.0 . .
~'........
„....:.......
r.r.1..•• •
.... , .
. ,
r , : .... .
. _ . .
. .
'
.
.. .
..
..„..
...:,...-...:
. ...
•:,.. ' f ... -
.. ,•.,'•'. ...
... 4116 ••••• :-..'-'.''''''''.. .'l,r.:: .
•f..,........,......,•.,..1.. ,
. .
-
. . . ... . • ..
' • •••• •
* . ...:.,,,...
• - r l - .4 ',,.„ '
• . v .. - . .
.• . . . .
,• . .
~.. .... .
. . ..•...
- ~. ... . . ~ •
........ . - • •
. , . - „.:.:-. , .
a- .: /.. . .... .
[ ...:. ..,......1 .,.....
..........••. ,
...., „
.:,. - .1. - . -
. • .......„ ._ ..
. .--
- ~.t.z• '.l' . ,
. • ,
• - •
• . . . ..,
•• .
.. ,, - -;..... ,.z . ' ' f .. 1 • ; : 1•; : : ': '; 1 ; ' '... .f.... ' ...:': . ... 5. . -4 .... '''''.V:' , ,... '' ;',4;, ''' ' " '''''.fil,.. : '
....., \ -' ' '' '' 4 '' ' '',... ••
' •.. ......
. . _
......
~;,- .... .
..
. . ...,
L': : : ',.. :: .-
. ....P' . n''''''' ''
'''' . - .
' - •
• . ......., .
.....:.; .. ;.•
••• • ..... . ..,
..
...
'.
. .. , . . ,-;;,,
- '' •
'...... . ..'•:..";.: k .
.... 1 . :;!:•:.: . .
, •
.....
-'--• • •• ' .. ..., :
~....
- ' . .'
' . :.....
•-•... ......
• ....
...... . . . . • , •,;.-.... .',. -,.... • •.:. • :
-... , 7r,1- • • 1 .; . i. 4 ..t 4......;••. , ~;;.-.
. ... '' . • .... ~ ..
.. .. . .
.... ...Sill . ' 1 .- .. : .
. .
•::••••'...&. '''''''':.;•••.
... .. ..., ..
.. ..
"-
.. ..
. . . - • • •• -
..., .
. .. ..
/N\ \
.......-:: •
•
. , ....
...
.....,
•. • •
' , i .
• • ~:.:;•. '
...,.
-
, .. . ..
~ ..., .
I C.•, ° .. •
, . .
, .
. ..,..,:t:_''':,...;,...:.::..,..7' .....1 . I O r. ' 7......
BY. W. LE WIS.
THE HUNTINGDON GLOBE,
Per annum, in advance, Si 50
44 1.4 if• not paid in advance, - 200
No paper discontinued until all arrearages
are paid.
A failure to notify a discontinuance at the ex
piration of the term subscribed for will be con
sidered a new engagement.
TERMS OF ADVERTISING.
1 insertion. 2 ins. 3 ins.
Six lines or leis, , -25 37i 00
.1 square, 16 lines, brevier, 50 75 100
2 " 00 1 50 2 DO
3 4.t. " 150 225 300
3m. 6m. 12m.
1 square, brevier, $3 00 $5 00 88 00
2 aa 5 00' 800 12 00
3 LC LI 7 50 10 00 15 00
4 " " 9 00 14 00 23 00
5 46 it 15 00 25 00 38 00
10 •-" -LI 25 00 40 00 60 . 00
Oa° Professional and Business Cards not ex
ceeding 6 lines, one year, _ - $4 50
Executors' and Administrators' Notices, 1 75
Auditors' Notices, - - . 125
SPEECH -
EX-GOVERNOR BIGLER,
OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DELIVERED AT HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
Fellow Citizens of Connecticut,—This is
my first visit to the New England States, and
should do injustice to my feelings, were I
not to express to you the gratification excited
by the frank hospitality .of the people, and by'
the evidences of general prosperity and com
fort which I have met at every point. Your
country, naturally rugged, has yielded to the
influence of industry and art, until its exterior
is beautiful, and its productions abundant.—
Your manufacturing establishments, in great
variety, the evidences of industry, are found
interspersed with the school house, the
church, and the asylum, emblems of 'intelli
gence, religion, and charity.
