 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 said 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 the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6 March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing Slavery."

Thus it was promulgated to the people of this whole country that here was a clear field for competition — an open course for the race of rivalship; the goal of which was, the ultimate establishment of a sovereign State, and the prize, the reward of everlasting liberty and its institutions on the one hand, or the perpetuity of Slavery and its concomitants on the other. It is the obvious duly of this government, while this law continues, to see this manifesto faithfully, and honorably, and honestly performed, even though its particular supporters may see cause of a result unfavorable to their hopes.

It is further to be observed that, in the performance of this novel experiment, it was provided that all white men who became inhabitants in Kansas were entitled to vote without regard to their time of residence, usually provided in other Territories. Nor was this right of voting confined to American citizens, but included all such aliens as had declared, or would declare, on oath, their intention to become citizens. Thus was the proclamation to the world to become inhabitants of Kansas, and enlist in this great enterprise, by the force of numbers, by vote, to decide for it the great question. Was it to be expected that this great proclamation for the political tournament would be listened to with indifference and apathy? Was it prepared and presented in that spirit? Did it relate to a subject on which the people were cool or indifferent? A large part of the people of this country look on domestic Slavery as "only evil, and that continually," alike to master and to slave, and to the community; to be left alone to the management or enjoyment of the people of the States where it exists, but not to be extended, more especially as it gives, or may give, political supremacy to a minority of the people of this country in the United States government. On the other hand, many of the people of another part of the United States regard Slavery, if not in the abstract a blessing, at least as now existing, a condition of society best for both white and black, while they exist together; while others regard it as no evil, but as the highest state of social condition. These consider that they cannot, with safety to their interests, permit political ascendency to be largely in the hands of those unfriendly to this peculiar institution. From these conflicting views, long and violent has been the controversy, and experience seems to show it interminable. . . ..

A succinct statement of the exercise and progress of the material events in Kansas is this: After the passage of this law, establishing the Territory of Kansas, a large body of settlers rapidly entered into said Territory with a view to permanent inhabitancy therein. Most of these were from the Free States of the West and North, who probably intended by their votes and influence to establish there a Free State, agreeably to the law which invited them. Same part of those from the Northern States had been encouraged and aided in this enterprise by the Emigrant Aid Society formed in Massachusetts, which put forth some exertions in this laudable object, by open and public measures, in providing facilities for transportation to all peaceable citizens who desired to become permanent settlers in said Territory, and providing therein hotels, mills, etc., for the public accommodation of that new country.

The Governor of Kansas, having, in pursuance of law, divided the territory into districts, and procured a census thereof, issued his proclamation for the election of a Legislative Assembly therein, to take place on the 30th day of March, 1855, and directed how the same should be conducted, and the returns made to him agreeable to the law establishing said Territory. On the day of election, large bodies of armed men from the State of Missouri, appeared at the polls in most of the districts, and, by most violent and tumultuous carriage and demeanor, overawed the defenceless inhabitants, and by their own votes elected a large majority of the members of both Houses of said Assembly. On the returns of said election being made to the Governor, protests and objections were made to him in relation to a part of said districts; and as to them, he set aside such, and such only, as by the returns appeared to be bad. In relation to others, covering, in all, a majority of the two Houses, equally vicious in fact, but apparently good by formal return, the inhabitants thereof, borne down by said violence and intimidation, scattered and discouraged, and laboring under apprehensions of personal violence, refrained and desisted from presenting any protest to the Governor in relation thereto; and he, then uninformed in relation thereto, issued certificates to the members who appeared by said formal returns to have been elected.

In relation to those districts which the Governor so get aside, orders were by him issued for new elections. In

91

one of these districts, the same proceedings were repeated by men from Missouri, and in others not, and certificates were issued to the persons elected.

This legislative assembly, so elected, assembled at Pawnee, on the second day of July, 1855, that being the time and place for holding said meeting, as fixed by the Governor, by authority of law. On assembling, the said houses proceeded to set aside and reject those members so elected on said second election, except in the district where the men from Missouri had, at said election, chosen the same persons they had elected at the said first election, and they admitted all of the said first-elected members.

A legislative assembly, so created by military force, by a foreign invasion, in violation of the organic law, was but a usurpation. No act of its own, no act or neglect of the Governor, could legalize or sanctify it. Its own decisions as to its own legality are like its laws, but the fruits of its own usurpation, which no Governor could legitimate. . . ..

The people of Kansas, thus invaded, subdued, oppressed and insulted, seeing their Territorial Government (such only in form) perverted into an engine to crush them in the dust, and to defeat and destroy the professed object of their organic law, by depriving them of the "perfect freedom" therein provided; and finding no ground to hope for rights in that organization, they proceeded, under the guaranty of the United States Constitution, "peaceably to assemble to petition the Government for the redress of (their) grievances." They saw no earthly source of relief but in the formation of a State Government by the people, and the acceptance and ratification thereof by Congress.

It is true that, in several instances in our political history, the people of a Territory have been authorized by an act of Congress to form a State Constitution, and, after so doing, were admitted by Congress. It is quite obvious that no such authority could be given by the act of the Territorial Government. That clearly has no power to create another Government, paramount to itself. It is equally true that, in numerous instances in our history, the people of a Territory have, without any previous act of Congress, proceeded to call a Convention of the people by their delegates; have formed a State Constitution, which has been adopted by the people, and a State Legislature assembled under it, and chosen Senators to Congress, and then have presented said Constitution to Congress, which has approved the same, and received the Senators and members of Congress who were chosen under it before Congress had approved the same. Such was the case of Tennessee; such was the case of Michigan, where the people not only formed a State Constitution without an act of Congress, but they actually put their State Government into full operation and passed laws, and it was approved by Congress by receiving it as a State. The people of Florida formed their Constitution without any act of Congress therefor, six years before they were admitted into the Union. When the people of Arkansas were about forming a State Constitution without a previous act of Congress, in 1835, the Territorial Governor applied to the President on the subject, who referred the matter to the Attorney-General, and his opinion, as then expressed and published, contained the following:
"It is not in the power of the general assembly of Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of electing members to a Convention to form a Constitution and State government, nor to do any other act, directly or indirectly, to create such 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."

He further decided that it was not rebellious, or insurrectionary, or even unlawful, for the people peaceably to proceed, even without an act of Congress, in forming a Constitution, and in so forming a State Constitution and go far organizing under the same as to choose the officers necessary for its representation in Congress, with a view to present the same to Congress for admission, was a power which fell clearly within the right of the people to assemble and petition for redress. The people of Arkansas proceeded without an act of Congress, and were received into the Union accordingly. If any rights were derived to the people of Arkansas from the terms of the French treaty of cession, they equally extended to the people of Kansas, it being a part of the same cession.

In this view of the subject, in the first part of August, 1855, a call was published in the public papers, for a meeting of the citizens of Kansas, irrespective of party, to meet at Lawrence, in said Territory, on the 15th of said August, to take into consideration the propriety of calling a Convention of the people of the whole Territory, to consider that subject. That meeting was held on the 15th day of August last, and it proceeded to call such Convention of delegates to he elected, and to assemble at Topeka in said Territory, on the 19th day of September, 1855, not to form a Constitution, but to consider the propriety of calling, formally, a Convention for that purpose.

Delegates were elected agreeably to the proclamation so issued, and they met at Topeka on the fourth Tuesday in October, 1855, and formed a constitution, which was submitted to the people, and was ratified by them by vote in the districts. An election of State officers and members of the State legislature has been had, and a representative to Congress elected, and it is intended to proceed to the election of senators, with the view to present the same, with the constitution, to Congress for admission into the Union.

Whatever views individuals may at times, or in meetings, have expressed, and whatever ultimate determination may have been entertained in the result of being spurned by Congress, and refused redress, is now entirely immaterial. That cannot condemn or give character to the proceedings thus far pursued.

Many have honestly believed usurpation could make no law, and that if Congress made no further provisions they were well justified in forming a law for themselves; but it is not now necessary to consider that matter, as it is to be hoped that Congress will not leave them to such a necessity.

Thus far, this effort of the people for redress is peaceful, constitutional, and right. Whether it will succeed, rests with Congress to determine; but clear it is that it should not be met and denounced as revolutionary, rebellious, insurrectionary, or unlawful, nor does it call for or justify the exercise of any force by any department of this government to check or control it.

It now becomes proper to inquire what should be done by Congress, for we are informed by the President, in substance, that he has no power to correct a usurpation, and that the laws, even though made by usurped authority, must be by him enforced and executed, even with military force. The measures of redress should be applied to the true cause of the difficulty.

This obviously lies in the repeal of the clause for freedom in the act of 1820, and therefore, the true remedy lies in the entire repeal of the act of 1854, which effected it. Let this be done with frankness and magnanimity, and Kansas be organized anew as a Free Territory, and all will be put right.

But, if Congress insist on proceeding with the experiment, then declare all the action by this spurious, foreign legislative assembly utterly inoperative and void, and direct a reorganization, providing proper safeguards for legal voting and against foreign force.

There is, however, another way to put an end to all this trouble there, and in the nation, without retracing steps or continuing violence, or by force compelling obedience to tyrannical laws made by foreign force; and that is, by admitting that Territory as a State, with her free constitution. True, indeed, her numbers are not such as give her a right to demand admission, being, as the President informs us, probably only about twenty-five thousand. The Constitution fixes no number as necessary, and the importance of now settling this question may well justify Congress in admitting her as a State, at this time, especially as we have good reason to believe that, if admitted as a State, and controversy ended, it will immediately fill up with a numerous and successful population.

At any rate, it seems impossible to believe that Congress is to leave that people without redress, to have enforced upon them by the army of the nation these measures and laws of violence and oppression. Are they to be dragooned into submission; Is that an experiment pleasant to execute on our own free people?

The true character of this transaction is matter of extensive notoriety. Its essential features are too obvious to allow of any successful disguise or palliation, however complicated or ingenious may be the statements, or however special the pleadings, for that purpose. The case requires some quieting, kind and prudent treatment by the hand of Congress to do justice and satisfy the nation. The people of this country are peacefully relying on Congress to provide the competent measures of redress which they have the undoubted power to administer.

The Attorney-General, in the case of Arkansas, says:
"Congress may at pleasure repeal or modify the laws passed by the Territorial Legislature, and may at any time abrogate and remodel the legislature itself, and all the other departments of the Territorial Government."

Treating this grievance in Kansas with ingenious excuses, with neglect or contempt, or riding over the oppressed with an army, and dragooning them into submission, will make no satisfactory termination. Party success may at times be temporarily secured by adroit

92

devices, plausible pretenses, and partisan address; but the permanent preservation of this Union can be maintained only by frankness and integrity. Justice may be denied where it ought to be granted; power may perpetuate that vassalage which violence and usurpation have produced; the subjugation of white freemen may be necessary, that African Slavery may succeed; but such a course must not be expected to produce peace and satisfaction in our county, so long as the people retain any proper sentiment of justice, liberty, and law.

J. COLLAMER.

The majority and minority Reports being received, various matters relating to Kansas were debated until the 19th of March, the House was brought to a vote on the proposition of the committee of elections to empower said committee to send to Kansas for persons and papers, which was modified on motion of Mr. Dunn, of Ind., so as to raise a special committee of three members, to be appointed by the Speaker. The resolutions raising this committee gave it ample powers.

To inquire into and collect evidence in regard to the troubles in Kansas generally, and particularly in regard to any fraud or force attempted or practiced in reference to any of the elections which have taken place in said Territory, either under the law organizing said Territory, or under any pretended law which may be alleged to have taken effect there since. That they shall fully investigate and take proof of all violent and tumultuous proceedings in said Territory, at any time since the passage of the Kansas Nebraska act, whether engaged in by the residents of said Territory, or by any person or persons from elsewhere going into said Territory, and doing, or encouraging others to do, any act of violence or public disturbance against the laws of the United States, or the rights, peace, and safety of the residents of said Territory; and for that purpose, said Committee shall have full power to send for, and examine, and take copies of, all such papers, public records, and proceedings, as in their judgment will be useful in the premises; and also, to send for persons and examine them on oath, or affirmation, as to matters within their knowledge, touching the matters of said investigation; and said Committee, by their chairman, shall have power to administer all necessary oaths or affirmations connected with their aforesaid duties. That said Committee may hold their invest rations at such places and times as to them may seem advisable, and that they have leave of absence from the duties of this House until they shall have completed such investigation. That they be authorized to employ one or more clerks, and one or more assistant sergeants-at-arms, to aid them in their investigation; and may administer to them an oath, or affirmation, faithfully to perform the duties assigned to them, respectively, and to keep secret all matters which may come to their knowledge touching such investigation, as said Committee may direct, until the Report of the same shall be submitted to this House; and said Committee may discharge any such clerk or assistant sergeant-at-arms for neglect of duty or disregard of instructions in the premises, and employ others under like regulations. . . . . .

The vote of the Slave States was unanimous against the investigation, 17 from the Free States voting with them. Yeas, 101; Nays, 93.

The following are the negatives from the Free States:
Nays — Against the Investigation:
MAINE. — Thomas J. D. Fuller — 1.
NEW-YORK — John Kelly, William W. Valk, John Wheeler, Thomas R. Whitney — 4.
NEW-JERSEY. — George Vail — 1.
PENNSYLVANIA. — John Cadwalader, Thomas B. Florence, J. Glancy Jones — 3.
INDIANA. — William H. English, Smith Miller — 3.
MICHIGAN. — George W. Peck — 1.
ILLINOIS. — James C. Allen, Thomas L. Harris, Samuel S. Marshall, William A. Richardson — 1.
CALIFORNIA. — Philemon T. Herbert — 1.

So the resolution prevailed, and Messrs. William A. Howard, of Michigan, John Sherman, of Ohio, and Mordecai Oliver, of Missouri, were appointed the Committee of Investigation thereby required.

These gentlemen proceeded to Kansas, and spent several weeks there in taking testimony as to the elections, etc., which had taken place in that Territory. The testimony thus taken forms a volume of nearly twelve hundred large and closely-printed pages, the substance of which was summed up on their return by the majority (Messrs. Howard and Sherman), in the following

REPORT ON THE OUTRAGES IN KANSAS.

A journal of proceedings, including sundry communications made to and by the Committee was kept, a copy of which is herewith submitted. The testimony also is herewith submitted; a copy of it has been made and arranged not according to the order in which it was taken, but so as to present, as clearly as possible, a consecutive history of events in the Territory, from its organization to the 19th day of March, A. D. 1856.

Your Committee deem it their duty to state, as briefly as possible, the principal facts proven before them. When the act to organize the Territory of Kansas was passed on the 24th day of May, 1854, the greater portion of its eastern border was included in Indian reservations not open for settlement; and there were but few white settlers in any portion of the Territory. Its Indian population was rapidly decreasing, while many emigrants from different parts of our country were anxiously waiting the extinction of the Indian title, and the establishment of a Territorial Government, to seek new homes on its fertile prairies. It cannot be doubted that, if its condition as a free Territory had been left undisturbed by Congress, its settlement would have been rapid, peaceful, and prosperous. Its climate, soil, and its easy access to the older settlements, would have made it the favored course for the tide of emigration constantly flowing to the West, and by this time it would have been admitted into the Union as a Free State, without the least sectional excitement. If so organized, none but the kindest feeling could have existed between it and the adjoining State. Their mutual interests and intercourse, instead of, as now, endangering the harmony of the Union, would have strengthened the ties of national brotherhood. The testimony clearly shows, that before the proposition to repeal the Missouri Compromise was introduced into Congress, the people of western Missouri appeared indifferent to the prohibition of Slavery in the Territory, and neither asked nor desired its repeal.

When, however, the prohibition was removed by the action of Congress, the aspect of affairs entirely changed. The whole country was agitated by the reopening of a controversy which conservative men in different sections hoped had been settled, in every State and Territory, by some law beyond the danger of repeal. The excitement which has always accompanied the discussion of the Slavery question was greatly increased, by the hope on the one hand of extending Slavery into a region from which it had been excluded by law, and on the other by a sense of wrong done by what was regarded as a dishonor of a national compact. This excitement was naturally transferred into the border counties of Missouri and the Territory, as settlers favoring free or slave institutions moved into it. A new difficulty soon occurred. Different constructions were put upon the organic law. It was contended by the one party that the right to hold slaves in the Territory existed, and that neither the people nor the Territorial Legislature could prohibit Slavery — that that power was alone possessed by the people when they were authorized to form a State government. It was contended that the removal of the restriction virtually established Slavery in the Territory. This claim was urged by many prominent men in western Missouri, who actively engaged in the affairs of the Territory. Every movement, of whatever character, which tended to establish free institutions, was regarded as an interference with their rights.

Within a few days after the organic law passed, and as soon as its passage could be known on the border, leading citizens of Missouri crossed into the Territory, held squatter meetings, and then returned to their homes. Among their resolutions are the following

"That we will afford protection to no Abolitionist as a settler of this Territory."

"That we recognize the institution of Slavery as already existing in this Territory, and advise slaveholders to introduce their property as early as possible."

Similar resolutions were passed in various parts of the Territory, and by meetings in several counties of Missouri. Thus the first effect of the repeal of the restriction against Slavery was to substitute the resolves of squatter meetings, composed almost exclusively of Missourians, for the deliberate action of Congress, acquiesced in for 35 years.

This unlawful interference has been continued in every important event in the history of the Territory: every

93

election has been controlled, not by the actual settlers, but by citizens of Missouri; and, as a consequence, every officer in the Territory, from constables to legislators, except those appointed by the President, owe their positions to non-resident voters. None have been elected by the settlers; and your Committee have been unable to find that any political power whatever, however unimportant, has been exercised by the people of the Territory.

In October, A. D. 1854, Governor A. H. Reeder and the other officers appointed by the President arrived in the Territory. Settlers from all parts of the country were moving in great numbers, making their claims and building their cabins. About the same time, and before any election was or could be held in the Territory, a secret political society was formed in the State of Missouri. It was known by different names, such as "Social Band," "Friends' Society," "Blue Lodge," "The Sons of the South." Its members were bound together by secret oaths, and they had passwords, signs, and grips, by which they were known to each other. Penalties were imposed for violating the rules and secrets of the Order. Written minutes were kept of the proceedings of the Lodges, and the different Lodges were connected together by an effective organization. It embraced great numbers of the citizens of Missouri, and was extended into other Slave States and into the Territory. Its avowed purpose was not only to extend Slavery into Kansas, but also into other territory of the United States; and to form a union of all the friends of that institution. Its plan of operating was to organize and send men to vote at the elections in the Territory, to collect money to pay their expenses, and, if necessary, to protect them in voting. It also proposed to induce Pro-Slavery men to emigrate into the Territory, to aid and sustain them while there, and to elect none to office but those friendly to their views. This dangerous society was controlled by men who avowed their purpose to extend Slavery into the Territory at all hazards, and was altogether the most effective instrument in organizing the subsequent armed invasions and forays. In his Lodges in Missouri, the affairs of Kansas were discussed, the force necessary to control the election was divided into bands, and leaders selected means were collected, and signs and badges were agreed upon. While the great body of the actual settlers of the Territory were relying upon the rights secured to them by the organic law, and had formed no organization or combination whatever, this conspiracy against their rights was gathering strength in Missouri, and would have been sufficient at their first election to have overpowered them, it they had been united to a man.

Your Committee had great difficulty in eliciting the proof of the details in regard to this secret society. One witness, member of the legislative council, refused to answer questions in reference to it. Another declined to answer fully, because to do so would result to his injury. Others could or would only answer us to the general purposes of the Society, but sufficient is disclosed in the testimony to show the influence it had in controlling the elections in the Territory.

The first election was for a Delegate to Congress. It was appointed for the 29th of November, 1854. The Governor divided the Territory into seventeen Election-Districts; appointed Judges and prescribed proper rules for the election. In the Ist, IIId, VIIIth, IXth, Xth, XIIth, XIIIth, and XVIIth Districts there appears to have been but little if any fraudulent voting.

The election in the IId District was held at the village of Douglas, nearly fifty miles from the Missouri line. On the day before the election, large companies of men came into the district in wagons and on horseback, and declared that they were from the State of Missouri, and were going to Douglas to vote. On the morning of the election, they gathered around the house where the election was to be held. Two of the judges appointed by the Governor did not appear, and other judges were elected by the crowd. All then voted. In order to make a pretense of right to vote, some persons of the company kept a pretended register of squatter claims, on which any one could enter his name and then assert he had a claim in the Territory. A citizen of the district who was himself a candidate for Delegate to Congress, was told by one of the strangers, that he would be abused and probably killed if he challenged a vote. He was seized by the collar, called a d — d Abolitionist, and was compelled to seek protection in the room with the judges. About the time the polls were closed, these strangers mounted their horses and got into their wagons and cried out:
"All aboard for Westport and Kansas City." A number were recognized as residents of Missouri, and among them was Samuel H. Woodson, a leading lawyer of Independence. Of those whose names are on the pollnooks, 35 were resident settlers and 226 were not.

The election in the IVth District was held at Dr. Chapman's, over 40 miles from the Missouri State line. It was a thinly-settled region, containing but 47 voters in February, l855, when the census was taken. On the day before the election, from 100 to 150 citizens of Cass and Jackson Counties, Mo., came into this district, declaring their purpose to vote, and that they were bound to make Kansas a Slave State, if they did it at the point of the sword. Persons of the party on the way drove each a stake in the ground and called it a claim — and in one case several names were put on one stake. The party of strangers camped all night near where the election was to be held, and in the morning were at the election-polls and voted. One of their party got drunk, and, to get rid of Dr. Chapman, a judge of the election, they sent for him to come and see a sick man, and in his absence filled his place with another judge, who was not sworn. They did not deny nor conceal that they were residents of Missouri, and many of them were recognized as such by others. They declared that they were bound to make Kansas a Slave State. They insisted upon their right to vote in the Territory if they were in it one hour. After the election, they again returned to their homes in Missouri, camping over night on the way.

We find upon the poll-books 161 names; of these not over 30 resided in the Territory; 131 were non-residents.

But few settlers attended the election in the Vth District, the district being large and the settlement scattered. 82 votes were cast; of these between 20 and 80 were settlers, and the residue were citizens of Missouri. They passed into the Territory by way of the Santa Fe road and by the residence of Dr. Westfall, who then lived on the western line of Missouri. Some little excitement arose at the polls as to the legality of their voting, but they did vote for General Whitfield, and said they intended to make Kansas a Slave State, and that they had claims in the Territory. Judge Teazle, judge of the court in Jackson County, Missouri, was present, but did not vote. He said he did not intend to vote, but came to see that others voted. After the election, the Missourians returned the way they came.

The election in the VIth District was held at Fort Scott, in the southeast part of the Territory, and near the Missouri line. A party of about one hundred men, from Cass and the counties in Missouri south of it, went into the Territory, traveling about 45 miles, most of them with their wagons and tents, and camping out. They appeared at the place of election. Some attempts were made to swear them, but two of the judges were prevailed upon not to do so, and none were sworn, and as many as chose voted. There were but few resident voters at the polls. The settlement was sparse — about 25 actual settlers voted out of 105 votes cast, leaving 80 illegal votes. After the voting was over, the Missourians went to their wagons and commenced leaving for home.

The most shameless fraud practiced upon the rights of the settlers at this election was in the VIIth District. It is a remote settlement, about 75 miles from the Missouri line, and contained in February, A. D. 1855, three months afterward, when the census was taken, but 53 voters, and yet the poll-books show that 604 votes were cast. The election was held at the house of Frey McGee, at a place called "110." But few of the actual settlers were present at the polls. A witness who formerly resided in Jackson County, Missouri, and was well acquainted with the citizens of that county, says that he saw a great many wagons and tents at the place of election, and many individuals he knew from Jackson County. He was in their tents, and conversed with some of them, and they told him they had come with the intention of voting. He went to the polls intending to vote for Flenniken, and his ticket being of a different color from the rest, his vote was challenged by Frey McGee, who had been appointed one of the judges, but did not serve. Lemuel Ralstone, a citizen of Missouri, was acting in his place. The witness then challenged the vote of a young man by the name of Nolan, whom he knew to reside in Jackson County. Finally, the thing was hushed up, as the witness had a good many friends there from that county, and it might lead to a fight if he challenged any more votes. Both voted, and he then went down to their camp. He there saw many of his old acquaintances, whom he knew had voted at the election in August previous in Missouri, and who still resided in that State. By a careful comparison of the poll-lists with the census-rolls, we find but 12 names on the poll-book who were voters when the census was taken three months afterward, and we are satisfied that not more than 20 legal votes could have been polled at that election. The only residents who are known to have voted are named by the witness, and are 13 in number — thus leaving 584 illegal votes cast in a remote district, where the settlers within many miles were acquainted with each other.

