OF

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF TENNESSEE:

If you will give me your attention to-night, I will endeavor to address you as one honest man ought to speak to another-frankly, truthfully, fearlessly. I know where I stand and in whose presence I am. I know, too, what has been said in relation to my humble self and my opinions, in this State, by the press and by influential individuals. What I have to say to-night will be in behalf of the Democracy, of the Constitution, and of the Union under the Constitution. Of those who have been opposed to me, possibly whose minds have been prejudiced, whose ears have been filled with unkind sayings, (to speak of it in the most charitable terms,) I only ask a patient hearing. Of the patriot, who wishes his country well, and who would himself willingly or willfully do nothing that would be injurious to the interests of that country, I ask a like candid hearing of all, to all, and about all. What I say, as I said before, I shall endeavor to say with frankness, with truthfulness, and I trust with a proper respect for them and for myself.

The country, my friends, has for many years been in a state of excitement with reference as to what shall be its fate within this government. This grave, dignified, and mighty issue has been such that parties and statesmen have gone down before it, and that no party has been able to stand it save the Democratic party. [A voice, "Bravo."] Whether that party is yet to exist longer and be a barrier against sectional and unconstitutional aggression, is my theme to-night. It is a subject of profound interest to every reflecting man, who for a few years past has thought that that party was the only barrier between the dissolution of this government and the Constitution. The unity of that great party, therefore, is a matter of na

the very safety of the Constitution itself, and with the safety of your instititutions and your rights. I speak it not as a partisan, for, although I speak in behalf of the Democratic party tonight, I am not a Democratic partisan; I have not been a Democratic partisan; I am not one of those who hurrah for the Democracy without a why or a wherefore, whether it be right or wrong. If my humble history is known to you, as it should be known by a people who have heard so much abuse of myself, it would show to you that in times past I have ventured to differ with my party, the Democracy, on this great question, and relying upon my own conviction of what is right, that I have ventured to oppose it. If now and for some years past I have been found acting with it cordially, it has only been, my countrymen, because my convictions are that it is constitutionally sound and right. [Applause.]

The great question will rise before you that if the unity of this party is a matter of national interest, how is it that unity is now in danger? What is, and who causes that danger? What are the purposes that those have in view who are endangering its unity? These are questions of great interest. I shall not discuss them with the mere newspaper slang, by declaring that my party is right and all other parties are wrong, and hurrah for the flag that floats over me without reason; but, in order that I may commend what I say to-night to your judgment and to your reason, and to your better nature, I shall endeavor to go back to the record and speak by the record, and only speak that which is in fact the truth of history now.

There are now three parties in the South claiming of the people their suffrages. The Breckinridge and Lane party, that I name first in order,

Constitution, and because I believe it has more power and more ability, and as much will as any other party to save the Constitution. Then there is the Douglas Democracy, and lastly the Bell party, that hopes to rise to power and success simply by reason of the division of the Democratic party.

When Breckinridge and Lane present themselves before the people for their suffrages, as the Democratic candidates, and as occupying the Democratic platform that has been approved by the country, they are met by the friends of Mr. Douglas, who assert that Stephen A. Douglas and Herschel V. Johnson are the regular nominees of the Democratic party, and that Mr. Douglas alone, of the Democratic candidates in the field, represents the Democratic policy and Democratic principles. While Mr. Bell and his friends assert that the people should give Bell their confidence, because he is in favor of "the Union, the Consti tution, and the enforcement of the law," without offering to the public any avowed remedy for the evils which are afflicting the government, or any well digested means of saving the Union, [applause,] it is due to frankness to state that the Douglas party does offer a platform which, with the explanation given to it by Mr. Douglas, can easily be understood; while the Breckinridge party offers a platform clearly defined in itself, and that needs no explanation. I propose to consider these three parties, with the positions which their different heads occupy before the American people.

I will first address myself to the Douglas Democracy, because the unity of the Democracy which the country has long desired, if it existed at this hour, would prevent any other party at the South offering itself for the suffrages of the American people, for I believe Mr. Bell would not have been in the field if it had not been divided. I shall undertake to show to those Democrats who rally under Mr. Douglas, that he is not the regular nominee of the party, and that the principles that he avows before the American people are not the principles of the Democracy, and never have been the principles of the Democracy. [Applause.]

