35TH CONG.... 1ST SESS.

which does not at present promise to result in any practical advantage to us, I am willing to stand by the guns and fight it out. There is at least one aspect of the question which makes it worth while for the South to press the Kansas bill through, even with the proviso alluded to, though in itself objectionable. It is this: if, even with a universal belief at the North that Kansas will speedily become a free State, and with a clause in the bill of admission intended to be employed at the North as an intimation that Congress does not think that there is any particular difficulty in the way of making it so, Kansas should still be rejected by northern votes, it will at least have the effect of opening the eyes of the southern people to the startling fact that they have no hope in the future of maintaining their equality in the Union. It will compel them to ponder the question whether they will choose subjugation or resistance, colonial vassalage or separate independence.

Mr. Chairman, I am no alarmist. I do not believe that, in this commercial age, in which "the jingling of the guinea helps the hurt which honor feels," revolutions can be lightly effected, or that they are apt to be effected upon merely abstract questions. The provocation to revolution is cumulative. Each step in itself may be a small and sometimes almost imperceptible advance, but it leads on steadily to the end. The concatenation of causes may not always seem to have a logical sequence and connection; but the last, which actually puts in motion the popular will, carries with it a weight and momentum compounded from the whole train which preceded it. The South may not dissolve the Union on the rejection of Kansas; but such rejection would, assuredly, sever still another of the cords-rapidly becoming fewer-which the course of events has been snapping one by one. It is impossible for the most casual observer to have failed to see that the South has been becoming more and more alienated from her ancient attachment to the Union; more and more familiarized with the idea of dissolution; more and more reconciled to the necessity of, perhaps at no distant day, severing the copartnership, and commencing business on her own account. This may be considered a mean and homely mode of expression in alluding to so grave a movement; but it is a practical one, and the American people are preeminently practicalwe of the South not so much so as our brethren of the North, but still sufficiently so to feel that when a Government, so far from advancing the material prosperity of a large proportion of the governed, tends rather to check and retard it; so far from strengthening and maintaining their constitutional rights, is tending steadily to weaken and subvert them, it is then the part of wisdom, as well as true patriotism, to weigh well the advantages and disadvantages of such Government with a view, if necessary, of reconstructing or abolishing it. And the South has been for some time weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the present Confederacy. She has seen the strength and security and dignity which it gave us among the older nations of the world during our infancy as States. She has not been insensible to the sentiment of expanded patriotism which a common heritage of revolutionary glory so naturally inspired. She has cherished a pride in our common flag; and wherever it has waved in sight of a foe, on land or sea, her arm has contributed to its successes, and her blood been shed in its defense. In the halls of national legislation, in the cabinet, in the executive chair, she has illustrated the history of our common country, and contributed in no small measure to develop its resources at home, and advance its dignity and reputation abroad. There is scarcely a bright page in that history on which the names of some of her sons do not stand in living letters of light. The South has been truly and devotedly attached to the Union, but she cannot worship it with blind devotion and superstitious attachment. In its practical operation, the Union has benefited the North at the expense of the South. Heavy protective tariffs have built up the labor of the North, fostered her industry, and furthered the accumulation of immense amounts of capital within her borders. What pecuniary benefit has the South derived from Federal legislation?¦ As a purely agricultural people, her obvious policy is free trade the least restriction possible upon

But I merely glance at this chapter of her grievances. It is not my purpose, nor is this the occasion, to open it up. It has been the theme which has often provoked the ablest legislative ability of her sons, and elicited their most cogent efforts of reasoning, and effective exhibitions of eloquence. South Carolina, through her Calhoun and McDuffie, has put on record many a powerful protest against the iniquitous tariff system which has so long enriched the North at the expense of the South. But the South, though at times restive and impatient, has borne all this; has submitted to an unequal and onerous taxation, which has swelled the Federal Treasury only that its overflow might fall into the lap of the North, (for it cannot be denied that nine tenths of the Federal expenditures have inured to the benefit of the North;) has submitted to see the rich spoils of wealth and place and power elude her grasp, and to behold them clutched by her stronger sisters. But when the question arises whether she will consent to occupy an inferior and degraded position | in the Confederacy; to have a ban set upon her social institutions, which constitute the essential foundations of her prosperity, the very life-blood of her existence; to be excluded from further acquisition of territory, and hemmed within her present limits, while her co-States, already in a preponderance, are rapidly expanding and acquiring supreme and uncontrollable power, she would indeed be wanting in decent self-respect, would exhibit a suicidal apathy, were she not gravely to consider whether she can safely and honorably continue to live under a Government which is being perverted into an engine for her destruction. That the anti-slavery sentiment at the North is yearly increasing, no observant man, it seems to me, can doubt. The Abolition party in the presidential election of 1840 polled 7,000 votes; in 1852 it gave John P. Hale, its candidate, 157,296 votes; in 1856 Frémont received 1,341,812 votes. True, it may be said that all the votes cast for Frémont were not Abolition votes; but they were all undoubtedly votes opposed to any further extension of southern institutions.

