SLAVERY: WHAT IT WAS, WHAT IT HAS DONE, WHAT IT INTENDS TO DO. 

 SPEECH OF HON. CYDNOR B. TOMPKINS, OF OHIO. 

 Delivered in the House of Representatives, April 24, 1860. 

Mr. TOMPKINS said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The charge is frequently made, that nothing but slaveryoccupies the attention of the National Legislature. That this charge istrue to a great extent, that this subject is constantly kept before thecountry, and that there is constant excitement about it, is not thefault of the Republican party. In the first hour of the present sessionof Congress, it was thrust upon the House by a member of the slaveryparty; for two months a discussion was continued upon that subject, andalmost exclusively by that party--a discussion unparalleled in point ofviolence and virulence in the history of Parliamentary debate. Chargesthe most aggravated were unscrupulously and shamelessly made against thebest and purest men of the country, and honorable members on this floor. Calumny and vituperation held high carnival in the legislative halls ofthis great nation. The columns of the _Daily Globe_ teemed with fierceand fiery denunciations of all who would not bow to the behests ofpro-slavery power. Depraved, corrupt, and polluted presses exertedthemselves to the utmost in the work of slander and detraction; hirelingscribblers for worse than hireling presses glutted themselves and _madetheir meals on good men's names_. These spacious galleries were filledwith disloyal men, ready to applaud to the echo every threat utteredagainst the Government, and every disloyal sentiment heard from thisfloor. 

If the Republicans here shall feel it to be their duty to discuss thissubject now; to lay bare its weakness and its wickedness; to expose themadness and the folly of those who sustain, support, and cherish it; ifthe great interests of the country have to be neglected for a time; ifordinary legislation must be put aside, no complaint can be made againstthe Republican party. That party, its principles, its men, and itsmeasures, have been misrepresented, and most unjustly assailed. It isour privilege, it is our duty, to repel those assaults, that the worldmay know that when the advanced guard of freedom is attacked, "our feetshall be always in the arena, and our shields shall hang always in thelists. "

I intend to review this question for the time allowed me. I hope to doso with fairness and candor, and not with the passion and excitementthat have characterized many speeches made this session by pro-slaverymembers. I shall endeavor to show that the fathers of this Republic, both of the North and South, were more thoroughly anti-slavery than anypolitical party now in the country; and that, for more than forty yearsafter its organization, a large majority of our prominent men werestrongly opposed to the extension of that "_patriarchal_ institution. "

The debates in the Federal Convention show that the Constitution wasframed, adopted, and ratified, by anti-slavery men; that they regardedit as an evil, yet were ashamed to acknowledge its existence inwords--thus virtually refusing to recognise property in manyResolutions, addresses, and speeches, now to be found, establish thisvery important fact, as I will show by quotations from them. 

At a general meeting in Prince George county, Virginia, it was

"_Resolved_, That the African slave trade is injurious to this colony, obstructs the population of it by free men, and prevents manufacturersfrom Europe from settling among us. "

At a meeting in Culpeper county, Virginia, it was

"_Resolved_, That the importation of slaves obstructs the populationwith free white men and useful manufacturers. "

At a meeting in Nansemond county, Virginia, it was

"_Resolved_, That the African slave trade is injurious to this colony, obstructs the population by free men, and prevents manufacturers fromsettling amongst us. "

Resolutions to the same effect were adopted in Surrey county, Carolinecounty; and at a meeting in Fairfax county, over which George Washingtonpresided, resolutions of like import were adopted. 

At a very full meeting of delegates from the different counties of theColony and Dominion of Virginia, at Williamsburg, on the 1st day ofAugust, 1774, it was

"_Resolved_, that the abolition of domestic slavery is the greatestobject of desire in these colonies, where it was improperly introducedin their infant state. "

This is the language of the good and wise men of the Old Dominion in1774; "the _abolition_ of domestic slavery was the greatest object oftheir desire. " Not merely to limit it, to prevent its extension, butwholly to overthrow it. What would be said if a body of men, equallywise, good, and patriotic, should _now_ meet in the Old Dominion, andattempt to pass such resolutions? They would be scourged, driven byviolence from the State, and might be considered fortunate should theyescape with their lives. At a meeting in New Bern, North Carolina, August, 1774, numerously attended by the most distinguished men of thatregion, it was resolved that they would not import any slave or slaves, or purchase any slave or slaves imported or brought into that provinceby others from any part of the world. Such was the sentiment of NorthCarolina in 1774, as to the evil and great wrong of slavery. 

The Continental Congress, in October, 1774, resolved that they wouldneither import, nor purchase any slave imported, after December of thesame year; they agreed and resolved that they would have no trade, commerce, dealings, or intercourse whatsoever, with any colony orprovince in North America which should not accede to, or should violate, this resolve, but would hold them as unworthy the rights of freemen andinimical to the liberties of this country. 

