On my way to this place, my attention was attracted by a banner,
flaunting over the highway, with these words: “TRUST THE PEOPLE.”
Nothing could be fairer or more seductive. In those simple words is
embodied a principle, long unknown, and to this day often denied, which
may be called the mainspring of Democratic institutions. Here is an
implied assertion of the right of the people to govern themselves.
And here also is an implied denial of all pretensions of Tyranny and
Oligarchy. Such a principle, properly understood in its simplicity and
just limitations, must find welcome in every Republican breast. Reading
it on the banner, I responded with joy: “‘Trust the People,’ and Might
will no longer make Right, Government everywhere will be founded upon
the consent of the governed, and Slavery will become impossible!”
Studying the banner further, I found written above this fair device the
names, “DOUGLAS AND JOHNSON.” And then I was saddened to see how here
in Massachusetts a great principle of human rights is degraded to be a
cover for the denial of all rights. Of course the principles of these
two candidates are understood. Mr. Douglas, with vulgar insensibility
to what is due to all who wear the human form, openly declares that
“at the North he is for the white man against the _nigger_, but that
further South he is for the _nigger_ against the alligator,”--and in
this spirit says, “Vote Slavery up or vote Slavery down”; and such
is the Popular Sovereignty which he proclaims. Mr. Johnson, who is
his associate, declares, in well-known words, that “Capital ought to
own Labor,”--that is, that mechanics, workmen, and farmers, in fine,
all who toil with hands, should be slaves; and this is the Popular
Sovereignty which he proclaims. Surely this Douglas and Johnson Popular
Sovereignty should rather be called Popular Tyranny. And here at the
outset you will observe a wide distinction. Sovereignty is properly
limited by _right_; Tyranny is without any limit except _force_. But
when presented under the captivating device of “Trust the people,” its
true character is concealed. It is the Devil radiant with the face of
an angel. It is an apple of Sodom, fair to the eye, but dust and ashes
to the touch.
* * * * *
There are few among us who avow themselves supporters of Douglas and
Johnson; or if they do, they have ceased to look for success in the
coming Presidential election, which seems to be practically decided
already. I should not be justified, therefore, in occupying your time
to-night in considering their cunning artifice, if it were represented
only by Douglas and Johnson, against whom you all stand ready to vote.
To argue against these candidates here in Massachusetts, and especially
in Worcester County, is as superfluous as to argue against King George
the Third, whose ideas of sovereignty were of the same tyrannical
class, yet who was dead long ago.
But the same popular tyranny, misnamed Popular Sovereignty, upheld by
these Presidential candidates, is also upheld by another candidate,
now seeking your votes as Representative to Congress. Let me not do
injustice to Mr. Thayer. I know well the points of difference between
his theory and the theory of Douglas and Johnson; but I know also
that in essential character they are identical,--so much so, that Mr.
Douglas is reported to have hailed him, at the close of one of his
speeches, as an authoritative expounder of the theory. The ancient
Athenian, when praised in a certain quarter, exclaimed, “What bad thing
have I done?” And Mr. Thayer, in earlier days, when doing so much for
Freedom, would have been apt to turn from such praise with a similar
exclamation.
It was natural that Mr. Douglas should praise him; for he gave the
influence of character and ability to that pretension on which this
reckless adventurer had staked his political fortunes. The fundamental
principle of each is, that the question of Slavery in a distant
Territory shall be taken from Congress and referred to the handful
of squatters in the Territory, who, in the exercise of a sovereignty
inherent in the people, and therefore called Popular Sovereignty,
may “vote Slavery up or vote Slavery down.” Of course Mr. Thayer,
thanks to his New England home, has too much good taste to put forth
this pretension in the brutal form it often assumes, when advanced by
Mr. Douglas. He does not say that he is “for the white man against
the _nigger_ and for the _nigger_ against the alligator.” Perhaps
the pretension becomes more dangerous because presented in more
plausible form, and made part of a more comprehensive system. All
that Mr. Douglas claims for the squatters, in the exercise of Popular
Sovereignty, is power over Slavery, and other domestic institutions;
while Mr. Thayer claims for them, besides this power, the power also to
choose their own officers, instead of receiving them from Washington.
But the essential distinctive pretension of each is, that the handful
of squatters is exclusively entitled, in the exercise of Popular
Sovereignty, to pass upon the question of Slavery in the Territories,
and to vote it up or vote it down, without any intervention from
Congress.