I must beg you to believe that I have come
amongst you in no - spirit of vanity. Ido not
believe I can tell you anything whiCh you
have not lie,ird before, or. tell it better. My
presence is rather to manifest the deep solici
tude which the Democracy of the old Key
stone feel for the fate of their brethren of Con
necticut. just now engaged in a terrible trug
gle with the common enemy. I would aid
the Democracy if I had the power. I would
certainly persuade you to join that party, and
maintain 'its principles.
I am, besides, persuaded that intercourse of
this kind, between the people of the several
States, seldom fails to exercise a most salu
tary influence upon our social and political
relations. Its certain tendency is to remove
error and prejudice, and to unite us in bonds
of imperishable fraternity. Why should it
be otherwise t The imaginary lines dividing
the States do not mark the limits of a people
Strangers to each _other ; nor 'are they high
walls or deep chasms, that they may not be
passed. We are mainly the descendants 'of
the same parentage; heirs to a common in
heritance, actuated by similar motives and
impulses, and protected by the same general
laws.
I am gratified to find• so many of the Dem
ocrats of Connecticut in council on this oc
casion. It is the right of freemen, it is a
cherished feature of our republican system
that has made such counselling together pro
per and necessary. The elective franchise,
the medium of self-government, makes each
citizen a component part of the government,
vested with privileges and prerogatives, and
clothed with responsibilities. It is not only
your privilege to vote, but it is your duty to
.do so, and to understand, as far as practicable,
.the consequences of the suffrage you are
about to cast.
As an advocate of the Democratic party, I
.set out with the general proposition, that the
best interests of the nation require the as
cendancy of its principles and policy, and the
entire prostration of the nondescript opposi
tion. The Democratic party is not only the
oldest, but it is the purest and
ever
patriOtic
political organization that has existed in
The country. It is the only' Party now in ex
istence, maintaining principles • and a policy
applicable , to" - all parts of the Union. The
scene before us is a beautiful illustration of
its' nationality. One of - your guests on this
occasion, Col. Orr, is from &nth Carolina, an
original. State on the Southern boundary. An
other, Senator Weller, is from California, the
youngest member of the family, on the shores
.of the Pacific, distant three thousand miles or
more ; and myself, from the Keystone of the
arch, where the Declaration of Independence
was adopted, and the Constitution framed;
:and yet, our principles and • doctrines 'are; in
perfect harmony on every topic..and have
been -enthusiastically - embraced. by the De:
mocracy-of New England. In all past strug-•
gles, though occasionally suffering defeat, in
the end its policy has been sustained by ex
perience and' popular will. • The' opposing
party, by 'whatever name known, has been
as uniformly wrong. Whatever • they' did
when in power had to be undone; whatever
they ...objected to has proved to' be. wise and
properfor the country. ' Now, we-common
sense people think •that, for thesereapons
alone, the Democratic party is entitled tothe
confidence and patronage of the people. We
never'employ the mechanic or artist-a Second
time, yilho has ruined the business the.. first;
and therule is just as good when applied to
the science of government. • These, gentle
men, have always' failed: They did so in
my State, and in' your State, and in the whole
nation ; and now they have the boldness:to.
ask another opportunity. This should' not be
granted. The' lessons of 'experience • are not
to be trifled with in this way.
-But for the' evidencenf some of these as
sertions. Thomas Jefferson was the author
of our faith, and our first leader. He had..a
great struggle with Alexander Hamilton, the
ablest leader of . the Federal party, at the tine
the government was 'first shaped. The latter
was the adiobate at 'a system assimilating to
a limited monarchy; be wanted a President
for life, and senators 'for life, and other fea
tures consistent with a powerful central sys
tem ; he maintained that the British Govern-
went presented the best model the, world had J,
ever seen ; but the views of Jefferson pre
veiled, and hence our representative system.
Party lines were not clearly drawn, however,
until Adams became President. His election
was a triumph of the enemies of Jefferson ian
Democracy. The distinguishing acts of his
administration were the aliiSn and sedition
laws. Under the former, it required fourteen
years probation to become a citizen of the
United States, and under the latter, a citizen
was liable to be lashed 'or banished from the
country, for words spoken against the Presi
dent and other officers of the government.—
Under this feature citizens of Berks county,
now the Gibraltar of Democracy in Pennsyl
vania, were punished. But when Mr. Jeffer
son came into the Presidential chair, these
laws were repealed. Were they in existence
at this time, some of the present enemies of
the Democratic party would be hourly in
din
ger of the penalty.