But what is now the attitude of slaveholders? They will hold nointercourse, they will have no dealings, with any person or State thatdoes not approve of slavery, and yield to its intolerant and despoticdemands; if any man, not thus approving and yielding, chances to travelthrough the slave States, and there to express his sentiments, he issubjected to the degradation and cruelty of the lash, and is driven fromthe State. 

October 21, 1774, the Continental Congress, in an address to the peopleof Great Britain, said:

"When a nation, led to greatness by the hand of liberty, and possessedof all the glory that heroism, munificence, and humanity, can bestow, descends to the ungrateful task of forging chains for her friends andchildren, and, instead of giving support to freedom, turns advocate forslavery and oppression, there is reason to suspect that she has eitherceased to be virtuous, or is extremely negligent in the appointment ofher rulers. "

Is not this the situation and condition of this country now? Is not agreat party now engaged in the ungrateful task of forging chains for alarge portion of the people of this country? Instead of supportingfreedom, does it not advocate slavery and oppression? Have we not reasonto suspect that too many of our countrymen have ceased to be virtuous?

By the Darien committee, Georgia, January, 1775, it was declared:

"To show the world that we are not influenced by any contracted andinterested motives, but a general philanthropy for all mankind, ofwhatever language or complexion, we hereby declare our disapprobationand abhorrence of the unnatural practice of slavery in America--apractice founded in injustice and cruelty, and highly dangerous to ourliberties. "

I cannot quote at greater length from the proceedings of this committee. Their philanthropy was without regard to complexion; they abhorredslavery, as based on injustice and cruelty; and more, as dangerous toour liberties. If it were founded in injustice and cruelty in 1775, itis the same in 1860. It was dangerous to liberty _then_; no man _now_apprehends any danger to liberty, unless from the same source. It isdaily threatened by men who are interested in slavery. Liberty cannot bevery secure where four million human beings are held in hopelessbondage--where human blood, bone, muscle, and, I might almost say, immortal souls, are articles of merchandise. 

The historical quotations I have made bring me to the Revolution. I willcite the opinions of some of the great actors in that great drama. George Washington said, in his will:

"Upon the decease of my wife, it is my desire that the slaves whom Ihold _in my own right_ should receive their freedom. "

Again, he said:

"I never mean, unless some particular circumstance should compel me, topossess another slave by purchase, it being my first wish to see someplan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law. "

La Fayette, while in the prison of Magdeburg, said:

"I know not what disposition has been made of my plantation at Cayenne;but I hope Madame de La Fayette will take care that the negroes whocultivate it shall preserve their liberties. "

Washington wrote to Robert Morris:

"It will not be conceived, from these observations, that it is my wishto hold these unhappy people (negroes) in slavery. I can only say thatthere is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see aplan adopted for the abolition of it. "

Again, he writes to La Fayette:

"The benevolence of your heart, my dear Marquis, is so conspicuous onall occasions, that I never wonder at any fresh proof of it; but yourlate purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view ofemancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of yourhumanity. Would to God a like spirit might diffuse itself generally intothe people of this country!"

Washington hoped for some plan by which slavery might be legallyabolished. Washington lauded the humanity of La Fayette in purchasing anestate for the purpose of emancipating the negroes. I will leave it togentlemen on the other side to draw the comparison between the chivalryof the South _then_ and _now_; between the licentious assumption ofthought and utterance permitted _then_, and the course of conviction andconversion esteemed necessary and equitable _now_, towards haplessoffenders in the footsteps of predecessors so illustrious. 

Patrick Henry said:

"Slavery is detested; we feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with allthe pity of humanity. I repeat again, that it would rejoice my verysoul that every one of my fellow beings were emancipated. We ought tolament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellow men in bondage. "

Charles Pinckney, Governor of South Carolina, said:

"I must say that I lament the decision of your Legislature upon thequestion of the importation of slaves after March, 1793. I was in hopesthat motives of policy, as well as other good reasons, supported by thedireful effects of slavery which at this moment are presented, wouldhave operated to produce a total prohibition of the importation ofslaves, whenever the question came to be agitated in any State thatmight be interested in the measure. "

Such were the sentiments of the most enlightened, the most virtuous menof our country in its heroic age. George Mason, of Virginia, stigmatizedthe slave trade as an "infernal traffic!" He said that "slaverydiscouraged manufactures; that it produced the most pernicious effect onmanners. " Without intending to be personal or offensive, I think I canpause here and properly remark, that if the effects of slavery arechanged in every other respect, the effect on manners is the same nowthat it was in the last century. The epithets used by men on this floor, their arrogant bearing towards their peers, is abundant proof that thereis no change in that respect. We have frequently heard members, thissession, speak of a great party in this country as the Black Republicanparty. Legislative bodies in the slave States have so far forgotten whatshould be due to the standing and dignity of a Legislature, as to call acertain party, in their official proceedings, the "Black Republicanparty. " Why are men betrayed into such violations of the proprieties oflife? There can be no other reason than the one given by George Masoneighty years ago: slavery produces a most pernicious effect uponmanners. I know it is claimed, by men in the slave States, that slaveryis necessary to the highest development of human society; but I thinkthe experience of members of Congress is, that slavery does not alwaysproduce this beneficial result. 

I revert to my Southern authorities upon the peculiar institution. Mr. Iredell, of North Carolina, thus expresses himself:

"When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an eventwhich must be most pleasing to every generous mind, and to every friendof human nature. "

Thomas Jefferson writes:

"The spirit of the master is abating: that of the slave rising from thedust; his condition mollifying; the way, I hope, preparing, under theauspices of Heaven, for a total emancipation. "

He continues, in his plan for a Constitution for Virginia:

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that thesepeople are to be free. "

In a letter to Dr. Gordon, on Lord Cornwallis's invasion of Virginia, Mr. Jefferson says:

"He carried off also about thirty slaves, (Jefferson's. ) Had this beento give them freedom, he would have done right; but it was to consignthem to inevitable death from small-pox and putrid fever then raging inhis camp. "

I conclude here my citations from the united voices of some of the bestmen of the country, before and after the Revolution, against slavery asan evil, and a great national sin, not that I have exhausted theirutterances, but that my time admits of no more. 

The Republican party proclaims no doctrine so _ultra_ as theirs, uses nolanguage so strong as that of those Southern statesmen from whom itgains so much information, and whose views, to a great extent, itconscientiously accepts. We desire only to confine it within its presentlimits; we ask that it shall not pollute territory now free; we know theutter folly of appealing to the morality or humanity of a pro-slaveryparty, where the rights of a black man are involved; but when you insiston taking slaves into a free Territory, and smiting the land with thisblighting, withering curse, we plant ourselves on our constitutionalrights, and say, _thus far shall you go, and no further_. 

The learned gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. CURRY, ] in alluding to theopinion of the fathers of the Republic, said:

"These, however, were but mere speculations. "

Was it a mere speculation when Madison said, "we have seen a meredistinction of color made the ground of the most oppressive dominion ofman over man?" Was it as a mere speculation that Jefferson wrote, thatCornwallis would have been right, had he carried away his (Jefferson's)slaves to free them? Was it a mere speculation, a wild fancy, that theframers of the Constitution would not admit that there could be such athing as property in man? A mere speculation, was it, of Patrick Henry, when he said "that slavery is detested; we feel its fatal effects; wedeplore it?" when he declared it would "rejoice his very soul, were allhis fellow beings emancipated?" Was it a mere speculation when Jeffersonwrote, and his colleagues signed, "we hold these truths to beself-evident, that all men are created equal?" No one then doubted thetruth of this declaration. More than a generation passed away before anyman dared raise his voice against it. No, sir; this was no merespeculation, but the acknowledgment of a great "humanitarian fact. " Truethen, it is true now; and must remain indisputable and eternal--a pillarof fire by night, a cloud by day, to guide and guard nations yet unbornin the path of honor, of safety, of moral and political grandeur. 

But the learned gentleman does not pause upon these "speculations. " Heproceeds to tell us that circumstances are changed; that there was thenlittle more than half a million slaves, and scarce a pound of cottonexported. Does the gentleman believe, or does he but attempt to lead_us_ to believe, that the ethics of those men "without fear and withoutreproach" had no sounder foundation than this: that while slaves werefew and cotton scarce, slavery might be a wrong, but with four millionslaves and four million two hundred thousand bales of cotton, itbecomes just, humane, moral?--that while negroes and cotton fill oneside of the scales, Christian truth must kick the beam on the other, andslavery thus becomes a great "humanitarian fact?"

The right and wrong of the thing, about which there has been so muchdiscussion, is now easily solved. The gentleman has found an infalliblerule; it is simply to make a chemical analysis of your soil; if it willproduce cotton, you can purchase slaves and work them without violatingthe laws of God or man. 

We may also infer, or be induced to believe, from the honorablegentleman's speech, that if nothing is raised but indigo and rice, thepropriety and morality of holding men in bondage is doubtful. Not such, sir, were the "_speculations_" of the fathers of the Republic. 

Lucid as is the gentleman's speech in general, there is a want ofclearness in the last point I have cited; but this is owing entirely tothe materials used in the demonstration--rice and indigo will not do;nothing will serve but cotton; cotton ever, cotton only. 

