Newspaper Page Text
(.'(•Utkin Constitutionalist.
■ ~ - /-
byjamesgardne^
From the Atlanta Confederacy.
INTRODUCTORY SPEECH OF
IION. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS,
IN ATLANTA, GA.
Mr. Stephens said:
FeUcw-Citisena of Georgia: The occasion of oor
meeting to-day is one of deep interest. No sub
jjct of an earthly character is more interesting tot
a free people than the principles of their goveris
raeni. We haTe come up here to hear from /he
candidate of the National Democratic party'the
principles which would gorern his administration
if he should be elected, the principles which'should
govern the administration of any man who may
be elected, and the only principles, as wc believe,
upon which the union" of the States can be pre
served and the liberties of the people perpetua
ted. J
My countrymen. I bespeak her that candidate
to-day a careful, calm and parent hearin;. He
comes to address not your passions but your intel
lects. A free government only be maintained
by the virtue, by the intelligence and by the pa
triotism of the people, flairs is the only freeu a
,„*BuT!,d “!!. .th-and-wtir i ft* motions
which cost so much, and which are so dear to
* every patriot, can only be maintained by the ex
ercise of intelligence, of virtue und patriotism.
This must be done at the ballot box.
Y onder sun that shines so brilliantly and auspi
ciously upon us to-day in his circuit around ths
earth, lights up no nation where the people enjoy
the liberties that the people of the United States
do. fChecrs-! My countrymen, I make an appeal
to you that you shall so act on all occasions that
these liberties may be perpetuated. To the old
men,to the middle aged men, and to the boys in
this crowd, I make this appeal. You have heard
much of the distinguished Senator, now the candi
date of the National Democratic party. You have
heard much that was true, aud you have, also,
doubtless, heard much that was uot.
We wish you to-day to give him your close at
tention, and from his own lips, and not from those
of another, to make up your judgment. Then I
appeal to every man, when lie leaves him, if he
speaks the words of patriotism and truth, act to
wards him as a patriot should, looking to the best
' interests of his country. You have heard it said
that he is an enemy to the equality of the States.
I have known bim for the last sixteen years—we
entered Congress together, and I maintain before
you that from that day to this, no man in the na
tional councils has been truer or firmer, or bolder,
in defending not only the equality of the States,
but the equality of all the citizens of this Republic.
“Hurrah for Douglas,’’ and immense applause.]
But hear him for yourselves, take it not from me,
but bear what he says, and then pronounce your
judgments accordingly.
It has been said that the candidate of the Re
publican party (Mr. Lincoln,) is in favor of the re
strictions of southern rights and southern inter
ests in the Territories, and it has been said that
this distinguished Senator is in favor of a restric
tion of southern rights by the action of the peo
ple. I have told yon, upon a former occasion, and
1 repeat it here, that gross injustice has been done
to this Henutor in particular. He is in favor uot
of the people either restricting or prohibiting
slavery, but he is in favor of letting the free peo
ple and citizens of the Territories determine
that question for themselves. [Cbeeis.J He main
tains, and 1 maintain, that our Government is the
best in the world, because, in all others, there is
no such thing as popular sovereignty. ICheers.]
If we cast our eyes over the nations of the earth—
look at Russia, what makes the diflerencebetween
that country and ours V There a monarch rules
men in power and authority, and the people have
no power at the ballot box. There is no popular
sovereignty in Russia.
* If you go to France, there is no popular sover
eignty there. If you go to England, there is no
popular sovereignty there. Is there a sen of the
Emerald island, the land of Emmett and Burke,
and other distinguished patriots, present, I ask
him what is the diflerence between this country
and the down-trodden Ireland! 1 The great char
acteristic difference is, there is no popular sover
eignty in Ireland, but there is popular sovereignty
in the United States. J Loud cheers. J The power
here rests with the people. Government here can
exercise no power except what the people have
conferred upon it. Government here is but the
channel through which the popular will is ex
pressed, and that makes us a free people. And,
my countrymen, I tell you to part not with it at
the ballot bcx. It is at"the ballot box that this
day week the people are to express their opinions
upon these questions. I have known this senator,
as I tell you, since 184", and upon all the section
al questions which have divided us, he has been
National, he has been Constitutional—and in all
our fights and conflicts with the Abolitionists, he
has not only beeu on our side und fighting with
us but he has been the gallant chief who has led
in the fore front of the battle. [General cheering.]
And he] is here to answer before this people this.
On tbe first agitating question, the annexation
of Texas—when there was great doubt as to what
would be done at the North—many people there
favor.eg the annexation, but also favoring the
views of the Abolitionists, in relatiou to the new
territory to be acquired, I was in Congress, and,
though be is present, I tell you that in that fight
upon the annexation of Texas, Stephen A. Douglas
was the great chief who led it on. | Tremendous
applause.] When the great contest arose over the
acquisition of territory, when the exclusion of
slavery was first moved by David Wilmot, on the
6th of August, 184 G—it was at night, 1 recollect
it well —the whole South rose, struck as if bv a
clap of thunder from a clear sky. We looked
abroad to see who from the North would stand
with us against it. There were four men, and four
men alone, at the beginning of that fight, who
stood up for equality, for non-intervention—for the
old Democratic Jeffersonian principle that Con
gress should not act upon the subject, and of these
four men Stephen A. Douglas was the man who
took the lead. [Great applause.]
Afterwards, in 1860, when the nation had been
agitated to its centre—when numbers of men at
the North had been convinced by his eloquence
and his power, when the patriotism of that sec
tion had been aroused more by his energies and
his exertions than those of all the rest there com
bined—it was then that enough were influenced
by his eloquence and truth to come to the rescue,
and we put this demon of discord, that David
Wilmot had raised, out of the halls of Congress.