Under Jefferson's administration the great
contest was in reference to the acquisition of
the Territory of Louisiani. The Opppsition
denounced the purchaie as a prodigal waste
of the public money andu reckless extension
of the limits of our government: ".The press
teemed with trash of this kind; and the ros
trum,rand even the pulpit, eChoedthe notes of
alarm. But the purchase was made, and
who can count the value of this single feature
of Democratic policy. .Had the doctrines of
the opposition prevailed, the Mississippi river
would now be in possession of France or
England. The States of Louisiana, Missouri,
Arkansas, lowa, and the Territories of Ne
braska, Kansas, and Minnesota would not be
ours, but compose a part of a jealous, if not a
hostile power. Their . inhabitants would not
now enjoy the blessings of a free government;
and who, at this day, will dare to say that this
measure of the Democracy was unwise, or
who would ask to have so many flourishing
States driven out of the Union.
During the administration of Mr. Madison
the great issue was one of war with England.
When that insolent power claimed the right
to search American vessels on the high seas,
and press American citizens into the ranks of
her servile army, the great heart of the nation
repelled the indignity: The enemies of the
Democratic party, in the main, were against
the declaration of war. Some went so far as
to meet in your own State at Hartford, to plot
resistance, if not treason. But war came and
went, and who will say now that it was net
the true policy of this nation to have it? In
its progress and consequences it honered our
flag, elevated our character as a warlike peo
ple, fixed more firmly the position of our gov
ernment as one of the family of nations, and
settled great rules of national iutercourse and
comity, which are now respected by all.
The periods of the administration of Mr.
Monroe and the younger Adams were not so
remarkable for partizan issues and great re
sults. Under the former, the Territory of
Florida, now a State, was acquired. - General
Jackson. was the next President, and during
his term the question of a national bank was
the great issue: The' opposition held that
such an institution was indispensable to the
business of the country—that we must have
a great regulator of the currency, of exchan
ges and values. But when the bank deter
mined to regulate the politics of the country,
Jackson determined to regulate it; and when
its appliances bad secured the passage of a
re-charter through Congress, that man of iron
will put his heel on it. The sensation pro
duced by the act was awful. The'cry of
ruin and tyranny was heard in ail parts of
the land. Old women and political hypo
chondriacs were in hysterics. Panic com
mittees were seen wending their way to' the
White Honse to remonstrate and implore.--
But all they could get from the Old Hero was
a - firm declaration of wholesome truths, touch
ing the futuie trade and commerce and cur
rency of the country,,evincing a foresight on.
his part which I have ever regarded as more
wonderful than his achievements on the field
of battle. But now the hank' is rated an ob
solete idea; its former advocateS•concede the
wisdom of the policy that terminated its ex
istence. Many other great things's-76re done
by Jackson. When the French hesitated to
pay, Jackson said ‘c by the Eternal," and the
money came. When a sovereign State, dis
satisfied with the revenue laws, threatened
resistance, the same potent voice produced
peace. Under the administration of Mr. Van
Buren, the sub-treasury was made a leading
issue. • The purse and sword were notes of
alarm. But this issue has been•settled in our
favor, The institution has work - edwell and
the 'iword has been orderly.
In 1840 our opponents obtained power once'
more. Coming in through a kind of political
phrenzy, they:had a long programme of meas
ures on-hand. ' What did they do ! Contrary
to their pledges they• attempted to fasten an
other bank upon the country. They:did pass
a bankrupt' net, which in-the short space of
one'year 'wiped out hundreds of millions of
honest debts, and wasthen repealed in accord
ance with the indignant voice of the nation.
Theissues on the' question of the tariff, so
prOininent at that - time, haVe all been settled
in accordance'.with Democratic policy: - The'
next great issue was the annexation of Texas.
The measure was supported by the .Democ
racy, and resisted by'most of the•opposition.
Bee who, among thorn now, will say that
Texas ought not to be ours '1 'Who regrets
her adriussion into • the Union, save only a
few fanatical • The opposition said war with
Mexico would follow, and it did follow. This
was the only hit they had made for - a long,
time. War did commence by "the act' of
Mexico, and what then ! Why the opposition
press again teemed with denunciations against
the President and his party.. ' The war was
denounced-as unjust and aggressive on our
part. - The rostrum and the pulpit • again
echoed' the alarm, and joined in defaming
the government. Even members of Congress
went - so far as to say that American soldiers
in Mexico should be "welcomed with bloody
hands to hospitable graves." But the great
heart of the nation pulsated in unison with
the government, and State after State, com
pany after company, and man after man ten
dered their services to the President. The
spectacle was a proud one, and astounded
HUNTINGDON, APRIL 30. 1856.
