TERNS OF THE GLOBE.
Per annum in advance
Six months
Three months
A failure to notify a discontinuance at the expiration of
the term subscribed for will be considered a new engage
ment. -
TERMS OF ADVERTISING.
1 insertion. 2 do. 3 do.
Four linos or 1e55,........ ....... $ 25 $ 37 1 / . $ 50
Ono square, (12 lines.) 50 75 1 00
Two squares, -
1 00 1 50 2 00
Three squares, 1 50 2 25 3 00
Over three 'week awl less than three months, 25 cents
per square for each insertion.
3 months. 6 months. 12 months.
Six lines or less, $1 50 $3 00 $5 00
One square, 3 00.... ...... 5 00 7 00
Two squares, 5 00 8 00 10 00
Three squares, 7 00.... ...... 10 00 15 00
Four squares, 0 00 13 00 20 00
Half a column, 12 00 16 00 ....24 00
One column, 9 0 00 30 00.... ......50 00
Professional and Business Cards not exceeding four lines,
one year, $3 00
Administrators' and Executors' Notices, $1 75
Advertisements not marked with the number of inser
tions doUred, will be continued till forbid and charged ac
cording to these terms.
GREAT SPEECH
OP
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS,
ON TUE
lIARPER'S FERRY INVASION
U. S. CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, Jan. 23.
SENATE
The galleries and floor were crowded this
morning to hear Senator Douglas' speech.—
The noise and confusion, during the morning
hour, was so great that it was impossible to
bear the reading of the clerk.
At half past one o'clock, the hour fixed for
the consideration of the following resolution,
offered on Monday last by Senator Douglas :
Resulted, That the Committee on the Judiciary be in
structed to report a bill for the protection of each State
and Territory of the Union against invasion by the author
ities or inhabitants of any other State or Territory; and
for the suppression and punishment of conspiracies or
combinations in any State or Territory, with intent to in
vade, assail or molest tho Government, inhabitants, prop
erty, or institutions of any State or Territory of the Union.
Mr. Douglas rose and said
On the 21st of November last, the Gover
nor of Virginia addressed an official commu
nication to the President of the United States,
in which he said, " I have intbrmation from
various quarters, upon which I rely, that a
conspiracy of formidable extent in means and
numbers, is formed in Ohio, Pennsylvania,
New York, and other States to rescue John
Brown and hi 2.SSOCI ates, prisoners at Charles
town, Virginia. The information is specific
enough to be reliable ;"- and again, " Places
in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have
been occupied as depots and rendezvous for
these desperadoes, unobstructed by guards,
or otherwise. to invade this State, and we are
kept in continual apprehension of outrage
from fire and rapine. I apprise you of these
facts, in order that you may take steps to pre
serve peace between the States."
T o this communication the President of the
United States returned a reply, from which I
read the following sentence
"I am at rt to , li , cover any provision in the Constitu
tion or Pars of the Uniced State-i which woubl authorize
inc to tnl:c NIICII ,ACPS fur this purp..).5.1.' [To preserve the
peace benveen the
This annonnetnnent produced a profound
impression upon the public mind, and espe
cially in the slaveholding States. It was
generally received and regarded as an author
itative de:daration that the Constitution of
the United States confers no power upon the
Federal Government to protect the several
States of this Union against invasion from
the other States.
I shall not stop to inquire whether it was
the meaning of the President to declare that
the existing laws conferred no authority upon
him, or that the Constitution authorized Con
gress to enact no laws which would author
ize the Federal inter-position to protect the
States from invasion. My object is to raise
the inquiry and ask the judgment of the Sen
ate and the Ffonse upon the question wheth
er it is not within the power of Congress, and
the duty of Congress under the Constitution,
to enact all laws which are necessary and
proper for the protection of each and every
State against invasion, either from foreign
Powers or from any portion of the United
States. The deniarof the existence of such
a power in the Federal Government has in
duced an inquiry among conservative men—
men loyal to the Constitution and devoted to
the Union—as to what means of protection
they have if the Federal U ivernment is not
authorized to protect them against external
violence. It must be conceded that no com
munity is safe, and no State can enjoy peace
or prosperity, or domestic tranquility, with
out security against external violence.—
Every State and Nation of the world, outside
of this Republic, is supposed to maintain ar
mies and navies for this precise purpose.—
It is the only legitimate purpose for which
armies and navies are maintained in time of
peace. They may he kept up for ambitious
purposes, for the purpose of aggression and
foreign war, but the legitimate purpose of a
military force in time of peace, is to insure
domestic tranquility against violence or ag
gression from without their respective limits.
