|
Gentlemen of the Convention: This
is a very vast subject, of wide range; whether considered as policy, or whether
considered in its constitutional light, of very vast import, when we consider
the consequences of the result at which we may arrive. It has long been my study to arrive at a
correct conclusion, and experience warns me, gentlemen, that justice cannot be
done to this subject in anything like an argument that will rise above a mere
partisan view of the question, in one hour.
I will endeavor to compress and limit my remarks within the time. I may be able to do so, but before I proceed
I would like to ask it of this body, whether if my argument is not concluded
within the hour, it will be the pleasure of the Convention that I shall stop,
or whether it will extend to me the courtesy of allowing me to finish at least
such branch of the subject as I may be upon when my hour expires. (Loud cries of “yes, yes,” and “no, no.”)
Mr. Samuels,
of Iowa. I ask that the gentleman from Alabama may have time to
finish his argument, and I would now ask the gentleman how much time he will
occupy? If more than an hour, I am
decidedly in favor of giving him an opportunity of being fully heard by this
Convention. (Cheers.) I ask him, therefore,
how much time he will want.
Mr. Yancey. I would most cheerfully answer if I were able. I believe that if I were untrammeled by time
and not speaking against time, being somewhat known for condensation, I could
finish it in an hour and a half or better.
I think that in my attempts to condense I should not be longer. I would say to the Convention, however, that
I would not trespass upon its courtesy if there was a single dissenting voice,
for I know the value of your time. (Loud
cries of “go on.”) I will say, also,
that on conference with certain leading, generous and magnanimous gentlemen who
occupy an opposite position from myself, I have cheerfully consented to advance
in the debate, and that a representative man upon the other side will doubtless
follow me, and to him, I am sure, will be as freely and generously accorded the
same courtesy by my friends as his friends have this moment accorded to me. (Applause.)
Mr. President, I
thought that there was probably no better occasion for an Alabamian to arise
and address the Democracy of the Union than
after the remarkable and unnatural speech that has just fallen from a native
son of the South. I could have heard
that speech from any Northern man unmoved.
I confess I did not hear it from a citizen of the State, whose admission
has caused the South nearly all its evils, entirely unmoved. Coming, too, from a State, Mr. President,
that has assumed a somewhat prominent position on this question, I thought it
well that one of her sons should endeavor to present what the State believes to
be the position which the South occupies on this question. Alabamahas
instructed her delegates to present to this body her platform of
principles,
and ask for it its candid consideration.
The Convention of my State was pleased to express the hope that, “from
its justice and patriotism,” it “anticipated their adoption” by this
body. Thus far, gentlemen of the Democracy, I am
happy to say that the hopes of that State have not altogether been
disappointed. A majority of the sovereign States of this
Union have united in making a report which embodies, substantially, the
position occupied, as I believe, by the State of Alabama.
And not only a majority of the sovereign States of this Union have done
this, but, although a native son of the South has raised his voice here
and said
that the majority report contained “an adder’s sting to the Northern
Democracy,” and has chosen to speak of it as “poison,” that report
comes to us
with what is to me even a higher endorsement—the approval of the
Southern
patriots’ long deferred hope and desideratum—a united South.
(Great applause.) And not only is the report thus highly
commended to us, but I desire to direct the attention of this body, and
of the
Democracy at large, to this striking fact, that the States thus making
this
report represent more than two-thirds of the votes of the great
Democratic
party of the Union.
(Cheers.) It is also undoubtedly true, Mr. President, as
was well said by the Chairman of the Committee who opened this debate,
that the
majority of the Committee who made that report, represent now what is
considered
the electoral vote of every Democratic State in this Union, and that
the
delegates presenting the minority report represent States that, in all
probability, will each cast a Black Republican electoral vote.
This is hardly to be doubted. There is, possibly among those who
signed
that majority report, one State whose position might be considered
doubtful at
the Presidential polls, but the great and solemn fact faces you that
the vote
of the unanimous South asking of this National Democracy that upon a
great
issue, in which their property and constitutional rights are involved,
and
incidentally and remotely, it may be, their very quiet, and peace, and
lives,
and honor—that on that question their right to protection shall be
acknowledged.
Mr. Lakeman,
of Missouri. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him
for a moment? (Loud cries of “no, no,”
and “order.”)
The President. What is the purpose of the gentleman? Does he rise to a question of order?
Mr. Lakeman. I do not.
The President.
Then the Chair cannot recognize the
gentleman. (Applause.)
Mr Lakeman. I merely ask the privilege— (Tremendous
shouts of “order.”)
The President. The Chair cannot allow interruptions of
speakers unless at their request, except for the suggestion of questions of
order.
Mr. Yancey. I would say to the gentleman that, indebted
greatly to the courtesy of this body myself, I am disposed to yield any
courtesy to others that would not consume the time of the Convention, or
interrupt my own line of argument.
Mr. Lakeman. In order that the Convention may know whether
the gentleman who last spoke (Mr. King of Missouri)
represents the sentiment of Missouri,
I will ask the gentleman to read the second resolution adopted by the
Democratic Convention of that State.
Mr. Yancey. I had intended, at a proper time, to allude
to the fact, that in my opinion, he did not represent Missouri.
However, I am willing that the resolution shall be read by the
Secretary—and there I will leave that matter.
The Secretary read the
resolution as follows:
Resolved, That the
Democratic party of Missouri hold these cardinal principles on the subject of
slavery in the Territories: 1st, That Congress has no power to abolish slavery
in the Territories; 2d, That the Territorial Legislature has no power to
abolish slavery in any Territory, nor to prohibit the introduction of slaves
therein, nor any power to exclude slavery therefrom by unfriendly legislation,
nor any power to destroy or impair the right of property in slaves by any
legislation whatever. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. King,
of Missouri. Mr. President, I should have no objection—
Mr. Yancey. I cannot yield the floor to the delegate from
Missouri.
Mr. Avery,
of North Carolina. I desire to say that the second resolution in
the majority report—
Mr. Samuels,
of Iowa. I call the gentleman to order.
The President. The gentleman from Alabama has the floor, and the Chair is resolved,
so far as in him lies, that the gentlemen speaking shall be permitted to
continue their own line of argument without being interrupted by other members
of the Convention. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. Yancey. Gentlemen of the Convention, my State has now
to ask of this body the adoption of the resolutions reported by the majority of
the Committee, because her representatives here believe that they substantially
conform to the principles enunciated in her platform, which we are instructed
to insist upon as the only basis upon which Alabama can associate with the
National Democracy as a party. My State,
gentlemen of the Convention, has been the mark of many a shaft of calumny and
of misrepresentation, and her delegates on this floor have also been the
marks—some individuals more than others—of great misrepresentation and
falsehood in relation to their political position.
