pages upon which are written its holiest guaranties, and with the
other, it seeks to erase from our nation's flag fifteen of the
stars which help to compose the pride and hope and joy of every
American. It would, in pursuit of its miserable and accursed
abstractions, array man against man, brother against brother, and
State against State, until it covered our fair land with anarchy
and blood, and filled it with mourning and lamentation; until
every field should be a field of battle, every hill-side drenched
in blood, every plain a Golgotha, every valley a valley of dry
bones; until fire should blast every field, consume every
dwelling, destroy every temple, and leave every town black with
ashes and desolation; until this fiendish spirit, compounding all
the elements of fury and horror, would sweep over this fair and
fertile portion of God's heritage, like the infuriated Hyder Ali
on the Carnatic, leaving it one everlasting monument of barbarous
vengeance."
In anticipation of the acquisition of territory from Mexico, on
account of the Mexican war, the famous Wilmot proviso passed the House
of Representatives at the heel of the session in 1846. As an antidote
for the proviso, Mr. Dickinson introduced the following resolves into
the Senate, Dec. 14, 1847:
"_Resolved_, That true policy requires the Government of the
United States to strengthen its political and commercial relations
upon this continent by the annexation of such contiguous territory
as may conduce to that end, and can be justly obtained; and that
neither in such acquisition nor in the territorial organization
thereof, can any conditions be constitutionally imposed, or
institutions be provided for or established, inconsistent with the
right of the people thereof, to form a free, sovereign State, with
the powers and privileges of the original members of the
confederacy.
"_Resolved_, That, in organizing a territorial government for
territory belonging to the United States, the principles of
self-government upon which our federative system rests will be
best promoted, the true spirit and meaning of the Constitution be
observed, and the Confederacy strengthened, by leaving all
questions concerning the domestic policy therein to the
legislatures chosen by the people thereof."
In a speech of power, delivered in the Senate Jan. 15, 1848, he tried
to demonstrate the correctness of the principle of these resolves.
From this, the first speech made during the slavery controversy in
favor of congressional non-intervention with slavery in the
territories, we make the following extracts:
"The Republican theory teaches that sovereignty resides with the
people of a State, and not with its political organization; and
the Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of the
people to alter or abolish and reconstruct their government.
If sovereignty resides with the people and not with the
organization, it rests as well with the people of a territory, in
all that concerns their internal condition, as with the people of
an organized State. And if it is the right of the people, by
virtue of their innate sovereignty, to 'alter or abolish,' and
reconstruct their government, it is the right of the inhabitants
of territories, by virtue of the same attribute, in all that
appertains to their domestic concerns, to fashion one suited to
their condition. And it, in this respect, a form of government
is proposed to them by the Federal Government, and adopted or
acquiesced in by them, they may afterward alter or abolish it at
pleasure. Although the government of a territory has not the same
sovereign power as the government of a State in its political
relations, the people of a territory have, in all that appertains
to their internal condition, the same sovereign rights as the
people of a State....
"That system of government, whether temporary or permanent,
whether applied to States, provinces, or territories, is radically
wrong, and has within itself all the elements of monarchical
oppression, which permits the representatives of one community to
legislate for the domestic regulation of another to which they are
not responsible, which practically allows New York and
Massachusetts, and other Atlantic States, to give local laws to
the people of Oregon, Minnesota and Nebraska, to whom and whose
interests, wishes and condition, they are strangers."
The following extracts from a campaign speech in 1856, of Mr.
Dickinson, will give the reader some idea of his wit and power before
an out-door audience. He is speaking of the Pennsylvania election:
"In Pennsylvania every ill-omened bird in the nation had gathered
and croaked. Every device that those bent on evil could conceive
had been resorted to. Money had been spent with a lavish hand. All
this had been done in order to induce the people of that State to
favor the doctrines of the so-called Republican party. How well
had she stood the test in the last great fight! There, fanaticism
had been rebuked, hypocrisy had been unmasked, and villainy
discomfited. The Democratic candidates had been placed in the
field, and that being the home of Mr. Buchanan, the Republicans
had strained every nerve to defeat him there. But how gallantly
had old Pennsylvania come up to the work--how glorious the result!