The States of this Union would possess
that power were it not for the restraint im
posed upon them by the Federal Constitution.
When that Constitution was made, the States
surrendered to the Federal Government the
power to raise and support armies ; to pro
vide and maintain navies ; and not only sur
rendered the means of protection from inva
sion, but consented to a prohibition upon
themselves, which declared that " no State
shall keep troops or vessels of war in time of
peace." Were their hands thus tied by the
Constitution ? and were they thus stripped of
all means of repelling assaults, or maintain
ing their own existence, without a guarantee
from the Federal Government of the Union,
to protect them against violence ? If the peo
ple of this country shall settle down into the
conviction that there is no power in the Fed
eral Government, under the Constitution, to
protect each and every State from violence,
from aggression, and from oppression, they
will demand that the cords be severed which
thus bind them, and that the weapons be re
stored to their hands with which they may
defend themselves. This inquiry involves
the question of the perpetuity of the Union.
The means of defense ; the means of repelling
assaults ; the means of providing against in
vasion, is a necessary condition for the safety
and existence of the States.
Now, sir, I hope to be able to demonstrate
that there is no wrong in this Union for which
the Constitution of the United States has not
provided a remedy, I believe that I will be
able to maintain that this Union furnishes a
remedy for any wrong which can be perpe
trated within its borders, if the Federal Gov
ernment performs its duty. I think that a
careful examination of the Constitution will
clearly demonstrate that the power is con
ferred upon Congress—first, to provide for
the repelling of invasions from foreign coun
tries • and second, to protect each State of
this Union against invasion from any other
State, Territory, or place within the jurisdic
tion of this Confederacy. 1 will first turn
your attention to the power conferred upon
Congress to protect the United States, inclu-
$1 50
75
50
WILLIAM LEWIS,
VOL XV.
ding States, Territories, and the District of
Columbia—including every inch of ground
within our limits and jurisdiction—against
foreign invasion.
In the eight section of the first article of
the Constitution you will find that " Congress
shall have power to declare war, &c., ; Con
gress shall have power to raise and support
armies ; Congress shall have power to pro
vide and maintain a navy; Congress shall
have power to make rules for the government
and regulation of the land and naval forces ;
Congress shall have power to provide for cal
ling forth the militia, to execute the laws of
the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel
invasion." These various clauses confer up
on Congress the power of using the whole
military force of the country for the purposes
specified in the Constitution. First, they
provide for the execution of the laws of the
Union ; second to suppress insurrection.--
The insurrections referred to are insurrec
tions against the authority of the United
States, insurrections against State authority
being provided for in a subsequent section,
in which cases the United States cannot in
terfere, except on the application of the State
authority. The invasion which is to be re
pelled under this clause of the Constitution
is an invasion of the United States. The lan
guage is, " Congress shall have power to pro
vide for repelling invasion." That gives the
authority to repel the invasion, no matter
whether the enemies land within the limits
of Virginia, within the District of Columbia,
within the Territory of New Mexico, or any
where else within the jurisdiction of the Uni
ted States. The power to protect every por
tion of the country against invasion from for
eign nations having thus been specifically con
ferred, the framers of the Constitution pro
ceeded to make guarantees for the protection
of the several States by Federal authority.—
I will read the 4th section of the 4th article
of the Constitution " The United States shall
guarantee to every State of this Union a re
publican form of government; shall protect
each of them against invasion, and, on appli
cation of the Legislature, or of the Executive
when the Legislature cannot be convened,
against domestic violence."
