After presenting and reviewing certain provisions of the of Congress, and became the law of the land by the apbill, the Committee conclude as follows:

'First.-That all questions pertaining to Slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives to be chosen by them for that purpose.

"Second. That all cases involving title to slaves and questions of personal freedom, are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

proval of the President, May 30, 1854.

In 1856, the Democratic party, assembled in National Convention at Cincinnati, declared by a unanimous vote of the delegates from every State in the Union, that

'The American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the 'Slavery question,' upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union-noninterference by Congress with Slavery in State and Territory, or in the District of Columbia; "Third.-That the provision of the Constitution of the That this was the basis of the Compromises of 1850, conUnited States in respect to fugitives from service, is to be car-firmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in National ried into faithful execution in all the organized Territories, the Conventions-ratified by the people in the election of 1852same as in the States. The substitute for the bill which your and rightly applied to the organization of the Territories in Committee have prepared, and which is commended to the 1854; That by the uniform application of this Democratic favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these pro- principle to the organization of Territories and to the admispositions and principles into practical operation, in the precise sion of new States, with or without domestic Slavery as they language of the Compromise Measures of 1850."" may elect, the equal rights of all will be preserved intact-the original compacts of the Constitution maintained inviolateand the perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing in peace and harmony any future American State that may be constituted or annexed with a Republican form of government.'

By reference to that section of the "Kansas-Nebraska Act" as it now stands on the statute book, which prescribed and defined the power of the Territorial Legislature, it will be seen that it is, "in the precise language of the Compromise Measures of 1850." extending the legislative power of the Territory "to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution," without excepting African Slavery.

In accepting the nomination of this Convention, Mr. Buchanan, in a letter dated June 16, 1856, said:

"The agitation on the question of domestic Slavery has too long distracted and divided the people of this Union, and alienated their affections from each other. This agitation has assumed many forms since its commencement, but it now from its present character, I think we may safely anticipate seems to be directed chiefly to the Territories; and judging that it is rapidly approaching a finality.' The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic Slavery, derived, as it has been, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the majority, promises, ere long, accordance with them has simply declared that the people of a upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and in Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether Slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits.”

It having been suggested, with some plausibility, during the discussion of the bill, that the act of Congress of March 6, 1820, prohibiting Slavery north of the parallel of 36' 30' would deprive the people of the Territory of the power of regulating the Slavery question to suit themselves while they should remain in a Territorial condition, and before they should have the requisite population to entitle them to admission into the Union as a State, an amend-o allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation is founded ment was prepared by the Chairman of the Committee, and incorporated into the bill to remove this obstacle to the free exercise of the principle of popular sovereignty in the Territory, while it remained in a Territorial condition, by repealing the said act of Congress, and declaring the true intent and meaning of all the friends of the bill in these words:

"That the Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the Territory as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of non-interven tion by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures,' is hereby declared inoperative and void—it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legis late Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it there from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

This exposition of the history of these measures shows conclusively that the authors of the Compromise Measures of 1850, and of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, as well as the members of the Continental Congress of 1774, and the founders of our system of government subsequent to the Revolution, regarded the people of the Territories and Colonies as political communities which were entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their Provincial Legislatures, where their representation could alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity. This right pertains to the people collectively as a lawabiding and peaceful community, and not to the isolated individuals who may wander upon the public domain in violation of law. It can only be exercised where there are inhabitants sufficient to constitute a government, and capable of performing its various functions and duties-a fact to be ascertained and determined by Congress.

To which was added, on motion of Mr. Badger, the fol- Whether the number shall be fixed at ten, fifteen or lowing:

"Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of the sixth of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, of abolishing slavery."

In this form, and with this distinct understanding of its "true intent and meaning,” the bill passed the two houses

twenty thousand inhabitants does not affect the principle. The principle, under our political system, is that every distinct political Community, loyal to the Constitution and the Union, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of self-government in respect to their local concerns and internal polity, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

NATIONAL POLITICS.

SPEECH OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, OF ILLINOIS,

Delivered at the Cooper Institute, Monday, Feb. 27, 1860.

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW-York: In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the
The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly Convention was in session framing it, and while the
old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the gene- Northwestern Territory still was the only Territory
ral use I shall make of them. If there shall be any owned by the United States-the same question of pro-
novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts,hibiting Slavery in the Territory again came before the
and the inferences and observations following that Congress of the Confederation; and three more of the
presentation.
"thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Constitution,
were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They
were William Blount, William Few and Abraham Bald-
win; and they all voted for the prohibition-thus show
ing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local
from federal authority, nor anything else, properly
forbids the Federal Government to control as to Slavery
in federal territory. This time the prohibition became
a law, being part of what is now well known as the
Ordinance of '87.

In 1734-three years before the Constitution-the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other-the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting Slavery in that Te ritory; and four of the "thirty-nine," who afterward framed the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the pohibition -- thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in Federal Territory. The other of the four James McHenry-voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.

from federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted against the prohibition, on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution, can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient be 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 standing, any proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution forbade the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in federal territory.

without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read and Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in federal territory. In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisi-prohibition, as having done so because, in their underana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a Territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and Slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit Slavery; but they did interfere with it-take control of it-in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made, in relation 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 United States since the first day of May, 1798.

Third. That no slave shall 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.

The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of the control of Slavery in the federal territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twentythree compeers, had it been manifested at all. For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding 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 whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty-nine" even, on any other phase of the general question of Slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on 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 control of Slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. slavery men of those times-as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris-while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.