Mr. Douglas, my friends, is a statesman of great eminence and ability, a man of great power individually, having many manly traits of character, with whom it has been my pleasure, ever since I have known him, for some sixteen years, to be upon terms of personal intimacy and regard. But it is due to frankness and to the truth of history to state that Mr. Douglas has had designs upon the unity of the Democratie party ever since the Northern people failed to obtain, under the operation of the Kansas-Nebraska act, the dominancy in the Territory of Kansas, and that, when it became apparent that the Southern men had obtained advantages under that act, and that Kansas, under these advantages, if fairly dealt by, would be admitted into the Union as a slave State, that he has determined to war against the true principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill to keep Kansas out of the Union as a slave State, and, if necessary, to dismember the Democratic party, and to rely for support in that controversy upon the anti-slavery sentiment of the Northern

In the first place, I look to the Conventions that have lately assembled; and in the course of my argument upon his platform I shall go back many years in the history of the Democracy to prove the truth of these assertions. When the Convention of the Democracy met at Charleston, Mr. Douglas was well aware that he could not obtain the nomination under the two-thirds rule, and his friends now throughout the country-and I instance one of the most eminent of his friends, Hershel V. Johnson, of Georgia, candidate for the Vice Presidency upon the Douglas ticket→→→ his friends, I say, indorsed by Gov. Johnson, say that had the eight cotton States remained in the Charleston Convention, that there was no possible chance of nominating Mr. Douglas. They admit that now, as then. Starting out with the conviction that the Democratic rule of two thirds stood between him and the object of his ambition, his designs were to dismember the Democratic party, and to do it in such a manner as, if possible, to wool the eyes of the people, and make them believe that others were responsible for its dismemberment.

First, then, he avowed before that Convention met that he would not accept of the nomination at the hands of the Democracy, unless the Democratic party indorsed his view in relation to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Now, then, here stood his incentive to his friends-"I want to be nominated for the Presidency, and you wish to nomi nate me. I cannot obtain two thirds of that Con vention." Gov. Herschel V. Johnson now openly proclaims that it could not have been done, and others make the same statement; and I know it, too. "I also proclaim that I will not accept of the nomination on any other platform than my own, and yet I am a candidate now for the nomination. I must have the platform to suit myself, and I must get rid of this two-thirds rule. These are my two points."

The State of Alabama, as well as other Southern States, fully recognized the importance of the great issue before the American people; and that issue was a vital issue, a constitutional principle being involved, which could not be compromised without yielding our constitutional position of equality in the Union, and to that degree taking from our breast the Constitution, which is our only shield and protection against Northern majorities. [Applause.] We declared that we must demand that our platform should be indorsed by the Convention. Here, then, were Southern States taking the position that the constitutional rights of the South should be acknowledged in the Democratic Convention, and Mr. Douglas taking the position-" My platform must be acknowledged or I will not accept the nomination." It is easy for one man to say that another is wrong. It is not always so easy to prove his error. It is common to say that Alabama attempted to dictate. It is no dictation for me to say that I claim all my constitutional rights, and that others shall not trample upon them. He who undertakes to tell me that I shall not have my constitutional rights, does, however, dicta te to me. But when I hold up the compact which my fathers made, and say, "give me this that it was guaranteed I should have, and give me it

Convention opposed to each other. Alabama but spoke for her rights, and when Douglas said I will have the nomination and the platform, Alabama said we will have our constitutional rights of protection acknowledged, or we will not remain in a Convention that denies us that constitutional protection. [Applause.]

Mr. Douglas had no right at stake in that Convention save his personal ambition. The State of Alabama and other Southern States had their rights at stake, and they had a right to speak. We said, "Don't aggress on us," while he said, "If you are aggressed on, I proclaim in advance that you shan't have the protection of your Government." He could yield, and yield no constitutional position. We could not yield without yielding our constitutional rights. [Cheers.]

Now then, when his friends got into the Convention, the first object they had in view was to beat down the two-thirds rule if possible. Well, how did they go about to do that. There were in several States at the South a few men friendly to Douglas. These were a minority in each of such States. The majority of each of those delegations, if they cast the vote of their State as a unit, would have suppressed all those minorities. Douglas did not wish that. There were also in several of the Northern States minorities against Douglas and majorities in his favor. The majority vote in each of these States would suppress all these minorities against him, and make these votes that were really against him be for him. Now, it was a remarkably smart man who could bring in a rule to make all these votes count for him. A double edged sword, that cuts both sides, it is supposed, cuts to the injury of the hands of him who holds it; but he was able to make it work on both sides against his enemies and for himself. He, therefore, by his friends, concocted a rule so cunningly devised that its effect was not observed until after it was passed. That rule was, that the States not instructed by the State Conventions to vote as a unit should vote each man in the delegation for himself, but the States that were instructed to vote as a unit should vote according to those instructions.

