Showing posts with label Bleeding Kansas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bleeding Kansas. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Richard Brooke Garnett

Nephew of James Mercer Garnett (q. v.), and Robert Selden Garnett (q. v.); born in Virginia, in 1819; graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1841. He entered the army as second lieutenant, and served in the Florida war, and subsequently in the west. He was made first lieutenant in 1847, and later captain. He aided in quelling the Kansas disturbances in 1856-57; was engaged in the Utah expedition. He entered the Confederate service as major of artillery in 1861, and was promoted to brigadier-general the same year. He served in the Shenandoah Valley under Jackson, and at the battle of Kernstown commanded the Stonewall brigade. During and after the Maryland. campaign he commanded Pickett's brigade, which he finally led at Gettysburg, where he fell dead, shot from his horse in the midst of action. He died July 3, 1863.

SOURCE: Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography, Vol. 3, p. 53

Tuesday, March 12, 2024

John L. Dawson* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, June 2, 1855

BROWNSVILLE, [PA.], June 2, 1855.

DEAR SIR: I have just received your favour of the 26th ult. Tomorrow morning I leave for Detroit to meet Gov[erno]r Bright by arrangement, and from thence we go to "Superior." I will with pleasure attend to the suggestions contained in your letter, and will write to you from "Superior." I have heard nothing special from there since the adjournment of Congress.

The troubles in Kansas have attracted much attention here and I fear will give trouble in the end The Whigs, or rather the opposition to the democracy, fatten on these difficulties and are determined to make the most out of them. I am glad that you succeeded so well in Virginia, she is a better battle-field than Pennsylvania. With my best wishes for your success.
_______________

* Democratic Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, 1851-1855, 1863-1867.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 163-4

Sunday, February 25, 2024

Henry David Thoreau: A Plea for Captain John Brown,* October 30, 1859

I TRUST that you will pardon me for being here. I do not wish to force my thoughts upon you, but I feel forced myself. Little as I know of Captain Brown, I would fain do my part to correct the tone and the statements of the newspapers, and of my countrymen generally, respecting his character and actions. It costs us nothing to be just. We can at least express our sympathy with, and admiration of, him and his companions, and that is what I now propose to do.

First, as to his history. I will endeavor to omit, as much as possible, what you have already read. I need not describe his person to you, for probably most of you have seen and will not soon forget him. I am told that his grandfather, John Brown, was an officer in the Revolution; that he himself was born in Connecticut about the beginning of this century, but early went with his father to Ohio. I heard him say that his father was a contractor who furnished beef to the army there, in the war of 1812; that he accompanied him to the camp, and assisted him in that employment, seeing a good deal of military life, more, perhaps, than if he had been a soldier, for he was often present at the councils of the officers. Especially, he learned by experience how armies are supplied and maintained in the field—a work which, he observed, requires at least as much experience and skill as to lead them in battle. He said that few persons had any conception of the cost, even the pecuniary cost, of firing a single bullet in war. He saw enough, at any rate, to disgust him with a military life; indeed, to excite in him a great abhorrence of it; so much so, that though he was tempted by the offer of some petty office in the army, when he was about eighteen, he not only declined that, but he also refused to train when warned, and was fined for it. He then resolved that he would never have any thing to do with any war, unless it were a war for liberty.

When the troubles in Kansas began, he sent several of his sons thither to strengthen the party of the Free State men, fitting them out with such weapons as he had; telling them that if the troubles should increase, and there should be need of him, he would follow to assist them with his hand and counsel. This, as you all know, he soon after did; and it was through his agency, far more than any other's, that Kansas was made free.

For a part of his life he was a surveyor, and at one time he was engaged in wool-growing, and he went to Europe as an agent about that business. There, as every where, he had his eyes about him, and made many original observations. He said, for instance, that he saw why the soil of England was so rich, and that of Germany (I think it was) so poor, and he thought of writing to some of the crowned heads about it. It was because in England the peasantry live on the soil which they cultivate, but in Germany they are gathered into villages, at night. It is a pity that he did not make a book of his observations.

I should say that he was an old-fashioned man in his respect for the Constitution, and his faith in the permanence of this Union. Slavery he deemed to be wholly opposed to these, and he was its determined foe.

He was by descent and birth a New England farmer, a man of great common sense, deliberate and practical as that class is, and tenfold more so. He was like the best of those who stood at Concord Bridge once, on Lexington Common, and on Bunker Hill, only he was firmer and higher principled than any that I have chanced to hear of as there. It was no abolition lecturer that converted him. Ethan Allen and Stark, with whom he may in some respects be compared, were rangers in a lower and less important field. They could bravely face their country's foes, but he had the courage to face his country herself, when she was in the wrong. A Western writer says, to account for his escape from so many perils, that he was concealed under a "rural exterior;" as if, in that prairie land, a hero should, by good rights, wear a citizen's dress only.

He did not go to the college called Harvard, good old Alma Mater as she is. He was not fed on the pap that is there furnished. As he phrased it, "I know no more of grammar than one of your calves." But he went to the great university of the West, where he sedulously pursued the study of Liberty, for which he had early betrayed a fondness, and having taken many degrees, he finally commenced the public practice of Humanity in Kansas, as you all know. Such were his humanities, and not any study of grammar. He would have left a Greek accent slanting the wrong way, and righted up a falling man.

He was one of that class of whom we hear a great deal, but, for the most part, see nothing at all—the Puritans. It would be in vain to kill him. He died lately in the time of Cromwell, but he reappeared here. Why should he not? Some of the Puritan stock are said to have come over and settled in New England. They were a class that did something else than celebrate their forefathers' day, and eat parched corn in remembrance of that time. They were neither Democrats nor Republicans, but men of simple habits, straightforward, prayerful; not thinking much of rulers who did not fear God, not making many compromises, nor seeking after available candidates.

"In his camp," as one has recently written, and as I have myself heard him state, "he permitted no profanity; no man of loose morals was suffered to remain there, unless, indeed, as a prisoner of war. 'I would rather,' said he, ‘have the small-pox, yellow fever, and cholera, all together in my camp, than a man without principle. * * * It is a mistake, sir, that our people make, when they think that bullies are the best fighters, or that they are the fit men to oppose these Southerners. Give me men of good principles,—God-fearing men,—men who respect themselves, and with a dozen of them I will oppose any hundred such men as these Buford ruffians.'" He said that if one offered himself to be a soldier under him, who was forward to tell what he could or would do, if he could only get sight of the enemy, he had but little confidence in him.

He was never able to find more than a score or so of recruits whom he would accept, and only about a dozen, among them his sons, in whom he had perfect faith. When he was here, some years ago, he showed to a few a little manuscript book, his "orderly book " I think he called it, containing the names of his company in Kansas, and the rules by which they bound themselves; and he stated that several of them had already sealed the contract with their blood. When some one remarked that, with the addition of a chaplain, it would have been a perfect Cromwellian troop, he observed that he would have been glad to add a chaplain to the list, if he could have found one who could fill that office worthily. It is easy enough to find one for the United States army. I believe that he had prayers in his camp morning and evening, nevertheless.

He was a man of Spartan habits, and at sixty was scrupulous about his diet at your table, excusing himself by saying that he must eat sparingly and fare hard, as became a soldier or one who was fitting himself for difficult enterprises, a life of exposure.

A man of rare common sense and directness of speech, as of action; a transcendentalist above all, a man of ideas and principles, that was what distinguished him. Not yielding to a whim or transient impulse, but carrying out the purpose of a life. I noticed that he did not overstate any thing, but spoke within bounds. I remember, particularly, how, in his speech here, he referred to what his family had suffered in Kansas, without ever giving the least vent to his pent-up fire. It was a volcano with an ordinary chimney-flue. Also referring to the deeds of certain Border Ruffians, he said, rapidly paring away his speech, like an experienced soldier, keeping a reserve of force and meaning, "They had a perfect right to be hung." He was not in the least a rhetorician, was not talking to Buncombe or his constituents any where, had no need to invent any thing, but to tell the simple truth, and communicate his own resolution; therefore he appeared incomparably strong, and eloquence in Congress and elsewhere seemed to me at a discount. It was like the speeches of Cromwell compared with those of an ordinary king.

As for his tact and prudence, I will merely say, that at a time when scarcely a man from the Free States was able to reach Kansas by any direct route, at least without having his arms taken from him, he, carrying what imperfect guns and other weapons he could collect, openly and slowly drove an ox-cart through Missouri, apparently in the capacity of a surveyor, with his surveying compass exposed in it, and so passed unsuspected, and had ample opportunity to learn the designs of the enemy. For some time after his arrival he still followed the same profession. When, for instance, he saw a knot of the ruffians on the prairie, discussing, of course, the single topic which then occupied their minds, he would, perhaps, take his compass and one of his sons, and proceed to run an imaginary line right through the very spot on which that conclave had assembled, and when he came up to them, he would naturally pause and have some talk with them, learning their news, and, at last, all their plans perfectly; and having thus completed his real survey, he would resume his imaginary one, and run on his line till he was out of sight.

When I expressed surprise that he could live in Kansas at all, with a price set upon his head, and so large a number, including the authorities, exasperated against him, he accounted for it by saying, "It is perfectly well understood that I will not be taken." Much of the time for some years he has had to skulk in swamps, suffering from poverty and from sickness, which was the consequence of exposure, befriended only by Indians and a few whites. But though it might be known that he was lurking in a particular swamp, his foes commonly did not care to go in after him. He could even come out into a town where there were more Border Ruffians than Free State men, and transact some business, without delaying long, and yet not be molested; for said he, "No little handful of men were willing to undertake it, and a large body could not be got together in season."

As for his recent failure, we do not know the facts about it. It was evidently far from being a wild and desperate attempt. His enemy, Mr. Vallandingham, is compelled to say, that “it was among the best planned and executed conspiracies that ever failed."