The clause contains three distinct guaran
tees. First, that the United States shall guar
anty to every State of this Union a republi
can form of government ; second, that the
United States shall protect each of them
against invasion; third, that the United States
shall, on application of the Legislature, or of
the Executive when the Legislature cannot
be convened, protect them against domestic
violence, Now, sir, I submit to you whether
it is not clear, from the very language of the
Constitution, that that clause was inserted
for the purpose of making it the duty of the
Federal Government to protect each of the
States against invasion from any other State,
Territory, or place within. the jurisdiction of
the United States? Fur what other purpose
was that clause inserted ? The power and
duty of protection, as against foreign nations,
had already been provided for. This clause
occurs where there is a guarantee from the
United States to each State, for the benefit
of each State, and necessarily fin• the protec
tion of each State from other States, inas
much as the guarantee had been given pre
viously as against foreign nations. If any
further evidence is needed to show that such
is the true construction of the Constitution,
it will be found in the forty-third number of
The _l••ilerali.d, written by James Madison.
Mr. Madison copies this clause of the Consti
tution which I have read, giving these three
guarantees, and, after discussing the one in
suring to each State a republican form of gov
ernment, proceeds to consider the second,
which makes it the duty of the United States
to protect each of the States against invasion.
llere is what he says upon that subject:
"A protection against invasion is due from everysocioty
to the parts composing, it. The latitude of the expression
here used seems to secure each State not only against for
eign hostility, but against ambitions or vindictive enter
prises by its more powerful neighbors. Thin hisbry of
both ancient and Il2ollelll con federacies proves that the
weak members of the - Union ought not to be insensible to
the policy of this article."
This number of the Federalist, which I have
quoted from, like all the others of that cele
brated work, was written after the Constitu
tion was made, and before it was ratified by
the States, and with a view of securing its
ratification. Hence the people of the several
States, when they ratified this instrument,
knew that this clause was intended to bear
the construction which I now place upon it.
It was intended to make it the duty of every
society to protect each of its parts, the duty
of the Federal Government to defend each of
the States, and he says the smallest States
ought not to be insensible to the policy of this
article of the Constitution. Then, sir, if it
be made the imperative duty of the Federal
Government, by the express provision of the
Constitution, to protect each of the States
against invasion or violence from other States
or from combinatons of desperadoes within
their limits, it necessarily follows that it is
the duty of Congress to pass all laws requi
site and proper to render that guarantee ef
fectual.
While Congress, in the early history , of the
Government, did provide legislation which it
is supposed is sufficient to protect the United
States against invasion from foreign countries,
or the Indian tribes, it has failed, up to this
time, to make any law for the protection of
each of the States against invasion from with
in the limits of the Union. I am at a loss
how to account fur this omission. I presume
that the reason is to be found in the fact that
no Congress ever dreamed that such legisla
tion would, at any time, become necessary for
the protection of one State of this Union
against invasion and violence from its sister
States. Who, until the, Harper's Ferry out
rage, ever conceived that the American States
could be so forgetful of their duties to them
selves, their country, and the constitution, as
to plan an invasion of another State with a
view of stirring up servile insurrection, mur
der, treason, and every other crime that dis
graces humanity? While, therefore, no blame
can justly be attached to our predecessors for
their failure to provide the legislation neces
sary to render this guarantee of the Consti
tution effectual, still, since the experience of
the last year, we cannot stand justified in
omitting longer to perform this sacred duty.
The question remaining, then, is to know
what legislation is required to render this
guarantee of the Constitution effectual. I
presume there will be very little difference of
opinion in respect to the necessity of placing
the whole military power of the Government
at the disposal of the President, under proper
guards and restrictions against abuse, to re
pel and suppress an invasion when the hos
tile forces shall be actually in the field. But,
sir, that is not sufficient. Such legislation
would not be a full compliance with this
guarantee of the Constitution. The framers
of that instrument meant more when they
gave the guarantee. Mark the difference in
language between the provision for protect
ing the United States against invasion, and
that for protecting the States. When it pro
vided for protecting the United States, it
said : " Congress shall have power to repel
invasion ;" when it gave this guarantee to
the States it changed the language and said :
" United States shall protect each of the
States against invasion." In the one in
stance the duty of the Government is to re
pel ; in the other, the guarantee is that it will
protect. In other words, the United States
are not permitted to wait until the enemy
shall be upon your borders ; until the inva
ding army shall have been organized and
drilled and put on the march, with a view to
invasion, but they must pass all laws neces
sary and proper to insure protection and
domestic tranquility to each State and Terri
tory of this Union against invasion or hos
tility from other States or Territories. Then,
sir, I hope it will not be necessary to use the
military power to repel any such invasion if
we authorize the judicial department of the
Government to suppress all conspiracies and
combinations in the several States, with in
tent to invade a State, or molest or disturb
its Government, its peace, its citizens, its
property, or its institutions. - You must pun
ish the conspiracy, the combination with the
intent to do the act, and you will suppress it
in advance. There is no principle more fa
miliar to the legal profession than that where
ever it is proper to declare an act to be a
crime, it is proper to punish a conspiracy and
combination entered into for the purpose of
perpetrating such act.