The total number of white inhabitants in the XIth District, in the mouth of February, A. D. 1855, including

94

men, women and children, was 86, of whom 24 were voters — yet the poll-lists in this District show that 245 votes were cast at this election. For reasons stated hereafter in regard to the election on the 30th of March, your Committee were unable to procure the attendance of witnesses from this District. From the records, it clearly appears that the votes cast could not have been by lawful resident voters. The best test, in the absence of direct proof, by which to ascertain the number of legal votes cast, is by a comparison of the census-roll with the poll-book — by which it appears that but 7 resident settlers voted, and 238 votes were illegally and fraudulently cast.

The election in the XIVth District was held at the house of Benjamin Harding, a few miles from the town of St. Joseph, Missouri. Before the polls were opened, a large number of citizens of Buchanan County, Missouri, and among them many of the leading citizens of St. Joseph, were at the place of voting, and made a majority of the company present. At the time appointed by the Governor for opening the polls, two of the Judges were not there, and it became the duty of the legal voters present to select other judges. The judge who was present, suggested the name of Mr. Waterson as one of the Judges — but the crowd voted down the proposition. Some discussion then arose as to the right of non-residents to vote for judges, during which Mr. Bryant was nominated and elected by the crowd. Some one nominated Col. John Scott as the other judge, who was then and is now a resident of St. Joseph. At that time, he was the City Attorney at that place, and so continued until this spring, but he claimed that the night before he had come to the house of Mr. Bryant, and had engaged boarding for a month, and considered himself a resident of Kansas on that ground. The judges appointed by the Governor refused to put the nomination of Col. Scott to vote, because he was not a resident. After some discussion, Judge Leonard, a citizen of Missouri, stepped forward and put the vote himself; and Mr. Scott was declared by him as elected by the crowd, and served as a judge of election that day. After the election was over, he returned to St. Joseph, and never since has resided in the Territory. It is manifest that this election of a non-resident lawyer as a judge was imposed upon the settlers by the citizens of the State. When the board of judges was thus completed, the voting proceeded; but the effect of the rule adopted by the judges allowed many, if not a majority of the non-residents, to vote. They claimed that their presence on the ground, especially when they had a claim in the Territory, gave them a right to vote — under that construction of the law, they readily, when required, swore they were "residents," and then voted. By this evasion, as nearly as your Committee can ascertain from the testimony, as many as 50 illegal votes were cast in this District out of 153, the whole number polled.

The election in the XVth District was held at Penseman's, on Stranger Creek, a few miles from Weston, Missouri. On the day of the election, a large number of citizens of Platte County, but chiefly from Weston and Platte City, came in small parties, in wagons and on horseback, to the polls. Among them were several leading citizens of that town, and the names of many of them are given by the witnesses. They generally insisted upon their right to vote, on the ground that every man having a claim in the Territory could vote, no matter where he lived. All voted who chose. No man was challenged or sworn. Some of the residents did not vote. The purpose of the strangers in voting was declared to be to make Kansas a Slave State. We find by the poll-books that 306 votes were cast — of these we find but 57 are on the census-rolls as legal voters in February following. Your Committee is satisfied from the testimony that not over 100 of those who voted had any right so to do, leaving at least 206 illegal votes cast.

The election in the XVIth District was held at Leavenworth. It was then a small village of three or four houses, located on the Delaware Reservation. There were but comparatively few settlers then in the district, but the number rapidly increased afterward. On the day before and on the day of the election, a great many citizens of Platte, Clay and Ray counties crossed the river — most of them camping in tents and wagons about the town, "like a camp-meeting." They were in companies or messes of ten to fifteen in each, and numbered in all several hundred. They brought their own provision and cooked it themselves, and were generally armed. Many of them were known by the witnesses, and their names given, and their names are found upon the poll-books.

Among them were several persons of influence where they resided in Missouri, who held, or had held, high official positions in that State. They claimed to be residents of the Territory, from the fact that they were then present, and insisted upon the right to vote, and did vote. Their avowed purpose in doing so was to make Kansas a Slave State. These strangers crowded around the polls, and it was with great difficulty that the settlers could get to the polls. One resident attempted to get to the polls in the afternoon, but was crowded and pulled back. He then went outside of the crowd and hurrahed for Gen. Whitfield, and some of those who did not know him said, "that's a good Pro-Slavery man," and lifted him over their heads so that he crawled on their heads and put in his vote. A person who saw from the color of his ticket that it was not for Gen. Whitfield, cried out, "He is a damned Abolitionist — let him down;" and they dropped him. Others were passed to the polls in the same way, and others crowded up in the best way they could. After this mockery of an election was over, the non-residents returned to their homes in Missouri. Of the 812 votes cast, not over 150 were by legal voters.

The following abstract exhibits the whole number of votes at this election, for each candidate; the number of legal and illegal votes cast in each district; and the number of legal votes in each district in February following:

Districts Place of Voting Whitfield Wakefield Flenniken Scattering Total Number Votes by Census Legal Votes Illegal Votes
I Lawrence 46 188 51 15 300 369 300
II Douglas 235 20 6 261 199 35 226
III Stinson's 40 7 47 101 47
IV Dr. Chapman's 140 21 161 47 30 131
V H. Sherman's 63 4 15 82 442 30 52
VI Fort Scott 108 105 258 25 80
VII 116 597 7 604 53 20 584
VIII Council Grove 16 16 39 16
IX Reynold's 9 31 40 36 40
X Big Blue Cross 2 6 29 37 63 37
XI Marysville 237 85 245 24 7 233  
XII Warton's Store 31 9 1 41 78 41
XIII Osawkie 69 1 1 71 96 71
XIV Harding's 130 23 153 334 103 50
XV Penseno 267 39 306 308 100 206
XVI Leavenworth 282 80 312 385 150 162
XVII Shawnee Agency 49 13 62 50 62
XVIII   28
Total   2268 249 305 21 2871 1114 1729

95

Thus your Committee find that in this, the first election in the Territory, a very large majority of the votes were cast by citizens of the State of Missouri, in violation of the organic law of the Territory. Of the legal votes cast, Gen. Whitfield received a plurality. The settlers took but little interest in the election, not one-half of them voting.

This may be accounted for, from the fact that the settlements were scattered over a great extent — that the term of the Delegate to be elected was short — and that the question of Free and Slave institutions was not generally regarded by them as distinctly at issue. Under these circumstances, a systematic invasion from an adjoining State, by which large numbers of illegal votes were cast in remote and sparse settlements for the avowed purpose of extending Slavery into the Territory, even though it did not change the result of the election, was a crime of great magnitude. Its immediate effect was to further excite the people of the Northern States — induce acts of retaliation, and exasperate the actual settlers against their neighbors in Missouri.

In January and February, A. D. 1855, the Governor caused an enumeration to be taken of the inhabitants and qualified voters in the Territory, an abstract of which is here given:

Total population 8501
Total voters 2905
Natives of the United States 7161
Of foreign birth 409
Slaves 242
Free negroes 151

On the same day the census was completed, the Governor issued his proclamation for an election to be held on the 80th of March, A. D. 1855, for members of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory. It prescribed the boundaries of districts, the places for polls, the names of judges, the appointment of members, and recited the qualification of voters. If it had been observed, a just and fair election would have reflected the will of the people of the Territory. Before the election, false and inflammatory rumors were busily circulated among the people of Western Missouri. The number and character of the emigration then passing into the Territory were grossly exaggerated and misrepresented. Through the active exertions of many of its leading citizens, aided by the secret societies before referred to, the passions and prejudices of the people of that State were greatly excited. Several residents there have testified to the character of the reports circulated among and credited by the people. These efforts were successful. By an organized movement, which extended from Andrew County in the north to Jasper County in the south, and as far eastward as Boone and Cole counties, companies of men were arranged in regular parties and sent into every council district in the Territory, and into every representative district but one. The numbers were so distributed as to control the election in each district. They went to vote, and with the avowed design to make Kansas a Slave State. They were generally armed and equipped, carried with them their own provisions and tents, and so marched into the Territory. The details of this invasion from the mass of the testimony taken by your committee are so voluminous that we can here state but the leading facts elicited.

1ST DISTRICT — March 30, 1855. — LAWRENCE.

The company of persons who marched into this district collected in Ray, Howard, Carroll, Boone, La Fayette, Randolph, Saline, and Cass counties, in the State of Missouri. Their expenses were paid — those who could not come contributing provisions, wagons, etc. Provisions were deposited for those who were expected to come to Lawrence, in the house of William Lykins, and were distributed among the Misaourians after they arrived there. The evening before and the morning of the day of election, about 1000 men from the above counties arrived at Lawrence, and encamped in a ravine a short distance from town, near the place of voting. They came in wagons — of which there were over one hundred — and on horseback, under the command of Colonel Samuel Young, of Boone County, Missouri, and Claiborne F. Jackson, of Missouri. They were armed with guns, rifles, pistols, and bowie-knives, and had tents, music, and flags with them. They brought with them two pieces of artillery, loaded with musket-balls. On their way to Lawrence, some of them met Mr. N. B. Hanton, who had been appointed one of the judges of election by Governor Reeder; and, after learning from him that he considered it his duty to demand an oath from them as to their place of residence, first attempted to bribe, and then threatened him with hanging, in order to induce him to dispense with that oath. In consequence of these threats, he did not appear at the polls the next morning to act as judge.

The evening before the election, while in camp, the Missourians were called together at the tent of Captain Claiborne F. Jackson, and speeches were made to them by Colonel Young and others, calling for volunteers to go to other districts where there were not Missourians enough to control the election, as there were more at Lawrence than were needed there. Many volunteered to go, and the morning of the election several companies, from 150 to 200 men each, went off to Tecumseh, Hickory Point, Bloomington, and other places. On the morning of the election, the Missourians came over to the place of voting from their camp, in bodies of one hundred at a time. Mr. Blanton not appearing, another judge was appointed in his place — Colonel Young claiming that, as the people of the Territory had two judges, it was nothing more than right that the Missourians should have the other one, to look after their interests; and Robert E. Cummins was elected in Blanton's stead, because he considered that every man had a right to vote if he had been in the Territory but an hour. The Missourians brought their tickets with them; but, not having enough, they had three hundred more printed in Lawrence on the evening before and the day of election. They had white ribbons in their button-holes to distinguish themselves from the settlers.

When the voting commenced, the question of the legality of the vote of a Mr. Page was raised. Before it was decided, Colonel Samuel Young stepped up to the window where the votes were received, and said he would settle the matter. The vote of Mr. Page was withdrawn, and Colonel Young offered to vote. He refused to take the oath prescribed by the Governor, but swore he was a resident of the Territory, upon which his vote was received. He told Mr. Abbott, one of the judges, when asked if he intended to make Kansas his future home, that it was none of his business; that if he were a resident then he should ask no more. After his vote was received, Colonel Young got up in the window-sill and announced to the crowd that he had been permitted to vote, and they could all come up and vote. He told the judges that there was no use in swearing the others, as they would all swear as he had done. After the other judges concluded to receive Colonel Young's vote, Mr. Abbott resigned as judge of election, and Mr. Benjamin was elected in his place.

The polls were so much crowded until late in the evening, that, for a time, when the men had voted, they were obliged to get out by being hoisted up on the roof of the building where the election was being held, and pass out over the house. Afterward, a passage-way through the crowd was made, by two lines of men being formed, through which the voters could get up to the polls. Colonel Young asked that the old men be allowed to go up first and vote, as they were tired with the traveling, and wanted to get back to camp. The Missourians sometimes came up to the polls in procession, two by two, and voted.

During the day, the Missourians drove off the ground some of the citizens, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Willis. They threatened to shoot Mr. Bond, and a crowd rushed after him, threatening him; and, as he ran from them, some shots were fired at him as he jumped off the bank of the river and made his escape. The citizens of the town went over in a body, late in the afternoon, when the polls had become comparatively clear, and voted. . . .

The whole number of names appearing upon the poll-lists is 1,084. After full examination, we are satisfied that not over 232 of these were legal voters, and 802 were non-resident and illegal voters. This District is strongly in favor of making Kansas a Free State, and there is no doubt that the Free-State candidates for the legislature would have been elected by large majorities, if none but the actual settlers had voted. At the preceding election in November, 1854, where none but legal voters were polled, General Whitfield, who received the full strength of the Pro-Slavery party, got but 46 votes.

IId DISTRICT — BLOOMINGTON.

On the morning of election, the judges appointed by the Governor appeared and opened the polls. Their names were Harrison Burson, Nathaniel Ramsay, and Mr. Ellison. The Missourians began to come in early in the morning, some 600 or 600 of them, in wagons and carriages, and on horseback, under the lead of Samuel J. Jones, then Postmaster of Westport, Missouri, Claiborne F. Jackson, and Mr, Steely, of Independence, Missouri They were armed with double-barreled guns, rifles, bowie-knives, and pistols, and had flags hoisted. They held a sort of informal election, off at one side, at first for Governor of Kansas, and shortly afterward announced Thomas Johnson, of Shawnee Mission, elected Governor. The polls had been opened but a short time, when Mr. Jones marched with the crowd up to the window, and demanded that they should be allowed to vote without swearing as to their residence. After some noisy and threatening talk, Claiborne F. Jackson addressed the crowd, saying they had come there to vote, that they had a right to vote if they had been there but five minutes,

96

and he was not willing to go home without voting; this was received with cheers. Jackson then called upon them to form into little bands of fifteen or twenty, which they did, and went to an ox-wagon filled with guns, which were distributed among them, and proceeded to load some of them on the ground. In pursuance of Jackson's request, they tied white tape or ribbons in their buttonholes, so as to distinguish them from the "Abolitionists." They again demanded that the Judges should resign, and upon their refusing to do so, smashed in the window, sash and all, and presented their pistols and guns to them, threatening to shoot them. Some one on the outside cried out to them not to shoot, as there were Pro Slavery men in the room with the judges. They then put a pry under the corner of the house, which was a log house, and lifted it up a few inches and let it fall again, but desisted upon being told there were Pro Slavery men in the house. During this time, the crowd repeatedly demanded to be allowed to vote without being sworn, and Mr. Ellison, one of the judges, expressed himself willing, but the other two judges refused; thereupon a body of men, headed by "Sheriff Jones," rushed into the judges room with cocked pistols and drawn bowie knives in their hands, and approached Budson and Kainsay. Jones pulled out has watch, and said he would give them five minutes to resign in, or die. When the five minutes had expired and the judge did not resign, Jones said he would give them another minute, and no more. Ellison told his associates that if they did not resign, there would be one hundred shots fired in the room in less than fifteen minutes; and then, snatching up the ballot-box, ran out into the crowd, holding up the ballot-box and hurrahing for Missouri. About that time Busson, and Ramsay were called out by their friends, and not suffered to return. As Mr. Burson went out, he put the ballot poll-books in his pocket, and took them with him; and as he was going out, Jones snatched some papers away from him, and shortly afterward came out. himself holding them up, crying "Hurrah for Missouri!" After he discovered they were not the poll-books, he took a party of men with him and started off to take the poll-books from Burson.

Mr. Burson saw them coming, and he gave the books to Mr. Umberger, and told him to start off in another direction, so as to mislead Jones and has party. Jones and his party caught Mr. Umberger, took the poll-books away from him and Jones took him up behind him on a horse, and carried him back a prisoner. After Jones and has party had taken Umberger back, they went to the house of Mr. Ramsay and took Judge John A. Wakefield prisoner, and carried him to the place of election, and made him get up on a wagon and make them a speech; after which they put a white ribbon in his button-hole and let him go. They then chose two new judges, and proceeded with the election.

They also threatened to kill the judges if they did not receive their votes without swearing them, or else resign. They said no man should vote who would submit to be sworn — that they would kill any one that would offer to do so — "shoot him," "cut his guts out," etc. They said no man should vote this day unless he voted an open ticket, and was "all right on the goose," and that if they could not vote by fair means, they would by foul means. They said they had as much right to vote, if they had been in the Territory two minutes, as if they had been there for two years, and they would vote. Some of the citizens who were about the window, but had not voted when the crowd of Missourians marched up there, upon attempting to vote, were driven back by the mob, or driven off. One of them, Mr. J. M. Macey, was asked if he would take the oath, and upon his replying that he would if the judges required it, he was dragged through the crowd away from the polls, amid cries of "Kill the d — d nigge-thief," "Cut his throat," "Tear his heart out," etc. After they had got him to the outside of the crowd, they stood around him with cocked revolvers and drawn bowie-knives, one man putting a knife to his hear, so that it touched him, another holding a cocked pistol to his ear, while another struck at him with a club The Missourians said they had a right to vote if they had been in the Territory but five minutes. Some said they had been hired to come there and vote, and get a dollar a day, and, by G — d, they would vote or die there.

They said the 30th day of March was an important day, as Kansas would be made a Slave State on that day. They began to leave in the direction of Missouri in the afternoon, after they had voted, leaving some thirty or forty around the house where the election was held to guard the polls until after the election was over. The citizens of the Territory were not around, except those who took part in the mob, and a large portion of them did not vote: 341 void were polled there that day, of which but some thirty were citizens. A protest against the election was made to the Governor. The returns of the election made to the Governor were lost by the Committee of Elections of the legislature at Pawnee. The duplicate returns left in the ballot-box were taken by F. E. Laley, one of the judges elected by the Missourians, and were either lost or destroyed in his house, so that your Committee have been unable to institute a comparison between the poll-lists and census returns of this district. The testimony, however, is uniform, that not even thirty of those who voted there that day were entitled to vote, leaving 311 illegal votes. We are satisfied from the testimony that, had the actual settlers alone voted, the Free-State candidates would have been elected by a handsome majority.

IId DISTRICT — TECUMSEH.

For some days prior to the election, companies of men were organized in Jackson, Cass, and Clay counties, Mo., for the purpose of coming to the Territory and voting in this Vth district. The day previous to the election, some 400 or 500 Missourians, armed with guns, pistols, and knives, came into the Territory and camped, some at Bull Creek, and others at Potawatamie Creek. Their camps were about sixteen miles apart. On the evening before the election, Judge Hamilton of the Cass County Court, Mo. came from the Potawatamie Creek camp to Bull Creek for sixty more Missourians, as they had not enough there to render the election certain, and about that number went down there with him. On the evening before the election, Dr. B. C Westfall was elected to act as one of the Judges of Election in the Bull Creek precinct, in place of one of the judges appointed by the Governor, who, it was said, would not be there the next day. Dr. Westfall was at that time a citizen of Jackson County, Mo. On the morning of the election, the polls for Bull Creek precinct were opened, and, without swearing the judges, they proceeded to receive the votes of all who offered to vote. For the sake of appearance, they would get some one to come to the window and offer to vote, and when asked to be sworn he would pretend to grow angry at the judges and would go away, and his name would be put down as having offered to vote, but "rejected, refusing to be sworn." This arrangement was made previously and perfectly understood by the judges. But few of the residents of the district were present at the election, and only thirteen voted. The number of votes cast in the precinct was 393.

One Missourian voted for himself and then voted for his little son, but 10 or 11 years old. Col. Coffer, Henry Younger and Mr. Lykins, who were voted for and elected to the Legislature, were residents of Missouri at the time. Col. Coffer subsequently married in the Territory. After the polls were closed, the returns were made, and a man, claiming to be a magistrate, certitied on them that he had sworn the judges of election before opening the polls. In the Potawatamie precinct, the Missourians attended the election, and after threatening Mr. Chesnut, the only judge present appointed by the Governor, to induce him to resign, they proceeded to elect two other judges — one a Missourian and the other a resident of another precinct of that district. The polls were then opened, and all the Missourians were allowed to vote without being sworn.

After the polls were closed, and the returns made out for the signature of the judges, Mr. Chesnut refused to sign them, as he did not consider them correct returns of legal voters.

Col. Coffer, a resident of Missouri, but elected to the Kansas Legislature from that district at that election, endeavored with others to induce Mr. Chesnut by threats to sign the returns, which he refused to do, and left the house. On his way home, he was fired at by some Missourians, though not injured. There were three illegal to one legal vote given there that day. At the Big Layer precinct, the judges appointed by the Governor met at the time appointed, and proceeded to open the polls, after being duly sworn. After a few votes had been received, a party of Missourians came into the yard of the house where the election was held, and, unloading a wagon filled with arms, stacked their guns in the yard, and came up to the window and demanded to be admitted to vote. Two of the judges decided to receive their votes, whereupon the third judge, Mr. J. M Arthur, resigned, and another was chosen in his place. Col. Young, a citizen of Missouri, but a candidate for, and elected to, the Territorial Legislative Council, was present and voted in the precinct. He claimed that all Missourians who were present on the day of election were entitled to vote. But thirty or forty of the citizens of the precinct were present, and many of them did not vote. At the Little Sugar precinct, the election seemed to have been conducted fairly, and there a Free-State majority was polled. From the testimony, the whole district appears to have been largely free-State, and,

97

had none but actual settlers voted, the Free-State candidates would have been elected by a large majority. From a careful examination of the testimony and the records, we find that from 200 to 225 legal votes were polled out of 885, the total number given in the precincts of the Vth District. Of the legal votes cast, the Free State candidates received 152.

Vth DISTRICT — FORT SCOTT.

A company of citizens from Missouri, mostly from Bates County, came into this District the day before the election, some camping and others putting up at the Public-house. They numbered from 100 to 200, and came in wagons and on horseback, carrying their provisions and tents with them, and were generally armed with pistols. They declared their purpose to vote, and claimed the right to do so. They went to the polls generally in small bodies, with tickets in their hands, and many, if not all, voted. In some cases, they declared that they had voted, and gave their reasons for so doing. Mr. Anderson, a Pro-Slavery candidate for the Legislature, endeavored to dissuade the non-residents from voting, because he did not wish the elect on contested. This person, however, insisted upon voting, and upon his right to vote, and did so. No one was challenged or sworn, and all voted who desired to. Out of 350 votes cast, not over 100 were legal, and but 6˝ of these named in the census taken one month before by Mr. Barber, the candidate for Council, voted. Many of the Free-State men did not vote, but your Committee is satisfied that, of the legal votes cast, the Pro-Slavery candidates received a majority. Mr. Anderson, one of these candidates, was an unmarried man, who came into the District from Missouri a few days before the election, and boarded at the public-house until the day after the election. He then took with him the poll-lists, and did not return to Fort Scott until the occasion of a barbacue the week before the election of October 1, 1855. He voted at that election, and after it left, and has not since been in the District. S. A. Williams, the other Pro-Slavery candidate, at the time of the election had a claim in the Territory, but his legal residence was not there until after the election.

VIIth DISTRICT.

From two to three hundred men, from the State of Missouri, came in wagons or on horseback, to the election ground at Switzers Creek, in the VIIth District, and encamped near the polls, on the day preceding the election. They were armed with pistols and other weapons, and declared their purpose to vote, in order to secure the election of Pro-Slavery members. They said they were disappointed in not finding more Yankees there, and that they had brought more men than were necessary to counterbalance their vote. A number of them wore badges of blue ribbon, with a motto, and the company were under the direction of leaders. They declared their intention to conduct themselves peacefully, unless the residents of the Territory attempted to stop them from voting. Two of the judges of election appointed by Governor Reeder refused to serve, where upon two others were appointed in their stead by the crowd of Missourians who surrounded the polls. The newly-appointed judges refused to take the oath prescribed by Governor Reede, but made one to suit themselves. Andrew Johnson requested each voter to swear if he had a claim in the Territory, and if he had voted in another district. The judges did not take the oath prescribed, but were sworn to receive all legal votes. The Missourians voted without being sworn. They supported H. J. Stickler for Council, and M. W. McGee for Representative. They left the evening of the election. Some of them started on horseback for Lawrence, as they said they could be there before night, and all went the way they came. The census-list shows 53 legal voters in the District. 253 votes were cast; of these 25 were residents, 17 of whom were in the District when the census was taken. Some of the residents present at the polls did not vote, declaring it useless. Candidates declined to run on the Free-State ticket because they were unwilling to run the risk of so unequal a contest — it being known that a great many were coming up from Missouri to vote. Nearly all the settlers were free-State men, and 23 of the 25 legal votes given were cast for the only Free-state candidate running. Mobiller McGee who was declared elected Representative, had a claim — a saw-mill and a house in the Territory — and he was there part of the time. But his legal residence is now, and was then, near Westport, in Missouri, where he owns and conducts a valuable farm, and where his family resides.

VIIIth DISTRICT.

This was attached to the VIIth District for member of the Council and a Representative, and its vote was controlled by the illegal vote cast there. The census show 39 votes in it — 37 votes were cast, of whom a majority voted the Free-State ticket.

IXth DISTRICT.