Great Britain and other jealous powers. The
war was a brief and a brilliant one, and peace
was made on our terms. Had the policy of
the opposition prevailed, Texas, long ere this,
would have been forced into an alliance with
England or France, and California, the rich
est State in the Union, so wonderful in her
past grdivtle and promise for the future,
would still be an integral part of the degraded
republic of Mexico, and be inhabited only by
an ignorant and imbecile people. Had the
Democracy no other claim to the favor of the
people, this achievement alone should secure
them many years of ascendency and rule.—
But all the old issues have been settled in fa
vor of the Democracy. Indeed, had it been
the avowed purpose of the opposition to be
uniformly wrong on every question, whether
of foreign reiations or domestic concern, of
peace or.war. they could not have succeeded
so well. Of all the measures they ever pro
posed, there is not now a vestige to be found
in the policy of the country. One by one;
in tura, their hobbies have fallen at the hand
of time; been discarded by 14 people, and
abandoned by their authors. It will be so
with those now pending. • Not only are their
hobbies, but some of the old parties are gone
also. It was the sagacious Webster who
wrote, that after 1852 the Whig party would
exist in history only, and we have the verifi
cation of his prediction.
Now, fellow-citizens, what I wish to im
press on your minds is this : That in this
long history, covering many important epochs,
there never was a time when the Democratic
party occupied a nobler position than just
now. There never was a time when its as
cendancy was more essential to the peace
and progress of the nation ; and I am quite
sure f have never rseen the day when I was
so proud of my humble membership with it.
In a distinct struggle for the constitutional
rights of the States, and the rights of the•cit
izens of each State, the virtues of this old
party are best reflected. My friend, Senator
Welier,says, that the old opposition party
was only intended to perform the offices of a
brake on the track. When Democratic loco
motion got too high, the opposition answered
for a brake. I have compared it to a dead.
weight on the skirts of progress.
We are rapidly approaching a Presidential
election which will involve vital issues. The
Democracy will be arrayed on one side, and
the combined elements of fanaticism and
bigotry on the other—Black Republicanism,
alias Abolition ism, will compose one wing of
the enemy, and Know Nothingism the other;
and notwithstanding the striking dissimilar
ity in the character of these organizations
and the doctrines they hold, I predict their
united actions • against us in the Northern
States. Had I not witnessed this humiliating
union in my own State, and did I not see evi
dences of, jam yours, I migh hesitate to ex
press this opinion. But as was the effect in
Pennsylvania, so I trust it will prove to be in
Connecticut, and that a large-number of the
best men of the old Whig party will, by such
means, be induced to join the Democracy.
Now, let us analyze the elements of these
two parties for a moment, and see how tar
their union will be consistent with decency
and common sense. The Abolitionists would
arrest the extension of slavery ; they would
sever the shackles of the slave; they would
give him greater political and sircial rights
and opportunities; all this they would do se
cause they say it is humane and philanthropic.
The Know-nothings, on the other hand, seek
to make birth-place and religious belief a
test for civil office, and on these principles
would humiliate this large class of white cit
izens by sinking them below the condition of
their neighbors. The latter move in darkness •
and in secrecy, whilst the Abolitionists act in
daylight, promulgating their sentiments every
where with peculiar boldness. Who woald
venture to predict that two such parties could
fraternize ? Imagine them in juxtaposition.
With a shade of white on one side, and a
shade of black on the other. The one seek
ing the elevation of the colored re an, and the
other concerned exceedingly for, the humilia
tion of - white people. The triumph of Abo
litionism is the triumph of the colored race.
The success of Know-nothingism involves
the degradation of a large class of white cit
izens ! But, offensive as the spectacle may
seem, you are bound to witness it. I wit
nessed it in Pennsylvania in 1845, and again
in 1855. At the election in the latter year,
each of these parties had presented their can
didate for Canal Commissioners, a Know
nothing and an Abolitionist or Republican, so
that each voter might express his peculiar
views. But, on the eve of the election, the
leaders withdrew - the names of these gentle
men and presented another in their stead ; the
Willing embodiment of all the isms, and the
mass of electors found - themselves in a-posi
tion where they had to take the whole dose
or nothing. The foreign born or Catholic
abolitionist or republican could not reflect - his
cherished views without, at the same time,
endorsing the doctrine of the Know Nothings,
which were intended to proscribe him from
civil office. The Know-Nothing, on the
other hand, however national 'in his views,
could not declare his principles without speak
ing in a voice of Abolitionism also. The re
sult of this shameless attempt to prostitute
the ballot-box was a Democratic triumph. • A
large element of the dissolving Whig party
could not stand the whole dose at one time,'
and they came over to our ranks ; and I doubt
not such will be the result in Connecticut.
