Chapter 9

“Oh, help,” she cries, “in this extremest need,If you who hear are Deities indeed!Gape, Earth, and make for this dread foe a tombOr change my form, whence all my sorrows come![98]

“Oh, help,” she cries, “in this extremest need,

If you who hear are Deities indeed!

Gape, Earth, and make for this dread foe a tomb

Or change my form, whence all my sorrows come![98]

In offering this proposition, the Senator from New York has entitled himself to the gratitude of the country. Throughout a life of unsurpassed industry and of eminent ability, he has done much for Freedom, which the world will not let die; but than this he has done nothing more opportune, and he has uttered no words more effective than the speech, so masterly and ingenious, by which he vindicated it.

Kansas now presents herself for admission with a Constitution republican in form. And, independently of the great necessity of the case, three considerations of fact concur in commending her. First, she thus testifiesher willingness to relieve the National Government of the considerable pecuniary responsibility to which it is now exposed on account of the pretended Territorial Government. Secondly, by her recent conduct, particularly in repelling the invasion on the Wakarusa, she has evinced an ability to defend her government. And, thirdly, by the pecuniary credit she now enjoys, she shows undoubted ability to support it. What can stand in her way?

The power of Congress to admit Kansas at once is explicit. It is found in a single clause of the Constitution, which, taken by itself, without any qualification applicable to the present case, and without doubtful words, requires no commentary. Here it is.

“New Statesmaybe admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.”

New StatesMAYbe admitted. Out of that little wordmaycomes the power, broadly and fully, without any limitation founded on population or preliminary forms, provided the State is not within the jurisdiction of another State, nor formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States. Kansas is not within thelegaljurisdiction of another State, although the laws of Missouri are tyrannically extended over her; nor is Kansas formed by the junction of two or more States; and therefore Kansasmaybe admitted by Congress into the Union, without regard to population or preliminary forms. You cannot deny the power, without obliterating this clause. The Senator from New York was right in rejecting all appeal to precedents as entirely irrelevant; for the power invoked is clear and express in the Constitution, which is above all precedent. But since precedent is enlisted, let us look at precedent.

It is objected that thepopulationof Kansas is not sufficient for a State; and this objection is sustained by under-reckoning the numbers there, and exaggerating the numbers required by precedent. In the absence of any recent census, it is impossible to do more than approximate to the actual population; but, from careful inquiry of the best sources, I am led to place it now at 50,000, though I observe that a prudent authority, the “Boston Daily Advertiser,” puts it as high as 60,000; and while I speak, this remarkable population, fed by fresh emigration, is outstripping even these calculations. Nor can there be doubt, that, before the assent of Congress can be perfected in the ordinary course of legislation, this population will swell to the large number of 93,420, required in the bill of the Senator from Illinois.But, in making this number the condition of the admission of Kansas, you set up an extraordinary standard.There is nothing out of which it can be derived, from the beginning to the end of the precedents. Going back to the days of the Continental Congress, you find that in 1784 it was declared that 20,000 free inhabitants in a Territory might “establish a permanent Constitution and Government for themselves”;[99]and though this number was afterwards, in the Ordinance of 1787 for the Northwestern Territory, raised to 60,000, yet the power was left in Congress, and subsequently exercised in more than one instance, to constitute a State with a smaller number. Out of all the new States, only Maine, Wisconsin, and Texas contained, at the time of admission into the Union, so large a population as is required in Kansas,—while no less thanfifteennew States have been admitted with a smaller population, as will appear by the following list, which is the result of research, showing the number of “free inhabitants” in these States at the date of the proceedings which ended in their admission.

But this is not all. At the adoption of the National Constitution there were three of the old Thirteen whose respective populations did not reach the amount now required of Kansas: these were Delaware, with only 50,209 free inhabitants; Rhode Island, with only 68,158 free inhabitants; and Georgia, with only 53,284 free inhabitants. And even while I speak, there are at least three States, with Senators on this floor, which, according to the last census, do not contain the population now required of Kansas: I refer to California, with only 92,597 free inhabitants; Delaware, with only 89,242 free inhabitants; and Florida, with only 48,135 free inhabitants. So much for precedents of population.

