Remarks of Hon. Orlando B. Ficklin, to the Democracy of Pittsfield, Illinois. Delivered Saturday Night, Sept. 22, 1860.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In pursuance of notice given at the stand after the close of the joint discussion this afternoon, between Judge Trumbull and myself, I appear before you to-night to elaborate somewhat a few of the points touched upon to-day, and to present such others as may occur to me.
Whenever you find a republican orator in this canvass, from Senator Seward, the head of the party, down to the most obscure and senseless advocate of slavery restriction by congress, he will tell you that he is trying to get back to the "days of the fathers" and desires nothing more than to restore the government to its primitive position. Never before has any party made such incessant protestations of an undying wish to be with their fathers, but after all their researches for historical facts to sustain their claim of kindred, and after all their yearnings to be with the fathers of the republic, they are utterly unable to identify themselves in principle with any other fathers except Fathers Giddings, Greeley, Chase and their confederates in abolitionism.
One would imagine, taking their declarations as true, that this raving class of abolition orators and become entirely weaned from their mothers and had lost all desire to see them again and could be consoled only by the presence of their fathers. Unfortunately for them they are not likely ever to be gratified by the sight either in this world or the next. The conclusion forces itself irresistibly upon our mind that those who established this great and glorious government will find in the next world a place very different from that assigned to those who attempt to destroy it.
The ordinance of 1787 seems to be regarded by the republicans as a sort of political bible from which most of their arguments in favor of the power of congress of prohibit slavery in the territories seem to be deduced.
My distinguished competitor in this controversy, Judge Trumbull, while he lavish in his laudation of the ordinance of '87, delights in sneering at the provisions in the Kansas Nebraska act, providing for the appointment of the governor and judges of the territory by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate. For the information of the judge, who may not have carefully examined that ordinance, that the mode of appointing officers and voters are much more in derogation of popular sovereignty and popular rights than the provisions of the Kansas Nebraska act to which he excepts.
By the 3d section of the ordinance of '87, it is provided that the congress of the confederation shall appoint the governor, who
4is to have a freehold estate in the territory of 1000 acres of land. By the fourth section of that ordinance congress is to appoint a secretary, who is to have a freehold of 500 acres of land; and three judges, who are also, while they are there, to have 500 acres to the legislature is to have a fee simple to two hundred acres of land, and each voter a freehold of 50 acres of land. By the 11th section of the ordinance the legislature is to consist of a governor, legislative council and house of representatives; the legislative council to consist of five members, to be appointed as follows: The member of the legislature to name ten persons, each possessed of a freehold of 500 acres of land, and return to names to congress, five of whom congress shall appoint and commission to serve as members of the legislative council, to hold the office for five years, unless sooner removed by congress. By the 12th section the council and house are authorized to elect a delegate to congress.
These are some of the popular sovereignty provisions of the ordinance of '87, so much lauded by Judge Trumbull and other republican orators. Would it not be in better taste for the judge to practice his art of sneering in the anti-democratic provisions of the ordinance of '87, to which he seems to be so closely wedded? From that day to the present the progressive democracy, aided by the lights of political science, have made it legitimately belongs in all free governments; and if they have failed to accomplish everything that was desirable, their progress in the past gives assurance that the country has more to hope for in the future from the action of the democratic party than from any other that now exists or has existed from the foundation of the government.
By reference to the ordinance of 1787, it will be observed that that instrument contains the following section:
"Its is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, that the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original states in the said territory, and forever main unalterable, unless by common consent."
The general government has all the while felt itself bound to observe the compact, and in no sense to violate it; and is, indeed, required in the foregoing provision to do so, and, by article 6th, and section 1st, of the constitution of the United States, which provides that "all debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this constitution as under the confederation."
The 6th article of the ordinance is as follows:
"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service as aforesaid." [See ordinance of 1787.]