He was there. National men from the North, Na
tions lmen from the South, National men from the
East and the West, all arose In their might, grap
pled with these demons, for they had become
many; and we hurried them from the battlements
of Congress, just as the devil and the sinning an
gels were expelled from the battlement on High.
[Cheers, j He and I, and all of us, every Georgian,
standingup on the Georgia platform—every Geor
gian! was pledged to that settlement. I was
pledged to it, and you all are, and 1 intend to
stand to my pledge to the last. [Cheers.]
The union of the States, the security of the
South, and the perpetuation of the blessings of the
Government uuder which we !tv,e can only be
secured by the sacrifice of the rights of no section,
er of no State.
Afterwards, in 1354, when the question came up
to take off the restriction which bad been put on
in 1650, when the Kansas and Nebraska bill was
before Congress, the South said to the North, now
come up aud maintain the settlement which you
agreed upon in 1850. by the compromise mea
sures of that year. There were a few at the North
who were willing, but they quailed. My country
men, it requires nerve for a man to do his duty
against an unwilling people. It is an easy thing
for a man at the South to make speeches and ad
vocate principles which are favorably received oy
the people, but when, as at the North, prejudices,
education, and all are against those principles, it
requires nerve for a man to maintain them. But,
ia that great fight, when the appeal was made,
there were forty-tour in the House and some thir
teen or fourteen in the Senate, but foremost in the
battle, when this Bridge of Lodi had to be taken,
Stephen A. Douglas was the Napoleon to lead
the charge. [Great cheering.] The restriction
was taken off.
My fellow citizens, I do not intend to detain you
but a minute longer. I know you wish to hear
him, and there is only one other thing that I will
allude to. [Cries of **Go on,” 4 ‘Go on “There s
time enough for both.”]
When Brown, the Abolitionist, made the raid
AUGUSTA, GfA., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7,1860.
upon Virguda last fall, when your interests, your
rights, am* the peace' of your hearthstones were
put in out of all the South, where was
the mjtu who moved ? It is time we had some.
The instinguished Senator of our own Slate, and
Mr,/Gunter, of Virginia, who made able speeches
iqbehalf of the action of Congress to puuish all
yuch people, and that was oue legitimate way to
'protect your rights, and the only one I know of
r under the Constitution, and even*uuder the Dred
Scott decision. All that lime, who was that man
in the Senate who came fojward and introduced a
measure for the protection of the rights of the
South ? That man was the same gallant, noble,
true hearted man whom I have alluded to. It was
Stephen A. Douglas. [Cheers.] The honors which
Mr. Hunter and Mr. Toombs acquired, and they
were great honors they then obtained nghtiu? un
der the standard of the gallant champion of tbe
rights of the country. (Cheers.]
I will not detain you longer. I feel it due to
him, due to our relations, aud due to my relations
to you as the people of Georgia, thus to announce
in the beginning this great man whom I am now
presenting to you. His name is not uuknown to
yovi, and I now ask yen to listen to him and hear
from his own moutn, from his own lips, what he
has to say. As the audience is large, I will an
nounce the programme for the day. After he shall
have addressed you, there will be no more speik
ing. Go home ; think of what he has said; think
of your duty as freemen, devoted to the institu
tions of your country, and to the perpetuation of
those institutions, if they can be preserved; go
home, and as yen treasure your liberties, and as
fathers treasure the prospects of your sous hereaf
ter, cast your votes just as the dictates of con
science aud duty tell you. (Cheers.]
I now, my fellow countrymen, have the pleas
ure of introducing to you Stephen A. Douglas, the
National Democratic candidate for President of the
United States. [lmmense and long-continued ap
plause.]
“Star Spangled Bunner,” by the band.
SPEECH OF
IION, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS,
Fellow Citizens of Georgia: Such au introduc
tion from one of the first intellects and purest
triots that this Republic ever produced, fills my
heart with gratitude. [“Hurrah for Stephens,”
and cheers, j I come beforejyou to day, not for
the purpose of soliciting your votes, but for the
purpose of vindicating those principles of govern
ment upon which I believe the equal rights of all
tbe citizens of all the States mav be preserved
within tbe Union.
I hold that there is no grievance of which we
complain for which disunion would afford an ade
quate remedy. I believe that there can be no
grievance in this country for which the Constitu
tion and the laws will not afford ample remedy
within the Union. All that is necessary is, that
each and every clause of the Constitution shall be
carried into effect in good faith. Every right guar
antied by that instrument, every duty imposed by
it, must be carefully protected und faithfully per
formed. So long as we live under a Constitution
which is the supreme law of all the States,it must
be executed in such a manner as to ufford equal
rights and equal protection to the citizens of all
the States of this Confederacy. There is but one
question which disturbs the peace of this country
and inspires apprehensions for the perpetuity of
the Union.
That question ri African slaverv in a portion of
tbe States and Territories of the Union. After the
fearful struggle of 1850, which came very near
precipitating this country into a revolution, 1 had
hoped that the question was definitely settled upon
principles eternal as they were just, and which
would be observed by all parties of the country.
After tire adjournment of Congress in 1850, when
we had succeeded by the joint action of the Union
Whigs and the Union Democrats, in restoring
this Government to its ancient policy of non-inter
ference by Congress upon the subject of slavery,
the eyes of all the Union men were turned to
Georgia, as the Empire State of the South, to see
upon what basis she would plant her policy.
[ Cheers. J
I shall never forget the immense anxiety which
filled my breast when the Georgia convention met
in December, 1850. It wasnoordinury convention.
It was no partisan meeting. It was not an assem
blage of mere politicians to make equivocal plat
forms for the sake of party advantage. It was a
convention of the sovereign people, elected by the
people themselves, under the authority of a legis
lative enactment, to determine upon those princi
ples which were essential to the preservation of
the rights of the equality ofGeorgia in the Union.