But I need not go into any sketch of the progress of the slavery agitation in proof of the fact that the position of the South is becoming more and more critical every year. The northern man who affirms that the opposition to slavery is not deeper, more bitter and intense at this moment than it has ever been at any previous period, is either utterly blind or absolutely dishonest. The southern man who fails to warn his people that the political heavens are full of fearful portents; that the air is heavy with thunder-clouds; and that the mutterings of the coming storm may be distinctly heard, is either asleep upon his post, or a traitor to his section. In view of this condition of things, Mr. Chairman, can anything be more natural than that the South should begin to look about her; to count up her resources; to estimate her strength; to measure her capacity for taking care of herself, and of assuming, if driven out of this Confederacy, an independent position among the nations? Can she be reasonably blamed for doing so? And yet, whenever she looks this last contingency-certainly not an improbable onecalmly and boldly in the face, and begins to discuss it in its great and leading aspects, her ears are forthwith stunned with the cry of "treason!" "treason!" and the august and mighty shade of the Father of his Country is invoked to rebuke such an evidence of disloyalty to this "glorious Union." Sir, Washington, with his great, wise heart, and cautious judgment, and conservative nature, felt no compunctions at throwing off his allegiance to his King, and subverting a Government which oppressed his country. He, like all true patriots, loved his people more dearly-prized more highly their happiness and prosperity-than the mere form of government under which he had been reared, and which he had been taught to revere.

Revolution, sir, as I have elsewhere said in the

course of my remarks, is a serious thing, a terrible thing. But to noble natures there are things more serious and terrible than revolutions. Tyranny and injustice are worse. The slow, undermining process by which the high spirit of a free faith in themselves crushed out, their enterprise checked, their progress paralyzed, is far more appalling to the true statesman and patriot than the temporary, though critical, fever of revolu

tion.

My honored colleague in the Senate [Mr. HAMMOND] has called forth many denunciatory comments upon his noble southern speech, recently delivered in his seat, because he has boldly considered in it the question of southern independence, and contrasted the relative resources and condition of the North and the South, in the event of a separation. Sir, the argument was as unanswerable as it was timely. Such views and considerations must address themselves forcibly to both sections of the Confederacy. They must make practical, reflecting men at the North pause and hesitate before they compel a disruption of a connection, the advantages of which are so greatly on their side. And they must make practical, reflecting men at the South, feel that they have a power and strength within themselves which ought to make them, in very shame, refuse to submit any longer to aggression. I desire to call attention to the following relative statement of the export of the free and slave States, as speaking volumes in itself as to the capacity of the South to stand alone and compete for (what is in this age the pabulam of nations) the commerce of the world. If it is true, as political economists teach us, that the wealth of a people consists in what they furnish to the markets of the world-in other words, the excess of their production over their consumption -then surely the South is rich; and riches again, in this age, are strength.

The total exports of produce and manufactures of the United States for the year ending 30th June, 1857, were $328,985,065. The six New England States (with a population of three millions) exported $30,887,853. The other eight free-labor States (with a population of ten millions) exported $142,963,068. The slave States (with a population of six and a half millions) exported $165,030,558. Of this amount, $131,575,859 is the value of the cotton exported; $20,662,772 the value of the tobacco; and $2,290,400 the value of the rice. These three staples alone amount to $154,429,031, nearly one half of the entire exports of the country. The slave labor produce exported from free ports very largely exceeds the free labor produce exported from slave ports. As an illustration, take the fact that the whole value of western produce, (not all, by the way, the result of free labor,) pork, lard, wheat, flour, corn, &c., exported from New Orleans during the period under consideration, falls short of $9,000,000; while the slave labor produce, in the shape of cotton, tobacco, and rice, exported from New York during the same period, amounts to nearly $13,500,000. Besides, in making such a comparison as we are instituting, we ought to take into consideration the exports from the free-labor ports of articles manufactured from slave-labor products. There was the export of over $6,000,000 manufactured cotton goods; $1,500,000 tobacco and snuff; nearly $270,000 refined sugar; $1,250,000 spirits from molasses; making an aggregate of over $9,000,000 of exports of manufactures dependent solely upon

slave labor.

