SPEECH AT THE STATE CONVENTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AT WORCESTER,
AUGUST 29, 1860.
This Convention was organized by the choice of the following
officers:--
President,--George S. Boutwell of Groton.
Vice-Presidents,--At large,--Alfred Macy of Nantucket, Robert
T. Davis of Fall River, Ezra W. Taft of Dedham, George Morey
of Boston, Samuel Hooper of Boston, Charles W. Upham of Salem,
P. J. Stone of Charlestown, B. C. Sargent of Lowell, Ebenezer
Torrey of Fitchburg, Joel Hayden of Williamsburg, W. B. C.
Pearsons of Holyoke; Suffolk,--Charles Torrey of Boston;
Essex,--Henry K. Oliver of Lawrence; Middlesex,--Charles Hudson
of Lexington; Worcester,--P. Emory Aldrich of Worcester;
Norfolk,--James Ritchie of Roxbury; Bristol,--Samuel O.
Dunbar of Taunton; Hampden,--E. B. Gillette of Westfield;
Hampshire,--William Hyde of Ware; Franklin,--William
B. Washburn of Greenfield; Berkshire,--Walter Laflin
of Pittsfield; Plymouth,--Levi Reed of Abington;
Barnstable,--James Gifford of Provincetown; Nantucket,--Edward
Field of Nantucket; Dukes,--John Vinson of Edgartown.
Secretaries,--George W. McLellan of Cambridge, Andrew Tower of
Malden, Philip Cook of Provincetown, A. B. Underwood of Newton,
W. C. Sheldon of Ware, W. W. Clapp, Jr., of Boston, Charles H.
Spring of Holyoke, Franklin Williams of Roxbury, J. J. Piper
of Fitchburg, Edmund Anthony of New Bedford, Thomas G. Kent of
Milford, Edwin B. George of Groveland, W. S. George of Adams,
J. A. Alden of East Bridgewater, S. S. Eastman of Greenfield,
W. A. Brabiner of Brighton.
At this Convention John A. Andrew was for the first time
nominated as Governor.
The Convention had more than its annual importance, as it was
on the eve of a Presidential election. Abraham Lincoln, of
Illinois, and Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine, were the Republican
candidates for President and Vice-President; John C.
Breckinridge, of Kentucky, and Joseph Lane, of Oregon, the
Democratic candidates; Stephen H. Douglas, of Illinois, and
Herschell V. Johnson, of Georgia, the candidates of a seceding
body of Democrats, known as the Douglas party; John Bell, of
Tennessee, and Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, candidates of
old Whigs, called at the time the Bell-Everett party.
On motion of J. D. Baldwin, of Worcester, afterwards
Representative in Congress, Mr. Sumner was invited to address
the Convention. The report says:--
“Mr. Sumner then came forward, and his appearance upon
the platform was hailed with enthusiastic shouts,
which testified the esteem and admiration in which the
distinguished Senator is held by his fellow-Republicans of
the Commonwealth. The cheering was continued some minutes,
and when it had subsided, Mr. Sumner proceeded to address
the crowded assembly,--the vast hall being filled to
overflowing.”
MR. PRESIDENT,--It is now six years since I had the honor of meeting my
Republican fellow-citizens of Massachusetts in State Convention, drawn
together from all parts of our beloved Commonwealth,--and then also,
I remember well, it was at this good city of Worcester. Returning, at
last, with restored health, to the activities of public life, I am
happy again in this opportunity. It is pleasant to look into the faces
of friends, and to feel the sympathy of kindred hearts.
Nor can I disguise the satisfaction which I find at being here in
Worcester,--early and constant home of the Republican cause. When other
places, even in Massachusetts, were indifferent for Freedom, Worcester
was earnest; and when the cause was defeated in other counties,
here, under the lead of an eminent citizen, now the ornament of the
bench,[168] it triumphed by brilliant majorities; so that Worcester
became known, not only throughout Massachusetts, but everywhere,
throughout the country, as our impregnable stronghold. Long since,
while America was yet an unsettled wilderness, an English poet depicted
a county of our motherland as
“That shire which we _the heart of England_ well may call”;[169]
and this ancient verse furnishes a descriptive phrase which has been
aptly applied to our Worcester, “the heart,” as it is the central
county, of the Commonwealth. But though truly belonging to Worcester
on this account, I have always been glad to believe that it only
justly depicted her as the “heart” of our cause,--here at least in
Massachusetts.
* * * * *
If this cause were of common political interest, if it turned only
on some question of mere policy, or if it involved simply the honors
and emoluments of office, I should willingly leave the contest to
others. It would have little attraction for me. But it is far above
these things. It concerns the permanent well-being, primarily, of all
the outlying territories of the Republic, broad enough for empires,
now menaced by Slavery; and since one part of the body cannot suffer
without all being affected, it concerns the permanent well-being
and also the good name of the whole country, clouded by the growing
influence of Slavery. Nor is this all. The special motive for the
proposed extension of Slavery is to fortify the Slave Power in the
Senate of the United States, and, through the assured preponderance of
this Power there, to control the National Government in legislation,
diplomacy, and the distribution of office, so that, in short, no
law can be passed, no treaty can be ratified, and no individual,
though possessing all possible fitness for public service, can be
confirmed for office of any kind, without the consent of the Slave
Power,--thus, through the Senate, controlling the Judiciary itself.