I have not that platform before me, but I remem
ber distinctively that it consisted of five proposi
tions, each one of which met my approval then,
and receives my support now (“Hurrah for Doug
las,” and cheers.] That celebrated Georgia plat
form, according to my recollection,(contained five
articles. The first was, that tbe people of Georgia
would never submit to the doctrine that there
should be no more slave States admitted into this
Union; the second was, that the people of Georgia
would never submit to the Wilmot proviso in tne
Territories; the third was, that the people of
Georgia would never submit to the prohibition
of the slave trade between the States by Congress:
the fourth was that the people of Georgia would
never submit to any legislation by Congress in the
District of Columbia, which would impair the
rights or the safety of the slaveholuing States; and
the fifth was, that the people of Georgia oould never
submit to the repeal, or to any other leg slative en
actment,impairing the validity of the fugitive slave
law. [Cheers. | Those five propositions contained
all tha t the people of Georgia asked. Each of them
was just and right in itself. I stand by each of
them to day. |“Good.”] I stood by them from
the time I entered public life down to this hour.
Why cannot the people of Georgia stand by their
own platform? [“We will,” “we intend to,” and
applause.] According to my recollection, your
whole people acquiesced in that platform. Union
men and fire eaters, Whigs ana Democrats, men
of all shades of political opinion, you came up and
gave In your adhesion to it as being all that you
asked, and all that you would maintain. Accord
ing to my recollection, Howell Cobb ran for Gov
ernor of Georgia in 1851 on that platform, and was
elected by an overwhelming majority. [“That’s
so,” “The last time,” “He can’t be elected again,”
“No more.”] If there was a public man in Georgia
of any party who was not pledged in faith and
honor to that Georgia platform, I never heard of
him. Why then can we not stand together upon
these propositions?
I am told that some of those opposed to me are
in the habit of saying that I construe the Georgia
platform differently from what they do. I never
construed it all. | Laughter.] It is so plain that
it does not admit of any two constructions. It
construes itself. But if there is any doubt, any
possible ambiguity upon that pointy I will take
Georgia’s own construction of it. [Applause.]
Tbe Georgia platform was predicated upon the
principles incorporated in the compromise mea
chairman of the committee on Territories in the
Senate to briDg forward a bill to organise the Ter
ritories of Kansas and Nebraska. In offering that
bill I deemed it my duty to conform precisely to
the principles affirmed by the compromise mea
sures of 1850, and endorsed by the two great Na
tional parties, Whig and Democratic, in their con
ventions in Baltimore in 1852. No sooner had I
introduced the Kansas and Nebraska bill into the
Senate, and before it bad passed either House of
Congress, Georgia stepped forward, took the lead
in her Legislature ana passed a series of resolu
tions, with a preamble, in which it was set out that,
whereas a bill had been introduced in tbe Senate,
by Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, to organise the Terri
tories of Kansas and Nebraska, and then going on
to recite the principles of the bill, therefore the
State of Georgia affirms those principles and in
structs her Senators and requests her Represen
tatives to vote for the bill. [“That’s so.”] I can
not pretend to give you the resolutions cirUdim,
but they set forth the doctrine of popular sover
eignty a3 clearly and unequivocally as ever I did
in my life. I never desired to go further in that
direction than the people of Georgia went in those
resolutions. [Cheers.]
Inasmuch, then, as I stand to day upon the
Georgia platform, affirmingyour own construction
of ygur own platform, I want to know upon
what groui.d it is that those gent'emen who stood
pledged to -dand by me, now consider that my
position is only a short cut to Abotitionism.
[Great laughler and applause.] My object m re
fefnng to these questions to-day is, not to impeach
any over sincerity or inconsistencv, but to vindi
cate myself against the assanlts that have been
made upon me ia my abseuse when I could not be
beard. [“You’re right.”] If other gentlemen
have changed their opinions, it may be that they
can give good reasons for thechange. [Laughter!’
I am not one of those who believe that a man
ought never to change au opinion. I believe the
wisdom of that old adage, that wise men often
change, but tools never do. \ Laughter.] But
when ever a wise man does change his opinions,
and to-day advocates doctrines which he repudia
ted yesterday, and repudiates doctrines which
yesterday he affirmed, he owes it to himself,
he owes it to his fellow men, to state the reasons
which induced the change, iu order that we may
profit by his new light on the subject. [Laugh
ter and applause.] I affirm, and uo candid man
can <lenv the correctness ot the statement that for
many years the Democratic party has been pledg
ed by its platform to the doctrine of non-interfer
ence by Congress with,*l*reftveither in the Stated
or in |he Territories. [“True duett toes ) Geof
gia supported Geueral Cass upon that platform in
1848; Georgia supported General Pierre on that
platform in 135:.'; Georgia supported Buchanan
and Breckinridge upon that platform in 1856.
! That’s so.” i and 1 stand on the same platform in
1800, but nicu who helped to make ir, uow think
it is not sound enough tor Georgians to stand upon
[A voice, “I am soiry fu their ignorance,” and
great applause.]
The peace ot this country is now placed m peril
by the apprehension ibat a party may obtain posses
sion of the Federal Government whose principles
are subversive of the Constitution of our country. I
would deem the election of Mr. Lincoln a great
public calamity. [Cheers.] There is no act that
I could do, no word that I can utter, no effort that
I can make, that will be spared to defeat his elec
tion. [Cheers.] But how happens it that there is
danger of his election?
It is well known that a majority of the Ameri
can people. North and South’, do not concur with
him in uolitics. 'Whence arises the danger that
he will be elected? It all arises from tlib seces
sion of a portion of the Democratic party from
the National convention at Baltimore, and the
nomination of a separate candidate, with a view
of dividing the Democratic party in every northern
State, and permitting Mr. Lincoln to be elected by
a minority vote in each, j “That’s true.”] If there
had been no secession at Charleston, if there had
been no bolt at Baltimore, Mr. Lincoln would not
have carried more than two States iu this Union.