If this principle were asserted only with regard to a single Territory,
or even with regard to a single county or a single town, it ought to
be opposed as fallacious and unjust; but when asserted as a general
principle applicable to all the Territories of the Republic, it must
be resisted, not only as fallacious and unjust, but as fraught with
consequences difficult to measure. Glance for one moment at the vast
spaces which it would open to this mad conflict, and you will be awed
by the immensity of the question.
According to official documents, the whole territorial extent of the
United States, including States and Territories, embraces about three
million square miles. This in itself is no inconsiderable portion of
the earth’s surface. It is nearly ten times as large as Great Britain
and France combined,--three times as large as the whole of France,
Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, and
Denmark together,--only a little less than the whole sixty Empires,
States, and Republics of all Europe,--and of equal extent with the
ancient Roman Empire, or the empire of Alexander, neither of which is
said to have exceeded three million square miles. Of this vast area,
about one half is now organized into States, leaving one million five
hundred thousand square miles in the condition of outlying territory,
whose future fortunes are involved in the decision of the present
question.
If the subject assumes colossal proportions when we regard the
extent of territory, it swells to yet grander form when we look at
the population involved. The whole white population of the United
States at the present moment amounts to 27,000,000. Supposing it
to increase at the rate of 34 per cent in ten years, which may be
inferred from the rate at which it has already increased, it will
number in 1870, 36,000,000; in 1880, 48,000,000; in 1890, 64,000,000;
in 1900, 85,000,000; in 1910, 113,000,000; in 1920, 151,000,000; in
1930, 202,000,000; in 1940, 270,000,000; in 1950, 361,000,000; and in
1960, just one hundred years from now, it will reach 483,000,000 of
white freemen. Here we may well stop to take breath. Add to this white
population 50,000,000 of colored population, whether free or slave,
according to the supposed increase, and we shall have a sum-total of
533,000,000; and in two hundred years, with the same continuing rate
of increase, our population will be ten times larger than that of the
whole globe at the present hour.
This extraordinary multitude will not be confined to the present
States. It will diffuse itself in every direction, covering all
our territory as the waters cover the sea. Precisely how it will
be distributed it is impossible to foreknow. But the tendency of
population is Westward. The Eastern States are becoming stationary.
Assuming that in 1960 the area now unoccupied will be settled at the
rate of Massachusetts in 1850, which was 127 to the square mile, we
shall then have on that territory a white population of 190,000,000.
And the simple question is, Whether this enormous territory, with this
enormous population, shall be exposed to all the accumulating evils of
Slavery, with their hateful legacy, at the mere will of the handful of
first settlers? According to a French proverb, “It is only the first
step which costs,” and there is profound truth in this saying. In
similar spirit the ancient Romans said, _Obsta principiis_, “Oppose
beginnings.”
Never were these time-honored maxims more applicable than in the
present case, when such prodigious results are involved. All experience
shows that it takes very little Slavery to constitute a Slave State,
and that Slavery, when once introduced, is most tenacious of existence.
Mr. Lincoln, in one of his speeches, has aptly likened it to the
Canada thistle, which, when once planted, extends with most injurious
pertinacity. Others liken it to a cancer or vicious disease, which,
when once in the system, corrupts the blood forever. It may be likened
to a superstitious usage, which, when once established in the customs
of a people, yields reluctantly to every effort against it. And yet Mr.
Thayer wrests from Congress, representing the whole country, all power
to prevent the introduction of this transcendent evil, and transfers
the whole question to a handful of squatters, who are to act for the
weal or woe of half a continent with teeming millions of population;
and this is done in the name of Popular Sovereignty, as announced in
the Declaration of Independence.
Fellow-citizens, I deny this pretension in every respect and at every
point. I assert the power of Congress, founded on reason and precedent;
and I assert the overwhelming necessity at this moment of exercising
this unquestionable power. Guardians of this mighty territory, the
destined home of untold millions, we must see that it is securely
consecrated to the uses of Freedom, so that it cannot be pressed by
the footsteps of a slave. For the moment we are performing the duty of
_conditores imperiorum_, or founders of States, which Lord Bacon, in
sententious wisdom, places foremost in honor, and calls a “primitive
and heroical work.”[23] In the discharge of this duty, every power,
every effort, every influence for Freedom should be invoked. The angel
at the gates of Paradise, with flaming sword turning to every side,
might be fitly summoned to guard this grand inheritance.
* * * * *
Not only do I assert this power, but I deny that sovereignty, when
justly understood, has among its incidents the right to enslave our
fellow-man. Mr. Thayer practically recognizes this incident; for he
insists upon leaving the handful of squatters in the Territories to
vote Slavery up or vote Slavery down without any intervention from
Congress. And here is the vital question: Is there any such power
incident to sovereignty?