Seeking, therefore, by active measures,--I say active and immediate
measures,--to save the Territories, you seek also to save the whole
country, not only from a deadly influence, but also from a degrading
rule, which ostracizes from office all who avow the early opinions of
the Fathers.
Such is our cause, nakedly stated, without illustration or argument.
Strange that it is not recognized at once by every patriot heart!
Strange that we should be compelled to vindicate it, sometimes against
open foes, and sometimes--harder still--against others who betray it
with a kiss!
* * * * *
In the coming election this cause has its representative in Abraham
Lincoln. And why has he been selected? Not solely because he is a
popular favorite in the great Northwest,--of blameless life, of
unimpeachable integrity, of acknowledged abilities, and of practical
talent, all of which are unquestionable recommendations, shared,
however, by many others,--but because he had made himself the
determined champion of the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories,
stating the case with knowledge, with moderation, and yet with
firmness,--avowing openly his hatred of Slavery,--likening its
introduction in the Territories now to the Canada thistle, which a few
may plant to the detriment of succeeding generations, and then again to
snakes deposited in the cradle of an infant,--and especially exposing
the dishonest invention of “Squatter Sovereignty,” which would despoil
Congress of all power over this subject, and transfer it to the distant
handful of first settlers.
On two different occasions his views have been put forth and
developed,--first, in elaborate controversy with Mr. Douglas in
Illinois, and, secondly, in his well-known speech at the Cooper
Institute, New York. He does not need my praise; nor would I step aside
from my argument to praise anybody; but I may fitly call attention
to this masterly address, which, in careful research, clearness of
statement, and directness of purpose, may well compare with any one of
the innumerable speeches ever made concerning the power of Congress
over the Territories. On the topic it professes to treat it is a
monograph. Perhaps it is not too much to say that the effort was needed
in establishing his title to that public confidence which made him our
candidate. It is for the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories that
he has labored, and, excepting his brief, but honorable, experience in
Congress, his public life may be summed up in this single service,--nor
more nor less. The magnitude of the service may be measured by his
present position as representative of our cause.
* * * * *
Arrayed in opposition are three other candidates for the
Presidency,--Bell, Breckinridge, and Douglas,--I mention them in
alphabetical order,--differing superficially among themselves, but
all concurring in friendship for Slavery and in withstanding its
prohibition anywhere, with followers ready, in warfare against the
Republican party, to coalesce or fuse with each other. In this
readiness you see the common antagonism. No person in the Republican
party can think of coalition or fusion with either of these three
parties; for they each and all represent in some form resistance to the
Prohibition of Slavery, and therefore must be opposed, each and all.
The whole trio are no better than Mrs. Malaprop’s idea of Cerberus,
“three gentlemen at once,” and must be encountered together.
* * * * *
Looking at them separately, there is, first, the Bell party. Pardon
me, if I use names familiarly: it is but for the sake of convenience.
This party, known among us only by its boasts, draws its practical
support from the Slave States. It is a Proslavery party,--essentially
hostile to the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, and dealing
always in treacherous generalities, which, if they have any meaning,
mean Slavery,--exalting the Constitution, as Slave-Masters understand
it,--also exalting the Union, in order to gain credit for “saving”
it,--and calling for the enforcement of the laws, meaning the
enforcement of the only Act of Congress which Slave-Masters specially
recognize, that for the surrender of fugitive slaves. Your indulgence
would hardly excuse me, if I occupied time in argument against this
combination, which, without declaring a single principle, without any
chance of a majority in the electoral colleges, and without any hope
of a single electoral vote in the Free States, runs for luck,--which,
with only a single possible vote in the House of Representatives, where
it seeks, for a revolutionary purpose, to transfer the election, again
proposes to run for luck.
Its plan, so far as known, is this. You will remember, that, by the
Constitution of the United States, in the event of failure to elect
by the people, the House of Representatives is empowered to choose
a President out of the three highest candidates for that office,
and the Senate to choose a Vice-President out of the two highest
candidates for that office. Now, assuming, first, that the Republican
candidate will not be elected by the people, which you know to be a
very wild assumption,--and, secondly, assuming that there will be no
election of President by the House,--this party, turning next to the
Vice-Presidency, assumes, thirdly, that Mr. Everett will be one of
the two highest candidates for the Vice-Presidency, and, fourthly,
that Mr. Everett will be elected by the Senate Vice-President, and
then will become President, like John Tyler and Millard Fillmore,--not
through the death of a President, but through a double failure by the
people and by the House. Such is the calculation by which this band of
professed Conservatives seek repose for the country. Permit me to say
that it is equalled only by the extravagance of Mrs. Toodles, in the
farce. Her passion was auctions, where she purchased ancient articles
of furniture under the idea that they might some day be useful. Once,
to the amazement of her husband, she brought home a brass door-plate
with the name of Thompson spelled with a p. “But what is this for?”