How had they tried and judged that party--that political
mermaid--half-colored woman and half-scaly fish! The result
reminded him of a conference between Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Smith.
Mrs. Jones, calling on Mrs. Smith, said, 'Why, haven't you
finished your washing yet?' To which Mrs. Smith replied, 'Oh! no,
dear, we have a very great washing; it takes us a whole week to do
our washing, and I don't think we can get it done in a week!'
'But, said Mrs. Jones, 'you haven't a _great_ many clothes-lines,
and they are not _very_ long, and you don't seem to hang out any
more clothes than other people! 'Oh, no,' replied Mrs. Smith; 'but
then you know what we hang out is a very small portion of what we
wash.' So it was with the Republicans of Pennsylvania. What they
hung out on election day was in miserable proportion to the amount
of washing they had done. Proceeding, he said that the Democrats
had hung out their banners--their principles were those of the
Constitution, and their candidates were upon them. The
Republicans, on the contrary, had but few principles, and scarcely
any candidates. The Democratic candidates represented the
principles of the Democratic party. And now of the general issue
between the parties.
"What a spectacle! A slavery more base and abject than any African
slavery that was ever dreamed of; an enslavement of white men, in
order that their leaders may war against their brethren. How they
would make up their dividend of profits he could not see. Their
case would be similar to that of the man who thought he was going
to get a great deal of money by his wife. She had often told him
that when her father died, she would have considerable coming to
her. Well, the old man died, and it turned out that he had left
$9,000 and ten children. The husband tried to figure it up. He
said, 10 from 9 you can't. He tried it again and said, 10 from 9
you can't. Turning to his wife, and greatly perplexed, he said,
'you told me that when the old man died, you would have something
coming to you.' His wife replied that she had--that she had always
understood her father had $9,000. 'So he has,' says the husband;
'but then he's got ten children--and 10 from 9 you can't. We won't
get a d----d cent.' So it would be with the Republicans. They had
resorted to political huckstering, such as had never before been
heard of. They had run through every issue, and had talked
thread-bare every principle. Kansas was now their great hobby.
They said they did not care so much about other issues. But
Kansas--bleeding Kansas, absorbed their very souls. Kansas was to
them what ale was to Boniface--it was meat, drink, washing and
lodging. Now, though Kansas was an important section of the
country, he did not think that it was worth while to upset the
Government, whether slavery went there or not. The Democracy were
willing to leave that question entirely with the people of that
country. They had no fear from slavery there, even if it had all
the evils pictured by the fanatics. New York could have slavery if
it wished, so could all the other States, and all the Democracy
wanted was that the people should do as they liked in the
question, whether slavery should be there or no.
"In any event, slavery was not so bad or so baneful in its
influences as the trickery that had been resorted to in
Pennsylvania, and by the so-called Republicans. But, Kansas,
bleeding Kansas, they cry continually. Why, they had run poor,
bleeding Kansas until it was as dry as a turnip. It was to them
what the lamp was to Aladdin. When he wanted to raise the wind, he
rubbed his lamp, and when the Republicans wanted blood, they cried
'bleeding Kansas.' Kansas, to them, was like the Yankee's clock,
that would strike whenever he told it to do so. But one day he
told it to strike, and it didn't; he told it again, but still no
strike. Finally, a voice was heard from behind the clock, saying,
'I can't strike--the string's broke.' To this pass has it come at
length with the Republicans and their poor 'bleeding Kansas! When
they call for blood, the answer comes, 'The string's broke.'"
In a territorial speech in the United States Senate, January 12, 1848,
Mr. Dickinson said:
"Our form of government is admirably adapted to extend empire.
