(Continued:)
At this moment, the President exults in the
vigilance with which he has prevented the
enlistment of a few soldiers, to be carried off
to Halifax, in violation of our territorial
sovereignty, and England is bravely threatened,
even to the extent of a rupture of diplomatic
relations, for her endeavor, though
unsuccessful, and at once abandoned. Surely no
man in his senses will urge that this act was
anything but trivial by the side of the crime
against Kansas. But the Slave Power is not
concerned in this controversy.
Thus, where the Slave Power is indifferent, the
President will see that the laws are faithfully
executed; but, in other cases, where the
interests of slavery are at stake, he is
controlled absolutely by this tyranny, ready at
all times to do, or not to do, precisely as it
dictates. Therefore it is, that Kansas is left a
prey to the Propagandists of slavery, while the
whole Treasury, the Army and Navy of the United
States, are lavished to hunt a single slave
through the streets of Boston. You have not
forgotten the latter instance; but I choose to
refresh it in your minds.
As long ago as 1851, the War Department and Navy
Department concurred in placing the forces of
the United States, near Boston, at the command
of the Marshal, if needed, for the enforcement
of an Act of Congress, which had no support in
the public conscience as I believe it has no
support in the Constitution; and thus these
forces were degraded to the loathsome work of
slave-hunters. More than three years afterwards,
an occasion arose for their intervention. A
fugitive from Virginia, who for some days had
trod the streets of Boston as a freeman, was
seized as a slave. The whole community was
aroused, while Bunker Hill and Faneuil Hall
quaked with responsive indignation. Then, sir,
the President, anxious that no tittle of slavery
should suffer, was curiously eager in the
enforcement of the statute. The dispatches
between him and his agents in Boston attest his
zeal. Here are some of them: --
Boston, May 27 1854
To the President of the United States:--
In consequence of an attack upon the
Court-house, last night, for the purpose of
rescuing a Fugitive Slave, under arrest, and in
which one of my own guards was killed, I have
availed myself of the resources of the United
States, placed under my control by letter from
the War and Navy Departments, in 1851, and now
have two companies of Troops from Fort
Independence, stationed in the Court-house.
Everything is now quiet. The attack was repulsed
by my own guard.
WATSON FREEMAN.
United States Marshal, Boston, Mass.
Washington, May 27, 1854.
To Watson Freeman,
United States Marshal, Boston, Mass.:--
Your conduct is approved. The law must be
executed.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
Washington, May 30, 1854.
To Hon. B.F. Hallet, Boston, Mass.:--
What is the state of the case of Burns?
SIDNEY WEBSTER,
[Private Secretary of the President.]
Washington, May 31, 1854.
To B.F. Hallett,
United States Attorney, Boston, Mass.:--
Incur any expense deemed necessary by the
Marshal and yourself, for City Military, or
otherwise, to insure the execution of the law.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
But the President was not content with such
forces as were then on hand in the neighborhood.
Other posts were also put under requisition. Two
companies of national troops, stationed at New
York, were kept under arms, ready at any moment
to proceed to Boston; and the Adjutant General
of the Army was directed to repair to the scene,
there to superintend the execution of the
statute. All this was done for the sake of
slavery; but during the long months of menace
suspended over the Free Soil of Kansas, breaking
forth in successive invasions, the President has
folded his hands in complete listlessness, or,
if he has moved at all, it has been only to
encourage the robber propagandists.
And now the intelligence of the country is
insulted by the Apology, that the President had
no power to interfere. Why, sir, to make this
confession is to confess our Government to be a
practical failure -- which I will never do,
except, indeed, as it is administered now. No,
sir, the imbecility of the Chief Magistrate
shall not be charged upon our American
Institutions. Where there is a will, there is a
way; and in his case, had the will existed,
there would have been a way, easy and
triumphant, to guard against the crime we now
deplore. His powers were in every respect ample,
and this I will prove by the statute book. By
the Act of Congress of 28th February, 1795, it
is enacted, "that whenever the laws of the
United States shall be opposed, or the execution
thereof obstructed, in any State, by combination
too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary
course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers
vested in the marshals," the President "may call
forth the militia." By the supplementary Act of
3d March, 1807, in all cases where he is
authorized to call forth the militia "for the
purpose of causing the laws to be duly
executed," the President is further empowered,
in any State or Territory, "to employ for the
same purposes such part of the land or naval
force of the United States as shall be judged
necessary." There is the letter of the law, and
you will please to mark the power conferred. In
no case where the the laws of the United States
are opposed, or their execution obstructed, is
the President constrained to wait for the
requisition of a Governor, or even the petition
of a citizen. Just so soon as he learns the
fact, no matter by what channel, he is invested
by law with full power to counteract it. True it
is, that when the laws of a State are
obstructed, he can interfere only on the
application of the Legislature of such State, or
of the Executive, when the Legislature cannot be
convened; but when the Federal laws are
obstructed, no such preliminary application is
necessary. It is his high duty, under his oath
of office, to see that they are executed, and,
if need be, by the Federal forces.
And, sir, this is the precise exigency that has
arisen in Kansas -- precisely this; nor more,
nor less. The Act of Congress, constituting the
very organic law of the Territory, which in
peculiar phrase, as to avoid ambiguity,
declares, "its true intent and meaning," that
the people thereof "shall be left perfectly free
to form and regulate their domestic institutions
in their own way," has been from the beginning
opposed and obstructed in its execution. If the
President had power to employ the Federal forces
in Boston, when he supposed the Fugitive Slave
bill was obstructed, and merely in anticipation
of such obstruction, it is absurd to say that he
had not power in Kansas, when, in the face of
the whole country, the very organic law of the
Territory was trampled under foot by successive
invasions, and the freedom of the people there
overthrown. To assert ignorance of this
obstruction -- premeditated, long-continued, and
stretching through months -- attributes to him
not merely imbecility, but idiocy. And thus do I
dispose of this Apology.
Next comes the Apology absurd, which is, indeed,
in the nature of a pretext. It is alleged that a
small printed pamphlet, containing the
"Constitution and Ritual of the Grand Encampment
and Regiments of the Kansas Legion" was taken
from the person of one George F. Warren, who
attempted to avoid detection by chewing it. The
oaths and grandiose titles of the pretended
Legion have all been set forth, and this poor
mummery of a secret society, which existed only
on paper, has been gravely introduced on this
floor, in order to extenuate the crime against
Kansas. It has been paraded in more than one
speech, and even stuffed into the report of the
committee.
A part of the obligations assumed by the members
of this Legion shows why it has been thus
pursued, and also attests its innocence. It is
as follows: --
I will never knowingly propose a person for
membership in this order who is not in favor of
making Kansas a free State, and whom I feel
satisfied will exert his entire influence to
bring about this result. I will support,
maintain, and abide by any honorable movement
made by the organization to secure this great
end, which will not conflict with of the country
and the Constitution of the United States.
Kansas is to be made a free State by an
honorable movement which will not conflict with
the laws and the Constitution. That is the
object of the organization, declared in the very
words of the initiatory obligation. Where in the
wrong is this? What is there here which can cast
reproach, or even suspicion, upon the people of
Kansas? Grant that the Legion was constituted,
can you extract from it any Apology for the
original crime, or for its present ratification?
Secret societies, with their extravagant oaths,
are justly offensive; but who can find in this
mistaken machinery any excuse for the denial of
all rights to the people of Kansas? All this I
say, on the supposition that the society was a
reality, which it was not. Existing in the
fantastic brains of a few persons only, it never
had any practical life. It was never organized.
The whole tale, with the mode of obtaining the
copy of the Constitution, is at once a
cock-and-bull story and a mare's nest; trivial
as the former, absurd as the latter, and to be
dismissed, with the Apology founded upon it, to
the derision which triviality and absurdity
justly receive.
It only remains, under this head that I should
speak of the Apology infamous; founded on false
testimony against the Emigrant Aid Company, and
assumptions of duty more false than the
testimony. Defying Truth and mocking Decency,
this Apology excels all others in futility and
audacity, while, from its utter hollowness, it
proves the utter impotence of the conspirators
to defend their crime. Falsehood, always
infamous, in this case arouses peculiar scorn.
An association of sincere benevolence, faithful
to the Constitution and laws, whose only
fortifications are hotels, school-houses and
churches; whose only weapons are saw-mills,
tools and books; whose mission is peace and good
will, has been falsely assailed on this floor,
and an errand of blameless virtue has been made
the pretext for an unpardonable crime. Nay,
more, the innocent are sacrificed, and the
guilty set at liberty. They who seek to do the
mission of the Saviour are scourged and
crucified, while the murderer, Barabbas, with
the sympathy of the chief priests, goes at
large.
Were I to take counsel of my own feelings, I
should dismiss this whole Apology to the
ineffable contempt which it deserves; but it has
been made to play such a part in this conspiracy
that I feel it a duty to expose it completely.
Sir, from the earliest times men have recognized
the advantages of organization as an effective
agency in promoting works of peace or war.
Especially at this moment, there is no interest,
public or private, high or low, of charity or
trade, of luxury or convenience, which does not
seek its aid. Men organize to rear churches and
to sell thread; to build schools and to sail
ships; to construct roads and to manufacture
toys; to spin cotton and to print books; to
weave cloths and to quicken harvests; to provide
food and to distribute light; to influence
Public Opinion and to secure votes; to guard
infancy in its weakness, old age in its
decrepitude, and womanhood in its wretchedness;
and now, in all large towns, when death has
come, they are buried by organized societies,
and, emigrants to another world, they lie down
in pleasant places, adorned by organized skill.
To complain that this prevailing principle has
been applied to living emigration is to complain
of Providence and the irresistible tendencies
implanted in man.
But this application of the principle is no
recent invention, brought forth for an existing
emergency. It has the best stamp of Antiquity.
It showed itself in the brightest days of
Greece, where colonists moved in organized
bands. It became a part of the mature policy of
Rome, where bodies of men were constituted
expressly for this purpose, triumviri ad colonos
deducendos. (Livy, xxxvii, [symbol] 46.)
Naturally it has been accepted in modern times
by every civilized State. With the sanction of
Spain, an association of Genoese merchants first
introduced slaves to this continent. With the
sanction of France, the Society of Jesuits
stretched their labors over Canada and the Great
Lakes to the Mississippi. It was under the
auspices of Emigrant Aid Companies that our
country was originally settled, by the Pilgrim
Fathers of Plymouth, by the adventurers of
Virginia, and by the philanthropic Oglethorpe,
whose "benevolence of soul" commemorated by
Pope, sought to plant a free State in Georgia.