It has been charged,
in order to demoralize whatever influence we might be entitled to, either from
our personal or political characteristics, or as representatives of the State
of Alabama, that we are disruptionists, disunionists per se; that we desire to
break up the party in the State of Alabama, to break up the party in the Union,
and to dissolve the Union itself. Each
and all of these allegations, come from what quarter they may, I pronounce to
be false. (Applause.) There is no disunionist, that I know of, in
the delegation from the State of Alabama. There is no disruptionist that I know of, and
if there are factionists in our delegation they could not have got in there
with the knowledge upon the part of our State Convention that they were of so
unenviable a character. We come here
with two great purposes: first, to save the constitutional rights of the South,
if it lay in our power to do so. We
desire to save the South by the best means that present themselves to us, and
the State of Alabama
believes that the best means now in existence is the organization of the
Democratic party, if we shall be able to persuade it to adopt the
constitutional basis upon which we think the South alone can be saved. Democrats ourselves from our youth upward,
belonging to a State that has never been anything but Democratic, always voting
for a Democratic President, and nearly always sending a united vote to the
House of Representatives, and Democratic Senators to the Senate of the United
States, we prefer that the honor of saving the country shall crown the brow of
the Democratic party. Deceived as we
have been by much shown in the history of that party, we yet have some hope
that it will come to the rescue of the country; we have some confidence that it
has a desire to come to the rescue. We
have come here, then, with the two-fold purpose of saving the country and of
saving the Democracy; and if the Democracy will not lend itself to that high,
holy and elevated purpose; if it cannot elevate itself above the mere question
of how perfect shall be its mere personal organization and how wide-spread
shall be its mere voting success, then we say to you, gentlemen, mournfully and
regretfully, that, in the opinion of the State of Alabama, and, I believe, of
the whole South, you have failed in your mission, and it will be our duty to go
forth and make an appeal to the loyalty of the country to stand by that
Constitution which party organizations have deliberately rejected. (Applause.)
This, gentlemen, I
trust, is a position that your own elevated natures can, at least, respect. This, gentlemen, I trust, is a position to
which you can afford, at least, to accord your sympathies; and amongst the
members immediately in front of me from the gallant Northwest, I think that
there are minds and hearts that can respect sentiments that may not agree with
their own, as regards what is the Constitution of the country, and who will
accord to us, at least, their sympathy and their respect in standing up to what
we believe to be a constitutional duty, even at the hazard of disrupting ties
so long held sacred—the lies that bind us to the Democracy. At all events, we have a duty to perform to
ourselves and to our country. The South
is in a minority, we have been tauntingly told to-day. In the progress of events and the march of
civilization and emigration, the Northwest has grown up from a mere infant in
swaddling clothes, at the formation of the Constitution, into the form and
proportions of a giant people; and owing to their institutions and demand for
white labor, and the peculiar nature of ours, though advancing side by side, in
parallel lines—never necessarily in conflict in the great march of
civilization—they have surpassed us greatly in numbers. We are, therefore, in a numerical minority;
but we do not murmur at this—we cheerfully accept the result—but we as firmly
claim the right of the minority—and what is that? We claim the benefit of the Constitution that
was made for the protection of minorities.
In the march of events, feeling conscious of your numerical power, you
have aggressed upon us. We hold up
between us and your advancing columns of numbers that written instrument which
your and our fathers made, and by the compact of which, you with your power were
to respect us and our rights. Our and
your fathers made it that they and their children should forever observe it;
that upon all questions affecting the rights of the minority, the majority
should not rely upon their voting numbers, but should look, in restraint upon
passion, avarice and lust for power, to the written compact, to see in what the
minority was to be respected, and how it was to be protected, and to yield an
implicit obedience to that compact. Constitutions
are made solely for the protection of the minorities in government, and for the
guidance of majorities. You, in your
voting power, are not accustomed to scan its provisions as closely as we, who,
less in number, find in the instrument the only peaceable solution of
difficulties that otherwise would lead us to defend ourselves with arms.
It is but natural that
the North, conscious of voting strength in Congress, should seek to wield the
government to its own aggrandizement, and should listen restlessly, and often
defiantly, to the stern demand of the South that the constitutional restraints
of delegated power should be rigidly observed; but, at the same time, you must
remember that it is not only as natural for the South to do this, but that it
is constitutional; and it is in the compact that you shall forbear.
The simple position of
Alabama,
then, is upon the Constitution of the country.
Taking our position as a minority, and holding that Constitution up
against your prejudices—holding it up against your passions—holding it up against
your loose notions of what are your duties as regards the minority, and as
regards yourselves—holding it up as something that you must and shall
respect—as it is something that you say you do respect—thus planting ourselves
purely upon the Constitution, and asking nothing which that instrument does not
grant, we have a right to ask, not only of this young giant of the West, but of
this older Northeast and North, that they will calmly and considerately and
intelligently with us read that instrument and see wherein we are wronged, and
wherein you are aggressing. We of the
South, it is a possibility, may mistake our constitutional position. We of the South may be wrong in our
exposition of the Constitution. There is
a possibility that you may be right. There
is a possibility that, in view of our interest upon this question, you have
more impartially considered it than we have, and that our views upon this
question are not quite supported by the rigid letter and spirit of the
Constitution. But I have no doubt on
this question; our people have no doubt upon it; but in order to show you what
I conceive to be your duty, and I trust you will think I do so in all proper
deference, I will consider that such maybe the case. Then how is it? Ours is the property invaded; ours are the
institutions which are at stake; ours is the peace that is to he destroyed; ours
is the property that is to be destroyed; ours is the honor at stake—the honor
of children, the honor of families, the lives, perhaps, of all—-all of which
rests upon what your course may ultimately make a great heaving volcano of
passion and crime, if you are enabled to consummate your designs. Bear with us then, if we stand sternly upon
what is yet that dormant volcano, and say we yield no position here until we
are convinced we are wrong. (Loud
cheers.) We are in a position to ask you
to yield. What right of yours, gentlemen
of the North, have we of the South ever invaded? What institution of yours have we ever
assailed, directly or indirectly? What
laws have we ever passed that have invaded, or induced others to invade, the
sanctity of your homes or to put your lives in jeopardy, or were likely to
destroy the fundamental institutions of your States? The wisest, the most learned and the best
amongst you will remain silent, because you cannot say that we have done this
thing. (Cheers.) If their view is right and ours is not
strictly demanded by the compact, still the consequence, in a remote degree, of
your proposition, may bring this result upon us; and if you have no domestic
nor municipal peace at stake, and no property at stake, and no fundamental
institutions of your liberties at stake, are we asking any too much of you
to-day when we ask you to yield to us in this matter as brothers, in order to
quiet our doubts—for in yielding you lose nothing that is essentially right? (Cheers.) Do I state the proposition, gentlemen, any
stronger than your own intellects and your own judgments will thoroughly
endorse? If I do, I am unconscious of it.
This being the state
of the case, will you look back upon the past and see what is already history
upon this matter? Notice when and how,
at an early day, our institutions were assailed? A young State was seeking admission into the
Union as an equal with all her sisters, and coming with the same coronet upon
her brow that Virginia and the Carolinas and Georgia and New York and New
Jersey wore when the Union was formed—that of African slavery. She was met at the very doors of the Union, and was rudely repulsed until it could be
considered whether indeed her continuance as a slave State was to be allowed. That consideration resulted in the admission
of Missouri, upon what has been miscalled a compromise, upon the basis that
thereafter no slaveholder should be allowed to settle and hold slaves in
four-fifths of the public domain—while in the balance every citizen might
settle and enjoy equal rights—all of which has been decided to be a great wrong
by the highest and most respected of all the tribunals of our country.