Founded in the virtue and intelligence of the people, and deriving
its just powers from the consent of the governed, its influences
are as powerful for good at the remotest limits as at the
political centre.
"We are unlike all communities which have gone before us, and
illustrations drawn from comparing us with them, are unjust and
erroneous. The social order which characterizes our system is as
unlike the military republics of other times, as is the religion
of the Saviour of men to the impositions of Mahomet. Our system
wins by its justice, while theirs sought to terrify by its power.
Our territorial boundary may span the continent, our population be
quadrupled, and the number of our States be doubled, without
inconvenience or danger. Every member of the Confederacy would
well sustain itself and contribute its influences for the general
good; every pillar would stand erect, and impart strength and
beauty to the edifice. In matters of national legislation, a
numerous population, extended territory, and diversified
interests, would tend to reform abuses which would otherwise
remain unredressed, to preserve the rights of the States, and to
bring back the course of legislation from the centralism to which
it is hastening. One-half the legislation now brought before
Congress would be left undone, as it should be; a large portion of
the residue would be presented to the consideration of State
legislatures, and Congress would be enabled to dispose of all
matters within the scope of its legitimate functions without
inconvenience or delay.
"The present political relations of this continent cannot long
continue, and it becomes this nation to be prepared for the change
which awaits it. If the subjects of the British crown shall
consent to be ruled through all time by a distant cabinet, Mexico
cannot long exist under the misrule of marauders and their
pronunciamentos, and this was as clearly apparent before as since
the existence of the war. If then, just acquisition is the true
policy of this Government, as it clearly is, it should be pursued
by a steady and unyielding purpose, and characterized by the
sternest principles of national justice. It should not rashly
anticipate the great results which are in progress, nor thrust
aside the fruits when they are produced and presented. The
national existence of Mexico is in her own keeping, but is more
endangered at this time by her own imbecility and
stubbornness--her national ignorance and brutality--than from the
war we are prosecuting and all its consequences. She has been
hastening to ruin for years upon the flood-tide of profligacy and
corruption; and if she is now rescued, and her downfall arrested
and postponed for a season, it may justly be attributed to the
salutary influences of the chastisement she has received."
These general ideas upon the subject of territorial acquisition will
indicate Mr. Dickinson's views upon the Cuban and Mexican questions of
to-day.
JOHN BELL.
John Bell is a man of the old school in politics, an ancient southern
Whig, who has preserved his whiggery intact, and has not been
swallowed up in the Democratic party, but has rather sympathized to a
great extent with the party in the North which has taken the place of
the old Whig organization--the Republican party. Coming from a slave
State, and himself a slaveholder, of course Mr. Bell does not belong
to the Republican organization. He could not well do so without
occupying an anti-slavery attitude in Tennessee. But he has acted in
concert with the Republicans on most issues in Congress, and upon many
of the issues which slavery has raised, he has taken sides with the
North. In this manner he has gained the respect of his colleagues who
go further than he does in opposition to slavery.
John Bell is an honest, upright man, and has been for years one of the
ablest members of the U.S. Senate. He has evinced the highest courage
in taking his stand against measures which were either proposed by
politicians from his own section of the country, or were expected to
inure to the benefit of that section. He came out boldly against the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the Kansas-Nebraska act,
although in doing so he exposed himself at home, among his
constituents, to the raking fire of his political enemies. He also
opposed with great eloquence and vigor the Lecompton bill. For a
southern senator to do these things requires pluck as well as
principle, and we may be sure that John Bell lacks neither. His
enemies will give him credit for both.
In his personal appearance in the Senate, Mr. Bell is noticeable.