And since the Declaration of Independence is invoked as authority for
this new pretension, I shall bring it precisely to this touchstone.
Bear with me, if I am tedious.
On the 4th of July, 1776, was put forth that great state paper, which
constitutes an epoch of history. Its primary object was to dissolve
the bonds which existed between the Colonies and the mother country.
For this purpose a few positive words would have sufficed. But its
authors were not content with this enunciation. Ascending far above the
simple idea of National Independence, they made their Declaration an
example to mankind, in two respects: first, as a Declaration of Human
Rights; and, secondly, as an admission that the Sovereignty which they
established was limited by Right.
In the first place, they declared “that all men are created equal; that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; and
“that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Note
well these words. Here was a Declaration of Natural Rights, the first
ever put forth in history, unless we except the declaration only a
few months earlier in Virginia. In England there have been Bills of
Rights, beginning with Magna Charta, all declaring simply the rights
of Englishmen, and all founded on concession and precedent. Now came
a Declaration of the Rights of Man, not founded on concession or
precedent, but founded on Nature. And this Declaration, though made
the basis of the new government, was universal in application, so that
people, wherever struggling for rights, have been cheered by its words.
There is another enunciation, by which the Declaration is equally
memorable, although this feature has been less noticed. Certainly
it has not been noticed by Mr. Thayer, or he would never venture to
derive his pretension from a Declaration which positively excludes
all such idea. Other governments, even those of the American Colonies,
have been founded on _force_, and the sovereignty which they claimed
was unlimited, so as to sanction Slavery. That I may not seem to
make this statement hastily, pardon me, if I adduce two illustrative
authorities. I refer first to Sir William Blackstone, the commentator
on the Laws of England, who says: “There is and must be in all forms
of government, however they began, or by what right soever they
subsist, a supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority,
in which the _rights of sovereignty_ reside;”[24] and this power,
which in England is attributed to Parliament, he calls in one place
“that _absolute despotic power_ which must in all governments reside
_somewhere_.”[25] I refer also to the famous Dr. Johnson, who, in his
tract entitled “Taxation no Tyranny,” openly says that “all government
is ultimately and essentially absolute”; that “in sovereignty there
are no gradations”; that “there must in every society be some power
or other from which there is no appeal,” which “extends or contracts
privileges, exempt itself from question or control, and bounded only by
physical necessity.”[26]
In the face of these contemporary authorities, one an eminent jurist,
and the other an eminent moralist, both well known to our fathers,
and in the face of all traditions of government, the Declaration of
Independence disclaimed all despotic, absolute, or unlimited power, and
voluntarily brought the new sovereignty within the circumscription of
_Right_. Not content with declaring that the rights to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable, and therefore beyond
the control of any sovereignty, the Declaration went further, and,
by abnegation worthy of perpetual honor, solemnly restrained the new
sovereignty,--simply claiming for it the “power to do all acts and
things which independent states may OF RIGHT do.” Even had this express
limitation been omitted, no such incident of sovereignty as that
asserted by Mr. Thayer could be derived from an instrument containing
those words with which the Declaration begins; but with these latter
words of special limitation, the pretension becomes absurd.
Such, fellow-citizens, is the Popular Sovereignty of the Declaration
of Independence, drawing its life, first, from the inalienable Rights
of Man, and then, by positive words, restrained to what is Right.
And this is the Popular Sovereignty which, lifting the down-trodden
and trampling on tyrants,--now gentle as Charity, and then terrible
as an army with banners,--is destined to make the tour of the world,
rendering Slavery everywhere impossible.
Of this Popular Sovereignty I have spoken on another occasion,[27]
and I refrain with difficulty from repeating now what I said then,
partly because I believe so completely in its truth and rejoice in its
utterance, but more because I learn that it has been wrested from its
place to cover the Popular Tyranny, misnamed Popular Sovereignty, which
Mr. Thayer so ardently vindicates.