Turn another page in
this history, and read how your petitions flooded the hall that should be common
to us all, a hall erected in the place where our fathers said that we should
assemble together, not as enemies but as fellow citizens—read how our
representatives were daily and constantly insulted by the most insulting
petitions from women, and children, and preachers and men, to take from us our
clearly defined constitutional rights. Further
still, turn the pages until yon find the question being determined as regards
our possessions acquired in the Mexican war, in which, gentlemen, it is but
modestly stating the fact to say that Southern chivalry was equal to Northern
chivalry,—that Southern blood was poured out in equal quantities with Northern
blood,—and Southern genius shone as bright upon the battle field as Northern
genius; and yet, when the battle was o’er, and the dead were buried, and the
field of battle was cleared of all that was repulsive, and the glittering spoil
was brought forward, a vast and disproportionate quantity was given to the
North, and the South was made to take the portion of an almost portionless son. (Cheers.) Do you remember how California was made a State, under the
bidding of an army order? How men of
every grade and every nativity, whether citizens or not citizens, whether black
or white, were allowed to vote, in order to hurry on and to smother up and to
crush the great constitutional question that would arise between the North and
South upon the admission of a sovereign State into this Union? Do you remember, do you not know that there
yet stands upon the statute-book of this country a law abolishing slavery, in
certain contingencies, in the District of Columbia—a law which says that if a
Southern man shall bring his slave to sell him upon soil that was once, and
should now be, common to the country—aye the very soil of Washington,
adjoining his residence, which his sacred feet often trod, which was laid out
into a city by his own hand, and which bears his own name—upon soil given by
two slaveholding States to our common country—that if even the citizens of
these two slaveholding States which gave this district to the United States
come and offer to dispose of their slave property, freedom shall he conferred upon
the slave; and, instead of the offence, have the punishment affixed to the act
as a misdemeanor, like all other misdemeanors—a punishment by fine and
imprisonment— the power and spirit of Abolition is put into full and active
force and the negro is declared to be free.
Turn still another
page in our rapid view of the march of aggression. Read the Kansas
and Nebraska
measure, out of which has sprung so many difficulties. It was whispered in our ears, and we were led
to hope and believe that it was not a delusion—that the “great bill ” was “a
measure of deliverance, of liberty,” to the South. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise was
boasted of as a grand act of long deferred justice to our people, and that
hereafter they, in common with Northern citizens, should have the liberty of
removing into that vast regions of their common country, from which, for thirty
years, they had been excluded by the unconstitutional act of this government;
and yet, by reason of the mal-administration of that territory—by reason of the
improper influences that have been brought to bear on that territory upon this
question of slavery—by means of the encouragement given to the anti-slavery
dominant sentiment of the North to contest with us the possession of Kansas, it
has so happened that this delightful fruit that was held up before us as
something so tempting in aspect, and which we were now to taste, and that was
so sweet to a palate long unused to such enjoyment, has been made, like the
Dead Sea fruit, to turn to bitter ashes upon Southern lips. (Loud cheers.) The Kansas
bill, we are told here to-day, was a bill to enable the people of the territory
to settle this question of slavery in their own way, subject not only to no
interference by Congress, but that the interference of Congress was absolutely
prohibited. And yet, taking even this
construction given to it by our friends of the North-west, and impartial
history shows us, that if the South derived an advantage under it, that
advantage was snatched from her. In one
instance, the Legislature of Kansas passed a law defining the qualifications of
voters at the polls. The Kansas Act
expressly gave the Legislature power to define the qualifications of voters. And yet, after the Territorial Legislature had passed that law, the Senate of the United States—where
this Act originated and was perfected—interfered and repealed it. And there was Democratic construction put
upon the Act by those who made it, showing that, Congress retained the right to
supervise the laws. These laws were
called “bloody” and “Draconian”—and acted favorably, it was said, to the
South—and the Senate interfered to repeal them.
If laws shall be passed against the South, we call for the same
construction and interference. And not
only this, but when Kansas enacted a State Constitution, and was about to assume
the proportions, the dignity, the spirit, and the power of sovereignty—after
the people, through a convention regularly elected according to a regular call,
had framed their constitution, and had thus framed their institutions “in their
own way”—what then? They forwarded their
constitution to the Congress of the United States,
and asked to be admitted into the Union with
the institution of slavery, which, “in their own way,” and at their own time,
they had adopted and “established.”
How was this slave
Slate in “embryo” met? It was met by
that distinguished statesman to whom the
delegate from Missouri has alluded as so worthy of his applause and of his
approval—it was met at the very threshold of Congress by that distinguished
statesman, saying that Congress must “intervene” on this question—that Kansas
should not “regulate her domestic institutions in her own way,” but that her
Constitution, at the mandate of Congress, must be sent back to the people to be
ratified (applause)—that the “way” of Kansas must yield to the “way” of
Congress. Sir, is not this the fact? That distinguished statesman, that powerful
man, as I believe him to be, and as I have on more than one occasion publicly
pronounced him to be, utterly wrong, in my opinion, in his views upon this
question, but yielding to him most cheerfully the same loyalty to his
convictions of duty that I claim for myself,—he, himself, the author of that
bill, proposed “intervention by Congress” against the highest sovereign act of
the young State of Kansas, and through his influence Kansas was made to take back
her Constitution, and it now sleeps the sleep of death in the archives of
history. (Loud cheers.) And what else?
Why, sir, the ink in which is written the history of that period on this
great question is hardly dry that records the fact that on that issue this
Northwestern Democracy, which has been so inconsiderately
lauded here to-day by its representative as always standing by the constitutional
rights of the South, following the fortunes of its great leader, voted that Congress
should intervene in that matter, and that Kansas should not have a slave
Constitution without letting the people re-vote upon it. (Loud cheers ) What else?
Why, sir, the information has barely reached us yet in official form, but
I believe it is correct, that recently what is called the Wyandotte Constitution
of Kansas, in other words, the anti-slave Constitution, has been presented to
Congress, and that the admission of Kansas
under that Constitution into the Union, was
demanded. This has been asked directly
in the teeth and in violation of the compromise that was made when the Lecompton
constitution was re-submitted to the people, and that was that she should not
be admitted until her population had reached a certain number, I believe 70.000. A census has not been taken. No official communication of that fact has
been made to Congress, as I understand, and yet the House of Representatives
passed a bill to admit Kansas into the Union under that constitution by, I
believe, sixty-one majority! And where,
oh! where was that democracy, which always, as we have been so inconsiderately
yet so vauntingly told here to-day, stands by the South? But three—aye but three, of that great host
remained to tell us that there was a constitutional Democracy in the Northern
States! (Great cheering.) Those three
were Scott, of California; English,
of Indiana, the author of the Conference .bill, and Sickles, of New York. (Applause.) If I am wrong in this, I ask to be corrected. The pledge made by the whole Democracy was
that Kansas
should come in with or without slavery, as her people should determine. When she formed a Slave Constitution, she was
rejected by the overpowering influence of the brilliant statesman who heads the
column of the Northwest; and when she formed a Freesoil Constitution, and came
into the House of Representatives with it, there were found but three votes
from the whole North to protest against this great political fraud. What does all this indicate? The Democratic party, we are here told truly,
once had an overpowering ascendency in the Northern States, and we have been
told here, to-day, that there was once a time when Democracy was not prevalent
at the South, and when the Northern Slates could elect a Democratic President
without the aid of the Southern vote. I acknowledge
it. I acknowledge that so long as mere
party issues were before the country, not involving any of its fundamental
institutions, the South differed with each other on these issues of policy. The question of the United States Bank, of
internal improvement by the General Government and of the tariff, caused great
differences of opinion at the South.
In the Northern Slates
the Democratic party was overwhelmingly in the ascendant. Why are they not so now? And why is the South more unitedly Democratic? The answer is ready. The anti-slavery sentiment is dominant at the
North—the slavery sentiment is dominant at the South. And, gentlemen, let me fell you why, if it is
not presumption in me to tell you, that you have grown weaker and weaker. It is my belief, from some observation and
reflection upon this subject, that you are not in the ascendant now, because
you have tampered with the anti-slavery feeling of that section. I do not mean that you have tampered with it
or yielded to it as a matter of choice. I
do not mean that you are willful traitors to your convictions of duty; but this
is what I do mean: Fnding the overwhelming preponderance of power in that
anti-slavery sentiment, believing it to be the common will of your people you
hesitated, you trembled before its march, and you did not triumph over the
young Hercules in his cradle, because you made no direct effort to do so. You acknowledged, gentlemen of the jury, (shouts of laughter and applause), that
slavery was wrong. Ah! gentlemen, you are indeed the jury empannelled
to try the great issue. It is the cause
of our common country which is in issue.