Though his hair is grey, the fire of his eye is undimmed, and the
freshness of his countenance is youthful. Few men in the Senate speak
so vigorously as he. His voice is sonorous and loud, and the energy of
his tone, his style, and his gesticulation remind one of an orator of
thirty. We remember very well how during the Lecompton debate in the
Senate, Mr. Johnson, Bell's Democratic colleague, was replying with
great severity to his speech against the Lecompton bill. A portion of
his remarks were very personal, and must have somewhat irritated the
brave old senator. Johnson was fresh from the stump, and its phrases
and language were so beaten into his mind that he could not shake them
off. So, frequently in the course of his speech in alluding to Mr.
Bell, instead of saying "my colleague," he said "my _competitor_."
This was done several times, when Mr. Bell half-rose in his seat, his
face flushed red with his indignation, and hurled out at his
colleague, "_Competitor! I am not the gentleman's competitor!_" No one
who witnessed the scene will ever forget it. The Senate was convulsed
with laughter.
Mr. Bell was born near Nashville, Tennessee, in February, 1797; his
father being a farmer in moderate circumstances. He--the son--was
educated at what is now Nashville University--afterward studied law,
and was admitted to the bar in 1816. He then settled down in Franklin,
Tennessee, from which place he was elected to the State Senate, in
1817, he then being but twenty years old. During the next nine years
he forsook politics and confined himself to his profession, but in
1826 he ran for Congress, in opposition to Felix Grundy. He had the
support of General Jackson, and triumphed by one thousand majority.
The canvass was long and exciting, and Mr. Bell was justly proud of
his victory. For fourteen consecutive years he remained in the House
of Representatives from this district. When first elected he was a
follower of Calhoun and an opponent of a Protective Tariff. He
afterward, by reading and argument, saw fit to change his position in
this respect, and has long been known as an advocate of the old Whig
tenets--a high tariff, internal improvements, etc. etc. He was for ten
years in the House, chairman of the committee on Indian Affairs, was
once chairman of the Judiciary committee. The breach between himself
and Jackson was on the question of the removal of the deposits, and
the result was that Mr. Bell went over to the Whigs. In 1834, he was
made Speaker of the House of Representatives, his opponent being James
K. Polk. The Whigs and a wing of the Democrats who disliked Van Buren
voted for Mr. Bell, and elected him. Mr. Bell opposed Mr. Van Buren
for removing men from office on account of their politics, and he made
a strong speech in the House against this policy. He refused to
support Van Buren for the presidency and went in for Judge White, who
carried the State of Tennessee. Mr. Bell was afterward reelected to
Congress from the Hermitage district, showing that the people even in
Jackson's district supported him in the position he had taken. It was
at this time that he had the courage to vote _in favor_ of receiving
anti-slavery politicians, when many northern politicians voted to
strike down this right of the people under the most despotic forms of
government. He also voted _against_ Atherton's famous Gag Resolutions.
In 1841, Gen. Harrison made him Secretary of War, but he resigned when
Tyler came into power. He was soon elected to the United States
Senate, where he remained till March 4th, 1859.
Mr. Bell supported the compromise measures of 1850--was opposed to the
annexation of Texas--and, as we have remarked, opposed the
Kansas-Nebraska act and the Lecompton Constitution. He is opposed to
the _taking_ of Cuba or buying it at an extravagant price--opposes all
kinds of filibustering. We make a few extracts from Mr. Bell's great
speech against the Lecompton bill. Upon Popular Sovereignty he thus
expressed himself:
"What is the true doctrine on this subject? I had supposed that
there could be no disagreement as to the true principles connected
with the rights and powers of the people in forming a State
Constitution; but since I have heard the speech of the senator
from Georgia, I do not know what principle he agrees to. I say
that in no disrespect; but I thought he was particularly wild,
shooting _extra flammantia maenia mundi_, on those high points of
doctrine which he, in some parts of his speech, thought proper to
enunciate. Does any person here deny the proposition, that the
people of a territory, in the formation of a State Constitution,
are to that extent--_quoad hoc_--sovereign and uncontrollable,
though still owing obedience to the provisional government of
the territory? Will any senator contend that the territorial
legislature can either give to the people any power over that
subject which they did not possess before, or withhold from them
any which they did possess? The territorial legislature cannot
dictate any one provision of the constitution which the people
think proper to form. Who is prepared to contend that Congress can
do anything more in this respect than a territorial legislature?