This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it, there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jona-Among that sixteen were several of the most noted antithan 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 opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the line proper dividing local from federal authority or any provision of the Constitution.

In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. 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 King and Charles Pinckney-were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for Slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against Slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting Slavery in federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that in his understanding there was sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in

that case.

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.

To enumerate 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 1819-20-there would be thirtyone of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin four times. The true number of those of the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.

The sum of the whole is, that of our "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constitution, twentyone-a clear majority of the whole-certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control Slavery in the federal territories, while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question better than we.

But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for 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 control of Slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that "no person shall be de prived of property without due process of law;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant them. selves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not granted by the Constitution, are reserved to the States respectively, and to the people."

Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Constitutionthe identical Congress which passed the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of Slavery in the northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual men, who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting Slavery in all the Territory the nation then owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the act enforcing the Ordinance, of '87; so that during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending.

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our "thirtynine" fathers who framed the Governinent under which we live, who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better than we do now;" and twenty-one of them-a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine "-so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety, and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in the federal territories. Thus the twentyone acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder. That Congress, consisting in all of seventy-six memTwo of the twenty-three voted against Congressional bers, including sixteen of the framers of the original Conprohibition of Slavery in the federal Territories in the institution, as before stated, were preeminently our fathers stances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reason they so voted is not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local

who framed that part of the Government under which we live, which. is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control Slavery in the Federal Territories.

licans." In all your contentions with one another, each
of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black
Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. In-
deed such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensa-
ble prerequisite-license, so to speak, among you to be ad-
mitted or permitted to speak at all.

Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to
consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to your-
selves?

It is not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we-better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent ? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then It is surely safe to assume that the "thirty-nine "be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.' And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, 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. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century) declare 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. To those who now so declare, I give, not only "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with

them.

Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misanderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience-to reject all progress-all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.

If any man, at this day, sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part 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, into the false belief that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," were of the same opinion-thus substituting false hood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority or some part of the Constitution, forbids the federal government to control as to Slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say But he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now.”

80.

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue: and the burden of proof is upon you. 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? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. 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 votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, 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 of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, 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. 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 opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No? Then you really believe that the principle which our fathers who framed the Government under which we live thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is, in fact, so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.

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 he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition of Slavery in the northwestern Terri tory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject, up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it he wrote Lafayette, that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should sometime have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, 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 repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.

But you say you are conservative-eminently conservative-while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the

But enough. Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, under-point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers stood the question just as well, and even better, than we who framed the Government under which we live; while do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon you, with one accord, reject, and scout, and spit upon that it. This is all Republicans ask-all Republicans desire old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. in relation to Slavery. As those fathers marked it. so let True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that subit be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be stitute shall be. You have considerable variety of new tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting actual presence among us makes that, toleration and pro- | and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of tection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a con-: gave it, be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, main-gressional slave-code for the Territories; some for Contained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so gress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within far as I know or believe, they will be content. their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territo And now, if they would listen, as I suppose they will ries through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinnot, I would address a few words to the southern peo- ciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third ple. person should object," fantastically called "Popular SoI would say to them: You consider yourselves a reason-vereignty;" but never a man among you in favor of fedeable and a just people; and I consider that in the general ral prohibition of Slavery in Federal Territories, according 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 the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Bepub

to the practice of our fathers who framed the Government
under which we live. Not one of all your various plans
can show a precedent or an advocate in th century with-
in which our Government originated. Consider, then,
whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and

your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on | ago, "it is still in our power to direct the process of emanthe most clear and stable foundations. cipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. і If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.”

Again, you say we have made the Slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, re-adopt the precepts and policy of the old times. You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? larper's Ferry! John Brown! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. 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 the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable to assert it, and especially to persist in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply a malicious slander.

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 slaveholding States only.

The Federal Government, 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. 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. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with many attempts related in history, at the assassination of Kings and Emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than in his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.

The

Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair; but still insist that our doctrines and declarations nécessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declarations, which And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the were not held to and made by our fathers who framed use of John Brown, Helper's book, and the like, break up the Government under which we live. You never dealt the Republican organization? Human action can be modfairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, ified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. some important State elections were near at hand, and There is a judgment and a feeling against Slavery in this you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charg-nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. ing the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling-that senin those elections. The elections came, and your ex- timent-by breaking up the political organization which pectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a an army which has been formed into order in the face of slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his your heaviest fire, but if you could, how much would you vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declara-gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the tions are accompanied with a continual protest against peaceful channel of the ballot box, into some other chanany interference whatever with your slaves, or with you nel? What would that other channel probably be? Would about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the to revolt. True, we do, in common with our fathers, who operation? framed the Government under which we live, declare our belief that Slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves.

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights.

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is Slave insurrections are no more common now than specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument they were before the Republican party was organized. is literally silent about any such right. We, on the conWhat induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-trary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Coneight years ago, in which, at least, three times as many stitution, even by implication. lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to conSouthampton was got up by Black Republicanism. Instrue and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all the present state of things in the United States, I do not points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrec-ruin in all events. tion, is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary free men, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains.

This, plainly stated, is your language to us. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Courts have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Courts have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact-the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."

Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave-revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that 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, An inspection of the Constitution will show that the and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassi- affirmed in it. Bear in mind the Judges do not pledge nations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score their judicial opinion that such is right is impliedly afor so, will continue to occur as the natural results of Sla- firmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity very; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can that it is distinctly and expressly affirmed there--" dishappen in this country for a long time. Whoever much tinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else-" exfears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike dis-pressly," that is, in words meaning just that, without the appointed. aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning. Ir the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that