Not to mention his other successes, was it a failure, or did it show a want of good management, to deliver from bondage a dozen human beings, and walk off with them by broad daylight, for weeks if not months, at a leisurely pace, through one State after another, for half the length of the North, conspicuous to all parties, with a price set upon his head, going into a court room on his way and telling what he had done, thus convincing Missouri that it was not profitable to try to hold slaves in his neighborhood?—and this, not because the government menials were lenient, but because they were afraid of him.

Yet he did not attribute his success, foolishly, to "his star," or to any magic. He said, truly, that the reason why such greatly superior numbers quailed before him, was, as one of his prisoners confessed, because they lacked a cause a kind of armor which he and his party never lacked. When the time came, few men were found willing to lay down their lives in defence of what they knew to be wrong; they did not like that this should be their last act in this world.

But to make haste to his last act, and its effects.

The newspapers seem to ignore, or perhaps are really ignorant of the fact, that there are at least as many as two or three individuals to a town throughout the North, who think much as the present speaker does about him and his enterprise. I do not hesitate to say that they are an important and growing party. We aspire to be something more than stupid and timid chattels, pretending to read history and our Bibles, but desecrating every house and every day we breathe in. Perhaps anxious politicians may prove that only seventeen white men and five negroes were concerned in the late enterprise; but their very anxiety to prove this might suggest to themselves that all is not told. Why do they still dodge the truth? They are so anxious because of a dim consciousness of the fact, which they do not distinctly face, that at least a million of the free inhabitants of the United States would have rejoiced if it had succeeded. They at most only criticise the tactics. Though we wear no crape, the thought of that man's position and probable fate is spoiling many a man's day here at the North for other thinking. If any one who has seen him here can pursue successfully any other train of thought, I do not know what he is made of. If there is any such who gets his usual allowance of sleep, I will warrant him to fatten easily under any circumstances which do not touch his body or purse. I put a piece of paper and a pencil under my pillow, and when I could not sleep, I wrote in the dark.

On the whole, my respect for my fellow-men, except as one may outweigh a million, is not being increased these days. I have noticed the cold-blooded way in which newspaper writers and men generally speak of this event, as if an ordinary malefactor, though one of unusual "pluck,” as the Governor of Virginia is reported to have said, using the language of the cock-pit, "the gamest man he ever saw," — had been caught, and were about to be hung. He was not dreaming of his foes when the governor thought he looked so brave. It turns what sweetness I have to gall, to hear, or hear of, the remarks of some of my neighbors. When we heard at first that he was dead, one of my townsmen observed that “he died as the fool dieth;" which, pardon me, for an instant suggested a likeness in him dying to my neighbor living. Others, craven-hearted, said disparagingly, that "he threw his life away," because he resisted the government. Which way have they thrown their lives, pray?—Such as would praise a man for attacking singly an ordinary band of thieves or murderers. I hear another ask, Yankee-like, "What will he gain by it?" as if he expected to fill his pockets by this enterprise. Such a one has no idea of gain but in this worldly sense. If it does not lead to a "surprise" party, if he does not get a new pair of boots, or a vote of thanks, it must be a failure. "But he won't gain any thing by it." Well, no, I don't suppose he could get four-and-sixpence a day for being hung, take the year round; but then he stands a chance to save a considerable part of his soul and such a soul!—when you do not. No doubt you can get more in your market for a quart of milk than for a quart of blood, but that is not the market that heroes carry their blood to.

Such do not know that like the seed is the fruit, and that, in the moral world, when good seed is planted, good fruit is inevitable, and does not depend on our watering and cultivating; that when you plant, or bury, a hero in his field, a crop of heroes is sure to spring up. This is a seed of such force and vitality, that it does not ask our leave to germinate.

The momentary charge at Balaclava, in obedience to a blundering command, proving what a perfect machine the soldier is, has, properly enough, been celebrated by a poet laureate; but the steady, and for the most part successful charge of this man, for some years, against the legions of Slavery, in obedience to an infinitely higher command, is as much more memorable than that, as an intelligent and conscientious man is superior to a machine. Do you think that that will go unsung?

"Served him right" — "A dangerous man" — "He is undoubtedly insane." So they proceed to live their sane, and wise, and altogether admirable lives, reading their Plutarch a little, but chiefly pausing at that feat of Putnam, who was let down into a wolf's den; and in this wise they nourish themselves for brave and patriotic deeds some time or other. The Tract Society could afford to print that story of Putnam. You might open the district schools with the reading of it, for there is nothing about Slavery or the Church in it; unless it occurs to the reader that some pastors are wolves in sheep's clothing. "The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions" even, might dare to protest against that wolf. I have heard of boards, and of American boards, but it chances that I never heard of this particular lumber till lately. And yet I hear of Northern men, women, and children, by families, buying a "life membership" in such societies as these; a life-membership in the grave! You can get buried cheaper than that.

Our foes are in our midst and all about us. There is hardly a house but is divided against itself, for our foe is the all but universal woodenness of both head and heart, the want of vitality in man, which is the effect of our vice; and hence are begotten fear, superstition, bigotry, persecution, and slavery of all kinds. We are mere figure-heads upon a hulk, with livers in the place of hearts. The curse is the worship of idols, which at length changes the worshipper into a stone image himself; and the New Englander is just as much an idolater as the Hindoo. This man was an exception, for he did not set up even a political graven image between him and his God.

A church that can never have done with excommunicating Christ while it exists! Away with your broad and flat churches, and your narrow and tall churches! Take a step forward, and invent a new style of out-houses. Invent a salt that will save you, and defend our nostrils.

Christian is a man who has consented to say all the prayers in the liturgy, provided you will let him go straight to bed and sleep quietly afterward. All his prayers begin with "Now I lay me down to sleep," and he is forever looking forward to the time when he shall go to his "long rest." He has consented to perform certain old established charities, too, after a fashion, but he does not wish to hear of any new-fangled ones; he doesn't wish to have any supplementary articles added to the contract, to fit it to the present time. He shows the whites of his eyes on the Sabbath, and the blacks all the rest of the week. The evil is not merely a stagnation of blood, but a stagnation of spirit. Many, no doubt, are well disposed, but sluggish by constitution and by habit, and they cannot conceive of a man who is actuated by higher motives than they are. Accordingly they pronounce this man insane, for they know that they could never act as he does, as long as they were themselves.

We dream of foreign countries, of other times and races of men, placing them at a distance in history or space; but let some significant event like the present occur in our midst, and we discover, often, this distance and this strangeness between us and our nearest neighbors. They are our Austrias, and Chinas, and South Sea Islands. Our crowded society becomes well spaced all at once, clean and handsome to the eye, a city of magnificent distances. We discover why it was that we never got beyond compliments and surfaces with them before; we become aware of as many versts between us and them as there are between a wandering Tartar and a Chinese town. The thoughtful man becomes a hermit in the thoroughfares of the market-place. Impassable seas suddenly find their level between us, or dumb steppes stretch themselves out there. It is the difference of constitution, of intelligence, and faith, and not streams and mountains, that make the true and impassable boundaries between individuals and between states. None but the like-minded can come plenipotentiary to our court.

I read all the newspapers I could get within a week after this event, and I do not remember in them a single expression of sympathy for these men. I have since seen one noble statement, in a Boston paper, not editorial. Some voluminous sheets decided not to print the full report of Brown's words to the exclusion of other matter. It was as if a publisher should reject the manuscript of the New Testament, and print Wilson's last speech. The same journal which contained this pregnant news, was chiefly filled, in parallel columns, with the reports of the political conventions that were being held. But the descent to them was too steep. They should have been spared this contrast, been printed in an extra at least. To turn from the voices and deeds of earnest men to the cackling of political conventions! Office-seekers and speech-makers, who do not so much as lay an honest egg, but wear their breasts bare upon an egg of chalk! Their great game is the game of straws, or rather that universal aboriginal game of the platter, at which the Indians cried hub, bub! Exclude the reports of religious and political conventions, and publish the words of a living man.

But I object not so much to what they have omitted, as to what they have inserted. Even the Liberator called it "a misguided, wild, and apparently insane-effort." As for the herd of newspapers and magazines, I do not chance to know an editor in the country who will deliberately print any thing which he knows will ultimately and permanently reduce the number of his subscribers. They do not believe that it would be expedient. How then can they print truth? If we do not say pleasant things, they argue, nobody will attend to us. And so they do like some travelling auctioneers, who sing an obscene song in order to draw a crowd around them. Republican editors, obliged to get their sentences ready for the morning edition, and accustomed to look at every thing by the twilight of politics, express no admiration, nor true sorrow even, but call these men "deluded fanatics" — "mistaken men" "insane," or "crazed." It suggests what a sane set of editors we are blessed with, not "mistaken men"; who know very well on which side their bread is buttered, at least.

A man does a brave and humane deed, and at once, on all sides, we hear people and parties declaring, "I didn't do it, nor countenance him to do it, in any conceivable way. It can't be fairly inferred from my past career." I, for one, am not interested to hear you define your position. I don't know that I ever was, or ever shall be. I think it is mere egotism, or impertinent at this time. Ye needn't take so much pains to wash your skirts of him. No intelligent man will ever be convinced that he was any creature of yours. He went and came, as he himself informs us, "under the auspices of John Brown and nobody else." The Republican party does not perceive how many his failure will make to vote more correctly than they would have them. They have counted the votes of Pennsylvania & Co., but they have not correctly counted Captain Brown's vote. He has taken the wind out of their sails, the little wind they had, and they may as well lie to and repair.

What though he did not belong to your clique! Though you may not approve of his method or his principles, recognize his magnanimity. Would you not like to claim kindredship with him in that, though in no other thing he is like, or likely, to you? Do you think that you would lose your reputation so? What you lost at the spile, you would gain at the bung.

If they do not mean all this, then they do not speak the truth, and say what they mean. They are simply at their old tricks still.

"It was always conceded to him," says one who calls him crazy, "that he was a conscientious man, very modest in his demeanor, apparently inoffensive, until the subject of Slavery was introduced, when he would exhibit a feeling of indignation unparalleled."