Fort Riley and Pawnee are in this District. The latter place was selected by the Governor as the temporary capital, and he designed there to expend the sums appropriated by Congress in the construction of suitable houses for the Legislature. A good deal of building was then being done at the fort nearby. For these reasons, a number of mechanics, mostly from Pennsylvania, came into this district in March, 1855, to seek employment. Some of these voted at the election. The construction of the Capital was first postponed, then abandoned, and finally the site of the town was declared by the Secretary of War to be within the military reservation of Fort Riley. Some of the inhabitants returned to the States, and some went to other parts of the Territory. Your Committee find, that they came as settlers, intending to remain as such, and were entitled to vote.

Xth DISTRICT

In this district, ten persons belonging to the Wyandot tribe of Indians voted. They were of that class who under the law were entitled to vote; but their residence was in Wyandot Village, at the mouth of Kansas River, and they had no right to vote in this district. They voted the Pro-Slavery ticket. Eleven men recently from Pennsylvania voted the Free-State Ticket. From the testimony, they had not, at the time of the election, so established their residence as to have entitled them to vote. In both these classes of cases, the judges examined the voters under oath and allowed them to vote, and in all respects the elect on seems to have been conducted fairly. The rejection of both would not have changed the result. This and the VIIth Election District formed one representatives district, and was the only one to which the invasion from Missouri did not extend.

XIth DISTRICT.

The IXth, Xth, XIth and XIIth Election Districts, being all sparsely settled, were attached together as a Council District, and the XIth and XIIth as a Representative District. This Election District is 60 miles north from Pawnee, and 150 miles from Kansas City. It is the northwest settlement in the Territory, and contained, when the census was taken, but 36 inhabitants, of whom 24 were voters. There was on the day of election no white settlement about Marysville, the place of voting, for 40 miles, except that Marshall and Bishop kept a store and ferry at the crossing of the Big Blue and the California road. Your Committee were unable to procure witnesses from this district. Persons who were present at the election were duly summoned by an officer, and among them was F. J. Marshall, the member of the House from that district. On his return, the officer was arrested and detained, and persons bearing the names of some of the witnesses summoned were stopped near Lecompton, and did not appear before the Committee. The returns show that, in defiance of the Governors proclamation, the voting was viva voce, instead of by ballot. 328 names appear upon the poll books as voting, and by comparing these names with those on the census polls, we find that but seven of the latter voted. The person voted for as Representative, F. J. Marshall, was chief owner of the store at Marysville, and was there sometimes, but his family lived in Weston. John Donaldson, the candidate voted for the Council, then lived in Jackson County, Missouri.

On the day after the election, Mr. Marshall, with 25 or 30 men from Weston, Mo., was on the way from Marysville to the State. Some of the party told a witness who had formerly resided at Weston, that they were up at Marysville and carried the day for Missouri, and that they had voted about 150 votes. Mr. Marshall paid the bill at that point for the party.

There does not appear to have been any emigration into that district in March, 1855, after the census was taken, and, judging from the best test in the power of your Committee, there were but seven legal votes cast in the district, and 321 illegal.

XIIth DISTRICT.

The election in this district was conducted fairly. No complaint was made that illegal votes were cast.

XIIIth DISTRICT.

Previous to the day of election, several hundreds of Missourians from Platte, Clay, Boone, Clinton, and Howard counties, came into the district in wagons and on horseback, and camped there. They were armed with guns, revolvers, and bowie-knives and had badges of

98

hemp in their button-holes and elsewhere about their persons. They claimed to have a right to vote, from the fact that they were there on the ground, and had, or intended to make, claims in the Territory, although their families were in Missouri.

The judges appointed by the Governor opened the polls, and some persons offered to vote, and when their votes were rejected on the ground that they were not residents of the district, the crowd threatened to tear the house down if the judges did not leave. The judges then withdrew, taking the poll-books with them. The crowd then proceeded to select other persons to act as judges, and the election went on. Those persons voting who were sworn were asked if they considered themselves residents of the district, and if they said they did, they were allowed to vote. But few of the residents were present and voted, and the Free-State men, as a general thing, did not vote. After the Missourians got through voting, they returned home. A formal return was made by the judges of election setting out the facts, but it was not verified. The number of legal voters in this district was 96, of whom a majority were Free-State men. Of these — voted. The total number of votes cast was 296.

XIVth DISTRICT.

It was generally rumored in this district, for some days before the election, that the Missourians were coming over to vote. Previous to the election, men from Missouri came into the district, and electioneered for the Pro-Slavery candidates. Gen. David R. Atchison and a party controlled the nominations in one of the primary elections.

BURR OAK PRECINCT

Several hundred Missourians from Buchanan, Platte, and Andrew counties, Mo., including a great many of the prominent citizens of St. Joseph, came into this precinct the day before, and on the day of election, in wagons and on horses, and encamped there. Arrangements were made for them to cross the ferry at St. Joseph free of expense to themselves. They were armed with bowie-knives and pistols, guns and rifles. On the morning of the election, the Free-State candidates resigned in a body, on account of the presence of the large number of armed Missourians, at which the crowd cheered and hurrahed. Gen. B. F. Stringfellow was present, and was prominent in promoting the election of the Pro-Slavery ticket, as was also the Hon. Willard P. Hall, and others of the most prominent citizens of St. Joseph, Mo. But one of the judges of election, appointed by the Governor, served on that day, and the crowd chose two others to supply the vacancies.

The Missourians said they came there to vote for, and secure the election of, Major Wm. P. Richardson. Major Richardson, elected to the Council, had a farm in Missouri, where his wife and daughter lived with his son-in-law, Willard P. Hall, he himself generally going home to Missouri every Saturday night. The farm was generally known as the Richardson farm. He had a claim in the Territory, upon which was a saw-mill, and where he generally remained during the week.

Some of the Missourians gave as their reason for voting that they had heard that eastern emigrants were to be at that election, though no eastern emigrants were there. Others said they were going to vote for the purpose of making Kansas a Slave State.

Some claimed that they had a right to vote, under the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, from the fact that they were present on the ground on the day of election.

The Free-State men generally did not vote, and those who did vote, voted generally for John H. Whitehead, Pro-Slavery, for Council, against Major Wm. P. Richardson, and did not vote at all for members of the Lower House.

The parties were pretty nearly equally divided in the district, some being of opinion that the Free-State party had a small majority, and others that the Pro-Slavery party had a small majority. After the election was over and the polls were closed, the Missourians returned home. During the day, they had provisions and liquor served out, free of expense, to all.

DONIPHAN PRECINCT.

The evening before the election, some 200 or more Missourians from Platte, Buchanan, Saline, and Clay counties, Missouri, came into this precinct, with tents, music, wagons, and provisions, and armed with guns, rifles, pistols, and bowie-knives, and encamped about two miles from the place of voting. They said they came to vote, to make Kansas a Slave State, and intended to return to Missouri after they had voted.

On the morning of the election, the Judges appointed by the Governor would not serve, and others were appointed by the crowd. The Missourians were allowed to vote without being sworn — some of them voting as many as eight or nine times; changing their hats and coats, and giving in different names each time. After they had voted, they returned to Missouri. The Free-State men generally did not vote, though constituting a majority in the precinct. Upon counting the ballots in the box and the names on the poll-lists, it was found that there were too many ballots, and one of the judges of election took out ballots enough to make the two numbers correspond.

WOLF RIVER PRECINCT.

The number of voters in the district by the census was 334 — of these 124 voted. The testimony shows that quite a number of persons whose legal residence was in the populous county of Buchanan, Mo., on the opposite side of the river, had claims in the Territory. Some ranged cattle, and others marked out their claim and built a cabin, and sold this incipient title where they could. They were not residents of the Territory in any just or legal sense. A number of settlers moved into the district in the month of March. Your Committee are satisfied, after a careful analysis of. the records and testimony, that the number of legal votes cast did not exceed 200 — out of 727.

XVth DISTRICT.

The election in this district was held In the house of a Mr. Hayes. On the day of election, a crowd of from 400 to 500 men collected around the polls, of which the great body were citizens of Missouri. One of the judges of election, in his testimony, states that the strangers commenced crowding around the polls, and that then the residents left. Threats were made before and during the election day that there should be no Free-State candidates, although there were nearly or quite as many Free-State as Pro-Slavery men resident in the district. Most of the crowd were drinking and carousing, cursing the Abolitionists and threatening the only Free-State judge of election. A majority of those who voted wore hemp in their button-holes, and their password was, "all right on the hemp." Many of the Missourians were known and are named by the witnesses. Several speeches were made by them at the polls, and among those who spoke were Major Oliver, one of your Committee, Col. Burns, and Lalan Williams, of Platte County. Major Oliver urged upon all present to use no harsh words, and expressed the hope that nothing would be said or done to harm the feelings of the most sensitive on the other side. He gave some grounds, based on the Missouri Compromise, in regard to the right of voting, and was understood to excuse the Missourians for voting. Your Committee are satisfied that he did not vote. Col. Burns recommended all to vote, and he hoped none would go home without voting. Some of the Pro-Slavery residents were much dissatisfied at the interference with their rights by the Missourians, and for that reason — because reflection convinced them that it would be better to have Kansas a Free-State — they "fell over the fence." The judges requested the voters to take an oath that they were actual residents. They objected at first, some saying they had a claim, or "I am here." But the Free-State judge insisted upon the oath, and his associates, who at first were disposed to waive it, coincided with him, and the voters all took it after some grumbling. One said he cut him some poles and laid them in the shape of a square, and that made him a claim; and another said that he had cut him a few sticks of wood, and that made him a claim. The Free-State men did not vote, although they believed their numbers to be equal to the Pro-Slavery settlers, and some claimed that they had the majority. They were deterred by threats throughout by the Missourians, before and on the day of election, from putting up candidates, and no candidates were run, for this reason — that there was a credited rumor previously that the Missourians would control the election. The Free-state judge was threatened with expulsion from the polls, and a young man thrust a pistol into the window through which the votes were received. The whole number of votes cast was 417; of the names on the poll-book, but 62 are in the census-rolls, and the testimony shows that a small portion, estimated by one witness at one-quarter of the legal voters, voted. Your Committee estimate the number of legal voters at 80. One of the judges referred to, certified to the Governor that the election was fairly conducted. It was not contested, because no one would take the responsibility of doing it, as it was not considered safe, and that if another election was held, the residents would fare no better.

XVIth DISTRICT.

For some time previous to the election, meetings were held and arrangements made in Missouri to get up companies

99

to come over to the Territory and vote, and the day before, and on the day of election, large bodies of Missourians from Platte, Clay, Ray, Charlton, Carrol, Clinton, and Saline counties, Missouri, came into this district and camped there. They were armed with pistols and bowie-knives, and some with guns and rifles, and had badges of hemp in their button-holes and elsewhere about their persons.

On the morning of the election, there were from 1,000 to 1,400 persons present on the ground. Previous to the election, the Missourians endeavored to persuade the two Free-State judges to resign, by making threats of personal violence to them, one of whom resigned on the morning of election, and the crowd chose another to fill his place. But one of the judges, the Free-State judge, would take the oath prescribed, by the Governor, the other two deciding that they had no right to swear any one who offered to vote, but that all on the ground were entitled to vote. The only votes refused were some Delaware Indians, some 30 Wyandot Indians being allowed to vote. . . . .

The Free-State men generally did not vote at that election; and no newly-arrived Eastern emigrants were there. The Free-State judge of election refused to sign the returns until the words "by lawful resident voters" were stricken out, which was done, and the returns made in that way. The election was contested, and a new election ordered by Gov. Reeder, for the 22d of May.

The testimony is divided as to the relative strength of parties in this district. The whole number of voters in the district, according to the census returns, was 385; and, according to a very carefully prepared list of voters, prepared for the Pro-Slavery candidates and other Pro-Slavery men, a few days previous to the election, there were 305 voters in the district, including those who had claims but did not live on them. The whole number of votes cast was 964. Of those named in the census 106 voted. Your Committee, upon careful examination, are satisfied that there were not over 150 legal votes cast, leaving 814 illegal votes.

XVIIth DISTRICT.

The election in this district seems to have been fairly conducted, and not contested at all. In this district, the Pro-Slavery party had the majority.

XVIIIth DISTRICT.

Previous to the election, Gen. David K. Atchison of Platte City, Missouri, got up a company of Missourians, and passing through Weston, Missouri, went over into the Territory. He remained all night at the house of — — and then exhibited his arms, of which he had an abundance. He proceeded to the Nemaha (XVIIIth) district. On his way, he and his party attended a Nominating Convention in the XIVth District, and proposed and caused to be nominated a set of candidates in opposition to the wishes of the Pro-Slavery residents of the district. At that Convention, he said that there were 1,100 men coming over from Platte County, and if that wasn't enough, they could send 5,000 more — that they came to vote, and would vote or kill every G — d d — d Abolitionist in the Territory.

On the day of election, the Missourians, under Atchison, who were encamped there, came up to the polls in the XVIIIth District, taking the oath that they were residents of the district. The Missourians were all armed with pistols or bowie-knives, and said there were 60 in their company. But 17 votes given on that, day were given by residents of the district. The whole number of votes was 62.

R. L. Kirk, one of the candidates, came into the district from Missouri about a week before the election, and boarded there. He left after the election, and was not at the time a legal resident of the district in which he was elected. No protest was sent to the Governor on account of threats made against any who should dare to contest the election.

The following tables embody the result of the examination of your Committee in regard to this election. In some of the districts, it was impossible to ascertain the precise number of the legal votes cast, and especially in the XIVth, XVth, and XVIth Districts. In such cases the number of legal and illegal votes cast is stated, after a careful reexamination of all the testimony and record concerning the election:

Number of District. PLACES OF VOTING Pro-Slavery Votes. Free-State Votes. Scattering. Total. Total of Legal Votes. Total of Illegal Votes. Census. Council. House.
No. persons resd'ts No. of Voters. No. of District. No. of Members. No. of District. No. of Members.
1 Lawrence 781 253 1034 232 802 962 369 1 2 2 3
2 Bloomington 318 12 11 341 30 316 519 199 2 1 3 2
3 Stinson's, orTecumseh 366 4 2 372 32 338 252 101 3 1 4 1
4 Dr. Chapman's 78 2 80 15 65 177 47 1 1 1
5 Bull Creek 377 9 386 13 380
Potawatamie 199 65 264 75 191
Big Sugar Creek 74 17 7 98 32 59 1407 442 4 2 7 4
Little Sugar Creek 34 70 104 104
6 Fort Scott 315 35 350 100 250 810 253 5 1 6 2
7 Isaac B. Titus 211 23 234 25 209 118 58 3 5 1
8 Council Grove 37 17 3 37 37 83 39 3 5
9 Pawnee 23 52 75 75 86 36 6 1 8 1
10 Big Blue 27 42 69 48 21 151 63 10 8
Rock Creek 2 21 23 23 8 8
11 Marysville 328 328 7 321 36 24 9 9 1
12 St. Mary's 4 7 11 11 10 9
Silver Lake 12 19 2 33 33 144 78 1 9
13 Hickory Point 233 6 239 12 230 284 96 10 10 1
14 Doniphan 313 30 3 346 7 11
Wolf Creek 57 15 6 78 200 530 1167 334 7 1 11 2
Burr-Oak, Hodge's 256 2 48 306 8 12 2
15 Hayes 412 5 417 80 337 873 208 9 1 13 2
16 Leavenworth 899 60 5 964 150 814 l183 385 10 2 14 3
17 Gum Springs 43 16 59 59 150 50 1
18 Moorestown 48 14 62 17 45 99 28 7 1
  Total 5427 791 92 6320 1310 4968 8501 2892 13 26

By the election, as conducted, the Pro-Slavery candidates in every district, but the VIIIth representative district, received a majority of the votes; and several of them, in both the Council and the House, did not "reside in" and were not "inhabitants of" the district for which they were elected, as required by the organic law.

100

By that act it was declared to be the true intent and meaning of this act to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject to the Constitution of the United States.

So careful was Congress of the right of popular sovereignty, that to secure it to the people, without a single petition from any portion of the country, they removed the restriction against Slavery imposed by the Missouri Compromise. And yet this right, so carefully secured, was thus by force and fraud overthrown by a portion of the people of an adjoining State.

The striking difference between this Republic and other Republics on this Continent, is not in the provisions of constitutions and laws, but that here changes in the administration of those laws have been made peacefully and quietly through the ballot-box. This invasion is the first and only one in the history of our Government, by which an organized force from one State has elected a Legislature for another State or Territory, and as such it should have been resisted by the whole executive power of the National Government.

Your Committee are of the opinion that the Constitution and laws of the United States have invested the President and Governor of the Territory with ample power for this purpose. They could only act after receiving authentic information of the facts; but when received, whether before or after the certficates of election were granted, this power should have been exercised to its fullest extent. It is not to be tolerated that a legislative body thus selected should assume or exercise any legislative functions; and their enactments should be regarded as null and void; nor should the question of its legal existence as a legislative body be determined by itself, as that would be allowing the criminal to judge of his own crime. In section twenty-two of the organic act it is provided, that "the persons having the highest number of legal votes in each of said Council-districts for members of the Council, shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected to the Council, and the persons having the highest number of legal votes for the House of Representatives, shall be declared by the Governor duly elected members of said House." The proclamation of the Governor required a verified notice of a contest when one was made, to be filed with him within four days after the election. Within that time, he did not obtain information as to force or fraud in any except, the following districts, and in these there were material defects in the returns of election. Without deciding upon his power to set aside elections for force and fraud, they were set aside for the following reasons:
In the 1st District, because the words "by lawful resident voters," were stricken from the return.

In the IId District, because the oath was administered by G. W. Taylor, who was not authorized to administer an oath.

In the IIId District, because material erasures from the printed form of the oath were purposely made.

In the IVth District, for the same reason.

In the VIIth District, because the Judges were not sworn at all.

In the XIth District, because the returns show the election to have been held viva voce instead of by ballot.

In the XVIth District, because the words "by lawful residence" were stricken from the returns.

ABSTRACT OF THE RETURNS OF ELECTION OF MAY 22, 1855.
No. of District.Places of Voting.Pro-Slavery Votes.Free-State Votes.Scattering.Total.
1 Lawrence 288 18 306
2 Douglas 127 127
3 Stinson's 148 1 149
7 "110" 66 13 79
8 Council Grove 33 33
16 Leavenworth 56 140 15 715
  Total 560 802 1409

Report of Kansas Investigating Committee.

Although the fraud and force in other districts were equally great as in these, yet, as the Governor had no information in regard to them, he issued certificates according to the returns.

Your Committee here felt it to be their duty not only to inquire into and collect evidence in regard to force and fraud attempted and practiced at the elections in the Territory, but also into the facts and pretexts by which this force and fraud has been excused and justified; and for this purpose your Committee have allowed the declarations of non-resident voters to be given as evidence in their own behalf, also the declarations of all who came up the Missouri River as emigrants in March, 1855, whether they voted or not, and whether they came into the Territory at all or not; and also the rumors which were circulated among the people of Missouri previous to the ejection. The great body of the testimony taken at the instance of the sitting Delegate is of this character.

When the declarations of parties passing up the river were offered in evidence, your Committee received them upon the distinct statement that they would be excluded unless the persons making the declarations were by other proof shown to have been connected with the elections. This proof was not made and therefore much of this class of testimony is incompetent, by the rules of law, but is allowed to remain as tending to show the cause of the action of the citizens of Missouri.

The alleged causes of the invasion of March, 1855, are included in the following charges:
I. That the New-England Aid Society of Boston was then importing into the Territory large numbers of men, merely for the purpose of controlling the elections. That they came without women, children, or baggage, went into the Territory, voted, and returned again.

II. That men were hired in the Eastern or Northern State's or induced to go into the Territory, solely to vote, and not to settle, and by so doing to make it a Free State.

III. That the Governor of the Territory purposely postponed the day of election to allow this emigration to arrive, and notified the Emigrant Aid Society, and persons in the Eastern States, of the day of election, before he gave notice to the people of Missouri and the Territory.

That these charges were industriously circulated; that grossly exaggerated statements were made in regard to them; that the newspaper press and leading men in public meetings in Western Missouri, aided in one case by a Chaplain of the United States Army, gave currency and credit to them, and thus excited the people, and induced many well-meaning citizens or Missouri to march into the Territory to meet, and repel the alleged Eastern paupers and Abolitionists, is fully proven by many witnesses.

But these charges are not sustained by the proof.

In April, 1854, the General Assembly of Massachusetts passed an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Society." The object of the Society, as declared in the first section of this act, was "for the purpose of assisting emigrants to settle in the West." The moneyed capital of the corporation was not to exceed five millions of dollars; but no more than four per cent. could be assessed during the year 1854 and no more than ten per cent. in any one year thereafter. No organization was perfected, or proceedings had under this law.

On the 24th day of July, 1854, certain persons in Boston, Massachusetts, concluded articles of agreement and association for an Emigrant Aid Society, The purpose of this association was declared to be "assisting emigrants to settle in the West." Under these articles of Association, each stockholder was individually liable. To avoid this difficulty, an application was made to the General Assembly of Massachusetts for an act of incorporation, which was granted. On the 21st day of February, 1855, an act was passed to incorporate the New England Emigrant Aid Company. The purposes of this act were declared to be "directing emigration westward, and aiding and providing accommodation for emigrants after arriving at their place of destination." The capital stock of the corporation was not to exceed one million of dollars. Under this charter, a company was organized.

Your Committee have examined some of its officers, and a portion of its circulars and records, to ascertain what has been done by it. The public attention at that time was directed to the Territory of Kansas, and emigration naturally tended in that direction. To ascertain its character and resources, this Company sent its agent into it, and the information thus obtained was published. The Company made arrangements with various lines of transportation to reduce the expense of emigration into the Territory, and procured tickets at the reduced rates. Applications were made to the Company by persons desiring to emigrate; and when they were numerous enough to form a party of convenient size, tickets were sold to them at the reduced rates. An agent acquainted with the route was selected to accompany them. Their baggage was checked, and all trouble and danger of loss to the emigrant in this was avoided.

101

Under these arrangements, companies went into the Territory in the Fall of 1854, under the articles of association referred to. The company did not pay any portion of the fare, nor furnish any personal or real property to the emigrant. The company, during l855, sent into the Territory from eight to ten saw-mills, purchased one hotel in Kansas City, which they subsequently sold, built one hotel at Lawrence, and owned one other building in that place. In some cases, to induce them to make improvements, town lots were given to them by town associations in this Territory. They held no property of any other kind or description. They imposed no condition upon their emigrants, and did not inquire into their political, religious, or social opinions. The total amount expended by them, including the salaries of their agents and officers, and the expenses incident to all organizations, was less than $100,000.

Their purposes, so far as your Committee can ascertain, were lawful, and contributed to supply those wants most experienced in the settlement of a new country.

The only persons or company who emigrated into the Territory under the auspices of the Emigrant Aid Society In 1855, prior to the election in March, was a party of 159 persons, who came under the charge of Charles Robinson

In this party, there were 67 women and children. They came as actual settlers, intending to make their homes in the Territory, and for no other purpose. They had about their persons but little baggage; usually sufficient clothing in a carpet-sack for a short time. Their personal effects, such as clothing, furniture, etc., were put into trunks and boxes; and for convenience in selecting, and cheapness in transporting, was marked "Kansas party baggage, care B. Slater, St. Louis." Generally, this was consigned as freight, in the usual way, to the care of a commission merchant. This party had, in addition to the usual allowance of one hundred pounds to each passenger, a large quantity of baggage on which the respective owners paid the usual extra freight. Each passenger or party paid his or their own expenses, and the only benefit they derived from the Society, not shared by all the people of the Territory, was the reduction of about $7 in the price of the fare, the convenience of traveling in a company instead of alone, and the cheapness and facility of transporting their freight through regular agents. Subsequently, many emigrants, being either disappointed with the country or its political condition, or deceived by the statements made by the newspapers and by the agents of the Society, became dissatisfied, and returned, both before and after the election, to their old homes. Most of them are now settlers in the Territory. Some few voted at the election in Lawrence, but the number was small. The names of these emigrants have been ascertained, and — — — of them were found upon the poll-books. This company of peaceful emigrants, moving with their household goods, was distorted into an invading horde of pauper Abolitionists, who were, with others of a similar character, to control the domestic institutions of the Territory, and then overturn those of a neighboring powerful State.

In regard to the second charge: There is no proof that any man was either hired or induced to come into the Territory from any free State, merely to vote. The entire emigration in March, 1855, is estimated at 500 persons, including men, women, and children. They came on steamboats up the Missouri River, in the ordinary course of emigration. Many returned for causes similar to those before stated; but the body of them are now residents. The only persons of those who were connected by proof with the election, were some who voted at the Big Blue Precinct in the Xth District, and at Pawnee, in the IXth District. Their purpose and character are stated in a former part of this report.