Now it will be observed, that not only is slavery prohibited in that territory, but that a provision for the rendition of fugitive slaves escaping into the territories is also provided by the same article. The republicans, who are so clamorous for the maintenance of the anti-slavery portion of the article, could not possibly be induced to endorse the other branch of it, for the return of fugitive slaves, by any convention, state or
5rational. The ordinance of 1787, so far as it is anti-slavery in its provisions, is more sacred than holy writ itself, but when it proposes to return the fugitive slave, it is to be spit upon and derided. From the time that the present government of the United States went into operation, it has ever regarded the ordinance of 1787 as a contract between the original states and the people and states in the said North-west territory. Two years after its adoption, and within one month the ratification of the federal constitution, she passed an act [unknown] her territory, (the present state of Tennessee) which congress accepted by an act April 2d, 1790. The North Carolina act of cession applies the ordinance of '87 to the territory ceded, with the following proviso: "Provided, always, that no regulation made or to be made by congress, shall tend to emancipate slaves." Thus it will be seen that the compact in reference to the territories ceded by Virginia, was in direct conflict with that made by North Carolina. And therefore, if the cession made by Virginia proves that congress was in favor of congressional prohibition, the cession by North Carolina equally proves the power and disposition of congress to perpetuate slavery; but the fact is, that neither case proves any such thing; they simply establish the fact that congress revived and accepted the territory subject to the compact in the ordinance of '87, with an understanding, in the Virginia case, that slavery should not be tolerated, and in the North Carolina case that it should not be prohibited.
Again, Georgia, April 2d, 1802, ceded the territory out of which Alabama and Mississippi were formed, and applied to it the ordinance of 1787, except the article prohibiting slavery, leaving it either for the territorial legislature, or congress, or whatever body might have authority to regulate in those territories the question of slavery. Both of these states came into the Union as slave states. This is the provision in the case of Georgia:
"That the territory thus ceded should become a state and be admitted into the Union as soon as it shall contain sixty thousand free inhabitant, or at an earlier period if congress shall think it expedient, on the same conditions and restrictions, with the same privileges and in the same manner as is provided in the ordinance of the congress of the 13th of July, 1787, for the government of the western territory of the United States; which ordinance shall in all its parts, extend to the territory contained in the present act of cession, the article only excepted which forbids slavery."
You will receive, my fellow citizens, that the republicans assert, not only without authority, but against the truth of history, in the 8th resolution of Chicago platform, that the "normal condition of all the territories of the United States is that of freedom." Such is not the fact, for the normal condition of the northwest territory, (it being a county of Virginia, and subject to her laws,) was that of slavery. The normal condition, of the Kentucky, admitted into the Union by an act February 4th, 1791, was that of slavery.
The same remark is true in reference to the territory of Tennessee, cede by North Carolina, and the same in regard to Alabama and Mississippi, ceded by Georgia.
Judge Trumbull tells you that Illinois is a free state, because of the ordinance of 1787. In that I apprehend he will find himself as much mistaken as he is in supposing that our fathers undertook by action of the general government to limit or abolish slavery.
Registered and indentured servants, or slaves, were treated as chattel property, subject to sale under execution, and to be devised by will, or to be disposed of by bargain and sale, during our territorial existence, and certainly up to 1828, as is shown by a decision of our supreme court — made in the case of Nance, a girl of color, vs. John Howard. — Breese's Reports, p183; opinion by Justice Lockwood,
Slavery would have existed in this state to-day if it had been profitable, but not being so, it has entirely disappeared, as it will from all territories where it is not profitable.
The one great and vital question, with the so-called republicans, is the total abolition of African slavery wherever it may exist, in the states or territories. Every effort is restored to by them to conceal their real purposes, yet there is enough in their second and eighth resolutions to satisfy every abolitionist of their real purpose, and to admonish every lover of the confederacy to watch them closely, and not take anything from them upon trust. Entertaining but one idea, that of opposition of slavery, and animated by the sentiment of sectionalism, they appeal to the vulgar prejudices of the multitude, with the hope of uniting the entire north against the south. Congress, in their judgment, has power over the slavery question in the territories, if they decide to exclude it, but no power to admit or protect it. Like the boy who proposed to sell his horse — when asked if the horse had the spavin, he replied, that if it was good for him he had, and it id wasn't good for him, he didn't have it!
So with the republicans; if it is good for them, congress has the power to legislate on slavery, and if it is not good for them, congress has not got the power.
The second resolution of their platform is intended to assert negro equality, and the inalienable right of the negro to his freedom. No one of the democratic party denies the equality of white men, hence no issue could be got up with us by asserting the equality of white men; but by asserting the equality of the negro with the white man, and his inalienable right to liberty, the republicans tender issue, which is at once accepted by the democracy.
I will now proceed to read you some extracts from the "Impending Crisis," by Hinton Rowan Helper, of North Carolina. This volume is probably more fully indorsed by the republican party than any other work now extant.