At this day such associations, of a humbler
character, are found in Europe, with offices in
the great capitols, through whose activity
emigrants are directed here.
For a long time, emigration, to the West, from
the Northern and middle States, but particularly
from New England, has been of marked
significance. In quest of better homes, annually
it has pressed to the unsettled lands, in
numbers to be counted by tens of thousands; but
this has been done heretofore with little
knowledge, and without guide or counsel.
Finally, when, by the establishment of a
Government in Kansas, the tempting fields of
that central region were opened to the
competition of peaceful colonization, and
especially when it was declared that the
question of freedom or slavery there was to be
determined by the votes of actual settlers, then
at once was organization enlisted as an
effective agency in quickening and conducting
the emigration impelled thither, and, more than
all, in providing homes for it on arrival there.
The Company was first constituted under an act
of the Legislature of Massachusetts, 4th of May,
1854, some weeks prior to the passage of the
Nebraska bill. The original act of incorporation
was subsequently abandoned, and a new charter
received in February, 1855, in which the objects
of the Society are thus declared: --
For the purposes of directing emigration
Westward, and aiding in providing accommodations
for the emigrants after arriving at their places
of destination.
At any other moment an association for these
purposes would have taken its place, by general
consent, among the philanthropic experiments of
the age; but crime is always suspicious, and
shakes, like a sick man, merely at the pointing
of a finger. The conspirators against freedom in
Kansas now shook with tremor, real or affected.
Their wicked plot was about to fail. To help
themselves, they denounced the Emigrant Aid
Company, and their denunciations, after finding
an echo in the President, have been repeated
with much particularity on this floor in the
formal report of your committee.
The falsehood of the whole accusation will
appear in illustrative specimens.
A charter is set out, section by section, which,
though originally granted, was subsequently
abandoned, and is not in reality the charter of
the Company, but is materially unlike it.
The Company is represented as "a powerful
corporation, with a capital of five millions;"
when by its actual charter, it is not allowed to
hold property above one million, and, in point
of fact, its capital has not exceeded one
hundred thousand dollars.
Then, again, it is suggested, if not alleged,
that this enormous capital, which I have already
said does not exist, is invested in "cannon and
rifles, in powder and lead, and implements of
war" all of which, whether alleged or suggested,
is absolutely false. The officers of the Company
authorize me to give to this whole pretension a
point-blank denial.
All these allegations are of small importance,
and I mention them only because they show the
character of the report, and also something of
the quicksand on which the senator from Illinois
has chosen to plant himself. But these are all
capped by the unblushing assertion that the
proceedings of the Company were "in perversion
of the plain provisions of an Act of Congress;"
and also another unblushing assertion, as
"certain and undeniable," that the Company was
formed to promote certain objects, "regardless
of the rights and wishes of the people, as
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United
States, and secured by their organic law," when
it is certain and undeniable that the Company
has done nothing in perversion of any Act of
Congress, while to the extent of its power it
has sought to protect the rights and wishes of
the actual people in the Territory.
Sir, this Company has violated in no respect the
Constitution or laws of the land, not in the
severest letter or the slightest spirit. But
every other imputation is equally baseless. It
is not true, as the senator from Illinois has
alleged, in order in some way to compromise the
Company, that it was informed, before the public
of the date fixed for the election of the
Legislature. This statement is pronounced by the
Secretary, in a letter now before me, "an
unqualified falsehood, not having even the
shadow of a shadow of truth for its basis." It
is not true that men have been hired by the
Company to go to Kansas, for every emigrant who
has gone under its auspices, has himself
provided the means for his journey. Of course,
sir, i t is not true, as has been complained by
the senator from South Carolina, with that
proclivity to error which marks all his
utterances, that men have been sent by the
Company "with one uniform gun, Sharpe's rifles;"
for it has supplied no arms of any kind to
anybody. It is not true that the Company has
encouraged any fanatical aggression upon the
people of Missouri, for it has counselled order,
peace, forbearance. It is not true that the
Company has chosen its emigrants on account of
their political opinions, for it has no
questions with regard to the opinions of any
whom it aids, and at this moment stands ready to
forward those from the South as well as the
North, while in the Territory all, from whatever
quarter, are admitted to an equal enjoyment of
its tempting advantages. It is not true that the
Company has sent persons merely to control
elections, and not to remain in the Territory,
for its whole action and all its anticipation of
pecuniary profits, are founded on the hope to
stock the country with permanent settlers, by
whose labor the capital of the Company shall be
made to yield its increase, and by whose fixed
interest in the soil the welfare of all shall be
promoted.
Sir, it has not the honor of being an Abolition
Society, or of numbering among its officers
Abolitionists. Its President is a retired
citizen, of ample means and charitable life, who
has taken no part in the conflicts on slavery,
and has never allowed his sympathies to be felt
by Abolitionists. One of its Vice-Presidents is
a gentleman from Virginia, with family and
friends there, who has always opposed the
Abolitionists. Its generous Treasurer, who is
now justly absorbed by the objects of the
Company, has always been understood as ranging
with his extensive connexions, by blood and
marriage, on the side of that quietism which
submits to all tyranny of the Slave Power. Its
Directors are more conspicuous for wealth and
science than for any activity against slavery.
Among these is an eminent lawyer of
Massachusetts, Mr. Chapman -- personally known,
doubtless, to some who hear me -- who has
distinguished himself by an austere
conservatism, too natural to the atmosphere of
courts, which does not flinch even from the
support of the Fugitive Slave bill. In a recent
address at a public meeting in Springfield this
gentleman thus speaks for himself and his
associates:--
"I have been a Director of the Society from the
first, and have kept myself well informed in
regard to its proceedings. I am not aware that
any one in this community ever suspected me of
being an Abolitionist; but I have been accused
of being Pro-Slavery; and I believe many good
people think I am quite too conservative on that
subject. I take this occasion to say that all
the plans and proceedings of the Society have
met my approbation; and I assert that it has
never done a single act with which any political
party or the people of any section of the
country can justly find fault. The name of its
President, Mr. Brown, of Providence, and of its
Treasurer, Mr. Lawrence, of Boston, are a
sufficient guarantee in the estimation of
intelligent men against it being engaged in any
fanatical enterprise. Its stockholders are
composed of men of all political parties except
Abolitionists. I am not aware that it has
received the patronage of that class of our
fellow-citizens, and I am informed that some of
them disapprove of its proceedings."
The acts of the Company have been such as might
be expected from auspices thus severely careful
at all points. The secret through which, with
small means, it has been able to accomplish so
much is, that, as an inducement to emigration,
it has gone forward and planted capital in
advance of population. According to the old
immethodical system, this rule is reversed; and
population has been left to grope blindly,
without the advantage of fixed centres, with
mills, schools, and churches, all calculated to
soften the hardships of pioneer life, such as
have been established beforehand in Kansas.
Here, sir, is the secret of the Emigrant Aid
Company. By this single principle, which is now
practically applied for the first time in
history, and which has the simplicity of genius,
a business association at a distance, without a
large capital, has become a beneficent
instrument of civilization, exercising the
functions of various Societies, and in itself
being a Missionary Society, a Bible Society, a
Tract Society, an Education Society and a
Society for the Diffusion of the Mechanic Arts.
I would not claim too much for this Company; but
I doubt if, at this moment, there is any Society
which is so completely philanthropic; and since
its leading idea, like the light of a candle
from which other candles are lighted without
number, may be applied indefinitely, it promises
to be an important aid to Human Progress. The
lesson it teaches cannot be forgotten, and
hereafter, wherever unsettled lands exist,
intelligent capital will lead the way,
anticipating the wants of the pioneer, nay,
doing the very work of the original pioneer,
while, amidst well-arranged harmonies, a new
community will arise, to become, by its example,
a more eloquent preacher than any solitary
missionary. Its subordination to this essential
idea is its humbler machinery for the aid of
emigrants on their way, by combining parties, so
that friends and neighbors might journey
together; by purchasing tickets at wholesale,
and furnishing them to individuals at the actual
cost; by providing for each party a conductor
familiar with the road, and, through these
simple means, promoting the economy, safety, and
comfort of the expedition. The number of
emigrants it has directly aided, even thus
slightly, in their journey, has been infinitely
exaggerated. From the beginning of its
operations down to the close of the last autumn,
all its detachments from Massachusetts contained
only thirteen hundred and twelve persons.
Such is the simple tale of the Emigrant Aid
Company. Sir, not even suspicion can justly
touch it. But it must be made a scapegoat. This
is the decree which has gone forth. I was hardly
surprised at this outrage, when it proceeded
from the President, for, like Macbeth, he is
stepped so far in, that returning were as
tedious as go on; but I did not expect it from
the senator from Missouri (Mr. Geyer,) whom I
had learned to respect for the general
moderation of his views, and the name he has won
in an honorable profession. Listening to him, I
was saddened by the spectacle of the extent to
which the Slave Power will sway a candid mind to
do injustice. Had any other interest been in
question, that senator would have scorned to
join in impeachment of such an association. His
instincts as a lawyer, as a man of honor, and as
a senator, would have forbidden; but the Slave
Power, in enforcing its behests, allows no
hesitation, and the senator surrendered.
In this vindication I content myself with a
statement of facts, rather than an argument. It
might be urged that Missouri had organized a
propagandist emigration long before any from
Massachusetts, and you might be reminded of the
wolf in the fable, which complained of the lamb
for disturbing the waters, when in fact the
alleged offender was lower down on the stream.
It might be urged, also, that South Carolina has
lately entered upon a similar system, while one
of her chieftains, in rallying recruits, has
unconsciously attested to the cause in which he
was engaged, by exclaiming, in the words of
Satan, addressed to his wicked forces, "Awake!
Arise! or be forever fallen!" But the occasion
needs no such defences. I put them aside. Not on
the example of Missouri or the example of South
Carolina, but on inherent rights, which no man,
whether senator or President, can justly assail,
do I plant this impregnable justification. It
will not do, in specious phrases, to allege the
right of every State to be free in its domestic
policy from foreign interference, and then to
assume such wrongful interference by this
Company. By the law and Constitution, we stand
or fall; and that law and Constitution we have
in no respect offended.
To cloak the overthrow of all law in Kansas, an
assumption is now set up which utterly denies
one of the plainest rights of the people
everywhere. Sir, I beg senators to understand
that this is a Government of laws; and that,
under these laws, the people have an
incontestable right to settle any portion of our
broad territory, and, if they choose, to
propagate any opinions there not openly
forbidden by the laws. If this were not so,
pray, sir, by what title is the senator from
Illinois, who is an emigrant from Vermont,
propagating his disastrous opinions on another
State? Surely he has no monopoly of this right.