What was the effect of that rule? It was to give, in fact, to Mr. Douglas fifty-one votes that he otherwise would not have got. In the State of Pennsylvania it gave him some ten votes that were cast in his favor, which, if the rule had been uniform throughout the Convention, would have been suppressed, and given in favor of Breckinridge or Guthrie. In Virginia it gave him one vote; in North Carolina one; in Massachusetts six; in Tennessee one; in Maryland three and a half, and in New Jersey two and a half. The individual rule of voting gave him twenty-four and a half votes which would have been suppressed if the majority rule had prevailed, or if the rule had been uniform, that the majority of each delegation should cast the entire vote of each State. Had the contrary rule been uniformly in force, then he would have lost fifteen votes in New York; in Ohio six; four and a half in Indiana, and one half in Vermont, or twenty-six in all. But by this ingenious device, by mingling two inconsistent rules together, and using each as it suited him, Mr. Douglas succeeded in gaining

to the exclusion of the other, he would not have received more than half that number. That Convention should have adopted either the unit rule, that each and every State should cast its vote solid for or against some man, or it should have adopted the separate rule, that each and every member of the Convention should be allowed to cast his own vote.

By the operation of this rule he gained largely, so as to make a difference in the result of fifty votes. New York gave thirty-five votes to Douglas, whereas he was entitled to but twenty; Pennsylvania had given no instructions to her delegates, and therefore the rule allowed all the members in the minority to vote for Douglas; whereas, by the unit rule, as applied to New York, her twenty-seven votes would have been cast against him. The practical operation of the rule was to suppress the voice of the people with reference to Mr. Douglas, and to suppress the voice of the people with reference to his principles.

one votes.

That was his first design, and by its success he made a practical difference in his favor of fiftyThat gave him a majority in the Charleston Convention, and that majority was worked for his individual purposes. [Cries of "That's so."]

Next he said, "I must drive out these cotton States that insist upon protection. These eight States will vote against me for the nomination, I know, and now I must destroy the votes of those States." How was he to do that? His way was, when the platform question came up, so to shape that platform, so to deny the rights of those eight States, that when they were denied, those States could not consistently with true Democracy remain in the Convention, and they would secede. These rights were urged with moderation; in a spirit of conciliation and kindness, and purely on constitutional grounds, by arguments addressed to the reason and judgment of that Convention; and yet, when the vote was taken, by the working of this unit rule, Mr. Douglas voted it down by a. vote of 165 to 138; thus denying to the Southern States that equal protection to their rights in the Territories that the South has always yielded to, every section in the Union. When protection. was thus denied to the constitutional rights of those eight States, those eight States left the Convention. [Applause and cheers]

Why did they leave it? Because, as I will show you before I close, the great Democratic principle of the equality of the States, and of the people of the States in the common Territories. of the Union, had been willfully violated by Mr. Douglas and his friends, and that was done with the view that the States I refer to should be: driven out of that Convention. We did not ask. the Convention to add any new plank to the Democratic platform; but as Mr. Douglas had. construed the Cincinnati platform to mean no protection to the constitutional rights of the South; as he had thus violated that platform by. his construction of the Kansas act, as since determined in the Dred Scott decision; as he him-self had violated the principle of the KansasNebraska act, which left the question to be determined by the Supreme Court of the United: States, the South deemed it necessary, before

Constitution, and because I believe it has more power and more ability, and as much will as any other party to save the Constitution. Then there is the Douglas Democracy, and lastly the Bell party, that hopes to rise to power and success simply by reason of the division of the Democratic party.

When Breckinridge and Lane present themselves before the people for their suffrages, as the Democratic candidates, and as occupying the Democratic platform that has been approved by the country, they are met by the friends of Mr. Douglas, who assert that Stephen A. Douglas and Herschel V. Johnson are the regular nominees of the Democratic party, and that Mr. Douglas alone, of the Democratic candidates in the field, represents the Democratic policy and Democratic principles. While Mr. Bell and his friends assert that the people should give Bell their confidence, because he is in favor of "the Union, the Consti tution, and the enforcement of the law," without offering to the public any avowed remedy for the evils which are afflicting the government, or any well digested means of saving the Union, [applause, it is due to frankness to state that the Douglas party does offer a platform which, with the explanation given to it by Mr. Douglas, can easily be understood; while the Breckinridge party offers a platform clearly defined in itself, and that needs no explanation. I propose to consider these three parties, with the positions which their different heads occupy before the American people.