The slave-ship is on her way, crowded with its dying victims; new cargoes are being added in mid ocean; a small crew of slaveholders, countenanced by a large body of passengers, is smothering four millions under the hatches, and yet the politician asserts that the only proper way by which deliverance is to be obtained, is by "the quiet diffusion of the sentiments of humanity," without any "outbreak." As if the sentiments of humanity were ever found unaccompanied by its deeds, and you could disperse them, all finished to order, the pure article, as easily as water with a watering-pot, and so lay the dust. What is that that I hear cast overboard?

The bodies of the dead that have found deliverance. That is the way we are "diffusing" humanity, and its sentiments with it.

Prominent and influential editors, accustomed to deal with politicians, men of an infinitely lower grade, say, in their ignorance, that he acted "on the principle of revenge." They do not know the man. They must enlarge themselves to conceive of him. I have no doubt that the time will come when they will begin to see him as he was. They have got to conceive of a man of faith and of religious principle, and not a politician nor an Indian; of a man who did not wait till he was personally interfered with or thwarted in some harmless business before he gave his life to the cause of the oppressed.

If Walker may be considered the representative of the South, I wish I could say that Brown was the representative of the North. He was a superior man. He did not value his bodily life in comparison with ideal things. He did not recognize unjust human laws, but resisted them as he was bid. For once we are lifted out of the trivialness and dust of politics into the region of truth and manhood. No man in America has ever stood up so persistently and effectively for the dignity of human nature, knowing himself for a man, and the equal of any and all governments. In that sense he was the most American of us all. He needed no babbling lawyer, making false issues, to defend him. He was more than a match for all the judges that American voters, or office-holders of whatever grade, can create. He could not have been tried by a jury of his peers, because his peers did not exist. When a man stands up serenely against the condemnation and vengeance of mankind, rising above them literally by a whole body, — even though he were of late the vilest murderer, who has settled that matter with himself, the spectacle is a sublime one, — didn't ye know it, ye Liberators, ye Tribunes, ye Republicans? — and we become criminal in comparison. Do yourselves the honor to recognize him. He needs none of your respect.

As for the Democratic journals, they are not human enough to affect me at all. I do not feel indignation at any thing they may say.

I am aware that I anticipate a little, that he was still, at the last accounts, alive in the hands of his foes; but that being the case, I have all along found myself thinking and speaking of him as physically dead.

I do not believe in erecting statues to those who still live in our hearts, whose bones have not yet crumbled in the earth around us, but I would rather see the statue of Captain Brown in the Massachusetts State-House yard, than that of any other man whom I know. I rejoice that I live in this age— that I am his contemporary.

What a contrast, when we turn to that political party which is so anxiously shuffling him and his plot out of its way, and looking around for some available slaveholder, perhaps, to be its candidate, at least for one who will execute the Fugitive Slave Law, and all those other unjust laws which he took up arms to annul!

Insane! A father and six sons, and one son-in-law, and several more men besides, as many at least as twelve disciples, — all struck with insanity at once; while the sane tyrant holds with a firmer gripe than ever his four millions of slaves, and a thousand sane editors, his abettors, are saving their country and their bacon! Just as insane were his efforts in Kansas. Ask the tyrant who is his most dangerous foe, the sane man or the insane. Do the thousands who know him best, who have rejoiced at his deeds in Kansas, and have afforded him material aid there, think him insane? Such a use of this word is a mere trope with most who persist in using it, and I have no doubt that many of the rest have already in silence retracted their words.

Read his admirable answers to Mason and others. How they are dwarfed and defeated by the contrast! On the one side, half brutish, half timid questioning; on the other, truth, clear as lightning, crashing into their obscene temples. They are made to stand with Pilate, and Gesler, and the Inquisition. How ineffectual their speech and action! and what a void their silence! They are but helpless tools in this great work. It was no human power that gathered them about this preacher.

What have Massachusetts and the North sent a few sane representatives to Congress for, of late years? —to declare with effect what kind of sentiments? All their speeches put together and boiled down, — and probably they themselves will confess it, — do not match for manly directness and force, and for simple truth, the few casual remarks of crazy John Brown, on the floor of the Harper's Ferry engine house; — that man whom you are about to hang, to send to the other world, though not to represent you there. No, he was not our representative in any sense. He was too fair a specimen of a man to represent the like of us. Who, then, were his constituents? If you read his words understandingly you will find out. In his case there is no idle eloquence, no made, nor maiden speech, no compliments to the oppressor. Truth is his inspirer, and earnestness the polisher of his sentences. He could afford to lose his Sharpe's rifles, while he retained his faculty of speech, a Sharpe's rifle of infinitely surer and longer range.

And the New York Herald reports the conversation "verbatim"! It does not know of what undying words it is made the vehicle.

I have no respect for the penetration of any man who can read the report of that conversation, and still call the principal in it insane. It has the ring of a saner sanity than an ordinary discipline and habits of life, than an ordinary organization, secure. Take any sentence of it—"Any questions that I can honorably answer, I will; not otherwise. So far as I am myself concerned, I have told every thing truthfully. I value my word, sir." The few who talk about his vindictive spirit, while they really admire his heroism, have no test by which to detect a noble man, no amalgam to combine with his pure gold. They mix their own dross with it.

It is a relief to turn from these slanders to the testimony of his more truthful, but frightened, jailers and hangmen. Governor Wise speaks far more justly and appreciatingly of him than any Northern editor, or politician, or public personage, that I chance to have heard from. I know that you can afford to hear him again on this subject. He says: "They are themselves mistaken who take him to be a madman. . . He is cool, collected, and indomitable, and it is but just to him to say, that he was humane to his prisoners. And he inspired me with great trust in his integrity as a man of truth. He is a fanatic, vain and garrulous," (I leave that part to Mr. Wise,) "but firm, truthful, and intelligent. His men, too, who survive, are like him. Colonel Washington says that he was the coolest and firmest man he ever saw in defying danger and death. With one son dead by his side, and another shot through, he felt the pulse of his dying son with one hand, and held his rifle with the other, and commanded his men with the utmost composure, encouraging them to be firm, and to sell their lives as dear as they could. Of the three white prisoners, Brown, Stephens, and Coppic, it was hard to say which was most firm."

Almost the first Northern men whom the slaveholder has learned to respect!

The testimony of Mr. Vallandingham, though less valuable, is of the same purport, that "it is vain to underrate either the man or his conspiracy. . . He is the farthest possible remove from the ordinary ruffian, fanatic, or madman."

"All is quiet at Harper's Ferry," say the journals. What is the character of that calm which follows when the law and the slaveholder prevail? I regard this event as a touchstone designed to bring out, with glaring distinctness, the character of this government. We needed to be thus assisted to see it by the light of history. It needed to see itself. When a government puts forth its strength on the side of injustice, as ours to maintain Slavery and kill the liberators of the slave, it reveals itself a merely brute force, or worse, a demoniacal force. It is the head of the Plug Uglies. It is more manifest than ever that tyranny rules. I see this government to be effectually allied with France and Austria in oppressing mankind. There sits a tyrant holding fettered four millions of slaves; here comes their heroic liberator. This most hypocritical and diabolical government looks up from its seat on the gasping four millions, and inquires with an assumption of innocence, "What do you assault me for? Am I not an honest man? Cease agitation on this subject, or I will make a slave of you, too, or else hang you."

We talk about a representative government but what a monster of a government is that where the noblest faculties of the mind, and the whole heart, are not represented. A semi-human tiger or ox, stalking over the earth, with its heart taken out and the top of its brain shot away. Heroes have fought well on their stumps when their legs were shot off, but I never heard of any good done by such a government as that.

The only government that I recognize,—and it matters not how few are at the head of it, or how small its army, is that power that establishes justice in the land, never that which establishes injustice. What shall we think of a government to which all the truly brave and just men in the land are enemies, standing between it and those whom it oppresses? A government that pretends to be Christian and crucifies a million Christs every day!

Treason! Where does such treason take its rise? I cannot help thinking of you as you deserve, ye governments. Can you dry up the fountains of thought? High treason, when it is resistance to tyranny here below, has its origin in, and is first committed by the power that makes and forever recreates man. When you have caught and hung all these human rebels, you have accomplished nothing but your own guilt, for you have not struck at the fountain head. You presume to contend with a foe against whom West Point cadets and rifled cannon point not. Can all the art of the cannon-founder tempt matter to turn against its maker? Is the form in which the founder thinks he casts it more essential than the constitution of it and of himself?

The United States have a coffle of four millions of slaves. They are determined to keep them in this condition; and Massachusetts is one of the confederated overseers to prevent their escape. Such are not all the inhabitants of Massachusetts, but such are they who rule and are obeyed here. It was Massachusetts, as well as Virginia, that put down this insurrection at Harper's Ferry. She sent the marines there, and she will have to pay the penalty of her sin.

Suppose that there is a society in this State that out of its own purse and magnanimity saves all the fugitive slaves that run to us, and protects our colored fellow-citizen?, and leaves the other work to the Government, so-called. Is not that government fast losing its occupation, and becoming contemptible to mankind? If private men are obliged to perform the offices of government, to protect the weak and dispense justice, then the government becomes only a hired man, or clerk, to perform menial or indifferent services. Of course, that is but the shadow of a government whose existence necessitates a Vigilant Committee. What should we think of the oriental Cadi even, behind whom worked in secret a vigilant committee? But such is the character of our Northern States generally; each has its Vigilant Committee. And, to a certain extent, these crazy governments recognize and accept this relation. They say, virtually, "We'll be glad to work for you on these terms, only don't make a noise about it." And thus the government, its salary being insured, withdraws into the back shop, taking the constitution with it, and bestows most of its labor on repairing that. When I hear it at work sometimes, as I go by, it reminds me, at best, of those farmers who in winter contrive to turn a penny by following the coopering business. And what kind of spirit is their barrel made to hold? They speculate in stocks, and bore holes in mountains, but they are not competent to lay out even a decent highway. The only free road, the Underground Railroad, is owned and managed by the Vigilant Committee.