[Cheers] If those who seceded had remained in
the convention, acquiesced in the decision, and
supported the nominee, I would have beaten Lin
coln in every northern State, except Vermont and
Massachusetts. [Cheers.] If, then, Mr. Lincoln
should be elected, lie will owe his election tQ the
bolt at Baltimore, i “That’s so.”J
Now, I ask you to inquire upon what principle
that bolt ai Baltimore was reudered necessary or
justifiable. [“Nobody knows.”] They tell us
that a few of the cotton States seceded at Charles
ton because the platform was not sound enough
to protect southern rights, southern honor, and
southern equality in the Union. 1 believe that is
a fail statement ot the ground upou w hich the se
cessionists justify their action in attempting to
break up the convention. What did that platform
contain that it was so imsouud that it was better
to bolt the party, run separate candidates and se
cure the election of Abolitionists, rather than sub
mit to it ? What kind of a platform, was it ? It
was simply the Cincinnati platform just as it was
adopted and affirmed by the American people.
[ Applause.
It was the same platform on which Mr Buchau
au aud Mr. Breckinridge were nominated in 1850
and upon which they were elected. Was not the
Cincinnati platform sound in 1850 ? Did the men
who seceded at Charleston and Baltimore and who
now denounce the platform I stand -
did they, in 1850, tell you that that platform sacri
ficed southern rights,southern honor, and southern
equality in the Union ? [“No, no.”! On the con
trary, did not every man of them in 1856 take the
stump in Georgia, and tell you that every true
Georgian ought to unite on such a platform and
elect Mr. Buchanan as the only National man
stauding on it? (“Give them hell.”] No, lam
F;iving them the truth as it is recorded in Heaven.
Cheers.]
When you put the question to those secessionist*
why it was that they broke up the convention
rather than submit to the Cincinnati platform,
they will tell you out in the country that they
would not endorse Douglas’ squatter sovereignty
notions. [Laughter and applause.] I believe that
is their excuse and tlie only excuse they have.
They were not willing to endorse Douglas’ squat
ter sovereignty notions, and they left the party be
fore they would do it. Now, let me inquire who
ever asked them to endorse my squatter sover
eignty notions? [Applause, a voice, “you. ”J I
did. Who says so ? [No response.J No man will
say so who kuows what he is talking about.
[Cheers ] No man will say it who has read the
proceedings of the Charleston convention. I af
firm and defy any honest man on earth to deny the
assertion, that no friend of mine at Charleston de
sired to have the Cincinnati platform changed one
iota. [“ That’s true.”] No friend of mine desired
any resolution endorsing squatter sovereignty, or
popular sovereignty, or any other kind of sover
eignty. All that my friends asked was that the or
ganization of the party should be maintained, that
its time honored principles should be preserved,
that its platform should be rc-aflirmed just as it
stood, aud that we should whip the enemy, in 1860,
upon the same platform und principles upon which
we had defeated him in 1856. I was opposed to
all new tests, and my friends were opposed to all
new lists. We said take the platform as it was,
without the dotting of au l or the crossing of at,
re-affinn it at Charleston, and then let the party se
lect the mau they prefer to stand upon it.
My friends did not demand, as a sine gin non,
either a change in the platform or the nomination
of any particular man. It is well known that I
stood ready and anxious to withdraw my name at
any moment that it would restore harmony by
nominating a sound man on the Cincinnati plat
form. | Applause.] And I will now state, what
no man before has known, and what once stated
will astouish the person alluded to, more thanaDy
oue in this assemblage. Fending the convention,
I wrote letters to my friend Richardson, at Balti
more, urging that if they would only stand by
tbe Cincinnati platform, and accept a southern
man on that platform—l implored him to consult
our friends, and get them to accept Alexander H.
Stephens, of Georgia, as the man. (Tremendous
applause.] The secessionists knew that I had pro
posed to withdraw my name, aud unite npon a
true non-intervention man, before they seceded at
Baltimore. They seceded with a knowledge of
the fact that I was uot asking a nomination, but
was simply fighting a batile for principle.
[Cheers. ]
Now, for an evidence of the fact that they knew
that Iwas ready to withdraw, although they did
not know who would be my choice, if I did, nor
did he [pointing to Mr. Stephens,] ever dream of
it up to this hour. As evidence of the fact, tele
graphic dispatches were sent off, on Friday night,
ten or fifteen hours before the bolt, announcing
that Douglas had written letters to Baltimore with
drawing his name and going for a southern
[Applause.] Those dispatches were sent by the
seceders to all portions of the country, and the
files of the daily papers of that day will attest the
fact. I have alluded to this matter for the pur
pose of showing that there has been an unholy
ambition stimulatine meg in this contest. [Cheers.]
1 appeal to my history to prove that I have al
ways been willing to take myself out of the way,
in order to restore harmony to my party, and se
cure the ascendency of Democratic principles.
[Cheers.J I refer you to the proceedings of the
Baltimore convention in 1852, when Fierce was
nominated for Fresident. The proceedings will
show that the very moment that Franklin Fierce
got a majority of the votes, I sent a telegraphic dis
patch withdrawing my name in his favor, und that
my dispatch was read ia the convention before he
was nominated. [“That's so,” and cheers.J 1
could have prevented his nomination forever, by
holding a minority of more than one-third, and
thus have broken up the party, if I had been as
reckless of party organization and party principles
as some other men. j “True,” ana loud cheers.]
