Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, March 26, 1866

Senator Doolittle called at my house last evening on the subject of the Civil Rights Bill, which it is now well understood, outside, will meet an Executive veto. Doolittle has an elaborate bill of his own which he proposes to submit. Something, he thinks, must be done. His bill is, perhaps, somewhat less offensive than the one which has been passed by both houses, but the whole thing is wrong and his plan has the same objectionable machinery as the other. I frankly told him that the kind of legislation proposed, and which Congress was greedy to enact, was not in my view correct, was sapping the foundation of the government and must be calamitous in its results. We went together to Senator Morgan's and talked over the subject an hour or more with him.

The President convened the Cabinet this A.M. at ten and read his message returning the Civil Rights Bill with his veto. Before reading it he desired the members to express their opinions. Seward said he had carefully studied the bill and thought it might be well to pass a law declaring negroes were citizens, because there had been some questions raised on that point, though there never was a doubt in his own mind. The rest of the bill he considered unconstitutional in many respects, and having the mischievous machinery of the Fugitive Slave Law did not help commend it.

McCulloch waived remark; had not closely scrutinized the bill, and would defer comment to Stanton, merely remarking that he should be gratified if the President could see his way clear to sign the bill.

Stanton made a long argument, showing that he had devoted much time to the bill. His principal point was to overcome the obnoxious features of the second section, which he thought should be construed favorably. He did not think judges and marshals, or sheriffs and local officers should be fined and imprisoned; did not think it was intended to apply to officers, but merely to persons. The bill was not such a one as he would have drawn or recommended, but he advised that under the circumstances it should be approved.

The President having previously been put in possession of my views, I briefly remarked that my objections were against the whole design, purpose, and scope of the bill, that it was mischievous and subversive.

Mr. Dennison thought that, though there might be some objection to parts, he, on the whole, would advise that the bill should receive Executive approval.

Mr. Harlan had not closely read the bill, but had met difficulties in the second section, and in one or two others which had been measurably removed by Stanton's argument. He thought it very desirable that the President and Congress should act in concert if possible.

Speed was ill and not present.

The Senate to-day deprived Stockton of New Jersey of his seat. It was a high-handed, partisan proceeding, in which Sumner, Fessenden, Morrill, and others exhibited a spirit and feeling wholly unworthy of their official position. While I have no special regard for Stockton and his party in New Jersey, I am compelled to believe they have in this instance certainly been improperly treated and for a factious purpose, and I apprehend that I can never think so well of some of the gentlemen who have been conspicuous in this proceeding. Had Stockton acted with Sumner and Fessenden against the veto, he never would have been ousted from his seat. Of this I have no doubt whatever, and I am ashamed to confess it, or say it. I am passing no judgment on his election, for I know not the exact facts, but the indecent, unfair, arbitrary conduct of the few master spirits is most reprehensible.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 463-5

Charles Sumner to George Sumner, November 26[, 1850]

Our movement here is part of the great liberal movement of Europe; and as “law and order” are the words by which reaction has rallied in Europe, so these very words, or perhaps the “Constitution and Union,” are the cry here. The Fugitive Slave bill has aroused the North; people are shocked by its provisions. Under the discussion which it has called forth, the antislavery sentiment has taken a new start. You have seen that in Massachusetts the Whigs are prostrate; I doubt if they are not beyond any resurrection.¹ They are in a minority from which they cannot recover. In the Senate the opposition will have ten or twelve majority, in the House fifty majority. It is understood that Boutwell will be chosen governor, and a Free Soil senator in the place of Daniel Webster.

_______________

¹ They regained power in the State in 1852, by the interposition of President Pierce's Administration, which prevented the Democrats from co-operating further with the Free Soilers, but were again finally defeated in 1854.

SOURCES: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 230

Herschel V. Johnson* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, November 8, 1852

(Private.)

ELIZABETH CITY Co., NEAR HAMPTON, [VA.],

November 5th, 1852.

MY DEAR HUNTER: I wrote you in June a short note from Baltimore immediately after the adjournment of the Convention, to which I rec[eive]d an answer in a few days. I write now to acknowl

edge its receipt and to say that I have had several very free conversations with Wise since. He speaks of you in the kindest manner and does you ample justice, meet him with the cordiality of former days and all will be well. I know that he loves you and desires your friendship, nay thinks himself entitled to it. I pray God that nothing may ever occur to separate you.

Franklin Pierce from present indications will receive at least 270 of the electoral vote-the vote of every Southern State. We believe, an awful beating, this indeed. He is indebted to Virginia for his Crown. Well who from our State must go into the Cabinet? You say "I have nothing to ask and shall ask nothing from the incoming administration for myself." Do you intend to say that you would decline any offer? I ask the question because I frequently heard you spoken of and the wish expressed that you would accept the Treasury if offered you, indeed I have been asked if I thought you would accept. I had not thought much upon the subject, and had no wish about it. The only desire I have upon the subject is that you should exercise your own judgment and be where you can be most useful.

The Treasury will be the great leaver to work for reform 'tis very certain, and I hope to see some Southern man of the right stamp at it.. Your present position is a commanding one and one from which you can better be heard by the nation, perhaps too it is nearer to the succession. Well if you shall come next after Pierce I shall not despair of the republic.

The last time I saw Bayly he told me that you would be the next President, that he intended to make you President. "You be d-d you can't get back to Congress yourself, and you talk to me about making Hunter President." "When and how come you so fond of Hunter. You always loved Hunter better than you love me." "If it be true can't you account for it very, very easy. Hunter votes right always-You only occasionally." Booker it is impossible you can doubt my fidelity to the South you must have confidence in me. "Confidence sir is a plant of slow groth as Mr. Pitt said." I like Bayly very much. We have been friends a long time, and Ì have tried very hard to forgive him. I withheld from him my vote the last time he was a candidate. It was painful to me to be obliged to do so. He does not understand his position, does, not know how much ground he has lost. I doubt if he can ever recover. In saying this much do not understand me as doubting his fidelity to you. I do not, no, I believe him sincere. In the event of your taking a seat in the Cabinet Bayly and Wise will both struggle hard for your place in the Senate, the former I am certain cannot succeed the latter may, perhaps will. I know of no really formidable competitor in the East. I am interrupted and must conclude before I had finished all I had to say.

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. 149-50

Daniel Webster to Peter Harvey, September 13, 1850

Washington, D. C., September 13, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR,—I have read to-day your exceedingly kind letter of the 11th instant. Your heart is full of joy, at recent occurrences, and your friends are apt to imbibe your own enthusiasm. I see you have a good deal of rejoicing in Boston, and I am heartily glad of it. Nothing has occurred since I wrote you last, except the passage of the Fugitive Slave bill through the House of Representatives. I am afraid it is too late to do any thing with the tariff, except to make preparation for action at the commencement of the next session, now only a month and a half off. I am considering, however, whether some decided expression of opinion, by the House of Representatives, might not now be obtained, and be useful; it is a subject upon which I have been occupied with friends all day. Possibly, something stronger than a mere expression of opinion may be produced. There are several gentlemen here, interested in that subject, principally from Pennsylvania. I shall be glad to see the Boston friends who you say are coming. I wish you would come with them.

Yours, always truly,

DAN'L WEBster.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 388-9

Charles Sumner: Our Immediate Antislavery Duties, November 6, 1850

OUR IMMEDIATE ANTISLAVERY DUTIES.

SPEECH AT A FREE-SOIL MEETING AT FANEUIL HALL,

NOVEMBER 6, 1850.

MR. CHAIRMAN, AND YOU, MY FELLOW-CITIZENS:

Cold and insensible must I be, not to be touched by this welcome. I thank you for the cause, whose representative only I am. It is the cause which I would keep ever foremost, and commend always to your support.

In a few days there will be an important political election, affecting many local interests. Not by these have I been drawn here to-night, but because I would bear my testimony anew to that Freedom which is above all these. And here, at the outset, let me say, that it is because I place Freedom above all else that I cordially concur in the different unions or combinations throughout the Commonwealth, ——— in Mr. Mann's District, of Free-Soilers with Whigs, ——— also in Mr. Fowler's District, of Free-Soilers with Whigs— and generally, in Senatorial Districts, of Free-Soilers with Democrats.

By the first of these two good men may be secured in Congress, while by the latter the friends of Freedom may obtain a controlling influence in the Legislature of Massachusetts during the coming session, and thus advance our cause. [Applause.] They may arbitrate between both the old parties, making Freedom their perpetual object, and in this way contribute more powerfully than they otherwise could to the cause which has drawn us together. [Cheers.]

Leaving these things, so obvious to all, I come at once to consider urgent duties at this anxious moment. To comprehend these we must glance at what Congress has done during its recent session, so long drawn out. This I shall endeavor to do rapidly. "Watchman, what of the night?" And well may the cry be raised, “What of the night?" For things have been done, and measures passed into laws, which, to my mind, fill the day itself with blackness. ["Hear! hear!"]

And yet there are streaks of light—an unwonted dawn in the distant West, out of which a full-orbed sun is beginning to ascend, rejoicing like a strong man to run a race. By Act of Congress California has been admitted into the Union with a Constitution forbidding Slavery. For a measure like this, required not only by simplest justice, but by uniform practice, and by constitutional principles of slaveholders themselves, we may be ashamed to confess gratitude; and yet I cannot but rejoice in this great good. A hateful institution, thus far without check, travelling westward with the power of the Republic, is bidden to stop, while a new and rising State is guarded from its contamination. [Applause.] Freedom, in whose hands is the divining-rod of magical power, pointing the way not only to wealth untold, but to every possession of virtue and intelligence, whose presence is better far than any mine of gold, has been recognized in an extensive region on the distant Pacific, between the very parallels of latitude so long claimed by Slavery as a peculiar home. [Loud plaudits.]

Here is a victory, moral and political: moral, inasmuch as Freedom secures a new foothold where to exert her far-reaching influence; political, inasmuch as by the admission of California, the Free States obtain a majority of votes in the Senate, thus overturning that balance of power between Freedom and Slavery, so preposterously claimed by the Slave States, in forgetfulness of the true spirit of the Constitution, and in mockery of Human Rights. [Cheers.] May free California, and her Senators in Congress, amidst the trials before us, never fail in loyalty to Freedom! God forbid that the daughter should turn with ingratitude or neglect from the mother that bore her! [Enthusiasm.]

Besides this Act, there are two others of this long session to be regarded with satisfaction, and I mention them at once, before considering the reverse of the picture. The slave-trade is abolished in the District of Columbia. This measure, though small in the sight of Justice, is important. It banishes from the National Capital an odious traffic. But this is its least office. Practically it affixes to the whole traffic, wherever it exists, not merely in Washington, within the immediate sphere of the legislative act, but everywhere throughout the Slave States, whether at Richmond, or Charleston, or New Orleans, the brand of Congressional reprobation. The people of the United States, by the voice of Congress, solemnly declare the domestic traffic in slaves offensive in their sight. The Nation judges this traffic. The Nation says to it, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" [Excitement and applause.] It is true that Congress has not, as in the case of the foreign slave-trade, stamped it as piracy, and awarded to its perpetrators the doom of pirates; but it condemns the trade, and gives to general scorn those who partake of it. To this extent the National Government speaks for Freedom. And in doing this, it asserts, under the Constitution, legislative jurisdiction over the subject of Slavery in the District, thus preparing the way for that complete act of Abolition which is necessary to purge the National Capital of its still remaining curse and shame.

The other measure which I hail with thankfulness is the Abolition of Flogging in the Navy. ["Hear! hear!"] Beyond the direct reform thus accomplished — after much effort, finally crowned with encouraging success is the indirect influence of this law, especially in rebuking the lash, wheresoever and by whomsoever employed.

Two props and stays of Slavery are weakened and undermined by Congressional legislation. Without the slave-trade and without the lash, Slavery must fall to earth. By these the whole monstrosity is upheld. If I seem to exaggerate the consequence of these measures of Abolition, you will pardon it to a sincere conviction of their powerful, though subtile and indirect influence, quickened by a desire to find something good in a Congress which has furnished occasion for so much disappointment. Other measures there are which must be regarded not only with regret, but with indignation and disgust. [Sensation.]

Two broad territories, New Mexico and Utah, under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, have been organized without any prohibition of Slavery. In laying the foundation of their governments, destined hereafter to control the happiness of innumerable multitudes, Congress has omitted the Great Ordinance of Freedom, first moved by Jefferson, and consecrated by the experience of the Northwestern Territory: thus rejecting those principles of Human Liberty which are enunciated in our Declaration of Independence, which are essential to every Bill of Rights, and without which a Republic is a name and nothing more.

Still further, a vast territory, supposed to be upwards of seventy thousand square miles in extent, larger than all New England, has been taken from New Mexico, and, with ten million dollars besides, given to slaveholding Texas: thus, under the plea of settling the western boundary of Texas, securing to this State a large sum of money, and consigning to certain Slavery an important territory.