Sixty-eight members of the last congress have given it their approval, as will be observed by the following certificate:
New York, March 9, 1859.
DEAR SIR: If you have read and critically examined the work, you will probably agree with us, that no course of argument, so successfully controverting the practice of slavery in the United States, and enforcing a precise and adequate view of its prostrating effects, material and moral, has equated that of the VOLUME entitled The Impeding Crisis of the South; How to meet it: by Hinton Rowan Helper, of North Carolina.
No other volume now before the public, as we conceive, is, in all respects, so well calculated to induce in the minds of its readers a decided and persistent
repugnance to slavery, and a willingness to co-operate in the effort to restrain the hameless advances and hurtful influence of that pernicious institution.
An early response from you is respectfully solicited.
WM. H. ANTHON, Treasurer,
16 Exchange Place, New York.
Samuel E. Sewall, Boston, Mass;
Seth Paddleford, Providence, R.I;
William B. Thomas, Philadelphia, Pa;
William McCaulley, Wilmington, Del;
William Gunnison, Baltimore, Md;
Lewis Clephane, Washington. D.C;
Cassius M. Clay, Whitehall, Ky;
Frank P. Blair, jr., St. Louis, Mo.
The undersigned having been appointed a committee in New York to aid in the circulation of Mr. Helper's book, on the plan proposed above, beg leave to recommend the object to the public, and ask their co-operation:
Charles W. Elliott,
David D. Field,
Charles A. Peabody,
R. H. McCurdy,
Wm Curtis Noyes,
James A. Briggs.
"We, the undersigned, members of the house of representatives of the national congress, do cordially indorse the opinion set forth in the foregoing circular:
OWEN LOVEJOY, of Ill.,
E. B. Morgan,
JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS,
C. C. Chaffee,
Wm. A Howard,
Daniel W. Gooch,
J. S. Morrill,
John A. Brigham,
E. B. WASHBURNE of Ill.,
S. G. Andrews,
E. B. Pottle,
J. F. Potter,
J. F. FARNSWORTH, Ill.,
R. E. Fenton,
M. W. Tappan,
Timothy Davis, Iowa,
H. E. Royce,
A. S. Murry,
V. B. Horton,
S. R. Curtis,
I. M. Parker,
C. J. Gilman,
W. D. Brayton,
O. B. MATTESON, N. Y.,
George R. Robbins,
F. E. Spinner.
AMOS P. GRANGER,
Galusha A. Grow,
Geo. W. Palmer,
Henry L. Daws,
Israel Washburn, jr.,
WM. KELLOGG, of Ill.,
C. B. Tompkins,
C. C. Washburn,
A. B. Olin,
N. B. Durfee,
DeWitt C. Leach,
Timothy Davis, Mass.,
C. L. Knapp,
J. D. Clawson,
R. D. Hall,
F. H. Morse,
J. M. Wood,
Stephen C. Foster,
Chas. B. Hoard,
J. W. Sherman,
E. A. Walton,
S. A. Puriance,
S. M. Burroughs.
The Impending Crisis of the South — a work everywhere received and hailed by the advocated of free labor as one of the most impregnable demonstrations of the justice of their cause, and the vital importance of its triumph to our national and general well-being, Were every citizen in possession of the facts embodied in THIS BOOK, we feel confident that slavery would soon peacefully pass away, while a republican triumph in 1860 would be morally certain.
Wm. H. Austin,
E. D. Smith,
B. S. Hidreck,
J. C. Underwood,
W. C. Bryant,
J. Kelly, Ch'n state central committee,
R. H. M'Curdy,
J. A. Kennedy,
W. C. Noyce.
The character of that book is correctly exemplified by the following extracts from its pages:
Helpers Impending Crisis, page 174:
For its truckling concessions to the slave power, the whig party merited defeat, and defeated it was, and that, too, in the most decisive and overwhelming manner. But there is yet in this party much vitality, and if its friends will reorganize, detach themselves from the burden of slavery, espouse the cause of the white man, and hoist the fair flag of freedom, the time may come at a day by no means remote, when their hearts will exult in triumph over the ruins of miscalled democracy.