But, sir, I do not care to dwell on arguments of this kind. They have been often and elaborately set forth by far abler hands than mine. They are important and valuable; but it is not on a question of dollars and cents that the South would dissolve the Union. The history of long weary years of unjust and unequal legislation has sufficiently proved that point. But when it shall be proved to the South not only that the scepter has forever departed from her; that she can never, concurrently with the North, rule the common country, but that she must forever occupy an inferior and subordinate position; that she can never expand, never occupy her just share of the common territory; that her institutions and civilization.are at the mercy of a sectional majority which tolerates them only to the end that her people, as

66

35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

alone.

AN APPEAL TO PATRIOTS.

"hewers of wood and drawers of water," may minister to its prosperity-then, I believe, she will imitate the example of our revolutionary sires, and take her destinies into her own hands. The South is often accused of an over-sensitive-perity, and strength, with an immense territory ness on the subject of slavery-of being morbidly irritable upon it. And, sir, would it be strange if she were so? Is she not perpetually taunted, reviled, sneered at, by hundreds of northern presses, northern pulpits, and northern orators? Is she not held up to ridicule and contempt, to scorn and execration, in every conceivable mode and on every possible occasion? But when a southern man, with a natural, and one would think pardonable, indignation, resents and repels with warmth these unjustifiable attacks, he is requested to 'keep cool;" not to be "excited;" and dubbed "a fire-eater" if he cannot practice the injunction of philosophical equanimity! I come here as a new member, just initiated into public life, and what are some of the first things I hear on this very floor? I hear a man venerable in years, one of the oldest members of this House, one who has sat here year after year, and heard the calumnies against the South exposed and refuted-1 hear him, upon whose hoary head the snows of many winters rest, and which should have softened his asperity and filled his heart with kindness and benevolence-I hear him, a man known to be tottering upon the brink of the grave, denounce his southern brethren with a bitterness and vehemence that seemed almost to be intended as an incentive to servile insurrection, and to fire the midnight torch of the incendiary. He tells us that the slave of the South has no protection; that his owner may scourge him to death with impunity. Sir, he ought to have known that this is not true. It was only this morning that one of my colleagues [Mr. BONHAM] mentioned to me casually in conversation, that he had himself, while State solicitor, convicted two men of the murder of their slaves, for which they had suffered the extreme penalty of the law.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman permit me for a moment?

SPEECH OF HON. A. BURLINGAME,
OF MASSACHUSETTS,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
March 31, 1858.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. BURLINGAME said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: It has been shown, in the great debate which we have had, that the people of Kansas never authorized the Lecompton constitution; that they never made it; that they never ratified it; that it does not reflect their will. It has been shown that the first Legislature was a fraud; that the second was a fraud; that test oaths and gag laws were put upon the people, so that they could not vote; that then they were held responsible for the crimes of those who did; that when they were persuaded to vote, they were cheated; that when nobody voted, returns were made as if from populous regions. It has been shown that the honesty of the officers of the Government, who tried to stay the hand of these frauds, was con

Mr. MILES. If I have misstated the gentle-sidered an offense by the Government. It has man, and he desires to correct me, I will; otherwise, not.

Mr. GIDDINGS. I most respectfully ask the gentleman from South Carolina if he intends to deny the assertion which I made in regard to the safety of slaves? If he does, let him point it out, and I will convict him by their own record.

Mr. MILES. Do I understand the gentleman to say that there is no protection for the slave in the South?

Mr. GIDDINGS. I understood the gentleman to deny the liability of a slave to be slain by his master. If the gentleman does deny that, I ask him to state it definitely.

been shown that the people have been menaced in their property and their lives; that armies were sent there to vote them down, or to shoot them down, and without authority of law. It has appeared that the men who did these things were held dear by the Government, and that they are its officers to-day. It has been shown that, through all this time, that devoted people has held itself in such an attitude as to win not only the respect of the people of the United States, but the respect of the officers of the Government who have been sent, from time to time, to persuade or to subdue them to the policy of the Government.