They have tunnelled under the whole breadth of the land. Such a government is losing its power and respectability as surely as water runs out of a leaky vessel, and is held by one that can contain it.

I hear many condemn these men because they were so few. When were the good and the brave ever in a majority? Would you have had him wait till that time came? — till you and I came over to him? The very fact that he had no rabble or troop of hirelings about him, would alone distinguish him from ordinary heroes. His company was small indeed, because few could be found worthy to pass muster. Each one who there laid down his life for the poor and oppressed was a picked man, culled out of many thousands, if not millions; apparently a man of principle, of rare courage and devoted humanity; ready to sacrifice his life at any moment for the benefit of his fellow-man. It may be doubted if there were as many more their equals in these respects in all the country-I speak of his followers only for their leader, no doubt, scoured the land far and wide, seeking to swell his troop. These alone were ready to step between the oppressor and the oppressed. Surely they were the very best men you could select to be hung. That was the greatest compliment which this country could pay them. They were ripe for her gallows. She has tried a long time, she has hung a good many, but never found the right one before.

When I think of him, and his six sons, and his son-in-law, — not to enumerate the others, enlisted for this fight, proceeding coolly, reverently, humanely to work, for months, if not years, sleeping and waking upon it, summering and wintering the thought, without expecting any reward but a good conscience, while almost all America stood ranked on the other side, I say again, that it affects me as a sublime spectacle. If he had had any journal advocating "his cause," any organ, as the phrase is, monotonously and wearisomely playing the same old tune, and then passing round the hat, it would have been fatal to his efficiency. If he had acted in any way so as to be let alone by the government, he might have been suspected. It was the fact that the tyrant must give place to him, or he to the tyrant, that distinguished him from all the reformers of the day that I know.

It was his peculiar doctrine that a man has a perfect right to interfere by force with the slaveholder, in order to rescue the slave. I agree with him. They who are continually shocked by slavery have some right to be shocked by the violent death of the slaveholder, but no others. Such will be more shocked by his life than by his death. I shall not be forward to think him mistaken in his method who quickest succeeds to liberate the slave. I speak for the slave when I say, that I prefer the philanthropy of Captain Brown philanthropy which neither shoots me nor liberates me. At any rate, I do not think it is quite sane for one to spend his whole life in talking or writing about this matter, unless he is continuously inspired, and I have not done so. A man may have other affairs to attend to. I do not wish to kill nor to be killed, but I can foresee circumstances in which both these things would be by me unavoidable. We preserve the so-called peace of our community by deeds of petty violence every day. Look at the policeman's billy and handcuffs! Look at the jail! Look at the gallows! Look at the chaplain of the regiment! We are hoping only to live safely on the outskirts of this provisional army. So we defend ourselves and our hen-roosts, and maintain slavery. I know that the mass of my countrymen think that the only righteous use that can be made of Sharpe's rifles and revolvers is to fight duels with them, when we are insulted by other nations, or to hunt Indians, or shoot fugitive slaves with them, or the like. I think that for once the Sharpe's rifles and the revolvers were employed in a righteous cause. The tools were in the hands of one who could use them.

The same indignation that is said to have cleared the temple once will clear it again. The question is not about the weapon, but the spirit in which you use it. No man has appeared in America, as yet, who loved his fellow-man so well, and treated him so tenderly. He lived for him. He took up his life and he laid it down for him. What sort of violence is that which is encouraged, not by soldiers but by peaceable citizens, not so much by laymen as by ministers of the gospel, not so much by the fighting sects as by the Quakers, and not so much by Quaker men as by Quaker women?

This event advertises me that there is such a fact as death the possibility of a man's dying. It seems as if no man had ever died in America before, for in order to die you must first have lived. I don't believe in the hearses, and palls, and funerals that they have had. There was no death in the case, because there had been no life; they merely rotted or sloughed off, pretty much as they had rotted or sloughed along. No temple's vail was rent, only a hole dug somewhere. Let the dead bury their dead. The best of them fairly ran down like a clock. Franklin — Washington — they were let off without dying; they were merely missing one day. I hear a good many pretend that they are going to die; or that they have died, for aught that I know. Nonsense! I'll defy them to do it. They haven't got life enough in them. They'll deliquesce like fungi, and keep a hundred eulogists mopping the spot where they left off. Only half a dozen or so have died since the world began. Do you think that you are going to die, sir? No! there's no hope of you. You haven't got your lesson yet. You've got to stay after school. We make a needless ado about capital punishment — taking lives, when there is no life to take. Memento mori! We don't understand that sublime sentence which some worthy got sculptured on his gravestone once. We've interpreted it in a grovelling and snivelling sense; we've wholly forgotten how to die.

But be sure you do die, nevertheless. Do your work, and finish it. If you know how to begin, you will know when to end.

These men, in teaching us how to die, have at the same time taught us how to live. If this man's acts and words do not create a revival, it will be the severest possible satire on the acts and words that do. It is the best news that America has ever heard. It has already quickened the feeble pulse of the North, and infused more and more generous blood into her veins and heart, than any number of years of what is called commercial and political prosperity could. How many a man who was lately contemplating suicide has now something to live for!

One writer says that Brown's peculiar monomania made him to be "dreaded by the Missourians as a supernatural being." Sure enough, a hero in the midst of us cowards is always so dreaded. He is just that thing. He shows himself superior to nature. He has a spark of divinity in him.

"Unless above himself he doth erect himself,

How poor a thing is man!"

Newspaper editors argue also that it is a proof of his insanity that he thought he was appointed to do this work which he did that he did not suspect himself for a moment! They talk as if it were impossible that a man could be "divinely appointed" in these days to do any work whatever; as if vows and religion were out of date as connected with any man's daily work, as if the agent to abolish Slavery could only be somebody appointed by the President, or by some political party. They talk as if a man's death were a failure, and his continued life, be it of whatever character, were a success.

When I reflect to what a cause this man devoted himself, and how religiously, and then reflect to what cause his judges and all who condemn him so angrily and fluently devote themselves, I see that they are as far apart as the heavens and earth are asunder.

The amount of it is, our "leading men" are a harmless kind of folk, and they know well enough that they were not divinely appointed, but elected by the votes of their party.

Who is it whose safety requires that Captain Brown be hung? Is it indispensable to any Northern man? Is there no resource but to cast these men also to the Minotaur? If you do not wish it, say so distinctly. While these things are being done, beauty stands veiled and music is a screeching lie. Think of him — of his rare qualities! such a man as it takes ages to make, and ages to understand; no mock hero, nor the representative of any party. A man such as the sun may not rise upon again in this benighted land. To whose making went the costliest material, the finest adamant; sent to be the redeemer of those in captivity; and the only use to which you can put him is to hang him at the end of a rope! You who pretend to care for Christ crucified, consider what you are about to do to him who offered himself to be the saviour of four millions of men.

Any man knows when he is justified, and all the wits in the world cannot enlighten him on that point. The murderer always knows that he is justly punished; but when a government takes the life of a man without the consent of his conscience, it is an audacious government, and is taking a step towards its own dissolution. Is it not possible that an individual may be right and a government wrong? Are laws to be enforced simply because they were made? or declared by any number of men to be good, if they are not good? Is there any necessity for a man's being a tool to perform a deed of which his better nature disapproves? Is it the intention of law-makers that good men shall be hung ever? Are judges to interpret the law according to the letter, and not the spirit? What right have you to enter into a compact with yourself that you will do thus or so, against the light within you? Is it for you to make up your mind to form any resolution whatever — and not accept the convictions that are forced upon you, and which ever pass your understanding? I do not believe in lawyers, in that mode of attacking or defending a man, because you descend to meet the judge on his own ground, and, in cases of the highest importance, it is of no consequence whether a man breaks a human law or not. Let lawyers decide trivial cases. Business men may arrange that among themselves. If they were the interpreters of the everlasting laws which rightfully bind man, that would be another thing. A counterfeiting law-factory, standing half in a slave land and half in a free! What kind of laws for free men can you expect from that?

I am here to plead his cause with you. I plead not for his life, but for his character- his immortal life; and so it becomes your cause wholly, and is not his in the least. Some eighteen hundred years ago Christ was crucified; this morning, perchance, Captain Brown was hung. These are the two ends of a chain which is not without its links.

He is not Old Brown any longer; he is an angel of light.

I see now that it was necessary that the bravest and humanest man in all the country should be hung. Perhaps he saw it himself. I almost fear that I may yet hear of his deliverance, doubting if a prolonged life, if any life, can do as much good as his death.

"Misguided"! "Garrulous"! "Insane"! Vindictive"! So ye write in your easy chairs, and thus he wounded responds from the floor of the Armory, clear as a cloudless sky, true as the voice of nature is: "No man sent me here; it was my own prompting and that of my Maker. I acknowledge no master in human form."

And in what a sweet and noble strain he proceeds, addressing his captors, who stand over him: "I think, my friends, you are guilty of a great wrong against God and humanity, and it would be perfectly right for any one to interfere with you so far as to free those you wilfully and wickedly hold in bondage."

And referring to his movement: "It is, in my opinion, the greatest service a man can render to God."

"I pity the poor in bondage that have none to help them; that is why I am here; not to gratify any personal animosity, revenge, or vindictive spirit. It is my sympathy with the oppressed and the wronged, that are as good as you, and as precious in the sight of God."

You don't know your testament when you see it.

"I want you to understand that I respect the rights of the poorest and weakest of colored people, oppressed by the slave power, just as much as I do those of the most wealthy and powerful."

"I wish to say, furthermore, that you had better, all you people at the South, prepare yourselves for a settlement of that question, that must come up for settlement sooner than you are prepared for it. The sooner you are prepared the better. You may dispose of me very easily. I am nearly disposed of now; but this question is still to be settled—this negro question, I mean; the end of that is not yet."