How strange that words which hail the Angel of Human Liberation,
with Liberty and Equality in her glorious train, should be invoked in
support of a wicked tyranny, which, in the name of Popular Sovereignty,
makes merchandise of our fellow-man! Face to face against this wretched
pretension I put the true Popular Sovereignty, with Liberty and
Equality for all, guarded and surrounded by the impassable limitation
of Right, which is the god Terminus, never to be overthrown. Within
these great precincts there can be no Slavery, nor can there be any
denial of Equal Rights. How, then, can any man, in the name of Popular
Sovereignty, vote another to be a slave? How, then, can any man, in
this name, assert property in his fellow-man? By what excuse, with what
reason, on what argument can any such thing be done, without first
denying all that is true and sacred? Liberty, which is the active
principle of Popular Sovereignty,--Equality, which is twin sister
of Liberty,--and Justice, which sets bounds to all that men do on
earth,--these are the irresistible enemies of Slavery, each and all
of which must be trampled out by any rule under which man can be made
a slave. But these, each and all, constitute that Popular Sovereignty
which is the glory of our institutions. Anything else calling itself by
this great name is a mockery and a sham, fit only for hissing and scorn.
The Declaration of Independence gave dignity to our Revolutionary
contest, and made it a landmark of human progress. Here, at last,
the rights of man were proclaimed, and a government was organized in
subjection to the sovereign rule of Right. The people, while lifting
themselves to the duties of sovereignty, bowed before that overruling
sovereignty whose seat is the bosom of God. Such an example became
at once a guide to mankind. It was copied in France, under the lead
of Lafayette; and there is no people struggling for Right in either
hemisphere who have not felt its inspiration. And yet this Declaration,
standing highest among the historic landmarks of our country, is now
assailed and dishonored.
It is assailed and dishonored, first, by denial of these natural
rights which it so gloriously declares. This is done often with a
jeer. Forgetful that these rights were divinely established at the
very Creation, when God said, “Let us make man in our image,” and
then again in the Gospel, when it was said, “God hath made of one
blood all nations of men,”--forgetful that these rights are stamped
by Nature on all who wear the human form,--forgetful also that they
belong to those self-evident truths, sometimes called axioms, which are
universal in their application, as the axiom in arithmetic that two
and two make four, and the axiom in geometry that a straight line is
the shortest distance between two points,--forgetful of the true glory
of our country, these primal truths are sometimes scouted as “absurd,”
sometimes as “splendid generalities,” and sometimes as a “self-evident
lie.” This assault, though proceeding from various voices, originated
with Mr. Calhoun. He is its first author.
And now, secondly, the Declaration is assailed and dishonored by the
claim, that men, in the exercise of sovereignty derived from the
Declaration, may set up on an auction-block their fellow-men, if to
them it seems fit, and that this power is an incident of Popular
Sovereignty. This pretension, first put forth by General Cass, in 1847,
when a Presidential candidate,[28] and now revived by Mr. Douglas, who
peddles it throughout the country, is also practically adopted by Mr.
Thayer, as part of his peculiar Territorial policy. Such a pretension
is hardly less degrading to the Declaration than the open mockery of
its primal truths by Mr. Calhoun. The latter, as is well known, denied
the sovereignty of the people in the Territories, but he agreed, heart
and soul, in the pretension that the right to enslave a fellow-man is
an incident of sovereignty, wherever it exists.
Thus do these two assaults upon the Declaration practically proceed
from one source. In their essential ideas they are _Calhounism_.
On the other side is arrayed a name illustrious for various public
service, and for unsurpassed championship of Freedom: I mean John
Quincy Adams. Entering the House of Representatives after a long life,
at home and abroad, as Senator, as Minister, as Secretary of State,
and finally as President, he added to all these titles by the ability
and constancy with which he upheld the Rights of Man. Mr. Calhoun was
at this time in the Senate; but Mr. Adams incessantly met all his
assumptions for Slavery,--exposing its hateful character, insisting
upon its _prohibition_ in the Territories, and especially vindicating
the Declaration of Independence. Never has the recent pretension, in
the name of Popular Sovereignty, been more completely anticipated and
exposed. And now, that this argument may not stand entirely upon my
words, I quote from him. Says John Quincy Adams, in his oration on the
Fourth of July, 1831, at Quincy:--
“Unlimited power belongs not to the nature of man, and rotten
will be the foundation of every government leaning upon such
a maxim for its support.… The pretence of an absolute,
irresistible, despotic power existing in every government
_somewhere_ is incompatible with the first principle of natural
right.… The _sovereignty_ which would arrogate to itself
absolute, unlimited power must appeal for its sanction to those
illustrious expounders of Human Rights, Pharaoh of Egypt and
Herod the Great of Judea.”[29]
In another passage of the same oration, the patriot statesman says, in