he demanded. “Why,” said Mrs. Toodles, with logic worthy of the Bell
party, “though we have been married many years without children, it
is possible, my dear, that we may have a child, that child may be a
daughter, and may live to the age of maturity, and she _may_ marry
a man of the name of Thompson spelled with a p. Then how handy it
will be to have this door-plate in the house!” I doubt if any person
really familiar with affairs can consider this nomination for the
Vice-Presidency of more practical value than Mrs. Toodles’s brass
door-plate, with the name of Thompson spelled with a p, picked up at an
auction. But then, in a certain most difficult contingency at the end
of a long line of contingencies, how handy it must be to have it in the
house!
* * * * *
In speaking of the Breckinridge party, I confess myself at the
outset perplexed between abhorrence of its dogma and respect for its
frankness. No plausible generality is put forward, as by the Bell
party, under which good and evil may alike find shelter; nor is any
plausible invention announced, as in the case of yet another party,
under which the real issue is avoided. But the insufferable claim,
first made by Mr. Calhoun, is unequivocally promulgated, that under
the Constitution the master may at all times carry his slaves into
the Territories, and neither Congress nor Territorial Legislature can
prohibit the outrage. This at least is plain. There is something even
in criminal boldness which we are disposed to admire. We like an open
foe, who scorns to hide in deceit, and meets us in daylight. But we do
not like a foe who dodges and hides so that we cannot find him. Nor
do we like a man who gives us only something counterfeit in exchange
for our votes. We do not like the double-faced prevaricator, who
cozens both sides, and deals in words “that palter in a double sense.”
It is praise to be frank, even on a bad side; and I have no reason
to question this merit of the Breckinridge party. And yet this very
frankness reveals an insensibility to reason and humanity, which, when
recognized, must add to our abhorrence. That men calling themselves
Christians, calling themselves Americans, in this nineteenth century,
should without a blush assert such a dogma may well excite our wonder.
Fully to appreciate this dogma, you must know and feel what Slavery
is. And here I content myself simply with reminding you of what
elsewhere I have demonstrated, that Slavery, as defined by existing
law, is a _five-headed_ Barbarism, composed of five different wrongs,
each of which you must indignantly reject: first, the impudent claim
of property in man; secondly, the gross mockery of the marriage-tie;
thirdly, the absolute nullification of the parental relation; fourthly,
the denial of instruction; and, fifthly, the robbery of another’s
labor, and of all its fruits: that this whole five-headed Barbarism,
sustained by existing law, and enforced by the lash, is simply _to
compel labor without wages_; and that to this end all great rights of
freedom, marriage, family, instruction, and property are trampled down.
This is Slavery. Turn it over, look at it as you will, such it is, and
such it must be seen to be by every honest mind.
“To those who know thee not no words can paint,
And those who know thee know all words are faint.”
Believe me, fellow-citizens, I do not present this outline willingly.
Gladly would I drop a veil over the revolting features. But when
audacious claims are made for Slavery, and you are told by one
candidate that it travels with the Constitution into new Territories,
and then by another candidate that the handful of first settlers can
alone deal with it in the Territories, while Congress sits powerless,
it becomes your duty to consider precisely what Slavery is, to study
it in the law from which it derives its character, and to follow it
also in all its effects. Here is the essential and vital part of the
argument, even on the question of Constitutional Law. It is only when
this is done that we can see how irrational is every effort to give it
constitutional force, or to save it from the action of Congress within
the national jurisdiction.
According to the claim now made, Slavery exists under the Constitution
everywhere outside the States,--in other words, Slavery is National;
whereas just the contrary is true. Everywhere outside the States
Freedom must prevail; in other words, Freedom is National. Yes,
Freedom is National, and Slavery Sectional. Read the Constitution,
and tell me if it be not so. Surely, if a pretension so peculiar as
that now set up could be found there, it would be plain to all, so
that no man could question it. Like the Decalogue, it would be in
positive language: “Thou shalt enslave thy brother man.” It would be
left to no doubtful phrase or ambiguous words, but would stand forth
in appalling certainty, a “darkness visible.” It would be stuck up,
like Gessler’s hat in the marketplace, so that all could see it. But
nothing is clearer than that in this well-considered instrument there
is not one clause or word which maintains property in man, not one
clause or word on which any such pretension can be founded. Wherever
there is any imagined reference to slaves, it is at most only to their
possible existence in States, “under the laws thereof”; and then their
designation as “persons” shows, that, whatever may be their condition
in the States, the Constitution does not regard them as “property.”
Thank God, the Constitution does not contain the idea that man can be
the property of man. It was the declared purpose of Mr. Madison to
exclude this idea. So completely has this been done, that it is among
boasts often made, that a stranger in a distant country or a future
age, reading our Constitution, and having no other record of our
history, would not know that any human being had ever been claimed as
“property” within the limits of the Republic. The text, at least, of
the Constitution is blameless. If men find Slavery there, it is only
because they make the Constitution reflect their own souls.