I will first address myself to the Douglas Democracy, because the unity of the Democracy which the country has long desired, if it existed at this hour, would prevent any other party at the South offering itself for the suffrages of the American people, for I believe Mr. Bell would not have been in the field if it had not been divided. I shall undertake to show to those Democrats who rally under Mr. Douglas, that he is not the regular nominee of the party, and that the principles that he avows before the American people are not the principles of the Democracy, and never have been the principles of the Democracy. [Applause.]

Mr. Douglas, my friends, is a statesman of great eminence and ability, a man of great power individually, having many manly traits of character, with whom it has been my pleasure, ever since I have known him, for some sixteen years, to be upon terms of personal intimacy and regard. But it is due to frankness and to the truth of history to state that Mr. Douglas has had designs upon the unity of the Democratic party ever since the Northern people failed to obtain, under the operation of the Kansas-Nebraska act, the dominancy in the Territory of Kansas, and that, when it became apparent that the Southern men had obtained advantages under that act, and that Kansas, under these advantages, if fairly dealt by, would be admitted into the Union as a slave State, that he has determined to war against the true principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill to keep Kansas out of the Union as a slave State, and, if necessary, to dismember the Democratic party, and to rely for support in that controversy upon the anti-slavery sentiment of the Northern

In the first place, I look to the Conventions that have lately assembled; and in the course of my argument upon his platform I shall go back many years in the history of the Democracy to prove the truth of these assertions. When the Convention of the Democracy met at Charleston, Mr. Douglas was well aware that he could not obtain the nomination under the two-thirds rule, and his friends now throughout the country-and I instance one of the most eminent of his friends, Hershel V. Johnson, of Georgia, candidate for the Vice Presidency upon the Douglas ticket→ his friends, I say, indorsed by Gov. Johnson, say that had the eight cotton States remained in the Charleston Convention, that there was no possible chance of nominating Mr. Douglas. They admit that now, as then. Starting out with the conviction that the Democratic rule of two thirds stood between him and the object of his ambition, his designs were to dismember the Democratic party, and to do it in such a manner as, if possible, to wool the eyes of the people, and make them believe that others were responsible for its dismemberment.

First, then, he avowed before that Convention met that he would not accept of the nomination at the hands of the Democracy, unless the Democratic party indorsed his view in relation to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Now, then, here stood his incentive to his friends-"I want to be nominated for the Presidency, and you wish to nominate me. I cannot obtain two thirds of that Convention." Gov. Herschel V. Johnson now openly proclaims that it could not have been done, and others make the same statement; and I know it, too. "I also proclaim that I will not accept of the nomination on any other platform than my own, and yet I am a candidate now for the nomination. I must have the platform to suit myself, and I must get rid of this two-thirds rule. These are my two points."

The State of Alabama, as well as other Southern States, fully recognized the importance of the great issue before the American people; and that issue was a vital issue, a constitutional principle being involved, which could not be compromised without yielding our constitutional position of equality in the Union, and to that degree taking from our breast the Constitution, which is our only shield and protection against Northera majorities. [Applause.] We declared that we must demand that our platform should be indorsed by the Convention. Here, then, were Southern States taking the position that the constitutional rights of the South should be acknowledged in the Democratic Convention, and Mr. Douglas taking the position-" My platform must be acknowledged or I will not accept the nomination." It is easy for one man to say that another is wrong. It is not always so easy to prove his error. It is common to say that Alabama attempted to dictate. It is no dictation for me to say that I claim all my constitutional rights, and that others shall not trample upon them. He who undertakes to tell me that I shall not have my constitutional rights, does, however, dicta te to me. But when I hold up the compact which my fathers made, and say, "give me this that it was guaranteed I should have, and give me it

Convention opposed to each other. Alabama but spoke for her rights, and when Douglas said I will have the nomination and the platform, Alabama said we will have our constitutional rights of protection acknowledged, or we will not remain in a Convention that denies us that constitutional protection. [Applause.}

Mr. Douglas had no right at stake in that Convention save his personal ambition. The State of Alabama and other Southern States had their rights at stake, and they had a right to speak. We said, "Don't aggress on us, ," while he said, "If you are aggressed on, I proclaim in advance that you shan't have the protection of your Government." He could yield, and yield no constitutional position. We could not yield without yielding our constitutional rights. Cheers.]