words which answer a portion of Mr. Thayer’s arguments:--
“It has sometimes been objected to the Declaration, that it
deals too much in abstractions. But this was its characteristic
excellence; for upon those abstractions hinged the justice
of the cause. Without them our Revolution would have been
but successful rebellion. Right, truth, justice are all
abstractions. The Divinity that stirs within the soul of man
is abstraction. The Creator of the universe is a spirit, and
all spiritual nature is abstraction. Happy would it be, could
we answer with equal confidence another objection, not to the
Declaration, but to the consistency of the people by whom it
was proclaimed!”[30]
These same views were enforced again by Mr. Adams in his oration at
Newburyport, July 4, 1837. There he uses words which reveal the limits
of Popular Sovereignty. Thus he speaks:--
“The sovereign authority conferred upon the people of the
Colonies by the Declaration of Independence could not dispense
them, nor any individual citizen of them, from the fulfilment
of all their moral obligations.… The people who assumed their
equal and separate station among the powers of the earth,
by the laws of Nature’s God, by that very act acknowledged
themselves bound to the observance of those laws, _and could
neither exercise nor confer any power inconsistent with
them_.”[31]
Then alluding to the self-imposed restraints upon the sovereignty which
was established, our teacher says:--
“The Declaration acknowledged a rule of _Right_ paramount
to the power of independent states itself, and virtually
disclaimed all power to do _Wrong_. This was a novelty in the
moral philosophy of nations, and it is the essential point
of difference between the system of government announced in
the Declaration of Independence and those systems which had
until then prevailed among men.… It was an experiment upon
the heart of man. All the legislators of the human race until
that day had laid the foundations of all government among men
in _Power_; and hence it was that in the maxims of theory, as
well as in the practice of nations, sovereignty was held to
be unlimited and illimitable. The Declaration of Independence
proclaimed another law, … a law of _Right_, binding upon
nations as well as individuals, upon sovereigns as well as upon
subjects.… In assuming the attributes of _sovereign power_,
the Colonists appealed to the Supreme Judge of the world for
the rectitude of their intentions, and neither claimed nor
conferred authority to do anything but _of Right_.”[32]
Such is the irresistible testimony of John Quincy Adams. On the other
side are arrayed John C. Calhoun, Stephen A. Douglas, and Eli Thayer.
Choose you between these two sides.
* * * * *
Enough, perhaps, has been said. But I shall not leave this question
merely on reason and high authority, decisive as they may be. I appeal,
further, to the practice of the National Government, which from the
beginning has sanctioned the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories.
The pretension of Popular Sovereignty is altogether a modern invention,
unknown to our fathers.
The positive Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories was proposed
in the Continental Congress by Mr. Jefferson, as early as 1784. Thus
did the hand which drew the Declaration of Independence first assert
the practical application of its principles within the jurisdiction of
Congress; and here the Popular Sovereignty of the Declaration receives
most instructive illustration. Although the proposition had in its
favor a majority of all the delegates then present, and also a majority
of all the States then present, yet, under the rules of the Continental
Congress, it failed for the moment. But there is no evidence that
anybody questioned the power of Congress, or claimed Sovereignty for
any handful of squatters.
The following year, in the absence of Mr. Jefferson, the Prohibition
was proposed by Rufus King, a delegate from Massachusetts. It
was afterwards embodied by Nathan Dane, another delegate from
Massachusetts, in the Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest
Territory; and finally, on the 13th of July, 1787, a day ever memorable
in the annals of Human Freedom, it was carried with only one vote in
the negative, and became the corner-stone of those imperial States
destined to exercise such controlling influence in our history. Thus
early did our Commonwealth, through its faithful Representatives,
insist upon Prohibition by Congress. This was before the National
Constitution.
The Ordinance thus adopted by the Continental Congress was affirmed in
August, 1789, by the first Congress that sat under the Constitution, in
a law which bears the signature of George Washington. In pursuance of
its provisions, Ohio was admitted into the Union, 19th February, 1803;
Indiana, 11th December, 1816; Illinois, 3d December, 1818; Michigan,
26th January, 1837; and Wisconsin, 29th May, 1848. In the various Acts
of Congress preparatory to the admission of these States, the validity
of the Ordinance was recognized to the fullest extent. Meanwhile the
same principle was applied in the Missouri Compromise, under which
Slavery was prohibited by Congress in all the territory west of the
Mississippi and north of 36° 30´; also in the organization of Iowa as
a Territory, 12th June, 1838, and especially of Oregon as a Territory,
14th August, 1848. Thus from the beginning has this power been affirmed
by successive Congresses and by successive Presidents, from George
Washington to James K. Polk. It is impossible to present any principle
in our history sustained by a line of precedents so imposing.