And yet this pretension is now the shibboleth of a great political
party; this is its single inspiration; this is its only principle;
this is all its stock in trade; this is its very “breath of life.” To
this base use has Democracy come. In voting for Mr. Breckinridge, you
declare, first, that man can have property in his fellow-man, and,
secondly, that such property is recognized by the Constitution of the
United States. The soul recoils from both. But even if the first be
true,--which I utterly deny,--it does not follow that such property is
sanctioned in the Constitution.
* * * * *
Last in order of alphabet is the Douglas party, whose single cry
is “Popular Sovereignty”; last also in character,--for who can
respect what we know to be a deceit? The statesman founds himself on
principles; sometimes it is his office to frame expedients; but Popular
Sovereignty, as now put forward, is not a principle,--oh, no! not
even an expedient; it is nothing but a device, a pretext, an evasion,
a dodge, a trick, in order to avoid the commanding question, whether
Slavery shall be prohibited in the Territories. That is all.
All hail to Popular Sovereignty in its true glory! This is the grand
principle, first announced in the Declaration of Independence, which
is destined to regenerate the world. It is embodied in those famous
words, adopted by the Republican Convention at Chicago, that among
the unalienable rights of all men 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_.” These are sacred words, full of life-giving
energy. Not simply national independence was here proclaimed, but
also the primal rights of all mankind. Then and there appeared
the Angel of Human Liberation, speaking and acting at once with
heaven-born strength,--breaking bolts, unloosing bonds, and opening
prison-doors,--always ranging on its mighty errand, wherever there
are any, no matter of what country or race, who struggle for rights
denied,--now cheering Garibaldi at Naples, as it had cheered Washington
in the snows of Valley Forge,--and especially visiting all who are
down-trodden, whispering that there is none so poor as to be without
rights which every man is bound to respect.
“The affrighted gods confessed their awful lord;
_They dropped the fetters_, trembled, and adored.”[170]
None so degraded as to be beneath its beneficent reach, none so lofty
as to be above its restraining power; while before it Despotism and
Oligarchy fall on their faces, like the image of Dagon, and the people
everywhere begin to govern themselves. Such is the Popular Sovereignty
proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence.
But the Great Declaration, not content with announcing certain rights
as unalienable, and therefore beyond the control of any government,
still further, restrains the sovereignty, which it asserts, by
simply declaring that the United States have “full power to do all
acts and things which independent states may OF RIGHT do.” Here is
a well-defined limitation upon Popular Sovereignty. The dogma of
Tory lawyers and pamphleteers--put forward to sustain the claim of
Parliamentary omnipotence, and vehemently espoused by Dr. Johnson in
his “Taxation no Tyranny”--was, openly, that _sovereignty_ is in its
nature _illimitable_, precisely as is now loosely professed by Mr.
Douglas for his handful of squatters. But this dogma is distinctly
discarded in the Declaration, and it is frankly proclaimed that all
_sovereignty_ is subordinate to the rule of _Right_. Mark, now, the
difference. All existing governments at that time, even the local
governments of the Colonies, stood on _Power_, without limitation.
Here was a new government, which, taking its place among the nations,
announced that it stood only on _Right_, and claimed no sovereignty
inconsistent with _Right_. Such, again, is the Popular Sovereignty of
the Declaration of Independence.
And yet this transcendent principle is now degraded into a “dodge,”
and the sacred name of Popular Sovereignty is prostituted to cover
the claim of a master over his slave. It is urged that a handful of
squatters may rightfully decide this claim, and the time-honored
traditional power of Congress over Slavery in the Territories is denied
or voted down. To protect this “villany,” as John Wesley would call it,
the right of the people to govern themselves is invoked,--forgetful
that this divine right can give no authority to enslave others, that
even the people are not omnipotent, and that never do they rise so high
as when, recognizing the everlasting laws of Right, they bend to the
behests of Justice.
Though bearing the name of Mr. Douglas, and now peddled through the
country by him, this contrivance is not of his invention. It comes from
an older head. It first showed itself in the Nicholson Letter of 1847,
by which General Cass, as Presidential candidate, sought to avoid the
Wilmot Proviso. Laborious, studious, exemplary in private life, and
fertile in pretexts, this venerable character has afforded the formula
by which men have voted for Slavery, while making professions for
Freedom. He is author of the artifice--rejected by every Slave-Master,
and rejected by every lover of Freedom, whose eyes are open--which,
under the nickname of Squatter Sovereignty, has been the device of
doughfaces, enabling them sometimes to deceive the public and sometimes
even to deceive themselves. Owing to the peculiar condition of opinion
at that time, not yet stiffened against the compromise of Human Rights,
his very vacillation put him in harmony with the public, and gave him
a commanding position. Once for the Wilmot Proviso, which asserted
the power of Congress over the Territories, and then for a pretended
Popular Sovereignty, which denied this power, he became the pendulum
between Freedom and Slavery, and, thus swinging, imparted motion to a
sham Democracy.