Now then, when his friends got into the Convention, the first object they had in view was to beat down the two-thirds rule if possible. Well, how did they go about to do that. There were in several States at the South a few men friendly to Douglas. These were a minority in each of such States. The majority of each of those delegations, if they cast the vote of their State as a unit, would have suppressed all those minorities. Douglas did not wish that. There were also in several of the Northern States minorities against Douglas and majorities in his favor. The majority vote in each of these States would suppress all these minorities against him, and make these votes that were really against him be for him. Now, it was a remarkably smart man who could bring in a rule to make all these votes count for him. A double edged sword, that cuts both sides, it is supposed, cuts to the injury of the hands of him who holds it; but he was able to make it work on both sides against his enemies and for himself. He, therefore, by his friends, concocted a rule so cunningly devised that its effect was not observed until after it was passed. That rule was, that the States not instructed by the State Conventions to vote as a unit should vote each man in the delegation for himself, but the States that were instructed to vote as a unit should vote according to those instructions.

What was the effect of that rule? It was to give, in fact, to Mr. Douglas fifty-one votes that he otherwise would not have got. In the State of Pennsylvania it gave him some ten votes that were cast in his favor, which, if the rule had been uniform throughout the Convention, would have been suppressed, and given in favor of Breckinridge or Guthrie. In Virginia it gave him one vote; in North Carolina one; in Massachusetts six; in Tennessee one; in Maryland three and a half, and in New Jersey two and a half. The individual rule of voting gave him twenty-four and a half votes which would have been suppressed if the majority rule had prevailed, or if the rule had been uniform, that the majority of each delegation should cast the entire vote of each State. Had the contrary rule been uniformly in force, then he would have lost fifteen votes in New York; in Ohio six; four and a half in Indiana, and one half in Vermont, or twenty-six in all. But by this ingenious device, by mingling two inconsistent rules together, and using each as it suited him, Mr. Douglas succeeded in gaining

to the exclusion of the other, he would not have received more than half that number. That Convention should have adopted either the unit rule, that each and every State should cast its vote solid for or against some man, or it should have adopted the separate rule, that each and every member of the Convention should be allowed to cast his own vote.

By the operation of this rule he gained largely, so as to make a difference in the result of fifty votes. New York gave thirty-five votes to Douglas, whereas he was entitled to but twenty; Pennsylvania had given no instructions to her delegates, and therefore the rule allowed all the members in the minority to vote for Douglas; whereas, by the unit rule, as applied to New York, her twenty-seven votes would have been cast against him. The practical operation of the rule was to suppress the voice of the people with reference to Mr. Douglas, and to suppress the voice of the people with reference to his principles.

That was his first design, and by its success he made a practical difference in his favor of fiftyone votes. That gave him a majority in the Charleston Convention, and that majority was worked for his individual purposes. [Cries of "That's so."]

Next he said, "I must drive out these cotton States that insist upon protection. These eight States will vote against me for the nomination, I know, and now I must destroy the votes of those States." How was he to do that? His way was, when the platform question came up, so to shape that platform, so to deny the rights of those eight States, that when they were denied, those States could not consistently with true Democracy remain in the Convention, and they would secede. These rights were urged with moderation; in a spirit of conciliation and kindness, and purely on constitutional grounds, by arguments addressed to the reason and judgment of that Convention; and yet, when the vote was taken, by the working of this unit rule, Mr. Douglas voted it down by a. vote of 165 to 138; thus denying to the Southern States that equal protection to their rights in the Territories that the South has always yielded to, every section in the Union. When protection. was thus denied to the constitutional rights of those eight States, those eight States left the Convention. [Applause and cheers ]

Why did they leave it? Because, as I will show you before I close, the great Democratic principle of the equality of the States, and of the people of the States in the common Territories. of the Union, had been willfully violated by Mr. Douglas and his friends, and that was done with the view that the States I refer to should be: driven out of that Convention. We did not ask. the Convention to add any new plank to the Democratic platform; but as Mr. Douglas had. construed the Cincinnati platform. to mean no protection to the constitutional rights of the South; as he had thus violated that platform by. his construction of the Kansas act, as since determined in the Dred Scott decision; as he himself had violated the principle of the KansasNebraska act, which left the question to be determined by the Supreme Court of the United: States, the South deemed it necessary, before