And still further, as if to do a deed which should "make heaven weep, all earth amazed," this same Congress, in disregard of all cherished safeguards of Freedom, has passed a most cruel, unchristian, devilish law to secure the return into Slavery of those fortunate bondmen who find shelter by our firesides. This is the Fugitive Slave Bill,—a device which despoils the party claimed as slave, whether in reality slave or freeman, of Trial by Jury, that sacred right, and usurps the question of Human Freedom, the highest question known to the law, committing it to the unaided judgment of a single magistrate, on ex parte evidence it may be, by affidavit, without the sanction of cross-examination. Under this detestable, Heaven-defying Bill, not the slave only, but the colored freeman of the North, may be swept into ruthless captivity; and there is no white citizen, born among us, bred in our schools, partaking in our affairs, voting in our elections, whose liberty is not assailed also. Without any discrimination of color, the Bill surrenders all claimed as "owing service or labor" to the same tyrannical judgment. And mark once more its heathenism. By unrelenting provisions it visits with bitter penalties of fine and imprisonment the faithful men and women who render to the fugitive that countenance, succor, and shelter which Christianity expressly requires. ["Shame! shame!"] Thus, from beginning to end, it sets at nought the best principles of the Constitution, and the very laws of God. [Great sensation.]

I might occupy your time in exposing the unconstitutionality of this Act. Denying the Trial by Jury, it is three times unconstitutional: first, as the Constitution declares "the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures"; secondly, as it further provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; and, thirdly, because it expressly establishes, that "in suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." By this triple cord the framers of the Constitution secured Trial by Jury in every question of Human Freedom. That man is little imbued with the true spirit of American institutions, has little sympathy with Bills of Rights, is lukewarm for Freedom, who can hesitate to construe the Constitution so as to secure this safeguard. [Enthusiastic applause.]

Again, the Act is unconstitutional in the unprecedented and tyrannical powers it confers upon Commissioners. These petty officers are appointed, not by the President with the advice of the Senate, but by the Courts of Law,—hold their places, not during good behavior, but at the will of the Court,—and receive for their services, not a regular salary, but fees in each individual case. And yet in these petty officers, thus appointed, thus compensated, and holding their places by the most uncertain tenure, is vested a portion of that "judicial power," which, according to the positive text of the Constitution, can be in "judges" only, holding office during good behavior," receiving "at stated times for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office," and, it would seem also, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, being three conditions of judicial power. Adding meanness to violation of the Constitution, the Commissioner is bribed by a double fee to pronounce against Freedom. Decreeing a man to Slavery, he receives ten dollars; saving the man to Freedom, his fee is five dollars. ["Shame! shame!"]

But I will not pursue these details. The soul sickens in the contemplation of this legalized outrage. In the dreary annals of the Past there are many acts of shame,—there are ordinances of monarchs, and laws, which have become a byword and a hissing to the nations. But when we consider the country and the age, I ask fearlessly, what act of shame, what ordinance of monarch, what law, can compare in atrocity with this enactment of an American Congress? ["None!"] I do not forget Appius Claudius, tyrant Decemvir of ancient Rome, condemning Virginia as a slave, nor Louis the Fourteenth, of France, letting slip the dogs of religious persecution by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, nor Charles the First, of England, arousing the patriot rage of Hampden by the extortion of Ship-money, nor the British Parliament, provoking, in our own country, spirits kindred to Hampden, by the tyranny of the Stamp Act and Tea Tax. I would not exaggerate; I wish to keep within bounds; but I think there can be little doubt that the condemnation now affixed to all these transactions, and to their authors, must be the lot hereafter of the Fugitive Slave Bill, and of every one, according to the measure of his influence, who gave it his support. [Three cheers were here given.] Into the immortal catalogue of national crimes it has now passed, drawing, by inexorable necessity, its authors also, and chiefly him, who, as President of the United States, set his name to the Bill, and breathed into it that final breath without which it would bear no life. [Sensation.] Other Presidents may be forgotten; but the name signed to the Fugitive Slave Bill can never be forgotten. ["Never!"] There are depths of infamy, as there are heights of fame. I regret to say what I must, but truth compels me. Better for him, had he never been born! [Renewed applause.] Better for his memory, and for the good name of his children, had he never been President! [Repeated cheers.]

 I have likened this Bill to the Stamp Act, and I trust that the parallel may be continued yet further, by a burst of popular feeling against all action under it similar to that which glowed in the breasts of our fathers. Listen to the words of John Adams, as written in his Diary at the time.

"The year 1765 has been the most remarkable year of my life. That enormous engine, fabricated by the British Parliament, for battering down all the rights and liberties of America, I mean the Stamp Act, has raised and spread through the whole continent a spirit that will be recorded to our honor with all future generations. In every colony, from Georgia to New Hampshire inclusively, the stamp distributors and inspectors have been compelled by the unconquerable rage of the people to renounce their offices. Such and so universal has been the resentment of the people, that every man who has dared to speak in favor of the stamps, or to soften the detestation in which they are held, how great soever his abilities and virtues had been esteemed before, or whatever his fortune, connections, and influence had been, has been seen to sink into universal contempt and ignominy."¹ [A voice, "Ditto for the Slave-Hunter!"]

Earlier than John Adams, the first Governor of Massachusetts, John Winthrop, set the example of refusing to enforce laws against the liberties of the people. After describing Civil Liberty, and declaring the covenant between God and man in the Moral Law, he uses these good words:

"This Liberty is the proper end and object of authority, and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard not only of your goods, but of your lives, if need be. Whatsoever crosseth this is not authority, but a distemper thereof."²

Surely the love of Freedom is not so far cooled among us, descendants of those who opposed the Stamp Act, that we are insensible to the Fugitive Slave Bill. In those other days, the unconquerable rage of the people compelled the stamp distributors and inspectors to renounce their offices, and held up to detestation all who dared to speak in favor of the stamps. Shall we be more tolerant of those who volunteer in favor of this Bill? ["No! no!"]—more tolerant of the Slave-Hunter, who, under its safeguard, pursues his prey upon our soil? ["No! no!"] The Stamp Act could not be executed here. Can the Fugitive Slave Bill? ["Never!”]

And here, Sir, let me say, that it becomes me to speak with caution. It happens that I sustain an important relation to this Bill. Early in professional life I was designated by the late Judge Story a Commissioner of his Court, and, though I do not very often exercise the functions of this appointment, my name is still upon the list. As such, I am one of those before whom the panting fugitive may be dragged for the decision of the question, whether he is a freeman or a slave. But while it becomes me to speak with caution, I shall not hesitate to speak with plainness. I cannot forget that I am a man, although I am a Commissioner. [Three cheers here given.]

Could the same spirit which inspired the Fathers enter into our community now, the marshals, and every magistrate who regarded this law as having any constitutional obligation, would resign, rather than presume to execute it. This, perhaps, is too much to expect. But I will not judge such officials. To their own consciences I leave them. Surely no person of humane feelings and with any true sense of justice, living in a land "where bells have knolled to church," whatever may be the apology of public station, can fail to recoil from such service. For myself let me say, that I can imagine no office, no salary, no consideration, which I would not gladly forego, rather than become in any way the agent in enslaving my brother-man. [Sensation.] Where for me were comfort and solace after such a work? [A voice, "Nowhere!"] In dreams and in waking hours, in solitude and in the street, in the meditations of the closet and in the affairs of men, wherever I turned, there my victim would stare me in the face. From distant rice-fields and sugar-plantations of the South, his cries beneath the vindictive lash, his moans at the thought of Liberty, once his, now, alas! ravished away, would pursue me, repeating the tale of his fearful doom, and sounding, forever sounding, in my ears, "Thou art the man!" [Applause.]

The magistrate who pronounces the decree of Slavery, and the marshal who enforces it, act in obedience to law. This is their apology; and it is the apology also of the masters of the Inquisition, as they ply the torture amidst the shrieks of their victim. Can this weaken accountability for wrong? Disguise it, excuse it, as they will, the fact must glare before the world, and penetrate the conscience too, that the fetters by which the unhappy fugitive is bound are riveted by their tribunal,—that his second life of wretchedness dates from their agency, that his second birth as a slave proceeds from them. The magistrate and marshal do for him here, in a country which vaunts a Christian civilization, what the naked, barbarous Pagan chiefs beyond the sea did for his grandfather in Congo: they transfer him to the Slave-Hunter, and for this service receive the very price paid for his grandfather in Congo, ten dollars! ["Shame! shame!"]

Gracious Heaven! can such things be on our Free Soil? ["No!"] Shall the evasion of Pontius Pilate be enacted anew, and a judge vainly attempt, by washing the hands, to excuse himself for condemning one in whom he can "find no fault"? Should any court, sitting here in Massachusetts, for the first time in her history, become agent of the Slave-Hunter, the very images of our fathers would frown from the walls; their voices would cry from the ground; their spirits, hovering in the air, would plead, remonstrate, protest, against the cruel judgment. [Cheers.] There is a legend of the Church, still living on the admired canvas of a Venetian artist, that St. Mark, descending from the skies with headlong fury into the public square, broke the manacles of a slave in presence of the very judge who had decreed his fate. This is known as "The Miracle of the Slave," and grandly has Art illumined the scene.³ Should Massachusetts hereafter, in an evil hour, be desecrated by any such decree, may the good Evangelist once more descend with valiant arm to break the manacles of the Slave! [Enthusiasm.]

Sir, I will not dishonor this home of the Pilgrims, and of the Revolution, by admitting nay, I cannot believe that this Bill will be executed here. [“Never!”] Among us, as elsewhere, individuals may forget humanity, in fancied loyalty to law; but the public conscience will not allow a man who has trodden our streets as a freeman to be dragged away as a slave. [Applause.] By escape from bondage he has shown that true manhood which must grapple to him every honest heart. He may be ignorant and rude, as poor, but he is of true nobility. Fugitive Slaves are the heroes of our age. In sacrificing them to this foul enactment we violate every sentiment of hospitality, every whispering of the heart, every commandment of religion..

There are many who will never shrink, at any cost, and notwithstanding all the atrocious penalties of this Bill, from effort to save a wandering fellow-man from bondage; they will offer him the shelter of their houses, and, if need be, will protect his liberty by force. But let me be understood; I counsel no violence. There is another power, stronger than any individual arm, which I invoke: I mean that irresistible Public Opinion, inspired by love of God and man, which, without violence or noise, gently as the operations of Nature, makes and unmakes laws. Let this Public Opinion be felt in its might, and the Fugitive Slave Bill will become everywhere among us a dead letter. No lawyer will aid it by counsel, no citizen will be its agent; it will die of inanition, like a spider beneath an exhausted receiver. [Laughter.] Oh! it were well the tidings should spread throughout the land that here in Massachusetts this accursed Bill has found no servant. [Cheers.] "Sire, in Bayonne are honest citizens and brave soldiers only, but not one executioner," was the reply of the governor to the royal mandate from Charles the Ninth, of France, ordering the massacre of St. Bartholomew.⁴ [Sensation.]

It rests with you, my fellow-citizens, by word and example, by calm determinations and devoted lives, to do this work. From a humane, just, and religious people will spring a Public Opinion to keep perpetual guard over the liberties of all within our borders. Nay, more, like the flaming sword of the cherubim at the gates of Paradise, turning on every side, it shall prevent any SLAVE-HUNTER from ever setting foot in this Commonwealth. Elsewhere he may pursue his human prey, employ his congenial bloodhounds, and exult in his successful game; but into Massachusetts he must not come. Again, let me be understood, I counsel no violence. I would not touch his person. Not with whips and thongs would I scourge him from the land. The contempt, the indignation, the abhorrence of the community shall be our weapons of offence. Wherever he moves, he shall find no house to receive him, no table spread to nourish him, no welcome to cheer him. The dismal lot of the Roman exile shall be his. He shall be a wanderer, without roof, fire, or water. Men shall point at him in the streets, and on the highways.

“Sleep shall neither night nor day

Hang upon his penthouse-lid;

He shall live a man forbid;

Weary sevennights nine times nine

Shall he dwindle, peak, and pine.”     [Applause.]

Villages, towns, and cities shall refuse to receive the monster; they shall vomit him forth, never again to disturb the repose of our community. [Repeated rounds of applause.]

The feelings with which we regard the Slave-Hunter will be extended soon to all the mercenary agents and heartless minions, who, without any positive obligation of law, become part of his pack. They are volunteers, and, as such, must share the ignominy of the chief Hunter. [Cheers.]

I have dwelt thus long upon the Fugitive Slave Bill especially in the hope of contributing something to that Public Opinion which is destined in the Free States to be the truest defence of the slave. I now advance to other more general duties.

We have seen what Congress has done. And yet, in the face of these enormities of legislation—of Territories organized without the prohibition of Slavery, of a large province surrendered to Texas and to Slavery, and of this execrable Fugitive Slave Bill,—in the face also of Slavery still sanctioned in the District of Columbia, of the Slave-Trade between domestic ports under the flag of the Union, and of the Slave Power still dominant over the National Government, we are told that the Slavery Question is settled. Yes, settled, settled, — that is the word. Nothing, Sir, can be settled which is not right. [Sensation.] Nothing can be settled which is against Freedom. Nothing can be settled which is contrary to the Divine Law. God, Nature, and all the holy sentiments of the heart repudiate any such false seeming settlement.

Amidst the shifts and changes of party, our DUTIES remain, pointing the way to action. By no subtle compromise or adjustment can men suspend the commandments of God. By no trick of managers, no hocus-pocus of politicians, no "mush of concession," can we be released from this obedience. It is, then, in the light of duties that we are to find peace for our country and ourselves. Nor can any settlement promise peace which is not in harmony with those everlasting principles from which our duties spring.