The third charge is entirely groundless. The organic law requires the Governor to cause an enumeration of the inhabitants and legal voters to be made; and that he apportion the members of the Council and House, according to this enumeration. For reasons stated by persons engaged in taking the census, it was not completed until the early part of March, 1855. At that time, the day of holding the election had not been, and could not have been, named by the Governor. So soon as practicable after the returns were brought in, he issued his proclamation for an election, and named the earliest day, consistent with due notice, as the day of election. The day on which the election was to be held was a matter of conjecture all over the country; but it was generally known that it would be in the latter part of March. The precise day was not known by any one until the proclamation issued. It was not known to the agents of the Emigrant Aid Society in Boston on the 13th of March, 1855, when the party of emigrants before referred to, left.

Your Committee are satisfied that these charges were made the mere pretext to induce an armed invasion into the Territory, as a means to control the election and establish Slavery there.

The real purpose is avowed and illustrated by the testimony and conduct of Colonel John Scott, of St. Joseph's, Missouri, who acted as the attorney for the sitting delegate before your Committee. The following are extracts from his deposition:
"Prior to the election in Burr-Oak precinct, In the XIVth District, on the 29th of November, 1854, I had been a resident of Missouri, and I then determined, if I found it necessary, to become a resident of Kansas Territory. On the day previous to that, election, I settled up my board at my boarding-house, in St. Joseph's, Missouri, and went over to the Territory, and took boarding with Mr. Bryant, near whose house the polls were held the next day, for one month, so that I might have it in my power, by merely determining to do so, to become a resident of the Territory on the day of election.

"When my name was proposed as a Judge of Election, objections were made by two persons only. . . . . I then publicly informed those present, that I had a claim in the Territory; that I had taken board in the Territory for a month; and that I could, at any moment, become an actual resident and legal voter in the Territory, and that I would do so, if I concluded at any time during the day that my vote would be necessary to carry that precinct in favor of the Pro-Slavery candidate for delegate to Congress. . . . . I did not during the day consider it necessary to become a resident of the Territory for the purpose mentioned, and did not vote nor offer to vote at that election.

"I held the office of City-Attorney for St. Joseph's at that time, and had held it for two or three years previously, and continued to hold it until this spring. . . . . I voted at an election in St. Joseph's, in the spring of 1855, and was reappointed City-Attorney. The question of Slavery was put in issue at the election of November, 1854, to the same extent as in every election in this Territory. Gen. Whitfield was regarded as the Pro-Slavery candidate for the Pro-Slavery party. I regarded the question of Slavery as the primarily prominent issue at that election, and, so far as I know, all parties agreed in making that, question the issue of that election.

"It is my intention, and the intention of a great many other Missourians now resident in Missouri, whenever the Slavery issues is to be determined upon by the people of this Territory in the adoption of the State Constitution, to remove to this Territory in time to acquire the right to become legal voters upon that question. The leading purpose of our intended removal to the Territory is to determine the domestic institutions of this Territory, when it comes to be a State, and we would not come only for that purpose, and would never think of routing here but for that purpose. I believe there are a great many in Missouri who are so situated."

The invasion of March 30th left both parties in a state of excitement, tending directly to produce violence. The successful party was lawless and reckless while assuming the name of them "Law and Order" party. The other party, at first surprised and confounded, was greatly irritated, and some resolved to prevent the success of the invasion. In some districts, as before stated, protests were sent to the Governor; in others, this was prevented by threats; in others, by the want of time, only four days being allowed by the proclamation for this purpose; and in others, by the belief that a new election would bring a new invasion. About the same time, all classes of men commenced bearing deadly weapons about the person, a practice which has continued to this time. Under these circumstances, a slight or accidental quarrel produced unusual violence, and lawless acts became frequent. This evil condition of the public mind was further increased by acts of violence in Western Missouri, where, in April, a newspaper press, called The Parksville Luminary, was destroyed by a mob.

About the same time, Malcolm Clark assaulted Cole McCrea at a squatter meeting in Leavenworth, and was shot by McCrea in alleged self-defense.

On the 17th day of May, William Phillips, a lawyer of Leavenworth, was first notified to leave: and upon his refusal, was forcibly seized, taken across the river, and carried several miles into Missouri, and then tarred and feathered, and one side of his head shaved, and other gross indignities put upon his person.

Previous to this outrage, a public meeting was held, at which resolutions were unanimously passed, looking to unlawful violence, and grossly intolerant in their character.

The right of free speech upon the subject of Slavery was characterized as a disturbance of the peace and quiet of the community, and as "circulating incendiary sentiments."

They say "to the peculiar friends of northern fanatics," "Go home and do your treason where you may find sympathy." Among other resolves is the following:
"Resolved, That the institution of Slavery is known and recognized in this Territory; and we repel the doctrine that it is a moral and political evil, and we hurl back with scorn upon its slanderous authors the charge of inhumanity; and we warn all persons not to come to our peaceful firesides to slander us and sow the seeds of discord between the master and the servant; for, as much as we deprecate the necessity to which we may be driven, we cannot be responsible for the consequences."

A Committee of Vigilance of 80 men was appointed "to observe and report all such persons as shall ... by

102

the expression of abolition sentiments, produce disturbance to the quiet of the citizens, or danger to their domestic relations; and all such persons so offending shall be notified, and made to leave the Territory."

The meeting was "ably and eloquently addressed by Judge Lecompte, Colonel J. N. Burns of Western Missouri, and others." Thus the head of the judiciary in the Territory not only assisted at a public and bitterly partisan meeting, whose direct tendency was to produce violence and disorder, but, before any law is passed in the Territory, he prejudges the character of the domestic institutions which the people of the Territory were, by their organic law, "left perfectly free to form and regulate in their own way."

On this committee were several of those who held certificates of election as members of the legislature; some of the others were then and still are residents of Missouri; and many of the committee have since been appointed to the leading offices in the Territory, one of which is the sheriffalty of the county. Their first act was that of mobbing Phillips.

Subsequently, on the 25th of May, A. D. 1855, a public meeting was held, at which R. R. Rees, a member elect of the council, presided. The following resolutions, offered by Judge Payne, a member elect of the house, were unanimously adopted:
"Resolved,That we heartily indorse the action of the committee of citzens that shaved, tarred and feathered, rode on a rail, and had sold by a negro, William Phillips, the moral perjurer.

"Resolved, That we return our thanks to the committee for faithfully performing the trust enjoined upon them by the Pro-Slavery party.

"Resolved, That the committee be now discharged.

"Resolved, That we severely condemn those Pro-Slavery men who, from mercenary motives, are calling upon the Pro-Slavery party to submit without further action.

"Resolved, That in order to secure peace and harmony to the community, we now solemnly declare that the Pro-Slavery party will stand firmly by and carry out the resolutions reported by the committee appointed for that purpose on the memorable 30th."

The act of moral perjury here referred to is the swearing by Phillips to a truthful protest in regard to the election of March 30, in the XVIth District.

The members receiving their certificates of the Governor as members of the General Assembly of the Territory, met at Pawnee, the place appointed by the Governor, on the 2d of July, A. D. 1855. Their proceedings are stated in three printed books, herewith submitted, entitled respectively, "The Statutes of the Territory of Kansas," "The Journal of the Council of the Territory of Kansas," and "The Journal of the House of Representatives of the Territory of Kansas."

Your Committee do not regard their enactments as valid laws. A legislature thus imposed upon a people cannot affect their political rights. Such an attempt to do so, if successful, is virtually an overthrow of the organic law, and reduces the people of the Territory to the condition of vassals to a neighboring State. To avoid the evils of anarchy, no armed or organized resistance to them should be made, but the citizens should appeal to the ballot-box at public elections, to the federal judiciary, and to Congress, for relief. Such, from the proof, would have been the course of the people, but for the nature of these enactments and the manner in which they are enforced. Their character and their execution have been so intimately connected with one branch of this investigation — that relating to "violent and tumultuous proceedings in the Territory" — that we were compelled to examine them.

The "laws" in the statute-books are general and special; the latter are strictly of a local character, relating to bridges, roads, and the like. The great body of the general laws are exact transcripts from the Missouri code. To make them in some cases conform to the organic act, separate acts were passed, defining the meaning of words. Thus the word "State" is to be understood as meaning "Territory;" the words "County Court" shall be construed to mean the board of commissioners transacting county business, or the Probate Court, according to the intent thereof. The words "Circuit Court" to mean "District Court."

The material differences in the Missouri and Kansas statutes are upon the following subjects: The qualifications of voters and of members of the legislative assembly; the official oath of all officers, attorneys, and voters; the mode of selecting officers and their qualifications; the slave code, and the qualifications of jurors.

Upon these subjects, the provisions of the Missouri code are such as are usual in many of the States. But by the "Kansas Statutes" every office in the Territory, executive and judicial, was to be appointed by the legislature, or by some officer appointed by it. These appointments were not merely to meet a temporary exigency, but were to hold over two regular elections, and until after the general election in October, 1857, at which the members of the new council were to be elected. The new legislature is required to meet on the first Monday in January, 1858. Thus, by the terms of these "laws," the people have no control whatever over either the legislature, the executive, or the judicial departments of the Territorial government until a time before which, by the natural progress of population, the Territorial government will be superseded by a State government.

No session of the legislature is to be held during 1856, but the members of the House are to be elected in October of that year. A candidate, to be eligible at this election, must swear to support the fugitive slave law; and each judge of election, and each voter, if challenged, must take the same oath. The same oath is required of every officer elected or appointed in the Territory, and of every attorney admitted to practice in the courts.

A portion of the militia is required to muster on the day of election. "Every free white male citizen of the United States, and every free male Indian who is made a citizen by treaty or otherwise, and over the age of twenty-one years, and who shall be an inhabitant of the Territory and of the county and district in which he offers to vote, and shall have paid a Territorial tax, shall be a qualified elector for all elective offices." Two classes of persons were thus excluded, who, by the organic act, were allowed to vote, viz.: those who would not swear to the oath required, and those of foreign birth who had declared on oath their intention to become citizens. Any man of proper age who was in the Territory on the day of election, and who had paid one dollar as a tax to the sheriff, who was required to be at the polls to receive it, could vote as an "inhabitant," although he had breakfasted in Missouri, and intended to return there for supper. There can be no doubt that this unusual and unconstitutional provision was inserted to prevent a full and fair expression of the popular will in the election of members of the house, or to control it by non-residents.

All jurors are required to be selected by the sheriff, and "no person who is conscientiously opposed to the holding of slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold slaves in the Territory, shall be a juror in any cause" affecting the right to hold slaves, or relating to slave property.

The Slave Code, and every provision relating to slaves, are of a character intolerant and unusual even for that class of legislation. The character and conduct of the men appointed to hold office in the Territory contributed very much to produce the events which followed. Thus Samuel J. Jones was appointed sheriff of the county of Douglas, which included within it the 1st and IId Election Districts. He had made himself peculiarly obnoxious to the settlers by his conduct on the 30th of March in the IId District, and by his burning the cabins of Joseph Oakley and Samuel Smith.

An election for delegate to Congress, to be held on the 1st day of October, 1855, was provided for, with the same rules and regulations as were applied to other elections. The Free-State men took no part in this election, having made arrangements for holding an election on the 9th of the same month. The citizens of Missouri attended at the election of the 1st of October, some paying the dollar tax, and others not being required to pay it. They were present and voted at the voting places of Atchison and Doniphan, in Atchison County; at Greene Springs, Johnson County; at Willow Springs, Franklin, and Lecompton, in Douglas County; at Fort Scott, Bourbon County; at Baptiste Paola, Lykins County, where some Indians voted, some whites paying the $1 tax for them; at Leavenworth City, and at Kickapoo City, Leavenworth County; at the latter place, under the lead of Gen. B. F. Stringfellow and Col. Lewis Barnes of Missouri. From two of the election precincts at which it was alleged there was illegal voting — viz., Delaware and Wyandotte — your Committee failed to obtain the attendance of witnesses. Your Committee did not deem it necessary, in regard to this election, to enter into details, as it was manifest that, from there being but one candidate — Gen. Whitfield — he must have received a majority of the votes cast. This election, therefore, depends not on the number or character of the votes received, but upon the validity of the laws under which it was held. Sufficient testimony was taken to show that the voting of citizens of Missouri was practiced at this election, as at all former elections in the Territory. The following table will exhibit the result of the testimony as regards the number of legal and illegal votes at this election. The county of Marshall embraces the same territory as was included in the XIth District; and the reasons before stated indicate that the great majority of the votes then cast were either illegal or fictitious. In the counties to which our examination extended, there were — illegal votes cast, as near as the proof will enable us to determine.

103

COUNTIES TOWNSHIPS. No. of Votes for J. W. Whitfield Scattering Total Votes Cast. No. of Legal Votes No. of Illegal Votes
Atchison Grasshopper 7
Shannon 131 4 219
Bourbon   242 242 50 192
Blown   4 4 4
Calhoun   29 29 29
Davis   8 4 12 12
Doniphan Burr Oak 42 41 1
Iowa 31 31
Wayne 66 62 4
Washington 59 59
Wolf River 53 251 53
Douglas Franklin 86 23 63
Lawrence 42 42
Lecompton 101
Willow Springs 103 332 53 50
Franklin   15 15 15
Jefferson   42 3 45
Johnson   190 190 90 100
Leavenworth Alexandria 42
Delaware 239
Kickapoo 150 1 50
Leavenworth 212 100
Wyandott 246 5 895
Lykins   220 220 70 150
Lynn   67 67
Madison (See Wise Co.)          
Marshall   171 171 24 147
Nemaha   6 6 6
Riley   28 28 28
Shawnee One Hundred and Ten 23 23
Tecumseh 52 75 52
Wise Council Grove 14 14 14

While these enactments of the alleged legislative assembly were being made, a movement was instituted to form a State government, and apply for admission into the Union as a State. The first step taken by the people of the Territory, in consequence of the invasion of March 30, 1855, was the circulation for signature of a graphic and truthful memorial to Congress. Your Committee find that every allegation in this memorial has been sustained by the testimony. No further step was taken, as it was hoped that some action by the General Government would protect them in their rights. When the alleged legislative assembly proceeded to construct the series of enactments referred to, the settlers were of opinion that submission to them would result in depriving them of the rights secured to them by the organic law. Their political condition was freely discussed in the Territory during the summer of 1855. Several meetings were held in reference to holding a convention to form a State government, and to apply for admission into the Union as a State. Public opinion gradually settled in favor of such an application to the Congress to meet in December, 1855. The first general meeting was held in Lawrence on the 15th of August, 1855.

The following preamble and resolutions were then passed

"Whereas, The people of Kansas have been, since its settlement, and now are, without any law-making power, therefore be it

"Resolved, That we, the people of Kansas Territory, in mass meeting assembled, irrespective of party distinctions, influenced by common necessity, and greatly desirous of promoting the common good, do hereby call upon and request all bona fide citizens of Kansas Territory, of whatever political views or predilections, to consult together in their respective Election Districts and in mass convention or otherwise, elect three delegates for each representative to which said Election District is entitled in the House of Representatives of the Legislative Assembly, by proclamation of Governor Reeder, of date 19th of March, 1855; said delegates to assemble in convention, at the town of Topeka, on the 19th day of September, 1855, then and there to consider and determine upon all subjects of public interest, and particularly upon that having reference to the speedy formation of a State Constitution, with an intention of an immediate application to be admitted as a State into the Union of the United States of America."

Other meetings were held in various parts of the Territory, which indorsed the action of the Lawrence meeting, and delegates were selected in compliance with its recommendations.

They met at Topeka, on the 19th day of September, 1855. By their resolutions, they provided for the appointment of an Executive Committee, to consist of seven persons, who were required to "keep a record of their proceedings, and shall have a general superintendence of the affairs of the Territory so far as regards the organization of the State Government." They were required to take steps for an election to be held on the second Tuesday of the October following, under regulations imposed by that Committee, "for members of a Convention to form a Constitution, adopt a Bill of Rights for the people of Kansas, and take all needful measures for organizing a State Government, preparatory to the admission of Kansas into the Union as a State." The rules prescribed were such as usually govern elections in most of the States of the Union, and in most respects were similar to those contained in the proclamation of Gov. Reeder for the election of March 30, 1855.

The Executive Committee appointed by that Convention accepted their appointment, and entered upon the discharge of their duties by issuing a proclamation addressed to the legal voters of Kansas, requesting them to meet at their several precincts, at the time and places named in the proclamation, then and there to cast their ballots for members of a Constitutional Convention, to meet at Topeka on the 4th Tuesday of October then next.

The proclamation designated the places of elections, appointed judges, recited the qualifications of voters and the apportionment of members of the Convention.

After this proclamation was issued, public meetings were held in every district in the Territory, and in nearly every precinct. The State movement was a general topic of discussion throughout the Territory, and there was but little opposition exhibited to it. Elections were held at the time and places designated, and the returns were sent to the Executive Committee.

The result of the election was proclaimed by the Executive Committee, and the members elect were required to meet on the 28d day of October, 1855, at Topeka. In pursuance of this proclamation and direction, the Constitutional Convention met at the time and place appointed, and formed a State Constitution. A memorial

104

to Congress was also prepared, praying for the admission of Kansas into the Union under that Constitution. The Convention also provided that the question of the adoption of the Constitution and other questions be submitted to the people, and required the Executive Committee to take the necessary steps for that purpose.

Accordingly, an election was held for that purpose on the 15th day of December, 1855, in compliance with the proclamation issued by the Executive Committee. The returns of this election were made by the Executive Committee, and an abstract of them is contained in the following table:

ABSTRACT OF THE ELECTION ON THE ADOPTION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, DEC. 15, 1855.
District Precincts. Constitution. General Banking Law Exclusion of Negroes and Mulattoes No. of Votes cast
Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No.
1. Lawrence 348 1 225 83 133 223 356
Blanton 72 2 59 14 48 20 76
Palmyra 11 1 9 3 12 12
Franklin 48 4 31 15 48 2 53
2 Bloomington 137 122 11 113 15 137
East Douglas 18 13 4 14 4 18
3 Topeka 135 125 9 69 64 136
Washington 42 41 1 42 42
Brownsville 24 22 2 22 2 24
Tecumseh 35 23 11 35 35
4 Prairie City 72 39 38 69 3 72
5 LittleOsage 21 7 16 12 23 7 31
BigSugar 18 2 5 16 20 21
Neosho 12 6 6 12 12
Potawatamie 39 3 21 19 25 I8 43
Little Sugar 42 18 33 13 42 2 60
Stanton 32 4 33 33 5 37
Osawatomie 56 1 33 20 38 17 59
7 Titus 39 5 32 7 25 15 44
Juniata 30 23 6 10 19 31
8 Ohio City 21 16 5 20 1 21
Mill Creek 20 20 20 20
St. Mary's 14 14 14 14
Waubaunsee 19 17 1 7 11 19
9 Pawnee 45 15 29 40 5 45
Grasshopper Falls 54 19 34 50 3 54
10 Doniphan 22 5 14 21 22
Burr Oak 23 7 16 22 1 23
Jesse Padur's 12 1 11 12 12
11 ocena 28 8 20 28 28
Kickapoo 20 7 13 16 4 20
13 Pleasant Hill 47 37 6 45 1 47
Indiana 19 18 19 19
Whitfield 7 3 4 6 7
14 Wolf River 24 11 12 18 6 24
St. Joseph's Bottom 15 4 9 14 1 15
15 Mt. Pleasant 32 32 1 30 2 33
16 Easton 71 2 53 19 71 73
17 Mission 7 3 1 2 7
  Total 1731 46 1120 564 1287 453 1778

N. B. — Poll-Book at Leavenworth was destroyed.

The Executive Committee then issued a proclamation reciting the results of the election of the 15th of December, and at the same time provided for an election to be held on the 15th day of January, 1856, for State officers and members of the General Assembly of the State of Kansas. An election was accordingly held in the several election-precincts, the returns of which were sent to the Executive Committee.

The result of this election was announced by a proclamation by the Executive Committee.

In accordance with the Constitution thus adopted, the members of the State Legislature and most of the State officers met on the day and at the place designated by the State Constitution, and took the oath therein prescribed.

After electing United States Senators, passing some preliminary laws, and appointing a Codifying Committee and preparing a Memorial to Congress, the General Assembly adjourned to meet on the 4th day of July, 1856.

The laws passed were all conditional upon the admission of Kansas as a State into the Union. These proceedings were regular, and, in the opinion of your Committee, the Constitution thus adopted fairly expresses the will of the majority of the settlers. They now await the action of Congress upon their memorial.

These elections, whether they were conducted in pursuance of law or not, were not illegal. Whether the result of them is sanctioned by the action of Congress, or they are regarded as the mere expression of popular will, and Congress should refuse to grant the prayer of the memorial, that cannot, affect their legality. The right of the people to assemble and express their political opinion in any form, whether by means of an election or a convention, is secured to them by the Constitution of the United States. Even if the elections are to be regarded as the act of a party, whether political or otherwise, they were proper, in accordance with examples, both in States and Territories.

The elections, however, were preceded and followed by acts of violence on the part of those who opposed them, and those persons who approved and sustained the invasion from Missouri were peculiarly hostile to these peaceful movements preliminary to the organization of a State government. Instances of this violence will be referred to hereafter.

To provide for the election of delegates to Congress, and at the same time do it in such a manner as to obtain the judgment of the House of Representatives upon the validity of the alleged legislative assembly sitting at Shawnee Mission, a convention was held at Big Springs on the 5th and 6th days of September, 1855. This was a party convention, and a party calling itself the Free-State party was then organized. It was in no way connected with the State movement, except that the election of a delegate to Congress was fixed by it on the same day as the election of members of a constitutional convention, instead of the day prescribed by the alleged

105

legislative assembly. Andrew H. Reeder was put in nomination as Territorial delegate to Congress, and an election was provided for under the regulations prescribed for the election of March 30, 1855, excepting as to the appointment of officers, and the persons to whom the returns of the elections should be made. The election was held in accordance with these regulations, and A. H. Reeder received 2,827 votes.

The resolutions passed by this convention indicate the state of feeling which existed in the Territory in consequent of the invasion from Missouri, and the enactments of the alleged legislative assembly. The language of some of the resolutions is violent, and can only be justified either in consequence of the attempt to enforce the grossest acts of tyranny, or for the purpose of guarding against a similar invasion in future.

In the fall of 1855, there sprang out of the existing discords and excitement in the Territory, two secret Free-State societies. They were defensive in their character, and were designed to form a protection to their members against unlawful acts of violence and assault. One of the societies was purely of a local character, and was confined to the town of Lawrence. Very shortly after its organization, it produced its desired effect, and then went out of use and ceased to exist. Both societies were cumbersome, and of no utility except to give confidence to the Free-State men, and enable them to know and aid each other in contemplated danger. So far as the evidence shows, they led to no act of violence in resistance to either real or alleged laws.

On the 21st day of November, 1855, F. M. Coleman, a Pro-slavery man, and Charles W. Dow, a Free-State man, had a despute about the division line between their respective claims. Several hours afterward, as Dow was passing from a blacksmith shop toward his claim, and by the cabin of Coleman, the latter shot Dow with a double-barreled gun loaded with slugs. Dow was unarmed. He fell across the road and died immediately. This was about 1 o'clock, P. M. His dead body was allowed to lie where it fell until after sundown, when it was conveyed by Jacob Branson to his house, at which Dow boarded. The testimony in regard to this homicide is voluminous, and shows clearly that it was a deliberate murder by Coleman, and that Harrison Bulkley and a Mr. Hargous were accessories to it. The excitement caused by it was very great among all classes of the settlers. On the 26th, a large meeting of citizens was held at the place where the murder was committed, and resolutions passed that Coleman should be brought to justice. In the meantime, Coleman had gone to Missouri, and then to Gov. Shannon, at Shawnee Mission, in Johnson County. He was there taken into custody by S. J. Jones, then acting as Sheriff. No warrant was issued or examination had. On the day of the meeting at Hickory Point, Harrison Bradley procured a peace warrant against Jacob Branson, which was placed in the hands of Jones. That same evening, after Branson had gone to bed, Jones came to his cabin with a party of about 26 persons, among whom were Hargous and Buckley — burst open the door, and saw Branson in bed. He then drew his pistol, cocked it, and presented it to Branson's breast, and said, "You are my prisoner, and if you move I will blow you through." The others cocked their guns and gathered round him, and took him prisoner. They all mounted and went to Buckley's house. After a time, they went on a circuitous route toward Blanton's Bridge, stopping to "drink" on the way. As they approached the bridge, there were thirteen in the party, several having stopped. Jones rode up to the prisoner and, among other things, told him that he had "heard there were one hundred men at your house to-day," and "that he regretted they were not there, and that they were cheated out of their sport." In the meantime, the alarm had been given in the neighborhood of Branson's arrest, and several of the settlers, among whom were some who had attended the meeting at Hickory Point that day, gathered together. They were greatly excited; the alleged injustice of such an arrest of a quiet settler, under a peace warrant by "Sheriff Jones," aided by two men believed to be accessory to a murder, and who were allowed to be at large, exasperated them, and they proceeded as rapidly as possible by a nearer route than that taken by Jones, and stopped near the house of J. S. Abbott, one of them. They were on foot as Jones's party approached on a canter. The rescuers suddenly formed across the road in front of Jones and his party. Jones halted, and asked, "What's up?" The reply was, "That's what we want to know. What's up?" Branson said, "They have got me a prisoner." Some one in the rescuing party told him to come over to their side. He did so, and dismounted, and the mule he rode was driven over to Jones's party. Jones then left. Of the persons engaged in this rescue, three were from Lawrence, and had attended the meeting. Your Committee have deemed it proper to detai1 the particulars of this rescue, as it was made the groundwork of what is known as the Wakerusa War. On the same night of the rescue, the cabins of Coleman and Buckley were burned, but by whom, is left in doubt by the testimony.