'But let us look at these parties separately,
and inquire what good thing' each would do
for the country. And we should not neglect
to notice that they are the two parties,against
which Washington, with wonderful foresight,
admonished the people in his farewell ad
dress. For one is a secret society, to accom
plish political or partizan ends, and the other
is clearly geographical in its organization.—
Read the address for yourselves, and see how
striking the application.• First then, comes
the Republican or Abolition party. It is cer
tainly much older, if not much better than
its compeer. Its movements are associated
with my earliest recollections of political af
fairs. It has been diligent in its lamenta
tions over the evils of slavery; and has be
wailed the unhappy condition of the colored
race in this country for a long time; but has
as long failed to present, for the consideration
of the people, either a practical or legal rem
edy. When pressed to answer the question,
the most fanatical will admit, that as citi
zens of a free State,
,they have no legal right
to interfere with the institution; that it is the
clear constitutional right of each State to have
it or not; will they claimthat the States have
failed to exercise this right. When the Con
stitution was adopted, all the States, save
one, embraced slavery. Now we have fif
teen slave and sixteen free States. Connec
ticut and Pennsylvania have abolished it.—
Virginia and Maryland have retained it.—
The people of the latter States have no proper
right to complain against the action of those
of the former, and vice versa. For will it do
to say that constant and bitter denunciation
by the people of one State against the insti
tutions of another, is no interference; barren
as to practical results, it is still fruitful of ill
feeling. The certain tendency of which is
to alienate the feelings of the people of the
several States, and at the same time,. defeat
the end in view. Were the people of Penn
sylvania to indulge in unkind criticisms of
your institutions, lam sure the only 'tenden •
cy wonld be to force you to cherish them the
more closely. Such has been the only effect
of political Abolitionism. When southern
men, with Clay at their head, started the
Colonization Society, what did the Abolition
ists? Did they second the movement? By
no means. Nothing would satisfy . them but
immediate and unconditional emancipation.—
Their lecturers .commenced to harrangne the
people, and their colporteurs were sent into
all parts of the Union with inflammatory do
cuments, to accomplish this end. The con
sequence was, that the southern people be
came alarmed and receded from the position
they had taken. The opportunities of the
slaves were restricted, their education neg
lected, and the southern people constrained to
adhere to their constitutional right to have
the institution with increased tenacity.—
So.much for the folly of interfering without a
proper right to do so. But suppose no con
stitutional obstacle intervened, or that the
South should agree to emancipate the slaves
at a stated period, provided they were taken
away or maintained, what could be done?—
How many would Massachusetts take?--
How many would Ohio take? And how
many would Pennsylvania and Connecticut
take ? Not one f But if they could be
brought North, in what particular will their
condition be improved ? Will they live bet
ter? Will they have better ideas of civiliza
tion and Christianity ? Will they be eleva
ted in - the scale of moral being? The answer
to all these questions is to a certain extent,
furnished in the pitiable condition of the free
blacks. True, there are those who would be
willing to give the negro equal, social, and
political condition with the Anglo-Saxon ;
but I am not one 'of those, and have no pa
tience to even dismiss this 'offensive
What then should those abolitionists do ?
Why mind theirown business. That isgen
erally profitable. Many men get rich rich in
that way. They are not accoun table in any
way for the wrongs of slavery. Nor should
the people of New England forget that they had
an agency in propagating the institution.—
Their delegates. in the convention that made
the present Constitution, consented to the con •
tinuance of the slave trade. Prior to that time
this disgraceful traffic had been legislated aga
inst by the States of Virginia, Maryland, and
North Carolina. All the New England States
voted for the clause continuing the slave trade
up to 1818, whilst Virginia and Delaware
voted against it. It was this trade that first
propagated the institution and regulated its
growth. • For the increase during that long
period, the New England States are largely
responsible,, and this fact should at least con
strain them to a charitable view of this vexed
question. The extent of the iustitution is
riot to be measured. by the Territory over
which it may spread, but by the number of
beings in bondage. Were 1 a citizen of Kan
sas, I should vote against slavery ; but in do
ing so, I would 'not feel that'l was lessening
the number of slaves, or doing them a special
kindness. Not would the restoration of the
southern slaves to the condition of their an
cestors in Africa, better their condition. To
change would reduce them to the lowest state
of barbarism, and the act would be art outrage
upon humanity. But ray object is only to
suggest these ideas, not to elaborate them.—
I have no doctrine to present on this point of
the subject. I only wish those who are so
constantly exercised on the question, to point
out their remedy ; to tell us what can be done.