Again, iu 1856, at Cincinnati, the very instant that
James Buchanan obtained a majority vote, although
I was the uext highest, holding more than a third,
aud capable of defeating his nomination forever, I j
sent a dispatch to my friends in the convention, ]
which was read, stating that James Buchanan hav- ]
ing received a majority of the votes of the Con- j
veotion, was entitled to the nomination, and I de- I
sired them to withdraw my name and vo»e for him.
i Immerse applause. ] And I affirm to-day, that if *
any man living could have obtained a majority at \
Charleston, or at Baltimore, I would have dechned
without waitiug for him to receive two-thirds.
[“We believe it,” and cheers.]
I never yet suuk so low' that I would crave a
nomination at the bands of my party when another
man was its first choice. [“Good,” aud applause.]
\Mi and that the case stands thus. The platform
adopted at Charleston was the same platform to {
which he party had been pledged for years, the ;
satqe platform on which Buchauau and Breckin- i
ridge were elected, und the same platform
winch the Democracy of the North and South had
unanimously endorsed. I had a right to assume
i|jwt lb it was a sound platform. [ "You are right,
,<fr. ’ • On the first ballot which took place at
\ PHHp l received, nearly. a§ many votes
r.»c* rand’(lutes combined. 1 on the suc
ceeding ballots 1 received more votes thau all of
litem together, and nearly two-thirds of the entire
vote, j Applause. ]
Here was tweuty-fire #, r ihirty men, each of
them a candidate for the Presidency! some of them
publicly, ami others confidentially, [laughter,]
some standing evil in the light of Heaven, where
you could see them and others hid in the bushes
aud behind the trees, watching to see how the
tide would turn und ready to run out and hurrah
for the strongest side, [laughter]. All these com
peting candidates formed a combination to crush
me, inteuding to fight it out among themselves af
terwards, and each positively certain he would be
the lucky man whom kind fortune would favor
with the nomination. [Laughter and applause.]
I would gladly have given Bthem the candidacy if
they would have stepped forward and vindicated
the Old platform of the party and its time-honored
principles, aud pledged themselves to abide its de
cisions, and support its nominees. They would not
do tliut. Not one of them having one-fourth as
many votes as I, scarcely any of them having one
tenth as many-Breckinndge never getting more
than ten and a halt votes out of three hundred and
ihree—aud yet either of them ready to take the
nomination if he could get it in the convention,
gnd if he could not, ready to bolt and become the
candidate of the bolters. [“Hit them again;”
laughter and applause.] When they found they
could not change the platform of the party, and
could not defeat tbe choice of the party for the
nomination, they resolved to break up the conven
tion. Why did they bolt, if this is not the case?
They say that 1 was not nominated by two-thirds.
If not, why did they bolt ? If they held one-ftiird
of the convention, they could have defeated my
nomination forever bv remaining in the conven
tion. | Applause.] I had announced to the world
that I would not accept a nomination of less than
two-thirds. [“You got two-thirds,” and applause.]
They say I did uot; and if I did not, what excuse
have they got for bolting, when, if they had re
mained in tucir seats, they might have defeated
me? ] Cheers.] The very fact that they bolted,
was a confession from them that I had two-thirds,
and hence they could not defeat ine. [“That’s
so.” “They never will defeat you.”]
Besides, the record prores that I had two-thirds
according to the universal usage of the party. The
rule of the convention was, and always has been,
that the nominee must have two-thirds of all the
votes cast. General Cass was nominated by that
rule, getting two-thirds of the votes given, and
not two-*hirds of the whole number of votes when
he was nominated iu 1848. But if any one has
doubts on the subject, I reGr him to the unan
swerable speech ot your own citizen, Mr. Stephens,
! in which he shows that I had two-thirJs accord
ing the syui« role tfiut ratifies treaties in the
Senate or pas»e*,a law over tbe head of the
den-fa veto in tlie two houses.
N\#w, let its inquire what new principle it was
that they wantnff incorporated in the platfurm of
the party. Bear it in mind that my friends want
ed no new issue. My frieuds were in favor of the
old platform. The seceders demanded a new
plank in that old platform. They said that they
wanted a plunk m the platform pledging Congress
to pass laws for the protection of slave property
in the Territories, when necessary. In what case
would it be necessary tor Congress to pass laws
forlhe protection of slave property in the Terri
tories? Clearly not where the people of the Ter
ritory were in favor of slavery, for wherever the
people wanted slavery they would pass laws to
protect It themselves, as they have done in New
Mexico.
You all remember that in the Territory of New
Mexico slavery did not exist until 1858. In that
year the Territorial Legislature assembled and
passed a law introducing, establishing, maintain
ing,and protecting African slavery. Experience had
proved to them that it was for their interest and
good to have slavery, and hence they passed laws tu
protect it in New Mexico. This proves that the peo
ple will protect slavery themselves when they are
in favor of it. The secessionists only want Con«*
gress to interfere when necessary. It is not neces
sary when the people are in favor of it, but only
when the people are opposed to it, and will not
have it. [Laughter aud applause.} In this res
pect they agree with the Black Republicans, al
though giving a different application to it. The
Black Republicans tell us that it is the duty of
Congress to see that slavery is prohibited every
where, but they do not care about Congress pro
hibiting it where the people ure opposed to it, for
the reason that wherever they do not w-ant it they
will prohibit it themselves. Hence, the Black Re
publicans only desire to have Congress prohibit
slavery where the people do want it, and the se
cessionists only desire it to protect slaverv where
the people do not want it. | Laughter and ap
plause.]
They both agree in keeping the slavery question
in Congress; they both agree in asserting ine
power und duty of Congress to legislate on the
subject, and they both agree also in asserting that
whenever Congress does act, it must always de
cide the Question against the wishes of the 'people
interested in it. j Cheers. ] Agreeing thus far,
they differ only as to which way Congress shall
decide it. The Black Republicans desire Con
gress to decide it against the South and in favor
of the North, and the secessionists desire Con
gress to decide it against the North and in favor
of the South. Each party appeals to its own sec
tion to keep the slavery question in Congress, and
to decide it against the wishes of the people in the
Territories.