I foresee the time when the painter will paint that scene, no longer going to Rome for a subject; the poet will sing it; the historian record it; and, with the Landing of the Pilgrims and the Declaration of Independence, it will be the ornament of some future national gallery, when at least the present form of Slavery shall be no more here. We shall then be at liberty to weep for Captain Brown. Then, and not till then, we will take our revenge.

_______________

*A Plea for Captain John Brown; read to the citizens of Concord, Mass., Sunday evening, October 30, 1859; also as the Fifth Lecture of the Fraternity Course, in Boston, November 1.

SOURCE: James Redpath, Editor, Echoes of Harper’s Ferry, p. 17-42

Tuesday, May 16, 2023

Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, April 21, 1858

First at the Botanic Garden, second at Northumberland House, and third at the Prime Minister's. Got myself presented to Pélissier, who immediately asked how the Kansas question stood? With all their affected indifference, these European politicians have a keen eye for American differences! Conversed long with Lord Derby about the leading forms of legislation in the two countries; here, every important measure is matured by and introduced from the government; no standing committees, as we have.

SOURCE: George Mifflin Dallas, Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, While United States Minister to Russia 1837 to 1839, and to England 1856 to 1861, Volume 3, p. 264

Saturday, May 6, 2023

H. B., an Old Missionary to John Brown, November 28, 1859

New Haven, Connecticut, Nov. 28.

Dear Sir: Permit a friend of liberty and equitable law to address you a few brief thoughts, which I hope may be acceptable to you and your family. Prayer was yesterday offered for you in a colored congregation in this city, to whom a descendant of Africa, a son of Georgia, a minister of Liberia, and also the writer of this farewell letter, preached the true gospel.

You may be gratified to know that I remember with interest your interview, some two years since, with the cordial friends of Kansas in this city, while that injured territory of our common country was subject to the scorpion lash prepared for the honest advocates of the rights of man, and especially of that freedom which you struggled to establish. These, your New Haven friends, some of whom so ably and so kindly expostulated with our Chief Magistrate in reference to the wrongs of Kansas, remember you with Christian sympathy in your present sufferings.

Take it to your heart that a God of Justice and of Mercy rules, and the Deliverer of Israel from their bondage in Goshen, has mercy in store for a greater number of bondmen and bondwomen, truly as wrongfully oppressed. He has not granted you the full measure of your wishes, but he has allowed you the opportunity of conspicuously and emphatically showing your sympathy for the injured Slave population of our otherwise happy country, and of preaching the duty of giving "them that which is just and equal."

Forty years ago I went among the savages of Polynesia, and preached the gospel of Him whose office it was to proclaim liberty to captives. I plainly taught kings and queens, chiefs and warriors, that He that ruleth men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. I freely exhibited the opposition of God's law and our Saviour's gospel to oppression and every sin found to be prevailing there, and aided my associates in giving them the entire Bible in their own language, and in teaching their tribes to read it and use it freely in all the ranks of life.

Though I labored with them a score of years, and have corresponded with them a score of years more, I have not, lest I should damage my mission, ever told them that I belonged to a nation that deprives three or four millions of their fellow-subjects of Jehovah's Government, of their dearest rights which God has given them one of which is the free use of his own Holy Book.

But when the story of your execution shall reach and surprise them, I will no longer hesitate to speak to my friends there of your sympathy for four millions of the inhabitants of our Southern States, held in unchristian bonds in the only Protestant country on the globe that endorses Slavery.

I can, next week, well afford to endeavor to give them an echo of that protest against the whole system of American Slavery, which on and from the day of your execution, will be louder in the ear of High Heaven than its abettors have been accustomed to hear; rising from the millions of freemen in this noble cordon of Free States, and other millions of now slaveholding freemen, and some slaveholders themselves, in the Slave States.

Have you a kind message to send to the Christian converts at the Sandwich Islands, or to the heathen of Micronesia, a month's sail beyond, where my son and daughter are laboring to give them the Bible and the richest blessings of Christianity? I would gladly forward it to them if you have time to write it.

And now, dear sir, trust in your gracious Saviour; forgive those that have trespassed against you; leave your fatherless children, God will provide for them, and tell your widow to trust in Him, in His holy habitation. "The hairs of your head are all numbered," and not one "shall fall to the ground without your Heavenly Father." Should a lock of your hair fall into my lap before the execution shall help you to shake the pillars of the idol's temple, it would be valued. The Lord bless you, and make your life and death a blessing to the oppressed and their oppressors. Farewell!

Yours faithfully,
H. B.

SOURCE: James Redpath, Editor, Echoes of Harper’s Ferry, p. 403-5

Sunday, July 17, 2022

Mr. Sumner’s Condition — published June 5, 1856

WASHINGTON, Thursday, May 29, 1856

Mr. Sumner is more comfortable this morning and the symptoms of erysipelas are subsiding. Drs. Perry, Miller and Lindsly held a consultation this morning. No one is yet admitted into his room.

WASINGTON, May 30th.

Mr. Sumner passed a comfortable night, but is in a very bad condition. It turns out that the scalp was torn from the [skull] for an inch or two in width beyond cuts, which was not observed when they were first sewed up.—The surface of inflammation and suppuration is thus very extensive, and exhibits a malignant and serious wound.—Two physicians are in attendance this morning. The greatest care has to be taken to keep the patient quiet. It is likely to be long before he can get to the Senate. He will be removed from the city as soon as his condition will permit.

WASINGTON, May 31st.

A consultation of physicians was held at 10 o’clock this morning in regard to the state of Mr. Sumner’s health.—No person whatever is yet admitted to see him, absolute repose being necessary for him. He was rather more comfortable last night.

WASHINGTON, June 1, 1856.

Mr. Sumner is weak and feeble, but his wounds are doing as well as could be expected. He has been able to sit up about an hour to-day.

We copy the above from the N. Y. Tribune—being the four days’ bulletins of the martyred Sumner’s critical condition. When one bears in mind, that the man has never been seriously hurt—that he might have gone about his business the next day—with what ineffable scorn must he regard this whining hypocrisy? It is even more disgusting than the falsehoods they have put forth in regard to the outrages in Kansas. We see that these last are to be used as Yankees use every thing—for turning a penny. Accounts are already made up for property destroyed to the amount of $100,000—which the Government at Washington will be called upon to pay. We don’t know but they have some such scheme in expatiating upon the intense suffering, and “extensive suppuration” of Sumner. The greater his afflictions—the greater should be the bill for damages.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Thursday Morning, June 5, 1856, p. 2

Tuesday, March 22, 2022

Speech of Congressman John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, March 23, 1854

Delivered in the House of Representatives, March 23, 1854—the House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the Nebraska bill.

I propose, now, Mr. Chairman, to address a few observations to the committee upon the merits of the bill. The subject has been thoroughly discussed here and in the Senate, and I do not flatter myself that I shall be able to add new facts or develop new trains of thought. The elements of a correct judgment are already before the country, and the utmost that one now engaging in the discussion can hope, is to present some of them in lights and combinations worthy the attention of the House.

I shall not consume the time of the committee in discussing what I cannot but regard as the subordinate and accidental aspects of the subject; as, for example, the relations of individuals to the bill of the last Congress, the alleged change of position by newspaper presses, and other points which do not touch the heart of the subject, and cannot go into history in the permanent connexion with our action upon it; assuming, also—what I think has been abundantly demonstrated—that the interests of the country demanded the organization of these territories, and that the rights of the few Indians within their borders are protected by the bill, the only remaining question relates to the clauses respecting slavery.

Among the many misrepresentations sent to the country by some of the enemies of this bill, perhaps none is more flagrant than the charge that it proposes to legislate slavery into Nebraska and Kansas. Sir, if the bill contained such a feature, it could not receive my vote. The right to establish involves the co-relative right to prohibit, and, denying both, I would vote for neither. I go further and express the opinion that a clause legislating slavery into those Territories could not command one Southern vote in this House. It is due to both sections of the country, and the people, to expose this groundless charge. What then, is the present condition of Nebraska and Kansas? Why, sir, there is no government, no slavery, and very little population there, (for your federal laws, exclude your citizens,) but a law remains on the statute-book forever prohibiting slavery in those Territories. It is proposed simply to take off this prohibition, but not to make an enactment in affirmance of slavery there. Now, in the absence of any law establishing slavery in that region previous to the prohibitory act, it is too clear for dispute that the repeal of the prohibitory act, has not the affirmatory effect of fixing slavery in that country. The effect of the repeal, therefore, is neither to establish nor to exclude, but to leave the future condition of the Territories dependent wholly on the action of the inhabitants, subject only to such limitations as the federal constitution may impose. But, to guard fully against hones misconstruction, and even against malicious perversion, the language of the bill is perfectly explicit on this point.

I propose, for the present, to argue the question only upon the compromises of 1820 and 1850. To those who may be called political abolitionists it is useless to address any arguments. They opposed both those settlements; they adhere to neither in good faith, but will appeal to them or reject them as may best promote their incendiary purposes.—But I do not consider this to be the position of the northern people. I believe that, generally, they, and their representatives here, desire to look at this subject calmly, and to do fairly and honestly whatever good faith demands. The American characteristic is well understood by the abolitionists in and out of Congress, and accordingly they clamorously proclaim that “plighted faith” is about to be violated by the breach of a compact which the North, they say, has faithfully kept on her part for more than thirty years. By their orators and presses, and from their pulpits, (for the Church is resolved to engage in the struggle,) the South is held up as a monster of perfidy, and the selectest vials of their wrath are poured on the heads of those northern statemen who always sustained their Missouri Compromise, while it had any remains of vitality, against the assaults of its new defenders.