But, Mr. Chairman, it is not my purpose here to-day to go over the history of Kansas affairs; that has been done, as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. MILES] has just now well said, sufficiently. Every fact has been stated; every

Mr. MILES. I definitely and emphatically deny that with us a master can slay a slave with impunity. The fact I just stated is a complete answer on that point. But, Mr. Chairman, my time has almost expired, and I cannot yield fur-principle has been argued. Day by day we have ther. Besides, sir, nothing that I can say could touch the gentleman's conscience or reach his reason. I was contending, sir, that in this great sectional contest-in this, as I believe, irreconcilable quarrel-it was natural that the South should be sensitive. Her honor is involved; and he who does not feel that the honor of States should be as jealously guarded as that of individuals, shows no more sagacity as a statesman than he exhibits ardor as a patriot. The great dramatist, who sounded all the depths of human nature, gives utterance to a sentiment as wise as it is noble when he makes Hamlet say

urged our cause with all the zeal of men who know they are right. Every fact has been met on the other side by some daring and insolent assumption; every argument with scornful sneers which no man can answer. When we have offered to prove facts, the will of the people of the United States, as reflected by the Representatives upon this floor, has been baffled by parliamentary tactics. Yes, you who belong to the party that went behind the great seal of New Jersey, as my eloquent friend from Indiana [Mr. COLFAX]very truly said, you who go behind the certificates of the Governors of Ohio and Maryland, when the interests of a whole people are at stake and fraud is charged, you say you cannot go behind the record; you say that you are estopped; you say "it is so nominated in the bond;" you refuse to investigate, Let the South then set her house in order, col- and propose speedily to force upon the people of lect her strength, prepare for whatever fate has in Kansas a constitution never made by them. Yes, store for her in the future, with faith in herself, you who say, with us, that the people are the and calm self-confidence. She is strong; let her source of power; you, who say that power should be wise. She has many interests, not antagonis-flow forth from the people into practical governtic; let her unite and harmonize them. She has untried resources; let her develop them. Let her cultivate fraternal union within her borders. Let past dissensions among her sons be forgotten. Let them ignore petty issues and stand shoulder NEW SERIES-No. 19

"Rightly to be great Is, not to stir without great argument, But greatly to find quarrel in a straw When honor 's at the stake."

ment on the line of their desires; you, who shouted your great radical rule of Democracy in the ears of the country-Buchanan at your head-to be this: that inasmuch as the people are sovereign, inasmuch as that sovereignty cannot be alienated by

Ho. OF REPS.

them in such a manner that it cannot be resumed when the safety of the people shall require it, therefore it is for them to determine at what time and in what manner they will change their fundamental law; that was your radical rule of Democracy. It is now pronounced Dorrism by the Democracy on this floor. You planted your rule in opposition to the rule of the other great school of the country; which rule was stated most clearly by Mr. Webster, in the great Rhode Island case, to be this: he said that the will of the majority must govern; that it was as potent as the will of the Czar of Muscovy, when it was legally ascertained. But how will you ascertain it? said he; it must be ascertained by some rule prescribed by previous law. That rule, the fierce Democracy denounced as the rule of tyranny.

Well, sir, here we have a case where even the requirements of that rule have been met by the people of Kansas. Their will was collected legally, by a legal Legislature; and it appears that their will, by ten thousand majority, is against your Lecompton constitution; and yet, in the face of that declaration, you come forward as a party, and propose to force that constitution, in defiance of your own rule of Democracy, in defiance of the Federal rule, upon that people; ay, sir, worse than that-you declare, through the lips of your boldest and ablest leader, through the lips of the distinguished Senator from Georgia, [Mr. TooMBS,] through the lips of men upon this floor, through the lips of the gentleman who has but just taken his seat, if I understood him, that it involves a question of union or disunion. I agree with the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. MILES,] who said that we might as well meet this question now. I, for my part, am ready to meet it now. I accept the issue which is tendered. I accept it the more eagerly in the presence of this menace. A Representative of the people would be craven, did he shrink from his duty in the presence of such a threat as that. What, you dissolve this Union because you cannot have your own wild will! You dissolve this Union because the Lecompton constitution, born of fraud and violence, is legally voted down in this House! Has your nationality no better quality than that? How will you do it? Who is to do it? Whose hand is ready to strike the first blow? Where is your army chest? Where your battalions to cope with the people of this country? You cannot do it. It would be wrong to do it. It would not be legal. It would not be safe to do it. I tell you, that on the banks of the Santee it would require no Federal Army to subdue rebellion.

The descendants of Sumter and of Marion, as their fathers struck down the Tory spirit in the brave days of old, would quell the spirit of rebellion to-day. We have heard this threat before. We have deemed it but the idle vaunt of idle men; but it comes now with an emphasis and an authority that it never had before. We find the fire-eater giving his will as the law of the great Democratic party. He has the right to rule it, from his courage and his activity.