Look upon your statute-books, and I think
you will find an enactment to punish the
counterfeiting of the coin of the United Ste ;
one section of which provides for the punish
ment of a man haling counterfeit coin in his
possession, with an intent to pass it; and an
other section for having the mould, die'," or
instrument for counterfeiting, with intent to
use them. This is a familiar principle in
legislative and judicial proceedings. If the
act of invasion is criminal, the conspiracy to
invade should also be criminal. If it be un
lawful and illegal to invade a State, or to
run off a fugitive, why not make it unlawful
to form conspiracies and combinations in the
several States with intent to do the act ? We
have been told that a notorious man who has
recently suffered death upon the gallows in
Virginia, boasted, in a public lecture in Cleve
land, Ohio, a year ago, that he had then in
existence an organized body of men em
ployed in running off horses belonging to the
slave-holders of Missouri from that State ;
and pointed to a livery stable in Cleveland
which was full of stolen horses at that time.
I think it is within our competency, and con
sequently that it is our duty, to pass a law,
making any combination or conspiracy, in
any State or Territory of this Union, to in
vade another with intent to steal and run off
property of any kind, whether it be negroes
or horses, into another State, a crime punish
able by indictment of the conspirators in the
United States courts, as well as confinement
in the prisons or penitentiaries of the State
or Territory where the conspiracy may have
been formed. Sir, I would carry this pro
vision of the law as far as our constitutional
power will reach. I would make it a crime
to form conspiracies with a view of invading
States or Territories to control elections,
whether they be under the garb of the Emi
grant Aid Societies of New Fngland, or the
Blue Lodges of Missouri. [Applause in the
galleries.] In other words, this provision of
the Constitution means more than the mere
repelling of an invasion when the invading
army shall cross the borders of the State.—
The language is that it is to protect the State
against invasion, which, to use the language
of the preamble to the Constitution, means
to insure to each State domestic tranquility
against external violence. There can be no
peace, there can be no prosperity, there can
be no safety to any community unless it is
secure against violence from without. Why,
sir, it has been a question seriously mooted
in Europe whether it was not the duty of
England—a power foreign to France—to pass
laws for the punishment of conspiracies in
England against the lives of the princes of
France. I shall not argue the question of
comity between foreign States. I predicate
my argument upon the Constitution by which
we are governed, and which we are sworn to
obey, and demand that that Constitution be
executed in good faith, so as to punish and
suppress every combination, every conspira
cy, either to invade a State, or to molest its
inhabitants, or to disturb its property, or to
subvert its institutions or its laws. I be
lieve this can be effectually done by author
izing the United States courts, in the several
States, to take jurisdiction of the offences,
and accompany a violation of the law with
appropriate penalties. It cannot be said that
the time has not yet arrived for such legisla
tion. It cannot be said with truth, that the
Harper's Ferry case will not again be re
peated, or is not in danger of repetition. It
is only necessary to inquire into the causes
which produed that outrage, and ascertain
whether these causes are yet in active opera
tion, and then you can determine whether
there is any ground for apprehension that
that invasion will be repeated. Sir, what
were the causes which produced the raid in
Virginia? Without stopping to adduce evi
dence in detail, I have no hesitation in ex
pressing my firm and deliberate conviction
that the Harper's Ferry crime was the natu
ral, logical and inevitable result of the 4 doe-,
trines and teachings of the Republican party,
*
• vf..p
HUNTINGDON, PAR, FEBRUARY 8, 1860.
/1 ~
I '4.
4,1,/ 1 1 - ;•: , . ''''.;: 4 1 I 0
: ,ro 1 7,-: ; 4 I ~.',..1 . r !