Others may do what he is doing, nor can the
right be in any way restrained. It is as broad
as the people; and it matters not whether they
go in numbers small or great, with assistance or
without assistance, under the auspices of
societies or not under such auspices. If this
were not so, then by what title are so many
foreigners annually naturalized, under
Democratic auspices, in order to secure their
votes for misnamed Democratic principles? And if
capital as well as combination cannot be
employed, by what title do venerable
associations exist, of ampler means and longer
duration than any Emigrant Aid Company, around
which cluster the regard and confidence of the
country -- the Tract Society, a powerful
corporation, which scatters its publications
freely in every corner of the land -- the Bible
Society, an incorporated body, with large
resources, which seeks to carry the Book of life
alike into Territories and States -- the
Missionary society, also an incorporated body,
with large resources, which sends its agents
everywhere, at home and in foreign lands? By
what title do all these exist?
Nay, sir, by what title does an Insurance
Company in New York send its agents to open
office in New Orleans, and by what title does
Massachusetts capital contribute to the Hannibal
and St. Joseph Rail Road in Missouri, and also
to the copper mines in Michigan?
The senator inveighs against the Native American
party; but his own principle is narrower than
any attributed to them. They object to the
influence of emigrants from abroad; he objects
to the influence of American citizens at home
when exerted in States or Territories where they
were not born! The whole assumption is too
audacious for respectful argument. But since a
great right has been denied, the children of the
Free States, over whose cradles have shown the
North Star, owe it to themselves, to their
ancestors, and to freedom itself, that this
right should now be asserted to the fullest
extent. By the blessing of God, and under the
continued protection of the laws, they will go
to Kansas, there to plant their homes, in the
hope of elevating this Territory soon into the
sisterhood of Free States; and to such end they
will not hesitate, in the employment of all
legitimate means, whether by companies of men or
contributions of money, to swell a virtuous
emigration, and they will justly scout any
attempt to question this unquestionable right.
Sir, if they failed to do this, they would be
fit for slaves themselves.
God be praised! Massachusetts, honored
Commonwealth that gives me the privilege to
plead for Kansas on this floor, knows her
rights, and will maintain them firmly to the
end. This is not the first time in history that
her public acts have been arraigned, and that
her public men have been exposed to contumely.
Thus was it when, in olden time, she began the
great battle whose fruits you all enjoy. But
never yet has she occupied a position so lofty
as at this moment. By the intelligence of her
population -- by the resources of her industry
-- by her commerce, cleaving every wave -- by
her manufactures, various as human skill -- by
her institutions of benevolence, various as
human suffering -- by the pages of her scholars
and historians -- by the voices of her poets and
orators, she is now exerting an influence more
subtle and commanding than ever before --
shooting her far-darting rays wherever
ignorance, wretchedness, or wrong prevail, and
flashing light even upon those who travel to
persecute her. Such is Massachusetts; and I am
proud to believe that you may as well attempt,
with puny arm, to topple down the earth rooted,
heaven-kissing granite which crowns the historic
sod of Bunker Hill, as to change her fixed
resolves for freedom everywhere, and especially
now for freedom in Kansas. I exult, too, that in
this battle, which surpasses far in moral
grandeur the whole war of the Revolution, she is
able to preserve her just eminence. To the first
she contributed a larger number of troops than
any other State in the Union, and larger than
all the Slave States together; and now to the
second, which is not of contending armies, but
of contending opinions, on whose issue hangs
trembling the advancing civilization of the
country, she contributes, through the manifold
and endless intellectual activity of her
children, more of that divine spark by which
opinions are quickened into life, than is
contributed by any other State, or by all the
Slave States together, while her annual
productive industry excels in value three times
the whole vaunted cotton crop of the whole
South.
Sir, to men on earth it belongs only to deserve
success, not to secure it; and I know not how
soon the efforts of Massachusetts will wear the
crown of triumph. But it cannot be that she acts
wrong for herself or children when in this cause
she thus encounters reproach. No; by the
generous souls who were exposed at Lexington; by
those who stood arrayed at Bunker Hill; by the
many from her bosom who, on all the fields of
the first great struggle, lent their vigorous
arms to the cause of all; by the children she
has borne, whose names alone are national
trophies, is Massachusetts now vowed irrevocably
to this work. What belongs to the faithful
servant she will do in all things, and
Providence shall determine the result.
And here ends what I have to say of the four
Apologies for the crime against Kansas.
III. From this simple survey, where one
obstruction after another has been removed, I
now pass, in the third place, to the
consideration of the various remedies proposed,
ending with the True Remedy.
The Remedy, should be coextensive with the
original Wrong; and, since, by the passage of
the Nebraska bill, not only Kansas, but also
Nebraska, Minnesota, Washington, and even
Oregon, have been opened to slavery, the
original prohibition should be restored to its
complete activity throughout these various
Territories. By such a happy restoration, made
in good faith, the whole country would be
replaced in the condition which it enjoyed
before the introduction of that dishonest
measure. Here is the Alpha and the Omega of our
aim in this immediate controversy. But no such
extensive measure is now in question. The crime
against Kansas has been special, and all else is
absorbed in the special remedies for it. Of
these I shall now speak.
As the Apologies were four-fold, so are the
Remedies proposed four-fold, and they range
themselves in natural order, under designations
which so truly disclose their character as even
to supersede argument. First, we have the Remedy
of Tyranny; next, the Remedy of Folly, next the
Remedy of Injustice and Civil War; and fourthly,
the Remedy of Justice and Peace. There are four
caskets; and you are to determine which shall be
opened by senatorial votes.
There is the Remedy of Tyranny, which, like its
complement, the Apology of Tyranny; though
espoused on this floor, especially by the
senator from Illinois -- proceeds from the
President, and is embodied in a special message.
It proposes to enforce obedience to the existing
laws of Kansas, "whether Federal or local,"
when, in fact, Kansas has no "local" laws except
those imposed by the usurpation from Missouri,
and it calls for additional appropriations to
complete this work of tyranny.
I shall not follow the President in his
elaborate endeavor to prejudge the contested
election now pending in the House of
Representatives, for this whole matter belongs
to the privileges of that body, and neither the
President nor the Senate has a right to
intermeddle therewith. I do not touch it. But
now, while dismissing it, I should not pardon
myself if I failed to add, that any person who
founds his claim to a seat in Congress on the
pretended votes of hirelings from another State
with no home on the soil of Kansas, plays the
part of Anacharie Clopts, who, at the bar of the
French Convention, undertook to represent
nations that knew him not, or, if they knew him,
scorned him, with this difference, that in our
American case, the excessive farce of the
transaction cannot cover its tragedy. But all
this I put aside to deal only with what is
legitimately before the Senate.
I expose simply the Tyranny which upholds the
existing Usurpation; and asks for additional
appropriations. Let it be judged by an example,
from which in this country there can be no
appeal. Here is the speech of George III, made
from the Throne to Parliament, in response to
the complaints of the Province of Massachusetts
Bay, which, though smarting under laws passed by
usurped power, had yet avoided all armed
opposition, while Lexington and Bunker Hill
still slumbered in rural solitude, unconscious
of the historic kindred which they were soon to
claim. Instead of Massachusetts Bay, in the
Royal speech, substitute Kansas, and the message
of the President will be found fresh on the lips
of the British King. Listen now to the words,
which in opening Parliament, 30th November 1774,
his Majesty, according to the official report,
was pleased to speak: --
My Lords and Gentlemen:-- "It gives me much
concern that I am obliged, at the opening of
this Parliament, to inform you that a most
daring spirit of resistance and disobedience to
the law still unhappily prevails in the Province
of the Massachusetts Bay, and has in divers
parts of it broke forth in fresh violences of a
very criminal nature. These proceedings have
been countenanced in other of my Colonies, and
unwarrantable attempts have been made to
obstruct the commerce of this Kingdom by
unlawful combinations. I have taken such
measures and given such orders as I have judged
most proper and effectual for carrying into
execution the laws which were passed in the last
session of the late Parliament for the
protection and security of the Commerce of my
subjects, and for the restoring and preserving
peace, order, and good government, in the
Province of the Massachusetts Bay"
[American Archives, 4th series, vol. 1, page
1465]
The King complained of a "daring spirit of
resistance and disobedience to the law;" so also
does the President. The King adds, that it has
"broke forth in fresh violences of a very
criminal nature;" so also does the President.
The King declares that these proceedings have
been "countenanced and encouraged in other of my
Colonies;" even so the President declares that
Kansas has found sympathy in "remote States."
The King inveighs against "unwarrantable
measures" and "unlawful combinations;" even so
inveighs the President. The King proclaims that
he has taken the necessary steps "for carrying
into execution the laws," passed in defiance of
the constitutional rights of the Colonies; even
so the President proclaims that he shall "exert
the whole power of the Federal Executive" to
support the Usurpation in Kansas. The parallel
is complete. The Message, if not copied from the
Speech of the King, has been fashioned on the
same original block, and must be dismissed to
the same limbo. I dismiss its tyrannical
assumptions in favor of the Usurpation. I
dismiss also its petition for additional
appropriations in the affected desire to
maintain order in Kansas. It is not money or
troops that you need there; but simply the good
will of the President. That is all, absolutely.
Let his complicity with the crime cease, and
peace will be restored. For myself, I will not
consent to wad the National artillery with fresh
appropriation bills, when its murderous hail is
to be directed against the constitutional rights
of my fellow- citizens.
Next comes the Remedy of Folly, which, indeed,
is also a Remedy of Tyranny; but its Folly is so
surpassing as to eclipse even its Tyranny. It
does not proceed from the President. With this
proposition he is not in any way chargeable. It
comes from the senator from South Carolina, who,
at the close of a long speech, offered it as a
single contribution to the adjustment of this
question, and who, thus far, stands alone in its
support. It might, therefore, fitly bear his
name; but that which I now give to it is a more
suggestive synonym.
This proposition, nakedly expressed, is that the
people of the Kansas should be deprived of their
arms. That I may not do the least injustice to
the senator, I quote his precise words:--
The President of the United States is under the
highest and most solemn obligations to
interpose; and if I were to indicate the manner
in which he should interpose in Kansas, I would
point out the old common-law process. I would
serve a warrant on Sharpe's rifles and if
Sharpe's rifles did not answer the summons, and
come into court on a certain day, or if they
resisted the sheriff, I would summon the posse
comitatus and would have Colonel Sumner's
regiment to be a part of that posse comitatus."