I say it comes with new emphasis when the leader of the Democratic party gets up in the Senate of the United States, and with deliberation-not acting on an impulse--declares, and I heard him, that this Union is a myth; that he has calculated its value; that the people of Kentucky love it "not wisely, but too well;" and that this Lecompton constitution involves the safety of the Union; and when the gallant Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BELL] accepted the issue, when he restated these points, the distinguished Senator from Georgia bowed his assent, and I saw him; and no member of the Democratic party in the Senate protested against that doctrine. I say, when such men express such sentiments, the time has arrived when the national men of the country should unite to rebuke such sentiments and vote them down here, and vote them down elsewhere. These are the men, are they, to taunt the loyal old State of Massachusetts with having legislated herself out of the Union, because she has declared, that of two given offices it is incompatible for one of her citizens to hold both of them? She has a right to pass such a law. No court has decided it to be unconstitutional. When the court shall so decide, Massachusetts, with her accustomed obedience to law, will submit. She simply says this: " if you

35TH CONG...1ST SESS.

desire to carry men back to old Virginia-to old Virginia's shore'-you must do it with your officers, and not with hers." That is all. But I am not here to-day to defend her; I am not here to plead for her. She denies the jurisdiction of this House. She is not responsible to it for her local legislation. I stand here upon the great doctrine, which I believe in, that the will of the majority, constitutionally expressed, must stand until shall be constitutionally reversed; and, so far as the threat which has been made is concerned, I disdaining to argue in its presence-stand here, before the people of this great country, and trample that threat of disunion scornfully and defiantly down under my feet.

Why have you brought this sectional question here? Why do you seek to force a constitution upon a people whom you know abhor it? What are you to gain by it? Did not the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. MILES] very truly say that it would be a barren victory that it would wither in your grasp? And he said, speaking more fully in the interests of the South than most of you, that he did not care now much about the passage of the Lecompton constitution. What are you to gain? Is your dogma, that there can be property in man, borne in the bosom of that constitution, recommended by such a course more warmly to the hearts of the American people? Will you more easily persuade them, at some future time, to be more willing to admit States from other Territories, where the system may be more congenial to the climate? Will not the people say, and with truth, that this system, which requires such means as these to strengthen and sustain itself, is dangerous to the peace and prosperity of the Republic? Will they not hate your system, because of your conduct in this case? What! will two Senators from that State, who must be fugitives from the State that they will pretend to represent-will that State, held down, as the gentleman from South Carolina said he would hold it until 1864compensate for the ill feeling you have created? Will they compensate you for the alienation of the people which will take place? Will they compensate you for your party dismembered, broken, and lost? The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. MILES] gave us statistics of the last election.grizzly North. They are but our waiters on ProvIt is true, that with the suspicion that you would do this thing, we swept the North, and the East, and the West, with, as he says, more than one million three hundred thousand votes. We swept the great and populous States of the country with the mighty ten-wave of the people's enthusiasm. We brought down the victory into the very shadow of your malign system. If we did it then, what will now be your fate at the polls, when you go back to an indignant and betrayed constituency? You can no longer say you are for free Kansas; we will nail you to the record. You cannot say any longer that you are in favor of the great doctrine of popular sovereignty; we will nail you to the record. You cannot say any longer that we are mere freedom-shriekers, because there shall stand side by side with us the great chief of Democracy, the distinguished author of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and he will tell you that you have betrayed your constituents.

We will summon clouds of witnesses from all the winds of heaven. We will summon them from the South, the East, and the West. We shall summon the gallant Wise, of Virginia, who desires that the State shall be slave, but who is too honest to cheat the people. We shall summon Walker, who has aided in bringing in a new empire to strengthen the South. We shall summon Stanton, and Forney, and Bancroft, and a host of others; and, above all, we shall summon those gallant Senators from Kentucky and Tennessee, the acts of whose lives, for a quarter of a century, shine along the annals of their country. We will call upon them, and they will tell you you have betrayed the people; that you are forcing upon the people of Kansas a constitution conceived in fraud and violence. And how are you to meet those charges? How are you to answer to a great and indignant people-for they will question you as with a tongue of fire? They will go back beyond your proceedings here; they will question you as to the doings and purposes of the Administration; they will ask you why you did not adhere to the doctrine of popular sovereignty;

