Page images
PDF
EPUB

POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY-THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY AGAINST THE RULE OF A MINORITY.

[graphic][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 28, 1858.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the despotism, as indefensible as that controlled by

state of the Union

Mr. HICKMAN said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I should not have sought the floor at this time, but for the fact that silence would leave my views liable to an unpleasant misconstruction. I was an early, earnest, and sincere advocate of Mr. Buchanan's election to the Presidency of the United States, believing that his elevation would largely promote the present peace and lasting welfare of my country. His life had been a public one, and his character was that of an educated statesman and a just man.

I

esteemed him as eminently worthy of the largest confidence and warmest regard of the American people, as I could not doubt his Administration would alike reflect his wisdom, experience, and nice appreciation of justice; and that under it the rights of the people, of all the people, would be scrupulously regarded. I did not expect infallibility in his management of public affairs, and do not now expect it; and when I shall meet with what I may regard as error, I trust to be pardoned for the frankness with which I shall always proclaim my opinions.

Until I heard the annual message read, I had expected to be able to yield to its doctrines an honest and decided support; but from its Kansas policy I must strongly dissent. I am unable to give it my support. pport. I regret exceedingly the tendency of the Executive recommendation, which, to my mind, is to place the President in a position of antagonism to the majority in Kansas. It leads to an issue between power on the one hand, and the people on the other. In such a case, I never can hesitate in determining whose cause I shall espouse, or what verdict I ought to render. I am not unmindful of the fact that the former is quite as likely to triumph with the wrong as the latter with the right; and that the ambitious may well hesitate when resolves on success are to decide for whom to do battle. The great influence

the greatest of tyrants-combinations can seldom resist it, individuals never. But these considerations, clearly as they have presented themselves to my mind, can never induce me to espouse a political heresy.

But the great danger surrounding our institutions does not so much arise from a want of public virtue as general intelligence. Few outside of public life watch narrowly the conduct of their public servants, and fewer still are sufficiently conversant with the machinery of Government clearly to comprehend the bearing of particular acts. If it were otherwise, high officers of Govcrnment would be less powerful for evil, and publicrights more practically defensible. If, therefore, at any time, resistance to a gross and unpardonable outrage upon an admitted principle, shall prove unavailing, let not the offense, on that account, be baptized and sanctified; let it rather be an evidence of the truth of my declaration, and a warning to those who are unwilling to part with the sovereignty of the citizen.

My opposition to the President's treatment of Kansas affairs does not arise from hostility to slavery; it stands upon a foundation, the strength of which will be more generally admitted. I rest my resistance upon the violations of declared principles, of solemn pledges, and the guarantees to the nation. To ask me to sanction them, with my views, is to insult me by suspicions of my

integrity. Others may act differently, it is not my province to judge them.

"I may stand alone,

But would not change my free thoughts for a throne."

I am not blind to the fact that a very different motive will be assigned for my action. I have too often seen it attributed to others, not to anticipate it in my own case. But it has become a stale cry, and, I think, must soon prove a barren one. If differing from my southern friends on any point which immediately or remotely affects

of executive patronage; the full extent of execu- the interests of slavery must subject me to anathtive power in this country is but feebly compre-ema, so be it; I must bear up under it; I cannot hended. We are apt to underrate it vastly. If deny my convictions that I may receive a chariunscrupulously exercised, it becomes a crushing table judgment.

I do not oppose slavery where it legally exists. It is there a matter between the master and the

slave; it concerns them alone; and I will not interfere with it or them. I yield a ready allegiance to our common Constitution, and will support all the laws made under it as long as they remain in force, to whatever subject they may relate, or whatever burdens they may impose upon me. But when any man, or body of men, seek to plant that institution or any other on my soil, or where I have the legal right to speak, I will then exercise the prerogative of a freeman. And when this is attempted by force or by fraud, when it is manifested in an utter disregard and profound contempt for the popular will, that, of itself, will induce me to resist it to the last.