But, gentlemen, unlike the advocate who stands at the bar to speak for
the criminal or innocent accused, I am here unpaid—no feed advocate—I have no
“axe to grind” here or elsewhere—l am no seeker for office. Years ago resigning to the people all the
trusts they had given me. I have been
unceasingly and diligently their advocate since, and I now remain their
advocate, and though others, officially, can speak for them, I, too can ask to
be heard as amicus curia. (Applause.) I was going on to show the only method in
which you lost your ascendancy. You gave
up the real ground of battle, the key to success, when you acknowledged, what
was the foundation of the anti-slavery sentiment, that slavery was wrong. You acknowledged that it could not exist anywhere
by the law of nature or by the law of God; that it could exist no where except
by virtue of statutory enactment. In
that you yielded the whole question. In
that you showed the weakness of the soldier who doubts in the midst of the
conflict on the field of battle. You
simply said, beseechingly, to your anti-slavery countrymen, “slavery does
exist, but we are not to blame for it.” There was the weakness of your position. If you had taken the position that has been
taken by one gallant son of the North, who proclaimed, under the hisses of
thousands, that slavery was right, that anti-slavery demon, if not dead, would
long since have been in chains at your feet.
But you have gone down under the admission on your part, that your
opponents placed their feet upon the strong foundation stone of natural and
divine right; and I tell you, gentlemen, that you will continue to go lower and
lower unless you change front and change tactics. The history of the country shows that I am
right in this matter. They have advanced
from a small band of Abolitionists, who, when I was a schoolboy in one of the
Northern States, were pelted with rotten eggs whenever they assembled, even in
the State of Massachusetts. That small band, I say, has grown and spread,
until it is divided into three different classes, under different names, such
as Abolitionists, Freesoilers and Squatter Sovereignty men—(applause)—all representing
the one common sentiment, upon which the Abolitionists commenced their war,
that slavery was wrong, yet assuming different phases in their progress,
according to their localities or according to their party affiliations. I beg you to believe that, in thus designating
what I thus call Squatter Sovereignty men, as one wing of that great anti-slavery
army, I do it in no disrespect; I only speak of the logical consequence derived
from the position that you have admitted, that slavery is wrong, and are,
therefore, in no position to defend it, or to claim to lead in its defence. How else has this great power manifested
itself? Look at the religious
corporators of the country, as affected by the conscience of the people; look
at the people whose daily business is prayer that they may he so purified as to
rise above any temptation to do that which is recommended to them as
right—where are they? I believe but one
solitary Church of all the denominations of the country yet keeps beyond its
pale all interference in this matter of slavery. All the rest have been disrupted and resolved
into Northern Churches and Southern Churches—two Gods,
two altars, two systems of worship; not brothers, not sisters. Aye, you do not, in many of the Northern
Churches, admit the Southern man of God, who has, for years, followed the Man
of Sorrows, evidenced by his meekness, his humility, and the eminent success of
his ministry.—I say there are many such men who cannot gain admission into the
Northern pulpit to pray.
Now, what does all
this indicate to us? Gentlemen, these
are, in part, evidences which, I solemnly assure you, have produced in the
South—I speak by authority for Alabama, and I speak from assurances which, I
believe, cannot be mistaken, from other States—a wide-spread and deep-seated
conviction that the South, with her institutions, is unsafe in the Union. It is upon that basis, upon these premises,
that we proceed when we come here; when Alabama comes here, and asks you to
consider well your position upon this subject; to take a new departure if it
is, even as you say, a new departure; or if it is but the re-affirmance of an
old truth, we ask you to re-affirm it in more distinct and unequivocal
language, in order to reassure the Southern people of safety in the party and
in the Union, and thus save both from disruption. I pass on with—I will not use so strong an
expression as “contempt”—but I conceive that I cannot afford to notice any of
the specious declamation and partisan arguments that have been made here to-day. We come with the constitution in our hand,
and say to you, if we have been wrong, let us reason together, and see if we
cannot be set right; if we have been right, let us re-endorse that right in plainer
and less equivocal language. (Applause.)
And why?
If I had come here, my countrymen, as a disunionist—if I had come here
as a disruptionist—if I had come here as a factionist—I should come to you now
with the Alabama
platform in my hand, and present it for adoption or rejection, without the
dotting' of an “i” or the crossing of a
“t.” But I say to you frankly, while the
majority platform is not all that Alabama wants, it is not even all that
Alabama asks; that while it falls short, indeed, of what I believe the highest
policy of a statesman should be, to arrest this great evil—this cancer, which
is not only eating into your body, but into the body of the country at
large—from a desire to harmonize—from a desire to confer with brothers—knowing
that you represent all the sections of this vast and magnificent republic, we
are willing to come together upon some such platform as you may make, which
shall afford to us protection in the South; and we think you can afford to
yield that to us, especially when it will bring to the support of your platform
a united South; and therefore it is that I intend to vote for the majority
platform, which, if not giving us all, yet provides for an active application
of the principles substantially involved in the Alabama resolutions. We may therefore accept that platform with
honor, and continue our deliberations with you.
Alabama has been
stringent, my countrymen, not in dictating to you, as has been charged, by the
instructions Alabama has given to her delegation, and which but for the
all-seeing, all-knowing, all-finding-out press, you would never have heard of,
but to leave no ground of doubt as to her will in the mind of any of her
delegation; our instructions are merely the will of the State of Alabama, given
to us for our guidance, and not as a dictation to you. Alabama
has sufficient self-respect to respect her sister States here, and knows how
much out of place it would be to dictate to them; and those persons in my own
State who have represented her as dictating to you, have lost all respect for their
own State, if not for themselves, in making the assertion. We come in a spirit of conciliation, in a
spirit of harmony, yet planting ourselves upon that Constitution from which we
cannot depart and be safe; and if you cannot take a stand there with us, then,
indeed, will we be a divided people.
Gentlemen, I have thus
shown to you that there is a conviction in our minds that we are not safe in
the Union, unless we can obtain your
unequivocal pledge to an administration of this government upon the plainly
avowed constitutional, congressional, as well as executive and judicial
protection of our rights. You have
objected that this is a new feature in Democracy. But I say you have taken jurisdiction of this
question in years past. In 1844 you took
jurisdiction of the slavery question, to protect it from abolition assaults. In 1848 you again took jurisdiction of the
slavery question, though to a limited extent.
In 1852 you did the same; and in 1856, when the Territorial issues were
forced upon the country by the Freesoilers, demanded that the Democratic partv
should take one step farther in advance, in order to be up with the progress of
the times, and with the march of aggression, you added to these former
platforms another plank, which it was then deemed would be sufficient to meet
the issues then urged. And what was that
plank? It was that Congress should not
intervene to establish or abolish slavery in State or Territory. What is the fair and just meaning of this
proposition? Lawyers and statesmen who
are in the habit of construing laws and constitutions by the light of
experience, and by the rules which the great jurists of all ages have laid down
for their construction, know that in order to decide what a law of doubtful
import means, you must look at the subject matter, at the cause of its
enactment, you must look at the evils it was designed to correct, and the
remedy it was designed to give.
Now, then, by the
light of those established rules of construction, let us see what is the
meaning of this branch of the Cincinnati Platform.
First. What was the subject matter upon which it is
based? It was the right of the owner of
slaves to emigrate, and settle, and hold slaves in the Territories of the United States.