The necessity of this Prohibition, as a safeguard to the Territories,
is apparent from well-attested occurrences. The people of the Territory
of Indiana, embracing the larger part of the whole of the Northwestern
Territory, in 1802, then again in 1805, then again in 1807, and at
other times also, with the pertinacity which marks all struggles for
Slavery, petitioned Congress to suspend the Prohibition, so as to
allow the introduction of slaves, if the squatters should desire it.
To the honor of Congress, their petitions were rejected; but they
are memorable from a brief report adverse to their passage by John
Randolph, of Virginia. Here it is, bearing date 2d March, 1803.
“That the rapid population of the State of Ohio sufficiently
evinces, in the opinion of your Committee, that the labor of
slaves is not necessary to promote the growth and settlement
of colonies in that region. That this labor, demonstrably
the dearest of any, can only be employed to advantage in
the cultivation of products more valuable than any known to
that quarter of the United States. That the Committee deem
it _highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision
wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of
the Northwestern country_, and to give strength and security
to that extensive frontier. _In the salutary operation of
this sagacious and benevolent restraint_ it is believed that
the inhabitants of Indiana will at no very distant day find
ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and of
emigration.”[33]
With these benignant and most suggestive words of an eminent
Slave-Master Congress happily concurred, and the Prohibition was
confirmed. Had the modern pretension of Popular Sovereignty then
prevailed, the States of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin,
instead of becoming the smiling home of Free Labor, would be suffering
from the blight of Slavery,--instead of joining in triumphant vote for
Lincoln, they would, like their neighbor, Missouri, be linked with the
Slave States in support of Breckinridge, or Bell, or Douglas, and would
constitute part of that Slave Power under whose tyranny the country has
so long suffered.
The advantage of the Prohibition is as clear as its necessity. I do
not dwell on the comparison between Free States and Slave States,
between free labor and slave labor, between the social system fostered
by Freedom and the social system engendered by Slavery, between
the civilization of the one and the barbarism of the other; but I
call attention simply to two States, covering nearly the same spaces
of latitude, resembling each other in soil, climate, and natural
productions, lying side by side, and organized at about the same
time,--Illinois, thanks to the Prohibition, a Free State, and Missouri
cursed with more than one hundred thousand slaves. Look at the
statistics of these two States, if you would know the contrast which
day by day magnifies the Prohibition.
And yet, in the face of all this experience, showing, first, the
necessity of Prohibition as a safeguard to the Territories, and,
secondly, its immeasurable advantages, you are now called to abandon
the early policy of the Republic, to turn your back upon this policy as
irrational and unwise, and to adopt a new pretension, with a plausible
name, which, in the only instance where it has been tried, produced
discord, strife, and blood. You are called to give up the old Aladdin’s
Lamp of magical power, filling the land with infinite treasures and the
true nobility of Freedom, and to take in exchange a new patent article
now hawked about the streets of Worcester.
If this recent pretension, in the name of Popular Sovereignty, were
merely an idea and nothing more, coined in the brain of an ingenious
theorist, but not pressed persistently at all times into practical
application, it might be left with kindred errors to pass away quietly
into the limbo of things lost on earth, as described by Milton:--
“then reliques, beads,
Indulgences, dispenses, pardons, bulls,
The sport of winds.”
But unhappily this is not the case.
Such a pretension, espoused with ardor, as a practical rule, must
naturally exercise a disturbing influence. You have not forgotten
its influence on General Cass, who, yielding to it, violated the
instructions of his State and voted against the Prohibition. You all
know its influence on Mr. Douglas. In the name of this pretension he
overturned the time-honored Prohibition of Slavery in the Missouri
Territory, and delivered over Kansas to a conflict where fraud, rapine,
and murder stalked with impunity. Afterward, in the name of this
pretension, he sought to arrest all action by Congress for the relief
of the settlers there. And ever since he has made this pretension a
plain “dodge,” in order to avoid the urgent question: Are you for
Freedom, or are you for Slavery? on which every citizen ought to say
plainly, “Yea” or “Nay.”
It has not been the lot of your Representative to play a part so
conspicuous as that of Mr. Douglas. But this pretension has changed his
course hardly less than it has varied the course of the Presidential
candidate, driving him into acts which only his large ingenuity in
“making the worse appear the better reason” can save from an outburst
of universal and indignant condemnation. And now, as I touch briefly on
these acts, let me say that I do it most reluctantly, most painfully,
and only in obedience to the absolute exigencies of this discussion,
that you may truly understand the character of the pretension on which
you are to pass judgment at the polls.