practiced and imposed upon her people; her ago nizing and nizing and fruitless cries for justice; the cruel and crushing sympathy of high Federal officers with her oppressors; her appeal for free institutions derided by ruffians, and slavery fastened upon her in bold defiance of her rights; could all this have been foreseen, the northern advocate of that legis lation could not have breasted for a single mo ment the withering tornado such wrongs wou'd have raised against him. These unjust con80quences, not naturally flowing from the legislation spoken of, have now resulted; and if they woud not have been tolerated then, why should they be now? Have we an overplus of political power which should induce us to carry so exhausting a burden with patience? Once taken up by the party they would cling to it like the Man of the Mountain to the back of the sailor, choking itad sinking it to the earth. It is too soon for ust forget what overpowering strength we brought to the polls in 1852, and the means-yes, sir, Le means-by which it was recklessly frittered awry before 1856.

This is a law to me-and there is no other sound law of liberty-to exercise all my rights in their fullness, and to grant the same measure of power to my neighbor. The application of this rule of action is not only good for individuals, but equally so for communities and States. It is a golden rule; it is a pure constitutional rule. The North must regard all the rights of the South, and the South must regard all the rights of the North-inly, and if I shall express myself with war

Mr. Chairman, I am upon a point I feel dap and decision I must be pardoned. As long I am capable of appreciating truth, I can hevat lend myself to the attempt now being made, with high sanctions, to undermine the foundation unes which the modern territorial legislation res's, to falsify pledges upon the faith of which the is presidential election was accomplished. The T principle, the soul of the Nebraska-Kansas, to be blasted. The majority are not necessarily o rule. If I can read recent events at all, I learn S much from them. Let the people understand

the States and in the Territories-throughout the broad land-for neither wears a panoply against the assaults of the other. There are two classes of persons, however, who, in a marked manner, interfere with this course of conduct. They are those who deny and those who grant all demands made, whether just or unjust. Extremists in the South, judging all northern men to be of the former class, designate them as enemies and Abolitionists; and certain northern politicians looking upon a few northern Democrats as a type of the whole, have declared Democracy to be the ally of sla-teach them the whole truth, and then hear th

very. Both cannot be right, and believe that they are equally wrong. Denying, as I do, the charge that Democracy has entered into a league with slavery, I am yet willing to admit, as I have said, the existence of a few northern confederates with it. I do not believe them able to exercise much power, whatever their disposition. If it shall prove otherwise in their action upon the present question, I must leave to them the responsibilities of a course destructive of the effective force of our party organization.

I think 1 may, with great truth, say that the enactment of the law organizing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, including the repeal of the Missouri compromise, was not, originally, a popular movement at the North. It was regarded with suspicion, and believed to be impolitic if not unjust. Mr. Buchanan himself, by expressing the wish, in his Reading letter, that that line should

response. Think you the mighty millions of th
North, the East, and the West will be quicteurs
children by baubles? Will they allow legisla
to be construed one way to-day, and enforceda
different way to-morrow? In short, will that
submit always to stake upon a game where th
never can win? If they are so miserably a
up, so destitute of real manhood, they are truy
only fit to be the "white slaves" of whom
have occasionally heard, and from my soul ijay
them. The name of freeman fits them not,
hangs upon them,

"like a giant's robe

Upon a dwarfish thief."

My course is my own; others are not answer able for it; and I would not implicate them in action if I could. But I will resist every atte no matter from what quarter it may come, D fict a despotism upon the people of Kansas, ale be extended to the Pacific ocean, gave to the comthe law guaranties them liberty, or to imp promise a sanctity or popularity additional to that upon the promises the Democracy took upon t derived from thirty-four years' acquiescence; and selves to make in the last presidential campai when its contemplated destruction was announced, The recommendation in the message goes it was received with great astonishment and deep as "a forlorn hope" against what has heretofore honestly believed, by very many, been supposed to be intrenched d to be a movement to advance the peculiar interests trine of popular sovereigntyy What wil of the South at the expense of those for whose country do, is the question. Will it defend the benefit the territory north of the line had been great principle in the hour of its severe trial: er dedicated to freedoch it the doctrine of popular wil it allow the right of self-government to be s

regret. was It

sovereignty by which was accompanied, made

cessfully assaulted? Has

[ocr errors]

already become it at first but tolerable, though, eventually, pal- obsolete, a worn-out thing? But two years agai catable. Could the future history o of Kansas have expressed the opinion that those most prominenty then been read, as it has since transpired to this instrumental in causing the Democratic party moment; the repeated frauds and usurpations be pledged to maintain the doctrine of popula