Helper's Impending Crisis, pages 158 and 159:
Henceforth, let it be distinctly understood, that ownership is slaves constitute ineligibility — that it is a crime, as we verily believe it is, to vote for a slavocrat for any office whatever. Indeed it is our honest conviction that all the pro-slavery slaveholders, who are alone responsible for the continuance of the baneful institution among us, deserve to be at once reduced to a parallel with the basest criminals but lie fettered within the cells of our public prisons. Beyond the power of computation is the extent of the moral, social, civil, and political evils that the whole number could be gathered together and transformed into four equal gangs of licensed robbers, ruffians, thieves and murderers, society, we feel assured, would suffer less from their atrocities then than it does now. Let the wholesome public sentiment of the non slaveholders be vigilant and persevering in bringing them down to their proper level. Long since, and in the most unjust and cruel manner, have they socially outlawed the non-slaveholders; now, security against further oppression, and indemnity for past grievances, make it incumbent on the the non-slaveholders to cast them into the identical pit that they dug for their betters — thus teaching them how to catch a tartar!
Helper's Impending Crisis, page 95:
The great revolutionary movement which was set on foot in Charlotte, Meeklenberg county, North Carolina, on the 20th day of May, 1775, has not yet been terminated, nor will it be, until every slave in the United States is freed from the tyranny of his master, Every victim of the vile institution, whether white or black, must be reinvested with the sacred rights and privileges of which he has been deprived by an inhuman oligarchy. What our noble sires left unfinished it is our duty to complete.
On page 116:
In this extraordinary crisis of affairs, no man can be a true patriot without first becoming an abolitionist. (A freesoiler is only a tadpole in an advanced state of transformation. An abolitionist is the full and perfectly developed frog.)
On page 155:
Inscribed on the banner, which we herewith unfurl to the world, with the full and fixed determination to stand by it or die by it.
Here follows the plan:
1st. Thorough organization and independent political action on the part of the non-slaveholding white of the south.
2d. Ineligibility of slaveholders — never another vote to the trafficker in human flash.
2d. No co-operation with slaveholders in politics — no fellowship with them in religion — no affiliation with them in society.
4th. No patronage to slaveholding merchants — no guestship in slave-waiting hotels — no fees to slaveholding lawyer — no employment of slaveholding physicians — so audience of slaveholding parsons.
5th. No recognition of pro-slavery men, except as ruffians, outlaws, and criminals.
6th. Abrupt discontinuance of subscription to pro slavery newspapers.
7th. The greatest possible encouragment to free white labor.
8th. Nor more hiring of slaves by non-slaveholders.
9th. Immediate death to slavery, or it not immediate, unqualified prosciption of its advocate during the period of its existence.
10th. A tax of sixty dollars on every slaveholder for each and every negro in his possession at the present time or at any intermediate time between now and the 4th of July, 1863 — said money to be applied to the transportation of the blacks to Liberia, to their colonization in Central or South America, or to their comfortable settlement within the boundaries of the United States.
11th. "An additional tax of forty dollars per annum, to be levied annually, on every slaveholder for each and every negro found in his possession after the 4th of July, 1863 — said money to be paid into the hands of the negroes so held in slavery, or, in cases of death, to their next in kin, and to be used by the, at their option."
There never has bee, in the history of the world, a work written of character so much to be condemned by every man whose heart throbs with feelings of humanity as this book. It counsels the invasion and destruction of the whole social and political system of fifteen states of the United States. It attempts to overthrow and destroy all the constitutional safeguards of the southern people, either of property or personal right. It breathes from beginning to end insurrection, revolution, and all their attendant horrors. Reflection upon its practical ends sickens the heart and causes the human mind to shudder at the magnitude of its inevitable attendant atrocities. The whites of the south, male and female, youth and old age, are indiscriminately to be offered up to the barbarous and savage hatreds and unlawful lusts of the negro slaves; the domestic altar is to be invaded; property and personal rights are to disregarded; the guarantee of protection that every American citizen owes to every other American citizen, is to be set at naught; the teachings of a civilized, christian and benevolent age, are to be subverted, and foul treason, murder, torture and theft, are to be inflicted upon and to riot with the personal and property rights of the whole southern people.