The device next showed itself on the passage of the Kansas and Nebraska
Bill; and here it became a trick, as appears by open confession of one
of the parties to it,--and a trick it has continued ever since. It
was proposed to repeal the old Prohibition of Slavery in the Missouri
Territory, established as part of the Missouri Compromise. But instead
of doing this openly and precisely, by simple words of repeal, language
was invented to mystify the whole question. Then appeared that “little
stump speech injected in the belly of the bill,” according to Colonel
Benton, declaring that the intent was to leave the people “perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,
subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” As in the gray
of the morning the fatal bill containing these words passed, General
Cass, rising from his seat,--I remember well the scene,--exclaimed,
“This is the triumph of Squatter Sovereignty!” The old Prohibition of
Slavery was overthrown, and his Nicholson Letter was vindicated.
And now note well the trick. The Slave-Masters who voted for these
words rejected with scorn the idea that the handful of squatters could
exclude Slavery. According to them, Slavery went with the Constitution,
and was beyond the control of squatters. But formal assertion of this
dogma would have caused trouble, and it was accordingly disguised in
these familiar words,--“subject only to the Constitution of the United
States.” Mr. Benjamin, of Louisiana, in a recent speech, lets us behind
the scenes. He tells, that, at a caucus of Senators, “both wings of the
Democracy agreed that each should maintain its particular theory before
the public,--one side sustaining Squatter Sovereignty, and the other
Protection to Slavery in the Territories, but pledging themselves to
abide by the decision of the Supreme Court, whatever it might be.” Such
was the secret conspiracy, concealed for a long time from the public,
and only recently revealed. And Mr. Douglas was a party to it.
Had the Popular Sovereignty of Mr. Douglas been a reality and not a
sham, had it been a sincere recognition of popular rights instead of a
trick to avoid their recognition, he could not have been party to such
deception. But how was the fact? While professing Popular Sovereignty,
what did his bill really confer upon the people? Not the right to
organize their own government, determining for themselves its form and
character; for all this was done by Act of Congress. Not the right to
choose the Executive; for the Governor and all other officers in this
department were sent from Washington, nominated by the President. Not
the right to nominate the Judiciary; for the judges were also sent from
Washington, nominated by the President. Not even the right completely
to constitute the Legislature; for even this body was placed in many
important respects beyond the popular control. Thus in each of the
three great departments of State, Executive, Judicial, and Legislative,
is Popular Sovereignty disowned.
Search the “Congressional Globe” during the Nebraska debate, and you
will see with what sincerity Mr. Douglas guarded the much vaunted
rights of the people. Mr. Chase moved to allow the people to elect
their Governor and other officers. On the vote by ayes and noes, the
champion of Popular Sovereignty voted _No_. Mr. Chase, whose effort to
unmask this hypocrisy was indefatigable, made another motion, which
put Mr. Douglas still more to the test. After the words of alleged
Popular Sovereignty in the bill, he moved to add, “under which the
people of the Territory, through their appropriate representatives,
may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of Slavery therein.” Here
was a plain proposition. On the vote by ayes and noes, Mr. Douglas and
his associates again voted _No_. His recent excuse, put forth in his
single peripatetic speech, is, that the proposition was not in the
alternate,--that is, that it gave power only to exclude, and not to
admit. But if he really favored it in that form, why not move to amend
it by adding the power to admit, instead of voting against the whole
proposition? It is clear that such an open and unequivocal declaration
was not congenial with the game to be played.
The bill passed, and then came other opportunities to test the
sincerity of the present knight-errant of Popular Sovereignty. Under
its provisions commenced at once a race of emigration into the new
Territories, and there Free Labor and Slave Labor grappled. Lovers of
Freedom from the North were encountered by partisans of Slavery from
the South, organized by Blue Lodges in Missouri, and incited from every
part of the Land of Slavery. The officials of a government established
under pretended safeguards of Popular Sovereignty all ranged themselves
on the side of Slavery; or, if their allegiance became doubtful,--as in
the case of Governor Reeder,--they were dismissed, and more available
tools sent instead. I spare details. You cannot forget that winter
and spring preceding the Presidential election of 1856, when we were
alternately startled and stunned at tidings from Kansas, as a body of
strangers from Missouri, entering in hundreds, forcibly seized the
polls, and, under pretended forms of law, set up a Usurpation, which
by positive legislation proceeded to establish Slavery there, and to
surround it with a Code of Death. The atrocity of Philip the Second,
when, by violence and through a “Council of Blood,” he sought to fasten
the Inquisition upon Holland, was renewed. Invasion, rapine, outrage,
arson, rape, murder, the scalping-knife, were the agents now employed;
and to crown this prostration of popular rights, Lawrence, home of New
England settlers, and microcosm of New England life, was burned to the
ground by a company of profane and drunken ruffians stimulated from
Washington.