1.

sovereignty, in the organization of our Territories, || Atlantic regions, a continuous stream of agrarian radicals would deeply regret it. I never doubted that it would operate against the growth of the South. On the 19th of March, 1856, when insisting upon an investigation into alleged election frauds in Kansas, I had occasion to use these words:

"Sir, the supporters of that bill [the Nebraska Kansas bill] have proclaimed to the nation that the Territories of the United States are to constitute 'a fair field,' and that there is to be 'n free fight' there, between the North and the South, to decide whether slavery or freedom shall rule them. If the energy, the enterprise, the active modes of life, the available capital, and the numbers of the North, shall not be able to compete successfully with their opposites in the South, and secure freedom to the Territories, then I will

admit that there is a vitality and a power in slavery which we of the North have never dreamed of. In my opinion, the Representatives of the South in the Thirty-Third Congress 'have sown the fire, and they will gather fire into their own garners.""

The prediction is fulfilled; for now, like Pyrene, the Iberian princess, they fly in fear from their own child; it is a serpent, and pursues them. The day of repentance has come upon them much sooner than I anticipated. Instead of decades, it has required but brief months to inculcate the lesson which should never be forgotten, that weakness cannot long triumph over strength, norminorities, in this free land, trample down majorities. If what we have esteemed the great truths of republican government are not a sheer lie, then squatter sovereignty, adequately protected, will give the virgin lands of our Confederacy to the free white man, and not the negro slave. This is now seen, and sovereignty is not to be protected; it is to be crushed out; by unwarrantable, illegal interference it is to be crushed out; and the hitherto pliant North is expected to acquiesce. If it submits, be it so. I will, never! no, never!

of any and all parties in those regions, alike determined to obtain control of her government, and to assert the rule of the inajority in the line of emancipation, slave property in Missouri would become too precarious in its tenure to be holden, and the necessity for its sale or removal would at once arise. It may be confidently asserted that, under these circumstances, in five years Missouri would cease to be a slaveholding State. Already, in view of the anticipated result, Abolition journals have been started in Missouri, and candidates for Congress have unfurled the banner of emancipation."

But, Mr. Chairman, I wish to be more particular and precise in my objections to that part of the President's message to which I have made reference, and to the admission of Kansas into the Union on the Lecompton constitution. They arise

First. From the antagonism of that policy and measure to what has been called the great republican principle of the Nebraska-Kansas bill; and

Second. From the attempts making to violate the plighted faith of the Democratic party.

"The true intent and meaning" of the act organizing the Territory of Kansas, is declared to be "to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." This language would seem too unequivocal to be overcome by the most abstruse diplomatist, or the most adroit hair-splitting politician. No doubt, I suggest, is allowed to remain as to "the true intent and meaning" of the enactment. It was to give full, perfect, pe unrestricted sovereignty to the people of Kansas. It is this right, thus clearly given to them, the inhabitants of the Territory now claim; nothing more, nothing less.

But I understand the President to say that they are careless about all questions to be settled by their fundamental law, except the single one of negro slavery. Who conferred upon this officer the authority to speak so confidently for the peo

A southern writer in De Bow's Weekly Press exhibits in a striking light the imperative necessity resting upon the South to make Kansas a slave State. It is declared to be the necessity aris-ple of Kansas? Surely Congress never did; for

ing from self-preservation, and such as originates the highest law. I read an extract from the arti

cle referred to, of the date of January 16, 1858:

"Tae surrender of Kansas to the operation of the majority rule, under the cry of popular sovereignty in the Territories, without constitutional warrant, and her absorpthon by the non slaveholding power of the country, would make the evil of the times no longer prospective, but instaat and imminent. By the fact of this surrender, the South would become subordinant, and the North predominant, in the Union. Never again, in the Union, could the equilibrium of State sovereign representation between the South and the North be either maintained in or restored to the Senate. Never again, in the Union, could the equality of the South with the North be either maintained in or restored to the House of Representatives. No further barrier could be constructed between either the aggressive territorial of political rapacity of the North, and the weakened and di pelushed South. No other bulwark could be raised to guard endier the moral or social integrity of the South against the disrupting and destructive legal and social systems of the North. The South, like Hector bound to the car of Achil les, would soon be dragged by the triumphant North around a ruined possession, quickly to be followed by the erasive, plowshare of the invading conqueror.