; 4 !qv --- , , , ,, 0 F - "
, r.... , : N O
1 v• , k -,-, 4. --
?
\ 4,;•-• •
-PERSEVERE.-
as explained and enforced in their platforms,
their partisan presses, their pamphlets and
books, and especially in the speeches of their
leaders, in and out of Congress. [Renewed
applause in the galleries.]
Mr. Mason, of Virginia, with groat gravi
ty, here made his usual threat that he would
insist that the galleries should be cleared if
there was any more applause.
The Vice President said that it was impos
sible for him to preserve order in the gal
leries, unless with the concurrence of Sena
tors.
Mr. Tombs, of Georgia, hoped that the
presiding officer would place officers in the
gallery to preserve order. It was high time
that this interference with the deliberations
of Congress was stopped. It was an insult
to this body and to a free people.
- Mr. Douglas. I would suggest, and I hope
the Senate will-pardon me for the digression,
that the presiding officer station officers in
different parts of the gallery with instruc
tions that whenever they, see any person giv
ing any signs of approbation or disapprobft
"tion, calculated to disturb, they shall instant
ly lead the offender out of the gallery.
The Vice President. The order has been
given.
Mr. Douglas. I remarked that I consider
ed this outrage at Ilarpees Ferry a logical,
natural, and necessary consequence of the
teachings and doctrines of the Republican
party. I am not making this statement for
the purpose of crimination, or for partisan
effect. I desire to ask the members of that
party to reconsider the doctrines they are in
the habit of enforcing, with a view of obtain
ing their fair judgmant as to whether they
do not lead directly to the consequences we
have lately witnessed, by engaging in their
execution those deluded persons who think
that all they say is meant in real earnest, and
ought to be carried out. The great princi
ple which underlies the organization of the
Republican party is the violent, irreconcila
ble, eternal warfare upon the institution of
American slavery, with a view of its ulti
mate extinction throughout the land—a sec
tional war to be waged until the cotton fields
of the South shall be cultivated by free la
bor, or the rye fields of New York and Mas
sachusetts shall be cultivated by slave labor.
In furtherance of this article of their creed,
you find a political organization, not only
sectional in its location, but one whose vital
ity consists in appeals to Northern passion,
Northern prejudice, and Northern ambition
against Southern States, Southern institu
tions, and Southern people. I have had some
experience in fighting this element within
the last few years, and I find that the source
of its power consists in exciting the preju
dices and passions of the Northern section
against those of the Southern section. They
not only attempt to excite the North against
the South, but they invite the South to
assail, abuse, and traduce the North.—
The abuse of violent men from the South
of Northern Statesmen and the Northern
people is, essentially, a triumph of the Re
publican cause. Hence, we have not only to
answer their appeals to Northern passion
and prejudice, and to prevent the desired ef
fect, but we have to encounter their appeals
to Southern men to assail us in. order that
they may justify their assaults upon the plea
of self-defence.
Sir, when I returned home in 1858, for the
purpose of canvassing Illinois with a view to
a re-election, I had to meet this issue of the
irrepressible conflict. It is true that the
Senator from New York bad not then made
his Rochester speech, and did not for four
months afterwards. It is true that he bad
not given the doctrine that precise character,
but the principle was in existence and had
then been proclaimed by the ablest and most
guarded men of the party. I will call your
attention to a single passage from a speech
to show the language in which this doctrine
was stated in Illinois, before it received the
name of the irrepressible conflict. The Re
publican party assembled in State Conven
tion in June, 1858, in Illinois, and unani
mously adopted Abraham Lincoln as their
candidate for United States Senator. Nr.
Lincoln appeared before the Convention, ac
cepted the nomination, and made a speech,
which had been 'previously written and
agreed to in caucus by most of the leaders of
that party. I will read a single extract from
that speech :
"In my opinion it (the slavery agitation) will not cease
until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house
divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this Gov
ernment cannot endure permanently half slave and half
free. Ido not expect the house to fall, but Ido expect it
will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or
all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest
the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind
shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate
extinction, or its advocates will push forward till it shall
become alike lawful in all the States—old as well as new
—North as well as South."