Second. What was the cause of the passage of that
resolution? It was that the South was
restless and dissatisfied with the admission of California under Squatter
Sovereignty principles; dissatisfied with the law forbidding the internal slave
trade between citizens of slave States and the District of Columbia—and claimed
perfect freedom to go with slaves into any Territory of the United States, and
to hold them there until forbid by a constitution constitutionally formed, and
the admission of the new Srate into the Union.
The South claimed the enactment of that platform for her own protection. It was not urged by Northern men for
utterance of Squatter Sovereignty views. No such power was urged then by anybody, and
the South alone had that platform made, and the cause of it was her need for
protection, as a political question
Third. What were the evils it was designed to
correct? They were the doctrines
maintained by Seward and the Black Republican party, to
wit: that Congress had the power to abolish slavery in the Territories, and
that it was its duty to do so.
The great principle at
stake, the great practical evil apprehended, was not only the power by which
this could be done, but more especially was, could the South be excluded from
territory held by the general government in trust for the co-equal States of
the Union. To assure the South on these
points, to allay her apprehensions, and solely on account of and at the instance
of Southern demand for Congressional interference for purposes of protection
against the freesoil aggression, was this Cincinnati
resolution adopted.
And now for the proof. [Mr. Yancey not having time to read and
elaborate his authorities in support of his general argument, in the
Convention, claims the privilege of presenting them more at large in this
report of his speech.] Here are the resolutions in that platform on this
subject.
EXTRACT FROM CINCINNATI
PLATFORM.
“And that we may more
distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party, subsisting exclusively on
slavery agitation, now relies to test the fidelity of the people, North and
South, to the Constitution and the Union:
1. Resolved,
That claiming fellowship with, and desiring the co-operation of all who regard
the preservation of the Union, under the Constitution, as the paramount
issue—and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic
slavery, which seek to embroil the States and incite to treason and armed
resistance to law in the Territories, and whose avowed purposes, if
consummated, must end in civil war and disunion—the American Democracy
recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing
the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, as embodying the only sound and safe
solution of the “slavery question,” upon which the great national idea of the
people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the
Union—non-interference by Congress with
slavery in State
and Territory, or
in the District
of Columbia.
2. That this was the basis of the compromises of
1850—confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in National
Conventions—ratified by the people in the election of 1852—and rightly applied
to the organization of Territories in 1854.
3. That by the uniform application of this Democratic
principle to the organization of Territories, and to the admission of new States,
with or without domestic Slavery, as they may elect, the equal rights of all the
States will be preserved intact—the original compact of the Constitution
maintained inviolate—and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union ensured to
its utmost capacity of embracing in peace and harmony every future American
State that may be constituted or annexed with a republican form of government.
Resolved, That we recognize
the right of the people of all the Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska,
acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual
residents, and whenever the number of the inhabitants justifies it, to form a
Constitution with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union
on terms of perfect equality with the other States.”
The preamble sets
forth that these resolves were made with a view of “meeting the issue made by a
sectional party subsisting exclusively on slavery agitation” (which was clearly
the Freesoil party), and, therefore, it was not made to assert the dogmas of
any wing of the Democratic party, as it is now here and to-day claimed to have
been made. The first resolution
expressly asserts that it was drawn for the purpose of repudiating all
sectional parties and platforms (which, undoubtedly, were the Black Republican and
Abolition parties) concerning domestic slavery, “which seek to embroil the
States, and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Territories,”
and, therefore, sir, included no part of the Democracy which passed and upheld
the Act of Kansas, and which was in power in administering the law there, both
federal and territorial. These parties
had repeatedly charged the Democracy with being propagandists of slavery, and
that its design was not only to prevent Congress from abolishing or excluding,
but was also to establish slavery in a Territory by law. To meet these views, this first resolution
declared that the true aim of the party was “non-interference by Congress with
slavery in State and Territory, or in the District of Columbia.” Still more: this “non-interference” was a
principle to govern Congress at particular periods only—as is proven by the
language of the second and third resolutions.
The second resolution says, “that this was the basis, rightly applied to
the organization of Territories in 1854”—that is, “that this was the basis” of
principles on which the party stood in 1854—and that the time for its
application and the mode, also, as illustrated by their action then, is in “the
organization of Territories”—and, therefore, it is not “rightly applied,” if
applied as a rule of Congressional duty, when a Territorial law violates the
equal right of property of a Southern citizen in a Territory. This view is still further enforced by the
last of the series of resolutions. That
recognizes “the right of the people of all the Territories” to exclude slavery
or to establish it, when they lawfully form a Constitution, and therefore, is
the pledge of the Democracy that, in its view, that is the only time when they
can do so. This is the argument derived
from the face of the Cincinnati
platform—and it is unanswerable. There
is another view of it, however. If “non-interference
by Congress with slavery in State or Territory, or in the District of Columbia,” means Squatter
Sovereignty or Popular Sovereignty—if it means to assert that Congress has to
abandon all its right to legislate on slavery, and not even interfere to revise
unconstitutional legislation, what is the effect of that Constitution? It is simply absolutely to divest Congress of
any right to legislate on slavery in the District
of Columbia, over which it has powers of exclusive”
legislation! It simply divests Congress
of the power to enforce the fugitive slave provision of the Constitution by any
necessary additional legislation that will have bearing either “on State or
Territory.” But as all will admit that
Congress is bound to pass all such needed laws on those subjects as experience
may require, and as the “non-interference” described in the platform is to be
equally a duty “in State or Territory, or in the District of Columbia,” it
follows that this Squatter Sovereign construction has no foundation in reason,
nor in the letter or spirit of the Cincinnati platform.
No, sir! Mr. Douglas’ doctrine is at war with the
rights of Southern citizens, both under the Constitution and under the Cincinnati platform. Contemporaneous views of leading Democrats
have been referred to for the purpose of showing that Mr. Douglas’
construction was received is the correct one.
Without undertaking to reply to the extracts read by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Payne),
torn, as they were, from their contexts, one instance occurring in the Senate
on the passage and discussion of the bill, will suffice to refute that gentleman’s
assertion that such was “the universal understanding of the meaning of the Kansas
Act.”
[Mr. Yancey
here quotes at length the position assumed by Senator Brown, which he briefly stated in the debate:]
‘“I have not, in my
own judgment, and I trust I have not, in my action here, yielded the principle
that the people of the Territories, during their territorial existence, have
the right to exclude slavery. I have not
intended to yield that point, and I do not mean that my action in future times
shall be so construed.’
‘‘Senator Douglas moved to postpone
the bill (Nebraska-Kansas) till tomorrow.
“Gen. Cass
asked him to withdraw the motion, and said: ‘The Hon. Senator (Mr. Brown) has touched on one
of the main questions connected with it, and which has not been touched before. It is a very grave and a very important
question. The power of the people of the
Territories to legislate upon their internal concerns, during the period of these
temporary governments, is most clearly given in this bill, if the Constitution
permits it.’
“Mr. Badger.
Certainly.
“Mr. Cass.
If the Constitution does not permit, they have not got it.
“Mr. Badger.
That is clear.
“Mr. Cass. Behind that stands the other question which
must be discussed here; and I, for one, am determined that my constituents
shall know my views on the point. It is
one on which the Hon. Senator from Mississippi
and myself differ. * * * It is, whether by virtue of the Constitution of the
United States, there is a kind of motive power in slavery that immediately
spreads it over any Territory, or by virtue of which any slave may be taken to
any Territory of the United States as soon as it is annexed.