Now, suppose the secessionists could succeed in
keeping this slavery question in Congress, what
kind of protection do you think you would get for
your slave property? [“That’s* it.”] They tell
you that the northern people are so excited against
slavery, so fanatical upon that subject that they
will not even carry into effect the Constitutional
provisions, and yet they declare that you must
obtain from that same northern people an act of
Congress to protect slavery in the Territories. If
they believe that the northern people will notcarrv
out the Constitution in good faith, how do they
expect to get an act of Congress protecting slaverv
in the Territories, when both houses of Congress
are strongly anti-slavery? I tell you that the kind
of protection you will get from an Abolitiou Con
gress for slavery is the same protection that an in
fant child would get from the hug of a grizzly
bear. [Cheers.] If southern people desire to
maintain their right in slave property under the
Constitution, they mu9t keep the subject oat of
Congress forever. [“That’s so,” and applause.]
If you desire to sustain your rightof property In
slaves, you must advocate tbe doctrine upou which
the Constitution of our country was based.
Remember that this "slavery question existed
when the Constitution was ma*de, as well as now.
When that instrument was adopted there were
thirteen States in this Union, a part free and a
part slaveholding States. On what basis was it
that the Constitution was framed? Read the or >-
eeedings of the convention that framed the Con
stitution, and you will find that the final controver
sy that arose was on the proposition to abolish
the African slave trade on the ground that it as
immoral or irreligious. Virginia led off' in the
movement to brand the slave trade as immoral
and irreligious. (“That.s so.’]! That contro
versy alarmed the people of the South, particular
ly of Georgia ana; South Carolina. Tliose two
States, their delegates in the conven
tion, told Virgiuia aud the States further North,
that if they branded slavery as immoral and ine-
I ligious, they would never go into a Union with
j them, and they coerced a compromise. What was
it? It was that the African slave trade might con
tinue as lawful and legitimate commerce many
I State that wanted it until ibe year 1808, after
I which it might be prohibited by Congress. That
provision avoided the necessity of branding
slavery as immoral and irreligious, made it a
question of expediency, and on that ground Geor
?;ia aud South Carolina agreed io it. But the very
act that Virginia, under the lead of George Ma
son, and others, had led off’ against slavery so
fiercely, alarmed Georgia and South Carolina, lest
there might be something in the Constitution ti.ut
would give Congress jurisdiction over the subject
1 and thus enable au Abolition majority, at some
j tuture day, to divest them of their title iu their
j sirives. To avoid that contingency, and to quiet
i uirapprehension on the subject, tlTe clause wasin
! scried in' the Constitution, which now stands there,
recognising your right of property in vour slaves,
as existing under your laws, bevond the reach of
Federal authority or Abolition fanatics. [Cheers.]
Read-the clause of the Constitution on that sub
ject. I will quote it tb'ycu in order that roil tnav
know exactly what it is. “No person held to ser
j v:ce or labor in one State under the" lass thereof,
escaping into another, shall be released by any
law or regulation therein, but shall be delivered
up.” A person held io service or labor iu one
State, under the laws thereof—not uuder the laws
of Congress ; uot under tbe Constitution of the
United States; not uuder any Federal authority
in a State under the laws thereof. That is, a slave,
placing it where Congress could not touch it;
where the Federal Government could not interfere
with it; where Abolition parties could not reach
it—that was the protection guarantied by the Con
stitution. [“Right.”]
Congress acted in that principle of non-interfer
ence with slavery from the time the Constitution
was adopted down to the memorable Missouri con
troversary of IS2O. The first act Congress ever
passed on the subject of slavery was the fugitive
slave act of 1703. That law provides that no per
son held to service or labor in either of the States
or iu either of the organised Territories under the
laws thereof escaping into another shall be deliv
ered up. It carries out the theory of tbe Constitu
tion that a slave in a Territory, like a slave in a
State, is protected under the local law, beyond the
reach of or power of Congress, or the Federal gov
ernment. [Cheers.J Thus you find that in the
Territory, as well as in the State, slavery may ex
ist under the laws thereof. Whenever any right
of property or a domestic relation exists in anv
State of this Union, you may move with it wher
ever you please under the American flag, until you
find the law opposes it. [Applause.; The owner
of a slave may go from Georgia into any State or
any Territory and carry his slave with* him, and
hold Jiim, unless there is some law in such State
or Territory against it. This is a principle familiar
to all lawyers and all jurists. A marriage in Geor
gia is good in Illinois, unlsss there is some law
in Illinois against it. [Laughter and applause.]
A marriage in Massachusetts is good in Illinois
unless there is some law against it, and thank God,
we have laws against certain marriages in Massa
chusetts. [Cheers, “what is it?”] In Massachu
setts it is lawful for a white man to marry a black
woman, or for a white woman to marry a uegro
man, but if they come to Illinois they go to the
Penitentiary for it. [Cheers long continued.'
(A voice, “Do you allow negro suffrage?”; Mr.
Douglas—No, sir, we do not have any negro voting
there. (Cheers.) Siuce you have introduced this
subject of the rights of the* negro, in Illinois, I have
a word or two to sav upon ihat subject. Illinois
was a part of too old North-west Territory, and
consequently subject ordinance of 1787
about vvhicH the Abolitionists talk so much.
History records the undeumble fact that the first
Legislature that ever assembled jn Illinois, after
Lha of the Territorial Government,
paMwd * 1 tl nflpialnW slarerx
in defiance of the ordinance. OSF people, before
they became a £>tate, told Congress to mind their
own business, and let their domestic institutions
alone.