In sustaining this objection, it is not uncommon to abandon the strict rule of numerical precedent, and to allege that the population required in a new State has always been, in point of fact, above the existing ratio of representation for a member of the House of Representatives. But this is not true; for no less than three States, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Florida, being all Slave States, were admitted with a free population below this ratio. So much, again, for precedents. But even if this coincidence were complete, it would be impossible to press it into binding precedent. The rule seems reasonable, and in ordinary cases would not be questioned; but it cannot be drawn or implied from the Constitution. Besides, this ratio is in itself a sliding scale. At first it was 30,000, increased in 1793 to 33,000, and thus continued till 1813, when it was put at 35,000. In 1823 it was 40,000; in 1833 it was 47,700; in 1843 it was 70,680; and now it is 93,420. If any ratio is to be made the foundation of binding rule, it should be that which prevailed at the adoption of the Constitution,—or at least that which prevailed when Kansas, as part of Louisiana, was acquired from France, under solemn stipulation that it should “be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admittedas soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution.” But this whole objection is met by the memorial of the people of Florida, which, if good for that State, is also good for Kansas. Here is a passage.

“But the people of Florida respectfully insist that their right to be admitted into the Federal Union as a State is not dependent upon the fact of their having a population equal to such ratio. Their right to admission, it is conceived, is guarantied by the express pledge in the sixth articleof the treaty [with Spain] before quoted; and if any rule as to the number of population is to govern, it should be that in existence at the time of the cession, which was thirty-five thousand.[100]They submit, however, that any ratio of representation, dependent on legislative action, based solely on convenience and expediency, shifting and vacillating as the opinion of a majority of Congress may make it, now greater than at a previous apportionment, but which a future Congress may prescribe to be less, cannot be one of theconstitutional‘PRINCIPLES’ referred to in the treaty, consistency with which, by its terms, is required. It is, in truth, but a mere regulation, not founded on principle. No specific number of population is required by any recognized principle as necessary in the establishment of a free Government.… It is in no wise ‘inconsistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution’ that the population of a State should be less than the ratio of Congressional representation. The very case is provided for in the Constitution. With such deficient population, she would be entitled to one Representative. If any event should cause a decrease of the population of one of the States even to a number below theminimumratio of representation prescribed by the Constitution, she would still remain a member of the Confederacy, and be entitled to such Representative. It is respectfully urged, that a rule or principle which would not justify theexpulsionof a State with a deficient population, on the ground of inconsistency with the Constitution, should not exclude or prohibitadmission.”[101]

Thus, Sir, do the people of Florida plead for the people of Kansas.

Distrusting the objection from inadequacy of population,it is said thatthe proceedings for the formation of a new State are fatally defective in form. It is not asserted that a previous enabling Act of Congress is indispensable; for there are notorious precedents the other way: among which are Kentucky, in 1791; Tennessee, in 1796; Maine, in 1820; and Arkansas and Michigan, in 1836. But it is urged that in no instance has a State been admitted whose Constitution was formed without such enabling Act, or without authority of the Territorial Legislature. This is not true; for California came into the Union with a Constitution formed not only without any previous enabling Act, but also without any sanction from a Territorial Legislature. The proceedings which ended in this Constitution were initiated by the military Governor there, acting under the exigency of the hour. This instance may not be identical in all respects with that of Kansas; but it displaces completely one of the assumptions which Kansas now encounters, and it completely shows the disposition to relax all rule, under the exigency of the occasion, in order to do substantial justice.

There is a memorable instance, which contains in itself every element of irregularity which you denounce in the proceedings of Kansas. Michigan, now cherished with such pride as a sister State, achieved admission into the Union in persistent defiance of all rule. Do you ask for precedents? Here is a precedent for the largest latitude, which you who profess deference to precedent cannot disown. Mark now the stages of this case. The first proceedings of Michigan were without any previous enabling Act of Congress; and she presented herself at your door with a Constitution thus formed, and with Senators chosen under that Constitution, precisely as Kansas does. This was in December, 1835, while Andrew Jackson was President. The leaders of the Democracy at that time scouted all objection for alleged defects of form, employing language strictly applicable to Kansas. There is nothing new under the sun; and the very objection of the President, that the application of Kansas proceeds from “persons acting against authorities duly constituted by Act of Congress,”[102]was hurled against the application of Michigan, in debate on this floor. This was the language of Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana:—