Really, sir, has it come to this? The rifle has
ever been the companion of the pioneer, and,
under God, his tutelary protector against the
red man and the beast of the forest. Never was
this efficient weapon more needed in just self-defence,
than now in Kansas, and at least one article in
our National Constitution must be blotted out;
before the complete right to it can in any way
be impeached. And yet such is the madness of the
hour, that, in defiance of the solemn guarantee,
embodied in the Amendments to the Constitution,
that "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed." the people of
Kansas have been arraigned for keeping and
bearing them, and the senator from South
Carolina has had the face to say openly, on this
floor, that they should be disarmed -- of
course, that the fanatics of slavery, his allies
and constituents, may meet no impediment. Sir,
the senator is "venerable with years; he is
reputed also to have worn at home, in the State
which he represents, judicial honors; and he is
placed here at the head of an important
Committee occupied particularly with questions
of law; but neither his years, nor his position,
past or present, can give respectability to the
demand he has made, or save him from indignant
condemnation, when, to compass the wretched
purposes of a wretched cause, he thus proposes
to trample on one of the plainest provisions of
constitutional liberty.
Next comes the Remedy of Injustice and Civil War
-- organized by Act of Congress. This
proposition, which is also an offshoot of the
original Remedy of Tyranny, proceeds from the
senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] with the
sanction of the Committee on Territories, and is
embodied in the bill which is now pressed to a
vote.
By this bill it is proposed as follows: --
"That whenever it shall appear, by a census to
be taken under the direction of the Governor, by
the authority of the Legislature, that there
shall be 93,420 inhabitants (that being the
number required by the present ratio of
representation for a member of Congress), within
the limits hereafter described as the Territory
of Kansas, the Legislature of said Territory
shall be, and is hereby, authorized to provide
by law for the election of delegates, by the
people of said Territory, to assemble in
Convention and form a Constitution and State
Government, preparatory to their admission into
the Union on an equal footing with the original
States in all respects whatsoever, by the name
of the State of Kansas."
Now, sir, consider these words carefully, and
you will see that, however plausible and
velvet-pawed they may seem, yet in reality they
are most unjust and cruel. While affecting to
initiate honest proceedings for the formation of
a State, they furnish to this Territory no
redress for the crime under which it suffers;
nay, they recognize the very Usurpation, in
which the crime ended, and proceed to endow it
with new prerogatives. It is by the authority of
the Legislature that the census is to be taken,
which is the first step in the work. It is also
by the authority of the legislature that a
Convention is to be called for the formation of
a Constitution, which is the second step. But
the Legislature is not obliged to take either of
these steps. To its absolute willfulness is left
to act or not to act in the premises. And since,
in the ordinary course of business, there can be
no action of the Legislature till January of the
next year, all these steps, which are
preliminary in their character, are postponed
till after that distant day -- thus keeping this
great question open to distract and irritate the
country. Clearly this is not what is required.
The country desires peace at once, and is
determined to have it. But this objection is
slight by the side of the glaring Tyranny, that,
in recognising the Legislature, and conferring
upon it these new powers, the bill recognizes
the existing Usurpation, not only as the
authentic Government of the Territory for the
time being, but also as possessing a creative
power to reproduce itself in the new State. Pass
this bill, and you enlist Congress in the
conspiracy, not only to keep the people of
Kansas in their present subjugation, throughout
their Territorial existence, but also to
protract this subjugation into their existence
as a State, while you legalize and perpetuate
the very force by which slavery has been already
planted there.
I know that there is another deceptive clause,
which seems to throw certain safeguards around
the election of delegates to the Convention,
when that Convention shall be ordered by the
Legislature; but out of this very clause do I
draw a condemnation of the Usurpation which the
bill recognizes. It provides that the tests,
coupled with the electoral franchise, shall not
prevail in the election of delegates, and thus
impliedly condemns them. But if they are not to
prevail on this occasion, why are they permitted
at the election of the Legislature? If they are
unjust in the one case they are unjust in the
other. If annulled at the election of delegates,
they should be annulled at the election of the
Legislature; Whereas, the bill of the senator
leaves all these offensive tests in full
activity at the election of the very legislature
out of which this whole proceeding is to come,
and it leaves the polls at both elections in the
control of the officers appointed by the
usurpation. Consider well the facts. By an
existing statute, establishing the Fugitive
Slave bill, as a shibboleth, a large portion of
the honest citizens are excluded from voting for
the Legislature, while, by another statute, all
who present themselves with a fee of one dollar,
whether from Missouri or not, and who can utter
this shibboleth, are entitled to vote. And it is
a Legislature thus chosen, under the auspices of
officers appointed by the Usurpation, that you
now propose to invest with parental powers, to
rear the Territory into a State. You recognize
and confirm the Usurpation, which you ought to
annul without delay. You put the infant State,
now preparing to take a place in our sisterhood,
to suckle with the wolf, which you ought at once
to kill. The improbable story of Baron
Munchausen is verified. The bear, which thrust
itself into the harness of the horse it had
devoured, and then whirled the sledge according
to a more brutal bent, is recognized by this
bill, and kept in its usurped place, when the
safety of all requires that it should be shot.
In characterizing this bill as the Remedy of
Injustice and Civil War, I give it a plain,
self-evident title. It is a continuation of the
crime against Kansas, and as such deserves the
same condemnation. It can only be defended by
those who defend the crime. Sir, you cannot
expect that the people of Kansas will submit to
the usurpation which this bill sets up, and bids
them bow before -- as the Austrian tyrant set up
his cap in the Swiss market place. If you madly
persevere, Kansas will not be without her
William Tell, who will refuse at all hazards to
recognize the tyrannical edict; and this will be
the beginning of civil war.
Next, and lastly, comes the Remedy of Justice
and Peace, proposed by the senator from New
York, (Mr. Seward,) and embodied in his bill for
the immediate admission of Kansas as a State of
this Union, now pending as a substitute for the
bill of the senator from Illinois. This is
sustained by the prayer of the people of the
Territory, setting forth a Constitution formed
by a spontaneous movement, in which all there
had opportunity to participate, without
distinction of party. Rarely has any
proposition, so simple in character, so entirely
practicable, so absolutely within your power,
been presented, which promised at once such
beneficent results. In its adoption, the crime
against Kansas will be all happily absolved, the
Usurpation which it established will be
peacefully suppressed, and order will be
permanently secured. By a joyful metamorphosis
this fair Territory may be saved from outrage.
"Oh help," she cries, "in this extremest need,
If you who bear are Deities indeed; Gape earth,
and make for this dread foe a tomb, Or change my
form, whence all my sorrows come."
In offering this proposition, the senator from
New York has entitled himself to the gratitude
of the country. He has, throughout a life of
unsurpassed industry, and of eminent ability,
done much for freedom, which the world will not
let die; but he has done nothing more opportune
than this, and he has uttered no words more
effective than the Speech, so masterly and
ingenious, by which he has vindicated it.
Kansas now presents herself for admission with a
Constitution republican in form. And,
independent of the great necessity of the case,
three considerations of fact concur in
commending her. First. She thus testifies her
willingness to relieve the Federal Government of
the considerable pecuniary responsibility to
which it is now exposed on account of the
pretended Territorial Government. Secondly. She
has by her recent conduct, particularly in
repelling the invasion at Wakarusa, evinced an
ability to defend her Government. And, thirdly,
by the pecuniary credit which she now enjoys,
she shows an undoubted ability to support it.
What now can stand in her way?
The power of Congress to admit Kansas at once is
explicit. It is found in a single clause of the
Constitution, which, standing by itself, without
any qualification applicable to the present
case, and without doubtful words, requires no
commentary. Here it is:--
New States may be admitted by Congress into
this Union; but no new State shall be formed or
erected within the jurisdiction of any other
State, nor any State be formed by the junction
of two or more States or parts of States,
without the consent of the Legislatures of the
States concerned, as well as of the Congress."
New States may be admitted. Out of that little
word may comes the power, broadly and fully,
without any limitation founded on population or
preliminary forms, provided the State is not
within the jurisdiction of another State, nor
formed by the junction of two or more States or
parts of States, without the consent of the
Legislatures of the States. Kansas is not within
the legal jurisdiction of another State,
although the laws of Missouri have been
tyrannically extended over her; nor is Kansas
formed by the junction of two or more States;
and, therefore, Kansas may be admitted by
Congress into the Union, without regard to
population or preliminary forms. You cannot deny
the power without obliterating this clause of
the Constitution. The senator from New York was
right in rejecting all appeals to precedents, as
entirely irrelevant; for the power invoked is
clear and express in the Constitution, which is
above all precedent. But, since precedent has
been enlisted, let us look at precedent.
It is objected that the population of Kansas is
not sufficient for a State; and this objection
is sustained by under-reckoning the numbers
there, and exaggerating the numbers required by
precedent. In the absence of any recent census
it is impossible to do more than approximate to
the actual population; but, from careful inquiry
of the best sources I am led to place it now at
fifty thousand, though I observe that a prudent
authority, the Boston Daily Advertiser, puts it
as high as sixty thousand, and, while I speak,
this remarkable population, fed by fresh
emigration, is outstripping even these
calculations. Nor can there be a doubt that,
before the assent of Congress can be perfected
in the ordinary course of legislation, this
population will swell to the large number of
ninty three thousand four hundred and twenty,
required in the bill of the senator from
Illinois.
But, in making this number the condition of the
admission of Kansas, you set up an extraordinary
standard. There is nothing out of which it can
be derived, from the beginning to the end of the
precedents. Going back to the days of the
Continental Congress, you will find that, in
1784, it was declared that twenty thousand
freemen in a Territory might "establish a
permanent Constitution and Government for
themselves" (Journals of Congress, vol. 4, p.