What then was the course of the champion of Popular Sovereignty? Did he
thunder and lighten? Did he come forward to defend those settlers, who
had gone to Kansas under pretended safeguards of his bill? Oh, no! In
the Senate he openly ranged himself on the side of their oppressors,
mocked at their calamities, denounced them as “insurgents,” insulted
their agents, and told them they must submit,--while the distant
Emigrant Aid Society in Massachusetts was made the butt of his most
opprobrious assaults. All this I myself witnessed.
Then came another scene, with which, owing to my enforced absence from
the Senate, as an invalid, I have less personal familiarity; but it
is known to all of you. The Senatorial election in Illinois was at
hand, when Mr. Douglas suddenly discovered that Popular Sovereignty
was something more than a name. He opposed the Lecompton Constitution;
but my distinguished colleague [Mr. WILSON] will tell you that even
there he was kept from barefaced apostasy only by the stern will and
indomitable principle of the lamented Broderick, the murdered Senator
from California.
Then came stump speeches and Senate speeches without number, and a
magazine article, all to explain Popular Sovereignty. But this simple
principle, which, in the light of the Declaration of Independence, and
also in the light of reason, is plain enough, has been so twisted,
turned, and befogged, now explained away and then explained back, now
enlarged and then limited, now acknowledged and then denied, that I
challenge any person to say with certainty in what, according to Mr.
Douglas, it really consists.
At one time we find him declaring that “Slavery is the creature of
local law, and not of the Constitution of the United States.” Good! Let
him follow this to its natural conclusion, and no Republican asks more.
Then, at New Orleans, after his election to the Senate was secured,
he says: “The Democracy of Illinois accept the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott as an
authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with
that decision, we hold that slaves are property, and hence on an
equality with all other kinds of property, and that the owner of a
slave has the same right to move into a Territory and carry his slave
property with him as the owner of any other property has to go there
and carry his property.” Here is the extreme dogma of Slavery in
full feather. Let him follow this to its natural conclusion, and no
Breckinridge man could ask more.
At another time we find him declaring that “sovereign States have
the right to make their own constitutions and establish their own
governments, but that he has never claimed these powers for the
Territories, nor has he ever failed to resist such claims, when set
up by others.” How, then, under this theory, can Popular Sovereignty
have any foothold in the Territories? It is clear that all Territorial
legislation against Slavery must be invalid.
And then again, in another place, by roundabout language, he admits,
that, according to the Dred Scott decision, which he declares that
he “approves,” the people of a Territory cannot, by any legislation,
confiscate slave property, or impair the “Constitutional right” of the
master to this property in the Territory. With this limitation, pray,
where, again, is Popular Sovereignty?
But elsewhere, as if to furnish something for the other side, he
intimates a policy of inaction by the Territorial Legislature with
regard to Slavery, and asks, “Would not the _inaction_ of the local
Legislature, its refusal to provide a _Slave Code_, or to punish
offences against that species of property, exclude Slavery just as
effectually as a Constitutional prohibition?” And here is an end of the
matter.
Changing forms as often as Proteus, we yet find him admitting, first,
that Slavery goes into the Territories under the Constitution;
secondly, that the right of property in a slave cannot be destroyed
by the Territorial Legislature; and all that this Legislature can do,
by way of opposition, is to fold its hands and to seal its tongue in
inaction. What, then, is this wonderful doctrine? So far as it means
anything, it is simply this: that the people of a Territory have a
right to _introduce_ Slavery, but not to _prohibit_ it. And such is
Popular Sovereignty! Verily, between this and the Breckinridge dogma
there is about the same difference as between the much-vexed doctrines
of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, where there was only the
difference of a single syllable, and both involved the same thing.
Nor is even this all. The Convention at Baltimore which nominated
Mr. Douglas has declared by formal resolution, that “the measure of
restriction, whatever it may be, imposed by the Federal Constitution
on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the subject of
the domestic relations, as the same has been or shall hereafter be
finally determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, should
be respected by all good citizens, and _enforced with promptness and
fidelity by every branch of the General Government_.” And Mr. Douglas,
in accepting his nomination, has expressly recognized this doctrine,
thus in advance delivering over his bantling Popular Sovereignty to the
tender mercies of the Supreme Court.
Far different is the position of Mr. Lincoln, who has openly said, in
his debate with Mr. Douglas, “If I were in Congress, and a vote should
come up on a question whether Slavery should be prohibited in a new
Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it
should. That is what I would do.”[171] And allow me to add, that this
doctrine of Mr. Lincoln is the doctrine of the Republican party. Any
doctrine short of this betrays the trick of Mr. Douglas.