“But the people of Michigan, in presenting their Senate and House of Representatives as the legislative power existing there,showed that they had trampled upon and violated the laws of the United States establishing a Territorial Government in Michigan. These laws were, or ought to be, in full force there; but, by the character and position assumed, they had set up a Government antagonist to that of the United States.”[103]

To this impeachment Mr. Benton replied in these effective words:—

“Conventions were original acts of the people. They depended upon inherent and inalienable rights. The people of any State may at any time meet in Convention, without a law of their Legislature, and without any provision, or against any provision, in their Constitution, and may alter or abolish the whole frame of Government as they please. The sovereign power to govern themselves was in the majority, and they could not be divested of it.”[104]

Mr. Buchanan vied with Mr. Benton in vindicatingthe new State.

“The precedent in the case of Tennessee … has completely silenced all opposition in regard to the necessity of a previous Act of Congress to enable the people of Michigan to form a State Constitution. It now seems to be conceded that our subsequent approbation is equivalent to our previous action. This can no longer be doubted.We have the unquestionable power of waiving any irregularities in the mode of framing the Constitution, had any such existed.”[105]“He did hope that by this bill all objections would be removed,—and that this State, so ready to rush into our arms, would not be repulsed,because of the absence of some formalities which perhaps were very proper, but certainly not indispensable.”[106]

“He did hope that by this bill all objections would be removed,—and that this State, so ready to rush into our arms, would not be repulsed,because of the absence of some formalities which perhaps were very proper, but certainly not indispensable.”[106]

After an animated contest in the Senate, the bill for the admission of Michigan,on her assent to certain conditions, was passed, by 23 yeas to 8 nays. You find weight, as well as numbers, on the side of the new State. Among the yeas were Thomas H. Benton, of Missouri, James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, Silas Wright, of New York, and William R. King, of Alabama.[107]Subsequently, on motion of Mr. Buchanan, the gentlemen sent as Senators and Representative by the new State received the regular compensation for attendance throughout the very session in which their seats had been so acrimoniously contested.[108]

In the House of Representatives the application was equally successful. The Committee on the Judiciary, in an elaborate report, reviewed the objections, and, among other things, said:—

“That the people of Michigan have without due authority formed a State Government; but, nevertheless,that Congress has power to waive any objection which might on that account be entertainedto the ratification of the Constitution which they have adopted, and to admit their Senators and Representatives to take their seats in the Congress of the United States.”[109]

The House sustained this view by a vote of 153 yeas to 45 nays. In this large majority, by which the title of Michigan was then recognized, will be found the name of Franklin Pierce, at that time a Representative from New Hampshire.

But the case was not ended. The fiercest trial and the greatest irregularity remained. The Act providing for the admission of the new State contained a modification of its boundaries, and proceeded to require, asa fundamental condition, that these should “receive the assent of a Convention of delegates elected by the people of the said State, for the sole purpose of giving the assent herein required.”[110]Such a Convention, duly elected under call from the Legislature, met in pursuance of law, and, after consideration, declined to come into the Union on the condition proposed. The action of this Convention was not universally satisfactory; and in order to effect admission into the Union, another Convention was called,professedlyby the people in their sovereign capacity, without authority from State or Territorial Legislature,—nay, Sir, borrowing the language of the present President, “against authorities duly constituted by Act of Congress,”at least as much as the recent Convention in Kansas. The irregularity of this Convention was increased by the circumstance that two of the oldest counties of the State, comprising a population of some 25,000 souls, refused to take part in it, even to the extent of not opening the polls for the election of delegates, claiming that it was held without warrant of law, and in defiance of the legal Convention. This popular Convention, though wanting popular support coextensive with the State, yet proceeded, by formal act, to give the assent of the people of Michigan to the fundamental condition proposed by Congress.

The proceedings of the two Conventions were transmitted to President Jackson, who, by message, 27th December, 1836, laid them both before Congress, indicating very clearly his desire to ascertain the will of the people, without regard to form. The origin of the popular Convention he thus describes:—

“This latter Convention was not held or elected by virtue of any Act of the Territorial or State Legislature. It originated from the People themselves, and was chosen by them in pursuance of resolutions adopted in primary assemblies held in the respective counties.”[111]

And the President then declares, that, had these proceedings come to him during the recess of Congress, he should have felt it his duty, on being satisfied that they emanated from a Convention of delegates electedin point of fact by the People of the State, to issue his proclamation for the admission of the State.