Such, fellow citizens, is the teaching of sixty-eight republican members of congress. Their mad and unholy ambition has led them to the open indorsement of doctrines that in the days of the fathers of the republic, to which Judge Trumbull so often alludes, would have subjected their traitorous and patriotic populace. One of the number who endorsed this book, John Sherman, of Ohio, a leading member of the republican party, was nominated by that party for the high and responsible office of speaker, and received almost the unanimous vote of his party. Gen. Clark, of Missouri, offered a resolution condemning him as unworthy to preside over the house of representatives, in consequence of his endorsal of the Helper book, and the country was saved from the disgrace of having him as its presiding officer, by the joint efforts of the old-line whigs of the south and the democrats of the county.
Of a kindred character with this book, is a resolution introduced by Mr. Blake of Ohio, which received the vote of a large number of the republican party, and of all the republican members from Illinois, except Kellogg, who did not vote. The resolution is as follows:
Whereas, The chattelizing of humanity, and the holding of persons as property is contrary to natural justice and the fundamental principles of our political system, and is notoriously a reproach to our country, throughout the civilized world, and serious hindrance to the progress of republican liberty among the nations of the earth — therefore,
Resolved, That the committee on the judiciary be and the same are hereby instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a bill giving freedom to every
human being, and the interdiction of slavery wherever congress has the constitutional power to legislate on the subject.
The vote was taken upon the resolution with the following result:
Yeas — Messrs. Adams of Mass, Aldrich, Alley, Bingham, Blair, Blake , Brayton, Buffington, Burlingame, Burroughs, Butterfield, Cavey, Carter, Colfax, Conkling, Curtis, Delano, Duell, Edgerton, Edward, Elliott, Fly, FARNSWORTH, Foster, Frank Gooch, Grow, Gurley, Hale, Helmich, Hoard, Humphrey, Hutchins, Kellogg of Mich., Leach of Mich., Lee, LOVEJOY, McKean, Morrill, Olin Palmer, Pottle, Rice, Sedgwick, Sherman, Somes, Spaulding, Spinner, Stewart of Penn., Tappan, Tompkins, Train, Vandever, Waldron, Walton, Washburne of Wis., WASHBURNE of Ills., Wells and Windon — 60.
Those voting in the negative are —
Messrs. Allen, Anderson of Missouri, Ashmore, Avery, Barksdale, Barr, Barret, Bocook, Botter, Boyce, Bracnh, Briggs, Barstow, Burch, Burnett, Campbell, Clark of Mo., Clopton, Cobb, John Cochrane, Cooper, Cox, Craig of Mo., Craige of N. C., Crawford, Curry, Davis of Maryland, Davis of Indiana, Davis of Mississippi, dejarnett, Dunn, Edmunson, Etheridge, Florence, Fouke, French, Barnett, Gatrill, Gilmer, Hamilton, Hardeman, Harris of Mayland, Harris of Virginia, Hatton, Hickman, Hall, Hindman, Holman, Houston, Hughes, Jackson, Jenkins, Jones, Keitt, Kenyon, Kunkel, Lamar, landrum Leach of N. C. Leake, Logan, Love, Mallory, Martin of Ohio, Martin of Virginia, McKnight, McPherson, McQueen, McRae, Miles, Millson, Millworth, Montgomery, Moore of Kentucy, Moore of Alabama, Morris of Pa., Morris of Ills., Niblack, Nixon, Noel, Phelps, Porterm Pryor, Pugh, Quarles, Ragan, Riggs, Robinson of Ills., Ruffin, Schwarts, Scott, Scranton, Simmes, Singleton, Smith of Va., Stasllworth, Stephenson, Stewart of Maryland, Stokes, Taylor, Thayer, Thomas, Trimble, Underwood, Vallandigham, Winslow and Wright — 109
The second resolution of the Chicago platform, which asserts negro equality, was originally introduced by Joshua R. Giddings. The majority of the members of the convention repudiated that resolution as emanating from him, upon which he became introduced, to conciliate him, by another man, I believe Mr. Curtis of New York, and was adopted by the vote of the convention, and thereupon Father Joshua returned. This republican platform maker, and republican leader in the house of representatives, of the 34th congress, said:
"Gentlemen will bear with me, when I assure them and the president that I have seen as many as nine fugitive dining at one time in my own house. I obeyed the Divine mandate, to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. I fed them, I clothed them, gave them money, and sent them on their way rejoicing."