Surely its _disturbing influence_ is manifest in his vote on the Bill
to annul the Slave Code of New Mexico, under which not only slavery of
blacks, but also serfdom of whites is recognized, while laborers of
all kinds are subjected to be cuffed, flogged, beaten, or otherwise
punished by their employers, without any redress at law. The blood
freezes at the idea of such a code extant in a Territory within the
jurisdiction of Congress. And yet, on the ayes and noes upon declaring
this code null and void, Mr. Thayer’s name is recorded “no,” with
the ninety Proslavery Democrats and Americans, against ninety-seven
Republicans; and thus you, fellow-citizens of Worcester, whose
Representative he then was, have been made parties to an odious crime.
I use plain language; for only in this way can that atrocious code be
characterized, which in itself is the paragon and _ne plus ultra_ of
cold-blooded, scientific, and most cruel tyranny.
Surely its _disturbing influence_ is again manifest in his vote on
the Bill to abolish Polygamy in the vast Territory of Utah, where
Brigham Young with his forty wives repeats the scandal of a Turkish
harem within the jurisdiction of Congress. On the ayes and noes, Mr.
Thayer’s name is found in the small minority of sixty noes, composed
of _ultraists_ of Proslavery, against one hundred and forty-nine ayes;
and you, fellow-citizens of Worcester, whose Representative he then
was, have been made parties to the sanction of Polygamy. It is natural
that the partisans of Slavery, which nullifies the relation of husband
and wife, should be indifferent to this disgusting offence; but nothing
short of a most potent disturbing influence could have brought your
Representative to a similar indifference.
Surely its _disturbing influence_ is again manifest in his course
on the Territorial Bills reported by Mr. Grow from the Committee on
Territories, for the organization of the five Territories of Idaho,
Nevada, Arizona, Dakota, and Chippewa, all of which were tabled by
the vote of Mr. Thayer, and all but one on his motion. Afterward,
in debate, he boasted that he “had taken the lead in this business
of killing off these Territorial organizations, which go upon the
assumption that the people in a Territory are infants,”[34] thus
setting up this disturbing pretension as his apology, and claiming for
squatters a tyrannical power.
Surely its _disturbing influence_ is again manifest in his perversion
of unquestionable facts of history with regard to the operation of the
Ordinance for the Government of the Northwestern Territory, saying
that Freedom was secured in that Territory through Popular Sovereignty
and not through the Ordinance; whereas history shows, by unimpeachable
evidence, that this great work was accomplished through the Ordinance.
Read the able speech of the Republican candidate, Mr. Bailey, if you
would appreciate the extent of this perversion.
Surely its _disturbing influence_ is again manifest in the language by
which he allows himself to disparage that great cause, so dear to the
people of Worcester, which first brought him into public life: saying
that the principle of Prohibition, introduced by Jefferson, approved by
the Fathers, and now amply vindicated by its fruits, is a “humbug”; and
then again saying, “I think the Slave Question is altogether too small
a question to disturb so great a people as inhabit the United States
of America”: thus confessing insensibility to the grandeur of that
question now overshadowing all other questions, which it is the first
duty of a statesman in our country to understand and to appreciate.
Surely its _disturbing influence_ is again manifest in the tone and
manner which he has adopted toward the Antislavery cause, and its
supporters in Congress, as will be seen by all who read his speeches
there. Let the good people of this district know these things, and say
if they are ready to join in such contumely.
And, lastly, the _disturbing influence_ is manifest in his setting
himself up as an independent candidate for Congress, against the
Republican party, whose Presidential candidate he professes to support.
It will be for you to determine, whether a candidate, under this
_disturbing influence_, thus repeatedly manifest in signal acts, can
adequately represent the active, conscientious, Freedom-loving citizens
of Worcester, who oppose Slavery by something more practical than a
theory. I do not doubt his integrity; nor do I utter one word against
his personal character. I speak of him only as a public man, open to
criticism for public acts; and I speak solemnly and sincerely, for the
sake of the cause which I have at heart. Honest men with a false theory
are sometimes as dangerous as bad men. I would not liken Mr. Thayer to
Benedict Arnold; but there is a letter of the latter, immediately after
his defection, addressed to Washington, which your Representative might
adopt. Here it is.
“ON BOARD THE VULTURE, 25 September, 1780.
“SIR,--The heart which is conscious of its own rectitude
cannot attempt to palliate a step which the world may censure
as wrong. I have ever acted from a principle of love to my
country, since the commencement of the present unhappy contest
between Great Britain and the Colonies. The same principle of
love to my country actuates my present conduct, however it may
appear inconsistent to the world, who very seldom judge right
of any man’s actions.”[35]
The difference between the two cases is obvious. One is flat treason:
the other is flat delusion. One is a crime which history can never
pardon: the other is a mistake over which history will drop a tear.