If slave labor, then, is profitable, slaveholding is equitable. Thus itis decided, that whatever is profitable is also equitable: justice andinjustice are mere matters of profit and loss; the morality orimmorality of slavery a mere question of soil and climate. 

The great authorities cited as to the evil effects of slavery on thewhite race, should satisfy the most incredulous. But, says the learnedgentleman from Alabama, there were few slaves at that time, and scarce apound of cotton for exportation. Let us, then, pass from that period, toone when the few slaves had become millions, and the bales of cottonexported were estimated in like manner. In 1832, Thomas Marshall, ofVirginia, said of slavery:

"It is ruinous to the whites; retards improvement; roots out anindustrious population; banishes the yeomanry of the country; deprivesthe spinner, the weaver, the smith, the shoemaker, the carpenter, ofemployment and support. Labor of every species is disreputable, becauseperformed mostly by slaves; the general aspect of the country marks thecurse of a wasteful, idle, reckless population, who have no interest inthe soil, and care not how much it is impoverished. "

Mr. Berry, of Virginia, spoke thus:

"I believe that no cancer on the physical body was ever more certain, steady, and fatal, in its progress, than is the cancer of slavery on thepolitical body of the State of Virginia. It is eating into her veryvitals. "

The records of Southern statesmanship, sir, abound in such and strongerexpressions. Slavery had then existed in this country more than twohundred years, yet scarce a man could be then found so bold and soreckless as to proclaim it just and righteous, a humane, a Christianinstitution. Nearly the whole civilized world united in itscondemnation; the ministers of our holy religion in the slave Statesdeclaimed against it; their solemn petitions ascended to the throne ofGod, that the country might be rid of these "bonds. " But, slave laborhas become profitable in some parts of the South; the _mania_ for wealthhas seized the slaveholder's avarice, has dried up the fountain ofhumanity. The lust of power and dominion deadens their consciences; amillion bales of cotton can blind their eyes alike to the flames ofperdition and the glories of Paradise. They make to themselves friendsof the Mammon of unrighteousness; they become full, and deny theirMaker, and say, who is the Lord! Concerning oppression, they speakloftily. But they are set in slippery places; they will be cast downunto destruction. 

The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. LAMAR] said, a few days since:

"I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that God's sun does not shine upon a nobler, prouder, more prosperous, and elevated class of people, than thenon-slaveholders of the South. "

This, I think, will be news to many non-slaveholders in the gentleman'sdistrict. Thomas Jefferson tells us that man is an imitative animal;therefore, if the assertion of the gentleman from Mississippi becorrect, we must wonder why slaveholders do not relieve themselves oftheir negroes, that they may become equally noble, proud, prosperous, and elevated, with the non-slaveholder. Who can compare with them onthis side of Paradise? With them, the millennium can be no object ofdesire, since

 "Not a wave of trouble rolls Across their peaceful breasts. "

Still there must be some malice in their hearts, for the honorablegentleman states that they (the non-slaveholders) hold slavery in thehollow of their hands; surely, were they benevolent, they would closetheir hands and crush out the "institution, " that their slaveholdingfellow-citizens might become as prosperous and as happy as themselves. 

The assertion is frequently made, that white men cannot work in the hotlatitudes of the South, and this is offered as a reason why there shouldbe black slaves there. The gentleman knocks one of the strongest propsfrom under the institution. He tells us white men work, and raise notonly cotton, but corn and potatoes. He also informs us that after thecotton, corn, and potatoes, are raised, the strong, brave man drives theplow through the fallow ground. It will be seen that work during thesummer has not produced the lassitude and enervation that it has beenclaimed is produced in white men by labor. We are still furtherinformed, that the fallow ground turned up by the strong, brave man, discloses something more valuable than the gold of California--"'Tis thesparkles of liberty!" We have heard of the sparkles of liberty that aremade manifest to the non-slaveholders of the South. The poor laboringman at Columbia, South Carolina, when streams of blood issued from thefurrows plowed in his naked back by a cow-hide in the hands of a negro, saw some of the sparkles of liberty, when, bleeding, exhausted, besmeared with tar, and covered with feathers, he was thrust into thecars, and left to perish in the cold. He had, no doubt, a vivid idea ofthe liberty that is enjoyed by non-slaveholders in the South, when heremembered that these cruelties and barbarities were inflicted on himfor expressing a rational and honest opinion relative to this "peculiarinstitution. "

The statements, and doubtless convictions, of the honorable member fromMississippi, differ singularly from those of Senator CLAY, of Alabama, who tells us that, in his State, "we may behold numerous fine houses, once the abode of intelligent freemen, now occupied by slaves, or elsetenantless and dilapidated; that we may see fields, once fertile, covered with foxtail and broom-sedge--moss growing on the walls of oncethrifty villages, and may find that 'one only master grasps the wholedomain' which once furnished homes for a dozen white families. "

