Page images
PDF
EPUB

islands of the ocean, I am for it, and, when we acquire it, will leave the people, according to the Nebraska bill, free to do as they please on the subject of slavery and every other question.

I trust now that Mr. Lincoln will deem himself answered on his four points. He racked his brain so much in devising these four questions that he exhausted himself, and had not strength enough to invent the others. As soon as he is able to hold a council with his advisers, Lovejoy, Farnsworth, and Fred Douglas, he will frame and propound others ("Good," "good!"). You Black Republicans who say "good," I have no doubt, think that they are all good men. I have reason to recollect that some people in this country think that Fred Douglas is a very good man. The last time I came here to make a speech, while talking from a stand to you, people of Freeport, as I am doing to-day, I saw a carriage, and a magnificent one it was, drive up and take a position on the outside of the crowd; a beautiful young lady was sitting on the box seat, whilst Fred Douglas and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage acted as driver. I saw this in your own town. ("What of it?") All I have to say of it is this, that if you Black Republicans

think that the negro ought to be on a social equality with your wives and daughters, and ride in a carriage with your wife, whilst you drive the team, you have a perfect right to do so. I am told that one of Fred Douglas' kinsmen, another rich black negro, is now travelling in this part of the State making speeches for his friend Lincoln as the champion of black men. ("What have you to say against it?") All I have to say on that subject is, that those of you who believe that the negro is your equal, and ought to be on an equality with you socially, politically, and legally, have a right to entertain those opinions, and of course will vote for Mr. Lincoln.

JOHN CALEB BRECKENRIDGE.

OF KENTUCKY.

(BORN 1821, DIED 1875.)

ON THE DRED SCOTT DECISION, BEFORE THE KENTUCKY LEGISLATURE, DECEMBER, 1859.

THE election took place on Monday. The day before I received a letter signed by a number of gentlemen in the Legislature asking my opinion in reference to the Dred Scott decision, in reference to Territorial sovereignty and the power of Congress to protect the property of citizens within the Territories. I received that letter with profound respect, and only regret that it did not come to my hands in time, that I might answer it before the election.

* * *

Gentlemen, I bow to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon every question within its proper jurisdiction, whether it corresponds with my private opinion or not; only, I bow a trifle lower when it happens to do so, as the decision in this Dred Scott case does.

I approve it in all its parts as a sound exposition of the law and constitutional rights of the States, and citizens that inhabit them.

* * * I was in the Congress of the United States when that Missouri line was repealed. I never would have voted for any bill organizing the Territory of Kansas as long as that odious stigma upon our institutions remained upon the statute book. I voted cheerfully for its repeal, and in doing that I cast no reflection upon the wise patriots who acquiesced in it at the time it was established. It was repealed, and we passed the act known as the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The Abolition, or quasi Abolition, party of the United States were constantly contending that it was the right of Congress to prohibit slavery in the common Territories of the Union. The Democratic party, aided by most of the gentlemen from the South, took the opposite view of the case. Our object was, if possible, to withdraw that question from the halls of Congress, and place it where it could no longer risk the public welfare and the public in* There was a point upon which

terest.

*

*

we could not agree. A considerable portion of the Northern Democracy held that slavery was in derogation of common right, and could only

exist by force of positive law. They contended that the Constitution did not furnish that law, and that the slave-holder could not go into the Territories with his slaves with the Constitution to authorize him in holding his slaves as property, or to protect him. The South generally, without distinction of party, held the opposite view. They held that the citizens of all the States may go with whatever was recognized by the Constitution as property, and enjoy it. That did not seem to be denied to any article of property except slaves. Accordingly, the bill contained the provision that any question in reference to slavery should be referred to the courts of the United States, and the understanding was that, whatever the judicial decision should be, it would be binding upon all parties, not only by virtue of the agreement, but under the obligation of the citizen, to respect the authority of the legally constituted courts of the country. We had confidence in our own view of our rights. Our Northern friends had their views. It was a paradoxical question, and we gave it to the courts.

* * *

Well, the courts did decide the very question which had been submitted to them, not upon a case from Kansas, but in another

« PreviousContinue »