I think it is the first duty of Republicans to extinguish the dough faces; but I hold it also their duty to bear testimony as to the manner in which the Douglas men-and they will pardon me for giving them the name of their gallant and gifted leader-to bear testimony to the manner in which they have borne themselves. They have kept the faith; they have adhered to the doctrine of popular sovereignty; they have voted it in this House, and they have not fawned and trembled in the presence of a dominating Administration-in the presence of that great tyranny which holds the Government in its thrall at Washington. They have given flash for flash to every indignant look; and when a gentleman from Virginia, the other day, tauntingly told them that certain language which they used upon the floor of this House was the language of rebellion, they shouted out, through the lips of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Davis,]"it was the language of freemen. I say that it is due to them that we should say that they have borne the brunt of the battle; and that they, whether from New York, Pennsylvania, or Illinois, have kept the whiteness of their souls, and have made a record which has lain in light; and if my voice can have any weight with the young men of the country where those men dwell, I should say to them, stand by these men with all your young enthusiasm; stand by them without distinction of party; they may not agree exactly with you; but they have stood the test here, where brave men falter and fall. Let them teach

Ho. OF REPS.

this tyrannical Administration that, if it is strong, the people are stronger behind it. Thus I would speak to the young men of the country. I differ in some points with those men, and I do not wish to complicate them. I pay also the high tribute of my admiration to that band of men who have been reposing outside of the boundaries of the great parties of the country as a patriotic corps of reserve, for the purpose, I suppose, of saving the Union, when it is endangered. When they saw this sectional issue made, standing, as they did, in a position to look fairly on between the parties, they saw who made it, and they instantly took sides, and, in the language of Mr. BELL, in his reply to Mr. TooмBSs, they accepted the issue of disunion. They accepted it; and when, sir, they saw that Lecompton was synonymous with "fraud, with forgery, with perjury, with ballotbox stuffing," then they trampled it with their high manly honesty under their feet. They have taken it in charge to preserve the ballot-box pure and open to American citizens.

Sir, it was a proud day to me, when I heard the speech of the venerable Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CRITTENDEN.] The melody of his voice, and his patriotic accent, still sound in my ears. I was glad to hear him denounce fraud; I was glad to hear him stand for the truth. As I listened, it seemed to me that the spirit of the Kentucky Commoner had come back again to visit his old place in the Senate. It seemed to me as if his spirit was hovering there, looking, as in days of old, after the interests of the Union. At that moment, the heart of Massachusetts beat responsive once again to that of grand old Kentucky; and I longed to have the day come again, when there should be such feelings as in the olden time, when the Bay State bore the name of Henry Clay on her banners over her hills and through her valleys, everywhere to victory, and with an affection equal to the affection of Kentucky herself.

I also felt proud to hear the speech of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL.] I was glad to hear their confreres on this floor, Messrs. UNDERWOOD of Kentucky, GILMER of North Carolina, RICAUD and HARRIS, of Maryland, and DAVIS, with his surpassing eloquence,worthy of the best days of Pinkney and of Wirt; and I also express my gratitude to Mr. MARSHALL of Kentucky, who has labored so long to secure this union of patriotic men. I owe it to these men, and to myself, to say that I do not agree with them on the subject of slavery, and I know that they do not agree with me. Neither do I agree with the Douglas men; I take what I think is a higher position. I hold to the power of Congress over the Territories; they do not. But while I oppose the Lecompton constitution for one reason, and while the Douglas Democrats oppose it for another, the South Americans may oppose it for still another. God knows we have all cause of war against it, and against the Administration. And we have come together here as a unit, not by any preconcert, not by any trade among leaders, but by the spontaneous convictions of our own honest minds. I trust that this may be an omen of what may happen in the future. As to what may happen, it is not for me to prophesy. Let time and chance determine. We come together, not in a spirit of compromise, because we compromise nothing, but in a spirit of patriotism. And, acting in that spirit, I, for one, am prepared to sustain the substitute offered by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. After first voting to reject the bill, I will vote for that substitute, not because I would vote for it as an original measure; I will vote for it because I think that it will make Kansas a free State. The Administration says it is a slave Territory to-day-the Lecompton constitution makes it a slave State. I feel that the Lecompton constitution, without this substitute, would pass in its naked form, and that Kansas would be a slave State under it; and if I forego this opportunity to make it a free State, the opportunity will be lost forever. And how could I meet my constituents, and say that, because I desired to appear consistent, I would not vote for that substitute, and give the people of Kansas one more chance for freedom. If there were only one chance in a hundred, I would do it. But it is not a chance; it is a certainty. Doughfaces will undoubtedly feel very sad about my vote, and complain that I

35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

am not consistent. That word "consistency" is a coward's word. It is the refuge of selfishness and timidity. I will do right to-day, and let yesterday take care of itself. That word "consistency" is what has lured many a noble man to ruin. It has stopped all generous reform. When I am ready to adopt it, and to depart from practicability, I will join the immovable civilization of China, and take the false doctrines of Confucius for my guide, with their backward-looking thoughts.