Senator Wade, republican United States senator from Ohio, in a speech delivered in 1855, in the state of Maine, said:
"There was no freedom at the south for either white or black, and he would strive to protect the free soil of the north from the same blighting curse. There was really no union now between the south and the north, and he believed no two nations upon the earth entertained feelings of more bitter rancor toward each other than these two sections of the republic. The only salvation of the Union, therefore, was to be found in divesting it entirely of all taint of slavery. There was no union we call a Union. I go for a Union where all men are equal, or for no Union at all; and I go for right."
William H. Seward, the great leader and founder of the republican party, in speech delivered at Cleveland, Ohio, said:
"Wherein do the strength and security of slavery lie? You answer that they lie in the constitution of the United States, and the constitution and laws of the
slaveholding states. Not at all. They lie in the erroneous sentiment of the American people. Constitutions and laws can no more rise above the virtue of the people, than the limpid stream can climb above its native spring. Inculcate the love of freedom and the equal rights of man under the paternal roof! See to it that they are taught in the schools and the churches; reform your own code, extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary limbs at your door and defend him as you would your paternal gods. Correct your own error that slavery has any constitutional guarantee which may not be released and ought not to be relinquished."
Abraham Lincoln, the standard bearer of the republican party, in a speech delivered in the city of Chicago, in relation to the equality of all races said:
"My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desire to do, and have only to say, let us discard all quibbing about this man or the other man, this race and that race being inferior, and therefore must be placed in an inferior position, discarding our standard which we have left us — let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout the land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal."
And he further said, in the same speech:
"I should like to know if, taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are created equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where it would stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man."
In his speech at Galesburg, he said:
"I believe that the entire records of the world, from the date of the Declaration of Independence, up to within three years ago, may be searched in vain for a single affirmation, from one single man, that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence."
Judge Trumbull asserts that the republican party is not an abolition party. I appeal to every candid man, every man who can read the English language, to determine for me what the Helper book, what the speeches of Giddings, of Wade, of Seward, and of Lincoln mean; what the resolution of Blake means? If not abolitionism, what is it?
Mr. Lincoln, at Chicago, in the same speech said:
"I hate slavery, I think, as much as any abolitionist; I have always hated it, but have always been quiet about it, until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska hill." [Debates, p. 18]
Mr. Lincoln hates slavery as much as any abolitionist. John Brown carried his hatred to the extent to invade one of the southern states of the United States, attempted to create an insurrection there, attacked the whites and shed the blood of white American citizens. Helper and his 68 endorsers threaten the whole southern people with the knife of the negro insurrectionist. The fact is Abraham Lincoln, and all the great leaders of the republican party, believe in the political and social equality of the negro, they are continually asserting their belief, and still Judge Trumbull denies that the party is an abolition party. From all these facts, fellow citizens, every sane man must come to the conclusion that we are now contending with a party whose chief and only political end and aim is to place the negro slave on an equality with the white race; to strike at a single blow the shackles from the four million slaves of the south,
12and to bring those emancipated slaves in competition with the white laborers in the north, to work side by side with you in your corn fields, and your harvest fields; to occupy the position as your equals in the blacksmith shops, and the carpenter shops; to be schooled with our children, to vote with you at the polls, and aid in the law-making power; to eat at your table, to court and make wives and husbands of your daughters and sons. Some persons may think, fellow citizens, that this acts, and you will agree with me that the only conclusion they are susceptible of is the one to which I have arrived. And what would be the result? The laboring class, part of whom are now supporting the black republican party, under the delusion that they are not an abolition party would soon rebel against the practical ends of republicanism. A war between the two races would ensue as an inevitable necessity. The freed negro would cheapen and degrade labor and take the bread out of the mouth of the poor laboring white man — they would be continually coming in conflict, and a war of extermination would be the only remedy; either the white race must govern the black race, or the black race must govern the white. All history demonstrates that no two races so dissimilar in general characteristics can ever live together on terms of social or political equality.
Fellow citizens of the west, are you prepared for this change in your political system? Are you prepared to work with the emancipated negro? Are you prepared for competition labor with the degraded, indolent and half civilized negro of the south? If you are not prepared for that state of affairs, do not support the republican ticket, for as sure as the sun rises and sets, just so sure is it that the only practical end that can result from modern republicanism, is the one which in my feeble way I have attempted to foreshadow. They are continually asserting the right to liberty, and attempting to accomplish that end. If that end is accomplished, they have prepared no other way by which they, the negroes, are to enjoy their freedom.