Here I shall be brief. Slavery is wrong. It is the source of unnumbered woes, not the least of which is its influence on the Slaveholder himself, rendering him insensible to its outrage. It overflows with injustice and inhumanity. Language toils in vain to picture the wretchedness and wickedness which it sanctions and perpetuates. Reason revolts at the impious assumption that man can hold property in man. As it is our perpetual duty to oppose wrong, so must we oppose Slavery; nor can we ever relax in this opposition, so long as the giant evil continues anywhere within the sphere of our influence. Especially must we oppose it, wherever we are responsible for its existence, or in any way parties to it.

And now mark the distinction. The testimony which we bear against Slavery, as against all other wrong, is, in different ways, according to our position. The Slavery which exists under other governments, as in Russia or Turkey, or in other States of our Union, as in Virginia and Carolina, we can oppose only through the influence of morals and religion, without in any way invoking the Political Power. Nor do we propose to act otherwise. But Slavery, where we are parties to it, wherever we are responsible for it, everywhere within our jurisdiction, must be opposed not only by all the influences of literature, morals, and religion, but directly by every instrument of Political Power. [Rounds of applause.] As it is sustained by law, it can be overthrown only by law; and the legislature having jurisdiction over it must be moved to consummate the work. I am sorry to confess that this can be done only through the machinery of politics. The politician, then, must be summoned. The moralist and philanthropist must become for this purpose politicians, not forgetting morals or philanthropy, but seeking to apply them practically in the laws of the land.

It is a mistake to say, as is often charged, that we seek to interfere, through Congress, with Slavery in the States, or in any way to direct the legislation of Congress upon subjects not within its jurisdiction. Our political aims, as well as our political duties, are coextensive with our political responsibilities. And since we at the North are responsible for Slavery, wherever it exists under the jurisdiction of Congress, it is unpardonable in us not to exert every power we possess to enlist Congress against it.

Looking at details:

We demand, first and foremost, the instant Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Bill. [Cheers.]

We demand the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. [Cheers.]

We demand of Congress the exercise of its time-honored power to prohibit Slavery in the Territories. [Cheers.]

We demand of Congress that it shall refuse to receive any new Slave State into the Union. [Cheers, repeated.]

We demand the Abolition of the Domestic Slave Trade, so far as it can be constitutionally reached, but particularly on the high seas under the National Flag.

And, generally, we demand from the National Government the exercise of all constitutional power to relieve itself from responsibility for Slavery.

And yet one thing further must be done. The Slave Power must be overturned, so that the National Government may be put openly, actively, and perpetually on the side of Freedom. [Prolonged applause.]

In demanding the overthrow of the Slave Power, we but seek to exclude from the operations of the National Government a political influence, having its origin in Slavery, which has been more potent, sinister, and mischievous than any other in our history. This Power, though unknown to the Constitution, and existing in defiance of its true spirit, now predominates over Congress, gives the tone to its proceedings, seeks to control all our public affairs, and humbles both the great political parties to its will. It is that combination of Slave-masters, whose bond of union is a common interest in Slavery. Time would fail me in exposing the extent to which its influence has been felt, the undue share of offices it has enjoyed, and the succession of its evil deeds. Suffice it to say, that, for a long period, the real principle of this union was not observed by the Free States. In the game of office and legislation the South has always won. It has played with loaded dice,—loaded with Slavery. [Laughter.] The trick of the Automaton Chess-Player, so long an incomprehensible marvel, has been repeated, with similar success. Let the Free States make a move on the board, and the South says, "Check !” [“Hear! hear!"] Let them strive for Free Trade, as they did once, and the cry is, "Check!" Let them jump towards Protection, and it is again, "Check!" Let them move towards Internal Improvements, and the cry is still, "Check!" Whether forward or backward, to the right or left, wherever they turn, the Free States are pursued by an inexorable "Check!" But the secret is now discovered. Amid the well-arranged machinery which seemed to move the victorious chess-player is a living force, only recently discovered,—being none other than the Slave Power. It is the Slave Power which has been perpetual victor, saying always, "Check!" to the Free States. As this influence is now disclosed, it only remains that it should be openly encountered in the field of politics. [A voice, “That is the true way.”]

Such is our cause. It is not sectional; for it simply aims to establish under the National Government those great principles of Justice and Humanity which are broad and universal as Man. It is not aggressive; for it does not seek in any way to interfere through Congress with Slavery in the States. It is not contrary to the Constitution; for it recognizes this paramount law, and in the administration of the Government invokes the spirit of its founders. It is not hostile to the quiet of the country; for it proposes the only course by which agitation can be allayed, and quiet be permanently established. And yet there is an attempt to suppress this cause, and to stifle its discussion.

Vain and wretched attempt! [A band of music in the street here interrupted the speaker.]

I am willing to stop for one moment, if the audience will allow me, that they may enjoy that music. [Several voices, "Go on! go on!" Another voice, "We have better music here." After a pause the speaker proceeded.]

Fellow-citizens, I was saying that it is proposed to suppress this cause, and to stifle this discussion. But this cannot be done. That subject which more than all other subjects needs careful, conscientious, and kind consideration in the national councils, which will not admit of postponement or hesitation, which is allied with the great interests of the country, which controls the tariff and causes war, which concerns alike all parts of the land, North and South, East and West, which affects the good name of the Republic in the family of civilized nations, the subject of subjects, has now at last, after many struggles, been admitted within the pale of legislative discussion. From this time forward it must be entertained by Congress. It will be one of the orders of the day. It cannot be passed over or forgotten. It cannot be blinked out of sight. The combinations of party cannot remove it. The intrigues of politicians cannot jostle it aside. There it is, in towering colossal proportions, filling the very halls of the Capitol, while it overshadows and darkens all other subjects. There it will continue, till driven into oblivion by the irresistible Genius of Freedom. [Cheers.]

I am not blind to adverse signs. The wave of reaction, after sweeping over Europe, has reached our shores. The barriers of Human Rights are broken down. Statesmen, writers, scholars, speakers, once their uncompromising professors, have become professors of compromise. All this must be changed. Reaction must be stayed. The country must be aroused. The cause must again be pressed, with the fixed purpose never to moderate our efforts until crowned by success. [Applause.] The National Government, everywhere within its proper constitutional sphere, must be placed on the side of Freedom. The policy of Slavery, which has so long prevailed, must give place to the policy of Freedom. The Slave Power, fruitful parent of national ills, must be driven from its supremacy. Until all this is done, the friends of the Constitution and of Human Rights cannot cease from labor, nor can the Republic hope for any repose but the repose of submission.

Men of all parties and pursuits, who wish well to their country, and would preserve its good name, must join now. Welcome here the Conservative and the Reformer for our cause stands on the truest Conservatism and the truest Reform. In seeking the reform of existing evils, we seek also the conservation of the principles handed down by our fathers. Welcome especially the young! To you I appeal with confidence. Trust to your generous impulses, and to that reasoning of the heart, which is often truer, as it is less selfish, than the calculations of the head. [Enthusiasm.] Do not exchange your aspirations for the skepticism of age. Yours is the better part. In the Scriptures it is said that "your young men shall see visions and your old men. shall dream dreams"; on which Lord Bacon has recorded the ancient inference, "that young men are admitted nearer to God than old, because vision is a clearer revelation than a dream."⁵

It is not uncommon to hear people declare themselves against Slavery, and willing to unite in practical efforts. Practical is the favorite word. At the same time, in the loftiness of pharisaic pride, they have nothing but condemnation, reproach, or contempt for the earnest souls that have striven long years in this struggle. To such I would say, If you are sincere in what you declare, if your words are not merely lip-service, if in your heart you are entirely willing to join in practical effort against Slavery, then, by life, conversation, influence, vote, disregarding "the ancient forms of party strife," seek to carry the principles of Freedom into the National Government, wherever its jurisdiction is acknowledged and its power can be felt. Thus, with out any interference with the States which are beyond this jurisdiction, may you help to efface the blot of Slavery from the National brow.

Do this, and you will most truly promote that harmony which you so much desire. And under this blessed influence tranquillity will be established throughout the country. Then, at last, the Slavery Question will be settled. Banished from its usurped foothold under the National Government, Slavery will no longer enter, with distracting force, into national politics, making and unmaking laws, making and unmaking Presidents. Confined to the States, where it is left by the Constitution, it will take its place as a local institution, if, alas! continue it must, for which we are in no sense responsible, and against which we cannot exert any political power. We shall be relieved from the present painful and irritating connection with it, the existing antagonism between the South and the North will be softened, crimination and recrimination will cease, and the wishes of the Fathers will be fulfilled, while this Great Evil is left to all kindly influences and the prevailing laws of social economy.

To every laborer in a cause like this there are satisfactions unknown to the common political partisan. Amidst all apparent reverses, notwithstanding the hatred of enemies or the coldness of friends, he has the consciousness of duty done. Whatever may be existing impediments, his also is the cheering conviction that every word spoken, every act performed, every vote cast for this cause, helps to swell those quickening influences by which Truth, Justice, and Humanity will be established upon earth. [Cheers.] He may not live to witness the blessed consummation, but it is none the less certain.

Others may dwell on the Past as secure. Under the laws of a beneficent God the Future also is secure, on the single condition that we labor for its great objects. [Enthusiastic applause.]

The language of jubilee, which, amidst reverse and discouragement, burst from the soul of Milton, as he thought of sacrifice for the Church, will be echoed by every one who toils and suffers for Freedom. "Now by this little diligence," says the great patriot of the English Commonwealth, "mark what a privilege I have gained with good men and saints, to claim my right of lamenting the tribulations of the Church, if she should suffer, when others, that have ventured nothing for her sake, have not the honor to be admitted mourners. But if she lift up her drooping head and prosper, among those that have something more than wished her welfare, I have my charter and freehold of rejoicing to me and my heirs.⁶ We, too, may have our charter and freehold of rejoicing to ourselves and our heirs, if we now do our duty.

I have spoken of votes. Living in a community where political power is lodged with the people, and each citizen is an elector, the vote is an important expression of opinion. The vote is the cutting edge. It is well to have correct opinions, but the vote must follow. The vote is the seed planted; without it there can be no sure fruit. The winds of heaven, in their beneficence, may scatter the seed in the furrow; but it is not from such accidents that our fields wave with the golden harvest. He is a foolish husbandman who neglects to sow his seed; and he is an unwise citizen, who, desiring the spread of good principles, neglects to deposit his vote for the candidate who is the representative of those principles.

Admonished by experience of timidity, irresolution, and weakness in our public men, particularly at Washington, amidst the temptations of ambition and power, the friends of Freedom cannot lightly bestow their confidence. They can put trust only in men of tried character and inflexible will. Three things at least they must require the first is backbone; the second is backbone; and the third is backbone. [Loud cheers.] My language is homely; I hardly pardon myself for using it; but it expresses an idea which must not be forgotten. When I see a person of upright character and pure soul yielding to a temporizing policy, I cannot but say, He wants backbone. When I see a person talking loudly against Slavery in private, but hesitating in public, and failing in the time of trial, I say, He wants backbone. When I see a person who coöperated with Antislavery men, and then deserted them, I say, He wants backbone. ["Hear! hear!"] When I see a person leaning upon the action of a political party, and never venturing to think for himself, I say, He wants backbone. When I see a person careful always to be on the side of the majority, and unwilling to appear in a minority, or, if need be, to stand alone, I say, He wants backbone. [Applause.] Wanting this, they all want that courage, constancy, firmness, which are essential to the support of PRINCIPLE. Let no such man be trusted. [Renewed applause.]

For myself, fellow-citizens, my own course is determined. The first political convention which I ever attended was in the spring of 1845, against the annexation of Texas. I was at that time a silent and passive Whig. I had never held political office, nor been a candidate for any. No question ever before drew me to any active political exertion. The strife of politics seemed. to me ignoble. A desire to do what I could against Slavery led me subsequently to attend two different State Conventions of Whigs, where I coöperated with eminent citizens in endeavor to arouse the party in Massachusetts to its Antislavery duties. A conviction that the Whig party was disloyal to Freedom, and an ardent aspiration to help the advancement of this great cause, has led me to leave that party, and dedicate what of strength and ability I have to the present movement. [Great applause.]

To vindicate Freedom, and oppose Slavery, so far as I may constitutionally,—with earnestness, and yet, I trust, without personal unkindness on my part, is the object near my heart. Would that I could impress upon all who now hear me something of the strength of my own convictions! Would that my voice, leaving this crowded hall to-night, could traverse the hills and valleys of New England, that it could run along the rivers and the lakes of my country, lighting in every heart a beacon-flame to arouse the slumberers throughout the land! [Sensation.] In this cause I care not for the name by which I am called. Let it be Democrat, or "Loco-foco," if you please. No man in earnest will hesitate on account of a name. Rejoicing in associates from any quarter, I shall be found ever with that party which most truly represents the principles of Freedom. [Applause.] Others may become indifferent to these principles, bartering them for political success, vain and short-lived, or forgetting the visions of youth in the

dreams of age. Whenever I forget them, whenever I become indifferent to them, whenever I cease to be constant in maintaining them, through good report and evil report, in any future combinations of party, then may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, may my right hand forget its cunning! [Cheers.]