The tree is known by its fruits, and if anything further were needed
to expose this cheat of Popular Sovereignty, it might be found in
its fruits as boasted by Mr. Douglas. A slave code most revolting
in character had been adopted by the Territorial Legislature of New
Mexico, not only establishing Slavery there, including the serfdom of
whites, but prohibiting Emancipation. Through the generous activity
of the Republicans, and in the exercise of a just Congressional
intervention, a bill passed the House of Representatives annulling this
slave code. While the bill was on the table of the Senate, attesting
at once the disposition of the House of Representatives to interfere
against Slavery, and also the signal necessity of such interference,
Mr. Douglas took occasion to make his boasts. Surrounded by the chiefs
of Proslavery Democracy, the juggler of Popular Sovereignty thus showed
what the trick had done for Slavery. Here are his words:--
“It is part of the history of the country, that, under this
doctrine of Non-Intervention, this doctrine that you delight
to call Squatter Sovereignty, the people of New Mexico
have introduced and protected Slavery in the whole of that
Territory. _Under this doctrine, they have converted a tract
of Free Territory into Slave Territory more than five times
the size of the State of New York._ Under this doctrine,
_Slavery has been extended from the Rio Grande to the Gulf of
California_, and from the line of the Republic of Mexico, not
only up to 36° 30´, but up to 38°, _giving you a degree and a
half more Slave Territory than you ever claimed_.”[172]
As the tree is known by its fruits, so also is the man known by the
company he keeps. At first associated with Mr. Douglas on the same
ticket, as candidate for the Vice-Presidency, was Mr. Fitzpatrick, of
Alabama, belonging to the school of Slave Propagandists, and fresh
from voting in the Senate against Popular Sovereignty; and when he
declined, his place was supplied by Mr. Johnson, of Georgia, also
belonging to the school of Slave Propagandists, who from the beginning
has denounced Popular Sovereignty, and insisted that “it is the right
of the South to demand, and the duty of Congress to extend, protection
to Slavery in the Territories during the Territorial state,” and who,
at Philadelphia, in a public speech, did not hesitate to insult the
mechanics and working-men of the country by the insolent declaration
that “Capital should own Labor.” Such is the associate of Mr. Douglas,
with whom he is so united as candidate that you cannot vote for
one without voting for the other. One of his earnest supporters in
the Convention at Baltimore, Mr. Gaulden, of Georgia, pressed the
opening of the slave-trade with Africa on the very grounds of Popular
Sovereignty and Non-Intervention. After declaring, that, “if it be
right to go to Virginia and buy a negro and pay two thousand dollars
for him, it is equally right to go to Africa, where we can get them
for fifty dollars,” he said, that, “if the Southern men had the
spunk and spirit to come right up and face the North, he believed
the Northern Democracy, at least, would come to the true doctrine of
Popular Sovereignty and Non-Intervention.” This barbarous utterance was
received by the Douglas Convention with “applause and laughter.” Such
are the men with whom this candidate is associated.
If you follow Mr. Douglas in his various speeches, you cannot fail
to be shocked by the heartlessness of his language. Never in history
has any public man insulted human nature so boldly. At the North he
announces himself as “always for the white man against the nigger,”
but at the South he is “for the nigger against the alligator.” It
was natural that such a man, who thus mocked at a portion of God’s
creation made in the Divine image, should say, “Vote Slavery up or vote
it down,”--as if the idea of voting it up were not impious and never
to be endured. Beyond all doubt, no majority can be permitted to vote
that fellow-men shall be bought and sold like cattle. The pretension
is preposterous, aggravated by knowledge on his part that under his
device the settlers could only vote Slavery up, and that they were not
allowed to vote it down. But this speech attests a brazen insensibility
to Human Rights. Not so spoke the Fathers of the Republic, who would
not let us miss an opportunity to vote Slavery down. Not so spoke
Washington, who declared that to the abolition of Slavery “his suffrage
should never be wanting.” Such is the whole political philosophy of
this Presidential candidate. A man thus indifferent to the rights of
a whole race is naturally indifferent to other things which make for
justice and peace.
Again he cries out, that the Slavery agitation is in the way of public
business, and that it must be removed from Congress. But who has thrust
it there so incessantly as himself? Nay, who so largely as himself
has been the occasion of its appearance? His complaint illustrates
anew the old fable. It was the wolf above that troubled the waters,
and not the lamb below. It is the Slave Propagandists--among whom
the champion of Popular Sovereignty must find a place--who, from the
Missouri Compromise in 1820, through all the different stages of
discussion, down to the shutting out of Kansas as a Free State at the
recent session, have rendered it impossible to avoid the exciting
subject. By dishonest, audacious theories of Slavery, both morally and
constitutionally, they have aroused a natural opposition, and put all
who truly love their country on the defensive. Yes, it is in defence
of the Constitution perverted, of reason insulted, and of humanity
disowned, that we are obliged to speak out.
* * * * *
True, the country needs repose;--but it is the repose of Liberty,
and not the repose of Despotism. And, believe me, that glad day can
never come, until the mad assumptions for Slavery are all rejected,
and the Government is once more brought back to the spirit of the
founders. It was clearly understood at the beginning that Congress
could not touch Slavery in the States; and this is the doctrine of
the Republican party now. But it was also clearly understood at the
beginning that Slavery everywhere else was within the jurisdiction of
Congress; and this also is the doctrine of the Republican party now.