379;) and, though this number was afterwards, in
the Ordinance of 1787 for the Northwestern
Territory, raised to sixty thousand, yet the
power was left in Congress, and subsequently
exercised in more than one instance, to
constitute a State with a smaller number. Out of
all the new States, only Maine, Wisconsin, and
Texas contained, at the time of their admission
into the Union, so large a population as it is
proposed to require in Kansas; while no less
than fourteen new States have been admitted with
a smaller population; as will appear in the
following list, which is the result of research,
showing the number of "free inhabitants" in
these States at the time of the proceedings
which ended in their admission:--
Vermont 85,416
Kentucky 61,103
Tennessee 66,649
Ohio 50,000
Louisiana 41,890
Indiana 60,000
Mississippi 35,000
Alabama 50,000
Illinois 45,000
Missouri 56,586
Arkansas 41,000
Michigan 92,673
Florida 27,091
Iowa 21,921
California 92,597
But this is not all. At the adoption of the
Federal Constitution, there were three of the
old Thirteen States whose respective populations
did not reach the amount now required for
Kansas. These were Delaware, with a population
of 59,096; Rhode Island, with a population of
64,689; and Georgia, with a population of
82,548. And even now, while I speak, there are
at least two States, with senators on this
floor, which, according to the last census, do
not contain the population now required of
Kansas. I refer to Delaware, with a population
of 91,635, and Florida, with a population of
freemen amounting only to 47,204. So much for
the precedents of population.
But in sustaining this objection it is not
uncommon to depart from the strict rule of
numerical precedent, by suggesting that the
population required in a new State has always
been, in point of fact, above the existing ratio
of representation for a member of the House of
Representatives. But this is not true; for at
least one State, Florida, was admitted with a
population below this ratio, which at the time
was 70,680. So much, again, for precedents. But,
even if this coincidence were complete, it would
be impossible to press it into a binding
precedent. The rule seems reasonable, and, in
ordinary cases, would not be questioned; but it
cannot be drawn or implied from the
Constitution. Besides, this ratio is, in itself,
a sliding scale. At first it was 33,000, and
thus continued till 1811, when it was put at
35,000. In 1822, it was 40,000; in 1832, it was
47,700; in 1842, it was 70,680; and now, it is
93,420. If any ratio is to be made the
foundation of a binding rule, it should be that
which prevailed at the adoption of the
Constitution, and which still continued when
Kansas, as a part of Louisiana, was acquired
from France, under solemn stipulation that it
should "be incorporated into the Union of the
United States as soon as may be consistent with
the principles of the Federal Constitution."
But this whole objection is met by the memorial
of the people of Florida, which, if good for
that State, is also good for Kansas. Here is a
passage:--
"But the people of Florida respectfully insist
that their right to be admitted into the Federal
Union as a State is not dependent upon the fact
of their having a population equal to such
ratio. Their right to admission, it is
conceived, is guarantied by the express pledge
in the sixth article of the treaty before
quoted; and if any rule as to the number of the
population is to govern, it should be that in
existence at the time of the cession, which was
thirty-five thousand. They submit, however, that
any ratio of representation, dependent upon
legislative action, based solely on convenience
and expediency, shifting and vacillating as the
opinion of a majority of Congress may make it,
now greater than at a previous apportionment,
but which a future Congress may prescribe to be
less, cannot be one of the constitutional
"principles" referred to in the treaty,
consistency with which, by its terms, is
required. It is, in truth, but a mere
regulation, not founded on principle. No
specified number of population is required by
any recognized principle as necessary in the
establishment of a free Government.
"It is in nowise "inconsistent with the
principles of the Federal Constitution" that the
population of a State should be less than the
ratio of Congressional representation. The very
case is provided for in the Constitution. With
such deficient population, she would be entitled
to one Representative. If any even should cause
a decrease of the population of one of the
States even to a number below the minimum ratio
of representation prescribed by the
Constitution, she would still remain a member of
the Confederacy, and be entitled to such
Representative. It is respectfully urged that a
rule or principle which would not justify the
expulsion of a State with a deficient
population, on the ground of inconsistency with
the Constitution, should not exclude or prohibit
admission. --(Exec. Doc. 27th Congress, 2d
sess. Vol. 4, No. 206.)
Thus, sir, do the people of Florida plead for
the people of Kansas.
Distrusting the objection from inadequacy of
population, it is said that the proceedings for
the formation of a new State are fatally
defective in form. It is not asserted that a
previous enabling Act of Congress is
indispensible, for there are notorious
precedents the other way, among which are
Kentucky in 1791; Tennessee in 1796; Maine in
1820; and Arkansas and Michigan in 1836. But it
is urged that in no instance has a State been
admitted, whose Constitution was formed without
such enabling Act, or without the authority of
the Territorial Legislature. This is not true;
for California came into the Union with a
Constitution, formed not only without any
previous enabling Act, but also without any
sanction from a Territorial Legislature. The
proceedings which ended in this Constitution
were initiated by the military Governor there,
acting under the exigency of the hour. This
instance may not be identical in all respects
with that of Kansas; but it displaces completely
one of the assumptions which Kansas now
encounters, and it also shows completely the
disposition to relax all rule, under the
exigency of the hour, in order to do substantial
justice.
But there is a memorable instance, which
contains in itself every element of irregularity
which you denounce in the proceedings of Kansas.
Michigan, now cherished with such pride as a
sister State, achieved admission into the Union
in persistent defiance of all rule. Do you ask
for precedents: Here is a precedent for the
largest latitude, which you who profess a
deference to precedent, cannot disown. Mark now
the stages of this case. The first proceedings
of Michigan were without any previous enabling
Act of Congress; and she presented herself at
your door with a Constitution thus formed, and
with senators chosen under that Constitution,
precisely as Kansas now. This was in December
1835, while Andrew Jackson was President. By the
leaders of the Democracy at that time, all
objection for alleged defects of form was
scouted, and language was employed which is
strictly applicable to Kansas. There is nothing
new under the sun; and the very objection of the
President, that the application of Kansas
proceeds from "persons acting against
authorities duly constituted by Act of
Congress," was hurled against the application of
Michigan, in debate on this floor, by Mr.
Hendricks, of Indiana. This was his language: --
"But the people of Michigan, in presenting
their Senate and House of Representatives as the
legislative power existing there, showed that
they had trampled upon and violated the laws of
the United States, establishing a Territorial
Government in Michigan. These laws were, or
ought to be, in full force there; but, by the
character and position assumed, they had set up
a Government antagonist to that of the United
States. -- (Congress Deb, Vol. 12, p288, 24th
Congress, 1st session.)
To this impeachment Mr. Benton replied in these
effective words: --
"Conventions were original acts of the people.
They depend upon inherent and inalienable
rights. The people of any State may at any time
meet in Convention, without a law of their
Legislature, and without any provision, or
against any provision in their Constitution, and
may alter or abolish the whole frame of
Government as they please. The sovereign power
to govern themselves was in the majority, and
they could not be divested of it. -- (Ibid, p
1036)
Mr. Buchanan vied with Mr. Benton in vindicating
the new State:--
"The precedent in the case of Tennessee has
completely silenced all opposition in regard to
the necessity of a previous act of Congress to
enable the people of Michigan to form a State
Constitution. It now seems to be conceded that
our subsequent approbation is equivalent to our
previous action. This can no longer be doubted.
We have the unquestionable power of waiving any
irregularities in the mode of framing the
Constitution, had any such existed. -- (Ibid,
p. 1015.)
After an animated contest in the Senate, the
bill for the admission of Michigan, on her
assent to certain conditions, was passed, by 23
yeas to 8 nays. But you find weight as well as
numbers on the side of the new State. Among the
yeas were Thomas H. Benton, of Missouri, James
Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, Silas Wright, of New
York, W. R. King of Alabama -- (Cong. Globe, Vol
3d., p. 276 1st session 24th Cong.)
Subsequently, on motion of Mr. Buchanan, the two
gentlemen sent as senators by the new State
received the regular compensation for attendance
throughout the very session in which their seats
had been so acrimoniously assailed. (Ibid, p.
448.)
In the House of Representatives the application
was equally successful. The Committee on the
Judiciary, in an elaborate report, reviewed the
objections, and among other things, said: --
"That the people of Michigan have, without due
authority, formed a State Government, but,
nevertheless, that Congress has power to waive
any objection which might on that account be
entertained, to the ratification of the
Constitution which they have adopted, and to
admit their senators and Representatives to take
their seats in the Congress of the United
States." (Exec. Doc., 1st session 24th Cong.,
Vol. 2, No 380.)
The House sustained this view by a vote of 153
yeas to 45 nays. In this large majority, by
which the title of Michigan was then recognized,
will be found the name of Franklin Pierce, at
that time a Representative from New Hampshire.
But the case was not ended. The fiercest trial
and the greatest irregularity remained. The act
providing for the admission of a new State
contained a modification of its boundaries, and
proceeded to require, as a fundamental
condition, that these should "receive the
assent of a Convention of delegates, elected by
the people of the said State, for the sole
purpose of giving the assent herein required."
(Statutes at Large, Vol. 5, p. 50, Act of June
5th, 1836.) Such a Convention, duly elected
under a call from the Legislature, met in
pursuance of law, and, after consideration,
declined to come into the Union on the condition
proposed. But the action of this Convention was
not universally satisfactory, and in order to
effect an admission into the Union, another
Convention was called professedly by the people,
in their sovereign capacity, without any
authority from State or Territorial Legislature;
nay, sir, according to the language of the
present President, "against authorities duly
constituted by Act of Congress;" at least as
much as the recent Convention in Kansas. The
irregularity of this Convention was increased by
the circumstance, that two of the oldest
counties of the State, comprising a population
of some twenty-five thousand souls, refused to
take any part in it, even to the extent of not
opening the polls for the election of delegates,
claiming that it was held without warrant of
law, and in defiance of the legal Convention.
This popular Convention, though wanting a
popular support coextensive with the State, yet
proceeded, by formal act, to give the assent of
the people of Michigan to the fundamental
condition proposed by Congress.
The proceedings of the two Conventions were
transmitted to President Jackson, who, by
message dated 27th December, 1836, laid them
both before Congress, indicating very clearly
his desire to ascertain the will of the people,
without regard to form. The origin of this
popular Convention he thus describes: --
"This Convention was not held or elected by
virtue of any act of the Territorial or State
Legislature. It originated from the People
themselves, and was chosen by them in pursuance
of resolutions adopted in primary assemblies
held in their respective counties." -- (Sen.
Doc., 2d sess. 24th Cong., Vol. 1, No. 36.)
And he then declares that, had these proceedings
come to him during the recess of Congress, he
should have felt it his duty, on being satisfied
that they emanated from a Convention of
delegates elected in point of fact by the people
of the State, to issue his proclamation for the
admission of the State.
The Committee on the Judiciary in the Senate, of
which Felix Grundy was Chairman, after inquiry,
recognized the competency of the popular
Convention, as "elected by the People of the
State of Michigan," and reported a bill,
responsive to their assent of the proposed
condition for the admission of the State without
further condition. -- (Statutes at Large, Vol.