Nor would a dissolution of the Uinon 'free the
slaves'. The southern States would go' to
gether, and of course retain the institution,'so
longple as it ,might be the pleasure,of the peo--
The fugitive slave law is one of the fava 7
rite hobbies of the Republican party, and I
desire to call your attention to' the inevitable
consequences of their doctrine, for 'a moment.
This is a question of obeying or disobeying
the letter of the Constitutien, and the Repub
licans, or Abolitionists, in the main, favor re
sistance. The Constitution declares, that
"no person held to service, or labor in, one
State; under 'the laws thereof, escaping into
another, shall, in consequence of any lase 'or
regulation therein, be discharged from such
service or labor, but,shall be delivered up on
claim of the patty to whom such service or
labor may be due." These are very explicit
terms:' They furnish a distinct guarantee to
the citizens of the sla.vetholdino• States, that
the fugitive should be returned,' and made it
the clear duty of Congress to devise means to
carry out the condition. The Union is the
offsprine , of the Constitutiou. - The two are
insepatable. The former could not survive
the destruction of the latter. Nor can the
ConstitUtion be maintained in part, and dis
regarded in part. It must be respected as a
whole. Those who resist the letter of any
part of the Constitution, virtually repudiates
the whole ; and those who do this, rebel
against the Union ; and, doing this, are reck
less of the true welfare of both races, and of
mankind generally. Those who exclaim
against the law with so much vehemence.
should remember_ that_ it is the creature of
the Constitution, and whilst it may not be
perfect, it is not probable, that it will do more
! than return all the fugitives; were it to- do
less, it would not be what the Constitution
I intended. The law of 1793 though very sim
' ilar to that now in existence, excited but lit
tle resistance at the time. It passed the Sen
ato without a division, and received 45 out
of 56 votes in the House of Representatives.
Massachusetts cast 6 votes for it, and 1
against it. But now other councils prevail,
anr. every man who says that this part of the
Constitution must be carried out, is denoun
ced as a "negro driver."
But I must speak of the question of slave
ry in the Territories. This has long been a
topic of angry controversy in Congress. The
question was regulated in what was known
as the Northwestern Territory, by the ordi
nance of 1787, a kind of compact between
the people of the Territory, the State of Vir
ginia, and the United States under the first
confederacy. In the Louisiana Territory it
was disposed of by the
,adoption of what is
familiarly known as the Missouri Compro
mise—an act of Congress, declaring that sla
very should not extend north of the parallel
of 36 degrees 30 minutes. When Texas was
I acquired, the question was disposed of in the
same way. The acquisition of new Territo
ry from Mexico, at the close of the war, pre
sented the question again. An effort was
made to dispose of the controversy by exten
ding the Missouri line to the Pacific ocean,
but the proposition was rejected, and mainly
by the votes of the North. The necessity
for some other mode of adjustment was thus
presented. The party now complaining most
of the Nebraska law, contributed to tie: crea
tion of this necessity by their hostiltty,to the
Missouri line. There seemed to be no alter
native left but to refer the whole questoin to
the people of the Territories. Clay, Cass,
Webster, and others recoguized this policy in
the compromise acts of 1850, and it is for this
principle that the Democratic party are now
contending—the broad doctrine of non-inter
vention by Congress, and the right of the
people in the Territories to decide the ques
tion for themselves, on the principle of self-,
government. As a candidate before the peo
ple, I maintained this doctrine; I thought it
sound in theory, and that it could not fail in
I practice. I think so still. Without stopping
to inquire how far Congress might legally in
terfere, I was convinced that it was wise for
IConee
Congress to forbear. • The Principle of non
intervention, or popular sovereignty in the
Territories, Is in beautiful harmony with, our
whole Republican System. The inherent
right of self-government, and the capacity to
exercise that right, are not determined by
geographical lines. A man is none the less
competent because he resides in a Territory,
nor are his reserved rights under the Consti
-1 tution less. Many of your neighbors and
mine have gone to the Territories. Are they
less qualified to judge of their own interests
1 than when they were citizens of Connecticut
or Pennsylvania? Certainly not ! Is is rea
-1
sonable in us :o insist on the right to select
and ree e ulaie'the domestic institutions under
1 which these men are to live? Suppose the
' men composing this meetinglhah determined
to go to Kansas, would they consent that
1 those-who remain in Connecticut, through
1 their representatives in Congress, should de
cide their local policy on any question 1 The
i proposition seems absurd. The question is
admittedly one for the disposition of a sov
ereign State, and so it should be for the pea-.