And now as I close, fellow-citizens, I return in thought to the political election with which I began. If from this place I could make myself heard by the friends of Freedom throughout the Commonwealth, I would give them for a rallying-cry three words, — FREEDOM, UNION, VICTORY!

The peroration was received with the most earnest applause, followed by cries of "Three cheers for Charles Sumner!" "Three cheers for Phillips and Walker!" "Three cheers for Horace Mann and the cause!"

_______________

¹ Diary, December 18, 1765: Works, Vol. II. p 154.

² History of New England (ed. Savage), 1645, Vol. II. p. 229.

³ An eloquent French critic says, among other things, of this greatest picture of Tintoretto, that "no painting surpasses, or perhaps equals" it, and that, before seeing it, "one can have no idea of the human imagination." (Taine, Italy, Florence, and Venice, tr. Durand, pp. 314, 316.) Some time after this Speech an early copy or sketch of this work fell into Mr. Sumner's hands, and it is now a cherished souvenir of those anxious days when the pretensions of Slavery were at their height.

⁴ Le Vicomte d'Orthez à Charles IX.: D'Aubigné, Histoire Universelle, Part. II. Liv. I. ch. 5, cited by Sismondi, Histoire des Français, Tom. XIX. p. 177, note. I gladly copy this noble letter. "Sire, j'ai communiqué le commandement de Votre Majesté ses fidèles habitans et gens de guerre de la garnison; je n'y ai trouvé que bons citoyens et braves soldats, mais pas un bourreau. C'est pourquoi eux et moi supplions très humblement Votre dite Majesté vouloir employer en choses possibles, quelque hasardeuses qu'elles soient, nos bras et nos vies, comme étant, autant qu'elles dureront, Sire, vôtres."

⁵ Essays, XLII. Of Youth and Age.

⁶ The Reason of Church Government, Book II., Introduction: Prose Works, ed. Symmons, Vol. I. p. 117.

SOURCES: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 228-9; Charles Sumner, The Works of Charles Sumner, Volume 2, p. 398-424

John J. Crittenden on the Constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Bill, September 18, 1850

The provisions of the bill, commonly called the fugitive slave bill, and which Congress have submitted to the President for his approval and signature, are not in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution in relation to the writ of habeas corpus.

The expressions used in the last clause of the sixth section, that the certificate therein alluded to "shall prevent all molestation" of the persons to whom granted, "by any process issued," etc., probably mean only what the act of 1793 meant by declaring a certificate under that act a sufficient warrant for the removal of a fugitive; and do not mean a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

There is nothing in the act inconsistent with the Constitution, nor which is not necessary to redeem the pledge which it contains, that fugitive slaves shall be delivered upon the claim of their owners.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S Office,

September 18, 1850.

SIR, I have had the honor to receive your note of this date, informing me that the bill, commonly called the fugitive slave bill, having passed both houses of Congress, had been submitted to you for your consideration, approval, and signature, and requesting my opinion whether the sixth section of that act, and especially the last clause of that section, conflicts with that provision of the Constitution which declares that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

It is my clear conviction that there is nothing in the last clause, nor in any part of the sixth section, nor, indeed, in any of the provisions of the act, which suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or is in any manner in conflict with the Constitution.

The Constitution, in the second section of the fourth article, declares that "no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

It is well known and admitted, historically and judicially, that this clause of the Constitution was made for the purpose of securing to the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete ownership in their slaves, as property, in any and every State or Territory of the Union into which they might escape. (Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.) It devolved on the general government, as a solemn duty, to make that security effectual. Their power was not only clear and full, but, according to the opinion of the court in the above-cited case, it was exclusive, the States, severally, being under no obligation, and having no power to make laws or regulations in respect to the delivery of fugitives. Thus the whole power, and with it the whole duty, of carrying into effect this important provision of the Constitution, was with Congress. And, accordingly, soon after the adoption of the Constitution, the act of the 12th of February, 1793, was passed, and that proving unsatisfactory and inefficient, by reason (among other causes) of some minor errors in its details, Congress are now attempting by this bill to discharge a constitutional obligation, by securing more effectually the delivery of fugitive slaves to their owners. The sixth, and most material section, in substance declares that the claimant of the fugitive slave may arrest and carry him before any one of the officers named and described in the bill; and provides that those officers, and each of them, shall have judicial power and jurisdiction to hear, examine, and decide the case in a summary manner, that if, upon such hearing, the claimant, by the requisite proof, shall establish his claim to the satisfaction of the tribunal thus constituted, the said tribunal shall give him a certificate, stating therein the substantial facts of the case, and authorizing him, with such reasonable force as may be necessary, to take and carry said fugitive back to the State or Territory whence he or she may have escaped,—and then, in conclusion, proceeds as follows: "The certificates in this and the first section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever."

There is nothing in all this that does not seem to me to be consistent with the Constitution, and necessary, indeed, to redeem the pledge which it contains, that such fugitives "shall be delivered up on claim" of their owners.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the owner, independent of any aid from State or national legislation, may, in virtue of the Constitution, and his own right of property, seize and recapture his fugitive slave in whatsoever State he may find him, and carry him back to the State or Territory from which he escaped. (Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.) This bill, therefore, confers no right on the owner of the fugitive slave. It only gives him an appointed and peaceable remedy in place of the more exposed and insecure, out not less lawful mode of self-redress; and as to the fugitive slave, he has no cause to complain of this bill,—it adds no coercion to that which his owner himself might, at his own will, rightfully exercise; and all the proceedings which it institutes are but so much of orderly, judicial authority interposed between him and his owner, and consequently of protection to him, and mitigation of the exercise directly by the owner himself of his personal authority. This is the constitutional and legal view of the subject, as sanctioned by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and to that I limit myself.

The act of the 12th of February, 1793, before alluded to, so far as it respects any constitutional question that can arise out of this bill, is identical with it. It authorizes the like arrest of the fugitive slave, the like trial, the like judgment, the like certificate, with the like authority to the owner, by virtue of that certificate as his warrant, to remove him to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and the constitutionality of that act, in all those particulars, has been affirmed by the adjudications of State tribunals, and of the courts of the United States, without a single dissent, so far as I know. (Baldwin, C. C. R. 577, 579.)

I conclude, therefore, that so far as the act of the 12th of February, 1793, has been held to be constitutional, this bill must also be so regarded; and that the custody, restraint, and removal to which the fugitive slave may be subjected under the provisions of this bill, are all lawful, and that the certificate to be granted to the owner is to be regarded as the act and judgment of a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction.

With these remarks as to the constitutionality of the general provisions of the bill, and the consequent legality of the custody and confinement to which the fugitive slave may be subjected under it, I proceed to a brief consideration of the more particular question you have propounded in reference to the writ of habeas corpus, and of the last clause of the sixth section, above quoted, which gives rise to that question.

My opinion, as before expressed, is that there is nothing in that clause or section which conflicts with or suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. I think so because the bill says not one word about that writ; because, by the Constitution, Congress is expressly forbidden to suspend the privilege of this writ, "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it;" and therefore such suspension by this act (there being neither rebellion nor invasion) would be a plain and palpable violation of the Constitution, and no intention to commit such a violation of the Constitution, of their duty and their oaths, ought to be imputed to them upon mere constructions and implications; and thirdly, because there is no incompatibility between these provisions of the bill and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in its utmost constitutional latitude.

Congress, in the case of fugitive slaves, as in all other cases within the scope of its constitutional authority, has the unquestionable right to ordain and prescribe for what causes, to what extent, and in what manner persons may be taken into custody, detained, or imprisoned. Without this power they could not fulfill their constitutional trust, nor perform the ordinary and necessary duties of government. It was never heard that the exercise of that legislative power was any encroachment upon or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It is only by some confusion of ideas that such a conflict can be supposed to exist. It is not within the province or privilege of this great writ to loose those whom the law has bound. That would be to put a writ granted by the law in opposition to the law, to make one part of the law destructive of another. This writ follows the law and obeys the law. It is issued, upon proper complaint, to make inquiry into the causes of commitment or imprisonment, and its sole remedial power and purpose is to deliver the party from "all manner of illegal confinement." (3 Black. Com. 131.) If upon application to the court or judge for this writ, or if upon its return it shall appear that the confinement complained of was lawful, the writ, in the first instance, would be refused, and in the last the party would be remanded to his former lawful custody.

The condition of one in custody as a fugitive slave is, under this law, so far as respects the writ of habeas corpus, precisely the same as that of all other prisoners under the laws of the United States. The "privilege" of that writ remains alike to all of them, but to be judged of—granted or refused, discharged or enforced—by the proper tribunal, according to the circumstances of each case, and as the commitment and detention may appear to be legal or illegal.

The whole effect of the law may be thus briefly stated: Congress has constituted a tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to determine summarily and without appeal who are fugitives from service or labor under the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, and to whom such service or labor is due. The judgment of every tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction where no appeal lies, is, of necessity, conclusive upon every other tribunal; and therefore the judgment of the tribunal created by this act is conclusive upon all tribunals. Wherever this judgment is made to appear, it is conclusive of the right of the owner to retain in his custody the fugitive from his service, and to remove him back to the place or State from which he escaped. If it is shown upon the application of the fugitive for a writ of habeas corpus, it prevents the issuing of the writ; if upon the return, it discharges the writ and restores or maintains the custody.

This view of the law of this case is fully sustained by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Tobias Watkins, where the court refused to discharge upon the ground that he was in custody under the sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction, and that that judgment was conclusive upon them. (3 Peters.)

The expressions used in the last clause of the sixth section, that the certificate therein alluded to "shall prevent all molestation" of the persons to whom granted "by any process issued," etc., probably mean only what the act of 1793 meant by declaring a certificate under that act a sufficient warrant for the removal of a fugitive, and certainly do not mean a suspension of the habeas corpus. I conclude by repeating my conviction that there is nothing in the bill in question which conflicts with the Constitution or suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir,

Your obedient servant,

J. J. CRITTENDEN.

To the PRESIDENT.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 377-81

Senator Daniel Webster to Peter Harvey, May 19, 1850

Washington, May 19, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR, I am writing an answer to the Newburyport gentlemen, in which I shall state, fully and legally, the matter of the Fugitive Slave Bill. It will be visible in Boston in the course of this week, and I should be glad the newspapers would publish it, as many of them as choose.

We notice a good article on Mr. Mann and his letter, in the Courier of the 7th. Notice will be taken of Mr. Mann by gentlemen here of whom he speaks in his letter, but not by me. I may say one word of him, in my answer to the Newburyport letter.

I am glad you are going to Andover to see Mr. Stuart. Pray give him my warm regards. I am anxiously looking for his pamphlet.

Yours always truly,

DAN'L WEBSTER.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 370

Senator Henry Clay to Daniel Ullman, June 14, 1851

ASHLAND, June 14, 1851.

MY DEAR SIR,—I duly received your favor of the 29th ultimo, stating that some of my friends in New York have it under discussion, to make a movement to bring forward my name for the Presidency; and inquiring, in entire confidence, what my own views and wishes are, upon the subject. I have delayed transmitting an answer to your letter, from a desire to give to its important contents the fullest and most deliberate consideration. That I have now done, and I will communicate the result to you.

You will recollect that the last time but one that I was in the city of New York, I had the pleasure of dining with you and a number of other friends at the house of our friend M————; that we then had a frank, full, and confidential conversation on the connection of my name with the next Presidency; and that I then declared that I did not wish ever again to be brought forward as a candidate. From that declaration, I have never since deviated in thought, word, or deed. I have said or done nothing inconsistent with it; nothing which implied any desire on my part to have my name presented as a Presidential candidate. On a review and reconsideration of the whole matter, I adhere to that declaration.

Considering my age, the delicate state of my health, the frequency and the unsuccessful presentation of my name on former occasions, I feel an unconquerable repugnance to such a use of it again. I can not, therefore, consent to it. I have been sometimes tempted publicly to announce that, under no circumstances, would I yield my consent to be brought forward as a candidate. But I have been restrained from taking that step by two considerations. The first was, that I did not see any such general allusion to me, as a suitable person for the office, as to make it proper that I should break silence and speak out; and the second was that I have always thought that no citizen has a right to ostracise himself, and to refuse public service under all possible contingencies.

I might here stop, but I will add some observations on the general subject of the next election. I think it quite clear that a Democrat will be elected, unless that result shall be prevented by divisions in the Democratic party. On these divisions the Whigs might advantageously count, if it were not for those which exist in their own party. It is, perhaps, safest to conclude that the divisions existing in the two parties will counterbalance each other.

Party ties have no doubt been greatly weakened generally, and, in particular localities, have been almost entirely destroyed. But it would be unwise to suppose that, when the two parties shall have brought out their respective candidates, each will not rally around its own standard. There may be exceptions; but those, on the one side, will probably be counterpoised by those on the other. I believe that no one in the Whig party could obtain a greater amount of support from the Democratic party than I could; but in this I may be deceived by the illusions of egotism. At all events it would be unsafe and unwise for a candidate of one party to calculate upon any suffrages of the other. While I do not think that the hopes of success on the part of the Whigs at the next Presidential election are very flattering or encouraging, I would not discourage their putting forth their most energetic exertions. There are always the chances of the war. The other party may commit great blunders, as they did recently in your State, in the course of their Senators, who opposed the enlargement of the Erie Canal; and as they are disposed to do in respect to the lake, river, and harbor improvements.