These are my reasons, these are the reasons that animate my associates among the Republicans. And I tell you, the common enemy, fairly and openly, that our cause is just, and our union is perfect. We Republicans will place to-morrow our united vote upon the record in favor of the substitute. Our great chieftain here, [Mr. GIDDINGS,] with his white hairs, who has stood for twenty years the great champion of Liberty, we will bear with affection to the record-to this determination he has come, after much thought. At last, he felt that his principles required him so to vote, and, obeying the impulses of an honest and patriotic and not fanatical heart, he points the way of duty and victory. The member from South Carolina, [Mr. MILES,] if he knew him better, would find his heart to be a loving one; and I will tell that member that his interests and the interests of South Carolina are safer to-day in the hands of that good old man, than they are in the hands of the most malignant of doughfaces. I say our Union is perfect. We will put our votes on record to-morrow in favor of the substitute, not as a choice of evils, but because it is the good thing to do; it is the only thing for honest men to do, if we wish to have Kansas a free State.

Admission of Kansas-Mr. Zollicoffer.

bill is opposed for almost all sorts of conflicting

reasons.

I will endeavor to present my own view of the question. Kansas is before us asking for admission into the Union, with a constitution regularly adopted in accordance with the principles guarantied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill-a constitution republican in form, and adopted by her people under all the sanctions and formalities of law. The question has been raised, is this constitution in accordance with the will of the people? If the will of the people is to be ascertained by the popular vote cast at the regular legal elections, it certainly embodies the will of the people of Kansas. And if we are not to regard the expressed will of the people at the ballot-box, where all are free to vote, I am unable to discover where else we are to find a test-a reliable test, by which safely to determine what is the popular will. We are entirely at sea, if this is not a test. If not now, neither would it be a test if you were to submit it to another vote. How can you have a reliable test, if, when the people come up to the ballot-box and fairly cast their suffrages, and none are restrained, as I will presently endeavor to show was the case in this instance, we are to be told that this shall not be regarded as an indication of the sentiment of the people? If, then, the constitution is republican, if it has been legitimately adopted, and if it contains no provision plainly in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, it does seem to me that it is the privilege of the new State to ask for admission, and that it is our duty to receive it into the Union, without looking further into the instrument itself to see whether its provisions are in all respects just such as we would have made them.

Mr. Chairman, a great many thoughts suggest In acting upon the question of admitting a State themselves to my mind, to which I would like to in the Union, Congress should not receive or regive utterance. I am told that my time is about ject the State upon the mere ground of like or disto expire, and therefore will not prolong my relike of provisions in the constitution. Another marks to greater length. I say, for our party, that State might never be admitted if this were the rule. we are ready. We seek no postponement of the But were I permitted to decide this question upon question. All that men could do, we have done. what I find in the constitution, I must frankly say We have argued the question; we have implored; that I find in this instrument that which highly we have voted; we have done everything to secure commends it to my regard. I find at the very our triumph; we have been baffled by parliament- foundation of it the great American principle that ary tactics; we have been sometimes betrayed. none but citizens of the United States shall be perThe President has given way; the Senate has mitted to vote in the elections, or otherwise congiven way; but, thank God, the tribunes of the trol the political destinies of the State. For this, people, standing here in this House, have not yet and for other provisions, American in their charbetrayed their trust. They stand firm, and my acter, incorporated in it, I heartily return to its high hope is-I do not know why, looking to our framers my sincerest thanks. My belief is, howpast conflicts here, I should have it-that on the ever, that if the provisions I refer to were not to great to-morrow, when the sun shall sink behind be found there, other things being right, it would the hills of our own loved Virginia, this Lecomp-be my duty to vote for the admission of the new ton constitution will be defeated, Kansas will be saved, and the whole country repose in good will, and peace dwell in all our borders.

ADMISSION OF KANSAS.

SPEECH OF HON. F. K. ZOLLICOFFER,
OF TENNESSEE,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
March 31, 1858.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER said: Mr. CHAIRMAN: Upon this Kansas question I had intended silently to cast a vote for the admission of the new State, without troubling the committee with the particular reasons controlling my action; but, finding that I am compelled to separate on this question from some of my most respected political friends, and perceiving that among the friends of the bill, as well as its opponents, there has been a great diversity of opinion upon different points of the argument, I have concluded that it may be better for me to state the facts and reasons which have had most weight in determining my vote, that none may misunderstand them.