Hear, also, Senator HAMMOND, of South Carolina, who says of thenon-slaveholders of his State:

"They obtain a precarious subsistence by occasional jobs, by hunting, byfishing, by plundering fields or folds, or, too often, by what is farworse in its effects, trading with slaves, and leading them to plunderfor their benefit. "

The opinions already quoted from many of the wise men of the South gofar to demonstrate that the gentleman from Mississippi is entirelymistaken. There is, however, another test by which we can try theaccuracy of what the gentleman has said about the non-slaveholders ofthe South. The census report of 1850 shows this important fact: that ofthe white men in the slave States over twenty-one years of age, there isabout one in every twelve that cannot read and write; while in the freeStates there is only one out of every forty-five. It must also beremembered, that a very large number of those in the free States whocannot read, came originally from the slave States. Take, for instance, Massachusetts, where there are but very few persons from the slaveStates, if any, and there is only one in seven hundred and seventy-eightthat cannot read and write. Take Indiana and Illinois--States that havelarge populations from the slave States--Indiana, one in every fourteencannot read; in Illinois, one in every twenty-one and a half; and if anyone will take the trouble to examine, it will no doubt be found thatthis ignorance exists almost entirely where the population from theslave States largely predominates. I will venture the assertion, thatthere can scarcely be a man found in the State of Ohio, that was bornthere, who possesses intellect capable of cultivation, that cannot read;while a very large portion of those ignorant men in the slave Stateswere "to the manor born. "

It must also be borne in mind that, in making the estimate of the freeStates, the men that perform all the labor are included. In the slaveStates, the men who do nearly all the work are not included. I do notknow that any great good can come of making these comparisons. But whenthe gentleman tells us that the non-slaveholders in his State are themost prosperous and the most elevated of mankind, the inquiry is atonce presented to the mind, how elevated in the scale of existence can aman be who can neither read nor write?

I have shown that slavery was regarded as a political, moral, and socialevil, by the founders of this Republic, and by able Southern statesmenwithin thirty years; that their anxious query has been, "what is to bedone with it?" We are now asked to discredit those men, and give ear toa modern creed, that slavery is not only necessary, but beneficent--adivine ordinance--and that Southern non-slaveholders, even, areprosperous and elevated just in proportion to the number of slaves ownedby their neighbors. 

Not such, sir, were the "speculations" of the fathers of the Republic;nor is the world to be deceived by such assumptions. Decree and carryout what non-intercourse you will; surround yourselves with barriers asimpassable as the Chinese wall, or the great gulf between Dives andLazarus, still the evidences of your condition will exist on theimperishable pages of history, in the records left by the mighty andvenerated dead; and the attempt to establish the belief that slavery isa universal blessing will be received but as an aggression upon thecredulity of mankind. 

Forty years ago, a slave Territory applied for admission to the Union asa State. The friends of freedom objected that its reception would becontrary to the policy of our Government. "Admit it, " it was urged, "with its present Constitution, and we will consent to a line ofdemarkation, north of which slavery shall never pass. " This was solemnlyagreed to before the whole world; and this compact, forced upon thecountry by the slave power, was claimed by it as a great triumph ofslavery. Men at the North felt that this was a great aggression, a greatoutrage upon freedom; yet, to give quiet and restore harmony, theysubmitted, consoled by the national pledge that slavery should beextended no further, and believing that the nation might joyously lookforward to long years of happiness and repose. But despotism is everrestless and grasping; but twenty-five years rolled by--a very shortperiod in the life of a nation--ere Texas was admitted to the Union, that slavery propagandists could have a wider field for theiroperations. As everybody foresaw, war ensued; and the best blood of thenation fattened the soil of Mexico. More than two hundred millions oftreasure were expended, and many thousand valuable lives sacrificed. Allover this land, "the sky was hung with blackness;" "mourning was spreadover the mountain tops. " Territory enough was obtained to make fourlarge States, well adapted to the productive labor of human chattels, and this territory was blackened over with slavery. Such a triumph oughtto have satisfied the most grasping of the friends of this "peculiarinstitution;" but the world should have known that nothing short ofuniversal dominion would satisfy the slave owner and slave breeder. Lessthan ten years after the annexation of Texas, it was discovered bySouthern men that there was a Territory west of Missouri, wherein thepeculiar institution of the South could be made profitable; but by asolemn league and covenant this land had been, for more than a third ofa century, consecrated to freedom. This bond of national faith, thispledge of national honor, stood in the road of their ambition. 