The Committee on the Judiciary in the Senate, of which Felix Grundy was Chairman, after inquiry,recognized the competency of the popular Convention, as “elected by the People of the State of Michigan,” and reported a bill, responsive to their acceptance of the proposed condition, for the admission of the State without further terms.[112]Then, Sir, appeared the very objections now directed against Kansas. It was complained, that the movement for immediate admission was the work of “a minority,” and that “a great majority of the State feel otherwise.”[113]And a leading Senator, of great ability and integrity, Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, broke forth in catechism which would do for the present hour. He exclaimed:—

“What evidence had the Senate of the organization of the Convention? of the organization of the popular assemblies who appointed their delegates to that Convention? None on earth. Who they were that met and voted we had no information. Who gave the notice? And for what did the People receive that notice? To meet and elect? What evidence was there that the Convention acted according to law? Were the delegates sworn? And if so, they were extrajudicial oaths, and not binding upon them.… Were the votes counted? In fact, it was not a proceeding under the forms of law, for they were totally disregarded.”[114]

And the same able Senator, on another occasion, after exposing the imperfect evidence with regard to the action of the Convention, existing only in letters and in an article from a Detroit newspaper, again exclaimed:—

“This, Sir, is the evidence to support an organic law of a new State about to enter the Union,—yes, of an organic law, the very highest act a community of men can perform: letters referring to other letters, and a scrap of a newspaper!”[115]

It was Mr. Calhoun, however, who pressed the opposition with the most persevering intensity. In his sight, the admission of Michigan, under the circumstances, “would be the most monstrous proceeding under our Constitution, that can be conceived, the most repugnant to its principles and dangerous in its consequences.”[116]“There is not,” he exclaimed, “one particle of official evidence before us. We have nothing but the private letters of individuals, who do not know even the numbers that voted on either occasion. They know nothing of the qualifications of voters, nor how their votes were received, nor by whom counted.”[117]And he proceeded to characterize the popular Convention as “not only a party caucus, for party purpose, but a criminal meeting,—a meeting to subvert the authority of the State, and to assume its sovereignty,”—adding, that “the actors in that meeting might be indicted, tried, and punished.”[118]And he expressed astonishment that “a self-created meeting, convened for a criminal object, had dared to present to this Government an act of theirs, and to expect that we are to receive this irregular and criminal act, as a fulfilment of the condition which we had prescribed for the admission of the State.”[119]No stronger words are employed against Kansas.

The single question on which all the proceedingsthen hinged, and which is as pertinent in the case of Kansas as in the case of Michigan, was thus put by Mr. Morris, of Ohio: “Will Congress recognize as valid, constitutional, and obligatory, without the color of a law of Michigan to sustain it, an act done by the People of that State in their primary assemblies, and acknowledge that act as obligatory on the constituted authorities and Legislature of the State?”[120]This question, thus distinctly presented, was answered in debate by able Senators, among whom were Mr. Benton and Mr. King. There was one person, who has since enjoyed much public confidence, and left many memorials of an industrious career in the Senate and in diplomatic life, James Buchanan, who rendered himself conspicuous by the ability and ardor with which, against all assault, he upheld the cause of the popular Convention, which was so strongly denounced, and the entire conformity of its proceedings with the genius of American Institutions. His speeches on that occasion contain an unanswerable argument at all points,mutato nomine, for the immediate admission of Kansas under her present Constitution; nor is there anything by which he is now distinguished that will redound so truly to his fame, if he only continues true to them. The question was emphatically answered in the Senate by the final vote on the passage of the bill, where we find 25 yeas to only 10 nays. In the House of Representatives, after debate, the question was answered in the same way, by a vote, on ordering the bill to a third reading, of 140 yeas to 57 nays; and among the yeas is again the name ofFranklin Pierce, a Representative from New Hampshire.

Thus, in that day, by triumphant votes, did the cause of Kansas prevail in the name of Michigan. A popular Convention, called absolutely without authority, and containing delegates from a portion only of the population,—called, too, in opposition to constituted authorities, and in derogation of another Convention assembled under forms of law,—stigmatized as a caucus and a criminal meeting, whose authors were liable to indictment, trial, and punishment,—was, after ample debate, recognized by Congress as valid; and Michigan now holds her place in the Union, and her Senators sit on this floor, by virtue of that act. Sir, if Michigan is legitimate, Kansas cannot be illegitimate. You bastardize Michigan, when you refuse to recognize Kansas.