What, then is the true nature and extent of the compromise of 1850? What of the former? What their relations? Are they consistent with each other? Which of them ought, in good faith, to be applied to the Territories contemplated by this bill? These are the questions to be decided, in good faith, by those who recognize compromises as somewhat more important and durable than ordinary acts of legislation. While for those who opposed them both, and who spurn all settlements touching slavery, the less that is said, either of compromises or of “plighted faith,” the better.

At the risk of treading on ground already occupied by others, let me say something of the origin and history of the Missouri Compromise, and of the relations of sections to it.

I have heard gentlemen here glorify Mr. Clay as the author of the act of 1820, prohibiting slavery north of 36 deg. 30 min., and invoke his memory to resist its violation. They must invoke some other “spirit” than Mr. Clay’s, for he was not its author. My colleague [Mr. EWING] showed this not long ago, but the statement has been persistently repeated since. While again correcting this error, it may be well to notice the treatment this compromise received very soon after its birth.

The people of Missouri having applied for leave to form a State constitution, Congress, by the act of March 6, 1820, provided in the first section:

“That the inhabitants of that portion of the Missouri Territory included within the boundaries hereinafter designated be, and they are hereby, authorized to form for themselves a constitution and State Government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper; and the said state, when formed, shall be admitted to the Union upon an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever.”

 And in the eight section:

“That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited.”

This the compromise prohibiting slavery north of the 36 deg. 30 min.—the compromise to which gentlemen say our plighted faith is now due. There were two parties and two stipulations. Missouri was to form a constitution, and was to be admitted “upon an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever.” This was the agreement on the one hand for the benefit of Missouri, and, if you choose, of the South. On the other hand, slavery was to be prohibited north of 36 deg. 30 min., and this was for the benefit of the North.—The terms and conditions on each side were clearly expressed; but with it Mr. Clay had nothing to do. He was a member of the House and the clause prohibiting slavery originated in the Senate, on the motion of Mr. Thomas, of Illinois. Mr. Clay has said publicly that he had no recollection even of voting for it.

Well, sir, in pursuance of this “Missouri Compromise,” the people of that Territory proceeded to form a constitution with which they presented themselves for admission as a State at the next session of Congress. Was the compact executed? The Senate promptly passed a bill for their admission “on an equal footing with the original States;” but in the House it was rejected by a strict sectional vote—the South for it, the North against it. The “compromise” being thus repudiated and rejected by the North, by refusing to Missouri and the South the equivalent (being her admission “on an equal footing with the original States”) for the slavery prohibition, the bargain was broken, and the act of 1820 lost the sacredness of a compromise. The pretest for this repudiation was, that Missouri had put a clause in her constitution prohibiting the immigration of the free negroes to the State. This she had a right to do, unless it was a violation of the federal constitution; and if a violation, it was simply void, and the clause of the latter which declares that:

“The Constitution, and laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution and laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

And the proper tribunal to settle the fact was the federal judiciary; so that in either aspect there was no ground for breaking the bargain. But the Compromise of 1820 was thus broken, and for a long time there seemed to be no prospect that this State, coming with a republican constitution in her hand, could find admission. The whole question was at sea again, and so remained until Mr. Clay appeared in the House, on the 21st day of February, 1821, having been detained at home by sickness in his family. He soon offered a resolution for the purpose of  raising a joint committee of the two houses to inquire whether Missouri should be remanded to the territorial condition, or admitted into the Union; and if the latter, upon what terms?

The committee asked for was raised, and on the 26th of February Mr. Clay reported from it the following condition of admission, which was adopted by Congress.

“That Missouri shall be admitted into this union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, upon the fundamental condition that the 4th clause of the 25th section of the 3d article of the constitution submitted on the part of said State to Congress shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any law, and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which any citizen of either of the States in this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the constitution of the United states; provided, That the legislature of the said State, by a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the said State to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the President of the United States, on or before the first Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the said act; upon receipt whereof, the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact; whereupon, and without any further proceedings on the part of Congress, the admission of the said State into the Union shall be considered as complete.”

This was a new condition by which Missouri was to enter the Union; not by the Compromise of 1820, “on an equal footing with the original States,” as an equivalent for the prohibition of slavery north of 36 deg. 30 min., but upon the “fundamental condition” that her legislature should pass an act declaring that the constitution of the State was not above the constitution of the United States! She accepted the condition; and thus, by an act of her legislature, in pursuance of the timely “fundamental condition” of a congressional resolution, happily saved the federal constitution!!

It is due to the memory of the illustrious author of this “fundamental condition” to say that no one could be more sensible than himself of the intense humbuggery of the whole proceeding; and in his celebrated speech of 1850, on his compromise resolutions, he jocularly reviewed and exposed it to the Senate.

This summary of the facts will not be denied here or elsewhere; but they show that the Compromise now invoked was made in 1820; that Missouri complied with her part of it; that it was repudiated by northern votes in 1821; and that the State was finally admitted into the Union, not upon the equivalent provided in the act of 1820, but by the express imposition on her of a new compromise and condition.

So much for the result, on the first occasion that offered, to test “plighted faith.”

Under these circumstances the act of 1820 might well have been regarded as a rejected compact, and the question of slavery might have been fought over again upon the organization of each new Territory. But the hope of having something to be regarded as final on this vexed subject, thought a mere geographical line, and that of doubtful constitutionality, prevailed in the country, and that act, under the name of the “Missouri Compromise,” was accepted as a settlement of the slavery controversy. The basis of the settlement was a division (though very unequal) of all the territory then possessed by the United States. Does any man doubt that if we had possessed more territory the same principle of division would have been applied to it? It was a division of common territory between slaveholding and non slave holding States, or rather it was the exclusive appropriation of all north of 36 deg. 30 min. to free institutions and an implied allowance only of southern institutions below that line. Whatever may be said of this arrangement in its relations to the constitution, or as a measure of statesmanship, it was a clear and simple adjustment. It was capable of easy application in all future time; and as such, the South accepted it in good faith, and struggled to maintain it, until it was finally and forever repudiated by our northern brethren.

Sir, the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] and others, have traced this compromise through our legislative history—they have shown how often it was repudiated, and repudiated by the North, and I do not propose to go over the same ground; but if falls within the line of my thoughts to fix your attention on a period when the Missouri Compromise was ratified; and that occasion is the more important because it carried the Compromise beyond the territory acquired from France, and thus leaves no excuse for denying that it was intended to be a rule of general application. I refer to the joint resolution of 1845 for the annexation of Texas, which contains the following provision:

“New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to the said state of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which sall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.”

Here the Missouri Compromise was distinctly applied to territory clearly outside of the specific boundaries of the act of 1820, and it is no answer to say that Texas was a part of the Louisiana purchase—first, because this was a matter of dispute and conflicting claims with Spain; and next, because in 1819 we exchanged to Spain our claims to Texas for Florida, by which Texas became foreign territory, and relieved from the constitution and laws of the United States, so  that, upon her return, she came as free from the operation of the Missouri Compromise as Utah, New Mexico, or the British Islands. It follows, that in extending that compromise to the portion of Texas lying north of 36 deg. 30 min., the Congress on that occasion recognized it as a rule upon the question of slavery, as a basis of settlement, to be applied to as well to new territory as to that acquired from France. It will be remembered that the whole of Texas was slaveholding territory, and the effect of the resolution was to make a large part of it free. But this was assented to by the South; and now I ask the fair-minded representatives of the people if the Missouri Compromise meant that it should be recognized and extended when the South was to be excluded, and repudiated, when it might work to her advantage?

This practical construction of the Missouri line obliged the North, by every obligation of honor and good faith, to carry it through all territory afterwards acquired, if any virtue at all was to be conceded to that compromise.

But, while the line was extended as long as it worked out free-soil territory, it was ignored and trampled under foot the moment their fair application of it might have resulted to benefit of both Sections. Witness the result in 1848, you gentlemen who talk of “plighted faith.” We had acquired from Mexico a large territory, lying on both sides of the line of 36 deg. 30 min. Three years before, the line had been extended through Texas, by which a large slaveholding territory had been made free-soil; and yet when, in 1848, on motion of the distinguished senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS,] a resolution passed in the Senate to “extend the Missouri-Compromise line” through the recently-acquired territory, it was rejected in this House by the united northern against the united southern vote.

Sir, how can an honest man get over these facts? How, in the face of them, can an honest man charge the friends of this bill with disregard of “plighted faith” and “solemn compacts?” I need not recur in detail to the occasions, so often referred to in this debate, when the Missouri line was offered by the South during the great struggle which ended in the Compromise of 1850, and was rejected by the North. It is enough to say that the record of those transactions will preserve for history the fact that the Missouri Compromise line of 36 deg. 30 min. was steadily repudiated by northern votes as a basis for the settlement of the slavery controversy. Why was this sir?

The reason is obvious. The anti-slavery feeling at this time ruled the councils of the North, and accordingly she left the ground of compromise, and planted herself on the ground of power. She rejected the principle of division. Glorying in her conscious strength, she came to obliterate geographical lines, and to appropriate to herself the whole of the territory acquired from Mexico. Her rallying cry was no longer “the Missouri Compromise line,” but the “Wilmot proviso.” Old things had passed away; old bargains were rejected, and the question took a new form.

The issue made up was, (and it went back of all divisions and patched-up settlements, and to the very bottom of the subject,) shall slavery be prohibited in all the Territories of the Untied States by act of Congress, or shall it be left to the people who inhabit them, subject only to the federal constitution; and on this was fought the great battle of 1850. The slaveholding States said: We have exhausted every scheme of adjustment; we have offered the old line; it is contemptuously refused; you claim all; very well, then, we united with you in burying the past; we accept the broad issue of intervention or non-intervention; we demand that all the citizens of the United States be allowed to enter the common territory with the constitution alone in their hands. If that instrument protects the title of the master to his slave in this common territory, you cannot complain; and if it does not protect his title, we ask no help from Congress; and the relations of the constitution to the subject we are willing to have decided by the courts of the United States. We do not ask Congress to interfere for us, and we will resist all legislative interference against us.