The moment I landed upon the soil of Illi
nois, before a vast gathering of many thous
ands of my constituents to welcome me home,
I read that passage, and took direct issue
with the doctrine as being revolutionary and
treasonable, and inconsistent with the perpe
tuity of this Republic. That is not the indi
vidual opinion of Mr. Lincoln, or the indi
vidual opinion merely of the Senator from
New York, who, four months afterwards, as
serted the same thing, in different language ;
but so far as I know, it is the opinion of the
members of the Abolition or Republican
party.
They tell the North, that, unless we rally
as one man, under a sectional banner, and
make war upon the South, with a view to the
ultimate extinction of slavery, it will over
run the whole North, and fasten itself upon
our free States. Then, they tell the South,
that, unless you rally as one man, combining
your whole Southern people into a sectional
party, and establish slavery all over the free
States,. the inevitable consequence will be that
we will abolish it in the slaveholding States.
This is the same doctrine held by the Sena
tor from New York in his Rochester speech.
He tells us that the States must all become
free, or all become slave ; in other words,
that the South must conquer and subdue the
North, or the North must triumph over the
South, and drive slavery from its limits. In
order to show that I have not misinterpreted
the position of the Senator from New York,
! e l
1. -....4
i :.,--.
. ,:.4
y.... 1 4
-<-4'N.,./ i .f.:4 1 - . 4,, ~/
!.,' - : : ,..., 4 --- 7;4-. , 7* -,,
. _
~,,I t o,
~...; ~., ._•..y rl
,r. , Yokt
p--„. P.l
''f -1 $i 7. - !
sth ...'/
Z, it°'' . •
Editor and Proprietor
in notifying the South that if they wish to
maintain slavery within their own limits,
they must also fasten it upon the Northern
States, I will read an extract from his speech
to which I have alluded. He says : "It is
an irrepressible conflict between opposing
and enduring forces, and it means the United
States must, and will, sooner or later, become
either entirely a slaveholding nation, or en
tirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton
and rice fields of South Carolina, and the su
gar plantations of Louisiana, will ultimately
be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and
New Orleans become marts for legitimate
merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and
the wheat fields of Massachusetts and New
York, must again be sur:endered by farmers
to slave culture and the production of slaves,
and Boston and New York once more become
markets for the trade in the bodies and souls
of men."
Thus, Mr. President, you perceive that the
theory of the Republican party is, that there
is a conflict between two different systems of
institutions in the different States. Not a
conflict in the same State, but an irrepressi
ble conflict between the free States and the
slave States. They will argue that these two
I systems of States cannot permanently exist
in the same Union—that the sectional war
fare must continue to rage, increasing in fury
until the free States shall surrender, or the
Slave States shall be subdued. Hence, while
they appeal to the passions of our own sec
tion, their object is to alarm the people of the
other section, and drive them to madness with
the hope that they will invade our rights, and
thus furnish them with an excuse to carry on
their aggressions upon their rights. I appeal
to the candor of Senators, whether this is not
a fair exposition of the tendency of the doc
trines proclaimed by the Republican party.
The creed of that organization is founded
upon the theory that,
because slavery is not
desirable in the free States, it is not desirable
-anywhere; because free labor is a good thing
with us, it must be the best thing everywhere.