But men whose lives are but a series violations of the dearest rightsthat God has bestowed on man cannot be expected to be bound by pledgesof national faith and national honor. This time-honored compact wasannulled, the barrier between freedom and slavery broken down. The wholecountry was astounded at the perfidy of the act. 

But the climax was not reached. The Territory was overrun withdesperadoes; ruffians from adjoining States usurped the rights of actualsettlers, stuffed ballot-boxes with illegal votes, and elected membersof their own lawless bands to the Legislature, to enact laws by whichevery friend of freedom might be driven from the country. 

Innocent and unoffending men were murdered in cold blood, houses wereconsumed with fire, hamlets laid in smoking ruins, homeless andhouseless innocents, women and tender children, were driven forth, exposed to the winds and storms of heaven. 

All these wrongs, all these outrages, all these crimes of blood anddeeds of horror, were committed to plant the accursed institution on thesoil that had been, by a great national act, dedicated to freedom. Butviolence and arson, bloodshed and murder, failed. The black banner ofslavery is trailing in the dust. The stars and stripes wave triumphantlyover a free and joyous people. The heretofore invincible is conquered. Ihave borrowed the word "aggression" to express the conduct of the Southtoward the North. I do not intend to make the charge without thespecifications. 

1. I charge upon slavery, that the enforcement of the Missouricompromise was an aggression upon the North. 

2. I charge the annexation of Texas, whereby the Mexican war was broughtupon the country, more than two hundred millions of money were spent, and many thousand lives sacrificed, as an aggression. 

3. I charge that the adoption of the fugitive slave law, with many ofits odious and obnoxious provisions, was an aggression upon the peopleof the North. 

4. I charge that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scottcase was an aggression upon the North. It was a decision made for thebenefit of slavery, and to deprive the people of the free States oftheir equal rights in the Territories. 

5. I charge that the repeal of the Missouri compromise line was anoutrageous aggression upon the rights of the North; disreputable to thenation, and dishonorable to the party engaged in it; one that hasbrought in its train innumerable woes, and created an excitement thatwill not be allayed during the present generation. 

6. I charge that the murders, robberies, and arsons, in Kansas, wereaggressions of slavery. 

All these things I have charged as aggressions of slavery are nationalaggressions, for which the slavery party, having control of theadministration of this Government, are responsible. I charge them asdirect, positive aggressions, on the rights of the free people of theNorth. In addition to these great national aggressions, there arenumerous similar infringements upon the rights of individuals of theNorth--of tarring and feathering, of whipping--acts of such barbarityand cruelty, that it would chill a man's blood to hear them recited. 

Recently, a whole community of moral, peaceable citizens were drivenfrom their homes, compelled to abandon their property, and seek refugein a free State, from the violence of slaveholders. There are, no doubt, many good and humane men in slave States, who deprecate these wrongs;but they dare not utter a word--every mouth must be stopped, every lipmust be sealed, every voice must be hushed, all must be silent as thegrave--the most inexorable despotism reigns supreme. 

Having endeavored to show what slavery was, and what it has done, I nowpropose to show what it intends to do. Its advocates claim that theterritory now belonging to the Government is the common property of allthe States, having been acquired by the common blood and treasure ofall; that, therefore, the inhabitants of the slave States have a rightto emigrate to the Territories, and take with them their slaves. I amwilling to admit that the inhabitants of one section of the country havejust the same rights in the Territories that the inhabitants of anothersection have. I say it would be an act of injustice to deny one man anyright in the Territory that another man has, and would be just cause ofcomplaint. But I am not willing to give to a man from a slave State anygreater rights than to a man from a free State. And when I have admittedthat all have the same constitutional rights in the Territories, I haveby no means admitted that men from the South have a right to hold slavesin the Territories. You may go, and take your slaves with you, if youhave a mind to run the risk; I say you shall not take your slave lawswith you. 

I say that slavery is but the creation of some local enactment, and thatno property can exist in a human being, unless it is made so by somelaw. This opinion was entertained by the founders of this Republic, andby nearly every statesman in this country, until very recently. We hearmuch said about the constitutional rights of the South; it is thunderedin our ears from the beginning to the end of the session of Congress. What is meant by this stereotyped expression, I do not exactlycomprehend; and, I presume, many who make use of the phrase do notunderstand it. If you mean by this that the Constitution of the UnitedStates gives you the right to go into the Territories belonging to thepeople of this country, and take with you not only your human chattels, but also your bloody slave laws, I say, you have no such constitutionalrights. The Constitution of the United States nowhere recognises slavesas property. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided thatslaves are not property under the Constitution. The Constitution givesyou the right to reclaim your slaves, if they escape into any otherState; this is all the right it gives you, and all there is in theConstitution that can by any possibility be construed to apply toslaves. To contend that there is any power given in the Constitutionwhich enables the slaveholder to take his slaves with him into aTerritory, and not only his slaves, but his slave laws, and the slavelaws of all the slave States, is an assumption of power that I am notwilling to concede to him. It is claimed that if persons from the slaveStates are not permitted to go into the Territories, and take with themtheir slaves and slave laws, the rights of the slave States areviolated. This cannot be. If you claim to take into the Territories thelaws of the slave States, and not only the laws, but the Constitution ofa slave State, I claim, also, that I will take the Constitution of myState, which says there shall be neither slavery nor involuntaryservitude; and if you do not permit this, the rights of my State areviolated, if your doctrine be true. 