5, p. 144, Act of 26th Jan. 1837.) Then, sir,
appeared the very objections which are now
directed against Kansas. It was complained that
the movement for immediate admission was the
work of "a minority," and that "a great majority
of the State feel otherwise." -- (Sen. Doc, 2d
sess. 24th Cong., Vol. 1, No 37.) And a leading
senator of great ability and integrity, Mr.
Ewing, of Ohio, broke forth in a catechism which
would do for the present hour. He exclaimed: --
"What evidence had the Senate of the
organization of the Convention? Of the
organization of the popular assemblies who
appointed their delegates to that Convention?
None on earth. Who they were that met and voted
we had no information. Who gave the notice? And
for what did the People receive the notice? To
meet and elect? What evidence was there that the
Convention acted according to law? Were the
delegates sworn? And, if so, they were
extra-judicial oaths, and not binding upon them.
Were the votes counted? In fact, it was not a
proceeding under the forms of the law, for they
were totally disregarded." -- (Cong. Globe,
Vol. 4, p. 60, 2d sess. 24th Cong.)
And the same able senator, on another occasion,
after exposing the imperfect evidence with
regard to the action of the convention, existing
only in letters and in an article from a Detroit
newspaper, again exclaimed: --
"This, sir, is the evidence to support an
organic law of a new State about to enter into
the Union! Yes, of an organic law, the very
highest act a community of men can perform.
Letters referring to other letters and a scrap
of newspaper." -- (Cong. Debates, Vol. 13, Part
I, p 233.)
It was Mr. Calhoun, however, who pressed the
opposition with the most persevering intensity.
In his sight, the admission of Michigan, under
the circumstances, "would be the most monstrous
proceeding under our Constitution that can be
conceived, the most repugnant to its principles,
and dangerous in its consequences." -- (Cong.
Debates, Vol. 13, p. 210) "There is not," he
exclaimed, "one particle of official evidence
before us. We have nothing but the private
letters of individuals, who do not know even the
numbers that voted on either occasion. They know
nothing of the qualification of voters, nor how
their votes were received, nor by whom
counted." -- (Ibid.) And he proceeded to
characterize the popular Convention as "not
only a party caucus, for party purpose, but a
criminal meeting --a meeting to subvert the
authority of the State and to assume its
sovereignty" -- adding "that the actors in
that meeting might be indicted, tried, and
punished" and he expressed astonishment that
"a self-created meeting, convened for a
criminal object, had dared to present to this
Government an act of theirs, and to expect that
we are to receive this irregular and criminal
act as a fulfillment of the condition which we
had presented for the admission of the State!"
-- (Ibid., p. 299.) No stronger words have been
employed against Kansas.
But the single question on which all the
proceedings then hinged, and which is as
pertinent in the case of Kansas as in the case
of Michigan, was thus put by Mr. Morris, of Ohio
-- (Ibid, p. 215) -- "Will Congress recognize
as valid, constitutional, and obligatory,
without the color of a law of Michigan to
sustain it, an act done by the People of that
State in their primary assemblies, and,
acknowledge that act as obligatory on the
constituted authorities and Legislature of the
State?" This question, thus distinctly
presented, was answered in debate by able
senators, among whom were Mr. Benton and Mr.
King. But there was one person, who has since
enjoyed much public confidence, and has left
many memorials of an industrious carerer in the
Senate and in diplomatic life, James Buchanan,
who rendered himself conspicuous by the ability
and ardor with which, against all assaults, he
upheld the cause of the popular Convention,
which was so strongly denounced, and the entire
conformity of its proceedings with the genius of
American institutions. His speeches on that
occasion contain an unanswerable argument, at
all points, mutato nomine, for the immediate
admission of Kansas under her present
Constitution; nor is there anything by which he
is now distinguished that will redound so truly
to his fame -- if he only continues true to
them. But the question was emphatically answered
in the Senate by the final vote on the passage
of the bill, where we find twenty-five yeas to
only ten nays. In the House of Representatives,
after debates, the question was answered in the
same way, by a vote of one hundred forty eight
yeas to fifty eight neas, and among the yeas is
again the name of Franklin Pierce, a
Representative from New Hampshire.
Thus, in that day, by such triumphant votes, did
the cause of Kansas prevail in the name of
Michigan. A popular Convention -- called
absolutely without authority, and containing
delegates from a portion only of the population
-- called, too, in opposition to constituted
authorities, and in derogation of another
Convention assembled under the forms of law,
stigmatized as a caucus and a criminal meeting,
whose authors were liable to indictment, trial,
and punishment, was, after ample debate,
recognized by Congress as valid, and Michigan
now holds her place in the Union, and her
senators sit on this floor, by virtue of that
act. Sir, if Michigan is legitimate, Kansas
cannot be illegitimate. You bastardize Michigan
when you refuse to recognize Kansas.
Again, I say, do you require a precedent? I give
it to you. But I will not stake this cause on
any precedent. I plant it firmly on the
fundamental principle of American Institutions,
as embodied in the Declaration of Independence,
by which Government is recognized as deriving
its just powers only from the consent of the
governed, who may alter or abolish it when it
becomes destructive of their rights. In the
debate on the Nebraska bill, at the overthrow of
the Prohibition of slavery, the Declaration of
Independence was denounced as a "self-evident
lie." It is only by a similar audacity that the
fundamental principle, which sustains the
proceedings in Kansas, can be assailed. Nay,
more, you must disown the Declaration of
Independence, and adopt the circular of the Holy
Alliance, which declares that "useful and
necessary changes in legislation and in the
administration of States ought only to emanate
from the free will and the intelligent and
well-weighed conviction of those whom God has
rendered responsible for power." Face to face,
I put the principle of the Declaration of
Independence and the principle of the Holy
Alliance, and bid them grapple! "The one places
the remedy in the hands which feel the
disorder;" the other places the remedy in the
hands which cause the disorder;" and when I thus
truthfully characterize them, I but adopt a
sententious phrase from the Debates in the
Virginia Convention on the adoption of the
Federal Constitution. -- (3 Elliot's Debates,
107 -- Mr. Corbin.) And now these two
principles, embodied in the rival propositions
of the senator from New York and the senator
from Illinois, must grapple on this floor.
Statesmen and Judges, publicists and authors,
with names of authority in American history,
espouse and vindicate the American principle.
Hand in hand, they now stand around Kansas, and
feel this new State lean on them for support. Of
these I content myself with adducing two only,
both from slaveholding Virginia, in days when
Human Rights were not without support in that
State. Listen to the language of St. George
Tucker, the distinguished commentator upon
Blackstone, uttered from the bench in a judicial
opinion:
"The power of convening the legal Assemblies,
or the ordinary constitutional Legislature,
resided solely in the Executive. They could
neither be chosen without writs issued by its
authority, nor assemble, when chosen, but under
the same authority. The Conventions, on the
contrary, were chosen and assembled, either in
persuance of recommendations from Congress, or
from their own bodies, or by the discretion and
common consent of the people. They were held
even whilst a legal Assembly existed. Witness
the Convention held at Richmond, in March, 1775;
after which period, the legal constitutional
Assembly was convened in Williamsburg, by the
Governor, Lord Dunmore. ***." Yet a
constitutional dependence on the British
Government was never denied until the succeeding
May. **" "The Convention, then, was not the
ordinary Legislature of Virginia. It was the
body of the people, impelled to assemble from a
sense of common danger, consulting for the
common good, and acting in all things for the
common safety." (1 Virginia Cases, 70, 71,
Kemper vs. Hawkins.)
Listen also to the language of James Madison:
"That in all great changes of established
government, forms ought to give way to
substance; that a rigid adherence in such cases
to the forms would render nominal and nugatory
the transcendent and precious right of the
people 'to abolish or alter their Government, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their
safety and happiness' ** "Nor can it have been
forgotten that no little ill-timed scruples, no
zeal for adhering to ordinary forms, were
anywhere seen, except in those who wished to
indulge under these masks their secret enmity to
the substance contended for." -- The
Federalist, No. 40.
Proceedings thus sustained, I am unwilling to
call revolutionary, although this term has the
sanction of the senator from New York. They are
founded on an unquestionable American right,
declared with independence, confirmed by the
blood of the fathers, and expounded by patriots,
which cannot be impeached without impairing the
liberties of all. On this head the language of
Mr. Buchanan, in reply to Mr. Calhoun, is
explicit:
"Does the senator [Mr. Calhoun] contend, then,
that if, in one of the States of this Union, the
Government be so organized as to utterly destroy
the right of equal representation, there is no
mode of obtaining redress but by an act of the
Legislature authorizing a Convention, or by open
rebellion? Must the people step at once from
oppression to open war? Must it be either
absolute submission or absolute revolution? Is
there no middle course? I cannot agree with the
senator. I say that the whole history of our
Government establishes the principle, that the
people are sovereign, and that a majority of
them can alter or change their fundamental laws
at pleasure. I deny that this is either
rebellion or revolution. It is an essential and
recognized principle in all our forms of
Government." (Congress. Deb., Vol 13, p. 313.
24th Cong., 2d. session.)
Surely, sir, if ever there was occasion for the
exercise of this right, the time had come in
Kansas. The people there had been subjugated by
a horde of foreign invaders and brought under a
tyrannical code of revolting barbarity, while
property and life among them were left exposed
to audacious assaults which flaunted at noonday,
and to reptile abuses which crawled in the
darkness of night. Self-defence is the first law
of nature; and unless this law is temporarily
silenced -- as all other law had been silenced
there -- you cannot condemn the proceedings in
Kansas. Here, sir, is an unquestionable
authority -- in itself an overwhelming law --
which belongs to all countries and times --
which is the same in Kansas as at Athens, and
Rome -- which is now and will be hereafter, as
it was in other days -- in presence of which
Acts of Congress and Constitutions are
powerless, as the voice of man against the
thunder which rolls through the sky -- which
whispers itself coeval with life -- whose very
breath is life itself; and now, in the last
resort, do I place all these proceedings under
this supreme safeguard, which you will assail in
vain. Any opposition must be founded on a
fundamental perversion of facts, or a perversion
of fundamental principle, which no words can
uphold, though surpassing in numbers the nine
hundred thousand piles driven into the mud in
order to sustain the Dutch Stadt-house at
Amsterdam!