"The loss of Kansas to the South would involve the loss of Missouri; and the loss of Missouri would destroy the moral as well as political prestige of the South, and invade the integrity of their institutions. The moral prestige of States, like that of individuals, once destroyed, no earthly power can restore; and the integrity of State establish brents, like the chastity of woman, once subjected to invaston, continues at the will of the despoiler. With abolitronized lowa stretching along the northern boundary of Missouri, and abolitionized Kansas covering her western boundary, whilst there poured into her bosom, through Towa and Kansas, from the more inhospitable lake and northern

they have, by an unrepealed law, vested all power in the people alone; and if the people have intrusted him with an agency, it is proper he should show his warrant. This, most unfortunately, and of course most unintentionally, tends to indorse and sustain that organized, systematic attempt, long insisted upon and persevered in, to stifle the popular voice in the Territory, and to cast its government into the hands of those having no shadow of right to exercise it. Free government is not to be allowed, because the people will not consult the wishes of the Platte district, nor accept institutions attempted to be forced on them from abroad. The language of the President is somewhat peculiar, and, to my mind, singularly unsound. He says:

"The convention were not bound by its terms [the terms of the Nebraska-Kansas bill] to submit any other portion of the instrument [the constitution] to an election, except that which relates to the domestic institution' of slavery. This will be rendered clear by a simple reference to its language. It was not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. According to the plain construction of the sentence, the words 'domestic institutions' have a direet, as they have an appropriate refer

ence to slavery. Domestic institutions are limited to the family. The relation between master and slave, and a few others, are domestic institutions,' and are entirely distinct from institutions of a political character. Besides, there

was no question then before Congress, nor indeed has there since been any serious question before the people of Kan

sas or the country, except that which relates to the domestic institution' of slavery."

All the obligations which "rested on the Lecompton convention to submit their constitution to an election" he assumes to be derived from the act of Congress. He contends that "domestic institutions," being synonymous with slavery, it is therefore not required to submit any other matter to the popular decision. Let us test this remarkable view by carrying it to its consequences. If "domestic institutions" mean merely slavery, then it is clear that the power given to the people " to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, ," confers only the power form and regulate" slavery "in their own way. But this conclusion would prove too great an absurdity for its advocates to profit by. The policy of the Government with reference to slavery in the Territories, was intended to be permanently settled by the Nebraska-Kansas bill, giving to the people thereof complete sovereignty over all their institutions. All power to legislate on the subject of slavery was denied to Congress and given to the people of the Territory. Congress declared

it was

"to

"The true intent and meaning of that act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way."

As I read it, and as the country has thus far interpreted it, slavery was to be left to the determination of the people of the Territory just as all the rest of their domestic institutions. Indeed the whole argument for the legislation referred to,

to the very moderate dimensions of a privilege to say whether they will hold a negro in bonds or not? No opinion can be expressed as to the organization of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the government; none of the constitutional safeguards afforded to life and liberty are of any importance to the citizen. He may not speak as to them; his whole voice is to be kept for his yea or nay on negro slavery. This is Tons Thumb sovereignty, or sovereignty in a nut-shel,