On the morning of the rescue of Branson, Jones was at the village of Franklin, near Lawrence. The rescue was spoken of in the presence of Jones, and more conversation passed between two others in his presence, as to whether it was most proper to send for assistance to Col. Boone, in Missouri, or to Gov. Shannon. Jones wrote a dispatch and handed it to a messenger. As soon as he started, Jones said: "That man is taking my dispatch to Missouri, and by G — d I'll have revenge before I see Missouri." A person present, who was examined as a witness, complained publicly that the dispatch was not sent to the Governor; and within half an hour one was sent to the Governor by Jones, through Hargous. Within a few days, large numbers of men from the State of Missouri gathered and encamped on the Wakerusa. They brought with them all the equipments of war. To obtain them, a party of men under the direction of Judge T. V. Thompson broke into the United States arsenal and armory at Liberty, Missouri, and after a forcable detention of Captain Leonard (then in charge) they took the cannon, muskets, rifles, powder, harness, and indeed all the materials and munitions of war they desired, some of which have never been returned or accounted for.

The chief hostility of this military foray was against the town of Lawrence, and this was especially the case with the officers of the law.

Your Committee can see in the testimony no reason, excuse, or palliation for this feeling. Up to this time, no warrant or proclamation of any kind had been in the hands of any officer against any citizen of Lawrence. No arrest had been attempted, and no writ resisted in that town. The rescue of Branson sprang out of a murder committed thirteen miles from Lawrence, in a detached settlement, and neither the town nor its citizens extended any protection to Branson's rescuers. On the contrary, two or three days after the rescue, S. N. Wood, who claimed publicly to be one of the rescuing party, wished to be arrested for the purpose of testing the Territorial laws, and walked up to Sheriff Jones and shook hands with him, and exchanged other courtesies. He could have been arrested without difficulty, and it was his design, when he went to Mr. Jones, to be arrested; but no attempt was made to do so.

It is obvious that the only cause of this hostility is the known desire of the citizens of Lawrence to make Kansas a Free State, and their repugnance to laws imposed upon them by non-residents.

Your Committee do not propose to detail the incidents connected with this foray. Fortunately for the peace of the country, a direct conflict between the opposing forces was avoided by an amicable arrangement. The losses sustained by the settlers in property taken and time and money expended in their own defense, added much to the trials incident to a new settlement. Many persons were unlawfully taken and detained in some cases, under circumstances of gross cruelty. This was especially so in the arrest and treatment of Dr. G. A. Cutter and G. F. Warren. They were taken, without cause or warrant, sixty miles from Lawrence, and when Dr. Cutter was quite sick. They were compelled to go to the camp at Lawrence, were put into the custody of "Sheriff Jones," who had no process to arrest them — they were taken into a small room kept as a liquor shop, which was open and very cold. That night, Jones came in with others, and went to "playing poker at twenty-five cents ante." The prisoners were obliged to sit up all night, as there was no room to lie down, when the men were playing. Jones insulted them frequently, and told one of them he must either "tell or swing." The guard then objected to this treatment of prisoners, and Jones desisted. . . .

While we remained in the Territory, repeated acts of outrage were committed upon the quiet, unoffending citizens, of which we received authentic intelligence. Men were attacked on the highway, robbed, and subsequently imprisoned. Men were seized and searched, and their weapons of defense taken from them without compensation.

Horses were frequently taken and appropriated. Oxen were taken from the yoke while plowing, and butchered in the presence of their owners. One young man was seized in the streets of the town of Atchison, and, under circumstances of gross barbarity, was tarred and cottoned, and in that condition was sent to his family. All the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, securing persons and property, are utterly disregarded. The officers of the law, instead of protecting the people, were

106

in some instances engaged in these outrages, and in no instance did we learn that any man was arrested, indicted, or punished for any of these crimes. While such offenses were committed with impunity, the laws were used as a means of indicting men for holding elections, preliminary to framing a Constitution and applying for admission into the Union as the State of Kansas. Charges of high treason were made against prominent citizens upon grounds which seem to your Committee absurd and ridiculous, and under these charges they are now held in custody and are refused the privilege of bail. In several cases, men were arrested in the State of Missouri, while passing on their lawful business through that State, and detained until indictments could be found in the Territory.

These proceedings were followed by an offense of still greater magnitude. Under color of legal process, a company of about 700 armed men, the great body of whom, your Committee are satisfied, were not citizens of the Territory, marched into the town of Lawrence, under Marshal Donaldson and S. J. Jones, officers claiming to act under the law, and bombarded and then burned to the ground a valuable hotel and one private house; destroyed two printing presses and material; and then, being released by the officers, whose posse they claimed to be, proceeded to sack, pillage, and rob houses, stores, trunks, etc., even to the clothing of women and children. Some of the letters thus unlawfully taken were private ones, written by the contesting Delegate, and they were offered in evidence. Your Committee did not deem that the persons holding them had any right thus to use them, and refused to be made the instruments to report private letters thus obtained.

This force was not resisted, because it was collected and marshaled under the forms of law. But this act of barbarity, unexampled in the history of our Government, was followed by its natural consequences. All the restraints which American citizens are accustomed to pay even to the appearance of law, were thrown off; one act of violence led to another; homicides became frequent. A party under H. C. Pate, composed chiefly of citizens of Missouri, were taken prisoners by a party of settlers; and while your Committee were at Westport, a company chiefly of Missourians, accompanied by the acting Delegate, went to relieve Pate and his party, and a collision was prevented by the United States troops. Civil war has seemed impending in the Territory. Nothing can prevent so great a calamity but the presence of a large force of United States troops, under a commander who will with prudence and discretion quiet the excited passions of both parties, and expel with force the armed bands of lawless men coming from Missouri and elsewhere, who with criminal pertinacity infest that Territory.

In some cases, and as to one entire election district, the condition of the country prevented the attendance of witnesses, who were either arrested or detained while obeying our process, or deterred from so doing. The Sergeant-at-Arms, who served the process upon them, was himself arrested or detained for a short time by an armed force, claiming to be a part of the posse of the Marshal, but was allowed to proceed upon an examination of his papers, and was furnished with a pass, signed by "Warren D. Wilkes, of South Carolina." John Upton, another officer of the Committee, was subsequently stopped by a lawless force on the borders of the Territory, and after being detained and treated with great indignity, was released. He also was furnished with a pass signed by two citizens of Missouri, and addressed to "Pro-Slavery men." By reason of these disturbances, we were delayed in Westport, so that while in session there, our time was but partially occupied.

But the obstruction which created the most serious embarrassment to your Committee, was the attempted arrest of Gov. Reeder, the contesting Delegate, upon a writ of attachment issued against him by Judge Lecompte, to compel his attendance as a witness before the Grand Jury of Douglas County. William Fane, recently from the State of Georgia, and claiming to be the Deputy Marshal, came into the room of the Committee, while Gov. Reeder was examining a witness before us, and producing the writ required Gov. Reeder to attend him. Subsequent events have only strengthened the conviction of your Committee, that this was a wanton and unlawful interference by the Judge who issued the writ, tending greatly to obstruct a full and fair investigation. Gov. Reeder and Gen. Whitfield alone were fully possessed of that local information which would enable us to elicit the whole truth, and it was obvious to every one that any event which would separate either of them from the Committee, would necessarily hinder, delay, and embarrass it. Gov. Reeder claimed that, under the circumstances in which he was placed, he was privileged from arrest except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. As this was a question of privilege, proper for the Courts, or for the privileged person alone to determine on his peril, we declined to give him any protection or take any action in the matter. He refused to obey the writ, believing it to be a mere pretense to get the custody of his person, and fearing, as he alleged, that he would be assassinated by lawless bands of men then gathering in and near Lecompton. He then left the Territory.

Subsequently, H. Miles Moore, an attorney in Leavenworth City, but for several years a citizen of Weston, Mo., kindly furnished the Committee information as to the residence of persons voting at the elections, and in some cases examined witnesses before us. He was arrested on the streets of that town by an armed band of about thirty men, headed by W. D. Wilkes, without any color of authority, confined, with other citizens, under a military guard for twenty-four hours, and then notified to leave the Territory. His testimony was regarded as important, and upon his sworn statement that it would endanger his person to give it openly, the majority of your Committee deemed it proper to examine him ex-parte, and did so.

By reason of these occurrences, the contestant and the party with and for whom he acted, were unrepresented before us during a greater portion of the time, and your Committee were required to ascertain the truth in the best manner they could.

Your Committee report the following facts and conclusions as established by the testimony:
First. That each election in the Territory, held under the organic or alleged Territorial law, has been carried by organized invasions from the State of Missouri, by which the people of the Territory have been prevented from exercising the rights secured to them by the organic law.

Second. That the alleged Territorial Legislature was an illegally-constituted body, and had no power to pass valid laws, and their enactments are, therefore, null and void.

Third. That these alleged laws have not, as a general thing, been used to protect persons and property and to punish wrong, but for unlawful purposes.

Fourth. That the election under which the sitting Delegate, John W. Whitfield, holds his seat, was not held in pursuance of any valid law, and that it should be regarded only as the expression of the choice of those resident citizens who voted for him.

Fifth. That the election under which the contesting Delegate, Andrew H. Reeder, claims his seat, was not held in pursuance of law, and that it should be regarded only as the expression of the choice of the resident citizens who voted for him.

Sixth. That Andrew H. Reeder received a greater number of votes of resident citizens than John W. Whitfield, for Delegate.

Seventh. That in the present condition of the Territory, a fair election cannot be held without a new census, a stringent and well-guarded election law, the selection of impartial Judges, and the presence of United States troops at every place of election.

Eighth. That the various elections held by the people of the Territory preliminary to the formation of the State Government have been as regular as the disturbed condition of the Territory would allow; and that the Constitution passed by the Convention, held in pursuance of said elections, embodies the will of a majority of the people.

As it is not the province of your Committee to suggest remedies for the existing troubles in the Territory of Kansas, they content themselves with the foregoing statement of facts.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

WM. A. HOWARD,
JOHN SHERMAN.

The Topeka Constitution.

The Free-State Constitution framed at Topeka for Kansas, by the Convention called by the Free-State party, (as set forth in the foregoing documents,) was in due season submitted to Congress — Messrs. Andrew H. Reeder (the Free-State Territorial delegate) and James H. Lane having been chosen by the first Free-State Legislature, Senators of the United States, and Mr. M. W. Delahay elected Representative in the House, by the Free-State men of Kansas. Of course, these were not entitled to their seats until the aforesaid instrument (known as the "Topeka Constitution") should be accepted by Congress, and the State thereupon admitted into the Union. This Constitution, being formally presented in either House, was received and

107

referred to their respective Committees on Territories; but the accompanying Memorial from the Free-State Legislature, setting forth the grounds of the application, and praying for admission as a State, was, after having been received by the Senate, reconsidered, rejected, and returned to Col. Lane, on the allegation that material changes had been made in it since it left Kansas. The Senate, in like manner, rejected repeated motions to accept the Constitution, and thereupon admit Kansas as a Free State — there never being more than Messrs. Hamlin and Fessenden, of Maine, Hale and Bell, of New-Hampshire, Collamer and Foot, of Vermont, Sumner and Wilson, of Mass., Foster, of Connecticut, Seward and Fish, of New-York, Wade, of Ohio, Durkee and Dodge, of Wisconsin, Trumbull, of Illinois, and Harlan, of Iowa, (16) Senators in favor of such admission, and these never all present at the same time.

In the House — the aforesaid Constitution and Memorial having been submitted to the Committee on Territories — its Chairman, Mr. Grow, of Penna., from a majority of said Committee, reported in favor of the admission of Kansas under such Constitution, as a Free State; and after debate the Previous Question thereon was ordered (June 28th) by a vote of 98 Ayes to 63 Noes. Previous to this, however, Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, had proposed, as an amendment or substitute, a radically different bill, contemplating the appointment by the President and Senate of five Commissioners, who should repair to Kansas, take a census of the inhabitants and legal voters, and thereupon proceed to apportion, during the month of September, 1856, the delegates (52) to form a Constitutional Convention, to be elected by the legal voters aforesaid; said delegates to be chosen on the day of the Presidential election (Tuesday, Nov. 4th, 1856), and to assemble in Convention on the first Monday in December, 1856, to form a State Constitution. The bill proposed, also, penalties for illegal voting at said election.

To this substitute-bill, Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, proposed the following amendment, to come in at the end as an additional section

SEC. 18. — And be it further enacted, That so much of the fourteenth section and of the thirty-second section of the act passed at the first session of the Thirty-Third Congress, commonly called the Kansas and Nebraska act, as reads as follows: "Except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the 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 State or Territory, or 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 the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing Slavery," be, and the same is hereby, repealed. Provided, That any person or persons lawfully held to service within either of the Territories named in said act shall be discharged from such service, if they shall not be removed and kept out of said Territories within twelve months from the passage of this act.

Mr. Dunn's amendment to the Stephens amendment or substitute, was carried: Yeas, 109, Nays, 102.

Mr. Stephens's substitute, as thus amended by its adversaries, was abandoned by its original friends, and received but two votes — those of Messrs. George G. Dunn, of Indiana, and John Scott Harrison, of Ohio — Nays, 210.

Mr. Dunn had previously moved a reference of the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. This was now defeated: Yeas, 101; Nays, 109.

Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, now moved that the bill do lie on the table, which was defeated. Yeas, 106; Nays, 107; (Barclay of Pennsylvania, Dunn of Indiana, Haven and Williams, of New-York. — Yeas: Bayard Clarke, of New-York, Hickman and Millward, of Pennsylvania, Moore, of Ohio, and Scott, of Indiana. — Nays: Scott Harrison, of Ohio, not voting, Wells of Wisconsin, absent). The House now refused to adjourn by 106 to 102; and, after a long struggle, the final question was reached, and the bill rejected: Yeas, 106; Nays, 107.

So the bill was lost.

July 1st. — Mr. Barclay, (Dem.) of Pennsylvania rose to a privileged motion. He moved a reconsideration of the preceding vote, by which the Free-Kansas bill had been rejected. A stormy debate ensued, in the midst of which Mr. Howard, of Michigan, rose to a question of higher privilege (as affecting the right of a member [delegate] to his seat) and submitted the report of the Kansas Investigating Committee (already given). The Speaker sustained the motion, and the House sustained the Speaker. The report was thereupon presented and read, consuming a full day.

July 3rd. — The question of reconsidering the vote defeating the Free-Kansas bill was again reached. Mr. Houston, of Alabama, moved that it do lie on the table; defeated: Yeas, 97; Nays, 102. The main question was then ordered: Yeas, 101; Nays, 98; and the reconsideration carried: Yeas, 101; Nays, 99. The previous question on the passage of the bill was now ordered: Yeas, 99; Nays, 96; a motion by Mr. McQueen, of South Carolina, to lay the bill on the table was defeated: Yeas, 97; Nays, 100; and then the bill was finally passed: Yeas, 99; Nays, 97.

Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, moved the reconsideration of this vote, and that the motion to reconsider do lie on the table, which was permitted, without further division.

June 30th. — Mr. Douglas reported to the Senate on several bills submitted by Messrs. Clayton, Tombs, and others, for the pacification of the Kansas troubles, as also decidedly against Gov. Seward's proposition to admit Kansas as a Free State, under her Topeka Constitution. Mr. Collamer, being the minority of the Territorial Committee, made a brief and pungent counter-report. Mr. Douglas gave notice that he would ask for a final vote on the day after the next.

July 1st. — Bill debated by Messrs. Thompson of Ky., Hale of N. H., Bigler of Pa., Adams of Miss., and Crittenden of Ky.

July 2d. — Debate continued through the day and following night, the majority resisting all motions to adjourn. Messrs. Wade, Pugh, Briggs, Bigler, Toombs, Clayton, Crittenden, Bell, Seward, Hale, and nearly half the Senate

108

participated. An amendment moved by Mr. Adams, of Miss., the day before, striking out so much of the bill as secures the Right of Suffrage, in the proposed reorganization of Kansas, to alien residents who shall have declared their intention to become citizens, and renounced all allegiance to foreign governments, was adopted: Yeas, 22; Nays, 16.

Some time in the morning of July 3d, the following amendment, reduced to shape by Mr. Geyer, of Mo., was added to the 18th section of the bill — only Brown, of Miss., Fitzpatrick, of Ala., and Mason, of Va., voting against it: Yeas, 40. It provides that

No law shall be made or have force or effect in said Territory [of Kansas] which shall require any attestation or oath to support any act of Congress or other legislative act, as a qualification for any civil office, public trust, or for any employment or profession, or to serve as a juror, or vote at an election, or which shall impose any tax upon, or condition to, the exercise of the right of suffrage, by any qualified voter, or which shall restrain or prohibit the fee discussion of any law or subject of legislation in the said Territory, or the fee expression of opinion thereon by the people of said Territory.

Mr. Trumbull, of Ill., moved the following

And be it further enacted, That it was the true intent and meaning of the "act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas," not to legislate Slavery into Kansas, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free through their Territorial Legislature to regulate the institution of Slavery in their own way, subject to the Constitution of the United States; and that, until the Territorial Legislature acts upon the subject, the owner of a slave in one of the States has no right or authority to take such slave into the Territory of Kansas, and there hold him as a slave; but every slave taken to the Territory of Kansas by his owner for purposes of settlement is hereby declared to be free, unless there is some valid act of a duly constituted Legislative Assembly of said Territory, under which he may be held as a slave.

The Yeas and Nays being ordered, the proposition was voted down — Yeas, 9; Nays, 34 — as follows:
YEAS. — Messrs. Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbell, Wade, and Wilson — 9.

NAYS. — Messrs. Adams, Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Ivenson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Welter Wright, and Yulee — 34.

Mr. Trumbull then proposed that the Kansas-Nebraska act was intended to, and does, confer upon, or leave to, the people of the Territory of Kansas full power, at any time, through its Territorial Legislature, to exclude Slavery from said Territory, or to recognize and regulate it therein.

This, too, was voted down. Mr. Trumbull then proposed the following

And be it further enacted, That all the acts and proceeedings of all and every body of men heretofore assembled in said Territory of Kansas, and claiming to be a Legislative Assembly thereof, with authority to pass laws for the government, of said Territory, are hereby declared to be utterly null and void. And no person shall hold any office, or exercise any authority or jurisdiction in said Territory, under or by virtue of any power or authority derived from such Legislative Assembly; nor shall the members thereof exercise any power or authority as such.

This, too, was voted down, as follows:
YEAS. — Messrs. Bell of New-Hampshire, Collamer, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson — 11.

NAYS. — Messrs. Adams, Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Mallory, Mason, Pratt Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weller, Wright, and Yulee — 36.

Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, moved the following amendment

SEC. — And be it further enacted, That, until the inhabitants of said Territory shall proceed to hold a Convention to form a State Constitution according to the provisions of this act, and so long as said Territory remains a Territory, the following sections contained in chapter one hundred and fifty-one, in the volume transmit led to the Senate, by the President of the United States, as containing the laws of Kansas, be, and the same are hereby, declared to be utterly null and void, viz.

"§12. If any one person, by speaking or by writing, assert or maintain that persons have not the right to hold slaves in this Territory, or shall introduce into this Territory any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or circular, containing any denial of the right of persons to hold slaves in this Territory, such persons shall be deemed guilty of felony, and punished by imprisonment, at hard labor for a term of not less than two years.

"§13. No person who is conscientiously opposed to holding slaves, or who does not admit the right 10 hold slaves in this Territory, shall sit, as a juror on the trial of any prosecution for the violation of any one of the sections of this act."

This was rejected [as superfluous, or covered by a former amendment,] as follows:
YEAS. — Messrs. Allen, Bell of New-Hampshire, Clayton, Collamer, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson — 13.

NAYS. — Messrs. Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weiler, Wright, and Yulee — 32.

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved that the whole bill be stricken out and another inserted instead, repealing all the Territorial laws of Kansas.

Rejected: Yeas, 8, (Bell, of New-Hampshire, Collamer, Durkee, Fessenden, Foster, Seward, Wade, and Wilson;) Nays, 35.

Mr. Seward moved to strike out the whole bill, and insert instead one admitting Kansas as a Free State, under the Topeka Constitution: Defeated — Yeas, 11; Nays, 36 — as follows:
YEAS. — Messrs. Bell of New-Hampshire, Collamer, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson — 11.

NAYS. — Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reed, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weiler, Wright, and Yulee — 36.

The bill was now reported as amended, and the amendment made in Committee of the Whole concurred in. The bill was then (8 A. M.) 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, Weiler, Wright, and Yule — 33.

NAYS. — Messrs. Bell of New-Hampshire, Collamer, Dodge, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson — 12.

The bill was then sent to the House. It provides that five competent persons appointed by the President, shall take a census of the legal voters of the Territory on the 4th of July, 1856, these to be apportioned into 52 districts, for the purpose of electing delegates to form a State Constitution; it imposes penalties for using force or threats to influence any qualified voter

109

in giving his vote, or to deter him from going to the polls; the delegates elected under this act to assemble in Convention on the 1st Monday of December, 1856, to first determine by vote whether it is expedient to form a State Constitution and Government, and if it is decided to be expedient, to proceed to form a Constitution and Government for the State of Kansas, with the boundaries defined in this act.

The bill was never acted on in the House, but lay on the Speaker's table, untouched, when the session terminated by adjournment, Monday, Aug.18th.

July 8th — In Senate, 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. Hale, of N. H., moved to amend this substitute by providing that all who migrate to the Territory prior to July 4th, 1857, shall be entitled to a vote in determining the character of the institutions of Kansas. Lost: Yeas, 13; Nays, 32.

Mr. Trumbull, of Ill., moved that all the Territorial laws of Kansas be repealed and the Territorial officers dismissed. Rejected: Yeas, 12; Nays, 32.

Mr. Collamer, of Vt., proposed an amendment, prohibiting Slavery in all that portion of the Louisiana purchase north of 360 30' not included in the Territory of Kansas. Rejected — Yeas, 12; Nays, 30 — as follows:
YEAS. — Messrs. Bell of N. H., Collamer, Dodge, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Seward, Trumbull and Wade.

NAYS. — Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bright, Brodhead, Butler, Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Douglas, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tenn., Mallory Mason, Pearce, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Ky., Toombs, Weller, and Yulee.

The substitute reported by Mr. Douglas was then agreed to — Yeas, 32; Nays, 13 — and the bill in this shape passed.[This amendment was not concurred in nor ever acted on by the House.]

Mr. Dunn's Kansas Bill.

July 29th. — Mr. Dunn, of Ind., called up a bill "To reorganize the Territory of Kansas and for other purposes," which he had originally (July 7th) proposed as a substitute for the Senate bill (No. 356) aforesaid. Its length, and the substantial identity of many of its provisions with those of other bills organizing Territories contained in this volume, dissuade us from quoting it entire. It provides for a legislative election on the first Tuesday in November next; and section 15 proceeds

§ 15. And be it further enacted, That all suits, processes, and proceedings, civil and criminal, at law and in chancery, and all indictments and informations which shall be pending and undetermined in the courts of the Territory of Kansas or of New-Mexico, when this act shall take effect, shall remain in said courts where pending, to be heard, tried, prosecuted, and determined in such courts as though this act had not been passed: Provided, neverthless, That all criminal prosecutions now pending in any of the courts of the Territory of Kansas imputing to any person or persons the crime of treason against the United States, and all criminal prosecutions, by information of indictment, against any person or persons for any alleged violation or disregard whatever of what are usually known as the Laws of the Legislature of Kansas, shall be forthwith dismissed by the courts where such prosecutions may be pending, and every person who may be restrained of his Liberty by reason of said prosecutions, shall be released there from without delay. Nor shall there hereafter be instituted any criminal prosecution, in any of the courts of the United States, or of said Territory, against any person or persons for any such charge of treason in said Territory prior to the passage of this act, or any violation or disregard of said Legislative enactments at any time.