The most of the men who support Mr. Trumbull for the senate, advocate the abolition of the black laws, voted for appropriating the public funds for the schooling of the negro in the schools with the white, voted for striking down all distinction between the negro and the white race. In every state where republicans have power, they allow the negro to vote, school them side by side with the white children, and have inaugurated a perfect system of political equality between the races. Place them in your power in this state, and the black laws will be repealed and you and your sons and brothers will be met at the polls, in the jury box and on the witness stand, by the negro.
Such is black republicanism. It is for you, gentlemen, to choose between that party and a party who support and maintain the constitution of the United States, who believe that while the negro is among us, that it is better for the white race that he should be in bondage than to be free; a party who are opposed to bringing this free negro labor in direct competition with the labor of the north; a party who believe that the present condition of the races, situated as they are, in the government, is most conductive of the races, situated as they are, in this government, is most conducive to the happiness and security of both, and most conducive to the prosperity of the white race; and party who believe, instead
13of assailing the southern people, or their institutions, that it is their duty to protect that people in all their personal and property rights; a party whose teachings are that the white people of this country are of one common stock and family, and who would hurl back the dagger of the assassin, whether the blow was aimed at the northern or southern heart; a party whose aim is to elevate and ennoble the white race of this government, and to secure and perpetuate to them the blessings of liberty.
After, fellow citizens, having thus briefly shown what modern republicanism is, and what its adoption would eventuate in, I shall now, for a short time, turn my attention to the doctrines of that great and illustrious leader of the old whig party, Henry Clay. As early as the 7th day of February, 1839, in a brilliant and able speech on the subject of abolition petitions, he maintained that the abolitionists were resolved to persevere in their objects at all hazards, and without regard to consequences. He said:
"With them the rights of property are nothing, the deficiency of the power of the government is nothing, the acknowledged and incontestible powers of the states are nothing, civil war, a dissolution of the Union, and the overthrow of a government, in which are concentrated the fondest hopes of the civilized world, are pursue it, overlooking all barriers, reckless and regardless of all consequences."
Again, in same speech, he says:
"To abolish slavery within the District of Columbia whilst it remains in Virginia and Maryland, situated as the District is, within the very heart of these states, would expose them to great practical inconvenience and annoyance. The District would become a place of refuge and escape for fugitive slaves from the two states, and a place for which a spirit of discontent, insubordination and insurrection, might be fostered and encourages in the two states."
And again he says:
"The slaves are here. No practical scheme for their removal or separation from us has been yet devised or proposed, and the true inquiry is what is best to be done with them. In human affairs we are often constrained by the force of circumstances, and the actual state of things, to do what we would do if that state of things did not exist. In the slave states the alternative is that the white man must govern the black, or the black govern the white."
And again he says, in same speech:
"I know that there is a visionary dogma which holds that negro slaves cannot be the subject of property. I shall not dwell long on this speculative abstraction. That is property which the law declared to be property. Two hundred years of legislation have sanctioned and sanctified negro slaves as property."
And again he says:
"This is not all. The abolitionist strenuously oppose all separation of the two races. I confess to you, sir, that I have seen with regret, grief and astonishment, their resolute opposition to the project of civilization."
Fellow citizens, the republican party of to-day, could not be more correctly portrayed, and its dangerous and fanatical tendencies more powerfully condemned, than is done by Mr. Clay in this speech. He devoted his whole energies in two critical periods of the history of his country, to destroy the abolition party. His hatred and contempt for them is known to every intelligent American citizen, and his patriotic and eloquent voice
14was always heard denouncing them, not only as the enemies of their country, but as the enemies of liberty everywhere; yet this republican party desecrate the name of Mr. Clay, claiming him as their great prototype, when they know that if he now lived, that they would receive no more respect and consideration from him than he would bestow upon any other band of political sappers and miners. In this Mendenhall speech, at Richmond, Indiana, October 1st, 1842, Mr. Clay, in speaking of the Declaration of Independence, says:
"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made by the delegations of the thirteen states. In most of them slavery existed, and had long existed, and was established by law. It was introduced and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of England. Do you believe, that in making that declaration, the states that concurred in it intended that it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the slaves within their respective limits; would Virginia and the other southern states have ever united in a declaration which was to be interpreted into an abolition of slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen states entertain such a design or expectation. To impute such a secret and unavowed purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest band of patriots that ever assembled in council; a fraud upon the confederacy of the revolution; a fraud upon the union of those states, whose constitution not only recognizes the lawfulness of slavery, but permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808. And I am bold to say that if the doctrines of ultra political abolitionist had been seriously promulgated at the epoch of our revolution, our glorious independence would never have been achieved — never — never."