ple of -a Territory. When thy people of a
Territory become a State, their will is to be
omnipotent. Why should it be restrained
i during the existence of the Territorial goy-,
ernment '1 Why not permit the full power of
the people, under the Constitution, to oper
late at once? It will do its work in the end
anyhow. But thiS whole question is magni-
I tied by the opposition with the view to po
i tical capital. They speak of the action li
of
1 Congress as determining the policy of the
1 people of the Territory forever. That is not
the case. The people of a State may change
their policy as often as' they please. Con
! nectieut hail the institution of slavery. She
I , could have it again, and no power on earth
dare interfere. Just so with any other State.
I Kansas, or any other territory coming into
Ithe Union as a free State, can afterward es
tablish slavery, and vice versa. Congression
al control at most, therefore, can only operate
i during the territorial probation, and the
Whole controversey is reduced to this one
point : aS the peeple of a State can do as they
Iplease on a question of domestic policy, shall
, they be permitted to do so while a territory.
!The Democratic party say yes ! The Isms
say no; and on this the issue is made. But
it is diligently asserted that, the Kansas law
legislates slavery into the territory. That is
not true ! The winds are expliciti that it is
the "true intent and meaning of this act not
to legislate slavery into any State or territo
ry, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave
the people thereof, perfectly free to form and
regulate their' domestic institution in their
own way, subject only to the Constitution
.of
the United States." Under this provision it
is true Kansas may .become a slave State.—
It might have become such in the end, no
matter what Congress might do in the prem
ises. Specific action, as in •the case of the
Missouri line, if constitutional, would be
binding on the people of the territory; but the
shackles, would fall off so soon as they be
come a State. The laws' of nature will more
certainly shape the policy of the State than
the laws of Congress. If the climate and
soil invite the institution, it will be difficult
to keep it out. If they are against it, no
agency of Congress eau maintain it. For one, l
I am willing to leave the qnestion with the
-people, and regard the question as finally set
tled in that way. - .
But Democrats are charged with inconsis
tency for having, at one time, favored the
Missouri line; I have already given a suffi
cient answer to this allegation by showing
that the Abolitionists forced the necessity for
a new mode of adjustment. But how stands
the case on the other side ? Wonderfully
consistent ! When James Lanman, your Sen
ator in 1820, voted for the Missouri line, this
party burnt him in effigy. When Isaac Tou
cey,. in 1854, voted for its repeal, they served
VOL. It, 2\:. - 0. 45.
him in the same way. The Republicans in
Congress struggled for two months to make
Mr. Banks Speaker, because he is apposed to
slavery, and for this they claim the thanks of
Anti-Slavery men in all parts of the Country.
Within two days thereafter, these gentlemen
turned around and elected Gen. Cullom, of
Tennessee, a slaveholder, their clerk-;- - -and
for this they may claim the thanks. of the
other. side. But you are told that the Terri
tory of Kansas has'keen invaded by the peo s
ple of Missouri, and - the voice of the bend
fide citizen has been smothered. It is quife
clear to my mind that excesses were indulged
at the election; :hat the ballot-box has been
abused ; that men have voted who had nd
right to vote. Bitter conflict, if not actual
violence, was the certain consequence of the
circumstances surrounding the organization.
The attempt to cram the Territories, on the
one hand, and the counteracting efforts on the
other, could scarcely fail to lead to aistisee of
the right of suffrage. But this is not fatal to
the theory of the law, nor to its ultimate
workings. All sides are pled to the protec
tion of the-ballot box in future—Southern
men as well as Northern—and I think it may
be safely assumed that the next election will
be a fair one. That uncontrolled and unawed,
the voice of the bona fide citizens of the ter
ritory will be expressed. If the free State
party are in the majority, as is so confidently
claimed, they will elect the next Legislature
and repeal the objectionable laws, and shape
the policy of the territory to suit themselves.