With the practical acceptance of these two correlative principles the
Slavery Question will cease to agitate Congress and to divide political
parties. Transferred to the more tranquil domain of morals, religion,
economy, and philanthropy, it must continue to occupy the attention of
the good and the humane; but it will cease to be the stumbling-block of
politicians. Not until then is it permitted us to expect that Sabbath
of repose so much longed for.
* * * * *
The first stage in securing for our country the repose which all
covet will be the election of Abraham Lincoln as President, and the
election of that well-tried, faithful, and able Senator,--whom I know
well,--Hannibal Hamlin, as Vice-President. I do not dwell on all that
will then follow,--homesteads for actual settlers, improvement of
rivers and harbors, economy and purity in the National Administration,
increased means of communication, postal and commercial, with the
establishment of a Pacific Railroad; nor do I dwell on the extirpation
of the direful African slave-trade, now thriving anew under our
national flag,--nor on our relations with foreign countries, destined
to assume that character of moderation and firmness which becomes
a great republic, neither menacing the weak nor stooping to the
proud, and, while sympathizing with generous endeavors for Freedom
everywhere, avoiding all complicity with schemes of lawless violence.
Ask the eminent Boston merchant, Mr. Clark, whose avocation makes
him know so well the conduct of our Government with Hayti, if there
is not need of change in our course toward a humble people, in order
to save ourselves from the charge of national meanness, if not of
national injustice? But it is by this election that you will especially
vindicate the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, even in the
face of the Dred Scott decision, and fling your indignant answer at
once at the Proslavery non-committalism of Bell, the Proslavery dogma
of Breckinridge, and the Proslavery dodge of Douglas.
All this can be done, nay, will be done. But let me not beguile you.
The ancient price of Liberty was vigilance; and this price has not
diminished of late years, especially when surrounded by men accustomed
to power and stimulated by rage. Already the news has reached us of
combinations to consolidate the Opposition,--as we read that of old
two inveterate parties among the Jews were reconciled. “The same day,”
writes the sacred historian, “Pilate and Herod were made friends
together; for before they were at enmity between themselves.” This
example is too kindred not to be adopted. Already, also, we hear of
devices at a distance, and even near at home, to distract our friends,
by producing distrust either of our principles or of our candidate.
At one time it is said that the principle of Prohibition is a
mistake,--and then again, by natural consequence, that our candidate is
not sufficiently moderate.
Fellow-citizens, hearken not to any of these things. Keep the
Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories as the fixed and irreversible
purpose of your hearts, and insist that it shall be established by
Congress; for without Congress it may not be established. Old Cato
procured a decree of the Roman Senate that no king should ever enter
Rome, saying that “a king is a carnivorous animal.” A similar decree
must be adopted by Congress against an animal more carnivorous than
king. In upholding this paramount necessity, I utter nothing new.
During the debate on the Nebraska Bill, my eminent colleague at that
time in the Senate, Mr. Everett, now candidate for the Vice-Presidency,
while approving the Prohibition, allowed himself to disparage its
importance. With the convictions which are mine, I felt it my duty to
reply, kindly, but most strenuously. After exhibiting the efficacy of
the Prohibition, I said:--
“Surely this cannot be treated lightly. But I am unwilling
to measure the exigency of the Prohibition by the number of
persons, whether many or few, whom it may protect. Human
rights, whether in a multitude or the solitary individual, are
entitled to equal and unhesitating support. In this spirit,
the flag of our country only recently became the impenetrable
panoply of a homeless wanderer who claimed its protection in a
distant sea; and, in this spirit, I am constrained to declare
that there is no place accessible to human avarice or human
lust or human force, whether the lowest valley or the loftiest
mountain-top, whether the broad flower-spangled prairies or
the snowy caps of the Rocky Mountains, where the Prohibition
of Slavery, like the Commandments of the Decalogue, should not
go.”[173]
And these words, uttered more than six years ago, are still of vital,
practical force. The example of Delaware shows how little Slavery it
takes to make a Slave State, giving two votes to the ascendency of
the Slave Power in the Senate. Be wakeful, then, and do not disparage
that enemy which for sixty years has ruled the Republic. “That man is
dangerous,” exclaimed the Athenian orator, “who does not see danger in
Philip.” And I now say, that man is dangerous who does not see danger
in the Slave Power.
When God created man in his own image, and saw that his work was good,
he did not destine his creature for endless ages to labor without
wages, compelled by the lash. Such degradation we seek to arrest by
careful measures under the Constitution. And this is the cause of
which your candidate is the generous and noble representative. Stand
by him. Let not fidelity to those principles which give dignity and
glory to Massachusetts, and to our common country, be an argument
against him. From the malignity of enemies, from the vacillation of
timeservers, and from the weakness of friends shield him by your votes.
Make him strong to commence the great work by which the Declaration of
Independence shall become a living letter, and the ways of Providence
shall be justified to men.
“If yet ye are not lost to common sense,
Assist your patriot in your own defence;
That stupid cant, ‘He went too far,’ despise,
And know that to be brave is to be wise.”[174]