The whole country saw that here was a great struggle of opposing principles; and the excitement was in proportion to the magnitude of the question. If the result had depended on a purely sectional vote, the “Wilmot proviso” would have triumphed; but a large portion of the North, under the lead of the distinguished senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] and others, repudiated the “proviso.”—Governments were formed for New Mexico and Utah without that odious restriction, leaving them free to form their own institutions, and enter the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution should prescribe.

Nothing in this discussion has surprised me more than the assertion, in respectable quarters, that the provisions touching slavery in the New Mexico and Utah bills were not intended to establish any principle for the future action of Congress upon that subject. I cannot but regard this as a narrow and unstatesman like view. Such was not the sense in which that great compromise was accepted by the American people. They well knew that it did not abolish slavery; they knew, too, that past territories yet remained within the Union to be settled, and that still vaster regions were to be acquired in the progress of our inevitable expansion. As to all these, the question of slavery, they knew, would present itself at each successive step in the extension of American institutions and laws. If the settlement of 1850 was but an ordinary act of legislation, and contained no principle of agreement of broader application than the strips of territory embraced in those laws, for what had the Union been shaken to its centre? To what end had our most eminent statesmen devoted their highest efforts? What has been gained—a lasting peace? No, sir; but, by this view, only a deceitful truce; a suspension of hostilities; the suppression of a symptom, not the eradication of the disease. It make this compromise not a final adjustment, on principle, of the distracting subject of slavery, but a delusion, an expedient, a catch, a humbug. It brings it down to the level of a mere temporary legislative contrivance; it leaves its great authors shorn of the renown the world supposed it to confer and reduces them to the condition of mere political jobbers. But, by the other construction, it was, indeed, a “final settlement”—a settlement which makes its authors immortal, which removes from the federal theatre the only question that can disturb our domestic tranquility, and leaves Congress in the future nothing to do in connexion with it, except to apply the established principle as the occasions arise. No, sir; whatever some gentlemen by say now, the people were not guilty of the folly imputed to them by the opponents of this bill. Their patriotic acclamations went up to Heaven over an act of healing statesmanship, not over a political job. They accepted those measures, not as a truce to faction, but as a bond of lasting concord.

Mr. Chairman, in great collisions of opinion, especially among an enlightened people, and upon questions of a continuing character, the particular issue usually involves the general principle—and this happens with a certainty proportioned to the magnitude of the questions at stake. History is full of illustrations to the point. When our heroic ancestors threw the British tea into Boston harbor and the whole country rose to sustain the act, it went far deeper than a question of a tax on tea, and involved the great principle that we would submit to no taxation without representation. When John Hampden resisted the illegal imposition of ship money by Charles I, and carried the point up to all the judges of England, though the immediate issue was whether he should pay the paltry sum of twenty shillings, the great question involved was the claim of the King to levy taxes without the consent of Parliament. So, the circumstance connected with the legislation giving governments to Utah and New Mexico must control and explain the effect and principle of those laws. After events so recent, need I say that, in 1850, the manner in which the new Territories should be organized led to a thorough discussion as to the policy to be adopted respecting slavery? Is it not notorious that the Missouri Compromise line was considered and deliberately rejected? Did not the non-slaveholding States (generally) insist that the true policy was the prohibition of slavery in the territories of the Union by act of congress, and, by consequence, insist upon applying this principle to Utah and New Mexico? Did not the slaveholding States, on the contrary, planting themselves on the ground of Federal non-intervention, resist this policy, and, by consequence, its adoption and application to those Territories? And after a long and fearful struggle, did not the latter doctrine prevail, and was it not carried into law (or compact, if you choose) in the New Mexico and Utah acts? Did not the public, the press, conventions, and States, hail the result as a “final settlement, in principle and substance,” of the subject of slavery? And are we to be told now that the Compromise of 1850 was an adjustment to broader than those two territories? Are we to have a new struggle, a new bargain, a new basis of settlement on the organization of each new territory? Who, then, are the agitators?—who are faithful to the Compromise of 1850?

If my conclusions are correct as to the relations of the Compromise of 1820 to that of 1850, and as to the true nature and extent of the latter, it follows that the former has no claim resting on good faith; but that “plighted faith” to the Compromise of 1850 demands the removal of the Missouri prohibition. I do not contend that the eighth section of the act of 1820 was, in terms, repealed by the adjustment of 1850; it yet remains on the statute-book, and if constitutional, is still operative. But if non-intervention by Congress be the principle that underlies the Compromise of 1850, then the prohibition of 1820, being inconsistent with that principle, should be removed, and perfect non-intervention thus be established by law.

Among the many misrepresentations sent to the country by some of the enemies of this bill, perhaps none is more flagrant than the charge that it proposes to legislate slavery into Nebraska and Kansas. Sir, if the bill contained such a feature, it could not receive my vote. The right to establish involves the co-relative right to prohibit, and denying both, I would vote for neither. So go further, and express the opinion that a clause legislating slavery into those Territories could not command one Southern vote in this House. It is due to both sections of the country, and to the people, to expose this groundless charge. What then, is the present condition of Nebraska and Kansas? Why, sir, there is no government, no slavery, and very little population there, (for your federal laws, exclude your citizens,) but a law remains on the statute-book forever prohibiting slavery in those Territories. It is proposed simply to take of this prohibition, but not to make an enactment in the affirmance of slavery there. Now, in the absence of any law establishing slavery in that region previous to the prohibitory act, it is too clear for dispute that the repeal of the prohibitory act, has not the affirmative effect of fixing slavery in that country. The effect of the repeal, therefore, is neither to establish nor to exclude, but to leave the future condition of the Territories depended wholly on the action of the inhabitants, subject only to such limitations as the federal constitution may impose. But, to guard fully against honest misconstruction, and even against malicious perversion, the language of the bill is perfectly explicit on this point.

“That the constitution, and all laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States; except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March, 1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories as recognized by the legislation of 1820, (commonly called the compromise measures,) is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which my have existed prior to the act of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing slavery.”

This should be satisfactory to all candid men; but if any one shall persist in attempting to mislead the people, the best answer will be to impale him before them on the very words of the bill.

It will be observed that the right of the people to regulate in their own way all their domestic institutions is left wholly untouched, except whatever is done must be in accordance with the constitution—the supreme law for us all; and the right of property, under the constitution, as well as legislative action, is properly left to the decision of the federal judiciary. This voids a contested issue which it is hardly in the competency of Congress to decide, and refers it to the proper tribunal.

It is contended on one hand, upon the idea of the equality of the States under the constitution and common property in the Territories, that the citizens of the slaveholding States may remove to them with their slaves, (and that the local legislature cannot exclude slavery, while in the territorial condition; but it is to concede that the people may establish or prohibit it when they come to exercise the power of a sovereign State;) on the other hand, it is said that slavery, being in derogation of common right, can exist only by force of positive law; and it is denied that the constitution furnishes this law for the Territories; and it is further claimed that the local legislature my establish or exclude it any time after government is organized. As both parties appeal to the constitution, and base their respective arguments on opposite constructions of that instrument, the bill wisely refuses to make a question for judicial construction the subject of legislative conflict, and properly refers it to the tribunal created by the constitution itself, for the very purpose of deciding “all cases in law and equity” arising under it.

Then, sir, neither the purpose nor effect of the bill is to legislate slavery into Nebraska and Kansas; but its effect is to sweep away this vestige of Congressional dictation on this subject, to allow the free citizens of this Union to enter the common territory with the constitution and the bill alone in their hands, and to remit the decision of their rights under both to the courts of the country. Who can go before his constituents refusing to stand on the platform of the constitution? Who can make a case to them of refusing to abide the decision of the courts of the Union?

I have argued the subject hitherto chiefly upon the question of “plighted faith;” and have consumed more of my limited time that properly belongs to that aspect of the case, because diligent efforts have been made to excite the northern mind against the friends of this bill representing them as the violators of the public honor. Anxious as I am for its passage, I readily admit that no benefit it could confer upon the country would atone for a deliberate violation of the public faith; but I am for its passage, not only because I believe that it embodies the true principle, but because, also, I sincerely believe that it carries out the true spirit and intent of our last great compromise, which is my judgment, covered the whole subject of slavery.

The clock admonishes me that I must hurry on and omit some views I would like to present, if time allowed. But, Mr. Chairman, apart from the historical argument, this contested feature in the bill is right in itself, for it rests on the foundation principle of American government. Without entering the wilderness of discussion in regard to the relations of the federal government to the territories as political communities, I offer one or two thoughts as to the proper limitations upon the power of Congress, according to the true theory of our government. Political power in the Territories is nowhere expressly granted in the constitution. The existence, therefore, and the extent of its exercise, must be derived by implication; and implied powers are to be exercised with more caution and strictness that express grants. Let it be conceded that political power over the Territories exists in Congress, and it is no matter whether it be implied from the power to acquire territory, or from any other source in the constitution; and the question arises whether it is an uncontrolled and despotic power, or whether it is limited by the nature of the federal government.

The States are supreme as to all subjects not granted to the common government. They establish their own institutions, at their own pleasure; they regulate within themselves all the relations of society; and they are now complete, self-sustaining, political communities; and they created the federal government, not to fix for them and their posterity the relations of society and the various elements that make up a complete social and political community, but to execute for the common good certain specified grants of power. The territories belong to the States in their united character; they are to enter the Union on an equal footing with the original States; and, in the meantime, they are to be settled and occupied by citizens of the existing States. What is the pretest for the act of 1820 “forever” prohibiting American citizens, on American soil, from establishing their own local, social and political condition? You have no express power to do so in constitution, and surely you can find none in the analogies of our political system. Can you dictate a particular from of society and government for them one moment after they become States? If not, why mock reason, and blot the statue book with this prohibition?