The emigrants from every State in the Union, under the power claimed bythe slavery propagandists, would have a right to take with them all theconstitutions and all the laws of all the States. The confusion whichwould follow would be worse than at the Tower of Babel. If a citizen ofany slave State leaves it, and goes into a free State or Territory toreside, he takes with him none of the rights or powers with which hisState clothed him while he remained therein. He can take with him sucharticles as, by the universal consent of mankind, are consideredproperty, and exercise ownership over them. When at home, I am a legalvoter; I can vote for any State or county officer, or President of theUnited States. But if I cross the river, a distance of eighty rods, orgo out of my election district, or in any other direction, I have nosuch privilege. The right of suffrage, which is the highest right thatever can be exercised by a citizen, is controlled by the laws andConstitution of each particular State. In the State of Ohio, a man neednot be a property holder to entitle him to the right of suffrage; if heremove into a State where he must have a property qualification beforehe can vote, are the rights of the State he left violated? I presume noone will contend that they are. A man may have some power in the Stateof Virginia, given by its Legislature--the right to issue paper money, for instance; but if he remove to Ohio, he has not this right. No manwould pretend to claim that any of the rights of Virginia are infringed. 

Yet the man who would make this claim, would be just as reasonable as hewho should claim that the rights of Virginia are invaded because herslaveholders are not permitted to take slaves into Kansas or Nebraska. 

I understand those Southern men, who talk so much about Southern rights, claim not only the right to take slaves into the Territories, but theyclaim the right to take slave laws and the habits and customs which arepracticed in the slave States. They claim to take laws by which fourmillion negroes are reduced to the condition of brutes. Six millionwhite men, women, and children, who have to obtain their living bylabor, are condemned to perpetual degradation and ignorance, by whichthree hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders can govern and control thedestinies of the millions of people in the slave States; and not only ofthose people, but of this great country of ours. They not only claim theright to take their negroes into the Territories, but they claim to takelaws there that will deny to every man the freedom of speech and theliberty of the press. They claim the right to seal every man's lips, andstop every man's mouth, on questions of great national interest. Theyclaim to take with them the right to condemn as a felon the man who mayutter and maintain the Declaration of Independence, or the opinions ofthe conscript fathers of the Republic. They claim to take with them theright to condemn as a felon the man who dares proclaim the precepts ofour holy religion. They claim to take with them the right to strip nakedand cut into gashes the back of the man who utters opinions that do notexactly "square and corner" with the interests of the aristocraticslaveholders. 

A negro population is one by no means desirable, but a free white mancould live where there are negroes, and maintain his freedom; but nowhite non-slaveholder can live where slave laws, customs, and habits, pertain, and retain the rights that belong to free men in free States. 

A man may live in the swamps of the torrid zone, and escape thecrocodiles, alligators, and other slimy and creeping things, but hecannot escape the miasma and poison of the atmosphere. 

If the slaveholder is permitted to go into the Territories, and take hisslave laws, habits, and customs, the people of the free States are to agreat extent excluded therefrom, and deprived of all rights therein. 

But slaveholders say they will go; they will take their slaves, andtheir slave code; they will establish there such a despotism as reignsin some of the slave States; they will poison the air that surrounds thefertile plains of the West, until freedom shall sicken and die; and weare constantly told, that if we do not yield to their unreasonabledemands, this Union shall be dissolved. 

But these threats do not move or alarm me, and for the best of allpossible reasons; I do not believe that the gentlemen who make thesethreats intend to leave their places on this floor--nor, if they should, would the country suffer any loss. The section they represent wouldstill remain under the Constitution and laws of the United States, andour glorious flag would still wave over its fertile plains and loftymountains, its woody dells and shelving rocks, its gurgling fountainsand rippling rills. Good, loyal, and patriotic men would come here tofill the vacant places, ready and able to discharge their duty to thecountry, and to the whole country. 

Notwithstanding these threats of disunion from the Democratic party, wehear much holy horror expressed in regard to a sectional party, andmuch laudation of a national, conservative party. The nationality of theDemocratic party consists in devoting all the energies and power of theFederal Government to advancing the interests, aims, and ends, of aboutone hundred thousand men. Its conservatism consists in its avoweddetermination to dissolve the Union, should a majority of our people, inthe exercise of their legal and constitutional rights, elect a Presidentnot acceptable to that party. 