No candidate, I hope and believe, can be elected who is not in favor of the Union, and in favor of the Compromise of the last Congress (including the Fugitive Slave bill), as necessary means to sustain it. Of the candidates spoken of on the Democratic side, I confess that I should prefer General Cass. He is, I think, more to be relied on than any of his competitors. During the trials of the long session of the last Congress, he bore himself firmly, consistently, and patriotically. He has quite as much ability, quite as much firmness, and, I think, much more honesty and sincerity than Mr. Buchanan.

If I were to offer any advice to my friends, it would be not to commit themselves prematurely to either of the two Whig candidates who have been prominently put forward. Strong objections, although of a very different kind, exist against them both. They had better wait. It will be time enough next winter to decide; and I am inclined to believe that both of those gentlemen will find, in the sequel, that they have taken, or their friends have put them in, the field, too early.

Besides pre-existing questions, a new one will probably arise at the next session of Congress, involving the right of any one of the States of the Union, upon its own separate will and pleasure, to secede from the residue, and become a distinct and independent power. The decision of that momentous question can not but exert some influence, more or less, upon the next Presidential election. For my own part, I utterly deny the existence of any such right, and I think an attempt to exercise it ought to be resisted to the last extremity; for it is, in part, a question of union or no union.

You inquire if I will visit Newport this summer, with the view of ascertaining whether it might not be convenient there, or at some other Eastern place, to present me a gold medal which I understand my good friends are preparing for me. I have been absent from home fifteen out of the last nineteen months, and I feel great reluctance to leaving it, during the present summer. If I were to go to the Eastward, I should have to return early in the autumn, and soon after to go back to Washington, unless I resign my seat in the Senate of the United States. Under these circumstances, my present inclination is to remain at home and to attend to my private affairs, which need my care,

Should my friends persevere in their purpose of presenting me the proposed medal, some suitable time and place can be hereafter designated for that purpose. Surely no man was ever blessed with more ardent and devoted friends than I am, and, among them, none are more or perhaps so enthusiastic as those in the city of New York. God bless them. I wish it was in my power to testify my gratitude to them in full accordance with the fervent impulses of my heart.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 617-20

Charles Sumner to George Sumner, October 22, 1850

The antislavery agitation which it was hoped to hush by the recent laws is breaking out afresh. It will not be hushed. Mr. Webster is strong in Boston, but not in Massachusetts. Out of the city he is weak. It is difficult to say now how the elections this autumn will go. I think that everywhere the antislavery sentiment will get real strength. The odious Fugitive Slave law furnishes an occasion for agitation. It has shocked the people of New England. . . . I have had a pleasant day or two with Prescott at Pepperell, and he has told me of his English pleasures.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 218

Senator Lewis Cass to Senator Daniel S. Dickinson, May 1, 1850

WASHINGTON, May 1, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR—While Foote is laboring at the administration for the Lady Franklin expedition, I drop you this hasty note. We have this day had the third meeting of our committee, the second since you left us. We stand thus:—We have determined on the admission of California without change or limitation. We have determined on the establishment of territorial government without the Wilmot proviso. On the extinction of the Texas title, beginning just north of the Passo, and running thence in a course north of east to the southwestern corner of the old Indian tract, fixed by the Spanish treaty. We leave the question of price till we all meet again. King will bring in a bill for the suppression of the slave-trade in this district. We shall arrange the fugitive-slave bill to give general satisfaction, North and South.

Absentees: yourself, Berrian, Webster, and Mason. All the others present.

There is reason to fear that Mason and some four or five of the extreme Southern members will oppose, to the last, the admission of California. Should that be so, the result is doubtful. But if they go for it, all will be safe. This is about all I can tell you. I trust you will be here soon. We want you. I presume our report will be ready on Monday. I hope you have found your family all well. 

Ever your friend,

LEW. CASS.

Gov. DICKINSON.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 430-1

Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, December 19, 1860

The message of the President was sent in to Congress on the 4th instant. I got it yesterday. The President has been weighed down by the vast load he carries; his sagacity, firmness, and patriotism have given way under the appalling condition of the country and the violence in his Cabinet. He argues too much, becomes inconsistent, and does vastly more harm than good. His propositions of compromise, as stated, he must know to be impracticable. The Northern States never will repeal their Personal Liberty statutes while the Fugitive Slave Law remains in its present shape. They profess not to be opposed to the Constitution, but to this statutory form of carrying it into execution. It undoubtedly has provisions capable of amendment. These provisions may not make it unconstitutional, but may shock the feelings of many and render it odious. In order to save the Union, the Committee in the House, composed of one from each State, should report on this point, first, an amendment of the law, and, second, the repeal of the acts founded on it. There should be no concession asked except upon compensatory ground; no victory should be awarded to either section. The idea of restoring the old Missouri line, itself a palpable violation of the Constitution, is a weak suggestion. . .

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. 423

Speech of Congressman Martin F. Conway: “The War: A Slave Union or a Free?” December 12, 1861

Speech of Hon. Martin F. Conway, of Kansas, delivered in the House of Representatives, Thursday, December 12, 1861. Revised by the Author.

MR. SPEAKER, It is a source of much regret to the country that the war should not be conducted with more effect than has so far characterized it. While few feel authorized to question the present delay of effective operations, or deny its necessity, all are profoundly dissatisfied with the fact itself. The war has already been protracted beyond the limit which the public mind, at the outset, fixed for its termination, assuming gigantic proportions, and involving expense of life and treasure not apprehended when the struggle began.

The original object of the country was to put down a rebellion, not to inaugurate a regular war. The authority to make war being not with the President, but with Congress, it was in recognition of his right to suppress insurrection merely that the volunteer soldiery of the country responded to his call, when the Government was menaced with destruction. The intention of Congress, in voting such extraordinary supplies of men and money, was the same.

The spirit of the lamented General Lyon, manifested in the vigorous and summary manner with which he subdued the earlier secession movements in Missouri, was that in which the whole nation impatiently sympathized. It wanted the authority of the Government exerted with decision and effect, so that rebellion should be crushed in the shell, and not permitted to hatch into revolution. But the course of the Government has not corresponded with the ardor of the people. The conflict has now been progressing nine months, and has changed its character from an attempt to destroy an insurrection into a deliberate and settled war.

Up to the present time we have not encountered the enemy in a single engagement of importance in which we have won an unquestionable victory. At Bethel, at Manassas, at Springfield, at Leesburg, and at Belmont, we have been defeated. Saving two expeditions to our Southern coast, the Federal arms have been everywhere overborne, notwithstanding our volunteers have displayed a gallantry rarely equaled even by veteran troops.

This fruitless campaign has resulted in defeating the original purpose of the country; and the rebels have secured, under the recognition of nations, a belligerent character, in derogation of their responsibilities to the Federal Union.

The character thus confirmed to the rebellious States gives them a position they could not hold under the Federal Constitution. In point of fact, it confers upon them a recognized status among nations to make war upon that Constitution. Why, then, does it not also exonerate the Federal Government from any obligation to them dependent upon that instrument? How can they have rights under the Constitution the Government is bound to respect, while they are enjoying the rights of belligerents arising from incompatible relations? It is impossible to appreciate the logic requiring us to treat them as sister States, respecting rights as such, while they are warring upon us as a foreign enemy. It certainly would be more just as well as correct to claim them as rebel States, with such a belligerent character as releases us from any obligation to respect their Federal status.

In fact and principle, their character as belligerents fixes their status, and not our common Constitution. Its authority is as to them suspended. No United States officer has exercised his functions in any of those States for nine months. During this period we have been powerless there to give protection in any shape to life and property. Through an organization styled the "Confederate States Government," a military power has exhibited itself, which, embodying the force of that section, exercises civil administration, and disputes our sway. The following from Vattel is precisely to the point:

“When a nation becomes divided into two parties, absolutely independent, and no longer acknowledging a common superior, the state is dissolved, and the war between the two parties stands upon the same ground, in every respect, as a public war between two different nations.”—Book III., chap. 17, p. 428.

This is in reality the principle now governing the case, whatever may appear to the contrary. We have established a blockade of the Southern coast as against a public enemy, under international law. We have been meeting the Confederate authorities for months and holding relations with them through the medium of a flag of truce-a symbol authorized only by public law. We hold in our hands hundreds of their prisoners, including some of their most eminent men, whom we do not try for treason, but are exchanging for our own friends held as prisoners of war by them.

We have arrested their ambassadors, under the British flag on the high sea, for which we have no justification except on the assumption that they were envoys from a public enemy, recognized as such by the law of nations.

The action of our Government in all these matters is necessarily based on the theory that the Confederate States (so called) are beyond the jurisdiction of the Union, holding a middle ground, subject to the issue of the pending conflict. I do not see that there is any possibility of getting away from this conclusion.

The work of the Government, at its present stage, is not, therefore, suppression of insurrection, in any just sense; but the overthrow of a rebellious belligerent power. Its success does not signify the execution of the terms of an existing government in the seceded States—remitting them to their original status in the Union; but implies their subjugation to the sovereignty of the United States, to be held as Territories, or military dependencies, or States, or anything else we please. This is clearly the present attitude of the case.

Now the evil of our system is the institution of slavery. Conflicting with the rights of human nature, it is required to grasp, monopolize, and exercise power despotically, in order to perpetuate its own existence. It has been to us a prolific source of national disaster. It is the sustaining cause, the object, and chief resource of this rebellion; at the same time that it is the point at which the most fatal blow may be inflicted upon it.

The abolition of slavery is no longer a “contraband” proposition. It has been elevated by events into a measure of widespread public importance, demanding the favorable consideration of statesmen. It is no longer the shibboleth of a sect or party, but the overruling necessity of a nation. To retain slavery, under existing circumstances, in our body politic, would, in my judgment, evince the very worst kind of folly or wickedness. To eliminate it forever should be the unwavering determination of the Government.

Nevertheless, the Administration refuses to heed such counsel, and persists in regarding the institution as shielded by such constitutional sanction as it is not at liberty to infract.

The President, in his recent message to Congress, refers only incidentally to the subject, and indicates no policy whatever for dealing with the momentous question.

In the recent orders of the Secretary of War to Generals in the field, and other official documents and acts, the principles upon which the subject is to be regulated are, however, set forth. In an order to Major-General Butler, dated May 30, 1861, the Secretary of War says:

"While, therefore, you will permit no interference by the persons under your command with the relations persons held to service under the laws of any State, you will, on the other hand, so long as any State within which your military operations are conducted, is under the control of such armed combinations, refrain from surrendering to alleged masters any persons who may come within your lines. You will employ such persons in the services to which you they be best adapted, keeping an account of the labor by them performed, of the value of it, and of the expenses of their maintenance."

In another order to General Butler, dated August 8, 1861, the Secretary declares:

“It is the desire of the President that all existing rights in all the States be fully respected and maintained. The war now prosecuted on the part of the Federal Government is a war for the Union, and for the preservation of all constitutional rights of States, and the citizens of the States in the Union.” *  *   *

Under these circumstances, it seems quite clear that the substantial rights of loyal masters will be best protected by receiving such fugitives, as well as fugitives from disloyal masters, into the service of the United States, and employing them under such organizations and in such occupations as circumstances may suggest or require. Of course, a record should be kept, showing the name and description of the fugitives; the name and character, as loyal or disloyal, of the master; and such facts as may be necessary to a correct understanding of the circumstances of each case after tranquillity shall have been restored.”

An order to Brigadier-General Sherman, commanding the land forces of the United States in the recent expedition to Port Royal, dated October 14, 1861, is as follows:

“SIR—In conducting military operations within States declared, by the proclamation of the President, to be in a state of insurrection, you will govern yourself, so far as persons held to service under the laws of such States are concerned, by the principles of the letters addressed by me to Major-General Butler, on the 30th of May and the 8th of August, copies of which are here with furnished to you. As special directions, adapted to special circumstances, can not be given, much must be referred to your own discretion as commanding general of the expedition. You will, however, in general avail yourself of the services of any persons, whether fugitives from labor or not, who may offer them to the National Government; you will employ such persons in such services as they may be fitted for, either as ordinary employees, or, if special circumstances seem to require it, in any other capacity, in such organization, in squads, companies, or otherwise, as you may deem most beneficial to the service. This, however, not to mean a general arming of them for military service. You will assure all loyal masters that Congress will provide just compensation to them for the loss of the services of the persons so employed. It is believed that the course thus indicated will best secure the substantial rights of loyal masters, and the benefits to the United States of the services of all disposed to support the Government, while it avoids all interference with the social systems or local institutions of every State beyond that which insurrection makes unavoidable, and which a restoration of peaceful relations to the Union, under the Constitution, will immediately remove.

Respectfully,

SIMON CAMERON,        

Secretary of War.

Brigadier-General T. W. SHERMAN,

        Commanding Expedition to the Southern Coast.”