But this is not all. The precedent is still more clinching. Thus far I have followed exclusively the public documents laid before Congress, and illustrated by the debates of that body; but well-authenticated facts, not of record here, make the case stronger still. It is sometimes said that the proceedings in Kansas are defective because they originated in a party. This is not true; but even if it were true, yet would they find support in the example of Michigan, where all the proceedings, stretching through successive years, began and ended in party. The proposed State Government was pressed by the Democrats as aparty test; and all who did not embark in it were denounced. Of the Legislative Council which called the first Constitutional Convention in 1835, all were Democrats; and in the Convention itself, composed of eighty-seven members, only seven were Whigs. The Convention of 1836 which gave the final assent originated in a Democratic Convention, on the 29th of October, inthe County of Wayne, composed of one hundred and twenty-four delegates, all Democrats, who proceeded to resolve:—

“That the delegates of theDemocratic partyof Wayne, solemnly impressed with the spreading evils and dangers which a refusal to go into the Union has brought upon the people of Michigan, earnestly recommend meetings to be immediately convened by their fellow-citizens in every county of the State, with a view to the expression of their sentiments in favor of the election and call of another Convention, in time to secure our admission into the Union before the first of January next.”

Shortly afterwards, a committee of five, appointed by this Convention, all leading Democrats, issued a circular, “under the authority of the delegates of the County of Wayne,” recommending that the voters throughout Michigan should meet and elect delegates to a Convention to give the necessary assent to the Act of Congress. In pursuance of this call, the Convention met; and as it originated in an exclusively party recommendation, so it was of an exclusively party character. And it was the action of this Convention that was submitted to Congress, and, after discussion in both bodies, on solemn votes, approved.

The precedent of Michigan has another feature, which is entitled to gravest attention, especially at this moment, when citizens exerting themselves to establish a State Government in Kansas are openly arrested on the charge of treason, and we are startled by tidings of maddest efforts to press this procedure of preposterous Tyranny. No such madness prevailed under Andrew Jackson,—although, during the long pendency ofthe Michigan proceedings, for more than fourteen months, the Territorial Government was entirely ousted, and the State Government organized in all its departments. One hundred and thirty-seven different legislative acts and resolutions were passed, providing for elections, imposing taxes, erecting corporations, and organizing courts of justice, including a Supreme Court and a Court of Chancery. All process was issued in the name of the People of the State of Michigan. And yet no attempt was made to question the legal validity of these proceedings, whether legislative or judicial. Least of all did any menial Governor, “dressed in a little brief authority,” play the fantastic tricks now witnessed in Kansas; nor did any person wearing the robes of justice shock high Heaven with the mockery of injustice now enacted by emissaries of the President in that Territory. No, Sir: nothing of this kind then occurred. Andrew Jackson was President.

Again I say, do you require a precedent? I give it. But I will not stake this cause on any precedent. I plant it firmly on the fundamental principle of American Institutions, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, by which government is recognized as deriving its just powers onlyfrom the consent of the governed, who may alter or abolish it, when it becomes destructive of their rights. In the debate on the Nebraska Bill, at the overthrow of the Prohibition of Slavery, the Declaration of Independence was denounced as “a self-evident lie.” It is only by similar effrontery that the fundamental principle which sustains the proceedings in Kansas can be assailed. Nay, more: you must disown the Declaration of Independence, and adopt the Circular of the Holy Alliance, which declares that “useful or necessary changes in legislation and in the administration of statesought to emanate only from the free will and the deliberate and enlightened impulse of those whom God, has rendered responsible for power.”[121]Face to face I put the principle of the Declaration of Independence and the principle of the Holy Alliance, and bid them grapple. “The one places the remedy in the hands whichfeelthe disorder; the other places the remedy in those hands whichcausethe disorder”; and when I thus truthfully characterize them, I but adopt a sententious phrase from the Debates in the Virginia Convention on the adoption of the National Constitution.[122]And now these two principles, embodied in the rival propositions of the Senator from New York and the Senator from Illinois, must grapple on this floor.