I must say that it is with much regret that I find my political friends divided on this important question, and with regret that I find some of the friends of the bill giving it support upon premises that I have no sympathies with. This, however, seems to be counterbalanced by the fact that the

State. I find in it another striking feature-and it is that upon which almost the whole question, unfortunately, is made to turn-the recognition of the institution of African slavery. There can be little doubt that it is on this account that a violent and relentless war has been waged upon it by a majority of its opponents. The great mass of those who oppose the admission of Kansas into the Union, oppose it because it comes with a proslavery constitution.

Many of them have, indeed, gone so far as to pledge themselves never to vote for the admission of another slave State into the Union. What a spirit is this! in a Union of States such as ours, formed originally between slave States and free, and in which they are still of nearly equal numbers.

That I should sympathize with such feelings, or in any way cooperate with those who enter the contest animated by so deadly a spirit of hostility to the people of fifteen States of the Union, will not for a moment be expected by any who know

me.

By a brief recurrence to historical facts, I will now endeavor to show what I regard as the main point-that this constitution is certainly the result of the deliberate action of the people of Kansas, regularly passing through the various stages of legal action to its final adoption.

In 1854, Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska act, organizing a temporary territorial government for Kansas, in which it was declared that "the legislative power" of the Territory "shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, con

sistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act." Among the

HO. OF REPS.

"rightful subjects of legislation" alluded to, was doubtless that of proposing, at the proper time, for taking the sense of the people of the Territory upon the question of adopting a State constitution. This is apparent from the nineteenth section of the act, which, after declaring the territorial government to be "temporary" in its character, looks to the future admission of Kansas into the Union as a State, expressly providing that, "when admitted as a State, or States, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time." We have heard much said lately about the necessity for an "enabling act;" this is a modern necessity that I attach very little consequence to. I see no more necessity for enabling acts now than there was in the earlier days of the Republic, when they were unknown and unrequired. But if one is now thought to be needed, here is an enabling act; and I quote the language of the organic act to show palpable authority to the Territorial Legislature for taking the initiatory step in preparing for a constitution, and for admission into the Union as a State. The legislative power of the Territory extended to “all rightful subjects of legislation' consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of the organic act. The legislative step, submitting to the people the question as to whether they would frame a State constitution, was not only consistent with the Constitution of the United States, and the provisions of the organic act, but was expressly warranted in this nineteenth section, which defined the "temporary" character of the territorial government, and looked forward to the formation of "a State, or States."

In accordance, therefore, with this recognition of its right and duty, the Territorial Legislature, in July, 1855, passed an act providing that a poll should be opened for taking the sense of the people upon the expediency of calling a convention to frame a State constitution. This vote was directed to be taken at the general election, to come off in October, 1856. Thus they gave ample time to consider this question. When the day came, the people voted; they voted without interruption. I have never heard that there was fraud charged in taking that vote; and a very large majority of the people determined that they would change the form of their government, and for that purpose call a convention to adopt a constitution. At a subsequent session of the Legislature, in February, 1857, some months after this result had been ascertained, an act was passed providing for taking a census of the people, for making a registry of the voters, and for the election of delegates to the convention. This was all regular. The census and registry were taken, except in certain counties, where it was resisted and prevented by the violence of the Free-Soil party; and when the day appointed for the election of delegates came, which was the third Monday in June, 1857, the delegates were chosen by popular vote, and on the first Monday of September they assembled in convention, and, after due deliberation, adopted the constitution which is now before us. I know of no fraud charged in connection with this election, or with this result; except that the very anti-slavery extremists, who prevented a full census and registry, now have the effrontery to complain of the failure to take a full census and registry.

There was one great and only question which had divided the people of the Territory. Every gentleman knows, whatever may be his position upon this issue, that there was but one great question dividing the people, and that was the question of slavery. The convention had inserted in the constitution a slavery clause; but as it was doubtful whether a majority of the people preferred that the State should be a slaveholding State, they very properly submitted that question, and that question only, to the popular vote.

I maintain that in no other way could the sense of the people have been so clearly ascertained upon this most exciting question. There were doubtless some minor questions upon which the people differed in opinion; but if they had complicated this question with other and minor issues, there would have been great uncertainty as to what the sense of the people was upon the question of sla