In pursuance of these instructions, a proclamation was issued by General Sherman to the people of South Carolina, saying that—

“In obedience to the orders of the President of these United States of America, I have landed on your shores with a small force of national troops. The dictates of a duty which, under these circumstances, I owe to a great sovereign State, and to a proud and hospitable people, among whom I have passed some of the pleasantest days of my life, prompt me to proclaim that we have come among you with no feelings of personal animosity, no desire to harm your citizens, destroy your property, or interfere with any of your lawful rights or your social or local institutions, beyond what the causes herein alluded to may render unavoidable.”

Major-General Dix also issued a proclamation to the people of Accomac and Northampton counties, in the State of Virginia, dated November 13, 1861, beginning as follows:

“The military forces of the United States are about to enter your counties as a part of the Union. They will go among you as friends, and with the earnest hope that they may not, by your own acts, be forced to become your enemies. They will invade no rights of person or property. On the contrary, your laws, your institutions, your usages, will be scrupulously respected. There need be no fear that the quietude of any fireside will be disturbed, unless the disturbance is caused by yourselves.

"Special directions have been given not to interfere with the condition of any person held to domestic service; and, in order that there may be no ground for mistake or pretext for misrepresentation, commanders of regiments and corps have been instructed not to permit any such persons to come within their lines."

Major-General Halleck within a few weeks departed from Washington to supersede General Fremont in the western department; and immediately upon arriving at headquarters issued an order excluding all slaves from the lines of his command, and prohibiting their further admission.

I can not see that the policy of the Administration, as thus exemplified, tends, in the smallest degree, to an anti-slavery result. The principle governing it is, that the constitutional Union, as it existed prior to the rebellion, remains intact; that the local laws, usages, and institutions of the seceded States are to be sedulously respected, unless necessity in military operations should otherwise demand. There is not, however, the most distant intimation of giving actual freedom to the slave in any event.

It is settled that the status of a slave under our system is fixed by law, or usage amounting to law; and until this is changed by competent authority, it adheres, no matter what change of circumstances may occur in other respects, to the slave. Should the rebellion be suppressed to-morrow, the masters of those slaves now coming within our lines, and helping us, would have a claim to their rendition, under the fugitive slave or the local law.

While, therefore, the order of the Treasury Department for paying these persons for services rendered, and the recommendation of the Navy Department that they be permitted to travel off, are good as far as they go, they do not affect the vital question at issue.

The Secretary of War suggests something nearer to the point, in saying that the Government ought to confer freedom on all slaves who shall, in any military exigency, render it service.

But nothing which may be said or done will be sufficient for the emergency while the Government imposes upon itself the responsibilities of the Union with regard to the rebellious States. This principle must be repudiated; or it is obvious that we are tied hand and foot. Under our constitutional system the individual States are authorized to control their domestic institutions (including slavery) in their own way. This is the simple truth, and can not be ignored or gainsayed. It is folly to look for emancipation by the nation in contravention of the system through which the nation lives and acts. The ministers of the Government are bound by the Constitution in the discharge of their duties. Any action of theirs transcending this limitation is revolutionary and criminal, and ground for impeachment and punishment. Men sworn to the performance of duty according to a certain formula, are mere instruments, and rightfully possess no volition of their own.

As to giving freedom to five millions of slaves on the principle of a military necessity to suppress insurrection, it is an idle dream. This principle does not even admit of a general rule on the subject. The requisite military exigency authorizing action may exist in one place and not in another—in Missouri, for instance, on the line of Lane's Kansas brigade, and not in Accomac or Northampton. Its existence must, of course, be determined upon, when and where it arises, by officers in command. To seriously impair the integrity of slavery in this way depends on two very remote contingencies, to wit: first, on an honest sympathy with the abolition cause in those who carry on the war; and second, on such a formidable and long-continued resistance from the rebels as will create the necessity for utter and absolute emancipation in order to overcome them. The chance of these contingencies being fulfilled is the measure of probability for emancipation on the ground of a military necessity under the Constitution; and the country can judge of the extent of this for itself.

For my own part, I think it quite problematical whether there is more than one sincere abolitionist or emancipationist among the military authorities; or that the rebellion will ever hold out to the point of rendering the liberation of the whole body of slaves necessary to subdue it.

Slavery can not be abolished in a State by act of Congress. The thing is impossible. Congress is the legislative branch of the Government, performing its duties under certain constitutional limitations. Slavery in the States is outside of those limitations. It can be abolished only by the States themselves, or by the Executive in time of war, on principles of public law, as ably expounded many years ago by John Quincy Adams. In the suppression of insurrection, however, the Executive has not this power, unless the insurgents have ceased to be parties to our

constitutional Union; in which case they have, in fact, ceased to be insurgents, and become alien belligerents.

The overthrow of slavery by confiscating the property of rebel slaveholders seems to me to be utterly impracticable, consistently with the plain requirements of the Constitution. A bill has recently been introduced into the Senate to declare the property of all persons engaged in the rebellion forfeited, and directing the President to execute its provisions summarily without the interposition of civil process for trial or judgment. This bill is unconstitutional. The fifth amendment to the Constitution provides that—

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

And the sixth amendment is as follows:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

A bill has been introduced, also, into this body of similar import, and obnoxious to the same objection, and likewise to a still stronger one. This latter bill proposes to abolish a State, and degrade it to the position of a Territory. Any such act as this would be utterly at war with the theory of our Federal system. It could not be carried into effect without destroying the nation, such as it has heretofore existed. Its success would establish a precedent which would make the Federal Government the source of all power, and convert the States into mere corporations.

Yet, while such views as these are correct, as regards the States of the Union, we could accomplish the object of emancipation without legal difficulty, as toward a foreign nation or belligerent power. The confiscation of property and the regulation of order could be provided for by act of Congress in any territory conquered to the authority of the United States. Powers equal to these ends would vest for the time being in the Executive, as Commander-in chief of the nation, even without any such enactment. When General Scott entered the halls of the Montezumas, conqueror of Mexico, his authority under the President was supreme throughout that country. He represented the sovereignty of the United States, and as its executive agent, no limitation existed upon his authority within the conquered territory but such as was imposed by the laws of nations. The discretion of the President in such case is the measure of his power; but this must be governed by the exigencies; and for the faithful exercise of this extensive trust, he is responsible to the nation, through its established tribunals. He may, at any moment, be impeached by this House.

It is, in my judgment, of transcendent importance to guard the principles of our system of free government. The most important of them is that of a division of powers into the three departments of the legislative, judicial, and executive. This has always been regarded as essential to liberty. It is now necessary that the Executive should wield military power. But the object of this is to preserve our system, not to destroy it. The war is, of course, to be comparatively of very short duration; and at its termination the executive power will again be restored to that of a civil magistrate. In the mean time, let Congress be circumspect in its own action, and prepared to hold the other branches to a just accountability.

The success of the Government in subduing upon its present plan the rebellious States must inevitably result in restoring the domination of the slaveholding class by reinstating the institution, under the forms of our constitutional system, in the powers, privileges, and immunities which have always pertained to it. Hence, such a policy is calculated to bring no lasting peace to the country, and utterly fails to fulfill the object to which a wise statesmanship would strive to direct the tendencies of the present momentous occasion.

It is no answer to me to say, that it would elevate to power in the South men of more agreeable manners, or even more gentle pro-slavery views, than are now on the stage. In truth, the character of the agents whom the slaveholders select to represent them has no important relation to the question. Men are of but little consequence in this case. It is a contest of principles. The rehabilitation of slavery in the Union brings with it the whole train of evils under which the country has suffered from the origin of the Government.

There are, however, many persons who believe that slavery may be placed where it will "be in course of ultimate extinction;" that, indeed, the effect of this war, in any event, will be so to weaken it in all the States in which it exists, that it will be unable to recover from the shock thereby inflicted, but will languish, and ultimately die, without a disturbing struggle.

This is, in my judgment, a mistake. The inexorable and eternal condition of the life of slavery is, that it must not only hold its own, but it must get more. Such is the unchangeable law, developed from the conflict of slavery with the order of justice; and no one is competent to render a judgment in the case who does not recognize it.

The object of government is the protection of the rights of persons and property, which slavery contravenes. Slavery is a systematic violation of these rights. Government is instituted for mutual protection—the protection of each through the union of all—and presupposes no superiority of right in its subjects one over another, but implies perfect equality between them in respect to the end aimed at the one object of justice between man and man. It is an instrument of nature; and whatever transient influences may for a time intervene to warp it from its appointed way, it will forever, like the magnetic needle, revert back to the eternal current which God has set to bind it to its course. Consequently, between it and slavery there is, in principle, an eternal antagonism. The law of the one is to accomplish the identical result which the other is bound by its law to prevent. To dominate government, and keep it from obeying the true principle of its being, is therefore the chief task of slavery. It must subvert government, with respect to itself, to have an existence. Nor is this all Government arises from the elementary spirit of justice operating to the end of maintaining among men the divine order. Slavery is at war with this elementary spirit, and consequently to merely neutralize government leaves it still exposed to the force of natural justice. It must, therefore, subvert this, which it can only do through the forms of authority; hence it must control the machinery and symbols of government. Thus possessing the power of the State, it can confer upon itself a legal sanction which nature denies it. So that the existence of slavery necessarily involves its mastery of the Government in some form or other. But the tenacity of Government to the law of its being gives it a powerful tendency, when thus perverted, to recur to its true functions, which calls for an equally strong opposing influence to counteract this tendency. Hence slaveholders are forever at work fortifying themselves in the Government by augmenting in every possible way their political control.

Security is the great necessity of slavery; security is what it wants and must have. The value of property in slaves, like that of any other, depends on its tenure. But a secure tenure is much more difficult to get for slaves than for ordinary property. The latter may be tolerably safe under any circumstances, except those of the wildest anarchy; because mankind recognize and respect, instinctively, the natural and necessary property which is in the order of nature incident to man. The relation which the universal sense recognizes and respects is man and property, several but connected, the one idea excluding the other as in the same being. Given the idea of man, and that of property pertaining to him follows, under the inflexible laws governing the association of ideas. But holding men as property conflicts with this. It breaks the chain of ideas. Men can not be held as property and yet stand to property as principal to supplement. Nature is violated. Logic is contradicted. Moral anarchy prevails. And hence the currents of human thought, linked with those of feeling, running upon eternal principles, set forever against it. Consequently, slave property is "peculiar." With respect to other kinds of property, no one will disturb it unless some one wants it for himself; unless some one intends to steal it. But as to slave property, the danger is simply that of an interference to set the bondman free. “Negro thief,” a favorite epithet of slaveholders, is with them only another name for an “Abolitionist.” It being only possible to render slavery secure by interposing the embodied force of the community, in its Government, against the natural impulse of each disinterested member thereof to strike it down, the slaveholder must not only govern the Government to keep it from doing justice between himself and bondman, but he must OWN IT, that he may use it as a shield against individual intervention. Yet it is constantly liable to be swept out of his hands and carried back to its natural orbit by the powerful tides of human thought and feeling, which never cease to flow. And so he is never at rest. He must be always rolling his stone. A precarious tenure of his slaves is intolerable to him. The constantly recurring fear of losing the power of governing excites in his mind visions—to him the most hideous—of universal emancipation. The probability of it goes directly home to his pocket by reducing the market value of his slaves.

It is, therefore, by no means enough for him to have present possession of Government. He must have it for all time; and of this he must have guarantees. It results that the more he gets the more he wants. He can, of course, never get absolute guarantees, because he is in conflict with the Absolute. The moral world moves, and Governments move with it, and both move, though irregularly, in the direction of eternal justice; and hence his institution continues more or less in question, in spite of all he can do. Thus slaveholding inevitably begets an intense and ever augmenting lust of power, which nothing can fully appease, but which would, if not overcome, advance, step by step, from one seat of authority to another, until it covered the whole continent with its black pall.

The annals of our country abound with illustrations to enforce this teaching. The slaveholders commenced under our system with much more than a moderate degree of power. They had, in fact, a large preponderance in the Government. They were uppermost in both Houses of Congress, and in the judiciary and executive departments. It is true, they might, in the Senate, be ultimately overcome; and the constantly expanding populations of the free North might soon neutralize them in the House. Nevertheless, they could at all times choose their own President. They had votes in the electoral college equal to their entire vote in Congress; and while their unity was of course perfect, the North was, at all times, more or less divided. Its rival candidates for the Presidency would compete for the vote of the slaveholders, for permission to take the office in trust for them, and use it under their dictation. The patronage and power of the executive office were ample to have enabled them, by keeping the other Departments generally filled with their servitors, to dominate over the country.

This was their original policy. In pursuance of it they elected nearly all our Presidents; appointed our judiciary; carried our Congresses; admitted Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, and Texas; involved us in the war with Mexico; passed the fugitive slave law; annulled the Missouri compromise; carried on the war against Kansas, and kept that State out of the Union for four years—governed the country, in short, entirely in their own way, for three fourths of a century. As a part of this policy, they subsidized a large number of the public men and public press of the North. The democratic party was their tool as long as they wanted to use it; and then they broke it into pieces and threw it away.