§ 23 grants to every actual settler a right of preemption to the quarter-section of public land improved and occupied by him in said Territory of Kansas, prior to Jan. 1st, 1858.

The two last and most important sections or Mr. Dunn's bill are verbatim as follows

§ 24. And be it further enacted, That so much of the fourteenth section, and also so much of the thirty-second section, of the act passed at the first session of the thirty-third Congress, commonly known as the Kansas-Nebraska act, as leads as follows, to wit: "Except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories as recognized by the 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 the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed, prior to the act of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing slavery" — be and the same is hereby repealed, and the said eighth section of said act of the 6th of March, 1820, is hereby revived and declared to be in full force and effect within the said Territories of Kansas and Nebraska: Provided, however, That any person lawfully held to service in either of said Territories shall not be discharged from such service by reason of such repeal and revival of said eighth section, if such person shall be permanently removed from such Territory or Territories prior to the lst day of January, 1858: and any child or children born in either of said Territories, of any female lawfully held to service, if in like manner removed without said Territories before the expiration of that date, shall not be, by reason of anything in this act, emancipated from any service it might have owed had this act never been passed: And provided further, That any person lawfully held to service in any other State or Territory of the United States, and escaping into either the Territory of Kansas or Nebraska, may be reclaimed and removed to the person or place where such services due, under any law of the United States which shall be in force upon the subject.

§ 25. And be it further enacted, That all other parts of the aforesaid Kansas-Nebraska act which relate to the said Territory of Kansas, and every other law or usage having, or which is pretended to have, any force or effect in said Territory in conflict with the provisions or the spirit of this act, except such laws of Congress and treaty stipulations as relate to the Indians, are hereby repealed and declared void.

Mr. Dunn, having carried a reference to the Committee of the Whole, of a bill introduced by Mr. Grow, repealing all the acts of the alleged Territorial Legislature of Kansas, now moved and carried a reconsideration of that vote, and proceeded to the striking out of "Mr. Grow's bill and the insertion of his own as a substitute. The motion prevailed. Where upon Mr. Dunn moved the previous question on ordering this bill to be engrossed and read a third time, which prevailed — Yeas, 92; Nays, 86 — and then the bill passed — Yeas, 88; Nays, 74.

This bill was not acted on by the Senate.

The House, in the course of its action on the several Annual Appropriation bills, affixed to several of them, respectively, provisos, abolishing, repealing or suspending the various obnoxious acts of the Territorial Legislature; but all these were resisted by the Senate and were

110

ultimately given up by the House, save one appropriating $20,000 for the pay and expenses of the next Territorial Legislature, which the Senate gave up, on finding itself in serious disagreement with the House, and thus secured the passage of the Civil Appropriation bill. Finally, the two Houses were at odds, on a proviso forbidding the employment of the Army to enforce the acts of the Shawnee Mission assemblage, claiming to be a Territorial Legislature of Kansas, when at noon on the 18th of August the speaker's hammer fell, announcing the termination of the session, leaving the Army bill unpassed. But President Pierce immediately issued a proclamation convening an extra session on the 21st (Thursday), when the two Houses reconvened accordingly, and a full quorum of each was found to be present. The House promptly repassed the army bill, again affixing a proviso forbidding the use of the army to enforce the disputed Territorial laws, which proviso the Senate as promptly struck out, and the House as promptly reinserted. The Senate insisted on its disagreement, but asked no conference, and the House (Aug. 22d) by a close vote decided to adhere to its proviso: Yeas, 97; Nays, 93; but one of the yeas (Bocock ofVa.) was so given in order to be able to move a reconsideration; so that the true division was 96 to 94, which was the actual division on a motion by Mr. Cobb of Ga. that the House recede from its position. Finally, a motion to reconsider was made and laid on the table;Yeas, 97; Nays, 96; and the House thereupon adjourned.

Aug. 23d. — The Senate also voted to adhere: Yeas, 35; Nays, 9.

Mr. Clayton proposed a committee of Conference, to which Mr. Seward objected. No action.

In the House, Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, proposed a similar Committee of Conference. Objected to.

Mr. Cobb, of Ga., moved that the House recede from its Kansas proviso. Defeated: Yeas, 97; Nays, 100. Adjourned.

The struggle for the passage of the bill with or without the proviso continued until Saturday, August 30th, when, several members, hostile to the proviso, and hitherto absent, unpaired, having returned, the House again passed the Army bill with the proviso modified as follows

Provided, however, that no part of the military force of the United States, for the support of which appropriations are made by this act, shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of any enactments heretofore made by the body claiming to be the Territorial Legislature of Kansas.

The bill passed as reported (under the Previous Question): Yeas, 99; Nays, 79; and was sent to the Senate, where the above proviso was stricken out: Yeas, 26; Nays, 7; and the bill thus returned to the House, when the Senate's amendment was concurred in: Yeas, 101; Nays, 97.

So the proviso was beaten at last, and the bill passed, with no restriction on the Presidents discretion in the use of the Army in Kansas; just as all attempts of the House to direct the President to have a nolle prosequi entered in the case of the Free-State prisoners in Kansas charged with aiding the formation and adoption of the Free-State constitution as aforesaid, had been previously beaten, after prevailing in the House — the Senate striking them out and the House (by union of nearly all the supporters of Fillmore with nearly or quite all those supporting Buchanan) finally acquiescing.

The 34th Congress reassembled on the 1st of December. Since the adjournment from the last session the presidential election had taken place, resulting in the election of James Buchanan as President. The popular vote gave neither of the three candidates a majority. In the Free States the election was hotly contested and a very large vote polled. In the Southern States the vote was small, as no issue was presented to the people, it being claimed by their respective partisans, that both the candidates (Buchanan and Fillmore) voted for in that section were equally Pro-Slavery. But the pro-slavery leaders had declared in favor of Buchanan, and he consequently received large majorities in nearly every Slave State.

On the first day of the session, Kansas affairs came up in the House on an objection to admit J. W. Whitfield to a seat as a delegate, the objection being that the border ruffian laws under which he had been elected were "null and void."

Mr. Grow spoke against admitting Whitfield, and quoted from a speech of Mr. Clayton (a short time before his decease) in the Senate. Mr. Clayton, in speaking of these laws, said

Now, sir, let me allude to that subject which is the great cause of all this discord between the two Houses. The unjust, iniquitous, oppressive and infamous laws enacted by the Kansas Legislature, as it is called, ought to be repealed before we adjourn." . . . . . . What are these laws? One of them sends a man to hard labor for not less than two years for daring to discuss the question whether Slavery exists, or does not exist, in Kansas: not less than two years — it may be fifty; and if a man could live as old as Methuselah, it might be over nine hundred years. That act prohibits all freedom of discussion in Kansas on the great subject directly referred to the exclusive decision of the people in that Territory; strikes down the liberty of the press too; and is an act egregiously tyrannical as ever was attempted by any of the Stuarts, Tudors or Plantagenets of England, and this Senate persists in declaring that we are not to repeal that!

Sir, let us tender to the House of Representatives the repeal of that and all other objectionable and infamous laws that were passed by that Legislature. I include in this denunciation, without any hesitation, those acts which prescribe that a man shall not even practice law in the Territory unless he swears to support the Fugitive Slave Law; that he shall not vote at any election, or be a member of the Legislature, unless he swears to support the Fugitive Slave Law; that he shall not hold any office of honor or trust there, unless he swears to support the Fugitive Slave Law; and you may as well impose just such a test oath for any other and every other law. . . I will not go through the whole catalogue of the oppressive laws of this Territory. I have done that before today. There are others as bad as these to which I have now referred. . . . . I will not, on the other hand, ever degrade myself by standing for an instant by those abominable and infamous laws which I denounced here this morning. What I desire now is, that the Senate of the United States shall wash its hands of all participation in these iniquities by repealing those laws.

President Pierce on Kansas.

On Dec. 2nd, President Pierce sent his annual message to the two Houses of Congress. In referring to the late election, the President says

It is impossible to misapprehend the great principles which, by their recent political action, the people of the United States have sanctioned and announced.

They have asserted the Constitutional equality of each and all of the States of the Union as States; they have affirmed the constitutional equality of each and all of the citizens of the United States as citizens, whatever

111

their religion, wherever their birth, or their residence; they have maintained the inviolability of the constitutional rights of the different sections of the Union; and they have proclaimed their devoted and unalterable attachment to the Union and the Constitution, as objects of interest superior to all subjects of local or sectional controversy, as the safeguard of the rights of all as the spirit and true essence of the liberty, peace, and greatness of the Republic.

In doing this, they have, at the same time, emphatically condemned the idea of organizing in these United States mere geographical parties; of marshalling in hostile array towards each other the different parts of the country, North or South, East or West.

Schemes of this nature, fraught with incalculable mischief, and which the considerate sense of the people has rejected, could have had countenance in no part of the country, had they not been disguised by suggestions plausible in appearance, acting upon an excited state of the public mind, induced by causes temporary in their character, and it is to be hoped transient in their influence.

Perfect liberty of association for political objects and the widest scope of discussion are the received and ordinary conditions of government in our country. Our institutions, framed in the spirit of confidence in the intelligence and integrity of the people, do not forbid citizens, either individually or associated together, to attack by writing, speech, or any other methods short of physical force, the Constitution and the very existence of the Union. Under the shelter of this great liberty, and protected by the laws and usages of the government they assail, associations have been formed in some of the States, of individuals who, pretending to seek only to prevent the spread of the institution of Slavery into the present or future inchoate States of the Union, are really inflamed with desire to change the domestic institutions of existing States. To accomplish their objects, they dedicate themselves to the odious task of depreciating the Government organization which stands in their way, and of calumniating, with indiscriminating invective, not only the citizens of particular States, with whose laws they find fault, but all others of their fellow-citizens throughout the country, who do not participate with them in their assaults upon the Constitution, framed and adopted by our fathers, and claiming for the privileges it has secured, and the blessings it has conferred, the steady support and grateful reverence of their children. They seek an object which they well know to be a revolutionary one. They are perfectly aware that the change in the relative condition of the white and black races in the slaveholding States, which they would promote, is beyond their lawful authority; that to them it is a foreign object; that it cannot be effected by any peaceful instrumentality of theirs; that for them, and the States of which they are citizens, the only path to its accomplishment is through burning cities, and ravaged fields, and slaughtered populations, and all there is most terrible in foreign, complicated with civil and servile war; and that the first step in the attempt is the forcible disruption of a country embracing in its broad bosom a degree of liberty, and an amount of individual and public prosperity to which there is no parallel in history, and substituting in its place hostile governments, driven at once and inevitably into mutual devastation and fratricidal carnage, transforming the now peaceful and felicitous brotherhood into a vast permanent camp of armed men, like the rival monarchies of Europe and Asia. Well knowing that such, and such only, are the means and the consequences of their plans and purposes, they endeavor to prepare the people of the United States for civil war by doing everything in their power to deprive the Constitution and the laws of moral authority, and to undermine the fabric of the Union by appeals to passion and sectional prejudice, by indoctrinating its people with reciprocal hatred, and by educating them to stand face to face as enemies, rather than shoulder to shoulder as friends.

It is by the agency of such unwarrantable interference, foreign and domestic, that the minds of many, otherwise good citizens, have been so inflamed into the passionate condemnation of the domestic institutions of the Southern States, as at length to pass insensibly to almost equally passionate hostility toward their fellow-citizens of those States, and thus, finally, to fall into the temporary fellowship with the avowed and active enemies of the Constitution. Ardently attached to liberty in the abstract, they do not stop to consider practically how the objects they would attain can be accomplished, nor to reflect that, even if the evil were as great as they deem it, they have no remedy to apply, and that it can be only aggravated by their violence and unconstitutional action. A question which is one of the most difficult of all the problems of social institutions, political economy, and statesmanship, they treat with unreasonable intemperance of thought and language. Extremes beget extremes. Violent attack from the North finds its inevitable consequence in the growth of a spirit of angry defiance at the South. Thus, in the progress of events, we had reached the consummation which the voice of the people has now so pointedly rebuked, of the attempt of a portion of the States, by a sectional organization and movement, to usurp the control of the Government of the United States.

I confidently believe that the great body of those who inconsiderately took this fatal step are sincerely attached to the Constitution and the Union. They would, upon deliberation, shrink with unaffected horror from any conscious act of disunion or civil war. But they have entered into a path which leads nowhere, unless it be to civil war and disunion, and which has no other possible outlet. They have proceeded thus far in that direction in consequence of the successive stages of their progress having consisted of a series of secondary issues, each of which professed to be confined within constitutional and peaceful limits, but which attempted indirectly what few men were willing to do directly; that is, to act aggressively against the constitutional rights of nearly one-half of the thirty-one States.

In the long series of acts of indirect aggression, the first was the strenuous agitation, by citizens of the Northern States, in Congress and out of it, of the question of negro emancipation in the Southern States.

In reference to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the legislative power of Congress over the Territories, the President says

The enactment which established the restrictive geographical line, was acquiesced in, rather than approved, by the States of the Union. It stood on the statute-book, however, for a number of years; and the people of the respective States acquiesced in the reenactment of the principle as applied to the State of Texas; and it was proposed to acquiesce in its further application to the territory acquired by the United States from Mexico. But this proposition was successfully resisted by the representatives from the Northern States, who, regardless of the statute line, insisted upon applying restriction to the new territory generally, whether lying north or south of it, thereby repealing it as a legislative compromise, and, on the part of the North, persistently violating the compact, if compact there was.

Thereupon, this enactment ceased to have binding virtue in any sense, whether as respects the North or the South; and so in effect it was treated on the occasion of the admission of the State of California, and the organization of the Territories of New Mexico, Utah and Washington.

Such was the state of this question when the time arrived for the organization of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. In the progress of constitutional inquiry and reflection, it had now at length come to be seen clearly that Congress does not possess constitutional power to impose restrictions of this character upon any present or future State of the Union. In a long series of decisions, on the fullest argument, and after the most deliberate consideration, the Supreme Court of the United States had finally determined this point in every form under which the question could arise, whether as affecting public or private rights — in questions of the public domain, of religion, of navigation, and of servitude.

The several States of the Union are, by force of the Constitution, coequal in domestic legislative power. Congress cannot change a law of domestic relation in the State of Maine: no more can it in the State of Missouri. Any statute which proposes to do this is a mere nullity; it takes away no right, it confers none. If it remains on the statute-book unrepealed, it remains there only as a monument of error, and a beacon of warning to the legislator and the statesman. To repeal it will be only to remove imperfection from the statutes, without affecting, either in the sense of permission or of prohibition, the action of the States, or of their citizens.

Still, when the nominal restriction of this nature, already a dead letter in law, was in terms repealed by the last Congress, in a clause of the act organizing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, that repeal was made the occasion of a wide spread and dangerous agitation. It was alleged that the original enactment being a compact of perpetual moral obligation, its repeal constituted an odious breach of faith.

On the motion to print the Message and accompanying documents, Mr. Hale, of N. H., said

I look on the message of the President as a most unfortunate

112

one. I have no desire to say anything which shall be construed into a want of courtesy, kindness, or respect for him. I mean all due courtesy, kindness and respect. His situation is certainly such as to appeal to the magnanimity rather than provoke the hostility of his opponents. If he had been content to submit to it, and go out, as it seemed to be the wish of his friends and foes that he should, without attempting to make such a charge as this against his political opponents, I should certainly have been content.

But, sir, this message of the President is an arraignment of a vast majority of the people of eleven States of this Union of want of fidelity to their constitutional obligations, and of hostility to the Union and Constitution of these States. I deny it totally. More than that; the President of the United States, by virtue of the privileges conferred on him by the Constitution, charges upon the majority of the people of these States, in the exercise of their constitutional prerogative of voting for whom they please, the high offense of endeavoring to "usurp" — this is his very language — "the control of the Government of the United States." "Usurp," if lexicographers understand the meaning of the word, is "to seize by force without right." I have observed in the history of the past few months no attempt in any section of the country, last and least in that section which the President arraigns, to seize upon power in this Government except by the regular constitutional discharge of the people's obligations and duties as citizens going to the polls in the exercise of their elective franchise. Again, sir, I have not heard from a single citizen of those States an intimation, that if they should fail in the canvass upon which they had entered and in which they were striving to secure a majority in the councils of this Government, they were to do anything else but submit quietly and peaceably to the constitutionally expressed will of a majority.

Mr. Seward, of N. Y., said

The President, I think, has departed from a customary course which was well established by his predecessors; that was to confine the annual message of the Executive to legitimate matters of legislation which must necessarily occupy the attention of Congress, and leave partisan disputes, occurring among the people, to the consideration and reflection of the people themselves. This President of the United States was the first one, I think, to depart from that course in his Inaugural Address; and, if I remember aright, he continued this departure in his first message and second message. He has been uncorrected, or rather unreformed in his erroneous course; he goes through to the end in the same course. I am willing, for my own part, that he, like all the rest of us, shall have his speech — shall assign his reasons and his vindication for his policy. I do not question his right; I do not dispute it. Whatever I have thought necessary to submit to any portion of my countrymen in regard to the canvass which is past, has been submitted in the right time, in the right place, and I trust, in the right spirit. I am willing to allow the President of the United States the same opportunity which you and I and all others have enjoyed.

Mr. Mason, of Va., said

Mr. President: the constant and obstinate agitation of questions connected with the institution of Slavery, has brought, I am satisfied, the public mind in those States where the institution prevails, to the conviction that the preservation of that institution rests with themselves and with themselves only. Therefore, at this day, when it is the pleasure of Senators again to bring that institution under review upon this floor, in any connection whatever, as one of the Representatives of the South, I take no further interest in the discussion, or in the opinion which is entertained at the North in relation to it, than as it may confirm the hope that there is a public sentiment at the North yet remaining, which unites with the South in the desire to perpetuate the Union, and that, by the aid of that public sentiment at the North, the Union will be preserved. But further than that, as a statesman, and as one representing a Southern State, where that institution prevails mere largely than in any other, the public sentiment of the North is a matter indifferent to me, because I say again, we have attained the conviction that the safety of that institution will rest, must rest, and should rest, with the people of the States only where it prevails.

Mr. Wilson, of Mass., said

The party to which reference has been made in this message — for I take it this assault of the President of the United States is upon the Republican party, and the people who supported that organization in the last election — stands before the country with its opinions clearly expressed and openly avowed. It has a right to claim from the President of the United States — it has a right to claim from honorable Senators here — it has a right to claim before the country that it shall stand upon its broad and open declarations of principle. How does it stand? It accepts the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States as its fundamental creed of doctrine. It claims that Congress has a right to legislate for the Territories of the United States, and to exclude Slavery from them. It avows its determination to exercise that power. It has a right to ask of the President, and the country, that it shall be judged by its open and avowed declarations, and shall not be misrepresented, as it has been misrepresented in this document by the President of the United States. The declaration is broadly made here, not only that these men are sectionalists — not only that they have gotten up a sectional warfare, but that they are maintaining doctrines hostile to the perpetuity of the Union. Now, sir, let me say here to-day, that I do not know a man in the Free States who supported John C. Fremont in the last presidential election, not one of the one million three hundred thousand intelligent freemen who supported that nomination, that ever avowed his intention to go for a dissolution of this Union; but at all times, on all occasions, in public and in private, they have avowed their devotion to the Union, and their intention to maintain and defend it.

Let me say further, that the men in this country, who avow themselves to be disunionists, that squad, which, during the last thirty years, on all fit and unfit occasions, in moments of excitement and moments of calm, have avowed themselves disunionists, have, as a body, en masse, supported the Democratic party. The whole southern heavens have been darkened during the last four months by the black banners of disunion that have floated in the breeze.

Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, defended the President against the construction put on certain parts of the message by other Senators. He said

My colleague (Mr. Wade) asserts that the President has employed libellous terms in speaking of a large number of our common constituents, who voted for Col. Fremont at the last election. If the charges were true in any sense, I should unite with my colleague in the condemnation which he has pronounced; for although I would have deplored the election of Col. Fremont as the greatest calamity that could befall the American people, I feel bound to render my tribute of respect to those honest, patriotic, but as I think, misguided, citizens of Ohio, who voted for him. The paragraph upon which my colleague based this accusation, is the one which I now send to the secretary's desk. (Here the secretary read the part of the message quoted above, beginning, "Our institutions framed" and down to "rather than shoulder to shoulder as friends.") It is (continued Mr. Pugh) impossible that this paragraph should apply to the members of the Republican party, if, as now asserted, they do not aim at the abolition by Congress of Slavery within the States. It is directed against those who hold that doctrine. It refers to the men whom the Senator from Mass. (Mr. Wilson) and the Senator from Maine (Mr. Fessenden) themselves have denounced on the floor.

The Lecompton Constitution.

On the 8th December, 1857, President Buchanan transmitted to Congress his first annual message. He devotes considerable space to the subject of Slavery, giving a history of the formation of the Lecompton Constitution for Kansas, and announcing the doctrine that the Constitution of its own force carries Slavery into all the Territories. Speaking of this subject, he says:
"In emerging from the condition of Territorial dependence into that of a sovereign State, it was their duty, in my opinion, to make known their will by the votes of the majority, on the direct question, whether this important domestic institution should or should not continue to exist:" and that the slaves now in Kansas "were brought into the Territory under the Constitution of the United States."

The following is the part of the message referring to Kansas affairs:

113

It is unnecessary to state in detail the alarming condition of the Territory of Kansas at the time of my inauguration. The opposing parties then stood in hostile array against each other, and any accident might have relighted the flames of civil war. Besides, at this critical moment, Kansas was left without a governor by the resignation of governor Geary.

On the 19th of February previous, the Territorial legislature had passed a law providing for the election of delegates on the third Monday of June, to a convention to meet on the first Monday in September, for the purpose of framing a constitution preparatory to admission into the Union. This law was in the main fair and just; and it is to be regretted that all the qualified electors had not registered themselves and voted under its provisions.

At the time of the election for delegates, an extensive organization existed in the Territory, whose avowed object it was if need be, to put down the lawful government by force, and to establish a government of their own under the so-called Topeka Constitution. The persons attached to this revolutionary organization abstained from taking any part in the election.

The act of the Territorial legislature had omitted to provide for submitting to the people the constitution which might be framed by the Convention; and in the excited state of public feeling throughout Kansas, an apprehension extensively prevailed that a design existed to force upon them a constitution, in relation to Slavery, against their will. In this emergency it became my duty, as it was my unquestionable right, having in view the union of all good citizens in support of the Territorial laws, to express an opinion on the true construction of the provisions concerning Slavery contained in the organic act of Congress of the 30th May, 1854. Congress declared it to be "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." Under it Kansas, "when admitted as a State," was to "be received into the Union with or without Slavery as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."

Did Congress mean by this language that the delegates elected to frame a constitution, should have authority finally to decide the question of Slavery, or did they intend, by leaving it to the people, that the people of Kansas themselves should decide this question by a direct vote? On this subject I confess I had never entertained a serious doubt, and, therefore, in my instructions to Governor Walker of the 28th March last, I merely said that when "a constitution shall be submitted to the people of the Territory, they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting for or against that instrument, and the fair expression of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud or violence."

In expressing this opinion it was far from my intention to interfere with the decision of the people of Kansas, either for or against Slavery. From this I have always carefully abstained. Intrusted with the duty of "taking care that the laws be faithfully executed," my only desire was that the people of Kansas should furnish to Congress the evidence required by the organic act, whether for or against Slavery; and in this manner smooth their passage into the Union. In emerging from the condition of Territorial dependence into that of a sovereign State, it was their duty, in my opinion, to make known their will by the votes of the majority, on the direct question, whether this important domestic institution should or should not continue to exist. Indeed this was the only possible mode in which their will could be authentically ascertained.

The election of delegates to a convention must necessarily take place in separate districts. From this cause it may readily happen, as has often been the case, that a majority of the people of a State or Territory are on one side of a question, whilst a majority of the representatives from the several districts into which it is divided may be upon the other side. This arises from the fact that, in some districts delegates may be elected by small majorities, whilst in others those of different sentiments may receive majorities sufficiently great not only to overcome the votes given for the former, but to leave a large majority of the whole people in direct opposition to a majority of the delegates. Besides, our history proves that influences may be brought to bear on the representative sufficiently powerful to induce him to disregard the will of his constituents. The truth is, that no other authentic and satisfactory mode exists of ascertaining the will of a majority of the people of any State or Territory on an important and exciting question like that of Slavery in Kansas, except by leaving it to a direct vote. How wise, then, was it for Congress to pass over all subordinate and intermediate agencies, and proceed directly to the source of all legitimate power under our institutions!