We, n Illinois, maintained and protected slave
ry under our Territorial Government just so long
a’s Congress said we should not have it. (Laugh
ter)—and adopted a gradual system of emancipa
tion, by which we became a free State on the very
day that Congress withdrew its prohibition and
said we might do as we pleased by admitting us
into the Union as a State. Why did we abolish
slavery in Illinois? Not because we were Aboli
tionists. There was not such a description of ani
mal in the whole of Illinois a? an Abolitionist.
(Laughter and applause.)
There was scarcely a Yankee to be found in the
whole State. (Renewed laughter.) Why did our
people adopt a system of emancipation? Simply
because they had ascertained, by experience, that
in our climate, with our soil and our productions,
slavery was not profitable. They could not make
any money out of it, hence they turned philan
thropists and abolished it. (Laughter and ap
plause.)
So it will be in every other Territory and State
where the experiment may be tried. The inhabi
tants of the Territory, the cultivators of the soil,
the persons in erested in its legislation, will as
certain for themselves whether their good, and
that ol their posterity, requires the institution.
They may come to the conclusion that it does,
and they will maintain it; but if they think that
their interests do not require it, all the power in
Christendom cannot force them to have it.
You have an example now before vou in the
present condition of our Territories. There is the
Territory of New Mexico, which was acquired by
the treaty of peace with Mexico, and was organis
ed into u Teiritorial government by the compro
mise measures of 1850. Certain southern fire
eaters opposed these compromise measures upon
the grounds that if they allowed the people of the
Territory to decide the slavery question for them
selves, tney would be sure to exclude slavery, and
thus make’it a free Territory.
Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase, Mr. Sumner, uud other
freesoilers, opposed the same measures upon the
ground that if they allowed the people of the Ter
ritory to decide the question for themselves they
would be sure to adopt slavery and make the
whole a slave country. (Laughter.) You see
from this that the southern fire eaters and the
northern freesoilers united in opposing the com
promise measures of 1850 for directly the opposite
reasons.
Time rolled oa, and two years ago the Legisla
ture of New Mexico enacted a slave code, introduc
ing, maintaining and protecting African slavery
within the limits of that Territory. New Mexico,
therefore, has become a slave Territory under that
principle of non-intervention and popular sover
eignty which was denounced by the southern tire
eaters as worse than Abolitionism.
Last winter the Abolitionists in Congress passed
a law through the House of Representatives re
pealing the slave code of New Mexico, in order to
abolish slavery there, and when that law was
brought into the Senate, I denounced it as a vio
lation of that great principle of self-government
upon which all our institutions rest. 'Applause.)
The people of New Mexico, after trying free insti
tutions for years, came to thecouclusion’chat slave
ry was beiter for them and their posterity, and
hence they introduced it.
I say, let them keep it untill they become con
vinced that their good requires them to change
again. Whenever they get tired of their slave
code, they may repeal it, but I will never do it
for them. (Cheers.) If they want slavery, let
them have it; if it is a blessing, it is their bless
ing ; if it be a curse, it is their curse. Let them
decide for themselves, and upon them rests the
responsibility.
In the Territory of Kansas, about two years
ago, tlie Legislature passed a law prohibiting
slavery in that Territory. Governor Brown, of
Mississippi, brought a bill into the Senate to re
peal that prohibition of slavery, because, he said,
it was unconstitutional. I told him in debate
that if he believed it was unconstitutional, let him
make a case under the law and appeal it from the
Territorial courts to the Supreme Court of the
United States, and if that court decided that that
law of Kansas was unconstitutional, then it was
void, and there was an end of the controversy.
(Cries of “That’s it,” and cheers.)
If, on the contrary, the court held that it was
Constitutional, the people bad a rigiht to it, and it
should stand until they chose to repeal it. (Voices
—“Good again.” and app*ause.) So when the
Abolitionists contended that tbe slave code of New
Mexico was *fiero!c:e Tished
VOL. 39-NTJ. 46.
to repeal it by the act of Congress, I told them to
make their case under the law in the Territorial
courts, appeal it to the Supreme Court of the
United States, and if that court decided that the
slave code of New Mexico was unconstitutional, it
would then become void, and there would be no
excuse for Congress to interfere. If the court,
however, dec’ded it to be Constitutional, as I be
lieve they would, then the people would have a
right to have it, and they should never be de
prived of it by an act of Congress, if I could pre
vent it. (Cries of ‘•Good/’ and cheers.)
So you see my fellow-citizens, there can be no
excuse for Congressional intervention upon the
subject of slavery iu the Territories. If the peo
ple of a Territory pass a law which violates the
rights of any man under the Constitution, the
case can be made andjthe Supreme Court will deter
mine the question ana annual the law if it beuncon
etitutionaf. Hence the position of the Democratic
party is now what 'it has ever been for years—
that of non-interference by Congress with "slavery
in the Territories. (Immense Applause.)
But the secessionists tell us that they want .to
have their slave property'protected in The territo
ries iust as the horses and cattle, and other north
ern property is protected. I believe that is their
argument. (“That’s right.”) A friend over
there says that is right. So 1 think. (“Hurrah for
Douglas,” and applause.) I think that slave
property should be protected in the Territories
just like all other property. How is that? Is all
other property protected by Congrrss? Is any
other kind of property protected in a Tciritory by
an act of Congress? Did you ever hear of an act
of Congress to protect horses, cattle, or hogs, or
merchandise, or any kind of property whatever,in
a Territory? Congress never yet passed a law
cither to protect persons or property either in the
States or in the Territories. All Congress does is
to pass the law for the organization of the territory,
allowing the people to elect their own Legislature
und make their owu laws.
Suppose you go into Kansas to-day and your
horse is stolen, what act of Congress "is violated ?