Their plan of operations was, indeed, most excellent, and in hands as skillful as theirs need never have failed of its purpose. But they were not content with the vast power it gave them. Their instincts impelled them to look beyond it to still greater aggrandizement and stability. How could they, being slaveholders, be satisfied with any limitation, present or prospective, certain or contingent? Their first policy was accordingly superseded gradually by a more radical and ambitious one, of which the rebellion now convulsing the nation is the effect.

As early as 1832, it became the settled purpose of Mr. Calhoun and his disciples to organize the South into a distinct State. It was not originally, however, their wish to dissolve the Union. Their

preferred idea was to change the Federal system. They wanted to refine on the original plan by rendering the South one and an equal confederate in the system with the North; thus making the organization not only a Federal Government of several States, but having the South united as one, with a power of control over the whole. It was a thing necessary to this end, that the South should have in some form a final negative or veto power; so that nothing could be done by the Government without her assent. To hold the Senate would suffice for this, and such was the foundation of that desire for “equilibrium,” which induced the slaveholders, for a long time, to refuse to admit into the Union any free State without coupling therewith a slave State. This proving insufficient, the Southern mind, under the plastic genius of Mr. Calhoun, abandoned the idea of an equilibrium for the more imposing and attractive dream of independence. This gentleman elaborated and enforced his views with great eloquence and power in the Senate in 1850, when he suggested an amendment to the Constitution. He proposed that the executive department be reorganized, with two Presidents instead of but one; one to have charge of foreign, the other domestic affairs; one to be from the North, the other the South, and each to have a veto upon Congress and the other.

Although this proposition was regarded at the North as extremely visionary and preposterous, and was never again presented in the same form, its introduction marks the period of a new system of political action in the South. Every subsequent movement of the Southern leaders has had reference to the principle here involved. Independence has been since then their central idea—independence in or out of the Union. Their first effort after this was to make slave States out of all the Territories and to admit them; and to continue the acquisition of territory along the southern line for the same purpose, with a view to constitute the Senate the permanent organ of the South. Accordingly the Missouri compromise was annulled; Nebraska divided into two Territories, so as to form ultimately four States; and the Dred Scott opinion announced. These measures were all parts of a conspiracy. The Supreme Court were to adjudge all territory of the Union slave territory; so that the minions of the South might step in, take possession, and send up the Senators duly certificated. It never occurred to them that the North would, in spite of their judicial decree, wrest their possessions from them by a superior emigration. But it so happened that Kansas was the key to the whole issue, and the North fixed its eye upon Kansas, and determined, cost what it might, to secure it. The acquisition of Kansas by an intensely anti-slavery population dashed the fine scheme of the slaveholders, and left them no other resort, if they would have independence, than an attempt to win it by war against the Government. And this attempt we have in the present rebellion.

And here let me pause for a brief moment, to pay a merited tribute of respect and gratitude to my constituency. Brave, devoted, uncompromising, heroic people! proudly do I bear your honored name in these Halls. Sir, theirs is the glory of these eventful days; to them belongs the credit of having first interposed a barrier to check the progress of despotic rule on this continent. Kansas lost, we should now be hopelessly, irretrievably subjugated. No such Republican party as we have seen would have been organized, or, if organized, it would have been speedily extinguished. Abraham Lincoln would not now be President; but rather some such slaveholder as Jefferson Davis. We should not now see a mighty host marshaled beyond the Potomac, with the cheering ensign of the Republic full high advanced, and the power of a legitimate Government and twenty millions of free people behind it; but we should see, instead of this, our Government transformed into a slaveholding despotism, as tyrannical as that of Nero, by means so indirect and insidious as hardly to be seen until the fatal work was finished. The people of Kansas took it upon themselves to act as a breakwater, which has had the effect to stay the advancing tide of slavery, and shield the continent from its sway.

When I recur to my own intercourse with this gallant people during the period of their terrible struggle in their attempts to subdue the wilderness-to make homes for themselves where no home save that of the Indian, the elk, or the buffalo had ever existed before; considering their scanty resources, and the severities of life in a new country to which they were exposed; and remembering their determined purpose in behalf of the cause in stake-how men and women alike surrendered with alacrity every personal interest and comfort and aspiration, and, with a sublime self-sacrifice, consecrated themselves to the great service—the perils they encountered, the extreme suffering they individually endured, and yet the true martyr spirit, the patience, the constancy, the fortitude they displayed throughout; when I recall these things, and my own relations with them in those trying scenes our mutual hopes and fears and efforts the days when we were together in the council and the camp—the nights when, on the broad unsheltered prairie, or around rude and poor but hospitable firesides, we were consulting, deliberating, arranging, resolving, and executing; and when I recall, as I never fail to do, the glorious memory of those who passed through the shadows of death in this august work—some by sickness, others by privation, others again on the field of battle bravely fighting for liberty—I am moved with a feeling for which no expression would be appropriate but the silent eloquence of tears.

Sir, history has no brighter page in all her long annals than this. I say it without hesitancy, although I am the Representative of Kansas on this floor.

It is recorded of the chivalric but ill-fated people of Poland, that they stood up a shelter and breastwork for Europe against the swelling tide of infidel invaders who, in the seventeenth century, threatened to overwhelm the civilization of that continent. A similar record will be made by the pen of impartial history, to testify to the transcendent heroism of my noble friends and constituency. It shall be said of them that, though few in number, limited in means, surrounded by enemies, far away from friends and reinforcements, they yet stood up, like a wall of adamant, against a power which wielded the resources of a nation of thirty millions, balked it of its prey, and saved a continent to freedom and civilization. Such is the inscription which the eternal page will bear in letters of light, regarding the transactions to which I refer; and traditionary song and story shall celebrate to posterity the worth of their deeds which to-day may find no recognition.

In what has been said we may see two methods of teaching one by reasoning, à priori, and the other by inference from history—alike inculcating the one lesson, to wit: the folly of attempting to hold slavery in a subordinate position, or to place it where it will be in course of ultimate extinction. It is tenacious of existence, and its very existence implies rule; and to make this secure is its never-failing motive. Security is what it wants—not security admitting of degrees of some, more, most-positive security, comparative security, or superlative security—but ABSOLUTE SECURITY. Hence, unlimited power will alone suffice it. No truth in history is brought more directly home to us than this. Leniently, patiently, indulgently, expensively, and fully have we tried the experiment; and now we have its lesson thundered in our ears from the cannon's mouth. And therefore Lord John Russell was perfectly correct in saying, as he did say a few weeks ago, at Newcastle, with respect to this country, that—

“Supposing this contest ended by the re-union of its different parts; that the South should agree to enter again with all the rights of the Constitution, should we not again have that fatal subject of slavery brought in along with them—that slavery which, no doubt, caused the disruption, and which we all agree must sooner or later cease from the face of the earth? Well, then, gentlemen, as you will see, if this quarrel could be made up, should we not have those who differed with Mr. Lincoln at the last election carry at the next, and thus the quarrel would re-commence, and perhaps a long civil war follow."

Lord John Russell is substantially right in this respect. Let this plan of the Administration for bringing back the seceded States on the old basis be realized, and we shall be precisely where we were at the commencement of this struggle. Slavery might possibly be satisfied with Mr. Lincoln's policy to-day, but what would not to-morrow inevitably disclose? It might possibly, while suffering from the disaster of secession, regard its situation tolerably satisfactory in the Union on almost any terms. But once recovered from the shock of its defeat, would it not again develop its ambitious and aggressive nature with as much virulence as ever? No one can doubt it. Hence, should this policy prevail, nothing is more demonstrably clear than that the future history of this country will realize the very same troubles of which we so grievously complain in our past, and which culminated in the overwhelming calamity of civil war. After the lapse of a little time, when the strife of the present hour shall have composed itself to rest, the old monster will again come forth from his lair. In every State in the South we shall have this measure and that for the benefit of slavery set up as a test in all the elections for State Legislature, for Governor, for members of Congress, for Presidential electors, for everything; and those candidates will, of course, be chosen who are most ultra in their pro-slavery tendencies. If Mr. Holt, or Mr. Johnson, or Mr. Carlile, or other men like them, do not square up to the highest standard of Southern exaction, they will be soon set aside, and those who do will take their places. The Presidential election will be controlled in the same way. It will be treason to the South to vote for a Northern man, unless he is a "Northern man with Southern principles." Their chosen candidate will be the one who gives the best proofs of his devotion to the South. Here, then, will again be generated that species of politician known as the "doughface." Those at the North who, in times past, ignominiously threw themselves down at the feet of the slaveholders, as "mudsills," to pave the edifice of their power, will again pass into the service of that "oligarchy." Northern servility and Southern arrogance will grow apace; and from one demand to another, from one concession to another, they will advance, until the disorder again reaches its crisis, when another explosion will ensue, the anti-slavery element will rise into power as before by reason of excesses on the other side, the whole slave interest will be again imperiled, in consequence of which it, with, perhaps, its allies, will again fly to arms (its natural resort), and the country will again be involved in the horrors of civil war. This is the inevitable action and reaction of our present system. The movement, while slavery lasts, is one which proceeds upon natural laws, just as inexorable as the laws which govern the movements of the planets. They can not be counteracted by any sort of political legerdemain.

Nor does it improve the case in the slightest degree that all this will be done through men and organizations heretofore dear to the people as representing a better cause. Circumstances change, and men change with them; but principles change not. Men may not see, or seeing may not believe. Again: men may be willing, for the sake of power, to discard the principles to which they once stood pledged. Or they may never, in fact, have been pledged to principles in themselves, but only to certain applications of them.

The resolving force of the war may turn the spirit of slavery into a new body, with new head and feet and hands. The old personnel of the oligarchy may be entirely displaced. Hunter and Mason, and Slidell and Toombs, and Stephens and Beauregard, and Keitt and Pryor, and the whole array of the present, may pass into eternal oblivion, and new names be substituted in their stead; names, it may be, in many instances, which have been, and are even now, associated with our own in political action. But this will not improve the case. Slavery will be slavery still. Organizations can not change it, though it may change them. Nor can men's names, nor party names, change it. It may enroll itself under the "Flag of our Union," and turn its face from Richmond to Washington. It may gather around the purlieus of the White House, instead of the Confederate mansion. It may bow down to Abraham Lincoln as the god of its idolatry, rejecting its present idol on the banks of the James River. But it will, nevertheless, be sure to come into our Senate and House of Representatives; it will be sure to come into our electoral college; it will be sure to come into our national conventions; and it will be sure to be felt wherever it is. It will vote for slavery. It will vote for slavery first, and for slavery last, and always for slavery. If Abraham Lincoln would be re-elected President, he must secure the vote of slavery; for if he does not, somebody else will, by its aid, be elected over him. And it follows, as the night the day, if Abraham Lincoln secures the vote of slavery, that slavery must, in turn, secure the vote of Abraham Lincoln.

Indeed, the tendency of the Government, upon the principles which now control its action with respect to the war, is irresistibly toward such a transmutation of political elements as will restore the slave power to its wonted supremacy in the Union, with the Administration for its representative and agent, however reluctant the latter might be to perform so ignominious a part.

There are two classes of slaveholders, who, though divided on the particular question of secession, are yet one and indivisible on the paramount question affecting the power and prestige of slavery; namely, Unionists and Secessionists. One is, as to the Union, with us, the other against; both, however, having a common purpose with respect to slavery, to wit: its security, and to this end its domination.

It is the determination of the secessionists to dissolve all political relations with anti-slavery people of every class, and to establish a government into which no insidious foe shall be permitted to enter, but through which slavery shall reign forever, undisputed and indisputable sovereign lord. On the other hand, those slaveholders who cling to the Union propose to accomplish pretty much the same thing by a different process; namely, by bringing all the slaveholders back to their loyalty, and employing the power which will thereby accrue to them jointly to regain control of the Federal Government.

It is but a difference of choice among the slaveholders as to the kind of mansion they will inhabit; whether they will continue to dwell in the old establishment which their fathers built and consecrated to slavery; or abandoning that to the heathen, erect for themselves a new edifice, pictured in their arid dreams as one which no rude tempest shall assail, nor the winds of heaven visit too roughly; with foundations of tried steel, pillars of alabaster, halls of precious marble, and pavements of gold.

The slaveholders of the Union party, more practical and less imaginative than their secession brethren, prefer to tarry in the old place, proposing to themselves to convert the latter from the error of their way by convincing them that secession is a mistake; that Southern independence is a delusion fraught with manifold and terrible woes; that the safety, the stability, the dignity, the power, the grandeur, and the glory of slavery are all fixed in the Union, and not to be enjoyed out of it; established in the house which their fathers built; which is theirs by imprescriptible right; a glorious inheritance; "the fairest fabric of government ever erected by man."

They appeal to the masses of the South to abandon their present leaders and fly to them, crying out that to follow the Confederate flag along the "perilous edge," and through storm and battle, will lead them to swift destruction; but that to rally to their standard will take them back to the old homestead, where, in the affecting pictures they draw, the pastures are ever green, and the streams ever bright; the skies always blue, and flowers blooming perennial; and here, they tell them, they may forever repose under their own vine and fig-tree, with no one to make them afraid.

Their desire is that we should not be precipitate in moving forward the grand army of the Union; but should hold it up as a gigantic instrument of chastisement in terrorem over their erring brethren, allowing ample time before using it for penitence and absolution. Hence we are to infer that the harmless evolutions of dress parade are more to their views than frequent encounters on the field of battle.