How vain would any other principle prove in practice! This may be illustrated by the case of Kansas. Should she be admitted into the Union with a constitution either maintaining or abolishing Slavery, against the sentiment of the people, this could have no other effect than to continue and to exasperate the existing agitation during the brief period required to make the constitution conform to the irresistible will of the majority.

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, never differed about its true meaning on this subject. Everywhere throughout the Union they publicly pledged their faith and their honor that they would cheerfully submit, the question of Slavery to the decision of the bona fide people of Kansas, without any restriction or qualification whatever. All were cordially united upon the great doctrine of popular sovereignty, which is the dual principle of our free institutions. Had it, then been insinuated from any quarter that it would be a sufficient compliance with the requisitions of the organic law for the members of a convention, thereafter to be elected, to withhold the question of Slavery from the people, and to substitute their own will for that of a legally-ascertained majority of all their constituents, this would have been instantly rejected. Everywhere they remained true to the resolution adopted, on a celebrated occasion recognizing "the right of the people of all the Territories — including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justified it — to form a constitution with or without Slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States."

The Convention to frame a constitution for Kansas met on the first Monday of September last. They were called together by virtue of an act of the Territorial legislature, whose lawful existence had been recognized by Congress in different forms and by different enactments. A large proportion of the citizens of Kansas did not think proper to register their names and to vote at the election for delegates; but an opportunity to do this having been fairly afforded, their refusal to avail themselves of their right could in no manner affect the legality of the convention.

This Convention proceeded to frame a constitution for Kansas, and finally adjourned on the 7th day of November. But little difficulty occurred in the Convention, except on the subject of Slavery. The truth is, that the general provisions of our recent State constitutions are so similar, and, I may add, so excellent, that the difference between them is not essential. Under the earlier practice of the Government, no constitution framed by the convention of a Territory preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State had been submitted to the people. I trust, however, the example act by the last Congress, requiring that the constitution of Minnesota "should be subject to the approval and ratification of the people of the proposed State," may be followed on future occasions. I took it for granted that the Convention of Kansas would act in accordance with this example, founded as it is, on correct principles; and hence my instructions to Governor Walker, in favor of submitting the constitution to the people, were expressed in general and unqualified terms.

In the Kansas-Nebraska act, however, this requirement, as applicable to the whole constitution, had not been inserted, and the Convention were not bound by its terms to submit any other portion of the instrument to an election, except that which relates to the "domestic institution" of Slavery. This will be rendered clear by a simple reference to its language. It was "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." According to the plain construction of the sentence, the words "domestic institutions" have a direct as they have an appropriate reference to Slavery. "Domestic institutions" are limited to the family. The relation between master and slave and a few others are "domestic institutions," and are entirely distinct from institutions of a political character. Besides, there was no question then before Congress, nor indeed has there since been any serious question before the people of Kansas or the country, except that which relates to the "domestic institution" of Slavery.

The Convention, after an angry and excited debate, finally determined, by a majority of only two, to submit the question of Slavery to the people, though at the last

114

forty-three of the fifty delegates present affixed their signatures to the constitution.

A large majority of the Convention were in favor of establishing Slavery in Kansas. They accordingly inserted an article in the constitution for this purpose similar in form to those which had been adopted by other Territorial conventions. In the schedule, however, providing for the transition from a Territorial to a State government, the question has been fairly and explicitly referred to the people, whether they will have a constitution "with or without Slavery." It declares that, before the constitution adopted by the Convention "shall be sent to Congress for admission into the Union as a State," an election shall be held to decide this question, at which all the white male inhabitants of the Territory above the age of 21 are entitled to vote. They are to vote by ballot; and "the ballots cast at said election shall be indorsed ‘constitution with Slavery,’ and ‘constitution with no Slavery.’" If there be a majority in favor of the "constitution with Slavery," then it is to be transmitted to Congress by the president of the Convention, in its original form. If, on the contrary, there shall be a majority in favor of the "constitution with no Slavery," "then, the article providing for Slavery shall be stricken from the constitution by the president of this Convention;" and it is expressly declared that "no Slavery shall exist in the State of Kansas, except that the right of property in slaves now in the Territory shall in no manner be interfered with;" and in that event it is made his duty to have the constitution thus ratified, transmitted to the Congress of the United States, for the admission of the State into the Union.

At this election, every citizen will have an opportunity of expressing his opinion by his vote "whether Kansas shall be received into the Union with or without Slavery," and thus this exciting question may be peacefully settled in the very mode required by the organic law. The election will be held under legitimate authority, and if any portion of the inhabitants shall refuse to vote, a fair opportunity to do so having been presented, this will be their own voluntary act, and they alone will be responsible for the consequences.

Whether Kansas shall be a free or a slave State, must eventually, under some authority, be decided by an election; and the question can never be more clearly or distinctly presented to the people than it is at the present moment. Should this opportunity be rejected, she may be involved for years in domestic discord, and possibly in civil war, before she can again make up the issue now so fortunately tendered, and again reach the point she has already attained.

Kansas has for some years occupied too much of the public attention. It is high time this should be directed to far more important objects. When once admitted into the Union, whether with or without Slavery, the excitement beyond her own limits will speedily pass away, and she will then, for the first time, be left, as she ought to have been long since, to manage her own affairs in her own way. If her constitution on the subject of Slavery, or on any other subject, be displeasing to a majority of the people, no human power can prevent them from changing it within a brief period. Under these circumstances, it may well be questioned whether the peace and quiet of the whole country are not of greater importance than the mere temporary triumph of either of the political parties in Kansas.

Should the constitution without Slavery be adopted by the votes of the majority, the rights of property in slaves now in the Territory are reserved. The number of these is very small; but if it were greater the provision would be equally just and reasonable. The slaves were brought into the Territory under the Constitution of the United States, and are now the property of their masters. This point has at length been finally decided by the highest judicial tribunal of the country — and this upon the plain principle that when a confederacy of sovereign States acquire a new territory at their joint expense, both equality and justice demand that the citizens of one and all of them that have the right to take into it whatsoever is recognized as property by the common Constitution. To have summarily confiscated the property in slaves already in the Territory would have been an act of gross injustice, and contrary to the practice of the older States of the Union which have abolished Slavery.

Mr. Douglas on Lecompton.

Mr. Douglas, who very early joined in the debate on the Presidents Message, at first said he dissented from the views of the President in regard to Kansas, but afterward endeavored to show that the President did not mean to "recommend" the Lecompton Constitution, but that he only

referred 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 own responsibility. "It is proper," said Mr. D., "that he should have thus referred it to us as a matter for congressional action, and not as an administrative or executive measure, for the reason that the Constitution of the United States says, ‘Congress may admit new States into the Union.’ Hence we find the Kansas question before us now, not as an Administrative measure, not as an Executive measure, but as a measure coming before us for our free action, without any recommendation or interference, directly or indirectly, by the Administration now in possession of the federal Government." . . . . . .

Mr. President, I am not going to stop and inquire how far the Nebraska bill, which said the people should be left perfectly free to form their constitution for themselves, authorized the President or the Cabinet, or Governor Walker, or any other Territorial officer, to interfere and tell the Convention of Kansas whether they should or 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 Territorial government, in all its parts, unanimously — understood the Territorial law under which the Convention was assembled to mean that the constitution to be formed by that Convention should be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection, and, if not confirmed by a majority of the people, should be null and void, without coming to Congress for approval.

Not only did the National Government and the Territorial government so 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 convention's to submit the constitution, to the people for ratification. 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 published, 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 pan 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 Administration 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 the 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 everywhere that the constitution was to be submitted for ratification or rejection. They met, however, on the 1st of September, and adjourned until after the October election. I think that 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 Convention, in October last, the pretense was kept up, the profession was openly made, and believed by me, and I thought believed by them that the Convention intended to submit a constitution to the people, and not to attempt, to put a 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

115

Delegate, 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 to make a constitution. Then they make a schedule, in which they provide that the constitution, on the 31st of December — the present month — shall be submitted to all the bona 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; providing 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 authority of the Convention, but from that vote of the people, to which it was to be submitted for their free 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 hindrance, 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 Napoleon 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. If you vote for Napoleon, 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 shall 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 large number of the gentlemen who 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 had allowed a negative vote, the constitution would have been voted down by an overwhelming majority; 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 submitted to the people. I believe it would have been voted down by a majority of four to one. I am informed by men well posted there — Democrats — that it would be voted down 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 the 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 you had 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 knowlege of the fact, and then to assign as a reason for my tyranny, that they would be so obstinate and so perverse as to vote down the constitution if I had given them an opportunity to be consulted about it?

Sir, I deny your right, or mine, to inquire of these people what their objections to that constitution are. They have a right to judge for themselves 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 framed. 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 our institutions rest. I am not going to argue the question whether the banking system established in that constitution is wise or unwise. It says there shall be no monopolies, but there 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 the 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 provision for the eligibility for the officers of Governor and Lieut. 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 which 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 should want to vote on the 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 permitted 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 President, nor Senates, nor Houses of Representatives, nor any other power outside of Kansas, has a right to judge for them. Hence it is no justification, in my mind, for the violation of the great principle of self-government, to say that the Constitution you are forcing on them is not particularly obnoxious, or is excellent in its provisions.

Perhaps, sir, the same thing might be said of the 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 Commandments, 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 the Topeka Constitution, but for the mode of making it, would have been unexceptionable. 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 upon 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, inasmuch 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

116

better if we would accept it, and put an end to the question. Let me ask, sir, is the Slavery clause fairly submitted, so that the people can vote for or against it? Suppose I were a citizen of Kansas, and 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. Douglas, just vote for that constitution first, if you please." "Oh, no!" I answer, "I cannot vote for that constitution conscientiously — I am opposed to the clause by which you locate certain railroads in such away as to sacrifice my county and my part of the State. I am opposed to that banking system. I am opposed to this Know-Nothing or American clause in the constitution about the qualifications 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 constitution 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 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 System 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 clause. 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 disqualify and disfranchise every man who is against it, thus referring the Slavery clause to a minority of the people of Kansas, and leaving that minority 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 perfectly 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 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 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 country, to establish as a rule of action in all time to come?. . . . .

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 bono? What are you to gain by it? Will you sustain the party by violating its principles? 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? Neither the North nor the South has the right to gain a sectional advantage by trickery or fraud.

But I am beseeched to wait till I hear from the election on the 2lst of December. I am told that perhaps that will put it all right, and will solve 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 not 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 he 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 Constitution 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. 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 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 by 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 returned 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 unjust, as it is in all its aspects, upon us.

On the 2nd of Feb., 1858, the President transmitted to Congress the Lecompton Constitution, accompanied by a special Message strongly urging the admission of Kansas as a State under this constitution. (The following is a brief statement in regard to the origin of the Lecompton Constitution:)
The first Territorial Legislature passed an act in 1855 to take the sense of the people on the call of a Convention to form a State Constitution, at the election in Oct., 1856. Accordingly, an election was held at which about 2,500 votes were polled, the Free-State men not voting. At this election, a new legislature was elected, all Pro-Slavery, which met in Jan., 1857, and in conformity with the vote of 2,500 at the preceding October election, passed an act providing for the election of delegates on the 15th of June, to meet in convention in September following. Soon after this, Gov. Walker went to Kansas, and published an address to the people in which he assured them of his determination to use every means in his power to prevent all disorder and violence. He persuaded the Free-State men to go to the polls and vote. An objection which they urged was, that in 19 out of the 38 counties no registry had been made, and that in 15 out of the 19 no census had been-taken, so that it was impossible for the people to vote in those counties. These facts are confirmed by Gov. Walker and Secretary Stanton.

The election for delegates to the Convention was held on the 15th of June. The Free-State men did not vote, for the reason just mentioned, and also (as they stated,) that they had no confidence in the officers who were to hold the election, and because the Constitution which might be formed, must, in the opinion of Gov. Walker, be submitted to a vote of all the people for ratification or rejection, whether they voted at this election or not. The entire vote for delegates was only about 2,200.

The delegates elected assembled in Convention at Lecompton, Sept. 5th, but soon adjourned over to October, to await the result of the Territorial Election on the first Monday of that month. At this Territorial Election, both parties nominated candidates. At the request of Gov. Walker, 2,000 U. S. troops were in the Territory, and they were stationed so as to protect the polls as much as possible. Over eleven thousand votes were polled, after rejecting 2,800 as fraudulent and irregular, 1,600 of which were returned from the Oxford precinct, where, according to the census, there were but 43 voters, and twelve hundred from McGee County, where

117

no poll was opened. The result of this election was, the Free-State party carried the legislature and the delegate to Congress.

The Convention reassembled in October, according to adjournment, and formed the Constitution now so famous as the Lecompton Constitution. When it became known that the Convention had refused to submit the entire constitution to a vote of the people for ratification or rejection, and had submitted only a proposition in regard to Slavery, and that in a form and under a test oath which would prevent the Free-State people from voting, there was great excitement in the Territory, threatening bloodshed. Under these circumstances, Acting Gov. Stanton called (Gov. Walker had resigned) an extra session of the Territorial Legislature. The legislature assembled Dec. 17th, and passed an act to submit the Lecompton Constitution fairly to a vote of the people on the 4th of January next, following, the time fixed by the Lecompton convention for the election of State officers under that constitution.

On the 21st of Dec., the vote was taken in the manner prescribed by the Convention, and resulted as follows:

"For the constitution with Slavery" 6,266
"For the constitution without Slavery" 567
Total vote 6,793

Jan. 4th, 1858, in accordance with the act of the Territorial Legislature, the people voted as follows:

For the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery138
For the Lecompton Constitution without Slavery 24
Against the Lecompton Constitution10,226

Being over ten thousand majority against the Lecompton Constitution.

President Buchanan's Lecompton Message.

The following is the President's special Message, of Feb. 2nd, 1858.

I have received from J. Calhoun, Esq., President of the late Constitutional Convention of Kansas, a copy duly certified by himself, of the Constitution framed by that body, with the expression of the hope that I would submit the same to the consideration of Congress "with the view of the admission of Kansas into the Union as an independent State." In compliance with this request, I herewith transmit, to Congress for their action the Constitution of Kansas, with the ordinance respecting the public lands, as well as the letter of Mr. Calhoun, dated at Lecompton, on the 14th ult., by which they were accompanied. Having received but a single copy of the Constitution and ordinance, I send this to the Senate.

A great delusion seems to pervade the public mind in relation to the condition of parties in Kansas. This arises from the difficulty of inducing the American people to realize the fact that any portion of them should be in a state of rebellion against the Government under which they live. When we speak of the affairs of Kansas, we are apt to refer merely to the existence of two violent political parties in that Territory, divided on the question of Slavery, just as we speak of such parties in the States. This presents no adequate idea of the true state of the case. The dividing line there is not between two political parties, both acknowledging the lawful existence of the Government, but between those who are loyal to this Government and those who have endeavored to destroy its existence by force and by usurption — between those who sustain, and those who have done all in their power to overthrow, the Territorial Government established by Congress. This Government. they would long since have subverted had it not been protected from their assaults by the troops of the United States. Such has been the condition of affairs since my inauguration. Ever since that period, a large portion of the people of Kansas have been in a state of rebellion against the Government, with a military leader at their head, of most turbulent and dangerous character. They have never acknowledged, but have constantly renounced and defied, the Government to which they owe allegiance, and have been all the time in a state of resistance against its authority. They have all the time been endeavoring to subvert it; and to establish a revolutionary Government, under the so-called Topeka Constitution, in its stead. Even at this very moment, the Topeka Legislature are in session. Whoever has read the correspondence of Gov. Walker with the State Department, recently communicated to the Senate, will be convinced that this picture is not overdrawn. He always protested against the withdrawal of any portion of the military force of the United States from the Territory, deeming its presence absolutely necessary for the preservation of the regular Government and the execution of the laws. In his very first dispatch to the Secretary of State, dated June 2, 1857, he says

"The most alarming movement, however, proceeds from the assembling, on the 9th of June, of the so-called Topeka Legislature, with a view to the enactment of an entire code of laws. Of course, it will be my endeavor to prevent such a result, as it would lead to inevitable and disastrous collision, and in fact renew the civil war in Kansas."

This was with difficulty prevented by the efforts of Governor Walker; but soon thereafter, on the 14th of July, we find him requesting General Harney to furnish him a regiment of dragoons to proceed to the city of Lawrence, and this for the reason that he had received authentic intelligence, verified by his own actual observation, that a dangerous rebellion had occurred, involving an open defiance of the laws, and the establishment of an insurgent government in that city. In the Governor's dispatch of July 15, he informs the Secretary of State that

"This movement at Lawrence was the beginning of a plan, originating in that city, to organize insurrection throughout the Territory, and especially in all towns, cities and counties where the Republican party have a majority. Lawrence is the hotbed of all the Abolition movement in this Territory. It is the town established by the Abolition Societies of the East, and, while there are respectable people there, it is filled by a considerable member of mercenaries, who are paid by Abolition Societies to perpetuate and diffuse agitation throughout Kansas, and prevent a peaceful settlement of this question. Having failed in inducing their own so-called Topeka State Legislature to organize this insurrection, Lawrence has commenced it herself, and, if not arrested, the rebellion will extend throughout the Territory."

And again

"In order to send this communication immediately by mail, I must close, assuring you that the spirit of rebellion pervades the great mass of the Republican party of this Territory, instigated as I entertain no doubt they are, by Eastern Societies, having in view results most disastrous to the Government and the Union; and that the continued presence of Gen. Harney is indispensable, as was originally stipulated by me, with a large body of dragoons and several batteries."

On the 20th of July, 1857, Gen. Lane, under the authority of the Topeka Convention, undertook, as Gen. Walker informs us

"To organize the whole Free-State party into volunteers, and to take the names of all who refuse enrolment. The professed object was to protect the, polls at the elections in August, of a new insurgent Topeka State Legislature. The object in taking the names of all who refuse enrollment is to terrify the Free-State Conservatives into submission. This is proved by the recent atrocities committed on such men by the Topekaites. The speedy location of large bodies of regular troops here with two batteries is necessary. The Lawrence insurgents await the developments of this new military organization."

In the Governor's dispatch of July 27, he says that

"Gen. Lane and his staff everywhere deny the authority of the Territorial laws, and counsel a total disregard of these enactments."

Without making further quotations of a similar character from other dispatches of Governor Walker, it appears, by reference to Secretary Stanton's communication to Gen. Cass on the 9th of December last, that

"The important step of calling the legislature together was taken after (he) had become satisfied that the election ordered by the Convention on the 21st of December could not be conducted without collision and bloodshed."

So intense was the disloyal feeling among the enemies of the Government established by Congress, that an election which afforded them opportunities, if in the majority, of making Kansas a Free State according to their own expressed desire, could not be conducted without collision and bloodshed. The truth is that, up to the present moment, the enemies of the existing government still adhere to their Topeka revolutionary constitution and government. The very first paragraph of the message of Gov. Robinson, dated the 7th of December, to the Topeka Legislature, now assembled at Lawrence, contains an open defiance of the laws and Constitution of the United States. The Governor says

"The Convention which framed the Topeka Constitution originated with the people of Kansas Territory. They

118

have adopted and ratified the same twice by a direct vote, also indirectly through two elections for State officers and members of the State Legislature; yet it has pleased the Administration to regard the whole proceeding as revolutionary."

This Topeka Government, adhered to with such treasonable pertinacity, is a government in direct opposition to the existing government prescribed and recognized by Congress.

It is usurpation of the same character as it would be for a portion of the people of any State to undertake to establish a separate government within its limits for the purpose of redressing any grievance, real or imaginary, of which they might complain against the legitimate State Government. Such a principle, if carried into execution, would destroy all lawful authority and produce universal anarchy. From this statement of facts, the reason becomes palpable why the enemies of the government authorized by Congress have refused to vote for the delegates to the Kansas Constitutional Convention, and also, afterward, on the question of Slavery submitted by it to the people. It is because they have ever refused to sanction or recognize any other Constitution than that framed at Topeka. Had the whole Lecompton Constitution been submitted to the people, the adherents of this organization would doubtless have voted against it, because, if successful, they would thus have removed the obstacles out of the way of their own revolutionary Constitution; they would have done this, not upon the consideration of the merits of the whole or part of the Lecompton Constitution, but simply because they have ever resisted the authority of the government authorized by Congress from which it emanated. Such being the unfortunate condition of affairs in the Territory, what was the right as well as the duty of the law-abiding people? Were they silently and patiently to submit to the Topeka usurpation, or to adopt the necessary measure to establish a Constitution under the authority of the organic law of Congress? That this law recognized the right of the people of the Territory, without an enabling act of Congress, to form a State Constitution, is too clear for argument. For Congress "to leave the people of the Territory perfectly free" in framing their Constitution "to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States," and then to say that they shall not be permitted to preceed and frame the Constitution in their own way, without express authority from Congress, appears to be almost a contradiction in terms. It would be much more plausible to contend that Congress had no power to pass such an enabling act, than to argue that the people of a Territory might be kept out of the Union for an indefinite period, and until it might please Congress to permit them to exercise the right of self-government. This would be to adopt, not their own way, but the way which Congress might prescribe. It is impossible that any people could have proceeded with more regularity in the formation of a Constitution than the people of Kansas have done. It was necessary, first, to ascertain whether it was the desire of the people to be relieved from their Territorial dependence and establish a State Government. For this purpose, the Territorial Legislature, in 1855, passed a law for taking the sense of the people of the Territory upon the expediency of calling a Convention to form a State Constitution at the general election to be held in October, 1856. The "sense of the people" was accordingly taken, and they decided in favor of a Convention.

It is true that at this election the enemies of the Territorial Government did not vote, because they were then engaged at Topeka, without, the slightest pretext of lawful authority, in framing a Constitution of their own for subverting the Territorial Government. In pursuance of this decision of the people in favor of a Convention, the Territorial Legislature, on the 27th of February, 1857, passed an act for the election of delegates on the third Monday of June, 1857, to frame a State Constitution. This law is as fair in its provisions as any that ever passed a legislative body for a similar purpose. The right of suffrage at this election is clearly and justly defined. Every bona fide citizen of the United States, above the age of twenty-one, and who had resided therein for three months previous to that date, was entitled to a vote. In order to avoid all interference from neighboring States and Territories with the freedom and fairness of the election, a provision was made for the registry of qualified voters, and in pursuance thereof, nine thousand two hundred and fifty-one voters were registered. Gov. Walker did his whole duty in urging all qualified citizens of Kansas to vote at this election. In his Inaugural Address on the 27th of May, he informed them that —

"Under our practice, the preliminary act of framing a State Constitution is uniformly performed through the instrumentality of a Convention of delegated chosen by the people themselves. That Convention is now about to be elected by you, under the call of the Territorial Legislature created, and still recognized, by the authority of Congress and clothed by it, in the comprehensive language of the organic law, with full power to make such an enactment. The Territorial Legislature, then, in assembling this Convention, were fully sustained by the act of Congress, and the authority of the Convention is distinctly recognized in my instructions from the President of the United States."

The Governor also clearly and distinctly warns them what would be the consequences if they did not participate in the election. The people of Kansas, then, he says

"Are invited by the highest authority known to the Constitution to participate freely and fairly in the election of delegates to frame a Constitution and State Government. The law has performed its entire appropriate function, when it extends to the people the right of suffrage; but it cannot compel the performance of that duty. Throughout the whole Union, however, and wherever free government prevails, those who abstain from the exercise of the right of suffrage authorize those who do vote to act for them in that contingency, and absentees are as much bound, under the law and Constitution, where there is no fraud or violence, by the act of the majority of those who do vote, as if all had participated in the election. Otherwise, as voting must be voluntary, self-government would be impracticable, and monarchy or despotism would remain as the only alternative."

It may also be observed that at this period any hope, if such had existed, that the Topeka Constitution would ever be recognized by Congress must have been abandoned. Congress had adjourned on the third of March previous, having recognized the legal existence of the Territorial Legislature in a variety of forms, which I need not enumerate. Indeed, the Delegate elected to the House of Representatives under a Territorial law had been admitted to a sent and had just completed his term of service the day previous to my inauguration. This was the propitious moment for settling all the difficulties of Kansas. This was the time for abandoning the revolutionary Topeka organization, and for the enemies of the existing government to conform to the laws and unite with its friends in framing a state Constitution. But this they refused to do, and the consequences of their refusal to submit to the lawful authority, and vote at the election of delegates, may yet prove to be of the most deplorable character. Would that the respect for the laws of the land, which so eminently distinguished the men of the past generation, could be revived! It is a disregard and violation of law which has for years kept the Territory of Kansas in a state of almost open rebellion against its Government — it is the same spirit which has produced actual rebellion in Utah. Our only safety consists in obedience and conformity to the law. Should a general spirit against its enforcement prevail, this will prove fatal to us as a nation.