(Laughter.) Your horse must be protected in
Kansas the same as in Georgia. After your horse
is stolen in Georgia, you must prosecute the thief
under the local law, aud in the local courts, blit
you cannot go to Congress to punish him. (Laugh
ter and applause.) Ho, if vour horse is stolen in
Kansas, it is a crime against the local law of Kan
sas, but not against an act of Congress. The
Constitution was founded on the principle that
Congress should not interfere with the domestic af
fairs of the people. The Federal Government pos
sesses tio powers except those delegated in the
Constitution. Those powers are few in number,
aud plain and simple. They ore all Federal and
National in their character, and none of them are
local and domestic. Take up your Constitution
and read the powers delegated to the Federal Gov
ernment, and there you will find the power to reg
ulate intercourse with foreign nations, to regulate
commerce, to coin money, to declare war, to make
peace, to raise armies, to establish navit to
do those acts which are Federal and National in
their character, and which do not interfere with
the domestic affairs of the people, but you will not
find in the Constitution any power delegated to
Congress authorising it to interfere between hus
band and wife, parent or child, guardian and ward,
master and slave, or in any other domestic con
cern whatever. (Cheers.)
They are all reserved to the States or to the peo-
pie. Congress has no power over them. The South
would not consent that Congress should everfhave
the power over thesej subjects. Whenever you
yield that power inti, the hands of the Federal
Government, you expose to hazard all the interests
yon have in slave propeitv. (“That’s so/*) Ask an
Abolition Congress to pass laws to protect slave
property! i Laughter.) And at this point the
tire eaters will get hold of my Freeport speech and
- «
Douglas is for destroying your rights in two ways.
First, by non action, and second, by unfriendly
legislation.” You have all beard that. ‘Hun
dreds of times.”) Did you ever know a lire eating
puper in Georgia to publish my Freeport speech ?
(“No.” “They’ve been otl'ered one hundred dol
lars to publish it.”j My own friends have publish
ed it iu pamphlet form, expresly for s ’u'hei • rcu
latioo, that you may read it for yours*-'’e- Head
the whole speech, and it will refute any v>u;ection
that any enemy that I have on earth v r made
against me because of i». If is only by raking
detached portions of it, and reading garbled ex
tracts that they can apparently make t operate -
against southern rights.
1 am not going into a vindication of the doctrine
of non action and unfriendly legisla ion, for the
simple leason that I liappered to repeat, when I
advanced it, what great men had said before me.
I tell you where you will tind the doctrine very
ably argued, and very satisfactorily maintained, in
an argument so logical and so close that I commend
it to your attention. I refer to a speech of the
lion. Howell Cobb, of Geor.iu, (greu laughter,)
delivered at Vi est Chester, Pennsylvania, Septem
ber, ISSC, and written out by him, four months af
ter he was appointed Secretary of the Treasury—
four mouths after the i)red Scott decision was
made, and then published, for the first time, as
containing his opinions atter the Dred Scott de
cision. (Shouts of laughter.) In that speech of
Mr. Cobb, you will find the whole doctriue of
non-action auu unfriendly legislation vindicated
and approved. “ Hit him again,” and upnlause.)
Next following on the heels of Mr. Cobb, was
Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, late Speaker
of the House of Representatives. In a speech in
December, 1856, he went into a vindication of the
same doctrine, and said that if the people of a
Territory did not want slavery, they hud an effec
tual means by which they could keep it out. One
was non-action, and the other wa>* unfriendly leg**
ishition. (Cheers. ) The reporter who happens to
know, informs me that Mr. Cobb did not write out
bis West Chester speech himself, but thata reporter
did, aud submitted it to him, who approved and
endorsed it. (Laughter and applause.; I make
this correction, because it is due toJMr. Cobb.
Mr. (Douglas continued arguing the questions
in difleretice between the Breckinridge party at
length. He held that slave property stood ou an
equal footing with all other property, and that
the Dred Scott case had decided the point. In
that case it was decided that slave property
stood on the same footing as all other property,
and, if so, it must go into a Territory on the
same terms, and rely on the local law for protec
tion in the same manner. (Cheers.) If slave pro
perty was not allowed to stand on an equal foot
ing With other property, the equality of ttie States
would be destrove*;. He could pardon the small
politician who did not know better for making
the argument that Congress should protect slave
property like other property, (laughter,; but he
did not'know what to think when he found a can
didate for the Presidency talking about Congress
protecting slave property the same as it does a
horse. They allough« 'to know better. They
ought to know that Congress does not protect a
horse, they ought to know that Congress does not
protect any other kind of property, and, knowing
better, they ought not to use an argument for the
purpose of misleading and deceiving the people.
] (Applause.)
' He fully endorsed the Dred Scott decision, and
| said that,’in his opinion, the court had decided
right on every point involved in the case. (Ap
plause.) He was in favor of carrying that deci
sion and all other decisions into effect in good
faith. What were the points decided in the Dred
Scott case? First, they decided that Dred Scott,
being a negro, was not a citizen of the United
States. He did not think the negro a citizen,
(applause,) and he never should be a citizen if h 6
could prevent it. (Applause.) He had said to
tha Abolitionists of the North, time and time again
what he said now, that in his opinion this is a
white man’s government, made by white men, for
the benefit of white men, and should he adminis
tered by white men, and nobody else forever.
(Cheers.)
The second point in the decision was a very
simple one. The Court decided that the Missouri
Compromise prohibiting slavery North of 36° 30'
was unconstitutional ana void. He thought they
decided right on that point. (Cheers.) That sus
tained our doctrine of non-interference precisely.
The Court had decided that Congress had no pow
er to prohibit slavery, and the only question re
maining was what power the people of a Territory
have got over that question. The Court had not
decided it. They had decided the question of