The republican party claim that they are following in Mr. Clay's footsteps. Mr. Lincoln says that the negro was included in the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Clay denounced those who entertain that view of the declaration as ultra political abolitionist. The whole stock and trade of the republican party in this Declaration of Independence — every republican orator mouths in with triumphant glee — to sustain him in his negro equality positions. Mr. Clay, in an irrefutable manner, answers all their windy declamation about it by the facts of history, and proves that those who assume such a position, necessarily charge the authors of the declaration and constitution with hypocrisy and fraud.
Fellow citizens the republicans everywhere admit that the Wilmot proviso is the great and leading feature of the party. Mr. Clay here speaks of it in the most contemptuous manner. He denounces it as an offensive and unnecessary measure, still they claim that they are following Mr. Clay's footsteps. They made a mistake in the track, fellow citizens, are on the highway of abolitionism. In his speech at Frankfort, he says:
"With the abolitionist, the rights of property are nothing; the deficiency of the powers of the general government are nothing; the acknowledged and incontestible powers of the states are nothing; a civil war, a dissolution of the Union, and the overthrow of the government in which are concentrated the fondest hopes of the civilized world, are nothing. A single idea has taken possession of their minds, and onward they pursue it, overlooking all barriers, reckless and regardless of consequences. With this class the immediate abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the territory of Florida, the prohibition of the removal of slaves from state to state, and the refusal to admit any new state comprising within
their limits the institution of domestic slavery, are but so many means conducing to the accomplishment of the ultimate, but perilous end which they avowedly and boldly aim, are but so many short stages in the long and bloody road to the distant goal at which they would finally arrive. Their purpose is abolition, universal abolition, peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must." [Appx. Globe, vol. 7, p 355.]
I will now very briefly, fellow citizens, tell you what I consider to be the correct course for every man to pursue. If I understand the objects for which the states originally confederated together, it was for the protection of the personal and property rights of all the states, and of the people of the states. Each citizen agreed to protect the property rights of every other citizen, in consideration that every other citizen would afford him the same protection. When protection was necessary from to a citizen of the state of Virginia to a citizen of the state of Massachusetts, that citizen, under the moral spirit of the constitution, was bound to protect the citizen of the state of Massachusetts. A policy of reciprocal protection ramified itself through all the different geographical departments of the government, and whenever that policy is violated, whenever the citizens of one state invade or depreciate the property rights of the citizens of any other state, the bond that binds us together as one people is broken and destroyed. We, in this republic, must live together as brothers, or must be disunited and enemies. No middle course will do. We can only exist by cultivating a spirit broad enough and liberal enough to embrace all sections. Our devotion must be bestowed on the whole Union, not to sections or parts of the Union. We must take the same pride in cultivating feelings of amity and good will with the citizens of the state of Georgia as with a citizen of our own state. We must feel that their glory and prosperity is our glory and prosperity, and whenever such feelings as these animate the bosoms of the American people, we have that within ourselves which could repel and conquer, or subdue this world of ours; but divide us as we are now, let the public mind in the different sections be under the dominion of wily political demagogues, let sectional prejudices through misrepresentation be inculcated into the minds of the people, let sectional parties, like the republican party, not respecting the rights of the other section acquire power, and liberty, and the government, will soon expire under the mortal blow inflicted upon it.
Ours is a federal Union of states, and not a consolidated government. The general government possesses no power except that which is expressly delegated, or which may be necessary to carry out expressly delegated powers. All other power rests with the people and the states respectively. No steps can be taken by the general government to out slavery in the course of ultimate extinction without assuming powers not delegated, for there is no grant of power to the federal government for that purpose. The whole question of slavery, by the constitution of the United States, was left with the states and with the people, except in the provision for the rendition of fugitive slaves, the toleration of the African slave trade, until 1808 and the three-fifths basis for representation and taxation. Farther than this the constitution neither protects nor prohibits, encourages nor discourages slavery, but it leaves it as other property, to be regulated and controlled by the municipal laws of the states or territory to which it may be taken, or in which it may exist. This is the democratic doctrine upon the question of slavery. It leaves