Thus, on every ground of precedent, whether as
regards population or forms of proceeding; also,
on the vital principle of American Institutions;
and, lastly, on the absolute law of self-defence,
do I now invoke the power of Congress to admit
Kansas at once, and without hesitation into the
Union. "New States may be admitted by the
Congress into the Union;" such are the words of
the Constitution. If you hesitate for want of
precedent, then I do appeal to the great
principle of American Institutions. If,
forgetting the origin of the Republic, you turn
away from this principle, then, in the name of
human nature, trampled down and oppressed, but
aroused to a just self-defence, do I plead for
the exercise of this power. Do not hearken, I
pray you, to the propositions of Tyranny and
Folly; do not be ensnared by that other
proposition of the senator from Illinois [Mr.
Douglas,] in which is the horrid root of
Injustice and Civil War. But apply gladly, and
at once, the True Remedy, wherein are Justice
and Peace.
Mr. President, an immense space has been
traversed, and I now stand at the goal. The
argument in its various parts is here closed.
The crime against Kansas has been displayed in
its origin and extent, beginning with the
overthrow of the Prohibition of slavery; next
cropping out in conspiracy on the borders of
Missouri; then hardening into a continuity of
outrage, through organized invasions and
miscellaneous assaults, in which all security
was destroyed, and ending at last in the perfect
subjugation of a generous people to an
unprecedented Usurpation. Turning aghast from
the crime, which, like murder, seemed to confess
itself "with the most miraculous organ," we have
looked with mingled shame and indignation upon
the four Apologies, whether of Tyranny,
Imbecility, Absurdity, or Infamy, in which it
has been wrapped, marking especially the false
testimony congenial with the original crime,
against the Emigrant Aid Company! Then were
noted, in succession, the four Remedies, whether
of Tyranny -- Folly -- Injustice and Civil War
-- or Justice and Peace, which last bids Kansas,
in conformity with last precedents and under the
exigencies of the hour, in order to redeem here
from Usurpation, to take a place as a sovereign
State of the Union; an this is the True Remedy.
If in this argument I have not unworthily
vindicated Truth, then have I spoken according
to my desires; if imperfectly, then only
according to my powers. But there are other
things, not belonging to the argument, which
still press for utterance.
Sir, the people of Kansas, bone of your bone and
flesh of your flesh, with the education of
freemen and the rights of American citizens, now
stand at your door. Will you send them away, or
bid them enter? Will you push them back to renew
their struggles with a deadly foe, or will you
preserve them in security and peace? Will you
cast them again into the den of Tyranny, or will
you help their despairing efforts to escape?
These questions I put with no common solicitude;
for I feel that on their just determination
depend all the most precious interests of the
Republic; and I perceive too clearly the
prejudices in the way, and the accumulating
bitterness against this distant people, now
claiming their simple birthright, while I am
bowed with mortification as I recognize the
President of the United States, who should have
been a staff to the weak and a shield to the
innocent, at the head of this strange
oppression.
At every stage the similitude between the wrongs
of Kansas and those other wrongs against which
our fathers rose becomes more apparent. Read the
Declaration of Independence, and there is hardly
an accusation which is there directed against
the British Monarch, which may not now be
directed with increased force against the
American President. The parallel has a fearful
particularity. Our fathers complained that the
King had "sent hither swarms of officers to
harass our people, and eat out their substance;"
that he had combined with others to subject us
to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution,
giving his assent to their acts of pretended
legislation;" that he had abdicated government
here, by declaring us out of his protection, and
waging war against us;" that "he had excited
domestic insurrection among us, and endeavored
to bring on the inhabitants of our frontier the
merciless savages;" that "our repeated petitions
have been answered only by repeated injury." And
this arraignment was aptly followed by the
damning words, that "a Prince whose character is
thus marked by every act which may define a
tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free
people." And surely a President who has done all
these things, cannot be less unfit than a
Prince. At every stage the responsibility is
brought directly to him. His offence has been
both of commission and omission. He has done
that which he ought not to have done, and he has
left undone that which he ought to have done. By
his activity the Prohibition of slavery was
overturned. By his failure to act the honest
emigrants in Kansas have been left a prey to
wrong of all kinds. Nullum flagitium extitit
nisi per te; nullum flagitium sine te. And now
he stands forth the most conspicuous enemy of
that unhappy Territory.
As the tyranny of the British King is all
renewed in the President, so, on this floor have
the old indignities been renewed, which
embittered and fomented the troubles of our
Fathers. The early petition of the American
Congress to Parliament, long before any
suggestion of Independence, was opposed -- like
the petition of Kansas -- because that body "was
assembled without any requisition on the part of
the Supreme Power." Another petition from New
York, presented by Edmund Burke, was flatly
rejected, as claiming rights derogatory to
Parliament. And still another petition from
Massachusetts Bay was dismissed as "vexatious
and scandalous," while the patriot philosopher
who bore it was exposed to peculiar contumely.
Throughout the debates our fathers were made the
butt of sorry jests and supercilious
assumptions. And now these scenes, with these
precise objections, have been renewed in the
American Senate.
With regret, I come again upon the senator from
South Carolina, [Mr. Butler,] who, omnipresent
in this debate, overflowed with rage at the
simple suggestion that Kansas had applied for
admission as a State; and, with incoherent
phrases discharged the loose expectoration of
his speech, now upon her representative, and
then upon her people. There was no extravagance
of the ancient Parliamentary debate which he did
not repeat; nor was there any possible deviation
from truth which he did not make, with so much
of passion, I am glad to add, as to save him
from the suspicion of intentional aberration.
But the senator touches nothing which he does
not disfigure -- with error, sometimes of
principles, sometimes of fact. He shows an
incapacity of accuracy, whether in stating the
Constitution or in stating the law, whether in
the details of statistics or the diversions of
scholarship. He cannot open his mouth, but out
there flies a blunder. Surely he ought to be
familiar with the life of Franklin; and yet he
referred to this household character, while
acting as agent of our fathers in England, as
above suspicion; and this was done that he might
give point to a false contrast with the agent of
Kansas -- not knowing, that, however they may
differ in genius and fame, in this experience
they are alike, that Franklin, when intrusted
with the petition of Massachusetts Bay, was
assaulted by a foul-mouthed speaker, where he
could not be heard in defence, and denounced as
a "thief" even as the agent of Kansas has been
assaulted in this floor, and denounced as a
"forger." And let not the vanity of the senator
be inspired by the parallel with the British
statesmen of that day; for it is only in
hostility to freedom that any parallel can be
recognized.
But it is against the people of Kansas that the
sensibilities of the senator are particularly
aroused. Coming, as he announces, "from a State"
-- ay, sir, from South Carolina -- he turns with
lordly disgust from this newly-formed community,
which he will not recognize even as "a body
politic." Pray, sir, by what title does he
indulge in this egotism? Has he read the history
of "the State" which he represents? He cannot
surely have forgotten its shameful imbecility
from slavery, confessed throughout the
revolution, followed by its most shameful
assumptions for slavery since. He cannot have
forgotten its wretched persistence in the slave
trade as the very apple of its eye, and the
condition of its participation in the Union. He
cannot have forgotten its constitution, which is
republican only in name, confirming power in the
hands of the few, and founding the
qualifications of its legislature on a "settled
freehold estate and ten negroes." And yet the
senator, to whom that "State" has in part
committed the guardianship of its good name,
instead of moving, with backward treading steps,
to cover its nakedness, rushes forward, in the
very ecstasy of madness, to expose it by
provoking a comparison with Kansas. South
Carolina is old; Kansas is young. South Carolina
counts by centuries; where Kansas counts by
years. But a beneficent example may be born in a
day; and I venture to say, that against the two
centuries of the older "State" may be already
set the two years of trial, evolving
corresponding virtue, in the younger community.
In the one, is the long wail of slavery; in the
other, the hymus of freedom. And if we glance at
special achievements, it will be difficult to
find anything in the history of South Carolina
which presents so much of heroic spirit in an
heroic cause as appears in that repulse of the
Missouri invaders by the beleaguered town of
Lawrence, where even the women gave their
effective efforts to freedom. The matrons of
Rome, who poured their jewels into the treasury
for the public defence -- the wives of Prussia,
who with delicate fingers, clothed their
defenders against French invasion -- the mothers
of our own revolution, who sent forth their
sons, covered over with prayers and blessings,
to combat for human rights, did nothing of
self-sacrifice truer than did these women on
this occasion. Were the whole history of South
Carolina blotted out of existence, from its very
beginning down to the day of the last election
of the senator to his present seat on this
floor, civilization might lose -- I do not say
how little, but surely less than it has already
gained by the example of Kansas, in its valiant
struggle against oppression, and in the
development of a new science of emigration.
Already in Lawrence alone there are newspapers
and schools, including a high school, and
throughout this infant Territory there is more
academic mature scholarship in proportion to its
inhabitants, than in all South Carolina. Ah,
sir, I tell the senator that Kansas, welcomed as
a free State, will be a "ministering angel" to
the republic, when South Carolina, in the cloak
of darkness which she hugs, "lies howling."
The senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas]
naturally joins the senator from South Carolina
in this warfare, and gives to it the superior
intensity of his nature. He thinks that the
national government has not completely proved
its power, as it has never hanged a traitor;
but, if the occasion requires, he hopes there
will be no hesitation; and this threat is
directed at Kansas, and even at the friends of
Kansas throughout the country. Again occurs the
parallel with the struggles of our fathers, and
I borrow the language of Patrick Henry, when to
the cry from the senator, of "treason,"
"treason," I reply, "if this be treason, make
the most of it." Sir, it is easy to call names;
but I beg to tell the senator that if the word
"traitor" is in any way applicable to those who
refuse submission to a tyrannical usurpation,
whether in Kansas or elsewhere, then must some
new word, of deeper color, be invented, to
designate those mad spirits who would endanger
and degrade the republic, while they betray all
the cherished sentiments of the fathers and the
spirit of the Constitution, in order to give new
spread to slavery. Let the senator proceed. It
will not be the first time in history, that a
scaffold erected for punishment has become a
pedestal of honor. Out of death comes life, and
the "traitor" whom he blindly executes will live
immortal in the cause.
"For Humanity sweeps onward; where to-day the
martyr stands,
On the morrow crouches Judas, with the silver in
his hands;
While the hooting mob of yesterday in silent awe
return,
To glean up the scattered ashes into History's
golden urn."