In other words, their creed rests upon the
theory that there must be uniformity in the
domestic institutions and internal policy of
the several States of this Union. Here, in
my opinion, is the fundamental error upon
which their whole system rests. I asserted
everywhere, in the Illinois campaign, and
now repeat, that uniformity in the domestic
institutions of the different States is neither
possible nor desirable. That is the very issue
upon which I conducted the canvass at homo,
and it is the question which I desire to pre
sent to- the Senate. . •
Was such the doctrine of the framers of
the Constitution? I wish the country to bear
in mind that when the Constitution was adop
ted. the Union consisted of thirteen States,
twelve of which were slaveholding States, and
one a free State. Suppose that this doctrine
of uniformity on the slavery question had
prevailed in the Convention, do the gentlemen
on the Republican side of the house think
that freedom would have triumphed over sla
very? Do they imagine that the one free
State would have out-voted the twelve slave
holding States, and thus have abolished sla
very by a constitutional provision throughout
the land? On the contrary, if the test had
then been made, if this doctrine of uniformi
ty on the slavery question had then been pro
claimed, and believed in the twelve slave
holding States against the one free State,
would it not have resulted in a constitutional
provision fastening slavery irrevocably upon
every inch of American soil, North as well
as South ? Was it quite fair for the friends
of free institutions in those days to claim
that the Federal Government must not touch
the question, but leave each State free to do
as it pleased, until, under the operation of
that principle, they secured a majority, and
then wield that majority to abolish slavery in
the other States of the Union ? Sir, if uni
formity in respect to the domestic institutions
had been desirable when the Constitution was
adopted, there was another mode by which it
could have been obtained. The natural mode
of obtaining uniformity would have been to
have blotted out the State Governments, to
have abolished the State Legislatures, and to
have conferred upon Congress legislative pow
ers over the municipal and domestic concerns
of all the people of all the States, as well as
upon the Federal questions affecting the whole
Union. And if this doctrine of uniformity
had been entertained and favored by the fra
mers of the Constitution, such would have
been the result. But the framers of that in
strument knew at that day as well as we
know now, that in a country as broad as this,
with so great a variety of Gin - late, soil, and
productions, there must necessarily be a cor
responding diversity of institutions and do
mestic regulations adapted to the wants and
interests of each locality. They knew that
the laws and institutions which were well
adapted to the mountains and valleys of New
England were but illy suited to the rice plan
tations and the cotton fields of the Carolinas;
they knew that our liberties depended upon
reserving the right to the people of each State
to make their own laws, establish their own
institutions and control them at pleasure,
without interference from the Federal Gov
ernment, or from any other State or Territo
ry, or any foreign country.
The Constitution, therefore, was based, and
the Union was founded on the principle of
dissimilarity in the domestic institutions and
internal polity of the several States. The
Union was founded on the theory that each
State had peculiar interests, requiring pecu
liar legislation, and pectiliar institutions dif
ferent and distinct from every other State.—
The Union rests upon the theory that no two
States will be precisely alike in their domes
tic policy and institutions. Then I assert
that this doctrine of uniformity among the
domestic institutions of different States is re
pugnant to the States, subversive of the prin
ciples upon which the Union was based, rev
olutionary in its character, and leading di
rectly to despotism if it is ever established.
Uniformity, sir, in local and domestic af
fairs, in a country of this extent, is despotism
always. Show me centralism prescribing
uniformity from the capital to all of its prov
inces in their local and domestic concerns,
and I will show you a despotism as odious
and as insufferable as that of Austria or Na
ples. Dissimilarity is, therefore, the princi
ple upon which the Union rests. It is foun
ded upon the idea that each State must ne
cessarily require different regulations; that
no two States have precisely the same inter
ests, and hence do not need precisely the same
laws. How can you account for this Gefifed
oration of States upon any other principle ?
What becomes, then, of this doctrine that
slavery must be established in all the States,
or prohibited in all the States? If we will
only conform to the principles upon which
the Federal Union was based, there is no con
flict—there can be no conflict. All you have
to do is to recognize and obey the right of the
people of every State to have just such insti
tutions as they please, without consulting
your wishes, your views, or your prejudices ;
and there can be no conflict. And, sir, inas
much as the Constitution of the United States
confers upon Congress the power, coupled
with the duty of protecting each State against
external aggression; inasmuch as that in
cludes the power of suppressing and punish
ing conspiracies in one State against the in
stitutions, property, people, or Government
of every other State, I desire to carry out
that power vigorously. Give us a law—such
a law as the Constitution contemplates and
authorizes—and I will show the Senator from
New York (Mr. Seward) that there is a con
stitutional mode of repressing the " irrepres
sible conflict." [Suppressed applause in the
galleries.] I would open the prisonetloors
and tell those conspirators against the peace
of the Republic and the domestic tranquillity
of other States, to select their cells, in which
to drag out a miserable life, for the punish
ment of their crimes against the peace of so
ciety. Can any man say to us that, although
this outrage has been le esetrated at Harper's
Ferry, there is no danger of its recurrence ?