The power of Congress over the Territories is either absolute, or it has constitutional limitations. Let me illustrate further my idea of the limitations on the power of Congress over the Territories and districts growing out of the character and objects of the federal system. Congress, by an express provision of the constitution, may exercise “exclusive legislation” in the District of Columbia.—This is a far stronger and broader grant of power than any to be implied from that instrument in relation to the Territories, and yet it does not confer absolute power in this District; for it must be observed that there is wide distinction between “exclusive” and absolute power of legislation. Will any man contend that Congress may establish a free port of entry in this District, while a general tariff law applies to other ports? And yet the language of the constitution is:

“No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.”

So Congress has “exclusive legislation” over “all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful building,” but it will not be said that congress may admit foreign goods duty free at one of these points on the sea-board, while impost laws are in force at other ports. Nor will an advocate be found for the power to discriminate against the people of this District, by taxing articles exported from it, though the limitation of the constitution is: “No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.

Why is this, and what is the limit? At the beginning it was thought best that the seat of government should not be within the limit of any State, and accordingly a separate territory was carved out for it, where the Federal Government might exercise its few and limited powers, and over this territory “exclusive legislation” was granted to Congress, but the reasons and objects of the grant both of the Territory and power, and the nature and purposes of the common Government, must control this exclusive legislation. Accordingly, Congress may not establish a despotism here, nor rob American citizens in regard to their local and domestic affairs, nor deprive them of their property, nor violate uniformity of taxation, nor discriminate for or against their ports. Out of this view, too, grows the argument against the power to abolish slavery in the district without the consent of the people. And though upon this point opposite opinions have been expressed, yet the argument has so far prevailed that no serious attempt has been made to interfere with their rights in this respect.

The argument in regard to the Territories is far stronger. I have already said that the Constitution nowhere expressly grants political power over the Territories. Let us bear in mind, then, that it can only be an implied power—to be exercised by a limited government—over a region the common property of the States which created this limited government; and the inference is irresistible that it must be exercised in the spirit of the political system out of which this limited government springs. It would follow if the power were expressly granted, but follows with greater force since it is only derivative. What, then, is the spirit of the system? I answer, the equality of the States—local sovereignty in all matters of interior and domestic concern, embracing the great mass of powers that belong to government; as if, for example, fixing the relations of parent and child, guardian and ward, master and servant-regulating the general rights of property, the course of inheritance, and the innumerable conditions that grow out of the social and political state. Hence it never has been pretended that Congress may invade them to control their free action on these and other kindred subjects. It is apart from the objects for which the States made the Federal Government, and prescribed the orbit in which it should move. Carry the idea to the Territories. What are they? to whom do they belong? who are to inhabit them? and what are to be their political relations to the rest of the Confederacy? They are regions of country acquired by the common efforts and treasure of all the States; they belong, therefore, to the States for common use and enjoyment; the citizens of the States are to inhabit them; and when the population shall be sufficient, they are to become equal members of the Union.

I might run out of illustrations on this point to an indefinite extent. Could Congress admit foreign goods duty free into the Union through the ports of a Territory, in violation of the general revenue laws, or lay a tax on articles exported from a Territory? The power will not be claimed—certainly its exercise will never be attempted; and yet I have shown that the limitation of the constitution in these and other respects apply in terms only to the States; and the only arguments against the power are, first, that it has not been expressly granted; and, next, that it cannot be fairly deduced from the spirit of the analogies of our political system.—Sir, if the constitutional limitations for which I contend do exist, then congress cannot discriminate against any of the States by depriving them of equal enjoyment of the common territory; but if these limitations do not exist, then the power of legislation is absolute and Congress may as readily set up a monarchy as a republic. Gentlemen my revolt at the conclusion, bit it flows with inevitable certainty from this doctrine of intervention and uncontrolled political powers over the Territories. The germ of congressional despotism is to be found in this Missouri prohibition; for if the question of slavery may be determined for the Territories by Congress, every other social and political question may in like manner be settled for them by the same authority, and this would reduce them to the most abject colonial vassalage. You cannot escape this conclusion by saying that slavery is anti-republican, and congress must exclude it under the obligation to provide a republican form of government, for slavery has already existed in many of the States, and yet the constitution declares that Congress shall secure to each State a republican form of government; hence it is a settled principle of our system that the institution is not inconsistent with republicanism.

Sir, I care not for refined distinctions or the subtleties of verbal criticism. I repeat the above and plain proposition, that if Congress may intervene on this subject, it may intervene on any other; and having thus surrendered the principle, and broken away from constitutional limitations, you are drawn into the very lap of arbitrary power. By this doctrine you may erect a despotism under the American system. The whole theory is a libel on our institutions. It carries us back to the abhorrent principles of British colonial authority, against which we made the issue of independence. I have never acquiesced in this odious claim, nor will I believe that it can abide the test of public scrutiny. The bill on our table repudiates it, and only wants fearless advocates to make it thoroughly odious. The political Abolitionists think they can ride the storm of anti-slavery fanaticism; but I tell them, they have encountered here an element more powerful still. They must obliterate the memory of the principles on which our Government was founded; they must undo the very texture of American mind; they must substitute in the popular heart the dogmas of despotism for the doctrine of American liberty, before they can triumph over the principles of this bill. The South insists on it as embodying the doctrine of State equality, on which her very existence depends; but it should commend itself equally to all sections, because the underlying principle is not Northern or Southern, but American. It is true, that the subject of slavery happens to be the one at issue; but it is there as the representative of every other social and political right. The freedom of these new countries to establish their own institutions ought, therefore, to be as dear to the man from Maine as to the man from Florida.

But again: cannot the North, with her overwhelming numbers, compete with us on these new theaters in the race of settlement and civilization—and must she not only violate the constitution by shutting out half the States, common property-holders with her—but in the name of liberty outrage liberty by erecting a despotism over the Territories Sir, we never will submit to it—we will resist it to the last; and in this struggle of principle against passion, of reason and right against fanaticism, are we defenceless? No, sir; no sir.—It is true, New England, with a few noble exceptions, has arrayed herself against the principle of the bill; yet even there the cause is not lost. Her choicest sons are unmoved by the clamors that surround them, and New Hampshire, the little Switzerland of the North, is unbroken by the frantic rush of the agitators. She has the elements around which to rally her hereditary principles.

But New England is not the Union. Observe what different tokens come from East and West. Did you hear of the infuriated mob that basely hung the author of this bill in effigy, on Boston Common? But did you note soon after the cheering tones of approval the west wind brought from his prairie State? Remember, Gentlemen, in the midst of your exultation, that the political power of this country is now climbing the summits of the Allegany mountains, and before this decade closes will have pursued its unreturning course far into the valley of the Mississippi—that vast region richer than the delta of the Nile, and whose millions and ever-increasing millions are destined to a political unity as lasting as civilization and commerce, bound forever together by the double tie of interest and affection. What, then, if Boston Chooses to betray the principles that made her own origin illustrious—what if New England Chooses to turn her back on the doctrines that marked her early history, and, after winning political liberty for herself, proposes to deny it to others—still we are not defenceless. True spirits in every eastern state will stand by the flag of republican equality until it waves the people back beneath its folds. Pennsylvania, that fine old Commonwealth, too often neglected in the piping times of peace, but always appealed to, and never in vain, in ever crises of the constitution, will stand upon the bill. But even if no support could be found in the scenes of our early civilization, we would gather up this inestimable principle, and turn to the West—the young, and growing, and vigorous West—whose hardy sons, having just laid for themselves the foundations of society, will never aid in robbing their fellow-citizens of the same sacred privilege. Sir, in two years from this time you will not be able, in my opinion, to find a man in the West who will dare to go before the people in opposition to the principle of this bill.

My time is so nearly exhausted that I shall be obliged to omit observations I had intended to offer as to the importance of action on this subject. By keeping it an open question, nobody is to be benefitted except the abolitionists and their sympathizers. Those who take the responsibility of throwing it before the county as an apple of discord may themselves perish in the storm they aid to arouse. The final triumph of the truth would not be doubtful, but the immediate effect would be to furnish food for abolition excitement.

Mr. Davis, of Rhode Island.  If you do pass the bill it will.

Mr. Breckinridge.  That gentleman is an enemy of the bill. He is sincere, no doubt; but deceives himself. As he is a political abolitionist, I remark, with great respect, that he would desire the passage of the bill if he thought it would promote the anti-slavery movement. [Laughter.]

No, sir; if we reject the bill, we open up the waters of bitterness, to be sealed again in time, but not until these agitators shall have rioted awhile in the confusion of the country; we blow high the flames to furnish habitations for these political salamanders, who can exist only in the fires of domestic strife. But, if it passes, the question will be removed forever from the halls of Congress, and deposited with the people, who can settle it in a manner answerable to their own views of interest and happiness. The occupation of federal agitators will be gone, and a barrier will be erected against which the rampant spirit of modern fanaticism may rave in vain, and before which it will receive its signal overthrow.

In the excitement of debates upon this subject heretofore, threats have been made on both sides. I have none to make, sir. I come from a state which is not in the habit of making threats. I believe that once, and only once, she utters a political threat. That was in 1798, when the old federal party struck at the vitals of the constitution. On that occasion, her warning voice and firm attitude contributed to save our political system. If my time allowed I believe I could prove that this Missouri prohibition was a bantling of the same federal party scotched but  not killed in former conflicts.

I believe that the sentiments I have expressed are those of the people I represent. I believe they are the sentiments of the Commonwealth of Kentucky—a State which has never taken an extreme political position; a State which, lying in the centre of the Union, has always extended one hand to the North and the other to the South, to draw them together in bonds of amity, and ever pulsation of those great heart sends the warm life-blood of affection to the remotest extremities of the confederacy.

SOURCES: “Speech of Hon. J. C. Breckenridge of Kentucky,” Nashville Union and American, Nashville, Tennessee, Wednesday, April 5, 1854, p. 2, which was continued the following day in “Speech of Hon. J. C. Breckenridge of Kentucky,” Nashville Union and American, Nashville, Tennessee, Thursday, April 6, 1854, p. 2