The case is even worse than I have exhibited it. Nothing has been submitted for popular determination. Slavery could not be voted down by voting the "constitution with no slavery," when the instrument expressly declares that. under such vote, "the right of property in slaves now in the Territory shall in no manner be interfered with." That right of property carries wi it the increase of those slaves as completely as if born in South Carolina; and if that right " she not be interfered with," slavery must continue. I have never before been taught that that is a free State in which the negro and his issue are to be holden as slaves, and where the property in slaves "shall not be interfered with." The right of the people "to form and regulate their domestic insta tutions in their own way," now means simply "to formand regulate" slavery, provided they "form it in

a State, and do not "regulate" "it out. This

I would designate as sovereignty invisible. This solemn mockery of a guarantied right is to be tolerated; not only tolerated, but encour aged and confirmed by the action of the presert Congress, because the convention which perpe

proceeded upon that ground. They, the people,trated the enormity, represented, as I am told, the

were to have their institutions in their own way -all their institutions. Their power was not large or unlimited with regard to one, and small or limited with regard to another; it was equal with respect to all. I need scarcely contend that if their will is to govern, it becomes necessary to ascertain what it is. As I look upon it, therefore, the admission that the question of slavery should be submitted to a vote of the people for the purpose of ascertaining their wishes touching

that institution, carries with it the further admis-when formed, without respect to the sentimer:

sion that all their other institutions should be subjected to the same test. The error arises from shutting out of view the fact that the territorial legislation of 1854 intended to establish a governmental policy with respect to slavery; that it was designed to leave that " domestic institution" just where all other " domestic institutions" were left -within the popular control. That by using the words "slavery" and "domestic institutions" in the same sentence, Congress did not intend they should be regarded as synonymous, butas a member and a family. Slavery is a domestic institution, not domestic institutions; it is singular, not plural; it is one, not many. To adopt this fault of interpretation, would be to do not only great, and perhaps irretrievable injury to the people of Kansas, but to those of every Territory hereafter

to be organized.

Is it not too plain that popular sovereignty, so much extolled in the Thirty-Third Congress, and so highly recommended in the last presidential contest, as the sound principle upon which our Territories were thenceforth to be organized and governed-which was declared as giving all power into the hands of the people is to be sweated down

sovereignty of the people. No such reason exists. I would as soon recognize a bastard as a lawful heir, as the Lecompton convention to be the of spring of the people of Kansas. The fact that others may have recognized it as a legal body, inposes no obligation upon me to force myself to the same unwise conclusion. It is one of the fruits ofa well-digested fraud concocted in the fall of 1854, anu persevered in until the present moment; a frmod by which slavery was to be forced into the State of the people. The very purpose of the fraud w to override the will of the people; to substitute the action of a minority for the rule of the majority In organizing the Territory under the Nebraska Kansas act, the first thing manifested was an ante republican movement, subversive of the principes of the act, and those concerned in it took as muta trouble to hide the facts as Periander did to col ceal his grave, and committed as many crimes in doing so. The ballot-box gave no response to the resolves or wishes of the residents; it pointed only to treasonable acts striking at the very foun dation of our institutions. Ruffianism has held uninterrupted sway there. It made legislators, who made a convention, which made a constitu tion. The great grandchild bears most unmis takable evidence of its parentage, and it would indeed be strange if it did not subvert the prin ciple that the people are free "to form and reg late their domestic institutions in their own way.

"For he that once hath missed the right way,

The further he doth go the further he doth stray." I am unwilling to marshal proofs to support the position here assumed, as the whole living his tory of Kansas attests its strength.

Sir, how does it happen that no man has yet been found with Democracy sound enough to bear up against the air of Kansas? Four Governors have been appointed in the space of about thirty months, from among the wisest and best of our party, and now the office is again vacant. How comes this? It finds its solution in the fact that "Democracy is morality," and unable to countenance so gross and palpable a usurpation as has always existed there. Those four high officers have all returned to us, speaking the same lan guage, uttering the same words-that sovereignty is crushed out there. And what answer is made to this? A southern paper gives it, in declaring they are to be marked-their ears cut and tails split; they are to be read out. Take care, sir, that you do not read out the whole North. In the great political contest of 1856, how our energies were taxed to the utmost! Every vote was of importance of vast importance-not to the North merely, but to the South-ay, to the South! How they trembled there! "Sectionalism" they thought would prevail. Looking back upon that fearful struggle, may we not well pause long enough to inquire what will probaly be the result of future battles, when soldiers are so unceremoniously shot, at a time when they can be so illy spared?