Yet they require that our army should be advanced. It must occupy each rebellious State. Our standard must be unfurled, as a rallying point. A center of operations must be secured, from which missionary enterprise shall branch out. To convert the sinning sons of the South back to truth and righteousness, there must be a Jerusalem at each convenient locality, up to which they may come to indicate repentance and be again enrolled in the flock of the immaculate of the house of Israel. And nothing will suffice for such a Jerusalem but a military encampment, with such latter-day saints as McClellan and Banks, and Dix and Halleck, and the like, armed to the teeth and ready for the fray, with sword in one hand and the Constitution in the other, prepared to administer death or the oath of allegiance according to the stubbornness or docility of the subject.

Of course it is a part of the system of operations of these Union gentlemen to do a little in the revolutionary way themselves, whenever such slight irregularity may become necessary to checkmate the leaders of secession. For instance, as in all the rebellious States, the forms of government are in possession of the insurgents, it is part of their plan to arrange State governments of their own. Such machinery is necessary in carrying out the great scheme of salvation in which they are engaged—fealty to which, on the part of the penitent rebel, shall be the test of a return to the faith of the fathers. This has, indeed, already been tried, and found to work to a charm. The Unionists in Western Virginia met at Wheeling, and voted from among their number Mr. So-and-so for the Legislature, Mr. So-and-so for Governor, Mr. So-and-so for judge, and they having called this the government of the State, it was immediately recognized as such. Whereupon United States senators and members of this House were at once sent up, and promptly admitted; and these gentlemen of Western Virginia will, in 1864, by virtue of this little artful operation, carry about with them in their pockets some fifteen votes of our electoral college to decide who shall be our next President. As this programme is to be carried out in every seceded State, for every State which the  new South, "or the new oligarchy," thus clutch, they will secure two United States senators, besides an indefinite number of members of this House, and votes for President equal to their full Congressional representation. They will have, of course, proportionate delegations in all our nominating conventions.

Wherever such organization is set up, it is expected that the slaveholders will, in large numbers, desert the Confederate banner, and follow that of the Union. An inducement which will attract many, is the opportunity which will be thus presented of entering into the new order of things high in official station. Offices will be obtainable with little difficulty; and ambitious young men, and ambitious men not so young, will rush, it is supposed, to the side of the Union, to enjoy official patronage and prestige; bringing with them all their friends, relatives, debtors, creditors, and other persons interested in their success in life. It is also regarded as highly important that the most liberal promises in favor of slavery shall be given. Jefferson Davis may, in this respect bid high; but if so, Mr. Lincoln must bid against him. A strict observance of all the guarantees of the Constitution must, of course, be stipulated. An amnesty, which shall cover all sins of omission or commission, must be granted to whomsoever shall return to his allegiance, and all such measures be resorted to as shall serve to allay the suspicions, assuage the bitterness, and abate the hostility of the erring children of the South to our common Government, and persuade them again to enjoy its blessings.

By such skillful treatment as is here hinted at, by the military arm in one direction and the dexterous fingers of political artifice in another; by alternate blows and persuasion, blisters and sugarplums, it is expected that the belligerent will be tamed down; the willful recalled to tractability; the skeptical inspired with faith; and in fine, the whole body of slaveholders firmly planted once more on the side of the Union, the Constitution, and the laws.

The policy of the Administration harmonizes in almost every particular with the object of this class of slaveholders. It offers ample protection to their constitutional rights, and full pardon to secessionists returning to their allegiance. It holds the grand army in abeyance; and recognizing their empty frameworks of State governments, inducts them as bona fide into the sacred temple of our sovereignty.

In short, the two bodies seem to be at one table in full communion. Their actions tend unmistakably to the same result, whether they know it or not, and their success will develop a reunion of the slaveholding interest on the platform of the Administration, for the protection of slavery, and against all who oppose it.

In this way the party of slavery will become again the party of the Administration; Mr. Lincoln will become the President of the South, through the agency of the Union, and Jefferson Davis will retire to the shades. The Federal Capitol will once more become the seat of the slave power, the Federal Government its instrument, and the country its subject realm. The old game of a united South against a divided North will be repeated. The party of the Administration will play the role of the old Democratic party again. The former strife will be renewed; and in the end, however distant, slavery will again be driven to extremities.

I may, however, be permitted at this point to put in a protest against extemporizing State organizations for seceded States, and clothing them with powers to correspond. So far as legal correctness is concerned, this action is as unwarranted as secession itself. It is quite as revolutionary. Indeed, it is, in this respect, upon precisely the same footing with secession. Secession repudiates the Federal authority within a State through State forms and State forces, while this repudiates the State authority through Federal forms and forces. They are both revolutionary. Nor can the plea of necessity be interposed to extenuate it. No necessity exists for anything but for a military occupation in a rebellious State until the rebellion is subdued. And this is precisely what should take place, and nothing else. These skeleton State organizations are nothing but the machinery of political artificers for monopolizing power; and it is a shameful and most pernicious abuse of the Executive trust to recognize them as valid.

A government for the State of Virginia made its appearance last May, and claimed to be entitled to consideration, because, as it was said, the people west of the mountains had instituted it. It received the recognition of the President, which was construed to bind the other branches of the Government. Since then, however, the people, who were represented as having adopted this, have organized another State government, with a view of being detached from the old State. But under the Federal Constitution this can not be done without the consent of the old State. Nevertheless, the people of Western Virginia having created a government for the whole State, of which the needed recognition was afforded, and having now created their new State of Kanawha, have only to give to the latter, through the former, the necessary assent, to secure the requisite compliance with the terms of the Constitution, and be doubly admitted into the Union—thus becoming invested with the constitutional powers of the old State of Virginia, besides those which will belong to the new State of Kanawha, including, of course, two United States senators for each. I conceive this to be a gross outrage upon the constitutional rights of all the other States. This process of making States at short-hand may give rise to one of the most gigantic schemes of political jugglery the world ever The war may not be finally closed or the rebels subdued for many years, and yet the vast power pertaining under our Constitution to the seceded States may, in the mean time, be exercised by a very limited number of persons. It is only necessary for the Government to secure a footing at some point within the geographical limits of one of these States to enable a few individuals to acquire the power to which such State is entitled by the Constitution and usages of the land, in Congress, in the election of President, and in all our nominating conventions. To this end, it is only necessary for a stock of ready-made State governments (so to speak) to go along with the army, and for one to be set up wherever a corps may encamp with a seceded State.

I will not say that this is the sort of game which the Unionist slaveholders intend to play, to hasten their control of the Government in advance of the actual conquest of the rebels. And yet is it not mainly as to the superiority of political over military tactics for maintaining power that they differ with their secession brethren? At any rate, this scheme would admit of a most stupendous fraud upon the country; and a public man, who is even decently honest, slaveholder or non-slaveholder, will regard it in this respect with great disfavor.

I will not impeach the motives of the Administration. It is doubtless guided by a sincere desire to do, in all things, what will prove to be for the best interests of the country. But it is, nevertheless, acting upon a most deplorable policy in this respect.

Principles control events; and its principles, in this regard, can not fail to develop another woeful cycle of national contention and disaster, probably more violent, bitter, and fatal than anything in our past history. The very opposite course is the one it ought to pursue. To liberate the Government utterly and forever from slavery should be its first and paramount object. To accomplish this it is only necessary for it to discard an attenuated abstraction, and avail itself of opportunities which God has brought to our very doors. The simple act of changing in practice the relations of the Government, and pursuing the war according to the law and facts of the case, would, in a short time, make the United States as completely free from slavery as Canada, and place the institution at our feet, and under our feet. To recognize the Confederate States for their benefit is no part of our duty; but to shape our policy to accord with events, and enable us to fulfill a high purpose, is what we are imperatively called upon to do. The fiction upon which we are now proceeding binds us to slavery; and hence the national arms, instead of being directed against it, are held where they may at any moment be required to be turned to its defense.

The wish of the masses of our people is to conquer the seceded States to the authority of the Union, and hold them as subject provinces. Whether this will ever be accomplished no one can, of course, confidently foretell; but, in my judgment, until this purpose is avowed, and the war assumes its true character, it is a mere juggle, to be turned this way or that for slavery or against it-as the varying accidents of the hour may determine.

It is well that the bugbear of disunion has passed away, and can no longer be used to frighten timid souls from their propriety. Every one now sees that there can not be any permanent separation of the States of the South from those of the North; that they are wedded by ties of nature, destined to triumph over all disintegrating and explosive forces.

Should the belligerent sections settle down upon existing bases into separate political communities, the States in the southern section, along the northern line, would speedily become free, and eager to reunite with the North. Such slaves as could escape across the line would do so, and the rest would be conveyed by their owners to the distant South; and as these States became free, they would become antagonistic to their confederates, and reconciled to the old Union; and no obstacle could prevent their return. Thus the southern line of the United States would be brought down to the next tier of slave States, upon which the same effect would be wrought; and thus the process continued until the national ensign would again float unchallenged on the breezes of the Gulf. This would effect a restoration of the Union on an anti-slavery basis.

So that, even if the present war should cease, a new one would immediately begin. Moral forces would take the place of physical ones; and the anti-slavery editor and lecturer would appear instead of the dragoon and musketeer. The center of abolitionism would, in time, be transferred from Boston to Richmond; and we should see a Virginia "liberator," in the person of some new Garrison, come forth to break the remaining "covenant with death" and "league with hell."

The question may be fairly regarded, however, as in one sense a question of union. Estrangement and war will always exist while slavery survives. The extinction of this evil is the only final end of disunion. The question, therefore, is, whether our Union shall be a real or a pretended one—whether freedom shall be its law and peace its fruit, or slavery its law and war its baleful offspring. A system based on slavery is essentially one of disunion. The war must, therefore, strike for freedom, or its professions about Union are delusive, and its end will be naught but evil.

Should it fail to do so, then let us cast it out as a wickedness and an abomination, and trust the cause of Union to other preservatives—to God's providence rather than to man's imbecility and treachery. War is obnoxious on general principles; and is only sanctified as a means to a noble end. It is a treacherous instrument at best; and in this case there is no little danger that it will turn into a thunderbolt to smite us to the earth, burying beneath the ruins of our constitutional liberty the hopes of mankind.

Eight hundred thousand strong men, in the prime of life, sober and industrious, are abstracted from the laboring population of the country to consume and be a tax upon those who remain to work. The report of the Secretary of the Treasury tells a fearful tale. Nearly two million dollars per day will hardly more than suffice to cover existing expenditures; and in one year and a half our national debt, if the war continues, will amount to the sum of $900,000,000.

This is the immense sacrifice we are making for freedom and Union; and yet, is it all to be squandered on a subterfuge and a cheat? For one, I shall not vote another dollar or man for the war until it assumes a different standing, and tends directly to an anti-slavery result. Millions for freedom, but not one cent for slavery!

Sir, we can not afford to despise the opinion of the civilized world in this matter. Our present policy narrows our cause down to an ignoble struggle for mere physical supremacy, and for this the world can have no genuine respect. Our claim of authority, based on a trivial technicality about the proper distinction between a Federal Government and a mere confederacy, amounts to nothing. The human mind has outgrown that superstitious reverence for Government of any kind which makes rebellion a crime per se; and right of secession or no right of secession- what the world demands to know in the case is, upon which side does the morality of the question lie? Considered as a bloody and brutal encounter between slaveholders for dominion, it is justly offensive to the enlightened and Christian sentiment of the age. Yet the fate of nations, no less than of individuals, is molded by the actions, and these by the opinions of mankind. So that public opinion is the real sovereign after all, and no policy can be permanently successful which defies or disregards it. The human mind, wherever found, however limited in development, or rude in culture, is essentially logical; the heart, however hardened by selfishness or sin, has a chord to be touched in sympathy with suffering; and the conscience has its "still small voice," which never dies, to whisper to both heart and understanding of eternal justice. Therefore, in an age of free thought and free expression, the brain and heart and conscience of mankind are the lords who rule the rulers of the world, and no mean attribute of statesman- ship is quickness to discern and promptness to interpret and improve the admonitions of this august trinity.

Sad, indeed, will it be if those who, in this auspicious hour, are invested with the responsibility of command, shall continue to lack wisdom to comprehend or virtue to perform their duty. This is the great opportunity which God has vouchsafed to us for our deliverance from that great curse which darkens our past. Let us not prove ourselves unequal to the destiny which it tenders. Oh! let us not attempt to rebuild our empire on foundations of sand; let us rear it on a basis of eternal granite. Let the order of justice, the harmony of God's benignant laws pervade it. And no internal commotions or outward assaults will afterward beset it, against which it may not rise triumphant and enduring.

"Thou vampire Slavery, own that thou art dead.
*        *         *         *         *         Yield to us
The wealth thy spectral fingers can not hold;
Bless us, and so depart to lie in state,
Embalmed thy lifeless body, and thy shade
So clamorous now for bloody holocausts,
Hallowed to peace by pious festivals."

Thus may the great Republic, so long perverted and paralyzed by slavery, stand forth, in the words of the Irish orator, "redeemed, regenerated, and disenthralled by the genius of universal emancipation."

SOURCE: The Congressional Globe, Volume 53, Part 1, p. 82-7