* * * * *
Fellow-Republicans, you are about to choose Abraham Lincoln President.
Of his election there is no reasonable doubt. Under his auspices the
National Government will be brought back to the original policy of
the Fathers, which placed Slavery, so far at least as it is outside
the States, within the jurisdiction of Congress. It was for his
fidelity to this principle, vindicating it against the pretension
of Popular Sovereignty, in his long debate with Mr. Douglas, and
openly declaring, that, “if he were in Congress, and a vote should
come up on a question whether Slavery should be prohibited in a new
Territory, he would vote that it should, in spite of the Dred Scott
decision,”[36]--on this account it was that Mr. Lincoln was eligible as
the Republican candidate. But it is not enough to make him President.
You must see that he is sustained in this fundamental principle by
your Representative in Congress. And since his election is now beyond
question, the vote for a Representative true to this principle becomes
more important than a vote for him. Little good will you do in voting
for him, if at the same time you vote for a Representative pledged to
defeat his declared policy.
Vote, then, so as to vindicate the declared policy of your candidate
for the Presidency.
Vote so as to vindicate the Declaration of Independence, which is
dishonored by being made the authority for a false pretension in the
name of Popular Sovereignty.
Vote so as to vindicate the early policy of the Fathers, who organized
the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories.
Vote so as to vindicate the early policy of Massachusetts, who, in the
Continental Congress, immediately after the Revolution, first by the
voice of Rufus King, and then by the voice of Nathan Dane, insisted
upon the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories.
Vote so as to vindicate those sentiments and principles of the County
of Worcester, “heart of the Commonwealth,” always so constantly and
honorably maintained.
Vote so as to vindicate the Antislavery cause in its necessity,
practicability, and dignity, and so as to confound its enemies, now
banding together against it, under the lead of Mr. Thayer.
Vote so as to vindicate the existence of the Republican party, which,
if the theory of Mr. Thayer be true, should at once be disbanded.
Vote, finally, so as to settle peacefully this great question, by
taking it away from the chance and peril of conflict, and committing it
to the calm judgment of Congress.
It is vain to say that Slavery cannot exist in the Territories under
the Constitution, and therefore legislation is superfluous. It is there
in fact, and that is enough. It must be struck at once by Congress.
St. Patrick banished snakes from Ireland; but that is no reason why
the woman should not bruise the head of one found there. It is vain to
say, as has been said, that the slaves are few,--amounting to fourteen
only in New Mexico; for human rights, whether in a vast multitude or a
solitary individual, are entitled to equal and unhesitating support.
In this spirit the ancient lawgiver nobly declared that to be the best
government “where an injury to a single citizen is resented as an
injury to the whole state.” It is vain to say that the prohibition by
Congress is superfluous in the present state of opinion; for nothing
is clearer than the remark of Lafayette, that principles strong in
themselves take new force, when solemnly recognized by all in the form
of law. It is vain to say that Freedom is more powerful than Slavery,
and therefore may be safely left face to face with its antagonist. In
the progress of civilization, law has superseded the ordeal by battle;
and law must now supersede this conflict. It is vain to say that the
Territories are protected in any form, whether by the Constitution,
public opinion, or the inherent strength of Freedom. No possible
safeguard should be abandoned. Let there be double locks, double bolts,
and double gates. No lock, no bolt, and no gate should be neglected by
which Slavery may be fastened out. And, lastly, if Popular Sovereignty
is invoked, let it be the Popular Sovereignty of the American people,
counted by millions and assembled in Congress, rather than the
tyrannical, irresponsible sovereignty of a handful of squatters.
* * * * *
Fellow-citizens, in taking leave of this question, I bear my testimony
again to the abilities of Mr. Thayer, and to his active labors in
times past. For the good that he has done I honor him; let it all be
enrolled for his benefit. But not on this account can I accept him now
as a representative of our cause. It is an ancient story, consecrated
by the undying verse of Homer, that a ship, with all its canvas spread,
was suddenly changed into a rock at the very mouth of a frequented
harbor; and thus the instrument of commerce became an impediment to
commerce:--
“Fixèd forever, a memorial stone,
Which still may seem to sail, and _seem_ alone.”[37]
A similar wonder is now repeated before our eyes, making the former
instrument of Freedom an impediment to Freedom. Deplore this accident
we must; but the remedy is happily within our power.