I have not forgotten the almost impenetrable gloom which overhung my own State, and consequently, the whole country, during the fierce conflict to which I have alluded. It was then that the persuasive voice of one who now fills a place near the person of the President was heard in our midst, proclaiming the right of Kansas to be selfgoverned, and expressing his determination, as a son of the South, to carry out the will of her people. His present high position was bestowed upon him, doubtless, in consequence of the influence it was his fortune then to exercise. I fear his friends who, at that time, listened to him with so much true pleasure, were not prepared for the intelligence which just before our meeting flashed along the telegraphic wires, that the President and his Cabinet were a unit in favor of the admission of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution. But their greatest regret will, perhaps, be that they have forfeited the favorable regard of one in whose behalf they have taken so strong an interest, for the reason that they learned too well the salutary lessons he inculcated.

the delegates who signed the constitution, and could not cast a single vote. How, then, can it be said that this was a convention of delegates of the people; and, as such, entitled to speak for them, act for them, and bind them? Under such circumstances, are a people left "free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way?"

A further objection exists to the composition of this convention. Its members not only did not represent a majority, but those who controlled its action procured their election by a fraud. The delegates from Douglas county, including the president of the convention, suspected of a design to fasten a constitution upon the people without submitting it to them for their acceptance or rejection, issued the following card:

"To the Democratic Voters of Douglas County:

"It having been stated by that Abolition newspaper, the Herald of Freedom, and by some disaffected bogus Democrats, who have got up an independent ticket, for the purpose of securing the vote of the Black Republicans, that the regular nominees of the Democratic convention were opposed to submitting the constitution to the people, we, the candidates of the Democratic party, submit the following resolutions, which were adopted by the Democratic couvention which placed us in nomination, and which we fully and heartily indorse, as a complete refutation of the slanders above referred to.

[blocks in formation]

"LECOMPTON, KANSAS TERRITORY, June 13, 1857." "Resolved, That we will support no man as a delegate to the constitutional convention, whose duties it will be to frame the constitution of the future State of Kansas and to

mold the political institutions under which we, as a people, are to live, unless he pledges himself fully, freely, and without reservation, to use every honorable means to submit the same to every bona fide actual citizen of Kansas, at the proper time for the vote being taken upon the adoption by the people, in order that the said constitution may be adopted or rejected by the actual settlers in this Territory, as the majority of the voters shall decide."

These men, by this act of baseness, not only accomplished their election, but placed the convention within their own control. Am I to be taught that our institutions can only be supported by public virtue, and then asked to defend such a proceeding as I have indicated, upon the ground that it is sovereign, republican, and binding upon the citizen? This is felon sovereignty.

The injustice of the course pursued towards the people of Kansas is very distinct. They are by law empowered to form their institutions in their own way; and yet the supporters of the Lecompton convention require them to adopt particular

I cannot follow this digression further, although not unprofitable, but must resume my argument. Ideny that the Lecompton convention represented the sovereignty of the people, for another reason. In the election of its members, a majority of those really entitled to vote were completely disfranchised. It was thus made to be the representative of a minority merely. In the language of Governor Walker, " it had vital, not technical, defects in the very substance of its organization under the territorial law." Out of thirty-four counties composing election districts, and in which it was requisite a census should be taken and voters registered by officers appointed by the Legislature itself, nineteen had no census taken and no representation assigned them, and fifteen had no registry of voters, and could not, therefore, vote at all. The nineteen counties were a majority of all the counties, and were unrepresented; the fifteen counties had more votes than were given to all || conclusions or not. Anything else would fall

forms to make known that will, not because the bona fide settlers approve of them, but because their supporters approve of them. If one tenth maintain the legislation originating the constitution, and nine tenths repudiate and condemn it, can it be said the instrument is the offspring of sovereignty? But suppose every votable inhabitant had sanctioned the call of a convention, and yet a large majority should condemn the work of such a body when finished: would not a plain, common-sense interpretation of the organic act require us to reject it? The proposition is too plain for argument. I will merely inquire what the sentiment of the people is; and when I learn that, by employing such means as are likely to reveal it, I will aid it, whether I can sanction their

« PreviousContinue »