It is usual for the territorial legislature, when the people
desire to apply for admission into the Union, in the absence of an
enabling act of Congress, to pass a law providing for the
assembling of a convention to form a State Constitution. But that
is a mere usage, resorted to when Congress has not thought proper
to pass what is called an enabling act. What is an enabling act?
Nothing more than to signify to the people of a territory, that if
they shall think proper to meet in convention and form a State
Constitution, in compliance with certain forms therein prescribed,
to insure a fair expression of the people's will, Congress is
prepared to admit them into the Union as a State.
"But such an act gives no more power to the people over the
subject of a constitution than an act of a territorial
legislature. But, suppose the people, either under an act of the
territorial legislature or of Congress, meet in convention, by
delegates chosen by the people, and form a constitution, what
then? Has it any vitality as a constitution? Does it transform the
territory into a State? Has it any binding force or effect, either
upon individuals or upon the community? Nobody pretends that it
has any such force. It is only after the acceptance of the
constitution, and the admission of the territory into the Union as
a State, that there is any vigor or validity in a constitution so
formed. Before that time, it is worth no more than the parchment
on which its provisions are written, so far as any legal or
constitutional validity is concerned.
"But, upon principle, the people of a territory, without any act
of the territorial legislature, without an enabling act of
Congress, can hold public meetings and elect delegates to meet in
convention for the purpose of forming a constitution; and when
formed, it has all the essential attributes of a valid
constitution, as one formed in any other way. Many senators
contend that it is the inalienable and indefeasible right of the
people of a State at all times to change their constitution in any
manner they think proper. This doctrine I do not admit, in regard
to the people of a State; but, in reference to the formation of a
constitution by the people of a territory, there can be no
question as to the soundness of this doctrine. They can form a
constitution by delegates voluntarily chosen and sent to a
convention, but what is it worth when it is formed? Nothing at
all, until Congress shall accept it and admit the territory into
the Union as a State under that constitution. It is worth no more
in that case than in the case of a constitution formed under a
territorial act or an act of Congress; but it is worth just as
much."
Upon the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the effects which
followed the act, he remarked:
"Four years ago, when it was proposed to repeal the Missouri
Compromise--to adopt the principle of non-intervention, and
concede to the people of the territories the right to settle the
question of slavery in their own way--it was said by the advocates
of the measure, that, as soon as the principles of it came to be
understood, all agitation and discussion upon the subject of
slavery in the territories would be localized--excluded from
Congress--and the country would be left in undisturbed repose. So
boldly and confidently were these views maintained, that the whole
southern delegation in Congress, Whigs and Democrats, with seven
or eight exceptions, together with many Democrats from the free
States, came into the support of the measure. How were these bold
predictions verified? In less than one month of the time during
which the Kansas-Nebraska bill was pending in Congress, nearly the
whole North was in a flame of resentment and opposition. Old men,
of high character and great influence, who had for twenty years
opposed the policy and designs of the Abolition faction in the
North, suddenly became its allies and coadjutors. Thousands of the
best citizens at the North, who had exerted all their energies to
repress all opposition to the execution of the Fugitive Slave law
of 1850, became suddenly converts to Free-Soilism. The religious
feelings of whole communities became frenzied. The pulpit was
converted into an engine of anti-slavery propagandism, and
hundreds of thousands of sober-minded and conservative people at
the North, who had never countenanced sectional strife on the
subject of slavery, evinced that they had thrown off their
conservatism, and were ready to array themselves under the banner
of any party leader or faction, to check the progress of the South
in what they considered its aggressive policy.