We acknowledge no master but law, and should we cut loose from its restraints and every one do what seemeth good in his own eyes, our case would indeed be hopeless. The enemies of the Territorial Government determined still to resist the authority of Congress. They refused to vote for delegates to the Convention, not because, from circumstances which I need not detail, there was an omission to register the comparatively few voters who were inhabitants of certain counties in Kansas in the early spring of 1857, but because they had determined, at all hazards, to adhere to their revolutionary organization, and defeat the establishment of any other constitution than that which they had framed at Topeka. The election was therefore suffered to pass by default, but of this result the qualified electors who refused to vote can never justly complain.

From this review, it is manifest that the Lecompton Convention, according to every principle of constitutional law, was legally constituted and invested with power to frame a Constitution. The sacred principle of Popular Sovereignty has been invoked in favor of the enemies of Law and Order in Kansas; but in what manner is Popular Sovereignty to be exercised in this country if not through the instrumentality of established law? In certain small republics of ancient times, the people did assemble in primary meeting, passed laws and directed public affairs. In our country, this is manifestly impossible. Popular Sovereignty can be exercised here only through the ballot box; and if the people will refuse to exercise it in this manner, as they have done in Kansas at the election of Delegates, it is not for them to complain that their rights have been violated.

The Kansas Convention, thus lawfully constituted, proceeded to frame a Constitution, and, having completed their work, finally adjourned on the 7th of November last. They did not think proper to submit the whole of this Constitution to a popular vote, but they did submit the question whether Kansas should be a Free or Slave State to the people. This was the question which had convulsed

119

the Union and shaken it to the very center. This was the question which had lighted the flames of civil war in Kansas and had produced dangerous sectional parties throughout the confederacy. It was of a character so paramount in respect to the condition of Kansas, as to rivet the anxious attention of the people of the whole country upon it and it alone — 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. In what manner the people of Kansas might regulate their other concerns, was not the subject which attracted my attention. In fact, the general provisions of our recent State constitutions, after an experience of eighty years, are so similar and excellent that it would be difficult to go far wrong at the present day in framing a new constitution. 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 validity. Had I entertained such an opinion, this would have been in opposition to many precedents in our history, commencing in the very best age of our Republic. It would have been in opposition to the principle which pervades our institutions, and which is every day carried into practice, that the people have a right to delegate to the representatives chosen by themselves their sovereign power to frame constitutions, enact laws, and perform many other important acts, without requiring that these should be subjected to their subsequent approbation. It would be a most inconvenient limitation of their own power, imposed by the people upon themselves, to exclude them from exercising their sovereignty in any lawful manner which they think proper.

It is true that the people of Kansas might, if they had pleased, have required the Convention to submit the constitution to a popular vote, but this they have not done.

The only remedy, therefore, in this case is that which exists in all other similar cases. If the delegates who framed the Kansas Constitution have in any manner violated the will of their constituents, the people always possess the power to change their constitution or laws according to their own pleasure. The question of Slavery was submitted to an election of the people on the 21st of December last, in obedience to the mandate of the Convention. Here, again, a fair opportunity was presented to the adherents of the Topeka Constitution, if they were the majority, to decide this exciting question "in their own way," and thus restore peace to the distracted Territory; but they again refused to exercise the right of Popular Sovereignty and again suffered the election to pass by default. I heartily rejoice that a wiser and better spirit prevailed among a large majority of these people on the first Monday in January, and that they did on that day vote under the Lecompton Constitution for a Governor and other State officers, a member of Congress, and for members of the Legislature. This election was warmly contested by the parties, and a larger vote polled than at any previous election in the Territory. We may now reasonably hope that the revolutionary Topeka organization will be speedily and finally abandoned, and this will go far toward a final settlement of the unhappy differences in Kansas. If frauds have been committed at this election by one or both parties, the legislature and people of Kansas, under their constitution, will know how to redress themselves and punish these detestable but too common crimes without outside interference.

The people of Kansas have, then, "in their own way," and in strict accordance with the organic act, framed a Constitution and State Government, have submitted the all-important question of Slavery to the people, and have elected a Governor, a member to represent them in Congress, members of the State Legislature and other State officers; and they now ask admission into the Union under this constitution, which is republican in its form. It is for Congress to decide whether they will admit or reject the State which has thus been created.

For my own part, I am decidedly in favor of its admission, and thus terminating the Kansas question. This will carry out the great principle of Non-Intervention recognized and sanctioned by the organic act, which declares in express language in favor of the non-intervention of Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, leaving the people "perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." In this manner, by localizing the question of Slavery and confining it to the people who it immediately concerned, every patriot anxiously expected that this question would be banished from the halls of Congress, where it has always exerted a baneful influence throughout the whole country.

It is proper that I should briefly refer to the election held under the act of the Territorial Legislature on the first Monday of January last on the Lecompton Constitution. This election was held after the Territory had been prepared for admission into the Union as a Sovereign State, and when no authority existed in the Territorial Legislature which could possibly destroy its existence or change is character. The election, which was peaceably conducted under my instructions, involved strange inconsistencies. A large majority of the persons who voted against the Lecompton Constitution were at the same time and place recognizing its valid existence in the most solid and authentic manner by voting under its provisions. I have yet received no official information of the result of this election.

As a question of expediency, after right has been maintained, it may be wise to reflect upon the benefits to Kansas and the whole country that will result from its immediate admission into the Union, as well as the disasters that may follow its rejection. Domestic peace will be the happy consequence of the admission, and that fine Territory, which has hitherto been torn by dissensions, will rapidly increase in population and wealth, and speedily realize the blessings and comforts which follow in the train of agricultural and mechanical industry. The people, then, will be sovereign, and can regulate their affairs in their own way. If the majority of them desire to abolish domestic Slavery within the State, there is no other possible mode by which it can be effected so speedily as by prompt admission. The will of the majority is supreme and irresistible, when expressed in an orderly and lawful manner. It can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure. It would be absurd to say that they can impose fetters upon their own power which they cannot afterward remove. If they could do this, they might tie their own hands just as well for a hundred as for ten years. These are the fundamental principles of American freedom, and are recognized, I believe, in some form or other by every State constitution; and if Congress, in the act of admission, should think proper to recognize them, I can perceive no objection.

This has been done emphatically in the constitution of Kansas. It declares in its bill of rights that "All political power is inherent in the people," and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefits and therefore have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform and abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think proper. The great State of New-York is at this moment governed under a constitution framed and established in direct opposition to a mode prescribed by the previous constitution. If, therefore, a provision changing the constitution of Kansas after the year 1864, could by possibility be construed into a prohibition to make such change previous to that period, this prohibition would be wholly unavailing. The legislature already elected may, at its very first session, submit the question to a vote of the people, whether they will or not have a convention, to amend their constitution, and adopt all necessary means for giving effect to the popular will. 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 moment 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 property of nearly half the members of the Confederacy. Slavery can, therefore, never be prohibited in Kansas, except through the means of a constitutional provision; and in no other manner can this be obtained so promptly, if the majority of the people desire it, as by admitting her into the Union under her present constitution. On the other hand, should Congress reject the constitution, under the idea of affording the disaffected in Kansas a third opportunity to prohibit 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 those men who refused to vote for delegates to the convention, when they might have excluded Slavery from the constitution, and who afterward refused to vote on the 21st of December, when they might, as they claim, have stricken Slavery from the constitution, should now reject the State because Slavery remains in 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. Every patriot in the country had indulged the hope that the Kansas-Nebraska Act would have put a

120

final end to the Slavery agitation, at least in Congress, which had for more than twenty years convulsed the country and endangered the Union. This act involved great and fundamental principles, and, if fairly carried into effect, will settle the question. Should agitation be again revived — should the people of sister States be again estranged from each other with more than their former bitterness — this will arise from a cause, so far as the interests of Kansas are concerned, more trifling and insignificant than has ever stirred the elements of a great people into commotion. To the people of Kansas, the only practical difference between admission or rejection, depends simply upon the fact whether they can themselves more speedily change their present Constitution if it does not accord with the will of the majority, or frame a second Constitution to be submitted to Congress hereafter.

Even if this were a question of mere expediency and not of right, a small difference of time one way or the other, is not of the least importance, when contrasted with the evils which must necessarily result, to the whole country from the revival of the Slavery agitation.

In considering this question, it should never he forgotten that in proportion, to its insignificance, let the decision be what it may, so far as it may affect a few thousand inhabitants of Kansas, who have from the beginning resisted the Constitution and the laws, for this very reason the rejection of the Constitution will be so much the more keenly felt by the people of fourteen States of the Union where Slavery is recognized under the Constitution of the United States.

Again the speedy admission of Kansas into the Union will restore peace and quiet to the whole country. Already the affairs of this Territory have engrossed an undue proportion of public attention. They have sadly affected the friendly relations of the people of the States with each other and alarmed the fears of patriots for the safety of the Union. Kansas once admitted into the Union, the excitement becomes localized and would soon die away for want of outside aliment, and then every difficulty could be settled by the ballot-box. Besides, and no trifling consideration, I shall then be enabled to withdraw the troops from Kansas, and employ them on a service where they are much needed. They have been kept there on the earnest importunity of Governor Walker, to maintain the existence of the Territorial Government, and secure the execution of the laws. He considered at least two thousand regular troops, under the command of General Harney, were necessary for this purpose. Acting upon his reliable information, I have been obliged in some degree, to interfere with the expedition to Utah in order to keep down the rebellion in Kansas. This has involved very heavy expenses to the Government. Kansas once admitted, it is believed there will no longer be occasion there for the troops.

I have thus performed my duty on this important question under a deep sense of my responsibility to God and to the country. My public life will terminate in a brief period, and I have no other object of earthly ambition than to leave my country in a peaceful and prosperous condition, and to live in the affections and respect of my countrymen. The dark and ominous clouds now impending over the Union I conscientiously believe will be dissipated with honor to every portion of it by the admission of Kansas during the present session of Congress; whereas, if she should be rejected, I greatly fear these clouds will become darker and more ominous than any which have ever yet threatened the Constitution and the Union.

(Signed) JAMES BUCHANAN.

The Lecompton Constitution contains a provision on the subject of Slavery, as follows:

SLAVERY.

§ 1. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and the light of the owner of a slave to such a slave and its increase is the same, and is inviolable, as the right of the owner of any property whatever.

§ 2. The Legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, or without paying their owners, previous to emancipation, a full equivalent in money for the slaves so emancipated. They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to the State from bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any one of the United States or Territories so long as any persons of the same age or description shall be continued slaves by the laws of this State; provided, that such person or slave be the bona fide property of such emigrant; and provided, also, that laws may be passed to prohibit the introduction of slaves into this State who have committed high crimes in other States or Territories.

They shall have power to permit the owners of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, and preventing them from becoming a public charge. They shall have power to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity — to provide for their necessary food and clothing — to abstain from all injuries to them, extending to life or limb — and, in case of neglect or refusal to comply with the direction of such laws, to have such slave or slaves sold for the benefit of the owner or owners.

§ 3. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes of higher grade than petit larceny, the Legislature shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petit jury.

§ 4. Any person who shall dismember or deprive a slave of life shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave.

This provision, and this provision alone, it was finally determined by a close vote to submit to the registered electors. For this purpose, by the terms of a schedule annexed to the Constitution, an election was to be held on the 21st of December. The ballots cast were to be indorsed either "Constitution with Slavery," or "Constitution with No Slavery." Thus to have the privilege of voting No Slavery, it was still made necessary to vote for the Constitution, beside which, all persons offering to vote must, if challenged, "take an oath to support the Constitution if adopted."

If the number of votes "for the Constitution without Slavery" should be a majority, then the schedule provides, that "the rights of property in slaves now in the Territory, shall in no manner be interfered with." Making it impossible to abolish Slavery.

This schedule, as if with a direct view of superseding the Territorial Legislature and Congressional delegate elect, further provided that the Constitution shall be in force "after its ratification by the people" (without waiting for the approval of Congress) a State election to be held on the first Monday in January, 1858, for the choice of a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, State Treasurer, and members of the Legislature, and also a member of Congress. It also provided (as if to deprive the Territorial Legislature of all power of acting) that all laws in force not repugnant to the Constitution shall continue until altered, amended or repealed by a Legislature assembled under the provisions of this Constitution; and that all officers, civil or military, under the authority of the Territory of Kansas, shall continue to hold and exercise their respective offices until superseded by the authority of the State: the first meeting of the State Legislature to take place upon the issue of a proclamation by the President of the Convention, upon the receipt of official information that Congress has admitted Kansas into the Union. A provision is also inserted intended to prevent any amendment previous to the year 1864, and then only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of both houses, and "a majority of all the citizens of the State."

The Lecompton Constitution in Congress.

LECOMPTON AND ENGLISH BILLS.

The following record of the action of Congress on the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution, will be interesting for future reference.

121

The original bill, as it passed the Senate under the lead of Senator Green (March 23, 1858), was as follows:

THE LECOMPTON BILL.

A Bill for the Admission of the State of Kansas into the Union, presented in the Senate by Mr. Green, of Missouri, from the Committee on Territories,
February 17, 1858.

Whereas, The people of the Territory of Kansas did, by a Convention of Delegates called and assembled at Lecompton, September 4, 1857, form for themselves a Constitution and State Government, which said Convention having asked the admission of the Territory into the Union as a State on an equal footing with the original States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Kansas shall be, and is hereby declared to be, one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever; and the said State shall consist of all the territory included within the following boundaries, to wit: Beginning at a point on the western boundary of the State of Missouri where the thirty-seventh parallel of latitude crosses the same; thence west on said parallel to the eastern boundary of New Mexico; thence north on said boundary to latitude thirty-eight; thence following said boundary westward to the eastern boundary of the Territory of Utah, on the summit of the Rocky Mountains; thence northward on said summit to the fortieth parallel of latitude; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the State of Missouri; thence south with the westward boundary of said State, to the place of beginning: ...

§ 2. And be it further enacted, That the State of Kansas is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands, or with any regulations which Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said lands to the bona fide purchasers and grantees thereof, or impose or levy any tax, assessment, or imposition of any description whatsoever upon them, or other property of the United States, within the limits of said State; and that nothing in this act shall be construed to abridge or infringe any right of the people asserted in the Constitution of Kansas, at all times, to alter, reform or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may think proper, Congress hereby disclaiming any authority to intervene or declare the construction of the Constitution of any State, except to see that it is republican in form and not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States; and nothing in this act shall be construed as an assent by Congress to all or to any of the propositions or claims contained in the ordinance annexed to the Constitution of the people of Kansas, nor to deprive the said State of Kansas of the same grants which were contained in said act of Congress, entitled, "An act to authorize the people of the Territory of Minnesota to form a Constitution and State Government, preparatory to admission into the Union on an equal tooting with the original States," approved February 26, 1853.

§ 3. And be it further enacted. That until the next general census shall be taken, and an apportionment of representation made, the State of Kansas shall be entitled to one Representative in the House of Representatives of the United States.

The bill passed, 33 to 25, as follows:
YEAS — FOR LECOMPTON.
ALABAMA. — Fitzpatrick, Clay.
ARKANSAS. — Sebastian, Johnson.
CALIFORNIA. — Gwin.
DELAWARE. — Bayard.
FLORIDA. — Mallory, Yulee.
GEORGIA. — Iverson, Toombs.
INDIANA. — Fitch, Bright.
IOWA. — Jones.
KENTUCKY. — THOMPSON.
LOUSIANA. — Benjamin, Slidell.
MARYLAND — Pearce, Kennedy.
MISSISSIPPI — Brown.
MISSOURI. — Green, Polk.
NEW-JERSEY. — Wright, Thomson.
NORTH CAROLINA. — Biggs.
PENNSYLVANIA — Bigler.
RHODE ISLAND. — Allen.
SOUTH CAROLINA. — Evans, Hammond.
TENNESSEE. — Johnson.
TEXAS. — Henderson, HOUSTON.
VIRGINIA. — Mason, Hunter. Total, 33,

NAYS — AGAINST LECOMPTON.
CALIFORNIA. — Broderick.
CONNECTICUT. — Foster, Dixon.
ILLINOIS. — Douglas, Trumbull.
IOWA. — Harlan.
KENTUCKY. — CRITTEDEN.
MAINE. — Fessenden, Hamlin.
MASSACHUSETTS. — Wilson, Sumner.
MICHIGAN. — Stuart, Chandler.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE. — Hale, Clark.
NEW-YORK — Seward, King.
OHIO. — Pugh, Wade.
RHODE ISLAND. — Simmons.
TENNESSEE. — BELL.
VERMONT. — Collamer, Foot.
WISCONSIN. — Durkee, Doolittle. Total, 25.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING. — Messrs. Bates (Del.), Reid (N. C.), Davis (Mi.), Cameron(Pa.) Mr. Cameron paired off with Mr. Davis.

Previous to taking this vote, Mr. Crittenden moved a substitute for the bill, in substance, that the Constitution be submitted to the people at once, and, if approved, the President to admit Kansas by proclamation. If rejected, the people to call a Convention and frame a Constitution. The substitute made special provision against frauds at the election.

This substitute was lost: Yeas, 24; Nays, 34.

On the first of April, the bill was taken up in the House and read once, when, its second reading having been objected to by Mr. Giddings, the question recurred under the rule, Shall the bill be rejected? A vote was taken, and resulted, Yeas, 95; Nays, 137.

Mr. Montgomery, of Pa., offered as a substitute, with slight alterations, the bill which Mr. Crittenden had offered in the Senate. Mr. Quitman, of Mississippi, also offered a substitute, which was the same as the Senate bill, with the omission of the declaratory clause, "that the people shall have the right at all times to alter or amend the Constitution in such manner as they think proper," etc.

Mr. Quitman's substitute was lost — Yeas, 72; Nays, 160, the yeas being all from the Slave States, and Mr. Montgomery's was adopted, 120 to 112.

The Crittenden-Montgomery substitute, as it passed the House, was in the following words

§ 1. Be it enacted, etc., That the State of Kansas be, and is hereby, admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever; but inasmuch as it is greatly disputed whether the Constitution trained at Lecompton on the 7th day of November last, and now pending before Congress, was fairly made, or expressed the will of the people of Kansas, this admission of her into the Union as a State is here declared to be upon this fundamental condition precedent, namely: That the said constitutional instrument shall be first submitted to a vote of the people of Kansas, and assented to by them, or a majority of the voters, at an election to be held for the purpose and as soon as such assent shall be given, and duly made known, by a majority of the Commissioners herein appointed, to the President of the United States, he shall announce the same by proclamation, and thereafter, without any further proceedings on the part of Congress, the admission of the said State of Kansas into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, shall e complete and absolute. At the said election the voting shall be by ballot, and by indorsing on his ballot as each voter may please, "for the Constitution," or "against the Constitution."

Should the said Constitution be rejected at the said election by a majority of votes being cast against it, then, and in that event, the inhabitants of said Territory are hereby authorized and empowered to form for themselves a Constitution and State Government by the name of the State of Kansas, according to the Federal Constitution, and to that end may elect delegates to a convention as hereinafter provided.

§ 2. And be it further enacted, That the said State of Kansas shall have concurrent jurisdiction on the Missouri and all other rivers and waters bordering on the said States of Kansas, so far as the same shall form a common boundary to said State and any other State or States now or hereafter to be formed or bounded by the same; and said rivers and waters, and all the navigable waters of said State, shall be common highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to all other citizens of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor.

§ 3. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of insuring, as far as possible, that the elections authorized by this act may be fair and free, the Governor and the Secretary of the Territory of Kansas, and the presiding officers of the two branches of its Legislature, namely

122

the President of the Council and Speaker of the House of Representatives, are hereby constituted a board of commissioners to carry into effect the provisions of this act, and to use all the means necessary and proper to that end. Any three of them shall constitute a Board; and the board shall have power and authority, in respect to each and all of the elections hereby authorized or provided for, to designate and establish precincts for voting, or to adopt those already established; to cause polls to be opened at such places as it may deem proper in the respective counties and election precincts of said Territory; to appoint, as judges of election at each of the several places of voting, three discreet and respectable persons, any two of whom shall be competent to act; to require the Sheriffs of the several counties, by themselves or deputies, to attend the judges at each of the places of voting, for the purpose of preserving peace and good order, or the said Board may, instead of said Sheriffs and their deputies, appoint, at their discretion, and in such instances as they may choose, other fit persons for the same purpose; and when the purpose of the election is to elect delegates to a Convention to form a Constitution, as herein before provided for, the number of delegated shall be sixty, and they shall be apportioned by said Board among the several counties of said Territory, according to the number of voters; and in making this apportionment, the Board may join two or more counties together to make an election or representative district, where neither of the said counties has the requisite number of voters to entitle it to a delegate, or to join a smaller to a larger county having a surplus population, where it may serve to equalize the representation. The elections hereby authorized shall continue one day only, and shall not be continued later than sundown on that day. The said Board shall appoint the day of election for each of the elections hereby authorized, as the same may become necessary. The said Governor shall announce, by proclamation, the day appointed for any one of said elections, and the day shall be as early a one as is consistent with due notice thereof to the people of said Territory, subject to the provisions of this act. The said Board shall have full power to prescribe the time, manner and places of each of said elections, and to direct the time and manner of the returns thereof, which returns shall be made to the said Board, whose duty it shall be to announce the result by proclamation, and to appoint therein as early a day as practicable for the delegates elected (where the election has been for delegates) to assemble in Convention at the seat of Government of said Territory. When so assembled, the Convention shall first determine, by a vote, whether it is the wish of the proposed State to be admitted into the Union at that time; and if so, shall proceed to form a Constitution, and take all necessary steps for the establishment of a State Government, in conformity with the Federal Constitution, subject to the approval and ratification of the people of the proposed State. And the said Convention shall accordingly provide for its submission to the vote of the people for approval or rejection; and if the majority of votes shall be given for the Constitution so framed as aforesaid, the Governor of the Territory shall, within twenty days after the result is known, notify the President of the United States of the same. And thereupon the President shall announce the same by proclamation, and thereafter, and without any further proceedings whatever on the part of Congress, the admission of the said State of Kansas into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, shall be complete and absolute.

§4. And be it further enacted, That in the elections hereby authorized, all white male inhabitants of said Territory over the age of twenty-one years, who are legal voters under the laws of the Territory of Kansas, and none others, shall be allowed to vote; and this shall be the only qualification required to entitle the voter to the right of suffrage in said elections. And if any person not so qualified shall vote or offer to vote or if any person shall vote more than once at either of said elections, or shall make, or cause to be made, any false, fictitious or fraudulent returns, or shall alter or change any returns of either of said elections, such person shall, upon conviction thereof before any court of competent jurisdiction, be kept at hard labor not less than six months, and not more than three years.

§ 5. And be it further enacted, That the members of the aforesaid Board of Commissioners, and all persons appointed by them to carry into effect the provisions of this act, shall, before entering upon their duties, take an oath to perform faithfully the duties of their respective offices; and on failure thereof, they shall be liable and subject to the same charges and penalties as are provided in like cases under the Territorial laws.

§ 6. And be it further enacted, That the officers mentioned in the preceding section shall receive for their services the same compensation as is given for like services under the Territorial laws.

§ 7. And be it further enacted, That the said State of Kansas, when her admission as a State becomes complete and absolute, shall be entitled to one member in the House of Representatives, in the Congress of the United States, till the next census be taken by the Federal Government.

§ 8. And be it further enacted, That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to the said people of Kansas for their free acceptance or rejection, which, if accepted, shall be obligatory on the United States and upon the said State of Kansas, to wit: First, That the sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in every township of public lands in said State, and where either of said sections, or any part thereof has been sold or otherwise disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to said State for the use of schools. Second, That seventy-two sections of land shall be set apart and reserved for the use and support of a State University, to be selected by the Governor of said State, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the Legislature of said State may prescribe for the purpose aforesaid, but for no other purposes. Third, That ten entire sections of land, to be selected by the Governor of said State, in legal subdivisions, shall be granted to said State for the purpose of completing the public buildings, or for the erection of others at the seat of government, under the direction of the Legislature thereof. Fourth, That all salt springs within said State, not exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of laud adjoining, or as contiguous as may be to each, shall be granted to said State for its use; the same to be selected by the Governor thereof within one year after the admission of said State, and when so selected, to be used or disposed of on such terms, conditions and regulations as the Legislature shall direct: Provided, That no salt springs or land the right whereof is now vested in any individual or individuals, or which may be hereafter be confirmed or adjudged to any individual or individuals, shall by this article be granted to said State. Fifth, That five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said States, which shall be sold by Congress after the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said State, for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvements, as the Legislature shall direct: Provided, The foregoing propositions herein before offered are on the condition that the people of Kansas shall provide, by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil wi