There are, I presume, not more than one hundred thousand men in thiscountry who feel any desire to extend the boundaries of slavery, or whowould, had they the power, add one other slave State to the Union. Yetthe whole power of this Government is devoted to that one object; itsentire strength concentrated in one spasmodic effort to extend slavery. The agricultural, the manufacturing, the great commercial interests ofthis country, are entirely ignored, neglected, and forgotten, that theinterests of one hundred thousand slaveholders may be advanced. Thegreat pursuits by which twenty-five million people live, are notconsidered worthy the attention of this Democratic party; while onehundred thousand aristocrats require its entire services. Yet this isthe great national party! While so determined upon rule is it, that if amajority of the people should decide against it, and discharge itsmembers from places of trust and honor, they threaten to destroy thisGovernment. Such is the conservative party commended to our mostfavorable consideration. 

The slavery party is constantly complaining that the free States enactpersonal-liberty laws, and that they do not fulfil their constitutionalobligations. Whatever acts may be passed by our Legislatures, so thatthey do not interfere with the Constitution of the United States, youhave no right to complain. But if you think that Constitution violated, you have your remedy. Send your attorneys into the free States; commenceyour suits in the Federal courts, and try the validity of our statutes. We pledge ourselves that your agents shall be kindly treated, and shallhave a fair hearing. We will not follow your example; we will not passlaws in plain and palpable violation of your rights, and in palpableviolation of the Constitution, and then drive out, by threats orviolence, any man who may come into the State to test the validity ofsuch enactments. 

Before you complain of us, go home and seize and hang the pirates whoare hovering around your shores, engaged in the slave trade. You may saya jury will not convict them. Why not? Because the community sustainsthem in their unholy traffic and in their violation of the laws. But ifyou really desired to punish those men, you could easily devise the waysand means--a whipping on the bare back with a raw-hide, a coat of tarand feathers, or some other corrective that you are in the habit ofusing. I would not advise these punishments; in a free State they wouldnot be practicable; but in States where such things are in constant use, it is rather surprising that some person has not thought of thusapplying them. Men who commit acts declared by the whole civilized worldto be piracy, you permit to escape, while you say you will hang the manwho circulates Helper's book. Before you complain of the free States, arrest and punish the scoundrels who so cruelly treated the Irishman atColumbia, South Carolina, for no offence but saying that slavery wasdetrimental to free labor. 

Take from place and power the men whose hands and faces are reeking andsmoking with the blood of our people in Kansas, and put them to death. Punish the thousands of others who have committed acts of violenceagainst free-State men, and are yet unwhipped of justice. These thingsyou must do, before you complain of us. I take no pleasure in thesecriminations and recriminations. I know that all the States are a partof my country; but when I hear of the wrongs and outrages perpetrated onmen merely because they will not subscribe to the doctrines you hold, and hear you complain of us for not doing our duty as citizens, I willlet you know that you, too, "are made of penetrable stuff. " I have

 "Learned to deride your fierce decree, And break you on the wheel you meant for me. "

I do not mean to interfere with any man's legal or constitutionalrights. The people of the slave States have the right to continueslavery there if they desire so to do. I have no right to interfere withit. But I intend to maintain my own rights. 

To draw an impassable line around slavery, and confine it within itspresent limits; an absolute abolition of the African slave trade; theTerritories to be kept free for homes for free men--these measures Iregard as absolutely essential to the perpetuation of this Government, and to the highest development of the Anglo-Saxon race. I haveendeavored to show what slavery is, what it has done, and what itintends to do. I have also endeavored to show what are the aims andobjects of the Republican party; and if they cannot be tolerated--ifsuch principles cannot be sustained by the people of any section of thiscountry--it is the misfortune of that people. They are the principlesthat ought to be sustained by all people that are fitted for civilliberty; they are the principles on which this Government was founded;they were baptized in the best blood of this nation; they were cherishedby the greatest names that adorn the brightest pages of the history ofour country during its patriotic and virtuous and heroic age. They wereemblazoned on every banner that waved over our army in everybattle-field of the Revolution; during the storm and darkness, they werethe bright "signet on the bosom of the cloud, " the rainbow of promiseand of hope. 

 _Published by the Republican Congressional Committee. Price 50 cents per hundred. _

Transcriber's Note:

 Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note. Variant spellings have been retained. Significant amendments to the original text have been listed below:

 p. 2, 'Newbern' amended to _New Bern_; '. .. Meeting in New Bern, North Carolina . .. '

 p. 6, 'Scot' amended to _Scott_; '. .. In the Dred Scott case . .. '