Sir, is p not the Republican party still embod
ied, organized, sanguine, confident of success,
and defiant in its professions? Do they not
now boldly proclaim the same creed that they
did before this invasion? It is true that most
of them come forward and disavow- the acts
of John Brown at Harper's Ferry. lam
glad that they do that. I rejoice that they
have gone that far; but I must be permitted
to say to them that it is not sufficient that
they disavow the act, unless they also repu
diate and denounce the doctrines and teach
ings which produced it. Those doctrines and
those teachings are still being poured into the
I minds of men throughout the country, in the
shape of speeches, pamphlets, books, and
partisan presses. The causes which produced
the Harper's Ferry invasion are now in ac
tire operation. Is it true that the people of
' all the border States are required by the Con
stitution to have their hands tied, without
the power of self-defence, and to remain im
patient both day and night under a threaten
ed invasion ? Can you expect a people to be
composed when they dare not lie down to
sleep at night without first, like a sentinel on
duty, marching around their houses and
buildings, to see if a band of marauders are
not approaching with torch and pistol. Sir,
it requires more patience than a, free man
should ever show to submit to a state of
constant annoyance, irritation and apprelem
sion. If we, desire to preserve this Union,
we must remedy every evil. within the Union
and in obedience to the Constitution.. If the
Federal Government fails to act, either from
choice or from an apprehension of a want of
! power, it cannot be expected that the States
Iwill be content to remain unprotected.
i I see no hope, therefore, of peace, of fratere
pity, of preserving good feeling between the
different poilions of the Union, except by
bringing the power of the Federal Govern
ment to the extent authorized by the Consti
tution to protect the people of all the States
against any external violence of aggression.
I repeat, that if the theory of the Constitution
shall be carried out, and the right of the pea
ple of every State upheld to have just such in
stitutior s as they choose, there never can be
a conflict, much less an irrepressible conflict
between the free and the slavelio;ding States.
Then, sir, the mode of preserving the peace
is clear. This system of sectional warfare
must cease. The Constitution has given the
power, and all we ask of Congress is to give
the means. By indictment and conviction,
in the courts of our several States, of these
conspirators, we will make such example:: of
the leader as will strike terror into the hearts
of the others, and there will be an end of this
excitement. You must check it by crushing
out the conspiracy, the combination, and then
there can be safety. When this is accom
plished we will be able to restore that spirit
of fraternity which inspired our Revolutionae
ry fathers upon every battle-field, and which
presided over the deliberations of the conven
tion which framed the Constitution. Then
we will be able to demonstrate to you that
there is no evil unredressed in this Union, for
which the Union furnishes a remedy. Let
us execute the Constitution in the spirit in
which it was made; let Congress pass all the
laws necessary and proper to give full and
complete effect to every guarantee of the Con
stitution ; let it authorize the punishment of
combinations or conspiracies in any State or
Territory against the property, institutions,
people or Government of every other State or
Territory, and there will be no excuse, no de
sire for dissolution. Let us leave the people
of every State perfectly free to form and reg
ulate their own domestic institution in their
own way let each of them retain slavery ; just
as long as it pleases, and abolish it when it
chooses ; let us act upon that good old golden
principle which teaches all men to mind their
own business, and let their neighbors alone,
and then this Union can endure forever as
our fathers made it, divided into free and
slave States, just as the people of each may
determine for themselves.
Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, said he was
somewhat at a loss to imagine the necessity
for the resolution introduced by the Senator
from Illinois. A committee had been ap
pointed to investigate the Harper's Ferry
outbreak, and be was willing to await their
report. The Senator, however, apparently
distrusting their capacity, had undertaken to
instruct them in their duty, and availed him
self of the opportunity to make a political
speech for political effect. His argument as
to the power of Congress was nothing new.
No Senator was more anxious than himself
to protect. States from invasion. On that
point he agreed with the Senator from Illi
nois, but would wait the report of the com
mittee. He denied that the Republican par
ty was responsible for the Harper's Ferry in
vasion. There was nothing new in that
charge. It had been made repeatedly here
and in the newspapers. It had got to be a
dogma of the Democratic party, and part of
their scheme for the next campaign. It was
intended to effect the fall election, Prior to
1854 the slavery agitation had been quieted.
Both parties had declared for peace, when
the excitement was renewed by the introduc
tion of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and kept up
by the subsequent attempt to force slavery
upon a free territory by force of arms. Then
it was that John Brown learned the lesson
which ho practiced at Harper's Ferry. Thoro
NO. 33.