* * * * * * * * * * *
“Mr. Butler. I wish to save myself. I am perfectly willing to vote for the clause
(that quoted by me) as modified by the Hon. Senator from Illinois, the Chairman
of the Committee on Territories (Mr. Douglas),
but with a very clear judgment that, if Congress has not constitutional
competency to legislate either one way or the other—either to introduce or
prohibit slavery in the Territories, a territorial government has no derivative
authority to do so from any act which Congress can pass.
“Mr. Brown. Certainly not.
“Mr. Butler. I am perfectly willing to leave this question
under the Constitution.
“Mr. Dawson.
That is where it ought to be left.
“Mr. Butler. I am perfectly willing to leave it under the
Constitution, to be decided by the law tribunals of the country; and that is
where it ought to be left. If in process
of settlement, the people of these Territories shall be prepared to assume upon
themselves the attributes of a sovereign State, they can then, certainly, either exclude or admit slavery. I presume that will not be denied by any one. During their growth, and before they
undertake to become a State, can they assume to exercise a power which Congress
itself, under the Constitution, cannot confer upon them? They can have no derivative power on the
subject from an act of ours.
“Mr. Cass. That is a matter to be argued. I differ from the Honorable Senator in toto.
‘I deny (said he) that
the right to regulate carries along with it the right to destroy. The right to regulate the relation between
master and servant no more entitles the regulating power to destroy that
relation, than does the power to regulate the relation between husband and wife
authorize the destruction of that relation.
As well might the Territorial Legislature take a wife from her husband,
under pretence of regulating their relations, as to take a servant from his master
under pretence of regulating that relation.
* * * * * If I thought that, in voting
for the bill as it now stands, I was conceding the right of the people in the
Territory, during their territorial existence, to exclude slavery. I would withhold my vote.”
These remarks, and the
presence and acquiescence of Mr. Douglas,
show how he and Senator Brown, at
least understood the bill, or it shows gross misapprehension as to the meaning
of the bill somewhere. Either view is
sufficient for my purpose
It was only when the
South had obtained an advantage in Kansas, and was about to test the question
whether another slave State could be admitted into the Union, that this new
phase of Squatterism appeared as a practical issue under the more euphonious
name of Popular Sovereignty. Kansas applied for
admission under the Lecompton constitution, recognizing the institution of
African slavery. The people who had
elected the delegates to the Convention had required no submission of such
Constitution as might be framed. But the
Convention did submit to them the vexed question of slavery, and that was
ratified by the people. This was all
done “in their own way,” and in strict accordance with the organic act.
Mr. Douglas then, for the first time, in
practical, tangible form, brought forward this astonishing doctrine, that the
will of the State Convention—assembled by legal authority, and by the will of
the people—clothed for the first time with the right to do a sovereign act—the
formation of the governmental institutions of a new State, must submit the
result of their labors to a popular vote at the hustings—the Convention, in
which alone lies any claim to the assumption of power to make the fundamental
law in our system of republican government, must yield its own judgment to the
mere masses.
The argument was that
the inherent right of the people to all the powers of self-government had been
invaded, dogmas of the Declaration of Independence were brought forward to
assert the most revolutionary and incendiary doctrines; dogmas of the
revolution all brought forward for the support of principles destructive of all
the binding force and security of organic law; and we who are not a mobocracy:
we, who are not in fact a democracy in form of government; we who have a
representative government, where laws and constitutions are made by
representative power, ought to guard well our safety lest the wisdom, judgment
and experience of the past be thrown down and trampled upon in the wild passionate
struggle of the masses for party or agrarian ascendancy. (Applause.)
Gentlemen of the
Convention, that venerable, that able, that revered jurist, the Honorable Chief
Justice of the United States, trembling upon the very verge of the grave, for
years kept merely alive by the pure spirit of patriotic duty that burns within
his breast—a spirit that will not permit him to succumb to the gnawings of disease and to the weaknesses of mortality—which hold
him, as it were, suspended between two worlds, with his spotless ermine around
him, standing upon the very altar of Justice, has given to us the utterance of
the Supreme Court of the United States upon this very question. (Applause.)
Let the murmur of the
hustings be stilled—let the voices of individual citizens, no matter how great
and respected in their appropriate spheres, be hushed, while the law, as
expounded by the constituted authority of the country, emotionless, passionless
and just, rolls in its silvery cadence over the entire realm, from the Atlantic
to the Pacific, and from the ice-bound regions of the North to the glittering
waters of the Gulf. (Loud cheering.) What says that decision? That decision tells you, gentlemen, that the
Territorial Legislature has no power to interfere with the rights of the slave-owner
in the Territory while in a Territorial condition. (Cheers.) That decision tells you that this
Government is a union of sovereign States; which States are co-equal, and in
trust for which co-equal States the Government holds the Territories. It tells you that the people of those co-equal States have a right to go into these Territories,
thus held in trust, with every species of property which is recognized as
property by the States in which they live, or by the Constitution of United
States. The venerable magistrate—the
Court concurring with him—decided that it is the duly of this Government to
afford some government for the Territories which shall be in accordance with
this trust, with this delegated trust power held for the States and for the
people of the States. That decision goes
still further; it tells you that if Congress has seen fit, for its own
convenience, and somewhat in accordance with the sympathies and instincts and
genius of our institutions, to accord a form of government to the people of the
Territories, it is to be administered precisely as Congress can administer it,
and to be administered as a trust for the co-equal States of this Union, and
the citizens of those States who choose to emigrate to those Territories. That decision goes on to tell you this: that
as Congress itself is bound to protect the property, which is recognised as
such, of the citizens of any of the States—as Congress itself, not only has no power,
but is expressly forbidden to exercise the power to deprive any owner of his
property in the Territories, therefore, says that venerable, that passionless
representative of Justice, who yet hovers on the confines of the
grave—therefore, no government formed by that Congress can have any more power
than the Congress that created it.
But, we are met right
here with this assertion: we are told by the distinguished advocate of this
doctrine of Popular Sovereignty that this opinion is not a decision of the
Supreme Court, but merely the opinion of citizen Taney. He does not tell you, my countrymen, that it
is not the opinion of the great
majority of the Supreme Court bench. Oh
no! but he tells you that it is a matter
that is obiter dicta outside the
jurisdiction of the Court; in other words, extra-judicial—that it is simply the
opinion of Chief Justice Taney, as an individual, and not the
decision of the Court, because it was not the subject-matter before the Court. Now, Mr. Douglas and all others who make that
assertion and undertake to get rid of the moral, the constitutional, the
intellectual power of the argument, put themselves directly in conflict with
the venerable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and with
the recorded decision of the Court itself—because Chief Justice Taney,
after disposing of the demurrer in that case, undertook to go on and to decide
the question upon the facts aud the merits of the case; and, said he in doing
that, we are met with the objection “that anything we may say upon that part of
the case will be extra-judicial and mere obiter
dicta. This is a manifest mistake,”
&c.; and the Court—not Chief Justice Taney, but the whole Court, with but two
dissenting voices—decided that it was not obiter
dicta; that it was exactly in point, within the jurisdiction of the Court,
and that it was the duty of the Court to decide it. Now then, who shall the Democracy recognize
as authority on this point—a statesman, no matter how brilliant, and able and
powerful in intellect, in the very meridian of life—animated by an ardent and
consuming ambition—struggling as no other man has ever done for the high and
brilliant position of candidate for the Presidency of the United States, at the
hand of this great party—or that old and venerable jurist who, having filled
his years with honor, leaves you his last great decision before stepping from
the high place of earthly power into the grave, to appear before his Maker, in
whose presence deception is impossible, and earthly position is as dust in the
balance? (Loud and continued cheering.)
Gentlemen, I am
admonished by the progress of time by the courteous yet warning voice of the
presiding officer, and by my own feebleness, that I must pass on to some other
branch of this subject, and close my remarks.