I shall now speak of the Know-Nothing or
ganization. This is a party of bad principles
and worse practices. They propose to make
birth-place and religious belief a test for civil
office, and to accomplish the end through the
agency of secret and oath-bound societies..—
At least such is their plan of operations in
my State. They profess to believe that our'
institutions are in danger from the influence
of foreign born citizens and the power of the
Catholic church. They fight under the motto,
that "Americans must rule America." They
complain of great evils and then determine•
to practice them. They claim to be pecu
liarly American, but maintain doctrines dis
tinctly anti-American. Proiessing deep con
cern for the stability of our republican insti
tutions, they make war on the noblest charac
teristics of our whole system, civil rights and
religious freedom. Deprecating secret and
clannish movements in others, they have
adopted the practice themselves. Discarding,
in terms of bitterness, Jesuitism in matters'
of religion, they have determined to try it in
politics. Professing peculiar reverence for
the name of Washington, they have chosen
a plan of political organization against which ,
that good man admonished the people.
Alarmed about the power of die Catholic
church l Why, according to the census, we
have in this country,- about 800 Catholic
priests, to over 25,Ct0'0 Protestant ministers— ,
thirty of the latter to one of the former.—
There is surely no cause of alarm in such a
state of facts, nor can there be any sineerkly
in the pretension. According to the same
census, we have twenty-three natives to one
foreign born citizen. Is this startling? Can't
twenty-three Yankees take care of one Irish
man or Dutchman ? But I deny the premises
and the conclusions. Our institutions are hi
danger from no such cause. We have more
to fear from elements longer in the country
than the much dreaded. foreigners.
' But who originated this new scheme, and
what is its nature ? It is "an old enemy in
a new garb," one whose long ears the lion's
skin does not entirely conceal, as it goes about
to scare people. The leading spirits in get- ,
ting it up are the same who denounced the'
Democratic candidate in 1852, as a biaoted
Protestant, and attempted to prove it. 'by a
certificate signed by Whig Catholics in New
Hampshire; the same who circulated the fa
mous pictorial biography of Gen. Scott, their
I candidate, displaying him in the midst of raw
1
Irishmen, listening to their complaints, and
ministering to their wants, and all this to
prove that he was a generous man, who would
not neglect the poor down-trodden foreigner.
It was 'the candidate of these Know-Nothing
I leaders who traveled the country in the last.
Presidential contest to win the votes of for-'
;
i eign born citizens by ridiculous tvvacidleabouf
the "rich Irish brogue," and the " sweet Ger
il man accent." It was their candidate who
I proposed to interpolate a new plank in the
platform, to the effect that any species of hu
-1 manity mustering in the army for one year
t should have the right of suffrage. Notwith--
standing Gen. Scott's identity with the Cath-•
I olic church, these Know-Nothings "voted for
him, and they would have done so had the/
J Pope been his daily companion. But Scott
was not elected. ' These much courted People
voted as theretofore, some for the Democratic,
and some for the Whig candidate, thus yin
' cheating themselves against the charge of
clannishness now so freely made. But a
change came over the views of their former
admirers, the Know-Nothings. The foreign -
• accent lost its charms, and the groups of Irish
with which he was identified, have been con
verted into hideous monsters to alarm the
weak and ignorant; hence Know Nothingism.'
But is it not unjust to disfranchise a man ,
because of his place of birth 7 He . could not ,
help it: Geography is not understood in the
preexistent state. Birth a standard for office !
Why the idea is only worthy of ridicule.---
Birth is not a virtue, it is an accident or cir
cumstance. It may be a good thing to be'
born in this favored country, but it would her
better were it a matter of choice. It is the
virtneof the animal. The buffalo and the"
catamount have it. The Indian and the negro .
have it. Tiger-tail, the Indian chief',, can
boast a better title to it than the oldest of 'the -
Know-Nothings. It may be a God-send to'
political bankrupts to set up a standard of
political virtue, which equalizes the : meanest
with the best; by which Mr. Hiss would_
out-rank John Wesley, and Benedict Arnold -1
would be preferred to Lafayette. But licinest;
men will repudiate the idea. They
_Will esz•
timate the man by a higher standard, the'
head, the heart, the soul. - They will never'
consent to look behind the swaddling clothes;
or pry into the consciences of men to fix their.
test for political preferment;- -
a~ .
_..:mow