Among these hostile senators, there is yet
another, with all the prejudices of the senator
from South Carolina, but without his generous
impulses, whoas on account of his character
before the country, and the rancor of his
opposition, deserves to be named. I mean the
senator from Virginia, [Mr. Mason,] who, as
author of the fugitive slave bill, has
associated himself with a special act of
humanity and tyranny. Of him I shall say little,
for he has said little in this debate, though
within that little was compressed the bitterness
of a life absorbed in the support of slavery. He
holds the commission of Virginia; but he does
not represent that early Virginia, so dear to
our hearts, which gave to us the pen of
Jefferson, by which the equality of men was
declared, and the sword of Washington, by which
independence was secured; but he represents that
other Virginia, from which Washington and
Jefferson now avert their faces, where human
beings are bred as cattle for the shambles, and
where a dungeon rewards the pious matron who
teaches little children to relieve their bondage
by reading the Book of Life. It is proper that
such a senator, representing such a State,
should rail against Free Kansas.
But this is not all. The precedent is still more
clinching. Thus far I have followed exclusively
the public documents laid before Congress, and
illustrated by the debates of that body; but
well authenticated facts, not of record here,
make the case stronger still. It is sometimes
said that the proceedings in Kansas are
defective, because they originated in a party.
This is not true; but even if it were true, then
would they still find support in the example of
Michigan, where all the proceedings, stretching
through successive years, began and ended in
party. The proposed State government was pressed
by the Democrats as a party test; and all who
did not embark in it were denounced. Of the
legislative council, which called the first
constitutional convention in 1835, where all
Democrats; and in convention itself, composed of
eighty-seven members, only seven were Whigs. The
convention of 1836, which gave the final assent,
originated in a Democratic convention on the
29th October, in the County of Wayne, composed
of one hundred and twenty-four delegates, all
Democrats, who proceeded to resolve --
"That the delegates of the democratic party of
Wayne, solemnly impressed with the spreading
evils and dangers which a refusal to go into the
Union has brought upon the people of Michigan,
earnestly recommend meetings to be immediately
convened by their fellow citizens in every
county of the State, with a view to the
expression of their sentiments in favor of the
election and call of another convention, in time
to secure our admission into the Union before
the first of January next."
Shortly afterwards, a committee of five
appointed by this convention, all leading
Democrats, issued a circular, "under the
authority of the delegates of the County of
Wayne," recommending that the voters throughout
Michigan should meet and elect delegates to a
convention to give the necessary assent to the
act of Congress. In pursuance of this call, the
convention met; and, as it originated in an
exclusively party recommendation, so it was of
an exclusively party character. And it was the
action of this convention that was submitted to
Congress, and after discussion in both bodies,
in solemn votes, approved.
But the precedent of Michigan has another
feature, which is entitled to the gravest
attention, especially at this moment, when
citizens engaged in the effort to establish a
State government in Kansas are openly arrested
on the charge of treason, and we are startled by
tidings of the maddest efforts to press this
procedure a preposterous tyranny. No such
madness prevailed under Andrew Jackson; for more
than fourteen months, the territorial government
was entirely ousted, and the State government
organized in all of its departments. One hundred
and thirty different legislative acts were
passed, providing for elections, imposing taxes,
erecting corporations and establishing courts of
justice; including a Supreme Court and a court
of Chancery. All process was issued in the name
of the people of the State of Michigan. And yet
no attempt was made to question the legal
validity of these proceedings, whether
legislative or judicial. Least of all did any
menial governor, dressed in little brief
authority, play the fantastic tricks which we
now witness in Kansas; nor did any person,
wearing the robes of justice, shock heaven with
the mockery of injustice now enacted by
emissaries of the President in that Territory.
No, sir, nothing of this kind then occurred.
Andrew Jackson was President.
Senators such as these are the natural enemies
of Kansas, and I introduce them with reluctance,
simply that the country may understand the
character of the hostility which must be
overcome. Arrayed with them, of course, are all
who unite, under any pretext or apology, in the
propagandism of human slavery. To such, indeed,
the time-honored safeguards of popular rights
can be a name only and nothing more. What are
trial by jury, habeas corpus, the ballot-box,
the right of petition, the liberty of Kansas,
your liberty, sir, or mine, to one who lends
himself, not merely to the support at home, but
to the propagandism abroad, of that preposterous
wrong, which denies even the right of a man to
himself! Such a cause can be maintained only by
a practical subversion of all rights. It is,
therefore, merely according to reason that its
partisans should uphold the usurpation in
Kansas.
To overthrow this usurpation is now the special,
importunate duty of Congress, admitting of no
hesitation or postponement. To this end it must
lift itself from the cabals of candidates, the
machinations of party, and the low level of
vulgar strife. It must turn from that slave
oligarchy which now controls the republic, and
refuse to be its tool. Let its power be
stretched forth towards this distant Territory,
not to bind, but to unbind; not for the
oppression of the weak, but for the subversion
of the tyrannical; not for the pomp and
maintainance of a revolting usurpation, but for
the confirmation of liberty.
"These are imperial arts, and worthy thee!"
Let it now take its stand between the living and
dead, and cause this plague to be stayed. All
this it can do; and if the interests of slavery
did not oppose, all this it would do at once, in
reverent regard for justice, law, and order,
driving far away all the alarms of war; nor
would it dare to brave the shame and punishment
of this Great Refusal. But the slave power dares
anything, and it can be conquered only by the
united masses of the People. From Congress to
the people I appeal.
Already public opinion gathers unwonted forces
to scourge the aggressors. In the press, in
daily conversation, wherever two or three are
gathered together, there the indignant utterance
finds vent. And trade, by unerring indications,
attests the growing energy. Public credit in
Missouri droops. The six per cents, of that
State, which at par should be 102, have sunk to
84 1/2 -- thus at once completing the evidence
of Crime, and attesting its punishment. Business
is now turning from the Assassins and Thugs,
that infest the Missouri River on the way to
Kansas, to seek some safer avenue. And this,
though not unimportant in itself, is typical of
greater changes. The political credit of the men
who uphold the Usurpation, droops even more than
the stocks; and the people are turning from all
those through whom the assassins and Thugs have
derived their disgraceful immunity.
It was said of old, "Cursed be he that removeth
his neighbor's Landmark. And all the people
shall say Amen." --(Deut. xxvii, 17) Cursed, it
is said, in the city and in the field; cursed in
basket and store; cursed when thou comest in,
and cursed when thou goest out. These are
terrible imprecations; but if ever any Landmark
were sacred, it was that by which an immense
territory was guarded forever against slavery;
and if ever such imprecations could justly
descend upon any one, they must descend now upon
all who, not content with the removal of this
sacred Landmark, have since, with criminal
complicity, fostered the incursions of the great
Wrong against which it was intended to guard.
But I utter no imprecations. These are not my
words; nor is it my part to add to or subtract
from them. But thanks be to God! they find a
response in the hearts of an aroused People,
making them turn from every man, whether
President, or senator, or Representative, who
has been engaged, in this crime -- especially
from those who, cradled in free institutions,
are without the apology of education or social
prejudice -- until of all such those other words
of the prophet shall be fulfilled -- "I will
set my face against that man, and make him a
sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from
the midst of my people." -- (Ezekiel, xiv, 8)
Turning thus from the authors of this crime, the
People will unite once more with the Fathers of
the Republic, in a just condemnation of slavery
-- determined especially that it shall find no
home in the National Territories -- while the
Slave Power, in which the crime had its
beginning, and by which it is now sustained,
will be swept into the charnel house of defunct
Tyrannies.
In this contest Kansas bravely stands forth --
the stripling leader, clad in the panoply of
American Institutions. In calmly meeting and
adopting a frame of Government, her people have
with intuitive promptitude performed the duties
of freemen; and when I consider the difficulties
by which she was beset, I find dignity in her
attitude. In offering herself for admission into
the Union as a FREE STATE, she presents a single
issue for the people to decide. And since the
Slave Power now stakes on this issue all its
ill-gotten supremacy, the People, while
vindicating Kansas, will at the same time
overthrow this Tyranny. Thus does the contest
which now begins involve not only Liberty for
herself, but for the whole country. God be
praised, that she did not bend ignobly beneath
the yoke! Far away on the prairies, she is now
battling for the Liberty of all, against the
President, who misrepresents all. Everywhere
among those who are not insensible to Right, the
generous struggle meets a generous response.
From innumerable throbbing hearts go forth the
very words of encouragement which, in the
sorrowful days of our Fathers, were sent by
Virginia, speaking by the pen of Richard Henry
Lee, to Massachusetts, in the person of her
popular tribune, Samuel Adams:
Chantilly, Va, June 23, 1774 "I hope the good
people of Boston will not lose their spirits
under the present heavy oppression, for they
will certainly be supported by the other
Colonies; and the cause for which they suffer is
so glorious and so deeply interesting to the
present and future generations, that all America
will owe, in a great measure, their political
salvation to the present virtue of Massachusetts
Bay." (American Archives, 4th series, Vol. 1, p.
446.)
In all this sympathy there is strength. But in
the cause itself, there is angelic power. Unseen
of men, the great spirits of History combat by
the side of the people of Kansas, breathing a
divine courage. Above all towers the majestic
form of Washington once more, as on the bloody
field, bidding them to remember those rights of
Human Nature for which the War of Independence
was waged. Such a cause, thus sustained, is
invincible.
The contest, which, beginning in Kansas, has
reached us, will soon be transferred from
Congress to a broader stage, where every citizen
will be not only spectator, but actor; and to
their judgment I confidently appeal. To the
People, now on the eve of exercising the
electoral franchise, in choosing a Chief
Magistrate of the Republic, I appeal, to
vindicate the electoral franchise in Kansas. Let
the ballot-box of the Union, with multitudinous
might, protect the ballot-box in that Territory.
Let the voters everywhere, while rejoicing in
their own rights, help to guard the equal rights
of distant fellow citizens; that the shrines of
popular institutions, now desecrated, may be
sanctified anew; that the ballot-box, now
plundered, may be restored; and that the cry, "I
am an American citizen," may not be sent forth
in vain against outrage of every kind. In just
regard for free labor in that Territory, which
it is sought to blast by unwelcome association
with slave labor; in Christian sympathy with the
slave, whom it is proposed to task and to sell
there; in stern condemnation of the crime which
has been consummated on that beautiful soil; in
rescue of fellow-citizens, now subjugated to a
tyrannical Usurpation; in dutiful respect for
the early Fathers, whose aspirations are now
ignobly thwarted; in the name of the
Constitution, which has been outraged -- of the
Laws trampled down -- of Justice banished -- of
Humanity degraded -- of Peace destroyed -- of
freedom crushed to earth; and, in the name of
the Heavenly Father, whose service is freedom, I
make this last appeal.