Statesmen and judges, publicists and authors, with names of authority in American history, espouse and vindicate the American principle. Hand in hand they now stand around Kansas, and feel this new State lean on them for support. I content myself with adducing two only, both from slaveholding Virginia, in days when Human Rights were not without support in that State. Listen to the language of St. George Tucker, the distinguished commentator upon Blackstone, uttered from the bench in a judicial opinion.

“The power of convening the legal Assemblies, or the ordinary constitutional Legislature,resided solely in the Executive. They could neither be chosen without writs issued by its authority, nor assemble, when chosen, but under the same authority. The Conventions, on the contrary, werechosen and assembled either in pursuance of recommendations from Congress or from their own bodies,or by the discretion and common consent of the people. They were held even whilst a legal Assembly existed.… The Convention, then, was not the ordinary Legislature of Virginia. It was the body of the people, impelled to assemble from a sense of common danger, consulting for the common good, and acting in all things for the common safety.”[123]

Listen also to the language of James Madison:—

“That, in all great changes of established governments, forms ought to give way to substance; that a rigid adherence in such cases to the former would render nominal and nugatory the transcendent and precious right of the people to ‘abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.’ … Nor could it have been forgottenthat no little ill-timed scruples, no zeal for adhering to ordinary forms, were anywhere seen, except in those who wished to indulge, under these masks, their secret enmity to the substance contended for.”[124]

Proceedings thus sustained I am unwilling to callrevolutionary, although this term has the sanction of the Senator from New York. They are founded on unquestionable American right, declared with Independence, confirmed by the blood of the Fathers, and expounded by patriots, which cannot be impeached without impairing the liberties of all. On this head the language of Mr. Buchanan, in reply to Mr. Calhoun, is explicit.

“Does the gentleman [Mr.Calhoun] contend, then, that, if, in one of the States of this Union, the Government be so organized as utterly to destroy the right of equal representation,there is no mode of obtaining redress, but by an Act of the Legislature authorizing a Convention, or by open rebellion? Must the people step at once from oppression to open war? Must it be either absolute submission or absolute revolution?Is there no middle course?I cannot agree with the Senator. I say that the whole history of our Government establishes the principle that the people are sovereign, and that a majority of them can alter or change their fundamental laws at pleasure.I deny that this is either rebellion or revolution. It is an essential and a recognized principle in all our forms of government.”[125]

Surely, Sir, if ever there was occasion for the exercise of this right, the time had come in Kansas. The people there were subjugated by a horde of foreign invaders, and brought under a tyrannical code of revolting barbarity, while among them property and life were exposed to shameless assaults which flaunted at noonday, and to reptile abuses which crawled in the darkness of night.Self-defence is the first law of Nature; and unless this law is temporarily silenced, as all other law is silenced there, you cannot condemn the proceedings in Kansas. Here, Sir, is unquestionable authority,in itself an overwhelming law, which belongs to all countries and times,—which is the same in Kansas as at Athens and Rome,—which is now, and will be hereafter, as it was in other days,—in presence of which Acts of Congress and Constitutions are powerless as the voice of man against the thunder which rolls through the sky,—which declares itself coëval with life,—whose very breath is life itself; and now, in the last resort, do I place all these proceedings under this supreme safeguard, which you will assail in vain. Any opposition mustbe founded on absolute perversion of facts, or perversion of fundamental principles, which no speeches can uphold, though surpassing in numbers the myriad piles sunk in the mud to sustain the Dutch Stadthouse at Amsterdam.

Thus, on every ground of precedent, whether as regards population or forms of proceeding,—also, on the vital principle of American Institutions,—and, lastly, on the supreme law of self-defence, do I now invoke the power of Congress to admit Kansas at once and without hesitation into the Union. “New Statesmaybe admitted by the Congress into this Union”: such are the words of the Constitution. If you hesitate for want of precedent, then do I appeal to the great principle of American Institutions. If, forgetting the origin of the Republic, you turn away from this principle, then, in the name of human nature, trampled down and oppressed, but aroused to just self-defence, do I plead for the exercise of this power. Do not hearken, I pray you, to the propositions of Tyranny and Folly; do not be ensnared by that other proposition of the Senator from Illinois [Mr.Douglas], where is the horrid root of Injustice and Civil War; but apply gladly, and at once, the True Remedy, where are Justice and Peace.

