* BY DAVID OYER. The Republican Parly The Demand* of tlie South L\- plained- SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, OF ILLINOIS, At the Cooper Institute, N. Y. City FEBRUARY, 1860. MA. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE CITT OF NEW YORK. —The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar ; nor is there anything now iu the general use 1 shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts and the inferences and observations following that presentation. Iu his speech, last auturnu, at Columbus, Ouio, as reported in the New York 7 iwies, Senator Douglas said: — "Our fathers, when they framed the govern ment under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, thau we do now." I fully endorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. (Applause.) Iso adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between the Re publicans and that wing of the Democracy beaded by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry—What was the understanding those fathers LaJ of the question mentioned 1 What ta the frame of government under which we live? The answer must be—the Constitution of the United States. That constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (aud under which the present government first went into operation,) and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were fram ed iu 1789. THE FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. Who were our fathers that framed the Con stitution? 1 suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole ration at that time.— Their names being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be re peated. I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as beiug "our fathers who framed the government under whiob we live." What i* ♦bo question wnicb, according to the Text, those fathers understood as well and even bet ter tuan we do now? It is this:—"Does the proper division of local from federal autboiity, o- anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavety in our Federal Territories ? DOUGLAS AND LINCOLN. Upon this Douglas held the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. The affirmative ami denial fcrin an issue; and this issue, this question, is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood better than we. (Cheers.) Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them ever acted upon this question, and it they did, how they acted upon it —how they expressed that better understanding. In 1784, three years before the Constitution, the United States then owning the Northwestern territory, and no other, the Congress ot the confederation bad before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory ; and four of the "thirty-nino" who afterwards framed the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin and Hugh William son voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no lioe dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to cootrel as to slavery in Federal Territory.— The other of the four James MoHenry voted against the prohibition, showing that for some cause he thought it improper to vote for it.— In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern territory still was tLe only territory owned by the United States—the same question of prohibiting slave ry in the territory again came betore the Congress of the Confederation; and three more of the "thirty-nine" who afterwards signed the Constitution were in that Congress and voted on that question. They were \Vm. Blount, Wm. Few and Abraham Baldwin, and they all voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local frem tederal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal Territory. THE ORDINANCE OF 1787. This time the prohibition became a law, be iog a part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of 1787. The question of Federal control of slavery in the Territories 6eoms not to have been directly betore the CnveDtwn which framed the original Constitution ; and henoe it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instru ment, expressed any opinion on that precise question. In 1780, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the ordinance of 1787 includ ing the prohibition of slavery in the North western territory. The biil for this act was reported by one of the "tbirty-niue," THOMAS FITZSIMMONS, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all ita stages without a word of op position, and final!; passed both brashes without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. (Cheers.) In this Con gress there were sixteen of the "thirty-nine" fath <rs who framed the original Constitution. They were : J ,l, .i Laogdon, Abraham Baldwin, •nh ias (tilman, Fvufus King, V, La. J abuses, Wm. Patterson, L k r cbermati, Richard Ba&seit, Ro: ert Morrb, Gearge Read, A eekly Paper, Devoted to Literature, Politics, the Arts, Sciences, Agriculture, &c., &c—Terms: One Dollar and Fifty Cents in Advance. George Clymer, Pierce Butler, Tbos. Fitziimuons, Daniel Carroll, William Few, James Madison. This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority uor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the Federal Territory, else both their fidelity to correct principal, and their oath to support the Con stitution would have constrained them to op pose the prohibition. OPINION OP GEORGE WASHINGTON. Again, George Washington, auother of the "thirty-nine,''' was then President of the U. States, and as such, approved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that in his understanding, uo line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Fed eral Government to control as to slavery in Federal Territory. (Loud applause.) No groat while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Fed eral Government tbG country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and, a few years Mater, Georgia ceded that whieh now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama, lu both deeds of eession, it was made a condition by the cediDg States that the Federal Government should Dot prohibit slavery in the ceded coun try. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of tcese couutries, did uot abso lutely prohibit slavery witliiu them. CONGRESS DID INTERFERE. But they did interfere with it—take control of it—even there, to a certain extent. Io 1798 Congress organized the Territory of Mississip pi. lu the act of organization tbey prohibited the bringing of slaves iuto the Territory, from any place without the United Slates, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed both brauohes of Congress without yeas and uaya. la that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original Coustitutiou. They wore John Lsagdon, Geo. liead and Abraham Baldwin. Tbey all prob ably, voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record if, in their understanding, any liue dividing local aud federal authority, or anything io the Con stitution properly forbade the Federal Govern ment to control as to slavery io Federal Terri tory. [Applause.] in 1803 the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana none fry Oat*'forme TemteMwi aequisitions osme from certain of our own States, but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation, lu 130-1 Congress gave a Territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleaus, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, aud slavery was extensively and thoroughly inter mingled with the people. Congress did not, iD the Territorial act, prohibit slavery ; but they did interfere with it—iu a more marked aud extensive way thau they did iu the case of Mississippi. THE LOUISIANA PROVISO. The substance of the provision therein made in relatiou to slaves was— First, That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreign parts. Second, That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the States since the first day of May, 1798. Third, That no Slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law and freedom to the slave. (Prolonged cheers.) This act also was passrd without yeas or nays, in the Congress wbicb passed it. there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their oppo sition to it.if in their understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local from federal authority or any provision of the Con stitution. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question.— Two of the "thirty-nine"—Rufus KiDg and Charles Pinckney—were members of that Con gress. Mr. Kiug steadily voted for slavery prohibition and agaiust all compromises, while Mr. Piuekney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition, and against all compromises (cheers.) By this Mr. Xing showed that, in his understanding, no Jine dividing local from federal authority, Dor anything in the Consti tution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal Territory ; while Mr. Pinck ney, by his votes, showed that, in hia under standing, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case. THE FATHERS ON RECORD. The cases 1 have mentioned are the only aots of the "thirty-nioe," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to dis cover. To enumcrato the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, three in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-'2o—there would be thirty one of them. But this would be counting Jno. Laogdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King and Geo. Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin four times. [Appiause.J He was a Georgian, too. [Renewed applause and laugh ter.] The true uurnber of those of the "thirty nine" whom 1 have shown to have acted upon tfce question, which, by the text they understood better tnan we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not to have acted upon it io any way. Here, then, we have twenty-three of our "thirty-nioe" fathers who framed the government under wbieh we live, who have, upon their official responsi bility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they "un derstood just as well, and even better than we do now," and twenty-one of them—a ciear ma jority of the whole "thirty-Dine"—so acting BEDFORD, PA., FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1660. upon it as to make theui guilty of gross polit ical impropriety and wilful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between lo cal and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves and sworn to support, foibade the Federal Govern ment to control as to slavery iu the Federal Territories. [Cheers] Thus the twenty-one acted; aud actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder. Two of the twenty-three voted against the Congressional prohibition of slavery in the Federal Territories, in the instances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reason tbey so voted ie not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper di vision of local from Federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or tbey may, without any such ques tion, have voted against the prohibition, on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION. No one who has sworn to support the Con stitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as having done so he cause, in their understanding, and proper divis ion of local from Federal authority, or anythiug in the Constituiion, forbade the Federal Gov ernment to control as to slavery in Federal Territory. [Laughter and prolonged applause.] The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as 1 have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal control of slavery in the Federal Terri tories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upou that question would not have appeared different from that of their twen ty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all. For the purpose of adhering rigid!, to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever underftandiDg may have been manifested, by any person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty-ulne" even, on aoy other phase of the general ques tion of slavery. If we should look into their acta and declarations ou those other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the morality and policy, of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal con trol of slavery in the Federal Territories, the sixteen, if they bad acted at all, would proba bly Lave acted just as the twenty-three did. ANTI-SLAVERY MEN OF THE LAST CENTURY. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times—as Dr. Franklin, (cheers,) Alexauder Hamilton, Goav erncur Morris—while there was not cue now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledgc, of South Carolina. [Applause.] The sum of the whole is, that of our "thirty nine" fathers who framed the original Consti tution, twenty-one —a clear majority of the whole—certainly understood that no proper di vision of local from federal authority, uor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Territortes, while all the rest, probably, had the same understanding. Such, unquestiona bly, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question better than we. (Laughter and cheers.) But, so far 1 have been considering the un derstanding of the question manifested by the frame rs of the orig'nal constitution. In and by the original instrument a mode was provided tor amending it-, and, as I have already stated, the present frame of government under which we live consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal eontrol of slavery in Federal Territories violates the Con stitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understaud, they all fix upon provisions in these amenda tory articles, and not in the ongiual instru ment. THE SUPREME COURT AND THE DEED SCOTT C>SE. The Supreme Court, in Ihe Dred Scott c&sc, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that "no person shall be depri ved of property without due process of law:" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adhe rents plant themselves upon the tenth amend ment, providing ttiat "the powers not granted by the Constitution, are reserved to the States respectively, and to the people." Now, it so* bappeus that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Consti tution—the identical Congress which passed the act already mentioued, enforcing the prohi bition of slavery in the Northwestern Territo ry. [Applause.] Not only was it the same Congress, but they were tho identical, same in dividual men who, at the same session, at the same time within the session, had under con sideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constational amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the Territory the na tion then owned. The constitutional amendments were intro duced before and passed after the act of en forcing the ordinance of 'B7; so that during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordi nance the constitutional amendments were also pending. That Congress, ooosistiog in all of seventy-six members, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of the government under which we live, which is now claimed as forbid ding the Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories. Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress delib erately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absoletely inconsistent with each other? THE ABSURDITY" OP CHARGING INCONSISTENCY UPON THE FATHERS. Aud does not snoh affirmation become impu dently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to he inconsis tent understood whether they really were in consistent better than we—better than he who ufßrias that they are inconsistent? (Applause and great uieiriment.) It is surely safe to as sume that the "thirty-niue" Trainers of the origiual Constitution, and the seventy-six oi3ui bars of the Congress which framed the amend ments thereto, taken altogether, do certainly include those who may bo fairly called "our fathers whojframed 'he government under which we live." Aud so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever in his whole liffl declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. (Loud applause.) Igo a step further. 1 defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present cen j tury, (and I might almost say prior to the be ginning of the last half of the present ecutury,) : declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or aDy part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. To those who so now de clare I give, rot only "our fathers who framed the Government under whioh we live," but with them all other living men wiihio the cen tury in which it was trained among them to search, and they shall not he able to fiu l the evidence of a single man agreeing with them. Now and here let me guard a little against be ing misunderstood. MODERN POCTRINEB FALSE AND DECEPTIVE. I do not meau to say we are bound to follow implieity in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of experience—to reject all progress—all improves meets. What ido say is, that if we would up? 'aut the opinions and policy of our fathers, it) arhf euse: Wsl<lS6utir do so tlpofi efideßce so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and j weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they un derstood the question better than we. (Laugh ter.) If any man, at this day, sincerely believes that a proper divisiou of local from federal authority, or any pari of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history and less leisure to study it, iDto the false belief "that our fathers, who framed the government UDder which we live," were of the same opinion—thus sub stituting falsehood and deception fir truthful evidence and fair argument. (Applause.) If any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers, wbo framed tbe government under which we live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to under stand that a proper division of local from fed eral authority, or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery iu the Federal Territories, he is right to say so. But bo should, at the same time; brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, ho understands their principles better than they did themselves—(great laugh ter) —and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they "under stood tbe question jnst as well, aDd eveD better tbau we do no now." (Applause.)- WHAT REPUBLICANS ASK AND DESIRE. But enough. Let all who believe that our "fathers who framed the government under which we live, understood this question just as well, aud even better than we do now," speak as they spoke and act as thef acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask—all Republicans desire in relation to slavery. As those fath ers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to he extended, but to be tolerated, and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that tole ration and protection a necessity. [Loud ap plause.] Let all the guarantees those fathers gave it be, not grudgingly, but fully aud fair ly maintained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content. [Applause.] And now, if they would listen —as I sup pose they will not—l would address a few words to the Southern people. [Laughter.] I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people, aud I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people; still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans."— [Laughter.] THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NOT SECTIONAL. Iu all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemna tion of "Black Republicanism'' as tne first tbiDg to be attended to. [Laughter.] Indeed such condemnation of us seems to be an indis pensable prerequisite— license, so to speak— among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you or not be prevail ed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves?— i Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us 1 deny or justify. You say we are seotional. — iWe deny it. [Loud applause.] That makes an issae, and the burden of proof is upon you. [Laughter and applause.] You produce your proof, and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section—gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? It it does, tbeo, in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get Totes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional.— [Great merriment.] You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get voffs in your section this very year. [Loud cheers ] You will then begin to dis cover, as the truth plainly is, that, your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making and not curs. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle the fault is ours, but this brings you to where you ought to have started—to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. [Loud applause.] WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly oppo sed and denounced as such. .Meet ns, tbeD, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; aDd so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. [Laughter.] Do you accept the challenge? No. Then do you really believe that the principle whioh our fa thers, who framed the goverumeut under which we live, thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and endorse it again and again, upon their of ficial oaths, is in fact, so cleariy wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration. [Applause.] Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, be had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Cou grese, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embod ied the policy of the Government upon that subject, bpc'n'ThsT subject, up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; aßd about one year after he penned it be wrote to Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same con nection his hope that wo should some time have a confederacy of Free States. [Ap plause.] Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since ({arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against ns, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repu diate i:? [Applaiiso.] We respoct that warn :ug of Washington, and we commend it to yon together with his example pointing to the right application of it. [Applause.] But you say you are conservative—eminently conservative —while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. POLITICAL CONSERVATISM DEFINED. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and un tried? Wo stick to, contend for, the identi cal old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers who framed the government under which we live; while you, with one accord reject, and scout, and spit up on the old policy &Dd insist upon substituting something uew. True, you disagree among yourselves as to wtiai that substitute shall be. You have considerable variety of new propo sitions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade, some for a Congressional slave codo for the Territories, some for Con gress forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintain ing slavery in.the Territories through the Ju diciary; some for the "gur-reat par-riuciplc" —[laughter]—that if one man would enslave another, no third man should object, fautasii cally called "popular sovereignty"—[renewed laughter aud applause]—but never a man among you in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the practice of our fathers who framed the govern ment under which we live. Not one of your various plans can show a a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our government originated. Con sider, then, whether your claim of conserva tism for yourselves, and your charge of de structiveuess against us, ate based on the most clear and stable foundations. Again you say we have made the slavery question more prom inent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is moro prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not us, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers.— We resisted, and still resist, your innovation —your want of conservatism; and tbenoe comes the greater piominence o( the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old pol icy. What has been will be again under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and pol icy of the old times. [Applause.] JOHN BROWN AND HARPERA FERRY. \ ou charge thai we siir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and where is your proof? Harper's Ferry! [Great laughter.] John Brown. [Renewed laughter.] John Brown was no Republican, and you have tailed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper s Ferry enter prise. [ix>ud applause.] If any member of our party is guilty in'that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable to not designate the man and prove VOL 33, NO. 21 I the fact. If you do not know it, you are inex cusable to assert it, and especially to persist in 'lie assertion alter you have tried and failed to make the proof. [Great applause.] You need not be told that peisistiug in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply a malicious slander. [Applause.] Some of you generously admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry atfair; but still insist that our doctrines and declarations neces sarily lead to such results. We know we hold no doctrines and make no declarations which were not held to and made by our fathers who framed the government under which we iive [Applause ] You never dealt fairly by us in re lation to this affair. EFFECTS OF THE INVASION ON LATE ELECTIONS. When it occurred, some important State elec tions were near at haud, and you were iu evi dent glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite tulfilled. [I-aughter.] You did not sweep New York, andJN'ew Jersey, and Wisconsin, and Minnesota, precisely like tire sweeps over the prairie in high wind. [Laughter.] \ou are still drumming at this idea. Go on with it. If you think vou can. by slandering a woman, make* her love you. or by villifying a man make him vote with you. go on and try it. [ boisterous laughter and prolong ed applause.) "Every Republican man knew that, as to himself, at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are ac accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your staves. Surely this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do. in common with our fathers who framed the gov ernment under which we live, declare our be lief that slavery is very wrong—[appiause]—but tbe slaves do not hear us declare even this; for anything we say or do, the slaves would scarce !e know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it, but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hear ing. In your political contests among your selves. each faction charged the other with sym pathy for the black Republicans: and then, to give point to the charge, define Black Republi canism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves. [Boisterous laughter and applause ] SLAVE INSURRECTIONS. Slave insurrections are no more common than they were before the Republican party was or ganized. What induced the Southampton insur rection. twenty years ago, in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Fer ry! You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the 'conclusion that J>outbampton was got tip by Black Republicanism. [Laughter.] In tbe present state of things in the United States. Ido not ihink a general or eveD a very extensive slave insurrection, is possible. The indispensible concert of action cannot be attain ed. The slaves have no means ol rapid com munication; nor can incendiary free men, black or white, supply it. Ihe explosive materials ate everywhere in parcels, but there neither are. nor can be supplied, the indispensible connecting trains. Much ia said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistres ses, and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely bo devised and communicated to twenty individuals before somo one of them, to save the life of a favorite mas ter or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Haytiwasnot an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gun powder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In this case only about twenty were admitted to the secret, and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend and by conse quence averted the calamity. Occasional pois onings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to oc cur as the natural results of slavery, but no gen eral insurrection of slaves, as I think, can Lap pen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed. VIEWS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON. In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered rnauy years ago, It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation aud depor tation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that evil will wear off insensibly ; and their places be, part passu, filled up by free white laboreis. (Loud applause.) If, on the con trary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospeot held up." Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia : and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slavebolding States only. The Federal Gov. eminent, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution —the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery. (Applause.) John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate, lu fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ig norance, saw plainly enough that it could not succeed. That affair, iu its philosophy, corres ponds with ihe many attempts, related hi histo ry, at the assassination of kings and emperora. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he lancies himself commissioned by heaven to liberate them. He ventures the at tempt, which ends in little else than his own ex ecution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoieon and Jonu Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same The eagerness to cast blame on old England in ihe one case, aud on New EpgUnd in die other, , does not disprove the sameness of the two things. [Applause } And how much would it avail you'll jot could, by the use of John Brown, Helper's book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Hitman action can be modified to some extern, but human nature can not be changed
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers