*
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