It seems to me as if the subject was but just opening up before me, but
I trust I have at least opened to you the great vista through which your own
intellectual vision will enable you to pursue the line of my argument. I do not quote this decision of the Supreme
Court as conclusive authority, or as of binding obligation upon the State which
I represent, or upon any other State. The
decisions of the courts are binding only upon the parties to the cause decided,
and are but persuasive of the truth to all others. The question itself, however, has been before
the Court; the Court has had it before them; the Court say they have decided
it; the Court decided, against objections, that they had jurisdiction; the
Court decided that Congress has no power to prohibit slavery in the
Territories, for the single yet comprehensive reason, that the Constitution
protects slaveholders in a Territory; the Court decided that Congress cannot
prohibit slavery in the Territories, for the reason that the Constitution of
the United Stales overrides all the powers that would assail it. Pray tell me by what argument or logic a
Territory, the most inferior form of our government, can have greater power
than the government that holds these territories in trust—for equal benefit of
the citizens of each State? (Cheers.) The weakest and most inferior form of all
governments known to the Union is the territorial form of government given by
Congress, and yet gentlemen tell us that by some peculiar hocus-pocus, which
they cannot explain and define except by running back to the Declaration of
Independence and quoting the axiom “that all men are created free and equal,”
and they can give us no connecting link between that great dogma and this
theory—they say there is some peculiar process by which, when Congress gives to
a Territory a government, although Congress did not possess this power itself,
and could not give it to them, yet it becomes an inherent power on great
general principles. The Supreme Court of
the United States, in the Dred Scott
case, has met that very position, and Chief Justice Taney said, in
answer to it, “That no reasoning of statesmen, or of jurists”—“none whatever
upon general principles”—“can enlarge the powers of the Government, or take
from the citizen the rights they have reserved,” and “that the powers of the
Government, and the rights of the citizen under it, are positive and practical
regulations plainly written down.” No matter how beautiful the language or how
patriotic the sentiment, in which one appeals to these revolutionary ideas, the
Supreme Court tells you that you will save yourself from faction and misrule,
and the war of factions, by adhering to the plainly written letter of the
Constitution; the Government must find its power in the Constitution, or it is
not conferred.
I now pass from that
branch of the subject. We simply claim
that we, being co-equal with you in the Territories, we having property which
is as sacred to us as yours is to you, that is recognized as such by the
constitution of our common country—shall enjoy, unmolested, the rights to go into
the Territories, and to remain there, and enjoy those rights as citizens of the
United States, as long as our common government holds those Territories in
trust for the States of which we are citizens.
That is all. We claim that there
is no power in any portion of the people who go there to deprive us of the full
enjoyment of our rights of property, until after having formed a Constitution,
they are admitted into the Union, when they
have the sovereign right to do, on that question, whatever they please. If their decision is against us in that form,
we bow and submit to it without a murmur.
If it is for us, we ask that you shall submit to it without a murmur. It is the doctrine of equality, gentlemen. It is based upon the rigid sublimity of that
utterance of the country’s greatest and purest statesman, Mr. Calhoun, and
quoted by your distinguished President in taking the chair—“Truth, Justice, and
the Constitution.” (Loud cheering.)
But our friends at the
North say they cannot give up this doctrine with safety. Why? Why
cannot you give it up? What right of
yours is at stake? What property of
yours is impaired in doing so? What social
relation of yours is endangered by your accepting our views? None whatever. I have no doubt, gentlemen, that each of you
here enjoys most pleasantly, the hospitalities of this city—even such
hospitalities as you pay for so magnificently (Laughter). I have no doubt of that, and I have no doubt
that these sable people who wait upon you, who are slaves for life, and whose
children are born slaves, and who descend to the heirs of their masters, are
agreeable in their relations to you as an inferior class of beings, who are
ready to contribute to your comfort, and whom you can command to contribute to
your comfort. Your relations towards
them would be just the same in the Territories as they are here. The institution does not interfere with you. It does not belong to you to put your hands
on it. You are agressors when you injure
it. You are not brothers when you injure
us, and you are without the excuse of being actuated by the lowest motives that
can actuate an honest man to do a mean thing—because he is interested in it. (Loud cheers.) If you desire the good of your
country—if you desire the welfare of this Union—if you desire, outside of the Constitution,
to be actuated by love of God, by love of truth, by love of the great
principles of equality—then I would say to you: “Hands off and let us work our
own row in these Territories.” If you beat us at the end you will be entitled
to the palm of victory. If we beat you,
we will give you good servants for life and enable you to live comfortably, and
we will take your poor white man and elevate him from the office of boot-black,
and from other menial offices which belong to the highest order of civilization—we
will elevate him to a place amongst the master race and put the negro race to
do this dirty work which God designed they should do. (Tremendous cheering.)
Mr. Buskirk. I rise to a question of order. For an hour and twenty minutes I have listened
to noise in the galleries, and I now move that the galleries be cleared. (Shouts of “no,” “no,” and hisses.)
A Delegate. If there was any noise made during the speech
of the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. King,) it came from that quarter of the hall. (Cheers.)
The President. The gentleman from Indiana rises to a privileged question as
well as a question of order, suggesting that there is applause in the
galleries. The Chair gave notice to the
Convention when this debate commenced that he should feel bound to yield to the
manifestation of the wish of the Convention in not interfering to check
applause on the floor of the Convention.
He has not done so. It has been
his purpose, if he became conscious of any applause in the galleries, to check
it instantly; but it is impossible for the Chair, when there is tumultuous
applause on the floor, to distinguish additional applause in the galleries. (Loud cheers.) If it be the pleasure of the Convention to
proceed without any manifestations of applause on the floor, it will be in the
power of the Chair to enforce that order on the floor and in the galleries,
otherwise it will be impossible. (Cheers.)
Capt. Rynders.
You will have to stop Mr. Yancey from speaking if you want to suppress
applause on the floor. (Tremendous
cheering and laughter.)
Mr. Yancey.
Gentlemen, it is further said, that this is a judicial question. It is true it is a judicial question, but it
is also a political question of the highest, the gravest and the most
significant import. It is a judicial
question between a citizen whose property is taken away from him and him who
wrongs him. If he chooses to take it to
the Courts of the United States,
it becomes a judicial question; if he does not choose to take his wrongs to the
Courts of the United States,
it is not a judicial question. The
citizen himself interested in his individual rights may or may not assert it. The celebrated Missouri restrictions remained for
thirty-odd years uncontested in the courts.
State after State, equalling in extent of domain and in noble fertility
of soil any of the European nations, was admitted into this Union
under the unconstitutional act which prohibited the South from having the least
chance of inhabiting those Territories; and yet the judicial power rested
there, and was dormant and inefficient to protect the South. Oh!
how vain! What a mere mockery it
is to tell the sovereign States of the South that their rights are to depend
upon the mutable and vacillating will of an individual, who may or may not want
to contest so great a power as the laws of this government! Mark you, the United States Bank question was
a great constitutional question, and when General Jackson sprung it upon the
country, his opponents said that it was not a legislative, or political, but a
purely judicial question. It was a
judicial question in the aspect of any individual who was wronged by it, and
who chose to question it, or sue out his writ of quo warranto; but it was a
grand, magnificent, powerful political question among the people of this whole
country, whether or no their money should be kept in the vaults of a moneyed
institution, who should make a profit out of them at the expense of others; and
at last the people of the country decided, with General Jackson, that while it
was a judicial, it was also a great political question; and the old hero obtained
an overwhelming and triumphant victory under his administration, and the
question, finally, under that of Mr. Van Buren.