Mr. President, an immense space has been traversed, and I stand now at the goal. The argument in its various parts is here closed. The Crime against Kansas has been displayed in its origin and extent, beginning with the overthrow of the Prohibition of Slavery, next cropping out in conspiracy on the borders of Missouri,then hardening into continuity of outrage through organized invasion and miscellaneous assaults where all security was destroyed, and ending at last in the perfect subjugation of a generous people to an unprecedented Usurpation. Turning aghast from the Crime, which, like murder, confesses itself “with most miraculous organ,” we have looked with mingled shame and indignation upon the four Apologies, whether of Tyranny, Imbecility, Absurdity, or Infamy, in which it is wrapped, marking especially false testimony, congenial with the original Crime, against the Emigrant Aid Company. Then were noted, in succession, the four Remedies, whether of Tyranny, Folly, Injustice and Civil War, or of Justice and Peace, which last bids Kansas, in conformity with past precedents and under exigencies of the hour, for redemption from Usurpation, to take her place as a State of the Union; and this is the True Remedy. If in this argument I have not unworthily vindicated Truth, then have I spoken according to my desires,—if imperfectly, then only according to my powers. But there are other things, not belonging to the argument, which still press for utterance.

Sir, the people of Kansas, bone of your bone and flesh of your flesh, with the education of freemen and the rights of American citizens, now stand at your door. Will you send them away, or bid them enter? Will you push them back to renew their struggle with a deadly foe, or will you preserve them in security and peace? Will you cast them again into the den of Tyranny, or will you help their despairing efforts to escape? These questions I put with no common solicitude, forI feel that on their just determination depend all the most precious interests of the Republic; and I perceive too clearly the prejudices in the way, and the accumulating bitterness against this distant people, now claiming a simple birthright, while I am bowed with mortification, as I recognize the President of the United States, who should have been a staff to the weak and a shield to the innocent, at the head of this strange oppression.

At every stage the similitude between the wrongs of Kansas and those other wrongs against which our fathers rose becomes more apparent. Read the Declaration of Independence, and there is hardly an accusation against the British Monarch which may not now be hurled with increased force against the American President. The parallel has fearful particularity. Our fathers complained, that the King had “sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,”—that he had “combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution,giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation,”—that he had “abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection, andwaging war against us,”—that he had “excited domestic insurrections amongst us, andendeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless savages,”—that “our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” And this arraignment was aptly followed by the damning words, that “a Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” And surely the President who does all these things cannot be less unfit than a Prince. At every stage the responsibilityis brought directly to him. His offence is of commission and omission. He has done that which he ought not to have done, and has left undone that which he ought to have done. By his activity the Prohibition of Slavery was overturned. By his failure to act the honest emigrants in Kansas are left a prey to wrong of all kinds. His activity and inactivity are alike fatal. And now he stands forth the most conspicuous enemy of that unhappy Territory.

As the tyranny of the British King is all renewed in the President, so are renewed on this floor the old indignities which embittered and fomented the troubles of our fathers. The early petition of the American Congress to Parliament, long before any suggestion of Independence, was opposed—like the petitions of Kansas—because that body “was assembled without any requisition on the part of the Supreme Power.” Another petition from New York, presented by Edmund Burke, was flatly rejected, as claiming rights derogatory to Parliament. And still another petition from Massachusetts Bay was dismissed as “vexatious and scandalous,” while the patriot philosopher who bore it was exposed to peculiar contumely. Throughout the debates our fathers were made the butt of sorry jest and supercilious assumption. And now these scenes, with these precise objections, are renewed in the American Senate.

With regret I come again upon the Senator from South Carolina [Mr.Butler], who, omnipresent in this debate,[126]overflows with rage at the simple suggestion that Kansas has applied for admission as a State, and,with incoherent phrase, discharges the loose expectoration of his speech, now upon her representative, and then upon her people. There was no extravagance of the ancient Parliamentary debate which he did not repeat; nor was there any possible deviation from truth which he did not make,—with so much of passion, I gladly add, as to save him from the suspicion of intentional aberration. But the Senator touches nothing which he does not disfigure—with error, sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact. He shows an incapacity of accuracy, whether in stating the Constitution or in stating the law, whether in details of statistics or diversions of scholarship. He cannot ope his mouth, but out there flies a blunder. Surely he ought to be familiar with the life of Franklin; and yet he referred to this household character, while acting as agent of our fathers in England, as above suspicion: and this was done that he might give point to a false contrast with the agent of Kansas,[127]—not knowing, that, however the two may differ in genius and fame, they are absolutely alike in this experience: that Franklin, when intrusted with the petition of Massachusetts Bay, was assaulted by a foul-mouthed speaker where he could not be heard in defence, and denounced as “thief,” even as the agent of Kansas is assaulted on this floor, and denounced as “forger.” And let not the vanity of the Senator be inspired by parallel with the British statesmen of that day; for it is only in hostility to Freedom that any parallel can be found.

But it is against the people of Kansas that the sensibilities of the Senator are particularly aroused. Coming,as he announces, “from a State,”—ay, Sir, from South Carolina,—he turns with lordly disgust from this newly formed community, which he will not recognize even as “a member of the body politic.”[128]Pray, Sir, by what title does he indulge in this egotism? Has he read the history of the “State” which he represents? He cannot, surely, forget its shameful imbecility from Slavery, confessed throughout the Revolution, followed by its more shameful assumptions for Slavery since. He cannot forget its wretched persistence in the slave-trade, as the very apple of its eye, and the condition of its participation in the Union. He cannot forget its Constitution, which is republican only in name, confirming power in the hands of the few, and founding the qualifications of its legislators on “a settled freehold estate of five hundred acres of landandten negroes.”[129]And yet the Senator to whom this “State” has in part committed the guardianship of its good name, instead of moving with backward-treading steps to cover its nakedness, rushes forward, in the very ecstasy of madness, to expose it, by provoking comparison with Kansas. South Carolina is old; Kansas is young. South Carolina counts by centuries, where Kansas counts by years. But a beneficent example may be born in a day; and I venture to declare, that against the two centuries of the older “State” may be set already the two years of trial, evolving corresponding virtue, in the younger community. In the one is the long wail of Slavery; in the other, the hymn of Freedom. And if we glance at special achievement, it will be difficult to find anything in the history of South Carolina which presents so much of heroic spirit in an heroic cause as shines in that repulse of the Missouri invaders by the beleaguered town of Lawrence, where even the women gave their effective efforts to Freedom. The matrons of Rome who poured their jewels into the treasury for the public defence, the wives of Prussia who with delicate fingers clothed their defenders against French invasion, the mothers of our own Revolution who sent forth their sons covered over with prayers and blessings to combat for Human Rights, did nothing of self-sacrifice truer than did these women on this occasion. Were the whole history of South Carolina blotted out of existence, from its very beginning down to the day of the last election of the Senator to his present seat on this floor, civilization might lose—I do not say how little, but surely less than it has already gained by the example of Kansas, in that valiant struggle against oppression, and in the development of a new science of emigration. Already in Lawrence alone are newspapers and schools, including a High School,—and throughout this infant Territory there is more of educated talent, in proportion to its inhabitants, than in his vaunted “State.” Ah, Sir, I tell the Senator, that Kansas, welcomed as a Free State, “a ministering angel shall be” to the Republic, when South Carolina, in the cloak of darkness which she hugs, “lies howling.”[130]

The Senator from Illinois [Mr.Douglas] naturally joins the Senator from South Carolina, and gives to this warfare the superior intensity of his nature. He thinks that the National Government has not completely proved its power, as it has never hanged atraitor,—but, if occasion requires, he hopes there will be no hesitation; and this threat is directed at Kansas, and even at the friends of Kansas throughout the country. Again occurs a parallel with the struggles of our fathers; and I borrow the language of Patrick Henry, when, to the cry from the Senator of “Treason! treason!” I reply, “If this be treason, make the most of it.” Sir, it is easy to call names; but I beg to tell the Senator, that, if the word “traitor” is in any way applicable to those who reject a tyrannical Usurpation, whether in Kansas or elsewhere, then must some new word, of deeper color, be invented to designate those mad spirits who would endanger and degrade the Republic, while they betray all the cherished sentiments of the Fathers and the spirit of the Constitution, that Slavery may have new spread. Let the Senator proceed. Not the first time in history will a scaffold become the pedestal of honor. Out of death comes life, and the “traitor” whom he blindly executes will live immortal in the cause.

Back to Index Next