I turn, then, from
that aspect of the question; and now, gentlemen, why, why will you not accord
to the South simple protection? We are
told here, to-day, in answer to this question, by the partisans of party who
have addressed you, that the fate of our party hangs upon the issue; but I tell
you, gentlemen, that the fate of our country hangs upon the issue! (Cheers.) I meet your partisan arguments with the fate
of the party, aye! and of the country itself.
I make no threats. I am not
authorised to do so, and it would be unbecoming in any one to do so. I will state to you, though, my earnest
belief that such is the condition of the public mind at the South, that it
cannot bear any longer any doubt as regards what is the position of this party
on this great issue. (Cheers.) We are determined, in no language of threat or
of compulsion, that we must bring up the Democratic party to the great issue of
loyalty to the Government; we must appeal to the nobler sentiments of its
members, and ask that their feelings of loyalty to the Government shall
override their principle of mere loyalty to party success. If need be, we must accept defeat upon great
truths with cheerfulness, rather than rejoice in a victory obtained upon error
or double dealing. (Tremendous
cheering.)
In 1840, what did this
Democracy do, when, I must think, it was a prouder and a purer party than it is
now? In that great financial issue, when
the people decided against it, and Martin Van Buren was in the chair, he rose
to the grandeur and the full proportions of a statesman, when in his message to
the Congress of the United
States,
that next met he said, he appealed
to the “sober second thought of the people.” (Loud cheers.)
The Democracy went into convention. They fearlessly planted
themselves upon the
constitutional principle of the divorce of bank and of state; they met
the
cohorts of “log cabin,” and “coon skins,” and “hard cider;” they met a
party
all over whose banner was emblazoned, “without a why or a wherefore;”
“we simply
go for turning out the Democracy, and putting in a new party.” The
Democracy
accepted defeat on principle. The opposition
accepted victory on the very principle on which you wish to have it
now—the
ignoring of all issues that would make them unpopular in the
canvass. No sooner had they got the power in a
Congress, that met for the first time with the eloquent and mighty Clay
at the
head, and he proposed the great measures of the Whig party, which had
been kept
out of the canvass as national questions, than that party burst into a
thousand
fragments, as the frail, rotten, and unseaworthy bark falls upon the
rocks on
which the billows have tossed her, and the Democratic party, upon the
returning
tide, came overwhelmingly into power upon principle. (Tremendous
cheers.)
I commend to you, my
countrymen, this bit of history, and the lesson it teaches. Stand firmly on a constitutional basis: go
before your Northern people and appeal to their loyalty to the Union and their loyalty to the Constitution. Make it a question of Union
or Disunion between you and Sewardism. Tell
them they are pressing the South to the wall on a matter of mere sentiment, and
an abstraction with you, but a practical thing with the South. Tell them that the South cannot exist in the
government when dishonored, and you will but respect your own sense of honor in
believing it to be true, my countrymen.
(Great applause.) Tell them all this, and you give back-bone to that
wishy-washy, vacillating policy upon which you have been going down for so many
years, until you now number practically on this question but three in the
Northern States, and cannot rightly claim a Northern State this side of the
Pacific. Take this issue by the horns; throttle
anti-slavery in the very heart of its power on the question of the constitutional
right of the slaveholder to constitutional protection. Let them see that there will be disunion. Do you urge upon them that there will be
disunion if we are defeated, and if your people are what I believe they are,
when the truth is told them, you will reach beneath the scum which politicians
have kept boiling up for years to the deeper and stronger and purer elements of
their nature; you will rise to the top upon the loyalty of your people to the
Government, to the Constitution, and to the Union; you will rise once more, as
the fabled Greek did, who overcome by superior prowess, prayed—to his mother
earth to give him strength; and when thrown violently to earth, receive from
the bosom of his mother that renewed vitality and virtue which enabled him to
rise once more and to become victorious in the struggle. (Great applause.)
Go to the wall upon
this issue if events demand it. Accept
defeat upon it. Let the threatened
thunders roll and the lightning flash through the sky, and let the dark cloud
be pointed out by you, now resting on the Southern horizon. Let them know that our people are in earnest,
and in accepting defeat upon that issue, my countrymen, you are bound to rise,
if there is virtue in the Constitution.
But if we adopt of your policy, where are we? We will then have assented to the great fact
involved in adopting your platform, that the government is a failure so far as
the protection of the South in the Territories is concerned. We would be estopped forever after from
asserting our principle by your simply pointing to the record, that we had
assented to the fact that the government could not be administered on a clear
assertion of our rights. Is that true,
gentlemen of the Northwest? Is it true,
gentlemen of the North and of the whole country, that our government is a
failure so far as the plain and unequivocal rights of the South are concerned? If it is a failure, we are not patriots,
unless we go to work at the very foundation stone of this error and
re-construct this party on a proper basis.
If it is a failure, do not ask us, who are the injured parties, to
affiliate in building up a party by the acknowledgment on our part that we dare
not assert our rights in the North for fear of defeat. If we give you success on such a basis, and
at the end of four years we ask you once more to reconsider, what will you say? You will say “when the question was made you
gave us your consent; and do you now ask us to go back and be defeated once
again, when you have admitted that we could not maintain your principle?”
The effect of such a
policy will not be merely to give your assent to a failure of the Government
and of the Democratic party to protect you, but it will be to place this party
in power, with its myriads of camp followers, to turn adrift all its discordant
elements on the subject of slavery to affiliate and act with the Black Republicans
in Congress on propositions hostile to our peace and safety, leaving to the
South and the party no check upon them—not even the power of indignant protest. Having no sound and common article of party
faith by which to prevent this, we shall become a prey to our own members. The opposite of all this may be expected from
the adoption of the majority report. That
involves a great constitutional question—an appeal to the ancient brotherly
love of our people for each other. It
will bring the country face to face with the living issue of the age, and will
demand its solution at the hands of the people.
It will enable the Democracy to appeal to the loyalty of all sections to
the Constitution. It will inaugurate a
healthy state of public opinion at the North as well as at the South. It will enable the South to maintain a high
public spirit among its people. It will
bring about once more a community of public feeling, and public opinion, and
public sentiment running, like a great artery, throughout the body of the
Democracy, and in time will enable it to save the Government from becoming a
mere war of factions, or will save the Constitution as the basis of a new
government.
To my countrymen of
the South I have a few words to say. Be
true to your constitutional duties and rights.
Be true to your own sense of right.
Accept of defeat here, if defeat is to attend the assertion of the
right, in order that you may secure a permanent victory in whatever contest you
carry a constitutional banner.
Yield nothing of
principle for mere party success—else you will die by the hands of your
associates as surely as by the hand of your avowed enemy. Permit no party, in lieu of fealty to the
written compact of the Constitution, to put the fiat of its own allegiance and
fealty upon you, which will forever after be used to prevent your rising, when
you think the proper time comes, to assert your reserved rights. Do not demoralize yourselves; do not
demoralize your own people by admitting that you are ready to affiliate in a
war of factions, merely for the sake of keeping a party in power. A party, in its noblest sense, is an
organized body that pledges itself to the people to administer the Government
on a constitutional basis. The people
have no interest in parties, except to have them pledged to administer the
Government for the protection of their rights.
The leaders of the masses, brilliant men, great statesmen, may, by ever
ignoring the people’s rights, still have a brilliant destiny in the rewards of
office and the distribution of the eighty millions annually; but when those
leaders, those statesmen, become untrue to the people, and ask the people to
vote for a party that ignores their rights, and dares not acknowledge them, in
order to put and keep them in office, they ought to be strung upon a political
gallows higher than that ever erected for Haman. (Vehement and continued applause.)
|
